Linux-Advocacy Digest #382, Volume #33 Thu, 5 Apr 01 08:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Java (was Re: 696 Native MacOSX Apps So Far -) (Donn Miller)
Re: Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing? (mlw)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Something like Install Shield for Linux? ("Andy Walker")
Re: Linux sets world record !!! (Myriadimage)
Re: Baseball ("David Brown")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 07:48:44 -0400
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Java (was Re: 696 Native MacOSX Apps So Far -)
pip wrote:
> It is unfortunate that people still think that Java is only any use in
> applets. In fact I would argue that Java is not very useful for general
> applet programming for the 'net anymore.
> Donn, luckily Java is VERY useful as a general programming language that
> _does not need a browser_ but can be run as an application. Also it is
> very useful for server side programming using Servelts
> http://www.linux.com/sysadmin/newsitem.phtml?sid=1&aid=11992 (this is
> very useful if you don't get on well with PERL)
Yeah, maybe you've got a point there. Java treats objects a little
differently than C++, and it also removed some of the "dangerous" and
insecure aspects of C++, such as working with pointers at the lowest
level. Also, I believe that Java is very structured in terms of
objects, starting from "java" and "java.lang" all the way up. For
example, Java automatically (somehow) recognizes a string literal as a
string object, so you don't have to do something like
string s1("A string object."); // C++ version
string s2 = string("String object."); // Alternate C++ version
Instead, you can do
string s3 = "Another string object."; // Java version.
Because, the string class is a member of the java (or is it java.lang?)
class, string literals are considered a string object in Java.
Also, Java has a powerful library for making internet programming very
simple.
OK, now let's hear some thoughts on JavaScript as an internet scripting
language.
====== 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: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing?
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 07:55:51 -0400
Karel Jansens wrote:
>
> mlw wrote:
> > That is not sound reasoning based on the evidence. An Ice age is a perfect
> > example. How many species of plants can not handle sub-zero temperatures? In
> > the on-set of an ice age, the plants and animals that can adapt will.
> >
> Yes, an ice age would be a perfect example of your point, _if_ an ice
> age starts as a gradual and slow process. Unfortunately, there seems to
> be growing evidence of the opposite: both the start and the end of ice
> ages appear to be quite catastrophic events, changing a continent's
> overall climate in the course of centuries, or even decades! There is no
> way evolution can cope with that kind of timescale. What happens in such
> cases is a series of large-scale extinctions, followed by the re-filling
> of the emptied ecological niches due to fast radiation and adaptation of
> the surviving species.
I have would like to see a URL or something about this. I have never heard this
theory.
>
> More graphically put:
> When in a certain area the temperature suddenly drops to arctic levels,
> most species in that area will disappear because, other than by sheer
> luck, _no_ species in that area would have been adapted to low
> temperatures (such a pre-adaptation would not only have been
> unnecessary, in most cases it would have been a disadvantage in the
> competition with species that were better adapted to the actual ambient
> temperature). However, at the edges of the afflicted area, you might
> find species that have borderline adaptations to more hostile
> conditions. These species will now find ahead of them a vast, empty area
> that is merely a bit colder than they are used to. With the absense of
> an established population, it won't take them long to migrate into that
> area and radiate into new variations and, eventually, new species.
Provided that Ice ages come fast that is reasonable.
> > Yes, and this is exactly what we see with the exception of "periods of time
> > where nothing seems to happen." You see, as prey becomes better at avoiding the
> > hunter, the hunter becomes better at getting the prey. There are many forces at
> > work in evolution, competition, sexual attraction, changes in environment. Say
> > one species is food for 2 or more species of predator. Unknowingly, the two
> > predators are competing. Should one predator become too good, the second
> > predator will need to adjust because a change in its food supply.
> >
> You're thinking in terms of hunter and prey, while you should be
> thinking in terms of stable populations. There is no need for either
> prey or hunter to keep improving once a dynamic equilibrium has been
> established. On the contrary, the mechanisms you describe above
> (continuously improving) would most likely destroy both populations.
Evolution does not seek equilibrium. It seeks improvement. The feedback look to
control improvement is food supply. If the hunter out hunts prey, then hunter
needs to find additional prey, or die out. Often times both hunter and prey
become extinct, Hunter out hunts prey. the last surviving members are both very
good, until the end.
> > Ahh, so I think I understand the problem, chaos is not a lack of understanding,
> > it is, in fact, a better understanding. Where once we thought that everything
> > was knowable, we now accept this this is not true.
> >
> > It is impossible to predict the weather with 100% accuracy. Good old Albert did
> > not like the idea of chaos, and his quote was "God does not roll dice." Well,
> > he may be right, but certainly we are not gods.
>
> I have no problem with God playing a good game of craps. On the
> timescale He works in, probability is basically the same as certainty.
True enough.
>
> I have always tried to know as little as possible about chaos theory,
> because IMHO it basically says that, no matter how many times you roll
> the dice, you'll never be able to make even an educated guess about the
> next outcome. In my book, that's the same as saying: "I don't know and I
> don't care that I don't know."
The problem with predicting things is that you can not know all the factors
which affect outcome. If I go to my car this morning, and try to start it, will
it start? There is no way I can be 100% confident that this is true. Any number
of things could have happened to it. Vandals, mechanical failure, A tree
falling on it, a comet. Now, I can be pretty sure that it will start, but not
100% that it will.
Chaos attempts to define understanding of things in an aggregate with the
application of statistics and behaviors.
In your dice example, you are right, but that has nothing to do with chaos,
that is simple statistics. One can not predict the outcome of a roll of the
dice by examining the previous rolls. One can be confident, however, that over
time, that the numbers will be evenly distributed.
> > > Species do _not_ evolve with the sole purpose of becoming food for
> > > others! The evolutionary goal for every species is to preserve its genes
> > > for as long as possible. This goal can be met in two ways: either the
> > > indiviual lives forever, or its siblings will.
> >
> > They may not "intend" too, but they often do.
>
> OK, but why then did you say that a species might be "perfect at being a
> food factory for other creatures". In terms of natural selection, such a
> criterium is exactly the opposite of perfect.
A cockroach multiplies quickly, eats anything, it is a great food factory. It
has some basic evasive skills, but little more. Its survival trick seems to be
reproduction. Creatures with rapid reproduction tend to be food. Creatures with
slow steady reproduction tend not to be prey either because they are not hunted
or they are good at evading hunters. There is a great gray area between the
ends of the spectrum, of course, but as a general rule, it works.
Take insects in general. Typically insects reproduce quickly and in huge
numbers. They have defenses against other insects, but in an evolutionary
sense, have given up at trying not being food for larger animals. Their lot in
life is mostly being the recycling facility of the planet. Eat trash, become
food. From an evolutionary perspective it is a great slot to be in. IMHO this
is why insects seem to be so stable, they have reached a nitch where they are
almost perfectly adapted.
>
> > >
> > > Solution No. 1 kinda clashes with entropy, but some trees seem to have
> > > taken a stab at it. Solution No. 2 works for most species.
> > >
> > > Your misconception about evolution is that it somehow has a built-in
> > > mechanism to produce ever-improving species. This is not so.
> >
> > Why isn't it? Evolution is at work as we speak. As we create better
> > anti-biotics, we create better bacteria. The bacteria evolve to be better than
> > the anti-biotic.
> >
> No they don't. It looks that way, but the only thing those bacteria do
> is try to make a decent living in a hostile environment. That's all
> there is to it; no teleology is involved.
This is wrong. We have bacteria that have evolved resistance to our
anti-biotics. It is a picture perfect example of evolution in action. Person
gets sick, person takes anti-biotics, all but a few bacteria die, the remaining
bacteria are less sensitive to anti-biotic. The bodies immune system wipes the
rest out, but a few manage to infect someone else. That someone else is now
infected with bacteria which will not die as quickly. After some amount of
time, we have a version of the bacteria that is completely resistant to an
anti-biotic.
This is a HUGE fear in the medical community, and the list of resistant
bacteria is growing.
> > There are few, if any examples of "perfect" species, but there are many
> > examples of very well evolved species. The cockroach, all hyperbole aside, is a
> > very well evolved creature. It lives in harmony in its environment, it's
> > instincts and practices are a near perfect formula for survival. Why does it
> > need to change?
> >
> A cockroach is, like us humans, a generalist; i.e. a species that has as
> few "extra options" as possible. This means it is adapted to a multitude
> of environments, seriously increasing the survival potential of the
> species. And while a generalist will always loose against a specialist
> in the latter's favourite environment, it is better off in the end
> because it can spread more widely geographically and survive more
> drastic environmental changes than the specialist.
But it has some very specialized tricks. Rather than evolve defenses, it
evolved rapid reproduction.
>
> However, subject a generalist to a sufficient number of ecological
> catastrophies and it will kick the bucket, just like the others. We
> humans came pretty close a couple of times, the last time some 74,000
> years ago when a megavulcano eruption reduced our numbers to probably
> less than ten thousand.
When was that and where?
>
> > >
> > > It is exactly because evolution does not produce perfection that
> > > evolution exists.
> > No one argues that creatures are not perfect, but the argument is that
> > evolution pushes improvement, not just the first success to come along.
> >
> And that's the argument I cannot agree with. No mechanism in evolution
> is inherently aimed at continuous improvement. It is an illusion created
> by the fact that we are by definition situated at the endpoint of
> evolution.
How can you say we are at an endpoint of evolution? I see no evidence.
> >
> > Chief Seattle "The world is a spiders web, everything affects every other
> > thing, what man does to the web, he does to himself."
> >
> Please don't do a Gaia on me! <G>
>
> But seriously, it is sort of fashionable in these latter days to
> consider us humans as the biological equivalent of a comet impact: By
> simply being born, each of us already wiped out several species. Don't
> forget that the people claiming this kind of sh*t usually have a
> political agenda and find it convenient to ride their way to power on
> the guilt trip of gullible voters (There! That should guarantee me a
> spot in the future concentration camps of the Green Movement.) The
> planet itself can be a lot nastier than anything us humans can come up
> with (and that includes large-scale nuking).
The quote was a warning from the chief to the whites because he perceived that
the whites had no concept that they are a product of the environment for which
they had seemingly no respect.
It isn't a political agenda at all, it is a fact. Yes, the earth doesn't care
weather man survives or not, nor should it. The point was that man depends on
everything in the world to live, should we loose focus on that fact, it is
likely we may transform the world into a place where can no longer exist. Life
will continue, but man probably will not.
>
> > >
> > > The point is: neither species is perfect (a pack of human hunters will
> > > whack off the gazelle population in no time, and inbetween meals take
> > > care of the cheetahs as well), but they are good enough for the
> > > ecological niche they inhabit.
> >
> > I'm not disagreeing with "perfect" nothing can be perfect for very long because
> > everything is always changing. (Except for the damned cockroach.) The issue I
> > take is the "good enough" attitude with can be proven by observation. Some
> > species are simply amazing at how well they are adapted.
>
> Weellll... the thing about "perfect", you see... the really really
> important bit is that "perfect" lasts forever.
Perfect does not last for ever. Perfect can be a moment in time, an ephemeral
event. Think about a perfect sunset, if it lasted for ever, it would lose its
beauty,
> Otherwise it wouldn't
> have been perfect to begin with. Evolution practically guarantees you
> that the species you encounter will always be adapted to the environment
> they live in at that moment, but not necessarily to next week's
> environment. Evolution is how living things keep up with the rest of the
> planet (I should put this in my sig; it sounds cool <G>).
It isn't as simple as that. Back to our gradual changing environment inclusive
of climate, predators, new predators, etc. Skills acquired for some things can
apply to others. Being able to evade a fox may directly apply to evading a
wolf. Yet, the introduction of a wolf in an environment may directly affect
species that were too big for a fox.
>
--
I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 07:50:54 -0400
billh wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>
> >
> > That's why they need my assistance at this time.
>
> I'll agree that you in the family is handicap enough.
^^^^^^^^^^^
Bill Hudson r a kolij grajuit
--
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: "Andy Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Something like Install Shield for Linux?
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 08:57:52 -0000
Chad Everett wrote in message ...
>On Tue, 03 Apr 2001 08:16:21 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Yes, I know about "configure" and "make," but for binary distribution, is
there
>>an open source installer? One, gasp, which is pretty and programmable,
will
>>switch to root to perform the install? If so I haven't seen it.
>>
>>While I think Install Shield is a miserable hack, and anyone that has used
it
>>will fundamentally agree, it gets the job done.
>>
>>So, if one were to write such a program, should it be able to handle
RetHat and
>>Debian packages? Or would it be OK to simply use its own format? Self
>>extracting is a must.
>>
>>Anyone have any ideas?
>
>Yes. My idea is that is is a mistake to forget about rpm. rpm could be
made to
>sudo to root for certain users, but I don't think you want to do this.
Normal
>users can always use rpm to install binaries in their local directories if
they
>want, without getting root.
>
>What the heck is the matter with rpm?
>
>
The thing I've found with RPM is that the GUI's for it are ten times more
difficult to use than when using a CLI.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Myriadimage)
Date: 05 Apr 2001 11:55:49 GMT
Subject: Re: Linux sets world record !!!
>I'd consider MSFT going from $140 to $55 in ninety days a serious
>shitstorm of majestic proportion as well. Or Cisco from $150 to $14. Or
>any of the other NASDAQ stocks that have tanked this week.
Microsoft never went from $140 to $55 in ninety days.It has a market cap higher
than IBM and Cisco combined at over $277 billion.The 52 week high on msft is
$96.50.
------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Baseball
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 14:00:56 +0200
. wrote in message ...
>> Professional rugby is a different matter, but the majority of rugby is
>still
>> played at the amateur level (truely amateur, as distinct from something
>like
>> athletics where the top competitors live off sponsership money). That is
>> really what makes it different from many other major sports.
>
>Most sports have a huge amateur following. Perhaps not in NZ so much, but
>to claim Rugby is different from other sports because a lot of people play
>it at the amateur level seems a bit odd.
>
The point is not that there is a huge amateur following for rugby (it is
nothing compared to the amateur following for football (soccer) in the UK,
for instance), but that rugby is almost entirely amateur. When you watch a
rugby match on TV, you are watching amateurs. When you go to watch a big
Scotland-England rugby match, the players are all amateurs - they play
because they enjoy the game, and they play to support their country or local
club, rather than just for the money. There is nothing wrong with playing a
game for money, of course, but it brings a different attitude and atmosphere
to the game.
>
>> This means that it makes sense to support your local rugby team, because
>> they *are* a local team.
>
>I have to admit, that makes no sense to me. Why is it sensible for me to
>support a local team I couldn't give a rats buttcrack about? 'Because they
>really are local'? Hahaha =)
Many people like to think they "belong" to a town or city. They like the
place, they like living there, and they like to be part of that community.
They like to support local teams, and feel that they have done well if their
team has done well. This makes sense if your local team are actually local
people, playing for the same reasons as you are watching, but is meaningless
if they are simply hired thugs from other parts of the country (or even
other countries), as is the case in football.
>
>
>> Being amateurs, rugby players are "real people". They have real lives
>> outside the sport, and are a wide range of people. I have met rugby
>players
>> who have trouble working out which end of a spade to hold,
>
>OHHHH yes.
>
>> and others who are consultent doctors.
>
>I'd think this was a bit more rare than the confused-spade variety, but I'm
>perfectly willing to believe people of all intellectual levels enjoy some
>form of sport. It's just that the game seems to me to not be particularly
>suited to any kind of strategy, except perhaps 'sic these guys on those
>guys, and pass the ball to the fast bastard'.
There is a big difference between seeing the occasional snatch of a rugby
game on TV, and actually having played it and knowing the people who do play
it - I don't think you are in an appropriate position to judge who plays
rugby and who doesn't. I knew (vaguely, I'll admit - they were at the same
school as me, but in different years) three people who have played rugby on
the Scottish international side. All three were pretty smart (at least a
bachelor's degee at university). The rugby tradition is very strong in
private schools in the UK - a substantial proportion of players come from
this background (there are other areas where rugby is very popular, such as
rural areas in south east Scotland and in Wales). A lot of these players
are smart and well educated.
>
>It can hardly be considered a battle of the minds. It is a competition,
but
>primarily a physical one.
>
There is no doubt the competition is primarily physical, but there is a
definite degree of intelligence needed by at least some of the players. The
emphasis on different skills varies from time to time - modern teams tend to
emphasise speed over strength as compared to teams 20 years ago, for
example. But rugby was developed to some extent as a way to exercise the
body and relax the mind - that in no way implies that it is only played by
the stupid.
>
>> They play rugby for fun - it is not fun to get
>> maimed by the opposition, so players don't do that. Sure, there are
>> injuries and accidents, and the occasional angry fist, but there is
>extremly
>> little intentional injury. And after the match, they all clap each other
>on
>> the back, shake hands, and have a big bath together.
>
>Hehehe, a big bath... so that's what you call it now ;)
>
I didn't invent the tradition (we had showers at my school), but tradional
rugby changing rooms have huge baths rather than (or as well as) showers.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
