Linux-Advocacy Digest #943, Volume #29 Mon, 30 Oct 00 17:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Why don't I use Linux? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays. (Ulrich Weigand)
Re: To all you WinTrolls (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Why don't I use Linux? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why don't I use Linux? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Chris Wenham)
Re: Why don't I use Linux? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Why don't I use Linux? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: To all you WinTrolls (T. Max Devlin)
Re: To all you WinTrolls (Jake Taense)
Re: Ms employees begging for food (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Pros and Cons of MS Windows Dominated World? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why don't I use Linux?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 21:11:39 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron Ginn) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Which Windows, Pete? You're doing it again.
Which Linux? Linux-Mandrake, SuSe, Red Hat...
>> Borland Delphi and C++ Builder are two of these packages. They are
>> going to appear on Linux, but not yet.
>
>So use something else. There are plenty of alternative packages for
>free. For me, nothing comes close to XEmacs for C/C++ development.
There is nothing else.
>There are plenty of nice free options on Linux. Have you checked out
>KWord in KDE 2.0? I just downloaded and installed Mandrake 7.2
>yesterday which comes with KDE 2.0 and it's very nice. I used to use
>Sawfish without GNOME or KDE, but I can see myself switching for good
>to KDE for Konqueror alone. No longer can anyone say that Linux lacks
>a usable browser. Heck, Konqueror even does full-screen browsing,
>which was the biggest complaint I had about Netscape.
I'll be getting Mandrake 7.2 as soon as I order it - I only found out it
has been released today.
Unfortunately the last time I upgraded from 7.0 to 7.1 things did not go
terribly well.
>LyX with TeX as the engine is still easier to use than Word or
>anything else if you aren't into micromanaging your output.
WYSIWYG is still easier than a text editor and engine.
>So keep Windows for games. Linux is not the best option for gaming at
>this time.
So we at least agree on something; Windows is a better platform than Linux
at this time.
>I don't have any USB devices so I can't comment. Mandrake 7.2 appears
>to support all kinds of USB out of the box, so this may be an option.
I found my USB ZIP is working after all. My drive was replaced due to
failure. My HP scanner was not supported the last time I looked.
>> XNews is a news reader on Windows; there are plenty of news readers on
>> Linux.
>
>So it appears that this is not a reason you aren't using Linux, right?
>Why did you list it here?
Pointing out the plus side as well as the minus.
>> My US Robotics 56k modem is supported on both Windows and Linux, no
>> problem there.
>
>Ditto.
As above.
>> Unreal Tournament is on both platforms; the lack of 3D sound on Linux
>> is a problem. Same with Quake III Arena.
>
>This is such a minor issue, I can't believe you're still using this as
>a reason not to switch. Sure, I guess 3-D sound is a nice thing to
>have, but is an unstable Windows box really worth 3-D sound? If this
>is going to hold you up, I can't really say anything to convince you
>otherwise. Besides, why can't you keep Windows around for games, and
>use Linux for other things?
3D sound is my job.
So, I'll keep Windows around to keep hearing 3D sound and eventually use
Linux.
>To be honest Pete, I don't think anyone cares whether you switch to
>Linux or not. There are free replacements for virtually everything you
>listed that are as good or superior to all your current Windows
>programs. Whether you choose to use them or not is up to you. If you
>want to spend upwards of $300 to get a W2K system that might suit your
>needs compared to a Linux package that will cost mybe $20 at the local
>computer store, that's your choice. You know all this already, so I
>know this won't sway you at all, but maybe something I've said will
>have some influence. I'm not a Microsoft hater; I have Win98 SE at
>home, but Linux is a better solution for 95% of what I do. It's free,
>stable, secure (if you know what you're doing), and I know it will
>always be around in some form. Regardless of how big Microsoft is
>right now, you can't say the same for them.
There are still a few major obstacles that I'm waiting to change. Since I'm
a GUI developer that's why I'm waiting for Kylix to appear (Delphi for
Linux). I could learn a whole new set of interfaces but I'd rather stick
with what I know for now.
As people not caring if I switch or not... what can I say?
--
Pete Goodwin
---
Why don't I use Linux?
Waiting for Borland to release Delphi.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ulrich Weigand)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays.
Date: 30 Oct 2000 22:11:05 +0100
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>"Ulrich Weigand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8ticfg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> The maximum *file* size is somewhat less: again, with 4k block
>> size, an indirect block can span 1024 blocks, or 4MB file size,
>> a double-indirect block spans 1024 indirect blocks, or 4GB
>> file size, and a triple-indirect block spans 1024 double-indirect
>> blocks, that is 4TB file size. The total file size is thus
>> 4TB + 4GB + 4MB + 40kB (1 triple-indirect, 1 double-indirect,
>> 1 indirect, and 10 direct blocks inside the inode).
>That doesn't help you when the all the file access functions are 32 bit.
>fseek, for instance, under Linux uses a signed 32 bit integer, which allows
>for only 2GB file seeks, and file pointers in the C runtime are 32 bit, so
>you can't seek past the end a file.
Sure, you also need a C runtime that provides the 64-bit variants of the
file access routines (read64, write64, lseek64 etc). There's a well
understood way how to deal with this, the LFS (Large File Summit) standard
that is used by most commercial Unixes. I didn't mention this because the
GNU libc has been able to (optionally) provide these routines for longer
than the kernel did, so the kernel changes I mentioned were the last piece ...
(Of course, the libc routines didn't actually work on kernels without
support for large files.)
>Sure, you could use low-level calls to access the file-system, but most of
>the programs out there won't, such as the gnu utilities (more, tail, etc...)
Using the LFS mechanisms, you just need to recompile the utilities
with a certain #define set (which the configure script automatically
does, if the LFS routines are found to be present -- the GNU utilities
have been able to use large files on commercial Unixes for a long time),
and all the standard routines will transparently handle 64-bit file offsets.
--
Dr. Ulrich Weigand
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: To all you WinTrolls
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 21:43:16 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Mon, 30 Oct 2000 20:28:37 GMT...
...and Jake Taense <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Guess what? I know several people who tried linux - an honest, real attempt -
> gave up, and went happily back to Windows. Some of them made the claim that
> you mentioned above - "Linux sucks".
If you can't name them and point me at negative statements they made
about Linux, I'll take it you're inventing those people.
mawa
--
Look at the community. Look at how fast they turn the crank. They know
how to create a desktop environment out of the middle of nowhere in
less than two years - how could there be a company not scared by this?
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why don't I use Linux?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 21:16:51 GMT
No-Spam (Terry Porter) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>Your statement that Word is "fuck all use" is wrong.
>Thats true, its useful for earning Microsoft $$$$$
Still not the truth. I use Word to write letters and small reports. The
statement "fuck all use" is wrong.
>>Ah yes, Gimp is somehow better than PSP. Yet I've pointed out features
>>that PSP has that GIMP doesn't. Somehow, GIMP is supposed to be
>>superior than PSP?
>Have you ??? I must have missed them.
Yep, you certainly did.
>>Cryptic names are too common on Linux. Does a user know what 'cat' or
>>'ls' or 'grep' or 'pwd' mean? As opposed to 'type', 'dir', 'find'?
>
>Own a car ?
>Know what "efi", "fwd", "airbag", and "air" mean ?
dir for directory is less cryptic than ls;
type as in typea file is less cryptic than cat;
find is less cryptic than grep;
Seems perfectly simple to me.
>Hahah yes absolutely, your derision and ignorance most certainly make
>you a Wintroll, even to those that havent seen you in action on COLA
>over the last year.
I'm a troll to a small vocal minority of people on COLA, because that's
what they want to see, yourself included. I've spoken to one or two others,
who bother to listen, and they don't see me as a troll.
So, yes, I deride and dismiss anyone who calls me troll.
>>Waiting for Borland to release Delphi.
>You wont have long to wait.
Yes, it's already rumoured to slip to early next year. It was supposed to
be this year.
--
Pete Goodwin
---
Why don't I use Linux?
Waiting for Borland to release Delphi.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 16:20:40 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Jake Taense in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, XYZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>My thoughts on Windows 2000....
><snip>
>
>You rebel, you! Coming to a linux advocacy group and griping about Windows!
>Takes a lot of courage.
>
>Looking for a little congratulatory backslap?
>
>Obviously you aren't looking for debate or even a solution to the problem, or
>you would be taking the discussion to a Windows support group. You're simply
>here to gather some "me too" posts.
I think you simply disagree with what "a solution to the problem"
consists of.
--
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! ======
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why don't I use Linux?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 21:18:48 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Brown) wrote in
<8tjfd6$v2n$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>"Type" is what you do at the keyboard - why do you think that "type" is
>somehow more intuitive than "cat"? "ls" is short for "list", "dir" is
>short for "directory" - neither one is more or less cryptic than the
>other.
type file?
Seems pretty obvious to me.
cat file or concatenate file...
hmmmm... sorry a bit strange
dir is directory what is list? List of files? Lists? What? Why 'ls', why
not 'list' - why so short?
--
Pete Goodwin
---
Why don't I use Linux?
Waiting for Borland to release Delphi.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
From: Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 21:18:52 GMT
>>>>> "Bruce" == Bruce Schuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Because of the OPEN source model the GNU/LINUX system is
>> light years ahead of Microsoft.
> Yup. Anyone can download the source. Modify it. Compile it. Distribute the
> original source and the new binaries and call it a distro.
Anyone can put rat poison in a bottle, add water and food coloring,
call it "Bob's Coca Cola" and sell it on the street corner.
Expecting to compromise Linux or any other piece of Free software
this way is just as silly.
If you're stupid enough to use an OS that you received from someone
you don't know or trust then it's your own fault.
You don't have to buy your copy from someone you don't know on e-bay,
you can choose from several vendors who have reputations and
accountability.
Anyone concerned about security will evaluate the source of their
copy. Maybe it's harder to put a back-door into the copy of Windows
you plan to sell on e-bay, but it's not impossible for an independent
company to specialize in audited distributions of Free software
either. The Free Software model allows for this, the closed-source
model doesn't.
If one wished to use Free software and feel secure about it at the
same time, one could.
Regards,
Chris Wenham
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why don't I use Linux?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 21:23:03 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (2:1) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Your statement that Word is "fuck all use" is wrong.
>
>Mabey it's exaggerated. It's not much use.
Maybe it's wrong. There's a big difference.
>In the UNIX world, multiple features are gained by using multiple
>programs. Us xv as an image browser. Use GIMP as an image editor. The
>windows way and the UNIX way are different. You don't want to accept the
>UNIX way (or you'd use a seperate program as an image browser). Your
>lack of acceptance does not make it worse.
It has nothing to do with the UNIX way...
PSP can edit AVI, MPEG, animated GIF... can GIMP?
>> And that makes me a "troll"? Sheesh!
>
>What makes you a troll is that you think that an cryptically names app
>under windows (such as paradox etc...) is somehow less cryptic than
>under UNIX.
type is less cryptic than cat
dir is less cryptic than ls
find is more meaningful than grep
>I said Exel is a cryptic name. You said it isn't because I know what it
>means. That meand that NONE of the UNIX commands are cryptic because I
>know what they do. Clearly, that's bollocks.
I didn't say they were less cryptic, I said you knew what they meant.
Why do you know what they mean?
Because they appear on a more popular system. Everyone has heard of them.
--
Pete Goodwin
---
Why don't I use Linux?
Waiting for Borland to release Delphi.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why don't I use Linux?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 21:23:42 GMT
bobh{at}haucks{dot}org (Bob Hauck) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Yes it is funny what multi-millions of marketing dollars can do for
>your name recognition.
Microsoft don't make all the products listed.
--
Pete Goodwin
---
Why don't I use Linux?
Waiting for Borland to release Delphi.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To all you WinTrolls
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 16:29:53 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Jake Taense in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>> Almost every linux user i know including myself has used Win9* Win 2000
>>> etc... either at work, at school or at home. I used Windows NT/Win 9*
>>> four years before i switched over to Linux. I have even tried out
>>> Windows 2000, and yes Windows 2000 is pretty good file://by Windoze
>>> standards//. So i, and most linux users has had first hand experience
>>> with Windoze and know at least the basics. But the morons who write
>>> "Linux sucks" have usually not even seen a Linux screenshot. So before
>>> you write "Linux sucks" try out Linux for an year or two. Until you have
>>> done that shut up!!!
>
>On what basis do you make this claim?
More importantly, on what basis do you question this claim?
>I really want to know what leads you to
>believe that none of these people have tried linux.
I would guess your intent is actually to determine which miscellaneous
obfuscation you will attempt to use to deny that this is, in fact,
common experience, shared by a great many more people capable of
reasonably articulating it than the alternative.
>Guess what?
What?
>I know several people who tried linux - an honest, real attempt -
>gave up, and went happily back to Windows.
Well, if they were happy to begin with on Windows, why were they trying
Linux. Or, for that matter, what leads you to believe that if they
claimed they were happy on Windows, they were actually making an honest
and real attempt to try Linux?
>Some of them made the claim that
>you mentioned above - "Linux sucks". Is their opinion invalid because it
>doesn't match yours?
No, but it is certainly a major clue. Why, for instance, do you presume
the problem wasn't a) they're just dumb people, not any good at using
Windows either, but familiar with the click-click-reboot paradigm, or b)
they're so locked in to not being able to learn how a computer works by
being forced to use monopoly crapware that they simply didn't realize
that not responding to the exact same mouse-clicks the way they would
have guess Windows does would not constitute "sucks" in any reasonably
valid opinion. Now, if their opinion matched mine, then, yes, it would
be valid in my opinion. Since it doesn't, I suspect there is some
reason they are so mistaken as to hold an opinion which I consider
invalid. Unfortunately, the only way to determine the facts of the
matter in such cases is for both sides to be willing and able to learn.
Considering your friends found it too difficult to learn Linux to begin
with, I'm afraid so far only one side is up to the challenge.
--
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] (Jake Taense)
Subject: Re: To all you WinTrolls
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 21:34:06 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>It was the Mon, 30 Oct 2000 20:28:37 GMT...
>....and Jake Taense <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Guess what? I know several people who tried linux - an honest, real attempt -
>
>> gave up, and went happily back to Windows. Some of them made the claim that
>> you mentioned above - "Linux sucks".
>
>If you can't name them and point me at negative statements they made
>about Linux, I'll take it you're inventing those people.
>
>mawa
Jerry Jackson, Terry Adamoski, Liz Fruer. All residents of Edmonton, Alberta,
Canada. But what good is that? I could easily be inventing them. I can't point
to their statements. Shall I have them come onto cola and state their
opinions? That can be done. What would happen is they would be labelled as
Microsoft zealots, even if they expressed not one single pro-Microsoft
sentiment, and their claims would be dismissed out of hand.
Your response is typical. "Nobody could EVER find something negative about
linux. He must be lying."
Lots of people have genuine, valid complaints about linux. I use it at home
(RH6.2 currently) a good deal of the time, but I have a number of unresolved
complaints.
If you start questioning claims that lack direct evidence, perhaps you should
start with the huge and varied claims that the linux publications like to make
concerning the installed user base. Talk about unsubstantiated drivel.
But, like all linux advocates (and advocates in general) if it supports your
opinion, you accept it without question, and if it doesn't, you attack the
source of the info as your starting point.
(By the way, that last bit was not directly related to this post - more to the
tone of your posts in general (thanks to a deja search).)
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.os.netware.misc
Subject: Re: Ms employees begging for food
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 16:39:13 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Casper H.S. Dik - Network Security Engineer in
comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>[[ PLEASE DON'T SEND ME EMAIL COPIES OF POSTINGS ]]
>
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>You are under the impression that throughput tests would involve
>>measuring the utilization of the Ethernet. That is specifically what I
>>meant to point out would be of dubious value. I have no interest what
>>an ethernet can do in isolation or in thought experiments. If you're
>>going to design a [complex] network which includes Ethernet, you should,
>>as Robert Metcalfe intended when he designed the thing, consider your
>>"bandwidth" to be a nominal 10% of the bit rate. Unless you're not
>>using shared ethernet, and hardly anyone uses shared media these days.
>>And then they wonder why their shared switches don't make all of their
>>"network" problems magically disappear, like the sales droid promised.
>
>The 10% (I thought 30?) maximal nominal use is a malicious
>misinterpretation of one of the more interesting papers on ethernet.
The phrase "maximal nominal" does not parse. I know the 30% number
you're referring to, and that is, indeed, related to my placement of
"nominal throughput" at 10%. CSMA/CD does have a "logarithmic response
curve" under shared-media load. But the question can be asked "so you
can rely on 30% bandwidth; fine. Now, *which* 30%?"
The question doesn't really make sense, I know, but it highlights the
nature of the problem, and the reason I don't use the "collision
avoidance" metric for throughput when dealing with an Ethernet as a
single component of a complex network. Sure, as long as you only look
at that Ethernet, and optimize *it*, rather than optimize the network to
use it in the most efficient manner, you will want to stick to the "30%"
rule of thumb (bw utilization averages of greater than 30% should be
avoided for maximum throughput).
Another reason I would call 10% *nominal throughput*, in contrast to
that 30% figure, is the observation that at the time of the creation of
Ethernet, microcircuit components for LAN-style transceivers generally
used a cost/performance break point of 1 to 2.5 Megabits per second. In
contrast, the CSMA/CD method required very fast transmission bit rate,
and the components became much more expensive. Yet, with the
logarithmic response curve, shared media ethernet wasn't expected to
reach even 50% utilization. It appears that in order to ensure a
nominal throughput on the order found in similar designs, a 10 Megabit
NIC and media were necessary.
>It's about the worst case, many station, tiny gram situation which doesn't
>exist in any practice.
Well, if it didn't, then why did everyone go to switched Ethernet just
about as fast as they could afford to?
>>Sure, the use of "arbitrary" logical addressing is nice, but the IPX
>>method of simply using the MAC address plus a network number doesn't
>>require *any* client-side configuration, and makes it much easier to
>>identify which transceiver is associated with which host. You can
>>always use LLA, if you want, but that's a hassle which doesn't provide
>>any real operational functionality.
>
>Like IPv6?
No, I don't think so. What part of IPv6 did you think might be
comparable to what I described?
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]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Pros and Cons of MS Windows Dominated World?
Date: 30 Oct 2000 21:41:04 GMT
X-Newsreader: ProNews/2 Version 1.00
Good polling can and should be very crafty at working its way
over, under and around such stances, as might be assumed by a
potential voter. The sequence of the questions as well as the
rapid-fire delivery is crucial to success, much as with
lie-detector proceedure. Not that I place much faith in, or
accept the constitutionality of lie-detecting, but for the
process to be at all effective a robust execution is required.
I doubt that many naiive pollees can so conciously direct their
responses as you seem to believe. Inevitably the gratuitous
responses will pile up in such a fashion as to nullify
themselves.This, of course, presumes the highest level of
political science/statisticalanalysis is practiced, an assumption
not easily made today. E.g. this morning's news: 'W' *leading* @
43%, AlGore@42%, poll accuracy +/- 3% - what a crock! Old
man Gallup, who knew his stuff, now turns in his grave.
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writ:
>
> For several months now, the race has been reported as "neck and neck".
> The poll figures are generally both candidates having mid-40s in polls
> identified to include "likely voters". It wouldn't surprise me,
> however, if this is a complete delusion, caused by the effects of
> Citizen's Dilemma game theory (or game hypothesis, I should say).
>
> When a citizen is asked whom they prefer, they have several iterative
> choices. First, they can disqualify their input for poll numbers by
> saying they are unlikely to vote or are undecided. Then, if they have
> stated they will vote, they are provided the option of naming an
> individual candidate. It must be said that, apart from the desires of
> the pollsters to have their survey numbers considered accurate, there is
> no abstract reason for the citizen to tell the truth, nor to lie. BUT,
> if they are aware of their options (consider that they are under no
> particular obligation to *not* lie), there is some small chance that
> they will say they'll vote for the other guy, simply to throw off the
> tracking. Likewise, they could say they will vote for their chosen
> candidate, even though they are actually unlikely to vote. Finally,
> they may say something which is effectively arbitrary, because whether
> true or false it does not reflect what their true vote will actually be.
>
> Add to this the fact that the numbers provided by the polls, which guide
> the opinions of the citizen to begin with in their choice of what to
> say, since they may want to back "the underdog" in the poll, regardless
> of their perspective true voting behavior, or they may say they are more
> convinced of their vote simply because the poll numbers don't give them
> any reason to want to modify the status quo of opinions with their own
> statistical contribution to the way that status quo is reflected.
>
> In the end, I think the more "dead heat" the polling numbers are, the
> more non-indicative they are. On top of all this 'second guessing'
> prompted by an inherent grasp of game theory amongst the players of
> Citizen's Dilemma, those taking the polls encourage people to pay more
> attention to the polls if the election is considered to be "up for
> grabs".
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
Vacuo
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
