Linux-Advocacy Digest #725, Volume #29 Wed, 18 Oct 00 10:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux? ("MH")
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Donal K.
Fellows)
Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux? (Sean Clarke)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (FM)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (FM)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (FM)
Re: Suggestions for Linux (Nick Condon)
Re: KDE starting to stress out a little? (Roberto Alsina)
Re: KDE starting to stress out a little? (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Why I do use Windows (John Travis)
Re: Why the Linonuts fear me ("MH")
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: Ms employees begging for food ("Chad Myers")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux?
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 08:39:44 -0400
Funny that you should call me a "ms junkie"
I use Linux on a daily basis and enjoy doing so.
I don't, however, enjoy anything related to the internet experience provided
by Linux.
MS's offerings are far superior in my opinion, and for that reason and that
reason alone, I use MS products for web browsing, email, and usenet.
What the individual stated was pure FUD. I call them as I see them.
I don't approve of it when MS does it anymore than when it's done in here.
Please try and find a clue.
"Hartmann Schaffer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8sj1gp$evt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8shiq2$3fc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> MH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ...
> >Like it or not, the standard is Office. Spreading lies and FUD does not
help
> >Linux's cause. If you had said simply that "SO can open many standard
office
>
> this statement coming from an ms junkie must be the usenet joke of the
> year
>
> > ...
>
> hs
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: 18 Oct 2000 10:58:12 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just what the hell makes people in the ST and Self camp not considering
> C++ OO "spin doctoring" instead of the other way around? From a purely
> historical perspective, it's obviously C++ calling itself OO that's pure
> spin doctoring! C++ doesn't deliver the advances that Smalltalk showcased
> and it doesn't deliver any of the productivity/reusability/comprehension
> increases that Smalltalk demonstated either, the very advances promised
> by "Object Orientation". Just why the fuck should anyone call it OO? Why
> is that a meaningful use of the language instead of an abuse of it ???
There is substantial disagreement over exactly what OO means. I am
not yet aware of any satisfactory semantic definition of OO, though I
have seen a few approaches that are getting close. (Compare this with
the imperative and functional programming paradigms, both of which
have good semantic and computational models associated with them.) I
am of the opinion that OO does not describe a computational paradigm
so much as an organizational paradigm. To me, OO means that you have
a mechanism whereby data and code that knows how to operate on that
data are bound together in one neat package, *and* that you have
is-a-kind-of relationships. It does not specify what the operations
on the data are. However, under my definition languages like C++ and
Java are capable of supporting OO just as Self, Smalltalk and the
other research languages that you've mentioned in this discussion are.
Given this context, claiming to be "True OO" (or "true" anything) is
disingenuous and smacks of the tactics you'd find discussed in Spin
Doctoring 101. It falls badly afoul of my cynicism and suspicious
mind...
> You can have any conception of OO you like.
Thanks, O Marvellous Source of Permission in Matters Object-Related.
> But in the end, does it deliver on its (implicit and explicit)
> promises and people's expectations of it ?
I expect OO to aggregate operations and data to which those ops apply.
OO does pretty good at that. I expect the "is-a-kind-of" relationship
and all OO systems I've seen do that, even if not always as flexibly
as I might like. Reality does sometimes bite...
> Does it make any sense to call Yak meat "beef" if people spit it out
> after tasting it ??
Yak's OK IMHO. Unlike kimchii... <shudder>
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I have to warn you up front that I'm pretty sure you're full of crap, but
it might still be interesting to see your argument.
-- Bill Newman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sean Clarke)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux?
Date: 18 Oct 2000 12:48:15 GMT
jazz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: In article <e1qG5.3420$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Jan
: Schaumann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: >
: > > I really need a powerful word processor with templates, styles, etc.
: > >
: >
: > Learn LaTeX (or LyX) - you'll be much more efficient in no time.
: >
: > > What is available for Linux? How about for Powerpoint and Excel?
: >
: > I use gnumeric for spreadsheets.
: > If you need something like powerpoint... *shrug*.
: > But with LaTeX you canproduce some nice slides...
: >
: >
: > Cheers,
: > -Jan
: Unfortunately the world uses Word, and since I coauthor papers, I have to
: use it or something compatible.
: Thanks
: Jim
Which journal doesn't accept Latex files then?
Sean
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (FM)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: 18 Oct 2000 12:01:23 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>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.
>Actually, he does seem to have some ability to deal with technical
>programming, if limited in his practice.
I'm beginning to doubt that however. Students in intro
CS classes that I've graded have shown similar ability
to BS with abstract terms without clear understanding
of them.
>>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.
>Cool. What are the alternatives? I'd be glad to read more from you on
>these topics than more from Richard on you.
Generic functions. Though for many languages, they are
often two different metaphors for the same abstraction.
Message passing is more of a stand-alone paradigm than
generic functions but only in theory. For example, in
C++, method calls are made to look more like message
passing, but in fact uses generic functions for actual
dispatch and are not semantically distinguishable. There
are also slightly different ways to view OO that result
in different interface/implementation styles. The main
point here is that people generally don't agree on what
exactly OO is.
>>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.
>It occurs to me that Richard is simply the victim of hyper-evolution,
>cognitive-style. His sophomoric insults and vehement profanity is not
>necessarily intended to 'weed out' reasonable responses, but it does end
>up providing that result. This would fit in well with his real purpose,
>which is to yell at people for being idiots, in comparison to his own
>ego-inspired awesome intellect.
Sophomoric! You definitely got the right word there. As
for your analysis, I'd like to add another observation:
why does he never show up in other comp.* newsgroups,
that have the readership of considerable expertise in
these issues? I've never seen him post in comp.object,
comp.lang.functional, comp.programming, or even
comp.lang.misc. Or any other OS newsgroups for that
matter.
>>If I may ask, Sir,
>>what do you do for a living?
>I'd think its obvious he's a student.
I like your next guess better. He does sound like someone
who's been dwelling on these issues for a while. He fits
a "loser" or "cast-off" type, who turns to theory because
of his inability to deal with reality. I don't think any
full-time student would've had the time or dedication to
learn as much as he did without substance.
>>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?
>Well, maybe he's an unemployed graduate. You shouldn't hold that
>against him. I don't think 'credentials' are very crucial. But I speak
>as someone with scarce credentials, and lots of wisdom, myself.
But I'd expect someone with lesser credentials to show a
semblance of humility from time to time. I don't have a
whole lot of credentials myself in this field.
Dan.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (FM)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: 18 Oct 2000 12:35:46 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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.
Functional programming is about viewing a computational
process as an expression to be evaluated. An expression
can be either a primitive value or a compound expression.
A compound expression is a combination of a lambda value
(function) and another value and evaluated by applying
the function to the value. A function is an expression
(to be evaluated) with the formal parameters in scope. In
more practical sense, this means a lot of recursion,
treating functions as values, and no assigment statement
(or the concept of statement, for that matter). Haskell
and ML are some of the major languages that support this
paradigm.
Imperative programming, on the other hand, is about
viewing a computational process as a series of commands
that manipulate the environment. Almost all non-functional
programming languages and some functional languages
support this.
Dan.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (FM)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: 18 Oct 2000 12:11:34 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>What is an action? What is the result of sending a message?
Btw, Richard failed to address this latter question. What comes
out of an "action" is a key distinction between functional
programming and procedural programming.
>If you mix 'concepts' and "metaphor" with Richard, you're screwed. His
>recent exchange with Dan seem to show that, contrary to my prior
>impression, Richard is a very smart (and very stupid; you know how that
>goes) person. Rather than being incapable of grasping an abstraction,
>he seems to be quite in love with his ability to grasp abstractions, and
>refuses to recognize the concept of a 'metaphor'.
That's called failing to grasp abstractions. Being able to deal
with abstract thoughts in itself doesn't demonstrate one's grasp
of them. The problem with Richard here, is that he really chose
the wrong person to argue this kind of matter with.
>>>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).
>What's AOP, btw?
Aspect-Oriented Programming. Yet another programming methodology
that people confuse with fundamental computational paradigms.
>>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.
>You lost it at the end, there, Dan, but I think its clear enough what
>you meant.
That's a bit long for a sentence, but I don't know where I
lost it.
Dan.
------------------------------
From: Nick Condon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Suggestions for Linux
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 14:03:08 +0100
unicat wrote:
> 2) We need to completely eliminate the command line interface.
> That's right. Get rid of it. Anything that can't be done from a
> GUI isn't worth doing.
And how are you going to pipe one command to another if there is no command
line?
Well done, you've just eliminated the central, major strength of the Unix
tradition in one stroke.
Write small programs that do one thing and do it well, this is the Unix
philosophy. Write programs to work together. Write programs to handle text
streams, because that is a universal interface.
It's hard to avoid monolithic programming if none of your programs can talk
to each other.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE starting to stress out a little?
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 12:56:43 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Roberto Teixeira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>>> "Roberto" == Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Roberto> Yeah, I'm really needing a secretary. And a personal
> Roberto> trainer.
>
> No offense, but the second one is more urgent ;)
Well, urgency is such a vague thing.
I can still run 100 meters in an adequate time, and can run up the 6
floors to the office wheb the elevator broke, so I am still salvageable
:-)
> Roberto> Everything is possible, I guess ;-)
>
> Hmm. Dream on...
Well, I recall in october 1996 (BTW, KDE's first public announcement was
october 16 1996, so it was kind of a birthday, which we seemed to
forget) people told us "why bother, GNUStep will be done before you have
anything useful" ;-)
--
Roberto Alsina
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE starting to stress out a little?
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 12:58:57 GMT
In article <8sipus$kds$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
At least in KDE we are much closer to two tiers than to 4 :-)
In fact, I can't think of a second tier, except for release schedules.
--
Roberto Alsina
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Travis)
Subject: Re: Why I do use Windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 12:54:53 GMT
And Gonzalo Pardo spoke unto the masses:
>> MATLAB (which I have just got) is definitely an app.
>
> I have it and Mathematica too, for both Windows and Linux.
<snipped Outlook wrapping>
At $1,500 a pop that's pretty pricy. Do you mind sending me the Linux version
for a little demo period :-)?
jt
--
Debian GNU/Linux [Woody]
2.4.0-test9-ReiserFS
You mean there's a stable tree?
------------------------------
From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why the Linonuts fear me
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 09:12:47 -0400
> Again, you assume, incorrectly, that we do not have similar exposure to
> other operating systems, only our opinions are different. Incidentally,
> I get paid for my opinions.
I get paid to suppport the IT Dept. at a college that runs right at 500
PC's.
I also help out on the help desk. I've also been paid for my programming.
Big deal, huh? I could, for all intent and purpose, say I'm the owner of a
large corporation.
Flashing credentials on usenet is like telling a prospective girlfriend that
you've got a big d*ck.
It doesn't inspire much, and you more than likely won't get asked out on
another date.
> > You yo-yo's are so caught up in your own pile of bullshit that you
> > have not a clue as to what the rest of the world wants, needs or is
> > asking for.
> The world I live in has small screams of frustration periodically as
> Windows crashes. People want their systems to be like a VCR, turn it on,
> and it works. Linux and the UNIX camps are closer to this than MS will
> ever be.
The world I work is involved in programs for distance learning via the
internet.
Students can log on and collaborate on documents right in their browser via
OLE.
Insert comments, make revisions, have discussions right in the browser
window.
Excel spreadsheets, same thing. Help & instruction can be provided via
powerpoint presentations for GUI intensive operations where the student is
not yet fluent with a computer.
This is the world of education. Helping people get work done with the
computer.
COLA takes a high and mighty stance. You assume the user should know
everything, then you tell them what is best. I don't have time for that
noise. Life is going on NOW. Not in 3 years or 10 years.
We need technology like OLE implemented properly NOW for students to learn
at a distance.
This is bringing education to the people. What is Linux doing in this area?
Oh, right, soon....
As for the infrastructure...sure some of these PC's go down. It's a fairly
large networked system.
And these PC's have A LOT of software on them. Only because THERE IS A LOT
OF SOFTWARE FOR THEM. But, by and large they perform just fine under a huge
usage load.
The only software for linux that comes close - and is in any measuable use,
is NN and SO.
Both of these programs are horribly buggy, devoid of features, and are every
bit and more the memory hogs of their windows counterparts.
Linux does not have these applictions Gcc? It's a decent compiler. But I
have to use four Xterms to do what I can do in a windows compiler with one.
I need a line numbered output window, the program source, a window for gdb,
and one to compile from. Borland C++, one window, same thing. VC++'s
debugger is pretty damn nice if you ask me. Linux is as stable as a rock,
yes. But look at what windows is attempting to do, would you? Linux is still
running nice *little* binaries, doing wonderful things. When you try and
bring windows type applications to Linux, it fails. Period.
you think desktop users want Linux?
>
> Many do.
>
> >
> > Think again. You can't even give it away.
>
> This is either incorrect (on your part) or an outright lie.
Most users want what works, now. Not what is always a work in progress.
> > The deal is Linux sucks at 99 percent of what the average person wants
> > or needs a computer to do.
>
> Again, this is an opinion. 95% of what the end user wants from a
> computer, Linux has. It is the last 5% that requires people writing a
> lot of applications.
Yes, it is opinion. What is what you're saying? You provide no facts either.
But the poster above is closer to the truth. Desktop \ home users needs are
simple
Internet, email, fianance, games. To say that Linux is very weak in this
area is being kind and anyone who uses linux knows it. Next?
> > you don't have any equivilant at all (a decent browser).
>
> How do you define a decent browser? Do you define one that is,
> admittedly pretty, and frequently takes down the OS, or one which is
> less pretty and does not.
Good history mechanisim. Good forms handling. Good bookmarking system.
Good off line browsing. Accurate display of web pages. Some soft of
application automation to enable *something* akin to OLE for varied
purposes. For a consultant, you don't know very much about browsers. The
"bring down the os" problem can be cut significantly by choosing one little
option under I.E. It's called "Browse in separate process". Try it sometime.
NN is not only "less pretty", it is nearly dysfunctional compared to I.E.
Half of the menu items have never worked in any version I've seen.
It seems like it is in perpetual beta.
You riducule the poster's positions. Crude, yes. A troll? Possible. But as
usual, the cola reply offers nothing much better.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 13:13:09 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Roberto Alsina wrote:
> > El mar, 17 oct 2000, Richard escribió:
> > >Roberto Alsina wrote:
> > >> 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.
> > >
> > >And let me guess: you STILL don't understand that, do you?
> >
> > I do understan each statement in isolation. However, I don't see
them as
> > compatible.
>
> The only object-oriented alternative to classes (in fact, the *more*
OO
> alternative to classes) is prototypes. If a language has objects
without
> any class, is it possible to create more of these objects by asking
them
> to copy themselves?
Sure. Not at runtime, though.
> Is it possible to mutate the type of these objects
> by, say, adding instance variables and methods to them?
Sure, not at runtime, though.
> Is it possible to
> override the + operator of one instance of the 'int' primitive type
and
> not another?
No, because int is not a class, not an object (in C++, at least).
> > >Can you show a contradiction?
> >
> > Sure. Let's take an imaginary language that has syntax for both
objects thar
> > are members of classes and objects that are not. The end.
>
> You're an idiot. The end.
>
> Do you even understand what "contradiction" means?
Indeed I do. I didn't think I should need to spell it to you, though.
In this imaginary language, a class could be a object that doesn't
belong to a class, while other objects belong to that specific class.
In that way, "what class is X supposed to belong to?" is an illogical
question if you are trying to prove X is or not an object (since all
answers can be true of things that are objects)
Therefore, your quip about classes doesn't lead anywhere in your
argument about classes not being objects.
> For someone who claims to know something of mathematics, you have an
> astonishingly weak grasp of it.
Strange that you say that.
> > >> I just repeated things you said. Happily now you understand why I
saw what you
> > >> wrote as nonsensical.
> > >
> > >Provide quotes along with explicit transformations of my words into
> > >your nonsense.
> >
> > I did provide the quotes. You deleted them. Too bad.
>
> Here you go:
Actually, you reversed them.
> "1) primitive types are not objects. What the class are they supposed
to be
> of anyways?" and,
>
> "I don't believe classes should exist in the system at all. New
objects should
> be created by copying prototypes."
>
>
> Now please provide the logical transformations you used to arrive at
your
> nonsense starting from these two statements.
It's a pleasure. Or rather, would be if you had not deleted the quote
you want me to reach. I can't recall it exactly anymore.
> > Because you seem to be scared of doing so. Are you afraid you would
be shown to
> > be inadequate?
>
> Hardly. I'm "afraid" of wasting hundreds of hours of my time for no
> perceivable gain.
Is it so much effort to answer my little posts?
> > >Great, now you're using two different meanings of "language" in the
same
> > >sentence. Assuming you're making any sense (to yourself, you
certainly
> > >aren't making any sense to anyone else).
> >
> > By language I mean a computer language, nothing more and nothing
else. What two
> > meanings am I using?
>
> Then you ARE an idiot.
Then you are not answering.
> > >> 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.
> > >
> > >Huh? Are you SERIOUSLY implying that I have argued that C++ does
not exist?
> >
> > No. Please come back from the alternate reality you inhabit.
> >
> > >What are you blathering on about? My position on the thread can be
reduced to:
> > >
> > >1) C++/Java dose X, and
> > >2) X *must not* be done, therefore
> > >3) C++/Java can't possibly be OO
> >
> > You have also claimed that languages MUST be introspective, have you
not?
>
> Actually, no I haven't.
quote:
> >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.
You are saying that languages SHOULD be introspective. My mistake.
> It's a huge benefit if they are however and the
> fact that C++ is not introspective is another indictment against it.
Indeed.
> > > I *did* accuse you of being too stupid to ferret out
> > >any inconsistencies in my position and to me this *seems* to
exclude
> > >the possibility of your being right in your accusation that I was
> > >inconsistent between those two articles.
> >
> > The two articles seem inconsistent.
>
> And yet, you can't seem to prove they are. Do you seriously expect me
to
> believe anything on your say-so?
No.
> > >Isn't it? Now, if the wizard just gave you a brain, maybe you'd
have
> > >what's required to come up with an intelligible one.
> >
> > Perhaps if you were less opinionated you would be a better human
being.
>
> And perhaps being arrogant, aggressive and belligerent on a newsgroup
> (especially one such as this) says absolutely nothing about being a
> good human being.
I believe it does.
> > >Hey, if you missed the article where I explain to Donovan exactly
why
> > >Java and C++ are not OO ....
> >
> > No, I read it. Yet you seem to have used "a OO language" and "a
language"
> > interchangeably all through our latest argument. Tsk, tsk.
>
> Actually, no I haven't. The only times that I've used "a language"
where
> I meant "an OO language" is where it would be ludicrous to assume I
meant
> anything else. Humans have this ability to parse from context, maybe
you
> should look to acquiring this trait.
Perhaps you are the one misjudging. Perhaps you are arrogant. Perhaps
you are lying. Who knows?
--
Roberto Alsina
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Ms employees begging for food
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 13:29:42 GMT
"Ketil Z Malde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Revenues down 20% from hundreds of billions vs revenues up 270%
> > from nothing doesn't really mean a whole heck of a lot.
>
> It could mean that the cash value of the software market is
> shrinking. If free software becomes a (more and more) viable
> alternative, it means that pure software companies will struggle to
> keep their niches, and they'll eventually die off. OTOH companies
> that are consumers of software are likely to benefit, and in
> particular I'd expect an increased demand for consultants and
> programmers.
I'm looking at RedHat (RHAT), the forefront of corporate open source
ventures...
Stock Price: 13.5, nearing 52-week low set last week at 10.62
3 Month Trend: -46.7%
6 Month Trend: -48.6%
12 Month Trend: -64.1%
Sales: 69.7Mil
Income: -65.2Mil
Dividend Rate: 0 (the can't issue dividends)
Current P/E: NE
E/S: -0.52
Net Profit Margin: -93.50%
This does not sound like a healthy company. If you look at
their income trends, it's rapidly declining.
What's more frightening is that as sales grows ever so slightly,
income drops at an alarming rate. This most likely means that
they're pouring gobs of money to get their meager sales with
very little return. Investors don't like to hear that.
-Chad
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
