Linux-Advocacy Digest #839, Volume #30 Wed, 13 Dec 00 06:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Steve Mading)
Re: Caifornia power shortage...
Re: OS and Product Alternative Names - Idiocy in action
Re: Whistler review.
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Steve Mading)
Re: Whistler review.
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Steve Mading)
Re: OS and Product Alternative Names - Idiocy in action (mitch)
Re: Finding hardware compatible with Linux
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Re: Whistler review.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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!
Date: 13 Dec 2000 10:09:17 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Steve Mading writes:
:>>> But YOU were the one talking about how inconsistent the quitting
:>>> command "ZZ" is (eariler).
:>> Where did I allegedly say that? I merely said that exiting the editor
:>> is one of the first things you need to learn. It never ceases to amaze
:>> me of the difficulty some people have with reading comprehension.
:> I hate it when people waste my time making me look things up in
:> dejanews because they can't remember what they posted a few days
:> ago.
: How ironic, coming from the person who accused Aaron of claiming that
: nothing is intuitive.
This is a point I just responded to in another two posts. I won't
repeat it here. (Note, normally I'd just snip it off in this case,
but I don't want to see you put in that assinine "note: no response"
reply just because I don't want to repeat the response 3 times.)
: Fortunately, I can remember what I posted a few
: days ago, and your quotation proves it.
No it doesn't. It proves there is at least one such case, not
that it is a regular occurance.
:> Okay, here goes:
:>
:> From the URL:
:>
:http://x52.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=701721023&CONTEXT=976576911.1172570136&hitnum=5
:>
:> ] Well, it's been a while, but I suspect that the first vi commands
:> ] I saw were i, Esc, and ZZ. That made d$ still a special case.
: Gee, and there it is: exactly what I claimed I said. Note that I am
: talking about the first vi commands I saw. Above I said that exiting
: the editor is one of the first things you need to learn. Perfectly
: consistent. Not a single word about ZZ being inconsistent.
Then what does this sentence mean: "That made d$ still a special case."
: What I noted earlier has been reinforced: you do suffer from reading
: comprehension problems.
Then what does this sentence mean: "That made d$ still a special case."
:>>> I'm saying that it doesn't have to be
:>>> taught that way, and in my case it wasn't.
:>> Were you taught the undo command before you were taught how to save
:>> your text and exit the editor?
: Note: no response.
I ingored it because it had nothing to do with me. I don't
have to answer for all things said by others.
:>>>>> ZZ was just a quick shortcut mapping to the 'real' command.
:>>>> Why do you suppose it was added?
:>>> Dunno - I don't use it or find it convienient.
:>> Think about it.
:> Okay, I did. I still don't find it convienient because it doesn't
:> tell me what kind of quitting it is doing. I prefer the control over
:> the types of quitting: :wq! vs :wq for example.
: You obviously didn't think about it enough. It exists within vi.
: Apparently you haven't figured out why yet.
Someone wanted it. That someone isn't me - so I don't pretend to
know the motives of the person who put it in there. I don't
pretend to have ESP. If you think you do, then please enlighten
us, oh exhaulted one.
:>>> Whatever it was that caused the distraction (phone rings, lose
:>>> train of thought, brain fart, whatever) is going to be vastly
:>>> more of a factor.
:>> Irrelevant, given that I'm talking about the speed of operation
:>> of the editor itself, not the wall clock time getting an editing
:>> job done.
:> Bull.
: Oh really? Suddenly you know more about what I'm saying than I do?
I just know that this doesn't mesh with your previous posts.
:> If you believed that, then you wouldn't have brought up
:> the whole point about losing track of where you were in the first
:> place.
: Illogical. Distractions are a fact of life. The time it takes me
: to write a program can be measured as the time spent working with
: the editor itself. With vi I am slower than with other editors.
: The time spent on distractions doesn't change that, but the
: occurrence of distractions does have an effect on the time spent
: working with the editor.
You are drawing arbitrary lines where there is no reason to.
: Furthermore, I derive some benefit from using the same editor for
: both programming and manipulating data files. The block column
: features of BRIEF are what attracted me in the first place.
So do I - vi.
:> Clearly, you had the human-time spent in mind as the
:> important metric,
: Incorrect.
In that case, you have an irrelevent metric in mind.
:> or such an issue would never have come up.
: Illogical, for the reason I just gave.
:>>>>>>> It is consistent with being the end of the type of motion command
:>>>>>>> you gave.
:>>>>>> Do you consider d to be a "motion command"?
:>>>>> '$' is the motion command, not 'd'.
:>>>> But you called it "the end of the type of motion command you gave".
:>>> *I* didn't call it anything - pay attention to the attributions.
:>> Practice what you preach. There is only your attribution to pay
:>> attention to.
:> Silly me. Again I got presumptuous and assumed you'd remember who
:> you had been talking to in a thread you were participating in.
: Is that your justification for removing attributions?
No - I never said it was. If I was an asshole, I might try to
claim you had reading comprehension problems for assuming that.
: How ironic
: that you should forget who said what in a thread you are participating
: in. For example, it wasn't Aaron who claimed that nothing is intuitive.
(I already responded to this, in a post you probably haven't seen yet.
I shouldn't have to waste time saying that, but I don't want to see
one of your arrogant "note: no reply" things.)
:>>>>> That's the way the other ones work:
:>>>>> d {motion command} (delete from cursor to the moved-to-spot)
:>>>>> y {motion command} (yank from cursor to the moved-to-spot)
:>>>>> > {motion command} (indent block from cursor to moved-to-line)
:>>>>> < {motion command} (outdent block from cursor to moved-to-line)
:>>>>> v {motion command} (visually select from cursor to moved-to-spot)
:>>>>> ....etc... (the last one (v) didn't exist in the original vi, but
:>>>>> exists in all the new incarnations of it)
:>>>> Doesn't specify whether $ is the end of line or the end of file.
:>>> It's always end-of-line everywhere except where it's being used
:>>> in a place where you would normally put a line number.
:>> The key word here is "except".
:> The rule has only 2 cases. You act like there's some sort of guesswork
:> involved, as if it required rote memorization of several special cases.
: You act like it's perfectly consistent, except that you had to use the
: word "except", which demonstrates that it is not perfectly consistent.
In most editors, the 'X' key inserts an 'X' - except in the context
of pressing the control key also, in which case it cuts text. Gee,
it's so fucking inconsistent.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
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: Caifornia power shortage...
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 10:20:38 -0000
On 13 Dec 2000 15:07:01 +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>> "Aaron" == Aaron R Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
> Aaron> Actually, the REAL problem is that the ECO-NUTS in
> Aaron> California shut down practically every fission power
> Aaron> project that came down the pike in the 1970's.
>
> Aaron> If those plants had been built, a lot of oil-fired and
> Aaron> coal-fired plants would have been taken off-line a long
> Aaron> time ago AND Cali. would STILL have surplus capacity.
>
>If those plants had been built, you'd be worrying about the leakag of
>radioactive materials, including the periodically dumped nuclear waste
Where is the French version of TMI or Chernobyl?
>that is a "by-product" of *normal operation* of a nuclear fission
>plant.
No, it just sounds more exciting that way. You get all of your
pollution in one big exciting chunk instead of it being spread
out over the lifetime of a more conventional power plant.
It's not the technology, or the most visible byproducts, os
much as how the facilities are managed.
Then again, mismanaged fossil based power plants can do as much
damage to the immediate envroment as any fission reactor. In
some cases, a mismanaged fossil power plant can even do so as
quickly as a fission plant.
>
>Maybe, you're too young to have memories about the nuclear disaster
>that occurred in USSR over a decade ago. The adverse effects are till
>persisting nowadays...
...to which anyone can point to all the other examples of
Soviet mismanagement of the enviroment even without the
benefit of a graphite fire in a fission reactor.
[deletia]
--
Section 8. The Congress shall have power...
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for
limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their
respective writings and discoveries;
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: OS and Product Alternative Names - Idiocy in action
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 10:24:24 -0000
On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 09:41:46 GMT, mitch
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 12 Dec 2000 14:47:40 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>> Better operating systems != Better applications.
>>
>>This is patently false. A non-multithreading OS will not support a
>>multithreaded application.
>>An OS which does not support virtual memory will not allow an application to
>>allocate things which are bigger than RAM.
>>Better operating systems make better software easier to write.
>>[snip]
>>
>
>Hehe. Multithreading and Virtual memory does not instrinsically endow
>a poor application with greatness. The lack of these properties of
>the OS, if the application is used productively and without problems,
>is irrelevant.
...except they are relevant factors when considering whether
or not a "superiour application" can infact be used to it's
full potential.
[deletia]
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 10:27:16 -0000
On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 08:09:47 +0200, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Tue, 12 Dec 2000 15:00:50 -0500,
>> Gary Connors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Ayende Rahien wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> Do check again, anyone with root privileges and not enough knowledge
>can
>> >> crush a *nix, or any other OS, for that matter.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Going willy-nilly in root is a far cry from Win2K hosing itself when you
>> >install a wrong application.
>> >
>> >"747's are reliable, so long as you don't take off the wings" and
>> >"windows is reliable so long as you don't install 'bad' applications and
>> >'know' what you are doing" are NOT equivant statements. (and if
>> >something does go wrong it is obviously YOUR FAULT) Read my ORIGIONAL
>> >post in this light and it point should be more clear.
>> >
>>
>> <snipage>
>>
>> This is typical of the Windows mentality.
>>
>> The definition of an operating system includes the ability
>> to adequately recover from application failure. In short,
>> this means you shouldn't be able to write a program bad
>> enough to make an operating system go down. Thus, Windows
>> is not an operating system.
>
>Show me the OS that can't be taken down by an applicaiton having root
>privileges.
That isn't relevant for this discussion unless you can't
do anything useful with the OS without running as root.
>This is what we are talking about.
Doubtful.
>
>> It has no recovery, no protection, it's purely a large
>> application in itself.
>
>I still have to run into an application that will crush Win2K.
A low intensity 2D game using a mature version of DX will do.
[deletia]
--
Regarding Copyleft:
There are more of "US" than there are of "YOU", so I don't
really give a damn if you're mad that the L/GPL makes it
harder for you to be a robber baron.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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!
Date: 13 Dec 2000 10:21:42 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Steve Mading writes:
: Very good, Steve. Now, if your reading comprehension were are good
: as you claim, you wouldn't have needed to invert anything.
:> (This is the negation of "nothing about a computer is intuitive.)
: Funny how you previously translated that into "nothing is intuitive",
: or erroneously atrributed someone else's statement about that to Aaron.
Note: already replied elsewhere. Shut up about it already.
:> The problem with this statement is that natural languages like English
:> often lead to anbiguous statements,
: What is "natural" about English?
A "natural language" is one that evolved on its own rather than being
deliberately artificially designed at the outset. (Typically it refers
to 'normal' languages like English, as opposed to designed ones like
Pascal, C, Lisp, or Esperanto.) I didn't make up the term "natural
language". It's been around for a while.
:> especially when the qualifiers "some" or "all" are left off - because
:> both are often equally valid ways to interpet the statement, depending
:> on the situation. There are two ways, both equally valid, of interpeting
:> the statement "Some things about a computer are intuitive":
:>
:> A) Some things about a computer are intiutive to all people.
:> B) Some things about a computer are intiutive to some people.
: And if you understood context, namely the statements I've made that
: intuition isn't an absolute, you'd already know which case applies here.
:> If your statement is (B), I agree with you.
: You mean you're unsure?
Yes, because you say it's relative, then turn around and make
statements that are incompatable with that stance.
:> But I think Aaron is assuming you are meaning (A),
: Illogical, given that intuition isn't an absolute, which is something
: else I've made perfectly clear to him.
Ahem - I wasn't trying to defend his interpetation, just stating
that this is what it looks like it is to me.
:> since that is often what it means when someone leaves a qualifier
:> off on a statement like that.
: Evidence, please.
28 years of context as a speaker of English.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 10:30:38 -0000
On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 07:06:51 GMT, Monkeyboy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:mJEZ5.43107$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:9172p6$gjg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> > > >
>> > > > You said "...regardless of the user...". That includes privileges of
>> ALL
>> > > > kinds.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > No, with real computers the user is not the same as the administrator.
>> >
>> > Who do you think set up win2k systems? Administrator-privileged users,
>> > therefor, the point stand.
>>
>> Like I said, on real computers the administrator is not a user even if
>> it is the same person wearing a different hat.
>
>
>A user is whoever sits at the keyboard. Administrators are just users with
>unlimited access. A stupid admin is no different than a stupid user, just a
>lot more dangerous. Like I said, there is no such thing as an OS that can
>not be brought down by the idiot sitting at the keyboard. I'll go a step
...however, there are OSes that account for this properly in their
designs and those that do not.
Unix falls in the former category and any variation of Windows
falls in the later.
[deletia]
Unix has a 'safety' that works and is not normally meant to be
toggled off. Whereas Windows is generally a "double action" OS
that doesn't even afford the end user a reasonably safe mode
of operation.
--
Unless you've got the engineering process to match a DEC,
you won't produce a VMS.
You'll just end up with the likes of NT.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: 13 Dec 2000 10:31:32 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: If you allow me to add my opinion to this long thread, I believe that
: the basic problem is to determine what means "user specific".
Darn. Here I was all ready to make my reply, and then I see that
you took the words out of my mouth with one sentence.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mitch)
Subject: Re: OS and Product Alternative Names - Idiocy in action
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 10:51:43 GMT
On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 10:24:24 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>>
>>Hehe. Multithreading and Virtual memory does not instrinsically endow
>>a poor application with greatness. The lack of these properties of
>>the OS, if the application is used productively and without problems,
>>is irrelevant.
>
> ...except they are relevant factors when considering whether
> or not a "superiour application" can infact be used to it's
> full potential.
>
I cannot argue with that - if the same application is available on
multiple OS's, and it is an application which I will use dailly and
for substantial lengths of time, of course I will choose to run it on
the OS which is superior. I would be loathe to admit that the
application is any better because of the underlying OS however,
despite any marginal performance increase which may be incurred.
--
Smileys are nothing but conceptual wheelchair ramps for the humor impaired.
- Geoff Miller
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Finding hardware compatible with Linux
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 10:56:06 -0000
On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 00:45:54 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 12 Dec 2000 15:00:57 -0500, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>> I'm looking at getting a new system in the new year, but I'm looking to
>>> find which hardware (modems, video cards, etc) will work with Linux.
>>> Is there a good site anywhere that will tell me what works and what
>>> doesn't?
>>
>>Check the supported devices list at RedHat or SuSE, etc.
>>
>>video: http:/www.xfree86.org/
>>modem: any ISA or external modem, most non-"winModems" (aka LoseModem)
>>
>
>It also helps if your friendly neighborhood computer dealer has a kind return
>policy. When I moved to an atx box and dual cpu motherboard w/ agp, I tried
>three agp videoboards till I found one that worked well.
Also, a good rule of thumb is to target "middle of the road"
hardware. This is a useful practice in general. The very lowest
end products typically have problems regardless of OS as can
the bleeding edge products. Silicon can be beta quality as can
the drivers. Or your particular FooOS variant might not be
supported (well).
>
>I replaced that cheapo board 5 months later with a matrox g400; my prior
>experience w/ matrox left me no doubt that it would work well. Well, almost:
>I've yet to play around w/ it's more advanced features like dual output mode or
>to get 3d acceleration to work under xfree86 4.0.1.
[deletia]
Mandrake 7.1 with Xfree 3.3.6 will take care of the legwork for you.
--
Ease of use should be associated with things like "human engineering"
and "use the right tool for the right job". And of course,
"reliability", since stopping to fix a problem or starting over due
to lost work are the very antithesis of "ease of use".
Bobby Bryant - COLA
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 10:57:35 -0000
On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 01:36:07 GMT, kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Well, Kyle, since you nominate your self as the newsgroup genius, maybe
>you could contribute to Linux, or are you the typical luser?
>
>kiwiunixman
>
>Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>
>> Whoop-de-doo, there's ONE.
>>
>> One printer down, thousands to go.
Most people don't need thousands.
[deletia]
Most people as a group don't posess thousands.
--
Also while the herd mentality is certainly there, I think the
nature of software interfaces and how they tend to interfere
with free choice is far more critical. It's not enough to merely
have the "biggest fraternity", you also need a way to trap people
in once they've made a bad initial decision.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 11:01:00 -0000
On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 02:27:59 GMT, Chad C. Mulligan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>"Gary Connors" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
>> >
>>
>> > Since my own experiences do in fact coincide with TPC results and do
>> > contradict Netcraft results and do contradict your reported experience I
>> > must conclude that you do not understand the operating system and
>therefore
>> > have introduced the instabilities yourself. NOTE: I've done that
>myself on
>> > test systems to find the breaking points but I don't do that on
>production
>> > systems.
>> >
>>
>> Fascinating.
>> I've always wondered about this type of reasoning and how it works.
>> Blaming the user of the computer for it's problems.
>>
>> A well done OS, regardless of user, doesn't crash. End of story. Just
>> because Win2K allows the user to change the configuration in such a way
>> that the system will become unstable, does NOT mean it's the users
>> fault. It means the OS is unreliable. Especially since you need to be
>> "trained" and "skilled" in it's management. Which usually is double
>> talk for you have to be "l33t". If I have to go out of my way to learn
>> a large volume of information that not only pertains to the setup and
>> security of the OS, but also covers which applications are "good" and
>> what order to install updates to keep an OS running, then the OS is NOT
>> worth my time.
>>
>
>1. Were talking about servers not workstations.
>2. Eunuchs users are just as capable of destroying systems.
...not unless they know how to crack the root account.
[deletia]
--
Freedom != Anarchy.
Some must be "opressed" in order for their
actions not to oppress the rest of us.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
