Linux-Advocacy Digest #476, Volume #29 Thu, 5 Oct 00 21:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop (Steve Mading)
Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway? (Steve Mading)
Re: Corel bailed out by MS? Let the games begin! (Steve Mading)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: Another M$ Troll (droll?) (Ian Pulsford)
Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-) (Steve Mading)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: 2.4! (Steve Mading)
Re: Aaron R. Kulkis [Off-Topic Idiot Tres Grande] (Andrew J. Brehm)
Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-) ("Nik Simpson")
Re: Aaron R. Kulkis [Off-Topic Idiot Tres Grande] (NKrinis)
Re: Off-topic Idiot Olympics (Marty)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Date: 6 Oct 2000 00:03:30 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: And what makes you think that apache is used more widely? I don't think
: there are any statistics to back this up, unless of course you mean "More
: domain names are hosted on apache servers",
Netcraft goes down to the level of individual hostnames, not domain
names. (so, for example, thishost.somebiz.com and thathost.somebiz.com
get counted as two hits even though they are the same domain name.)
Are you trying to imply that if an IIS site uses multiple machines
masquerading behind one hostname to serve multiple requests that
this should be counted as multiple IIS servers? Well, if that kind
of metric would help IIS becuase IIS is in that sort of situation
more often than Apache, then I put forth that this makes IIS look
bad, not good. Why all the extra servers to run one site? What's
the matter? One machine can't handle it?
: but that doesn't mean it's used
: in more physical servers. It may be, but I don't see any evidence to
: support that other than wishful thinking.
: Netcrafts numbers simply do not paint the full picture.
True. But the full picture doesn't help your case one bit. It
makes it look even worse. (If you take only the top 100
sites, as measured by traffic, then the apache percentage gets
even larger than in the general population of webservers.)
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway?
Date: 6 Oct 2000 00:11:26 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: OTOH, you see Linvocates attempting to delve into the bowels of NT/2K
: and try to claim it's broken. Most of these attempts are easily dismissed
: because they are based on 5 or 6 year old arguments and facts that
: aren't facts anymore.
Linux is at a disadvantage here given that it can't lie about
it's internals. If you don't work for MS, you have no clue what
the "innards" of NT/W2K are. Don't get all pissy about the
fact that linvocates have to guess. That's all anyone can do
with closed source.
: There are linvocates that stick with the facts
: and the findings of individuals more skilled then themselves, these are
: when the real debates occur because there is something we can talk about.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Corel bailed out by MS? Let the games begin!
Date: 6 Oct 2000 00:17:31 GMT
Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Fuck it! I'm outta here. I've had enough of the
: continual bullshit that goes on in here. Nobody gives a
: shit. It's all a fucking game. Who can appear more l33t?
: Who can come across as the biggest asshole? Who can avoid
: reality the longest?
Did it ever occur to you that maybe this is the intended
effect of the beligerant people like MH? To get all
the reasonable people with reasonable arguments to leave
by "poisoning the well"? Don't let that kind of tactic win.
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 00:19:54 GMT
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Richard
> >Perpetual cell lines are immortal. Elementary particles are eternal.
>
> Pedant point.
>
> There is some discussion as to whether a proton can and will decay or not
> (i.e., what is its half life). Many of the larger "elementary particles"
> decay fairly quickly.
A meta-stable state with a half-life around 10^32 years is pretty
damned immortal. Doesn't matter anyways since EVERYTHING decays via
quantum tunneling of black holes sooner or later.
> >Corporations are immortal because they do not age and are animate beings
> >(and thus animate objects).
>
> I suspect corporations do age, although not in the same manner as
They don't /irreversibly decay/ thus they don't age.
> Of course, "age" therefore might not be the right word. But corporations
> can and do die, or get eaten by other corporations. More precisely,
> corporations fold or go bankrubt, and get acquired -- but the metaphor
> of dying or being eaten isn't that far off.
Yes. They just don't age, and that's a lot more than humans are capable of.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 10:23:50 +1000
From: Ian Pulsford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another M$ Troll (droll?)
Grega Bremec wrote:
> ...and Ian Pulsford used the keyboard:
> >
> >That's "rationalise" not "rationalize" ;-)
> >
>
> If you're Ahmarican, yes.
>
Er, no. "rationalise" is Australian. Check your Macquarie
dictionary.
> --
> Grega Bremec
> grega.bremec-at-gbsoft.org
> http://www.gbsoft.org/
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-)
Date: 6 Oct 2000 00:29:24 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: So, you have millions of domains running Apache that get
: less than measurable hits, and you have a few million IIS
: boxes most of which get many hits. There was a counter study
: done by ... damn I forget who ... (there was a post about it
: a few weeks ago when Netcraft's study came out) that did a survey
: of sites that really mattered (Fortune 500 vs. Bob's Web Page
: devoted to worshipping his cat) and a majority of of the sites sampled
: used IIS (NT 4 and 2000). I think it was something like 40% used
: IIS. Apache on Slowaris was around ~25% or so. Apache on Linux was
: < 1%.
I remember that survey. (I can't remember it's name either.) What
the survey failed to mention was that if you made a list of the
Fortune 500 companies, and made a list of the websites with the
top 500 hit rates, that there would only be a little overlap between these
lists. Just because the company is in the top 500 money-wise doesn't
mean the web is critical to its business. The top traffic sites are
the ones associated with companies and organizations that are totally
100% web-based. Most fortune 500 companies are "old money", typically
not web-based. For them their website is rather incidental to their
main business. For example, if General Electric's website were to go
down tomorrow, GE would still be making money from sales, whereas if
amazon.com's webserver went down, they wouldn't sell a single thing
until it came back up.
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 00:38:48 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> No, all people have some inconsistencies in their belief system, or else
> their belief system is entirely consistent with reality, and they don't
> have a belief system, they have knowledge.
BS. You don't know what you're talking about. And I am NOT discussing
metaphysics with someone who refuses to acknowledge the topic is meta-
physical because he has redefined the word to mean "my favourite theory
in the field of philosohy". This topic is also epistemological and for
the same reasons, I refuse to discuss the topic with someone who denies
the existence of the field.
> You confuse "unfalsifiable" with consistent. It is the fact that they
> are not self-consistent (their ideal of each person being independent is
> applied outside their person) which undermines their position, and make
> it inconsistent with the real world, which is always self-consistent.
No, I do not confuse consistent with "unfalsifiable". OTOH, you are
confusing a great many things and I wouldn't have the first clue as
to what you mean in the above paragraph if I didn't know you confuse
entirely different types of existence and don't believe in formal logic.
As it is, I still don't know what you mean but I have some idea why
it's so confused.
When someone says something that's incomprehensible (*), that's not
because they're being profound but because they're it's bullshit.
> >Anarcho-syndicalism is both internally and externally consistent.
> >*Proving* it is another matter entirely.
>
> You can't say it is consistent at all unless you can prove it to begin
> with.
More BS. Inconsistency is provable, consistency is NOT provable.
> It is a trivial statement about the resolution of infinite problem
> domains using finite axiomatic sets. It does not mean that formalists,
> let alone wannabe's like yourself, were ever right, or ever will be.
> You're a post-modernist imbecile. How precisely does the concept of
> 'truth' "mess up everything?"
Because its formal definition clearly shows it to be nonsense.
As for you, you don't know the first thing about philosophy and
cheerfully contradict everything that is known in the field while
not giving a damn about whether or not what you say is meaningful,
let alone self-consistent. While you're not a postmodernist, you
are pretty fucking close. Too damned close for me to bother trying
to discuss anything with you.
*: two caveats
1) incomprehensible is not the same thing as "I think
it's absurd nonsense", and
2) missing out on the context or framework of a discussion
does not make what the participants say bullshit
even if it /is/ incomprehensible
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 2.4!
Date: 6 Oct 2000 00:40:12 GMT
Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: "Grega Bremec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
: news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
:> ...and Todd used the keyboard:
:> >
:> >Although, Windows 2000 provides benefits over UNIX as well, although,
: UNIX
:> >has better hardware available for it. When Windows 2000 is ported to a
:> >64-bit architecture...
:>
:> ...which won't happen, because as you say, you prefer Intel chipware
:> over slow PPC architecture, and "nobody wants Alpha, not even for
:> UNIX"...
:>
:> How's SPARC support going? Is there a running beta for IA64? Is it
:> available? How's ARM? Any RISC machine _AT_ _ALL_????
: Why would they do one? The market has already spoken by rejecting the PPC
: and Alpha versions of NT. Microsoft made a commercial decision (they are in
: the business of making money after all) that it wasn't worth them continuing
: with support for non-Intel architectures. Linux is somewhat different in
: this respect, as the money making incentive isn't there and ports seem to be
: done for love, so commercial restrictions don't come into it.
To be fair, you have to admit that there's a reason nobody wanted
those NT versions for non-Intel hardware - The Windows world is
too tied to Intel, such that a non-Intel Windows is less useful.
Even if Windows itself is fully ported, that's not enough if all
the 3rd party apps the customer wants are still shipped as closed
binaries that were only made for Intel. Linux is more successful
than that on multiple archetectures *because* of the dissemation of
source code that is common in many of the apps as well as the OS itself.
Then there's the fact that UNIX programmers have been dealing with the
issues of cross-archetecture programming for ages, so for them doing an
archetecture port is more comfortable and familiar than it is to the
average Windows programmer. (Starting with the simple concepts of
always using archetecture-independant abstractions of things that
depend on binary endianness, or the size of a default int, and so on.)
Never would you see a good UNIX programmer using something like
DWORD in his code.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Aaron R. Kulkis [Off-Topic Idiot Tres Grande]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew J. Brehm)
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 02:57:25 +0200
David T. Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You know, some experts are now saying that Microsoft and the question
> > whether it should be split up or not have indeed something to do with
> > computer software.
>
> You are correct. Eight posts by Aaron in September, 2000 used this
> header, although 2 discussed LBJ and the Vietnam war. However, the
> judges have huddled and...all 8 posts must be disqualified leaving
> Aaron's total at only 248 give or take a few depending on your server.
> Fortunately, however, his award of the title:
>
> OFF-TOPIC IDIOT TRES GRANDE
> September, 2000
>
> is unaffected by this revision. But a hearty 'Thanks' to you and others
> who quickly spotted this error.
You are welcome. :-)
--
Fan of Woody Allen
PowerPC User
Supporter of Pepperoni Pizza
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-)
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 20:57:24 -0400
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 5 Oct 2000 22:08:27 +1200, Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> >Heck, I didn't realise you could rip PCI cards out of Intel hardware
while
> >the computer is running.
>
> Compact PCI cards allow this. It is probably a good idea to unload the
> driver first though.
Hot plug PCI has been a standard hardware feature on most XEON based 4-ways
for a couple of years, that said, OS support for the feature has been patchy
to say the least.
--
Nik Simpson
------------------------------
From: NKrinis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Aaron R. Kulkis [Off-Topic Idiot Tres Grande]
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 01:01:19 GMT
Monkeyboy wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "David T. Johnson"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Aaron R. Kulkis has posted a total of at least 256 unique messages in
> > comp.os.os2.advocacy during the month of September, 2000 on five related
> > threads, none of which have anything to do with OS/2, OS/2 advocacy,
> > computer software, or even computers:
> >
> > Public v. Private Schools
> > Global Warming
> > Sherman Act Vaguery
> > Bush vs. Gore on Taxes
> > Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> This seems to have something to do with "...computer software, or even
> computers".
>
> >
> > When notified of his preliminary nomination for the title of "Off-Topic
> > Idiot," Aaron responded with rare humor and articulation using these
> > immortal words:
> >
> > "F*ck off idiot"
>
> Maybe he is Greek. Are you Greek, Aaron?
Racism is the hallmark of a weak mind. We were already aware you were
lacking in that department, even before you revealed your true colors.
You may now proceed in making an even bigger ass of yourself by making
more racist remarks.
NKrinis
> (deletia)
>
> M
>
> --
> Don't forget to vote for the "inventor" of the Internet.
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Off-topic Idiot Olympics
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 00:59:03 GMT
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> On Wed, 04 Oct 2000 13:39:21 GMT, Marty wrote:
> >Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 04 Oct 2000 04:11:24 GMT, Marty wrote:
> >> >Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Wed, 04 Oct 2000 00:18:55 GMT, Marty wrote:
> >> >> >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.
> >> >>
> >> >> It's logical
> >> >
> >> >Classic pontification.
> >>
> >> On what basis do you make that claim ?
> >
> >Witness your pontification above.
>
> What pontification.
Glad you agree.
> >> >> unless you object to either the aforementioned definition
> >> >
> >> >What alleged "aforementioned definition"?
> >>
> >> My original definition of the term "Tholen-war".
> >
> >Still using made-up definitions?
>
> All definitions are "made up".
Prove it, if you think you can.
> >> >> or the assertion that this discussion satisfies the criteria for that
> >> >> definition.
> >> >
> >> >You're presupposing an "aforementioned definition", Donovan.
> >>
> >> Such a definition indeed exists.
> >
> >Where, allegedly?
>
> Allegedly at the URL I showed you.
Typical lack of specificity.
> >> >>>>>>>>>> did
> >
> >You didn't write that, Donovan.
>
> did.
Incorrect.
> >> >>>>>>>>> didn't
> >
> >I didn't write that, Donovan.
>
> Irrelevant
On what basis do you make this ridiculous claim?
> >> >>>>>>>> did too
> >
> >You didn't write that, Donovan.
>
> Incorrect
On the contrary.
> >> >>>>>>> did not
> >
> >I didn't write that, Donovan.
>
> Irrelevant.
On what basis do you make this ridiculous claim?
> >> >>>>>> did too, see above.
> >
> >You didn't write that, Donovan.
>
> Incorrect
Balderdash, Donovan.
> >> >>>>> incorrect
> >
> >I didn't write that, Donovan.
>
> Irrelevant
On what basis do you make this ridiculous claim?
> >> >>>> illogical
> >
> >You didn't write that, Donovan.
>
> Incorrect
Evidence, please.
> >> >>> incorrect
> >
> >I didn't write that, Donovan.
>
> Irrelevant
On what basis do you make this ridiculous claim?
> >> >>I know you are but what am I ?
> >
> >You didn't write that, Donovan.
>
> False
Classic pontification.
> >> >illogical
> >
> >I didn't write that, Donovan. Taking forgery lessons from Moul?
>
> Irrelevant.
On what basis do you make this ridiculous claim?
> Negative.
Classic pontification.
> >> ad infinitum
> >
> >Impossible.
>
> Evidence please.
Self-evident.
> >> Yeah, he's in my killfile.
> >
> >Evidence, please.
>
> Irrelevant
Illogical.
> >> I'm just hazarding an educated guess about the content of the debate.
> >
> >Why not stick to the facts?
>
> The afore-mentioned guess is based on facts.
What allegedly "afore-mentioned" [sic] guess?
> >> [1] In response to these discussions, I propose the
> >> following definition:
> >
> >What you propose is irrelevant. What you can prove is relevant.
>
> Illogical.
Balderdash, Donovan.
> One doesn't "prove" a definition.
Irrelevant.
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 01:03:55 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> Said Richard in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >It is perfectly measurable. That humans tend to consistently fuck up the
> >measurements is a purely HUMAN problem, completely outside the philosophy
> >of science.
>
> Well, it seems that you aren't very rational about the one thing you act
> as if you know something about. What exactly is 'philosophy of science'
> supposed to be?
Take a few philosophy courses and you'll find out.
> >Einstein didn't give a damn. He was never on the empirical side of things
> >and he said as much. He was also an atheist.
>
> Which would explain why he described his reservations about the reality
> of quantum mechanics with the phrase "God does not play dice with the
> universe", I guess. It seems he probably expressed something of an
> agnostic view.
Einstein was an atheist and he clearly stated as much; I can find the
exact reference if you wish.
It is very common among physicists (especially cosmologists) to refer to
the laws of physics or the universe with the word "God". It doesn't mean
anything.
> >> If the light had not curved, what would have happened to relativity?
> >
> >It would still be a beautiful theory.
>
> A scientific theory which has been proven false is "incorrect", and I
If the light hadn't been seen to bend in that *horribly inaccurate*
experiment, then nothing would have changed. Certainly, GR would not
have been "disproved" on that basis. People who know little of physics
like the naive Empiricist view (used as propaganda chiefly because it
is so naive) but that's just bullshit.
> Perhaps what we have here, Roberto, is a very well educated person who,
> despite his over-abundance of thinking, isn't capable of grasping
> abstractions. This might explain why, while supposedly possessing a
> huge amount of knowledge on 'the philosophy of science' and related
> matters, his arguments quickly degenerate to calling people 'morons' and
> 'cretins'.
This is laughable. You're going to lecture ME on the proper use of
abstraction? You can't even make the difference between conceptual
and physical reality!
> Let me ask you something, Richard. When you are talking about
> definitions, are they exclusive, or inclusive definitions? An exclusive
> definition is defining a word by excluding every meaning except the
> correct one, while inclusive is expanding the definition to include all
> uses of the word. Which is the more 'rigorous'?
Neither. Being rigorous has nothing to do with being exclusive or
inclusive. That only has to do with being /correct/ and definitions
can be rigorous without being correct.
> >I don't do metaphor. I do abstractions. Don't assume that everyone is
> >as limited as you are.
>
> Interesting. How can you 'do abstractions' without being capable of
> using a metaphor? And why would your inability to use metaphor well be
> a limitation on Roberto's part?
Metaphors are /crude/ abstractions.
> >"not holding it against them" is the same thing as actively and deliberately
> >avoiding passing a negative judgement.
>
> No, it is passively and judiciously not allowing one's negative
> judgement to influence ones actions.
Ahhh, then "not holding it against them" is to be a conscious and
deliberate sell-out?
> >Irrelevant since whether or not they're subjective, at least I *can* make
> >value judgements; you can't!
>
> And obviously you value ad hominem attacks quite highly, as you seem to
> employ them often.
Posting to USENET is not a game of logic and reason.
> I'm quite sure you're ignorant of the molecular biology involved. Any
> 'reactivation' of genes which wasn't performed by the cell's own
> machinery which might have been necessary in the process of cloning
> would certainly not qualify as 'training', except to someone entirely
> ignorant of the matter.
>
> They took the DNA from a mature sheep, planted it in a fertilized egg
> cell, and it grew into a genetic replica (which was in all other ways
> entirely separate and independent) of the original animal. Cloning does
> not change the functionality of the cell; it still replicates the DNA,
> just like it was supposed to. They also didn't change the functionality
> of the DNA; merely the details of the code which was used in that
> animal. It grew into a healthy sheep, which was a ground breaking
> milestone in modern science.
You are SO wrong. DNA isn't passive, it's *active*. DNA isn't tape, it's
*machinery*. DNA has state and it is capable of learning in every sense
of the word.
Just why the hell do you think it took them so long to figure out how to
clone mammals?? You think that it was that hard to injuct a strand of DNA
from here to there? Nonsense!
But then, you probably have a very 1970s view of DNA.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
