Linux-Advocacy Digest #699, Volume #29 Tue, 17 Oct 00 04:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (FM)
Re: Astroturfing (Mike Byrns)
Re: Why the Linonuts fear me ("Osugi Sakae")
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows (Markus =?iso-8859-1?Q?B=F6hmer?=)
Re: A classic example of unfriendly Linux (Shannon Hendrix)
Re: Astroturfing (Perry Pip)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (FM)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: 17 Oct 2000 06:34:46 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>It has meaning, and I have articulated it, you just persist
>in denying it.
You have also defined it as some other things. This is the first
time you have come closed to defining it.
>Object Orientation means:
> 1) everything's an object (where "object" is the normal sense
> of the term and not some bizarre abstract sense like you
> have been promoting)
Object in the normal sense of the term doesn't exist in programming
languages. It's a metaphor.
> 2) all actions are performed by sending messages to objects
What is an action? What is the result of sending a message?
So are you defining OO as a narrow category of Imperative
Programming? By your definition, assembly is the closest
thing to OO. If you know the difference between, say,
imperative programming and functional programming, you'd
immediately know what is wrong with the above as a complete
computational paradigm.
The problem with the above definition: In order to do some
action, one needs to send messages to objects. But since
all messages are objects, one first either locate or create
these messages. But that in itself is an action, so the
whole cycle begins again and nothing gets done.
Your definition only serves to demonstrate my argument that
OO itself is not a complete [computational] paradigm.
>Simple example: Assignment is not a message in Smalltalk so ST breaks
> OO that way. Control structures are not messages in C++ and
> Java and that's one of the many, many reasons why C++ and Java
> can't be called OO.
So according to you, Smalltalk can't be called OO either.
Neither can any language, since they all break OO in some
way. What was your point again?
>> articulate that meaning? Perhaps you don't know what that
>> is? You're like one of those people who argue that the
>> essence of democracy lies in the goodness of government and
>> contend, when faced with "bad" examples of democracy, that
>> those are not democracies at all, since they are not good.
>> A computational paradigm is a notion for viewing and
>> sometimes describing a computational process. A language
>But NOT for the language designers; for language *USERS*.
Your non-point serves you very well here.
>> doesn't force a particular paradigm upon its users and can
>
>This is bullshit. Of *course* a language forces users to
>think in a particular way. Or do you have a weird definition
>of "forcing" where putting a gun to someone's head isn't
>forcing them to do something because they still have an
>"alternative"?
Because most general purpose languages allow one to mix and
choose between different paradigms. All languages force you
at some level to think in their own models of computation,
but usually those are general and multi-paradigmatic. A
language can, on the other hand, force a particular paradigm
by not supporting mechanisms that are necessary for other
paradigms.
>If you go out of your way enough then you can write non-OO
>code in Smalltalk. And you can certainly write extremely
>ugly OO code in Smalltalk. But nobody does this because it's
>too much trouble and, except for the Squeak VM which is
>translated into C, there is no fucking point.
Why? Didn't you argue that Smalltalk isn't OO either? If it
isn't, why is it so hard to write non-OO code?
>> only support a paradigm by providing necessary mechanisms
>> and a consistent model. C++ is multi-paradigmatic, so it of
>> course doesn't provide a single consistent model for OO.
>> But then again, OO as a paradigm, isn't complete, (in its
>> present state, it merely facilitates slight reorganization
>Wrong bozo. AOP as a paradigm isn't complete. And this is
>an inherent part of the AOP paradigm. OOP is complete, you
>just persist in stripping it of meaning.
OOP isn't complete. You can't describe an entire computational
process purely in OOP. At some level you come down to imperative
programming, functional programming, or some other basic
paradigms. For example, what you gave as a definition for OO
inherently includes the imperative paradigm at heart (seeing
a computational process as a series of actions).
>> of the underlying paradigm, be it imperative, functional,
>> etc) so a language supporting OO will have to support
>> multiple paradigms, in some sense (whether they merge to
>> appear as one single new paradigm to the user is a
>> metaphysical question).
>Stop misusing technical terms asshole. It is *not* a
>metaphysical question.
I don't think you know what a metaphysical question is.
Whether a combination of two paradigms is a paradigm in
itself or not is a metaphysical question because it
focuses on essence, rather than observation.
>> >I just LOVE your implicit arguments by redefinition:
>> >C++ is good because it is OO and OO means whatever the
>> >fuck C++ has.
>> This is pretty ridiculous. A huge portion of my articles
>> in comp.* newsgroups are dedicated to C++ bashing. Just
>Which only made me more perplexed by your idiotic behaviour.
>You do end up defending C++. I have no idea why since you
>seem to hate it, but what people do and what they think they
>do aren't the same thing.
The problem is that I'm not defending C++ at all. That you
think I'm defending C++ by arguing C++ is OO demonstrates
your bias towards OO, not my bias towards C++. Supporting a
certain paradigm does not necessarily make a language
"better." Paradigms are not sacred.
>> look it up, if you don't believe me. I don't think C++ is
>> good, nor do I think it's clear that OO is good. None of
>A vacuous statement. You've stripped the term OO of any
>meaning and *now* you're going to pass judgement on it ??
I know perfectly well what OO is, in both its elusive
theoretical sense, and in the practical sense. The problem
is that you don't understand what OO is, since you obviously
haven't used it. You cannot tell if a language is OO, since
you can't distinguish mechanisms from concepts and
abstractions from metaphors. There are many programmers who
are so fixated on mechanisms, that they can't understand
concepts beyond mechanisms. You are flawed in the other
direction - you have become so obssessed with concepts
that you can't see how mechanisms can differ from concepts
(or rather from how concepts are described) and can still
implement them correctly - and much less useful.
>> this is meaningful since the term "good" has no clear
>LOL. You're a fucking moron. You're one of those people
>who tries to understand something, fails, and then instead
>of asking an adept, you come to the conclusion that it's
>meaningless/useless. Like your definition of OO: you can't
>come up with a suitable formal definition so you create
>one that's so general, universal even, it becomes vacuous.
You didn't read or address my definition. Perhaps you read
it, but you didn't understand it. Either way, your comments
apparently don't apply.
>Your attitude seems to be "this is too much for my poor
>weedle brain so it can't be useful and can't even exist".
Perhaps if you knew how to read, or think, for that matter,
you wouldn't have come to such a pitiful conclusion.
>> meaning. Your repeated attempts to put words in my mouth
>> are mildly amusing, but they only lower your own
>> credibility (as though that was possible). Heck, I'd take
>> most of the languages you advocate over C++ any time.
>> What's really funny is that you continue bashing C++
>> while acknowledging that you don't even know the language.
>Reading and writing are completely different things.
>If you'd ever taken a look at Smalltalk, Self or any
>other high-level language, you would know this fact
>intimately.
No, you wrote that you didn't know C++ very well. You didn't
just claim that you didn't write in C++. Reading and writing
are also different enough that anyone who hasn't written C++
code isn't really qualified to judge its merits. I also doubt
that you have read C++ code. Not only is reading different
from writing, but it's also different from seeing.
>> If you don't even know what your opposition's argument is
>> (or something even remotely close to that), trying to
>> argue against it is a futile exercise. I don't think you
>Thankfully, the opposition has no arguments beyond their
>own ignorance of alternatives, compatibility with existing
>software, compatibility with other developers and ignorance
>of OO design. And I don't care to argue against these.
Of course I have not done any of these. I wouldn't be
advocating Scheme or ML if I were so concerned about
compatibility, and my knowledge of each of the alternative
paradigms is vastly beyond your grasp of the paradigm you
are advocating.
>> ever in this entire thread addressed a single argument that
>> I made, whereas you addressed dozens of points that you
>> somehow deluded yourself to believe that I made, that I
>> never did.
>I also didn't read the vast majority of your posts.
>You're an emotionally disturbed fool and it's not my
>job to look after you.
Look how you are completely unable to argue rationally and
look at a mirror and then see how your sentence fits. It's
quite hilarious to see someone so emotionally disturbed about
his logic and knowledge being questioned that he becomes
completely unable to address logically any of the points made
against him, simply resorts to ignoring all the points and
arguing against his imagination, and then shares his own
state of mind by accusing others of his own problems.
Dan.
------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 06:55:36 GMT
This is the only reply your entitled to:
Prove.
or
Fuck you.
You are so out of touch with reality is amazes me.
Mike
Windows Engineer :-)
lyttlec wrote:
> Mike Byrns wrote:
> >
> > lyttlec wrote:
> >
> > > MS had to change the name. Now its Microsoft Certified Software
> > > Professional.
> >
> > No. They didn't. It's not changed at all. See
> >
>>http://www.microsoft.com/trainingandservices/default.asp?PageID=mcp&PageCall=mcse&SubSite=cert>/mcse&AnnMenu=mcse
> >
> I'm only going by the titles of the *current* edition of books on the
> shelves at B&N and Borders. I've noticed that MSCE has been replaced by
> MSCP.
> > > You can't hold yourself out to the public as an Engineer
> > > unless you have completed 4 years of college, had 4 years experience and
> > > passed the EIT and PE tests.
> >
> > Wrong. Only in Texas. And Canada. And there are "engineers" at Corel working on
>.NET
> > :-)
> >
> Nope. Texas and Canada have Software Engineers. All control the right to
> hold your self out to the public as an engineer. No one cares what job
> title Corel uses. Just don't you put on your card or business add that
> you are an engineer.
>
> > You must produce a statutorial argument of this assertion. Please post one. I've
>held
> > an engineer title for a more than a decade without a related degree, 4-year
>experience (
> > early on ) or any FE /EIT / PE crap. Those are for Civils, Mechanicals,
>Electricals, and
> > Chemicals. Not ITs.
> >
> All states have legislation restricting who can call themselves
> Architects, Engineers, CPA, RN, RPN, Doctor, etc. Many ever have
> educational/experience requirements for Barbers and Beauticians. You
> will have to look them up in your state.
> > > If you do insist on using the title MSCE,
> > > then you can be held personally liable for all damages everytime a
> > > system in your charge crashes.
> >
> > Nope. The certifier is only in TX.
> >
> Claiming to be an Engineer makes you liable in every state. Tx is, afik,
> the only state currently registering Software Engineers. (Others are
> working on it) Everywhere else you register as an Electrical,
> Mechanical, or Industrial Engineer, or as a CPA.
>
> > > My advice to anyone using the MSCE on business cards : DON'T!
> >
> > My advice? DO. You get a 100K job on simple to administer systems! Whoo hoo!
> > Downside? You get a pager and a notebook like everyone else.
>
> Send me your business card. I'll forward it and the complaint to your
> local Board of Registration for Surveyors and Engineers or what ever it
> is called in your state/country. Got a lawyer? The boards like to make a
> big deal out of one or two cases each year to justify the tax dollars.
> Perhaps yours will be the one.
------------------------------
From: "Osugi Sakae" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why the Linonuts fear me
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 16:21:27 +0900
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> You think desktop users want Linux?
What makes you think they want Windows?
> Think again. You can't even give it away.
>
> You think we want (taking Terry Porters list) Compilers, editors,
> schematic diagram thingies, flowchart programs? Think again.
I think I asked you this before (and you, as usual, did not answer), but
who exaclty is "we" and when did they give you permission to speak on
their behalf?
> Again you are a collective bunch of idiots with blinders on.
Attempting to get an emotional reaction? So you are not serious about
discussing the merits of different operating systems? Then why do you
waste so much time here? (conspiracy theorists might think you work for a
certain company).
> Linux is free. Yet you can't even give it away. Linux has had a LOT of
> positive press in the last year.
1. True.
2. Not true. Never mind the ambiguity - who is "you"?
3. Define a LOT. How much bad press has it gotten? What are the sources of
the positive / negative press?
> Why is it not taking over the desktop?
Have you looked at any real statistics recently (as opposed to imitation
stats created by marketing departments)? Where is the proof to support
your claim?
> Seems to me, we Windows users invest a lot of money in software and a
> free system would be a plus for us?
Your statement is not a question. Are you asking if not having to pay for
software would be a plus? Or are you asking if windows users should switch
to linux even if it meant not being able to use windows software that they
had already purchased? Or are you saying that since you spend money on
software, a free operating system would allow you to spend more on
software?
And you sound Japanese with this "we windows users" stuff. How and when
were you elected to speak for all windows users? I doubt that you were, so
for whom exactly are you speaking?
> The deal is Linux sucks at 99 percent of what the average person wants
> or needs a computer to do.
How do you know this?
Where did you get your information on what an "average person wants or
needs a computer to do"? Please list exactly what the average computer
user wants to do. Then, detail for us all the testing you did on all the
software that does these tasks. Have you done or do you have references to
any cost-benefit analysis? In short, provide some evidence, some details.
As it stands, you are nothing but a bunch of empty claims.
What is the one percent that Linux in your estimation does better?
And please define the meaning of "sucks" as it applies to the research you
have done.
> You have half assed Windows clones that neither perfom as well nor have
> the features of the equivilant Windows programs. In some cases you don't
> have any equivilant at all (a decent browser).
>
You may have a point about windows clones, but you imply that that is all
that is available, and that is blatently false. Some programs are not
clones, and some of those that are arguably clones are not "half assed".
Notice that you needed to weasle out of your claim by inserting the word
"decent" - in other words, your claim is that a decent browser is a
different sort of application from a not-decent browser.
But what is you definition of decent? (And no, the name of a browser is
not an adequate definition.)
So, claire_lynn, or whatever your name is, you are nothing but empty
threats. You think people are afraid of you, and that might be true, but
if anyone is afraid of you, it is not for any of the reasons you babble on
about in your post. Frankly you are so un-persuasive that if I were a
windows user, reading your post would make me think about switching to
anything else.
Please give us some specifics - the ways in which linux sucks, the reasons
why it isn't suitable for newbies. You make lots of ambigious claims but I
have never seen you back up a single one.
BTW, what is a linonut?
--
Osugi Sakae
a free man
------------------------------
From: Markus =?iso-8859-1?Q?B=F6hmer?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 09:26:16 +0200
David Fulton wrote:
> I think you need to seperate out the fact that OS/2 was taken over by
> IBM
> and is still used by some people today (quite religiously too, although
Even a lot of banks here in Germany use OS/2 Warp v.3 for their daily
work.
They say, that it is an secure system.
--
Markus Boehmer
Systemadministrator & Datenbankentwickler
SSI Schaefer Shop GmbH
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Shannon Hendrix)
Subject: Re: A classic example of unfriendly Linux
Date: 16 Oct 2000 22:34:05 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have sent your post to that person and thank you, but my point is
> this.
>
> "You" know how to do this stuff.
> He, and just about every other newbie who tries Linux does not. Notice
> his comment about this topic being rehashed a lot? That's because it
> is NOT easy compared to Windows.
>
> Under Windows with Norton or BlackIce or ZoneAlarm, this is trivial,
It also doesn't really work. Those are not good, safe firewalls.
BSD UNIX is actually much easier than the ipchains mess in Linux,
though kernel 2.4 might change that a little.
The guts of networking under Windows is much more complicated than
UNIX, it just happens to be wrapped up so the user doesn't see it.
It's unfortunately that, despite the efforts of Gnome and like
projects, there still isnt' a lot of that kind of front-end and
automation in the UNIX world.
A wrapper could make UNIX easier than BlackIce or ZoneAlarm, and it
would have the added benefit of actually being good.
> and he doesn't have to worry about screwing up and leaving himself
> open to attack because of his ignorance of the subject. It's all be
Actually, his ignorance is far more dangerous with a "black box"
software that he _assumes_ is working. I don't believe black-ice or
zonealarm are fully secure. Also, Windows is internally insecure so
he's still vulnerable, firewall or not.
If you really want easy, and are on cable or DSL, just get a Netgear
router that does most of it in a plug and go box. I don't know why
modem companies have not gotten smart and released a modem that serves
a LAN as a mini-firewall. Apple has the Airport but it's not quite
what I have in mind.
> It's not that it "can't" be done under Linux, it's just figuring out
> where the documentation is that explains HOW to do it.
> And then, being able to understand how to implement the changes.
This is true, and it is unfortunate. But it's mostly a matter of
front-ends being needed. The code is of far higher quality and the
guts are actually easier to understand.
The gui wars and fragmentation of Linux efforts don't help matters
much.
--
"And in billows of might swell the Saxons before her,-- Unite, oh
unite! Or the billows burst o'er her!" -- Downfall of the Gael
______________________________________________________________________
Charles Shannon Hendrix s h a n n o n @ w i d o m a k e r . c o m
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 07:37:02 GMT
On Tue, 17 Oct 2000 06:55:36 GMT,
Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>This is the only reply your entitled to:
>
>Prove.
Texas: http://www.tbpe.state.tx.us/eb17.htm
"Under the Texas Engineering Practice Act, only duly licensed persons
may legally perform, or offer to perform engineering services for the
public. Furthermore, public works must be designed and constructed
under the direct supervision of a licensed professional engineer. The
terms "engineer" or "professional engineer" can only be used by
persons who are currently licensed. Anyone who violates these
parameters is subject to legal penalties."
Illinois: http://www.eosinc.com/ispe/peact99.htm
"(325/40. Unlawful practice)
Section 40. Unlawful practice. It is unlawful for any person, sole
proprietorship, professional service corporation, corporation, limited
liability company, or partnership, or other entity to practice
professional engineering, advertise or display any sign or card or
other device which might indicate to the public that the person or
entity is entitled to practice as a professional engineer, or use the
initials "P.E.," or use the title "engineer" or any of its
derivations, unless such person holds an active license as a
professional engineer in the State of Illinois, or such professional
service corporation, corporation, limited liability company,
partnership, sole proprietorship, or other entity is in compliance
with Section 23 of this Act."
Georgia: http://www2.state.ga.us/Legis/1997_98/leg/fulltext/hb483.htm
"11-13 (f) Any person offering engineering services to the public
11-14 who uses by name, verbal claim, sign, advertisement,
11-15 directory listing, or letterhead the words 'Engineer,'
11-16 'Engineers,' 'Professional Engineering,' 'Engineering,' or
11-17 'Engineered' shall be guilty of a misdemeanor unless said
11-18 person has complied with the provisions of this chapter. "
>or
>
>Fuck you.
Uh...hum.
>You are so out of touch with reality is amazes me.
>
>Mike
>Windows Engineer :-)
Really?? Casement or double hung??
>
>lyttlec wrote:
>
>> Mike Byrns wrote:
>> >
>> > lyttlec wrote:
>> >
>> > > MS had to change the name. Now its Microsoft Certified Software
>> > > Professional.
>> >
>> > No. They didn't. It's not changed at all. See
>> >
>>http://www.microsoft.com/trainingandservices/default.asp?PageID=mcp&PageCall=mcse&SubSite=cert>/mcse&AnnMenu=mcse
>> >
>> I'm only going by the titles of the *current* edition of books on the
>> shelves at B&N and Borders. I've noticed that MSCE has been replaced by
>> MSCP.
>> > > You can't hold yourself out to the public as an Engineer
>> > > unless you have completed 4 years of college, had 4 years experience and
>> > > passed the EIT and PE tests.
>> >
>> > Wrong. Only in Texas. And Canada. And there are "engineers" at Corel working
>on .NET
>> > :-)
>> >
>> Nope. Texas and Canada have Software Engineers. All control the right to
>> hold your self out to the public as an engineer. No one cares what job
>> title Corel uses. Just don't you put on your card or business add that
>> you are an engineer.
>>
>> > You must produce a statutorial argument of this assertion. Please post one.
>I've held
>> > an engineer title for a more than a decade without a related degree, 4-year
>experience (
>> > early on ) or any FE /EIT / PE crap. Those are for Civils, Mechanicals,
>Electricals, and
>> > Chemicals. Not ITs.
>> >
>> All states have legislation restricting who can call themselves
>> Architects, Engineers, CPA, RN, RPN, Doctor, etc. Many ever have
>> educational/experience requirements for Barbers and Beauticians. You
>> will have to look them up in your state.
>> > > If you do insist on using the title MSCE,
>> > > then you can be held personally liable for all damages everytime a
>> > > system in your charge crashes.
>> >
>> > Nope. The certifier is only in TX.
>> >
>> Claiming to be an Engineer makes you liable in every state. Tx is, afik,
>> the only state currently registering Software Engineers. (Others are
>> working on it) Everywhere else you register as an Electrical,
>> Mechanical, or Industrial Engineer, or as a CPA.
>>
>> > > My advice to anyone using the MSCE on business cards : DON'T!
>> >
>> > My advice? DO. You get a 100K job on simple to administer systems! Whoo hoo!
>> > Downside? You get a pager and a notebook like everyone else.
>>
>> Send me your business card. I'll forward it and the complaint to your
>> local Board of Registration for Surveyors and Engineers or what ever it
>> is called in your state/country. Got a lawyer? The boards like to make a
>> big deal out of one or two cases each year to justify the tax dollars.
>> Perhaps yours will be the one.
>
--
Show the code....or hit the road.
Perry Piplani [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
