Linux-Advocacy Digest #790, Volume #32 Tue, 13 Mar 01 15:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: C# ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Austin Ziegler)
Re: What does IQ measure? (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: What does IQ measure? (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: C# ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Linux is like Pizza (Jakob Kosowski)
Re: There is money in Linux (Tim Hanson)
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (Jay Maynard)
Re: What Linux MUST DO! - Comments anyone? (Matthias Warkus)
Re: C# (Edward Rosten)
Re: Customising Wrap-Up Screen. (WAS: "It is now safe to shut off your (Edward
Rosten)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: C#
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 13:13:34 -0600
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > Part of a .EXE file is Microsoft-centric code that is interpreted by
> > > the loader. Since you claim that these things are mutually exclusive,
> > > then do explain.
> >
> > The loader doesn't interpret this (in the language sense). The header
is
> > strictly a data format used in the memory allocation of the application.
> > The header is not translated to code and executed, which is what
> > interpretation is.
>
> No way. What you described is compilation.
It's compilation if it's done in batches, more than one instruction at a
time.
Interpretation is the act of translating some kind of source (be it actual
source code or intermediate code) to assembly on instruction at a time and
executing it as it's translated.
Compilation is translating multiple instructions and saving them to disk or
memory and only executing after some predetermined number of instructions
are translated. (on function, the complete program, etc..)
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 14:14:42 -0500
JS:
> Les Mikesell wrote:
>> The ability to also distribute under the GPL simply
>> removes the otherwise pervasive problem of combining anything
>> else with GPL'd code.
> That's not the only effect of such dual licensing.
It is the *primary* effect of such, and the one which is most meaningful.
-f
--
austin ziegler * Ni bhionn an rath ach mar a mbionn an smacht
Toronto.ON.ca * (There is no Luck without Discipline)
=================* I speak for myself alone
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What does IQ measure?
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 14:19:40 -0500
"." wrote:
>
> > This must be taking away much-needed time for your efforts to
> > prove that "war is peace" and "taxation is charity"
>
> Yes, true. I must get back on those right away, after I first prove that
> ARK = head up arse.
Going for the Don Quixote award, eh?
>
> > I believe that you're ignoring the fucking obvious truth.
> >
> > Why is that.
>
> There is no such thing as fucking obvious truth. We make observations
If see a thoroughly hacked and mangled body with a severed neck
and the skull crushed in, it is the FUCKING OBVIOUS TRUTH that this
creature is dead.
> and deductions, and then we find out what a bunch of retards we were for
> getting it all wrong.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shelala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
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....
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
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"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
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.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What does IQ measure?
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 14:20:53 -0500
FM wrote:
>
> Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >FM wrote:
> >>
> >> Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Correlation does not imply causation.
> >> >
> >> >However, Correlation which coresponds with reverse correlation
> >> >usually does imply causation one way or the other.
> >>
> >> Hmm, is there such thing as "reverse" correlation as
> >> you say it? In other words, I thought correlation is
> >> commuatative?
> >
> >yes.
> >
> >The corelation between A and B is not the same as the
> >corelation between B and A.
>
> >For example sticking one's hand, unprotected in a fire for 20 seconds
> >has corelation of 1.0 with getting a burned hand. But having a burned
> >hand has LESS than a corelation of 1.0 with having put one's unprotected
> >hand in a fire.
> >
> >A has a 1.0 corelation with B,
> >but the reverse corelation is somewhere in the range 0 ... 1.0
>
> I believe you are either in error or using some non-standard
> definition of "correlation."
I'm using the standard mathematical definition as taught in
collegiate level statistics classes.
What definition would you prefer that I use?
>
> "Correlation makes no use of the distinction between explanatory
> and response variables. It makes no difference which variable
> you call x and which you call y in calculating the correlation"
> (Introduction to the Practice of Statistics, Moore & McCabe)
>
> The formula for correlation (r) is
>
> r = 1 / (n - 1) * Sum(for each (x, y) | z[x] * z[y])
>
> --
> If God doesn't destroy San Francisco, He should apologize to Sodom and
> Gomorrah.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shelala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
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....
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
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"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
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.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: C#
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 13:25:04 -0600
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > But don't take my word for it. Look at HotSpot. It does lots of
> > things, including (literally) changing the VM to work better for
> > compiled code. One of the things it does is remove handle access,
> > one of the key memory management features of Java, because the extra
> > indirection is too costly.
> >
> >
http://developer.java.sun.com/developer/technicalArticles//Networking/HotSpo
> > t/index.html
> >
> > Since they are changing the way the VM works, and the way the
> > objects are laid out, and the way the byte-code is laid out, they
> > are literally turning the JVM into something that isn't Java, but
> > translates the java bytecode into this new format.
>
> What, pray tell, does any of this have to do with the Java *language*?
> These are all implementation details; when someone talks about 'C'
> you shouldn't expect another to go into the intricacies of
> implementation details of gcc as opposed to watcom.
We're not talking about the *LANGUAGE*, we're talking about the byte-code.
The Java byte-code, as the Javac compiler (and thus any compiler that wants
to be compatible with the sun JVM) outputs it is optimized for
interpretation.
HotSpot overcomes this (in part) by essentially changing the byte code into
a format that is better optimized for JITing.
> > > So they aren't mutually exclusive then?
> >
> > Did you read what I wrote? There is no "interpretation" in the
> > programming language sense with the EXE headers. The EXE headers
> > are simply a data table and never translated to actual code.
>
> Sure they are; they're translated into LOAD and JUMP instructions that
> the CPU will then run.
No, they're not translated into LOAD and JUMP instructions at all. Those
instructions already exist in the kernel, and the header is simply telling
the already compiled code what to do.
> > Yes, interpretation and compiling are mutually exclusive, it's
> > either one or the other. You can switch between them in the same
> > EXE, but one is very different from the other.
>
> No it isn't! It's all a matter of timing: If you do it sooner, you
> lose portability and if you do it later you lose some speed at
> execution time. JIT seems to be a very good compromise by using both
> methods simultaneously (hence, they are not mutually exclusive).
JIT is not using both methods simultaneously. It's doing a batch
translation at run-time when a function executes. That's compiling, not
interpretation.
> > > How can they look so similar, as languages, if they were designed in
> > > mutually exclusive ways?
> >
> > You are confusing Java the language, with Java the byte-code.
> > That's easy to do, since Sun seems to confuse them a lot as well.
> > For instance, they claim that MS's JVM isn't Java, yet Sun's JVM is
> > Java, but the JVM doesn't execute Java the language at all, only
> > byte codes.
> >
> > Java byte code looks nothing like Java the language or C++.
>
> I've been programming in Jave since 1995. I know a lot about it.
>
> I've been programming in C++ since before then, I know even more about
> it[1].
>
> They look almost identical from a language standpoint; Java is more of
> a pure OO language, but part of that is from the pedantic compiler
> that Sun uses with it. I'm not confusing byte code with anything --
> you are intentionally obfuscating the conversation.
No, you appear to be. We're not talking about the language at all, we're
talking about the byte code, and *ONLY* the byte code. .NET doesn't specify
a language of any type except the byte-code, thus while you can argue that
C# is similar to Java the langauge, you can't argue that .NET is similar to
Java the language.
> > > > That doesn't exist.
> > >
> > > Au contrair: There are at least 2 different physical implementations,
> > > not counting the new MAJC from Sun.
> >
> > They are designs only, not actual products you can buy.
>
> Actually, Java chips were sold -- and MAJC will come out sooner or later.
I don't think any were sold. I've never heard of a device that used them.
> > SOAP uses HTTP for it's transport protocol. That doesn't mean that
> > the content can be useable by a non-.NET application, although much
> > of .NET will be used as server-side dynamic web page content, which
> > doesn't matter what the client is (assuming you generate code that
> > is browser neutral).
>
> What does the 'H' in HTTP stand for?
Hypertext, but the transport protocol doesn't demand that there even be a
link.
> > Cobol, Eiffel, C++, VB, C#, CAML, Lisp, Perl, Python, Smalltalk,
> > Rexx, VBScript, JavaScript, Mercury, Oberon, Haskell, ML, Scheme,
> > Oz, Pascal, APL, even some iplementations of the Java language (not
> > byte-code) are being worked on.
>
> Impressive. All those languages can target Win32 already, though, so
> I shouldn't be surprised (and .NET is just the next version of Win32,
> it seems).
>
> Anyway, I'll believe all of this when I can use it under Linux --
> until then it's just more Microsoft stuff. It's great that you'll
> be able to tarket WinNet from Haskell (a nice language), but it'll be
> just that.
There is already a big push to implement SOAP on Linux, called SOUP. Migel
seems to think .NET is cool and wants to do everything he can to make it
happen on Linux.
> > > What is "generic byte-code"? Is it Intel-specific?
> >
> > No.
>
> It does appear to be so, at least for the time being (ie, it only
> works under ia32 on Windows 2000).
That's all that's available in the public beta, but they also have stated
they're releasing a CE version, which necessarily will require multiple
architectures.
> > > Is this Win64, or has that been ditched?
> >
> > No, it's platform independant. Which means that the translator is
> > free to generate 64 bit code from the bytecode if it wants to.
>
> Are we going to see Win64 ever?
You can see it right now if you're an MSDN member. You can download the
Whistler IA64 beta 1.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 14:24:36 -0500
On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Said phil hunt in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 11 Mar 2001 13:25:08
>> T. Maxine:
>>> The US is a democracy. A particular form of democracy, known as a
>>> Republic;
>> Actually, it's the other way round: a democracy is a type of republic.
> Yes, as I said; a republic is a form of democracy. ;-)
False, maxie.
-f
--
austin ziegler * Ni bhionn an rath ach mar a mbionn an smacht
Toronto.ON.ca * (There is no Luck without Discipline)
=================* I speak for myself alone
------------------------------
From: Jakob Kosowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is like Pizza
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 20:29:30 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Scot Mc Pherson wrote:
> hmmm...I like thin crust pizza, seems I like thin crust linux too.
EMBEDDED Linux!
*SCNR*
--
Linux NEVER crashes unless you really fuck up.
------------------------------
From: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: There is money in Linux
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 19:32:55 GMT
Klaus-Georg Adams wrote:
>
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> > That would be quite a trick, since they didn't IPO until 1994, and
> > they were founded in 1975.
> >
> > Additionally, their stock price was over $100 on IPO, and has since
> > split 8 times, giving them an adjusted price (relevant to their IPO
> > price/shares) of over $800 if they had never had any splits.
>
> Assuming your figures $100 initially and 8 splits) are correct (which
> I don't have a reason to doubt) I reach quite a different adjusted
> price: 25600$.
>
> Note: 100 * 8 != 100 * (2^8)
>
> --
> kga
I thought I read somewhere that Gates' shares had a basis of (split
adjusted) $5.46, but that could be an average figure, or it could be
totally wrong. Does anyone know the original IPO price?
--
We must remember the First Amendment which protects any shrill jackass
no matter how self-seeking.
-- F. G. Withington
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jay Maynard)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
Date: 13 Mar 2001 19:33:51 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 13 Mar 2001 17:55:41 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>One profiteer of BSD software can make future *licenses* of all future
>software more restrictive ("non-free"); this cannot happen with GPL,
>which is the entire point.
Pure unadulterated horse exhaust.
If this were the case, M$, or Sun, or any one of a thousand other companies,
could prohibit further development and distribution of BSD. A visit to
www.netbsd.org will demonstrate this to be utterly false.
There is *NOTHING* that M$ can do that will prohibit me from running NetBSD,
now or ever.
>That's pretty much the point. I suppose that is why you go on with this
>silly ranting about how "GPL-is-not-free". It is a fact, not an
>assumption, that GPL software is free. You cannot change that nature,
>as you can other, less free, software using other open source licenses.
More unadulterated horse exhaust. You *CANNOT* change the fact that BSD is
now and will forever be free, free to acquire, free to run, free to
redistribute. Neither can anyone else.
If people wouldn't repeat this utter falsehood, I wouldn't be compelled to
keep pointing out its falsity.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: What Linux MUST DO! - Comments anyone?
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 18:59:19 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Tue, 13 Mar 2001 17:42:08 +0100...
...and Renate Meijer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Postscript for word processing.
> >
> > Nonsense. PostScript is just a way to store prepress data.
> Eeehhmmmm... 'xcuse me. I don't like to butt in, but this is
> absurd. I've been working with PostScript for 4 years or so. It's a
> full fledged programming language specialized in anything graphic.
I know. In Joy's _Beginning_Unix_, there's a one-page PostScript
program that draws the European flag using two nested loops. I also
know that there are fractal generators that can run on a PostScript
interpreter. There is even a text formatter written entirely in
PostScript. And because PostScript is as Turing-complete as it is,
it's marvelously adaptable and flexible. Wonderful indeed.
However, PostScript is not a document format that can be compared with
Microsoft Word DOC, LaTeX, RTF, Basser Lout or such. Honestly, do you
any software that uses PostScript to store structured text that is
meant to be edited later?
I've never encountered any serious mainstream application that used
PostScript as something other than the final stage before rasterising.
PostScript does not make a good interchange file format for word
processors, because it describes pages, not a stream of text.
Have you ever encountered a piece of software that was able to
losslessly reconstruct, say, a TeX or DOC file from its PS rendering?
mawa
--
USENet Miranda Rights: You have the right to remain a silent reader.
Anything you mail or post may and will be used to flame you.
-- Chedley Aouririk
------------------------------
From: Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: C#
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 19:37:32 +0000
> > > > Part of a .EXE file is Microsoft-centric code that is interpreted by
> > > > the loader. Since you claim that these things are mutually exclusive,
> > > > then do explain.
> > >
> > > The loader doesn't interpret this (in the language sense). The header
> is
> > > strictly a data format used in the memory allocation of the application.
> > > The header is not translated to code and executed, which is what
> > > interpretation is.
> >
> > No way. What you described is compilation.
>
> It's compilation if it's done in batches, more than one instruction at a
> time.
> Interpretation is the act of translating some kind of source (be it actual
> source code or intermediate code) to assembly on instruction at a time and
> executing it as it's translated.
> Compilation is translating multiple instructions and saving them to disk or
> memory and only executing after some predetermined number of instructions
> are translated. (on function, the complete program, etc..)
Not really. Interpretation doesn't involve translation in to machine
code. It goes something like, Oh, its the "foo" virtual instruction; now
execute this piece of code. I wouldn't really call that translation. But
hey...
How would yuou classify the system used in many Forth interpreters? It's
not just in time compilation because it sort of compiles almost
everything. The compilation is a trivial mapping of names on to
addresses for function calls, which some people wouldn't really class as
compilation. But it does turn it in to machine code. But it allows you
to edit and view the functions (as text) after compilation, without
storing the function code seperately (ie the compilation is so trivial
that it is a 2 way process).
As far as I can tell, the boundery between compilation and
interpretation becomes a bit fuzzy especially seeing as all compiled
languages are eventually interpreted, albeit in hardware.
-Ed
--
Did you know that the oldest known rock is the famous |u98ejr
Hackenthorpe rock, which is over three trillion years |@
old? |eng.ox
-The Hackenthorpe Book of Lies |.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Customising Wrap-Up Screen. (WAS: "It is now safe to shut off your
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 19:25:16 +0000
> Somebody coded up a screensaver that has a number of computer crashes,
> among them the BSOD (both variants), Mac crash, PPC crash (I think),
> Amiga GURU meditation, and a SCO Unix or Xenix panic.
Find it in /usr/X11/lib/xscreensaver
I think there's a ncc1701.dll somewhere in the NT BSOD.
-Ed
--
Did you know that the oldest known rock is the famous |u98ejr
Hackenthorpe rock, which is over three trillion years |@
old? |eng.ox
-The Hackenthorpe Book of Lies |.ac.uk
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
