Linux-Advocacy Digest #707, Volume #29 Tue, 17 Oct 00 14:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Claire Lynn (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: Claire Lynn (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: Astroturfing (Tim Kelley)
Re: Linux Sucks (Steve Mading)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Claire Lynn
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 17:16:01 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chris Sherlock
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Tue, 17 Oct 2000 19:55:11 +1000
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
>The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote
>> on Sat, 14 Oct 2000 23:59:12 GMT
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> >Whatever.
>> >
>> >Most of the Linvocates in this group can't advocate their collective
>> >ass's out of a paper bag. They may be technically astute, but their
>> >companies lock them away in rubber coding rooms far from the clients
>> >because they are so, well, geeky.
>>
>> This is a generalization.
>
>Not to mention a pointless and stupid crack.
True. :-)
>
>[snip]
>
>> In any event, when's the last time you saw a Model T? I do
>> see some on a rare occasion tootling around the city, here.
>> (Or maybe they're model A's; I'm not up on old cars, but
>> they are distinctive; most of the boxes on wheels running
>> around look about as exciting as mouldy cheese.)
>>
>> Linux may be a Model T, but it also is a Mack Truck.
>> Metaphorically speaking, of course. I'm not sure what
>> Windows is; probably a cross between a Trabant and a
>> Ford Econoline van with custom airbrushing. :-) Looks
>> real pretty, anyway.
>
>OK, now that you've mentioned Model T's I feel that I have to add
>something. Those things could do just about anything! You could repair
>them with fencing wire in a pinch. They were voted "Car of the Century"
>at one point (I'll see if I can find a link). OK, so the Model T wasn't
>the world's most comfortable car in the world to drive, but by crikey it
>was indestructible!
Heh....I'm not a Model T aficionado myself, but I know that there
are about three characters in my suburb that have one (or maybe a Model
A), and they meet in the morning and go somewhere. Dunno who they are,
since I haven't met them personally, but they just don't make them
like that anymore. (Of course, at the time, they probably weren't
considered pretty, either -- which makes me wonder about today's
econoboxes. :-) But now, a well-maintained old car, be it a Model
T, a Duesenberg, or a Bugatti, even an Edsel, would fetch a premium
price if it's in near-mint condition. Considering Model T's sold
for at most a thousand dollars back then -- of course, that was back
when $1000 was worth something -- it does seem to be a reasonable
investment (although I'd have to compare it to the stock market! :-) )
And of course, they're distinctive and beautiful, to those who
like that sort of thing. (I'm not well-heeled enough. :-/ )
But yeah, considering your comment, Model T wouldn't be that bad an
analogy, since one apparently needs merely a monkey wrench to fix
the problems with it. (Try that with today's cars, with all of
their smogstuff and such. :-) ) But I'm not sure if everyone
would understand it.
>
>I tend to see Windows as the Leyland P 76, crap but was meant to be
>awesome.
I might consider equating it to the Edsel, myself. I'm not familiar
with the Leyland; but almost everyone is at least somewhat familiar
with the absolute failure that the Edsel was, despite all of the marketing
hype and research that Ford (?) put into it.
Perhaps I'm being overly hopeful, though; Microsoft's offering is
a huge success -- or at least it was until recently. I'm not sure
what that says about us, or about Microsoft. And Microsoft has had
an "Edsel" -- namely, BOB. But nobody ever mentions BOB for some
reason -- at least, not that often. :-)
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 17:16:11 GMT
Roberto Alsina wrote:
> El lun, 16 oct 2000, Richard escribió:
> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
> >> So, in short: having a class is not a necessary characteristic of an object.
> >> So, not belonging to classes doesn't prove classes are not objects.
> >
> >What the fuck are you talking about? Do you realize that what you
> >just wrote is a complete non sequitur?
>
> You seem to be unaware of an artifact called explanation.
Since objects are related to classes with the relationship "belongs to",
we should be able to replace tho object/class pair with a similar pair
and preserve your (lack of) logic. So let's replace class with "credit
union" and object with "member of credit union".
"having a credit union is not a necessary characteristic of a credit
union member. So, not belonging to credit unions doesn't prove that
credit unions are not credit union members."
Not only are both of the sentences you wrote complete and unutterable
nonsense but they have NO CONNECTION TO EACH OTHER. Do you know what
a "non sequitur" is, Roberto? Well, look it up!
And you claim to understand the incompleteness theorem ??
> >> So, your previous "what class are they supposed to be?" was logically
> >> ineffectual, since a language could have objects that belong to classes and
> >> objects that don't.
> >
> >No, it can't bozo. EVERY object belongs to some conceptual class. Classes
> >might not exist as language constructs but that doesn't stop them from
> >existing in people's minds.
>
> I naïvely assumed you were using a constant frame of reference. In that case,
> classes belong to the class "class", in my mind.
Do you think it's just a fucking accident that OO programmers call
objects that create other objects "classes"? It was a /deliberate/
move to confuse classes as abstract concepts and classes as language
constructs. In the minds of users, all objects belong to some kind
of abstract class; it's practically a property of objects. If you're
going to claim that classes exist as language constructs then you
*cannot* have any object that does not belong to some kind of class
(ie, language construct class).
> > And if a language chooses to have classes as
> >language constructs then these MUST match the conceptual classes that
> >people build of the system.
>
> Says who? A language needs not be so coherent.
Says who?
> >There are bound to be inconsistencies in my stated position in cases,
> >such as this one, where my position has evolved over time. And yet
> >you're too stupid to find any of these inconsistencies.
>
> "Over time" seems to mean "a day". If your position changes, just say, "oh,
> what you quoted, I was wrong there".
Are you talking about a lunar day here? That's the only thing that
seems to make sense.
> >If a language has a class construct at all (and there is no reason
> >why it should) then people should be able to access and manipulate
> >this construct as easily as any other construct in the language.
>
> Languages need not be introspective.
And by that reasoning, languages need not avoid being totally braindead.
> > It's as simple as that. If classes exist in the language then they must
> >be objects, just as much as if classes exist in the language then
> >everything must belong to some class.
>
> You assume the language tries to be completely object oriented. Such is not the
> case with, for example, C++.
C++ isn't AT ALL Object Oriented.
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 17:22:14 GMT
"Mike Byrns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message:
> Darin Johnson wrote:
> > Well, if US law was based on majority rule, you might have a point.
>
> It is. This is a democracy. Read the Constitution.
Ummm... actually, it's a democratic republic. If it was a true democracy,
you'd see a lot more referenda. However, as it stands, you vote for people
to represent you.
Simon
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 17:25:26 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Wrong... .*I* called you dishonest.
>
> Either that, or deliberatly uninformed (which is the same thing).
Read the thread for context - Max did as well (partly by agreeing with you).
You still haven't commented on that claim you made about an SGI box that
could handle 800Gb transfers.
You were being dishonest there. Or you were pathetically uninformed.
Simon
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 14:29:22 -0300
El mar, 17 oct 2000, Richard escribió:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> El lun, 16 oct 2000, Richard escribió:
>> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> >> So, in short: having a class is not a necessary characteristic of an object.
>> >> So, not belonging to classes doesn't prove classes are not objects.
>> >
>> >What the fuck are you talking about? Do you realize that what you
>> >just wrote is a complete non sequitur?
>>
>> You seem to be unaware of an artifact called explanation.
>
>Since objects are related to classes with the relationship "belongs to",
>we should be able to replace tho object/class pair with a similar pair
>and preserve your (lack of) logic. So let's replace class with "credit
>union" and object with "member of credit union".
>
>"having a credit union is not a necessary characteristic of a credit
>union member. So, not belonging to credit unions doesn't prove that
>credit unions are not credit union members."
Your incoherence is mounting. You are the one that said that classes are not
necessary in object oriented languages. Yet, you claim that all objects in
languages that have classes should belong to a class.
>Not only are both of the sentences you wrote complete and unutterable
>nonsense but they have NO CONNECTION TO EACH OTHER. Do you know what
>a "non sequitur" is, Roberto? Well, look it up!
I just repeated things you said. Happily now you understand why I saw what you
wrote as nonsensical.
>And you claim to understand the incompleteness theorem ??
Indeed I do. Care to argue about it?
>> >> So, your previous "what class are they supposed to be?" was logically
>> >> ineffectual, since a language could have objects that belong to classes and
>> >> objects that don't.
>> >
>> >No, it can't bozo. EVERY object belongs to some conceptual class. Classes
>> >might not exist as language constructs but that doesn't stop them from
>> >existing in people's minds.
>>
>> I naïvely assumed you were using a constant frame of reference. In that case,
>> classes belong to the class "class", in my mind.
>
>Do you think it's just a fucking accident that OO programmers call
>objects that create other objects "classes"?
No.
> It was a /deliberate/
>move to confuse classes as abstract concepts and classes as language
>constructs. In the minds of users, all objects belong to some kind
>of abstract class; it's practically a property of objects. If you're
>going to claim that classes exist as language constructs then you
>*cannot* have any object that does not belong to some kind of class
>(ie, language construct class).
If language can have classes as language constructs, and language can not have
classes as language constructs, languages possibly can have objects that beong
to classes and objects that don't. It's just a matter of syntax. It will
probably be a sucky language, but it will be a language.
>> > And if a language chooses to have classes as
>> >language constructs then these MUST match the conceptual classes that
>> >people build of the system.
>>
>> Says who? A language needs not be so coherent.
>
>Says who?
Experience.
>> >There are bound to be inconsistencies in my stated position in cases,
>> >such as this one, where my position has evolved over time. And yet
>> >you're too stupid to find any of these inconsistencies.
>>
>> "Over time" seems to mean "a day". If your position changes, just say, "oh,
>> what you quoted, I was wrong there".
>
>Are you talking about a lunar day here? That's the only thing that
>seems to make sense.
Check the dates of the two posts, the one I replied to and the one I quoted.
Less than two days apart, IIRC.
>> >If a language has a class construct at all (and there is no reason
>> >why it should) then people should be able to access and manipulate
>> >this construct as easily as any other construct in the language.
>>
>> Languages need not be introspective.
>
>And by that reasoning, languages need not avoid being totally braindead.
Indeed. Agree completely.
>> > It's as simple as that. If classes exist in the language then they must
>> >be objects, just as much as if classes exist in the language then
>> >everything must belong to some class.
>>
>> You assume the language tries to be completely object oriented. Such is not the
>> case with, for example, C++.
>
>C++ isn't AT ALL Object Oriented.
Opinion. Oh, what an easy thing to have.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 17:27:04 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 06:09:26 GMT, Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> ...then they have to be bailed out by some Linux user because the
> local WinDOS user can't even hook up a SCSI chain properly.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahah.
Idiot.
Simon
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Claire Lynn
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 17:27:06 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chris Sherlock
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Tue, 17 Oct 2000 20:06:54 +1000
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
>> Sorry, these aren't facts being made up as we go along; they can be well
>> supported through both logic and evidence. Linux is the best OS that
>> ever was, because it is the only GPL PC OS.
>
>What about GNU's HURD?
>
>Chris
There's also FreeBSD, although the licensing is different (I
don't know the details of the differences between the BSD freeware
license and the GNU freeware license -- as I recall, Linux itself
is distributed under the LGPL, not the GPL).
And "best", as always, is in the eye of the beholder. But Linux is
a darned good OS, and probably will not die anytime soon.
Of course, were it to be replaced with FreeBSD, I don't know
if anyone would mind too much; I see them as brothers, not
as competitors -- even if they do compete on occasion. One problem
with FreeBSD -- and it's minor -- is that Linux has a champion --
namely, Linus Torvalds -- who, while not a marketing guru, gets
enough press so that he gets to play "champion underdog", which
helps in the US marketplace, IMO (everyone here likes the underdog,
at least in principle). The fact that he coordinates patches
(for the development kernels, IIRC) doesn't hurt, either. :-)
FreeBSD, by contrast, doesn't appear to have quite as much visibility
in the personality department. (In a rational marketplace, this
would make no difference, and it may not make much difference anyway.)
Of course, Microsoft has two personalities of its own -- the flambouyant,
if nerdy, Bill Gates, and Steve Ballmer, whom I might characterize as
aggressive, but I don't really know what his style is.
And then there's Scott McNealy of Sun/Solaris. I'm not quite sure
what to call him. :-) And I have no idea what HP or IBM is doing.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 17:32:01 GMT
"Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:_cVG5.5287$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> As for Atari STs, I don't really know if they existed in 1985. Maybe not.
> I just sort lumped them in because they, like the other two, ran on
Motorola
> 68000 chips and were much superior to Microsoft's offerings. STs might
not
> have been introduced for another year or two, but they were definitely
> around in the mid to late 80s.
>
> Mike, this is all verifiable stuff. Perhaps you are only familiar with
The
> World According to Bill, but not even he can erase *this* much history.
Uh... Weevil... Microsoft didn't make processors. Intel did.
> Yes, advanced, GUI-based multi-tasking operating systems, were on the
market
> in 1985, while Microsoft's latest was DOS 3.3 (or was it 2.0?).
>
> I'm sorry you've been misled so badly.
By the way, his original question was regarding your statement that DOS 3.3
users pooh-poohed the Amiga, Mac, ST etc for having mickey-mouse interfaces.
He wanted you to prove it.
Simon
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 17:34:02 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Alternately, a student or two will get together (or not) and
> just implement it themselves. THIS is also how the world works.
Indeed. But that only applies if you're not talking about economic realities
of software development, and throw the whole economic side of the system out
of the Window -- which is all that GPL/Freeware/whatever does. It just
removes that question from the equation entirely.
Which also means it's completely irrelevant to mine & Max's argument.
Simon
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Kelley)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 17:34:44 -0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 17 Oct 2000 21:32:42 +1100, Ben Bos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 03:02:43 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>> What's a skatepunk?
>>
>>An anti-establishment liberal who listens to punk rock music and usually
>>passes the time skating rather than working.
.. unlike you, who works dilligently posting hundreds of useless
newsgroup messages a day when not watching Rush Limbaugh re-runs.
Chad, you are a fucking loser, get over it or get a life.
>>A skatepunk is not necessarily a Linux advocate, nor is a Linux
>>advocate a skatepunk, but they are very, very alike in more ways
>>than one.
Probaby true ... and your point is????????
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.iww.org
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Sucks
Date: 17 Oct 2000 17:52:34 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: I never said any of it was a MS invention. Winamp certainly isn't. I
: am saying that Linux movement is cloning interface,applications etc
But that's just my point. Why say Windows is being cloned here, if
you admit that the idea isn't a Windows-exclusive idea? Even if you
patronizingly assume Linux is cloning some other idea, that idea
doesn't have to have come from Windows.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
