Linux-Advocacy Digest #499, Volume #29 Sat, 7 Oct 00 00:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: food for thought...flame suit on (mlw)
Re: Hotmail still runs BSD. (Charlie Ebert)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes ("Chad Myers")
Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: To all you WinTrolls ("Todd")
Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway? (Gary Hallock)
Re: 2.4! ("Todd")
Re: How low can they go...? ("JS/PL")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 02:54:17 GMT
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Oct 2000 00:50:15 GMT, Richard wrote:
> >Which means that C++ classes are *not* objects.
>
> They can be, but are not always. I think this is where our philosophy
> differs. You like being forced to do things a certain way. I don't
> really care for it that much.
No. I like to be able to be able to do things the easy way.
If I see classes then I expect them to be objects because I
expect the easy way to create classes be the RIGHT way.
> Not a bad analogy. I'd take a pragmatic viewpoint and conclude that English
> was a viable language for "writing beautiful things".
Then we can stop arguing the moment you admit that C++ is not OO.
> I thought everything derived from Object in java, though I haven't used it
> that much.
Every CLASS derives from the class Object in Java. Did you seriously
think this meant everything was an object ?? Primitives exist in Java
and they are NOT objects.
> >understand objects to have certain properties like solidity and non-
> >interpenetrability which you have just admitted C++ does not have.
>
> It only allows very limited penetrability, and friends must be declared
Riiiiight. And if physicists said that the laws of physics are only
violated "in a limited manner" then where the fuck would they be?
> in the class, so you can control who can see your class.
So long as it's your code and your code only!
> Friends are rareely used for anything besides operator overloading.
> I certainly don't use them for anything else.
Why the bloody hell would you use them for *that*?
> >IOW, C++ is not OO. "supporting" OO is not the same thing as *being* OO.
>
> Whatever. Supporting OO is good enough for me. I think a lot of people
> would again disagree with you.
All of them rabid fans of languages that only support OO. As long as you
never call C++ OO ever again then I will be happy.
> Dead wrong. A lot of them are well versed in these languages. For example,
> Stroustrup is familiar with Smalltalk and Simula.
Yeah, and he also wrote a moronic paper on how OO is "not very useful"
since coders in C++ aren't much more productive than coders in C. I think
we can ascribe that one to brain damage.
> A lot of the leading authors of OO books and C++ books tend to be
> familiar with languages such as self and smalltalk.
I'm sure. And how exactly do you define "familiar"? Is it 'can read
it', 'can write it' or 'can write it fluently'?
> In fact, a lot of C++ idioms are partly inspired by features in some
> of these languages ( for example, classes-as-objects )
Which of course, is not part of C++ so I don't know what the hell you're
talking about.
> >It's a chimera, a frankenstein's monster, that is neither procedural
> >nor OO. This does not make it /both/ procedural and OO, it makes it
> >*neither*.
>
> That's funny, you said it was "procedural" just a moment ago.
I changed my mind when I realized how much of an insult this was to
procedural languages. You have a weird definition of "a moment" since
that must have been more than a week ago.
> >A programmer *can* create an OO program in C++ but the language itself
> >isn't OO, will never be OO, and this forces programmers who want to
> >remain OO to reimplement everything that is not an object in C++. When
>
> The only such "re-implementing" that needs to be done tends to be
Oh, and wanting to use classes as objects does not require reimplementing
every class in the system?
> when you use C libraries. You have the same problem when you try
> to use C functions in Smalltalk.
> Why don't you learn to program seriously in something besides Smalltalk ?
Like ML, Scheme or Lisp? Hey, I have no problem with that (and if I found
a working Self system then I'd switch to that). But that's not quite the
same thing as being brain-damaged enough to want to inflict C++ on myself.
> To be honest, I'm interested in learning it. I'm not trying to trash
> smalltalk, but I think your comments about C++ are misguided.
Does the fact that you can't even be bothered to spell Smalltalk's name
correctly half the time indicate anything?
> >different experience from programming in a non-OOPL language. You
> >are vastly more productive in it,
>
> It depends on what you are trying to achieve. For systems programming,
> people often program in a procedural style.
Do you seriously think this has nothing to do with the fact that
existing systems are written in a procedural style? You're the one
who constantly harped about compatibility.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: food for thought...flame suit on
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 22:57:58 -0400
MH wrote:
>
> Taken from:
> http://www.osopinion.com/Opinions/MontyManley/MontyManley15.html
>
> The Failure of Linux: Credibility and Responsibility
> 10/4/00
> By Monty Manley
[snipped]
So, you are back I see "ubercat."
The guy make some points but is misguided on others.
First and foremost is the idea that "it will be done when it is done"
attitude. I think this is the best thing to happen to software. It make
be inconvenient for market driven companies, but it allows software
developers to get the software right before shipping it.
I have seen too many instances when software is shipped because of
schedules over quality.
Software engineering is the management of hugely complex systems, while
being creative. It is very hard to schedule, and anyone who knows
anything understands this. The "It will be done when it is done"
attitude is foreign to business people. The trick is to understand what
"it" is, and know how long (realistically) it will take. This is
something business school can not help you with.
It should be noted in the final sentence "Good software takes time,
talent, and effort to produce, and those who produce it deserve to be
rewarded." No one argues this. The debate is: by whom and how much. The
vast majority of patent profits do not go to the individual who thought
of the idea, but instead to a company which owns the patent. Should a
company benefit from a patent by an employee which can be laid off and
lose rights to the patent? Are not the company and the employee
"partners" in the patent process and therefor the employee should have
the right to use the patent just as the employer?
Who are patents there to protect? Yes, software developers should be
paid, but seldom are.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Hotmail still runs BSD.
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 03:41:12 GMT
"Bobby D. Bryant" wrote:
> http://www.netcraft.com/survey/
>
> "We were premature with last month's comment to the effect that Windows
> 2000 had replaced FreeBSD at HotMail. Markus Senoner was first to point
> out that although www.hotmail.com is indeed running Windows 2000,
> several of the other HotMail front end servers are still running
> FreeBSD."
>
> They give a link so you can see for yourself which ones are and which
> ones aren't.
>
> Bobby Bryant
> Austin, Texas
HA! It lasted only a little longer than the original NT trials!
At this rate, by 2080 they will have achieved the stability
of the 2.0 Linux Kernel!
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 03:43:09 GMT
"Joe Malloy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:_9wD5.1535$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >So what would you suggest we do with illiterate, untrained people?
> Export them?
> > >Hang them? I think that converting them into productive members of
> society is
> > >probably the most long-term-positive option. And who exactly is going to
> pay for
> > >that?
> > >
> > Themselves, their families, their employer.
>
> Let's say an "illiterate, untrained" person is my brother, son or uncle, the
> question is: why should that person be entitled to a penny of my income
> unless I wish to donate it to him? It's just the same as with people I
> don't know, right?
>
> Answer: by helping those, I help myself. I contribute to another human
> being, even unknown to me, because I am able to do so. I, for one, don't
> really complain about the taxes I pay (and boy, do we pay them!).
Idealistic hogwash. The reality is, worthless people take advantage of
the system and bilk it (aka you and I) for everything it's worth.
By giving people a cushion, you are telling them it's ok not to
achieve because no matter what happens, you'll always be taken care of.
It's kind of like the son of a rich father who goes out and causes
all sorts of problems, wastes his and his father's money because he
knows that at the end of the day, his father will bail him out.
The Government should not be anyone's father. Perhaps limited welfare,
a month or two's worth of minimum wage salary every couple years would
be adequate. We've created a nation of dependant and corrupt individuals
who will never be able to get a job or sustain themselves. The longer
we keep catering to these people, the more of these people we create and
the more and more of society becomes dependant upon the government until
eventually, there are more people living from the government or working
for it then there are private sector individuals.
America wasn't build on handouts, and it shouldn't be sustained on them.
Freedom doesn't come free. If you want handouts, go to Europe where socialism
is king.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[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: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 03:43:36 GMT
Chad wrote:
> "John Sanders" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Chad wrote:
> > >
> > > "John Sanders" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Chad Myers wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > > On the other hand, how many people here that support Windows do you
> > > > suppose have a good knowledge of Linux/UNIX? I mean people who know the
> > > > shell well and regexps at a minimum? I bet only a handful.
> > >
> > > That's irrelevant. <MISSING: important part of the paragraph that explains
> this statement>
> >
> > Oh, man! So it's irrelevant to know about what you are criticizing?
> > Thanks for proving my point.
>
> Please refrain from reading half my post, misquoting it, then making ignorant
> replies to it.
>
> Keep it in context and reply to it, or don't reply at all.
>
> -Chad
Chad,
Your absolutely stupid.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To all you WinTrolls
Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 12:01:23 +0800
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Todd wrote:
> >
> > Hmmm... have to agree with what you said.
> >
> > I am called a wintroll here, but I also have RedHat Linux 6.2.
> >
> > I've compiled the kernel a couple times and done this and that. Linux
ain't
> > bad. I've used it now for quite a while (ever since 6.2 was released).
>
> That really isn't very long at all, besides, you probably still use a
> Windows xxx box and expect Linux to be like Windows.
Nahh... I really didn't know *what* to expect when I first tried Linux. I
heard a ton of hype though, I expected it to be great.
My first computer was a Vic-20, I've used almost everything I could get my
hands on since then.
> > But it isn't nearly as good as Windows 2000 nor as feature complete.
Heck,
> > most UNIX are way better than Linux as well. For example, HP-UX /
Solaris /
> > FreeBSD.
>
> I would not go that far. FreeBSD is a very good UNIX, but Linux has a
> lot on the UNIX purist camps for usability.
You are touting the usability factor as a point in favor of Linux? How is
this different from the Windows users when pointing out usability over
Linux??
> The biggest problem I have with people that say "Linux Sucks" is that
> they want it to work just like Windows, and when it doesn't (because it
> isn't) they say it sucks.
First of all, I never said Linux sucks here. Also, I don't expect things to
work like Windows. In fact, I'd like some things to *not* work like
Windows. So before you make assumptions about us 'wintrolls', make sure you
know who you are talking about.
> Linux (and UNIX) is both better and worse that any version of Windows.
> If one were to sum up the pros and cons, UNIX generaly comes out ahead
> (depending largely what you want to do with it).
I disagree... but I have different standards and functionality requirements
than you, probably.
> If you need a computer to do video conferencing, hell yes, use Windows
> because this is where most companies are developing the software. When
> it crashes, you get to get on with your real work.
Huh? I use Windows 2000 for almost everything now, and it hasn't let me
down once.
> If you need to do development work, general office work (spreadsheets,
> word processing, database, etc), e-mail, research, UNIX is the only way.
Funny, Office 2000, and Visual Interdev seem far more powerful and fully
featured than *anything* I've seen on UNIX. Do you have any real world
examples?
> These applications represent "time." A crash or a hang loses work.
Agreed. That's why I use Windows 2000. I don't have to put up with that
kinda stuff.
> Just
> yesterday a friend told me that a URL I had sent her caused here machine
> to crash. HER MACHINE!!!! She lost 3 hours work.
Send me the URL and I'll see myself, thank you very much :)
> In the UNIX world a something like that hardly ever happens, and when it
> does the system doesn't crash, it is the X session. (A vague distiction,
> I grant you, and the result is the same.) And when something like that
> happens on UNIX, you can bet it gets hunted down because the "a reboot
> will fix it" metality does not exist here. In UNIX, a reboot means
> critical system failure. In Windows a reboot means you've changed a
> minor configuration.
You don't get it do you? You just lump all Windows users together. Windows
2000 hasn't crashed on me, but if it did, I'd try to find out the cause.
When NT crashed, I'd hunt around until I discovered the reason. Usually, it
was a bad driver or something.
> I would like to see a serious study into how much time is spent waiting
> for Windows to reboot each day.
I leave my computer on... never reboot or power down.
> People I know who do serious work on
> their machines reboot every morning, and have to reboot during the day
> about twice a week.
I doubt they are using Windows 2000 then.
> This happens along side my machine (I am the only Linux user -- so far)
> and I only reboot if I upgrade my kernel or test software against a
> different kernel. Also, It has been over 3 years since I have lost work
> due to a system crash.
Good for you. I don't have the problem either.
-Todd
>
> >
> > -Todd
> >
> > "David.L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > This is to all of you morons who write posts such as: "Linux sucks",
> > > "Windows Rulez" and such in linux newsgroups.
> > >
> > > Almost every linux user i know including myself has used Win9* Win
2000
> > > etc... either at work, at school or at home. I used Windows NT/Win 9*
> > > four years before i switched over to Linux. I have even tried out
> > > Windows 2000, and yes Windows 2000 is pretty good //by Windoze
> > > standards//. So i, and most linux users has had first hand experience
> > > with Windoze and know at least the basics. But the morons who write
> > > "Linux sucks" have usually not even seen a Linux screenshot. So before
> > > you write "Linux sucks" try out Linux for an year or two. Until you
have
> > > done that shut up!!!
> > >
> > > //Sorry for the bad english//
>
> --
> http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 00:00:09 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway?
Steve Mading wrote:
> I wasn't saying that the option was nonexistant, just that the man
> page does a piss-poor job of mentioning it, or the need for it.
> (It is in there somewhere, but it's buried deep).
The man page is a bit overwhelming. Luckily my first exposure to rpm was
from reading the Redhat installation manual. They have a short chapter
describing the basics of rpm including the -p option in a section titled
"Impressing Your Friends with RPM". My eyes were drawn to that section
right away.
Gary
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 2.4!
Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 12:08:55 +0800
"Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8rljpu$i1lhi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Those were made with 0.92, if you take a look at the current benches
> >> (0.95) with kernel 2.4 you will see a slight increase that brings Linux
> >> to a slowdown of as low as 3%.
> >
> >Yah, sure it does. When I see a 3rd party *benchmark*, I'll believe it.
> >
>
>
> OK, how about the specweb99 benchmark at
> http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/res2000q2/ which shows linux running
> TUX webserver seriously blowing away the Win2k running IIS5.0 on the same
> hardware with a 1 processor linux machine being only slightly slower than
a
> similar clockrate 4 processor running win2k with the 2 processor linux
> machine toasting the 4 processor win2k machine and the 4 processor linux
> machine performing roughly 2 and 1/4 times faster than same hardware
running
> win2k.
>
> Still not believe thay linux wins when running equally optimised hardware
> and drivers?
No I don't.
Read the disclaimer regarding benchmark results at specweb99:
"The results published by SPEC have been reviewed by the SPEC organization
prior to publication. However, these are submissions by member companies and
the contents of any SPEC reporting page are the submittor's responsibility.
SPEC makes no warranties about the accuracy or veracity of this data."
That means, anybody can submit results - the results are NOT audited in
anyway.
Now, if you go to www.tpc.org, this site is considered *the* place for
benchmarks for sql servers. And they review and audit their results so you
can be sure they are accurate.
Guess who *is NOT* on the list? Linux.
Guess who is #1 -> Windows 2000.
-Todd
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[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: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 00:05:05 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> You do realize that by so editing a newsgroup, you take on the role, and
> thus the legal responsibility and liability of a newspaper owner, don't
> you? Sure, you have a right to deny anyone the ability to have
> something printed in your forum; you also take on the responsibility for
> libel and slander of anyone else who you do allow to post.
Wrong again Max
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/230.html
One of these days you'll get a fact right. By providing a message board you
are recognized as a common carrier not a newpaper owner (In the U.S.)
Even when you edit and delete portions of said forum, you are still
considered a common carrier.
IT IS A MAIN REASON such forums can exist.
You should look these things up before you post lies.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
