Linux-Advocacy Digest #719, Volume #29 Wed, 18 Oct 00 01:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: KDE starting to stress out a little? ("Ingemar Lundin")
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("JS/PL")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Simon Cooke")
Claire! post something! ("Ingemar Lundin")
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (Al Kossow)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("JS/PL")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE starting to stress out a little?
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 04:47:19 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" wrote:
> >
> > In article <8sicr8$93u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > Check this out:
> > >
> > > http://dot.kde.org/971680096/
> > >
> > > With all of the KDE vs GNome stuff going on, and with all the added
> > > corporate pressures these days, I was starting to wonder if the "Meet
> > > the folks behind KDE" articles that had been going on lately were part
> > > of a PR response (along with GPLing everything, trying to get KOffice
> > > out in time to match OpenOffice, etc.). Is the stress starting to
> > > affect these guys, you think?
> >
> > Actually, what makes the whole Open Source thing so interesting is that
> > it actually functions far more effeciently as a "virtual organization"
> > than most privately held companies. There aren't many places where
> > you can manage tens of thousands or contributors with only 4-5 tiers
> > of management and minimal "hard" resources.
> >
>
> That's because on the production side of Linux, the usual issues
> of budget wars, fiefdom building, etc. are gone. There's no
> prestigious corner offices to be garnered, etc. Nope...the only
> way to make one's way in the world of Linux development is to
> PRODUCE....(the pay-off coming in the prestige which helps you get
> better jobs in other work, say, with mainline Unix vendors).
>
> Also, the other clutter, like Human Resources, Compliance, Accounting,
> and other dead-weight departments are gone...so that the various
> tiers of Linux development can focus SOLELY upon Linux development,
> rather than worrying about Affirmative Action meetings, the
> ubiquitous United Way drive, and other meaningless distractions.
>
>
> > > Maybe a KDE Foundation is in order to start adding some internal
> > > infrastructure (management, office assistants, etc.) to help the
> > > programmers out a little. Just so long as management doesn't take over
> > > (grin)...
> >
> > This has always been the concern. Who would you have running the
> > show? On one end of the spectrum, you have Richard Stallman who
> > is essentially homeless and at the other you have Bill Gates who
> > wants to purchase all intellectual property rights on earth by
> > the time he's 60.
> >
> > Ironically, each has a key role. Without Richard Stallman standing
> > as the guardian of the GPL, you would have Microsoft doing to all
> > open source, exactly what it did to NCSA and Mosaic (Internet Explorer).
> > You'd have hundreds of little meglamaniacs doing "emprace/extend" much
> > the way UNIX vendors tried to make market coups by adding a unique
> > "1% of 1%" that made their flavor "better" than the others.
> >
> > Without Bill Gates, you'd have no "bad guy" to unite against. You'd
> > suddenly have everybody pointing at each other in the classic "mexican
> > stand off" where the first guy who pulls the trigger is guaranteed to
> > die.
> >
> > > Meanwhile, still waiting for GNUstep to take over the
> > > world after these two giants destroy each other...
> >
> > I don't think anybody is going to "take over the world". It'll be
> > more of a "cooperative republic" or "democratic anarchy". The GNU
> > manefesto contains the warning against attempts to control the conduit
> > of intellectual property. Whether it's DVD-CSS or Microsoft Word,
> > such "exclusions by contract" threaten not only the reader/viewer, but
> > also the publisher's access to his market.
> >
> > How long would it have been before the DVD-CCA began demanding a 2%,
> > or even a 15% "royalty" for the continued "protection" of video
> > products? Perhaps a year?
>
> Much like...the US income tax. The *TOP* rate was 6% in 1914.
>
> When was the last time that any US Federal income tax bracket was
> that low?
and how many were poor and homeless 1914?
>
>
> >
> > Conversely, RSA and LZW/GIF were adopted even in the face of patent
> > royalties because the royalties were reasonable, the algorythms could
> > be trusted not to change, and the exchange of information could be
> > universal.
> >
> > By the same token, when the terms were too extraordinary, it wasn't
> > that hard for students and hackers to create original new alternatives
> > such as PGP and gzip.
> >
> > Ironically, it's likely that what will really drive the demand
> > for Linux is the shortage of talent. Linux/UNIX requires less
> > maintainance, less support, and less development time (for
> > custom applications) than most comparable Windows NT solutions.
> >
> > > -ws
> > >
> > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > > Before you buy.
> > >
> >
> > --
> > 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.
>
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> ICQ # 3056642
>
> http://directedfire.com/greatgungiveaway/directedfire.referrer.fcgi?2632
>
>
> H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
> premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
> you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
> you are lazy, stupid people"
>
> I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
> challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
> between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
> Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
>
> J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
> The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
> also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
>
> A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
>
> B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
> method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
> direction that she doesn't like.
>
> C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
>
> D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> ...despite (D) above.
>
> E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
> her behavior improves.
>
> F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
>
> G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 00:50:07 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Richard in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>> 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?
No, it is a number.
>Just a "metaphor".
No, it is a number.
>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 ??
Well, reality isn't a metaphor. Pretty much every word you use to
describe reality, however (which would include all uses of programming,
as well as natural, language) can be considered, somehow, a metaphor.
You might say language itself is metaphorical, but not a metaphor.
(Sorry, I am playing games. I should stop. Is that a metaphor?)
The question, Richard, is not what isn't a metaphor, but what is a
metaphor. Using the term 'object' to describe any programming concept
whatsoever is a metaphor.
>> 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.
>
>(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 means he is using a physical analogy, as opposed to a physical
metaphor. :-)
You, by the way, are using an abstraction. I say that because it isn't
an analogy (as you've pointed out), but it is much more than the
metaphor of 'object' that programmers seem to understand. You have
proven yourself able to understand information (when provided by your
learning; you held your own very well against Dan when you guys got down
to the nitty gritty stuff, which I didn't comprehend, but quite enjoyed)
but somewhat unable to reason. I can only suppose, based on my
understanding of reason as a method of learning, that you have some
deep-seated psychological issues, seriously, which you should address.
We return, I guess, to my amateur Usenet diagnosis of last week.
Please, I think the only thing that will help you, Richard, is some
serious therapy. Take it from me; it helps.
>> 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.
Your statement only serves to show that you have a problem responding
rationally.
>> 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.
Well, that's the closest you've been to being correct in quite a while,
Richard. I'm glad to see, as well, that you looked up the definition of
'cretin'. But you're still using it badly.
[...]
>> 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, he recognized it as a necessary paradigm for understanding
programming enough to get any real work done, I would suppose. You seem
to discount the fact that you haven't actually *developed* anything very
worth while, for all your vaunted superior comprehension of programming.
>> 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).
>
>No cretin. [...]
You again seem to misunderstand the concept behind the term. In point
of fact, you would be the 'cretin', simply for calling him a 'cretin'.
Get it?
>> >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.
>
>ROTFLMAO. Obviously, even a monkey can pick up tricks from
>observation; I've accused others of projection often enough.
So because you have accused others of projecting, Dan is accusing you of
projecting? You honestly think most intelligent people on Usenet don't
realize how arbitrary the accusation of being a 'cretin' is? (Or an
"emotionally disturbed fool", as the case may be.)
Give a monkey a brain, and he'll swear he's the center of the universe.
You're practically the proof-of-concept, Richard.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 00:44:31 -0400
Reply-To: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:By9H5.9674$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > I particularly like this quote:
> >
> > "Janet Reno may save me 20 bucks on Windows, but what about the 20
> thousand
> > she lost me in my 401k?"
> > Michael Miller of Technology Investment Newsletter, ABC Evening News,
June
> 7
>
> Perhaps you've forgotten, but in earlier years there were other software
> companies too. We should have at least as much sympathy for them....
There's a hundred new software designers every day, always have been, always
will be.
> > All the other pro-ms quotes are here:
> > http://quotes.dynip.com/
>
> And not a shred of understanding of what's been lost in the whole mess.
More like - An excellent understanding of what's REALLY happening.
------------------------------
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: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 04:50:59 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Simon Cooke wrote:
> >
> > "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.
>
>
> I posted the fucking URLs to SGI's stats.
Yes, and I posted a rebuttal of YOUR analysis of those stats. Here it is
again:
http://x55.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/threadmsg_ct.xp?AN=655656089.1
"The Origin 3800 system utilizes up to 512 CPUs, with 6.4GB/s maximum
"aggregated" bandwidth per CPU, according to the whitepapers and datasheets
available on the same site. The "716GB/s system bandwidth" accounts for the
entire cluster of CPUs, which are acting as a localized cluster system
utilizing their metamemory crossbar, R-Brick and C-Brick technologies as
coordination.
Basically, it's a cluster in a box. It's the same as building your own 19"
rack mount cluster using NT boxes. And the 716Gb/s -- NOTE- Giga*BIT*, not
byte -- figure is purely a marketing one.
So that's 80GB/s on the Origin 3800..; with 16 x 32processor clusters.
Which, funnily enough, if you divide 80 by 16... you get about 5GB; which is
close to the 6.4Gb aggregate speed. That's 3.2GB to the memory store from
the coordinating controller, and 1.6Gb to each of two processors.
So... in terms of getting data to the processor, that's about 1.6Gb per
processor. Nice.
But nowhere near that ludicrous benchmarketing-conjured figure you quoted.
Simon"
> As I said...you *DECIDE* to stay ignorant of the truth.
>
> That is...DELIBERATELY UNINFORMED.
>
> Which is the same as lying, in my book.
Well, heck, if you can't work that just adding up the total transfer rates
in the system doesn't give you the maximum possible transfer rate, then I
guess you're 'LYING' in your book.
Simon
------------------------------
From: "Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Claire! post something!
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 04:55:52 GMT
this ng is beginning to sink to a new low
(hard to break record indeed)
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 01:00:02 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said FM in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>Functional programming can be implemented in purely
>imperative languages, but it doesn't have to be based
>on them. [...]
For those of us following this (or me, anyway) for edification; could
you define what these (functional and imperative) are? I only know of
'object oriented' and 'procedural' programming.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Al Kossow)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,alt.conspiracy.area51,comp.os.netware.misc,comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 21:55:17 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Lockwood
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Oct 2000 23:11:43 GMT, @..@ wrote:
>
> >Netware??? What the hell does that have to do with area 51?
>
> Where do you think networking comes from?
Netware was a copy of Xerox XNS, circa version 10 or so.
--
The eBay Curse:
"May you find everything you're looking for.."
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 01:00:46 -0400
Reply-To: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> Of course, when Microsoft needs some more upgrade cash, they'll add a
couple
> of whistles and call it Windows 3k, or 2003 or whatever marketing comes up
> with.
Right now the desktop version is called Whistler, it's the best damn
operating system known to man, way better than god himself could produce.
I haven't seen it but it probably is, but we'll all just have to wait for
independent verification of the above statement from ZDNet :-)
BTW- has anyone around here tested out Whistler?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
