Linux-Advocacy Digest #712, Volume #29 Tue, 17 Oct 00 21:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Astroturfing (lyttlec)
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows (Matthew Matchura)
Re: Anybody want to test a widget? (Bob Hauck)
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows (Bob Hauck)
Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux? (Bob Hauck)
Re: Claire Lynn (Gardiner Family)
Re: Ms employees begging for food (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows (Dustin Puryear)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (FM)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: lyttlec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 00:31:02 GMT
Perry Pip wrote:
>
> 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]
Shall we take the time to find out where Mike Byrns lives and complain
to his state board?
------------------------------
From: Matthew Matchura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 17:37:58 +0000
Gardiner Family wrote:
> the problem with the general public is the view that UNIX is a hard OS to
> work with, it has been made hard by companies not willing to listen to the
> end user
> . Finally, companies such as SUN have finally realised that if they want
> to capture the low end market they must make it so that any old dick head
> can set up and run a server, thus, that is why many of the major UNIX
> venders are now supporting GNOME, which looks pretty good so far, I can
> hardly wait until
> version 2 is finally released. The last thing (which is very minor), hide
> the boot sequence and instead have a nice graphical loader, in the case of
> Linux, a Penguin walking accross the screen indicating the progress of the
> boot sequence.
>
> Matt
>
> Tony Tribelli wrote:
>
> > Larry Ebbitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > 2:1 wrote:
> >
> > >> The early OSs were a lot less than DOS was. Dos is an old OS. 20
> > >> years ago, that wasw about all the OS you could fit o to one of those
> > >> computers, but it was still an OS. Just because it was used long past
> > >> it's use-by data, doesn't make it any less of an OS.
> > >
> > > The industry standards and real OS's were around long before DOS for
> > > OC's. IBM had a couple and UNIX was around.
> >
> > Microsoft offered a Unix, XENIX, and users stuck to DOS despite
> > Microsoft's advocacy for XENIX. Even with modern free Unix
> > implementations the public at large has a hard time accepting Unix.
> > Apple probably has the best approach with the upcoming MacOS X, bury and
> > hide Unix so the user doesn't even know it's there.
> >
> > Tony
>
Though I know that having a penguin walking around on the monitor
during bootup will make things 'appear' friendlier, one the nice things
about seeing the sequence is that you can 'see' if any of the processes you
want to start fail.
I too am waiting to see what Gnome V2 will look like. It is a nice
desktop, but then so are the other alternatives. With the big-time backing
Gnome is recieving, it promises to be a worthwhile wait.
--
>^..^<
Matt
Remove the NO_SPAM to reply via email.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Anybody want to test a widget?
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 00:43:40 GMT
On Tue, 17 Oct 2000 00:33:04 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>So far, one satisfied customer and counting. Any more takers?
I don't suppose you happen to know of a similar simple html viewer
that I can call from Python scripts? I could wrap yours of course, but
I was looking for something that would work on Win32 as well.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 00:43:42 GMT
On Wed, 18 Oct 2000 12:11:12 +1300, Gardiner Family
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Finally, companies such as SUN have finally realised that if they want
>to capture the low end market they must make it so that any old dick
>head can set up and run a server
And this is a good thing?
>The last thing (which is very minor), hide the
>boot sequence and instead have a nice graphical loader
You must live in a cave. Several Linux distributions offer this
already. Luckily it is easy enough to remove if necessary.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux?
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 00:43:43 GMT
On Tue, 17 Oct 2000 00:59:57 GMT, lyttlec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Once up the learning curve, LaTex is easier to use than Word.
And if you use a front-end like LyX, the learning curve is easy to
handle too.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: Gardiner Family <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Claire Lynn
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 13:46:24 +1300
It is rather amazing how the US is scared of cheap exports from NZ and
Australia, considering a quota was put on how much lamb meat can be
exported to the US each year because of a couple of yobo's in living on a
farm in the US can't handle the competition.
I also find it very ammusing how the US currancy as caused some problems,
due to its rapid increase in value, US companies will be making less
money, thus less returns to share holders.
Before you make pre-emptive judgements, look at the little hole you live
in, where students are killed regulary, obesity is rife, the trade and
foreign policy has double standards and crime and poverty is rife in the
large cities.
matt
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.os.netware.misc
Subject: Re: Ms employees begging for food
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 00:35:57 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
neJ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Oct 2000 15:04:24 -0400, unicat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > A picture claiming to show former monoposoft
> > employees begging for food...
> >An image from a site dedicated to spreading the "truth"-
> >
> >http://www.nwlink.com/~rodvan/microsoft/street1.html
That is so CUTE!!
> >Don't let this happen to you. Learn linux now ;-)
>
> You sure that picture wasn't really of Linux investors???
> Red Hat is down what, 90% from it's high?
Microsoft is down 50% and revenues are down 20%
(Red Hat's revenues grew by 270%).
Granted, Red Hat chose to give away millions of shares of stock
options to thousands of developers who contributed thousands of
hours to Linux specification, development, documentation, and
promotion.
Some of these people were still in college and needed to sell off
to collect tuition. Others were just unaccustomed to dealing with
this kind of money. Others were simply jumping ship as the entire
tech market started to skid. And IBM sold off a portion of it's
holdings (about $14 million) shortly after the Novice option holders
sold off. I personally bought in at 70, sold at 140, bought again at
60 (after the 2 for one split) and put a limit in at 140 (which missed).
A few days later, the stock was at 70 (where I sold all but token
holdings) and finally down to 40. Today it swings between 15 and 30.
Small-cap stocks always get hit hardest in a correction. They also
take longer to bounce back.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, LinuxCare and Cobalt seem to be doing
very well, as is Applix. Corel had some legal issues which took it's
stock from $30/share to $3/share.
In many cases, the fundamental rules of business have held fast.
Companies who made good products and services at good prices and
delivered quality consistently did quite well.
Red Hat has chosen to remain focused on the server market, leaving
the Workstation and Laptop market to Mandrake (who uses the Red Hat
distribution as a core, but enhances it with a friendly desktop and
consumer oriented applications). Mandrake also uses Linuxcare for
user support.
Corel's Debian release turned out to be very frustrating to novice
users, and their help-desk support was equally frustrating (support
calls cost $35 each). My father tried to install Corel and failed,
but had no problem getting Mandrake installed. He still like
quickbooks, so he still uses Windows, but he likes to play with Linux
every now and then.
My brother, an auto mechanic, loves Linux and
uses it most of the time (booting Windows 95 for the
occaisional Windows-only game). His wife (a nurse)
uses Linux and Applix instead of Windows/Office.
Keep in mind, I was 2000 miles away and was only available for
minimal user support.
The companies who are taking Linux seriously are doing remarkably
well. Some are actually producing growth rates of over 200%/year
(tripling their revenues each year) and many are very profitable.
--
Rex Ballard - I/T Architect, MIS Director
Linux Advocate, Internet Pioneer
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 50 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 5%/month! (recalibrated 8/2/00)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dustin Puryear)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 00:53:08 GMT
On Tue, 17 Oct 2000 00:36:46 -0600, David Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I stand corrected then "many people" as opposed to some.
>
>Btw, the other ATM stands for Asynchronous Transfer Mode and is a networking
>technology that allows for differing types of transmissions. There are some
>educational institutions that use it for phone, video, and Internet, all on
>one line.
Not the best definition of ATM that I've ever heard..
--
Dustin Puryear <$email = "dpuryear"."@usa.net";>
Integrate Linux Solutions into Your Windows Network
- http://www.prima-tech.com/integrate-linux
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (FM)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: 18 Oct 2000 00:33:06 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >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.
>Great, another idiot. And I suppose that the number '2' isn't an object,
>right? Just a "metaphor".
Number '2' is an abstraction of what it's like to be of two
things or the second of many. It's not an object. Of course
for any particular programming language or formal notation,
one can define an object to include such abstractions.
>Do you also believe like Jedi that there are
>is a "true" meaning to every word and that anything that comes later is
>by definition a "metaphor"? Just what the fuck ISN'T a metaphor ??
No, if you are to say something is "the normal sense of the
word" and it's not in the dictionary, then it's your job to
produce a sensible definition.
>> 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.
>Bullshit. Conceptually, each object keeps a supply of messages
>(created when the object is created) and just sends these messages
>to their destination when it needs to. (These messages aren't
>exhausted because they're copied before being sent and they
>'copy' message isn't exhausted because IT is copied before being
>sent.) <-- and this whole regress is unnecessary because message
>sends are atomic as far as users are concerned. Yet again you
>prove that you can't distinguish between the users and implementors.
So a message is not an object. So much for "everything" is
an object. referring to a message IS an action. Referring to
an object is ALSO an action. Not specifying how and these are
related leave out a huge part of what is necessary to specify
a process. It also shows a lack of understanding on your part
and vagueness of your definition.
>(Oh yeah, and don't even bother arguing that "sending a message
>on its way" is an "action" that must be performed by a message
>send. That would only prove you're stuck on physical analogy.)
No it's just that you have double standards and when you need
to criticize another language, you insist on it meeting your
definition on literal terms when your own definition can't!
The terms "All" and "everything" have very specific meaning
that you cannot simply redefine. To the extent you have clarified
your definition, C++ doesn't contradict it any more than it does
itself.
>> Your definition only serves to demonstrate my argument that
>> OO itself is not a complete [computational] paradigm.
>Your objection only serves to prove that you are an idiot.
Hah, and you forgot to address that your so-called paradigm is
in fact an extension of the imperative paradigm. And shows
nothing about how these actions can be abstracted, which means
it is implicitly procedural as well.
>> 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?
>My point, cretin, is that some languages are vastly more OO than
>others and considering that Smalltalk has serious flaws as far
>as being OO, a language that has a thousand times as many flaws
>can't possibly be called OO. There is a spectrum and if you know
>that Smalltalk is quite a ways from pure OO then C++ can't possibly
>make it to the cutoff.
And your vast knowledge of C++ allows you to point out and
judge those flaws?
>> 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.
>So instead of forcing one paradigm, it forces a choice from
>a restricted set of paradigms. Oh, yeah, that is SUCH a solid
>basis for your argument. Going from an implicit "all" to "most".
>Would be a nice save if I weren't crass enough to point it out.
No, your point was that a language itself forces a particular
paradigm, even when it does support mechanisms that support
other paradigms.
>> isn't, why is it so hard to write non-OO code?
>> 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
>You're such a provincial empty-headed fool. What did you do,
>learn about functional programming and fall in love with it
>so much you couldn't learn anything else?
No, in fact, I understand imperative programming, functional
programming, and OO, much better than you do. I did learn IP and
OO before I learned FP. It's your own bias that prevents you from
seeing that OO is limited and to the extent that OO can be made
complete, it borrows heavily from other paradigms.
>No cretin. Only as a series of message sends, which are atomic.
>If you're talking about actions at all then you're thinking in
>terms of the imperative paradigm.
So you concede that your above definition (which doesn't go
beyond actions
>Why the fuck don't you do that
>with functional programming?
>> 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.
>You obviously don't know what metaphysics means. Focusing
>on the *essence* of things is just general *philosophy*,
>imbecile, and not the very specific branch of philosophy
>called metaphysics.
Pick up that book you got all your terminologies from and
actually read. Even with limited understanding, you might
actually learn a thing or two. And then ask yourself, what
part of philosophy is NOT considered metaphysics?
>> 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.
>
>ROTFLMAO.
>
>> You cannot tell if a language is OO, since
>> you can't distinguish mechanisms from concepts and
>> abstractions from metaphors.
>And you can't distinguish between problem domain, architecture
>and low-level design of the paradigm. The first is the concerns
>(data abstraction) I talked about, the second is what we are
>talking about now (everything's an object), the last is the
>irrelevancies (runtime polymorphism) you idiotically insisted
>were the essence of OO.
You obviously still can't. Programmers can write code in
OO if they are provided by the mechanisms necessary for
OO. And the only true mechanism beyond a decent type
system necessary for the style is runtime polymorphism.
You obviously didn't understand what I said. If that's
"low-level" design of the paradigm, it's still all that
matters to a language.
>> There are many programmers who
>> are so fixated on mechanisms, that they can't understand
>> concepts beyond mechanisms.
>And naturally, you are speaking of yourself, yes?
Try again. I understand the concepts fully and can
relate to mechanisms when necessary. Hence, I'm able to
point out what is necesary to support an OO paradigm,
whereas you can't. I can think in OO while in C++, Java,
Smalltalk, or Dylan. You obviously can't, since you
lose the grasp of the concepts when you're presented with
C++'s 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.
>Of course I can distinguish between the two; that's why I
>consider message sends to be atomic whereas you idiotically
>insist they are "actions" because the language designer has
>to implement them at some point in some imperative/assembly
>language. And by your argument, functional programming must
>be based on imperative programming as well. Of course, you're
>so in love with functional programming and so hateful of OO
>(or just completely and totally ignorant of it?) that you
>don't see the inconsistencies in your own position.
Functional programming can be implemented in purely
imperative languages, but it doesn't have to be based
on them. On the other hand, that has nothing to do with
my objection. The problem is that you don't know how to
write proper recursive definitions. If message sends
are atomic, they should be properly labeled as such. On
the other hand, I can see why you had trouble with that,
since it involves two more actions leading to it,
identifying the object and the message. Also, if these
things are not considered as actions, then you need to
clarify what actions are and how they relate to the
process as a whole. Aside from all that, seeing a
computational process as a series of actions, is quite
imperative.
>> You didn't read or address my definition. Perhaps you read
>I didn't address it because it was so ludicrous as to be
>self-disproving.
And perhaps as a proof that you read it, you can somehow
recite it? I bet you can't. You are free to dig up the
archives if you want.
>> 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.
>LOL. Perhaps if you knew how to think, you wouldn't come up
>with such pitiful insults.
That's the funniest I heard in a while. Now you can't come up
with new insults, you have to resort to copying insults that
you label as "pitiful?" Sad, indeed.
>> >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
>Yeah. And just what the fuck do you think "I don't know C++
>very well" *means*?
That means you aren't qualified in any of the discussions
regarding C++'s merits.
>> are also different enough that anyone who hasn't written C++
>> code isn't really qualified to judge its merits. I also doubt
>Only the merits of the code. One can appreciate the (absence of)
>merits in the language.
No you can't, since you don't know what it's like to write
such code, nor understand its semantics.
>> that you have read C++ code. Not only is reading different
>> from writing, but it's also different from seeing.
>And typing is different from writing, as your trained-monkey
>responses attest.
Ah, more creative insults coming from Richard! Sad, indeed.
>ROTFLMAO.
This is all just way too hilarious. Poor little Richard trying
to impress a bunch of programmers, many of which I'm sure are
quite competent, but haven't engaged themselves in a discussion
of computational paradigms. So Richard throws at them a bunch
of terms that they aren't familiar with, without actually
understanding those terms, as though his ability to cite those
terms tells anything about his intellect. Of course when asked
to define one of the terms that he's misusing, all he can come
up with is a couple of sentences he put together from literature
on Message-Passing Paradigm aspect of OO. Heck, it is disputed
whether Message-Passing Paradigm is the right way to approach OO
and it surely hasn't been settled whether it is the only way.
And no sane person would argue that the degree of a language's
OO-ness is related to the purity with which it follows a
simplistic, incomplete definition. Unfortunately for Richard's
agenda, posting such nonsense is bound to attract at least a few
knowledgeable people to the discussion. And as Richard sees his
arguments fall apart, he tries to discourage all posters that
he recognizes as either intellectually superior or simply more
knowledgeable from contributing to the thread. And whenever the
discussion becomes technical, and his knowledge falls short, he
uses deliberate vagueness or insults to stay away from admitting
his lack of knowledge, which would be inevitable if the
discussion was to continue logically. It seems that Richard's
goal is to preach to those who only know Unix about Unix's
shortcomings and to preach to thoes who only know C++ about C++'s
shortcomings, and show off his "knowledge" of the alternatives.
But the more he preaches, the more painfully obvious it becomes
that he has no idea what he's talking about. If I may ask, Sir,
what do you do for a living? Someone who claims to know so much
more than other knowledgeable programmers here must have some
great credentials, no? And where do you find the time to reply to
every single message in this thread?
Dan.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
