Linux-Advocacy Digest #479, Volume #33 Tue, 10 Apr 01 09:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: another example of why Linux is brain dead. (pip)
Re: another example of why Linux is brain dead. (pip)
Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure ("David Brown")
Re: Linux on Compaq...coming this Summer. (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: Bill Gates Gets Hacked!! (Roberto Selbach Teixeira)
Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000? (Chris Croughton)
Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000? (Chris Croughton)
Re: Bill Gates Gets Hacked!! (Donn Miller)
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. (Mathew)
Re: Read this clueless Linux advocates... (Goldhammer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: another example of why Linux is brain dead.
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 11:38:33 +0100
"Mike4#@#" wrote:
>
> You guys are really amazing. a typical linux responses.
>
> Theories abone theories and steps and explanations of the
> process and pointers to documenations and why one needs to
> do this and that to make it work on linux.
You see, that is one of the reasons why people link Linux and the Linux
community because there are a lot of helpful people. And you should also
be even more surprised that information comes up in an advocacy group
rather than a help related group. Doesn't that say something?
> Yet, you are all missing a very simple fact the original poster
> pointed. Which is, one on windows does NOT have to do any of this.
> So, for a user, windows is better in this case, becuase one will
> stick the CD in and it just works. I have a CD burn software (comes
> free), and on the same PC, on widnows, I never had to tell it anything,
> I click on the icon, the software comes up, I put the blank CD in,
> and click 'write CD' and it just WORKS! amazing, I did not even
> have to compile windows NT, but how that is possible?
Well - yes and no.
You want the technical? Ok then. Actually Windows follows very much the
same process as Linux does, except for some semantics. The modules we
refer to are software device drivers which link to the kernel in order
to get your IDE writer to work. Under windows a "module" is called a dll
and performs the same function. Windows does not come with the
capability to burn cd's out of the box. That is why when you buy you cd
burner you get the install disc that contains some Adaptec burning
software. The software installs not only the burning program, but also
crucial kernel modules that allow windows to actually use the program.
That is why you then need to re-boot after the install before you use
the software (so that windows can register the dll's).
The difference?
a) Packaging : the windows version comes on a nice CD with a simple
setup.exe
b) Semantics : windows see devices differently
So, therefore as I hope that you can see, Linux could actually operate
in the same way given the correct modules and a clever script.
Why is there nothing at the moment? No one has built it. Sorry. You see
sometimes because things can be done, people don't think of making them
easier.
Of course as other posters have correctly pointed out, many modern
distribution will already AUTOMATICALLY detect and configure your burner
for you. So there you go: things are improving.
So as you can see the two worlds are not that different.
> boot to linux, and the user has to re-compile the kernel, make
> symbolic links, remeber is it /dev/sr0 or /dev/scd0 of what the hell
> it has to be, edit lilo.conf, do this and that, and hopefully it
> will work.
>
> do you guys even see the point here?
>
> probably not. You all have your thick blinders on, running around
> feeling so smart becuase you have to type 20 commands and compiler
> the kernel to get something to work, which on windows works without
> doing anything.
See the part about auto detection.
> But for the linux crowds, if something works very simply, the users
> must be dumb. It must be hard to configure, else it is not cool.
Speak for yourself. I tend to like not wasting time. That is why I am
very annoyed that my QuickCam is not working under Windows even after I
re-installed windows. The installer had crashed and now something is
wrong - but as it is all automated I have not got a clue what went wrong
or how to fix it other than re-installing windows again, which I do not
relish.
> what a pathatic world you guys live in.
If a pathetic world is where good people help each other by writing
software that is open and free to be examined, improved and used and
people help each other solve the technical problems that arise in a
giving way : then let me live in my pathetic world any day rather than
yours. You are so full of hate and spite that I don't think that you
could ever appreciate the fact that in some places people actually
_help_ each other. It may not always be _easy_, but the best things in
life often are not. What is true is that from nothing, zero, talented
coders have created a whole free system with which we can use almost as
easily as the mutli-million $ industry software. I am sorry if you think
that this is "pathetic". I think that it is wonderful and every day I
learn something new. What a great "pathetic" world I live in and may I
contribute back to this "pathetic" world with the knowledge that others
have provided me without payment or in many cases thanks. I like this
world. It is a nice world to live in. It is a community.
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: another example of why Linux is brain dead.
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 11:53:14 +0100
Craig Kelley wrote:
> what a pathatic world you guys live in.
>
> Uh-huh.
hmmmm. Needs tweaking as standard_win_rant.h seems to be included far
too many times here and is making the linker cry. The beauty of open
source.
#ifndef IDIOT_MODE
#define IDIOT_MODE
> #include <standard_win_rant.h>
#endif //IDIOT_MODE
------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 13:23:28 +0200
In other words, it is somehow a problem that Linux needs a modern kernel, or
a patch for older kernels, to be able to support files bigger than 2 Gb,
while it is no problem that NT requires a massive and bug-ridden service
pack (SP 4 was so full of problems that it reduced a SP3 machine to the
stability of the original NT4) to be able to support files bigger than 100
MB.
Goldhammer wrote in message ...
>On 9 Apr 2001 22:16:04 -0500,
>Chad Everett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Tue, 10 Apr 2001 01:37:58 GMT,
>>Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>"David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>news:9arpf3$l7p$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>>
>>>> Goldhammer wrote in message ...
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> >AFAIK, ext2 supports files up to 16Eb. The reason
>>>> >why files >2 Gb on 32-bit machines require the
>>>> >'bigfile' patch has to do with the size of int
>>>> >on a 32-bit machine. But linux on an Alpha doesn't
>>>> >have any 2 Gb "limit". Therefore, the 2 Gb "limit"
>>>> >cannot be considered limitation of Linux. It simply
>>>> >isn't, unless one argues that Linux on an Alpha isn't
>>>> >really Linux.
>>>> >
>>>
>>>It _IS_ a limitation in Linux, because few other OSes have
>>>this problem on 32-bit architectures.
>>>
>>
>>It is _NOT_ a limitation in Linux. The linux 2.4.x kernel handles files
>>> 2GB in size just fine thank you.
>
>
>Besides, there's nothing objectively wrong
>with having a 32-bit int filesize limit
>on a 32-bit machine. Just as there is nothing
>objectively 'wrong' with having 32-bit memory
>addressing on a 32-bit machine. It's a design
>implementation. However, there *is* something
>wrong with an OS, namely NT, which is supposed
>to support large files, yet craps out on >100 MB
>files unless the kernel is bugfixed:
>
>http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q171/4/58.ASP
>
>"Windows NT May Fail On Request to Open Large Files
>
>"The information in this article applies to:
>Microsoft Windows NT Workstation versions 3.51, 4.0
>Microsoft Windows NT Server versions 3.51, 4.0
>Microsoft Windows NT Server version 4.0, Terminal Server Edition
>
>"SYMPTOMS When an application tries to open large files
>(over 100MB), the open request may fail with one of the
>following error messages: Insufficient Resources - or -
>Invalid Handle. The actual error returned varies depending
>on the application being used to open the file.
>
>"RESOLUTION The allocation for paged-pool memory was
>modified to correct any problem that might occur on
>systems that have large files (greater 100MB) that
>are repeatedly opened sequentially, updated, and then
>closed. Ntoskrnl.exe and Ntkrnlmp.exe have been updated
>to correct this problem.
>
>"Microsoft has confirmed this to be a problem in Windows NT 4.0
>and Windows NT Server 4.0, Terminal Server Edition. This problem
>was first corrected in Windows NT 4.0 Service Pack 4.0 and Windows
>NT Server 4.0, Terminal Server Edition Service Pack 4."
>
>
>--
>Don't think you are. Know you are.
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Linux on Compaq...coming this Summer.
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 23:49:29 +1200
What you are basicly saying, if you have to learn a new skill, then its not worth
doing. Oh well, better not go for that driving license, or finish that degree,
because according to the anymous coward, you shouldn't need any of these so-called,
"useless" things to get through life.
Oh, that was being sacastic, for those who hadn't picked up on the tone of the
post.
Matthew Gardiner
Anonymous wrote:
> GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Joseph Ogiba wrote:
> > >
> > > This is the biggest bullshit story I ever heard. There is no demand from the
> > > public for a PC with Linux instead of Windows.You Linux diehards have a bug
> > > up your ass the size of Texas over the word MICROSOFT. If there was a demand
> > > Larry Ellison would start a company selling PC's with your "FREE" OS.Your
> > > just pissed because YOU paid $320.00 for one share of VA Linux and watched
> > > it drop to $3.00 today. Linux is DEAD as a consumer OS and Windows XP is the
> > > nail in the coffin.
> >
> > No different than you WinTroll diehards. When the great fanfare of the
> > rollout of WindowsXp arrives into town like a cheap carnival will we
> > know for sure if it really is all that it can be.
>
> i'm no more loyal to microsoft than i am to any other business. i will
> use thier products right up to the day a better option becomes available
> for the same or lower cost in time, money and aggravation and not one
> moment longer. (please note the use of the words 'time' and 'aggravation'
> in the previous sentence)
> what aggravates endusers is not the same as what aggravates system
> administrators. the success of windows is conclusive proof that stability,
> absolutely essential for servers, is a far lower priority for the people
> who purchase most desktop machines. a system that can run for years with
> no crashes is great in principle but if i have to spend years learning
> how to use it is of no practical use to me and i am going to have to go
> with what will work well enough today.
> unlike microsofts appy-polly-loggists i will not deny what is obviously
> true: windows is unstable. it crashes - badly - on me about three times
> a week. to compensate for this i save early and often.
> figure each crash costs me ten minutes of work - reboot time combined with
> whatever unsaved work got trashed (though that isn't always an issue but
> what the hell) - which adds up to around 30 minutes a week. that comes to
> 26 hours downtime annually.
> at that rate i'd have to use windows longer than it has existed* to even
> begin to equal the amount of time i'd lose just getting up to speed with
> unix.
> thus my decision to go with the less stable but easier to learn system
> is entirely rational and has absolutely nothing to do with being dumb or
> brainwashed by marketing mind control or any of the other excuses chronic
> business failures ie linux advocates use to explain why they are being
> trashed by thier reality accepting competitors.
> jackie 'anakin' tokeman
>
> * as a viable system - 1.0 & 2.0 don't count
>
> men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth - more than ruin,
> more even than death
> - bertrand russell
------------------------------
From: Roberto Selbach Teixeira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Bill Gates Gets Hacked!!
Date: 10 Apr 2001 08:57:26 -0300
Don't you think you could have chosen a better place to post this kind
of information? This is a Linux advocacy newsgroup and this has
nothing to do with it.
And I am not even starting to argue about your misuse of the term
"hack"
--
Roberto Teixeira.
On Tue, 10 Apr 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Viagra Sale Cyberprank
> Angers Bill Gates
> by Andy Soltis
> http://www.nypost.com/
> 4-9-1
>
> A young British hacker obtained Bill Gates' credit card number and
> used it to order Viagra sent to the software czar in an effort to
> show how vulnerable the Internet is, it was reported.
>
> Raphael Gray, 19, was arrested by FBI agents and British police in
> his Welsh hometown of Clynderwen and will be sentenced for unlawful
> hacking later this month, The Sun of London reported.
>
>
> Gray said he sent Microsoft an e-mail, warning it that cybercrooks
> can obtain the credit card details of people who shop online.
>
> When Microsoft showed no interest, Gray, then 17, decided to "do
> something that might grab their attention."
>
> He said he broke into customer databases of dot-com firms and found
> Gates' credit card number in one of them.
>
> Gray ordered the male potency drug sent to Gates at Microsofts'
> Redmond, Wash., headquarters.
>
> "I wanted to prove a point," The Sun quoted him as saying.
>
> "I sent Bill a lot of Viagra and I was disappointed not to get a
> thank you note for demonstrating the insecurity of the site."
>
> Gray also posted the credit card number of Gates and 23,000 other
> people on his own Web site.
>
> Gray was questioned for 14 hours and ultimately agreed to a plea
> bargain.
--
Roberto Selbach Teixeira [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Conectiva, S.A. http://www.conectiva.com
When bored with life, try Vi and experiment suffering.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Croughton)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy,alt.solaris.x86,comp.unix.solaris
Subject: Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000?
Date: 10 Apr 2001 12:03:27 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 06 Apr 2001 17:14:54 GMT, Rich Teer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Why should one have to go through such hoops to read something that
>shouldn't be sent in the first place? If every one used plain text for
>email and news, this wouldn't be an issue. And let's be honest, I
>reckon 90% of stuff that gets sent as HTML doesn't have any formatting
>in anyway, so plain text is just as good. Plain text messages are
>smaller, too.
There's no argument from me on any of that. I would be happy if no
mailer sent HTML versions of text messages, it is (in almost all cases)
not necessary.
However, given that I live in the Real World(tm) where there exist
Micro$hit and other broken mailers, and where not everyone is as
enlightened and technically competant as you and I, I find it reasonable
that when someone I know (like family, friends etc.) sends me something
in a format which I depreciate I at least make an attempt to read it,
and if that means that I have to type "!w3m" to read it instead of "r"
it's not exactly going to kill me (using telnet to port 110 and entering
POP3 commands by hand is rather more onerous, but I do that on
occasion; doing telnet to port 25 and entering SMTP by hand (which some
mailservers need, if the original acount is closed, because they take
the envelope from address as the sender's address) is even worse but
I'll do that when I have to).
For instance, my sister (who is a fairly clued user) normally sends
plain text. I received one message from her which was in HTML, so I
queried it. Apparently, she pasted in an item from a web site and the
mailer decided to send it as HTML (overriding her preferences, and not
telling her) because the inserted text was in a diffrent font. The
first she knew that it did that was when I looked at it. Now, I could
have said "HTML, delete it on sight", but instead because it was from
someone I know I took the trouble to look at what had gone wrong, and
tell her so that she knows to not do it again (and complain to the
program authors, for whatever good that will do).
Yes, one can make a decision to LART anyone who doesn't conform to some
rigid rule, but I find it better to take a bit more time and find out
why they are doing it so that it can be corrected or (if necessary)
worked round.
Chris C
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Croughton)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy,alt.solaris.x86,comp.unix.solaris
Subject: Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000?
Date: 10 Apr 2001 12:11:39 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 09 Apr 2001 22:58:53 -0400, Chris Morgan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I find Word loses out to a web document in the sense that I never get
>people encouraging me to "get with the program" if I give them a URL,
>since it's newer than Word to do that. For my current role I presented
>my own resume when I turned up at the interview. It, amazingly enough,
>didn't have all the errors that the recruitment company had managed to
>insert into it when Wordifying it. It was nicely typeset in Latex and
>laser-printed, and contained a URL to my home webserver which had the
>same exact text available in Postscript, plain text and html. Part of
>my job interview turned into a debate about how I got it to print out
>so nice... :)
Hmm, I just print out my ASCII one using a2ps, and then get into a
discussion about what a powerful tool it is, and other Unix tools.
>I think some of my colleagues actually do not know how to write plain
>ascii - literally. For example one time I wrote an email which
>contained some listed items
Let's face it, most people in corporate environments[1] can't write plain
English, let alone plain ASCII...
[1] I prefer not to work in discorporate environments for another 50
years or so...
>o like this
>o like that
>o and like the other
>
>and somone wrote to me asking me how I did the bullet points. Duh!
"Duh!" indeed...
Chris C
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 08:12:13 -0400
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Bill Gates Gets Hacked!!
Roberto Selbach Teixeira wrote:
>
> Don't you think you could have chosen a better place to post this kind
> of information? This is a Linux advocacy newsgroup and this has
> nothing to do with it.
>
> And I am not even starting to argue about your misuse of the term
> "hack"
Bill Gates himself is a hack. I know he's done some programming. God
only knows what kind of code he's capable of producing. Maybe one of
these days he'll do some hacking on the Linux kernel.
====== 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! ======
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns
From: Mathew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day.
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 22:35:36 +1000
On Tue, 10 Apr 2001, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> Goldhammer wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 09 Apr 2001 13:33:15 -0400,
> > Rob Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Right. Fascism is characterized by the *state-directed* control of
> > >the economy,
> >
> > Hmm. Sounds like communism.
>
> Precisely.
>
> Communism and Fascism are merely different sides of the same coin.
And Capitalism has state-directed controls on the economy too.
>
>
> >
> > --
> > Don't think you are. Know you are.
>
>
> --
> 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 Shalala,
> Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan,
> 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Goldhammer)
Subject: Re: Read this clueless Linux advocates...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 12:43:25 GMT
On Mon, 09 Apr 2001 19:15:54 GMT,
The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Goldhammer
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
>on Sun, 08 Apr 2001 14:56:45 GMT
><N__z6.56894$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>On Sun, 08 Apr 2001 14:37:23 GMT, WGAF <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Luckily for Linux, there are people who
>>>can see behind the hype.....
>>>
>>>http://hotwired.lycos.com/webmonkey/01/12/index3a.html
>>
>>
>>This article presents the usual incorrect
>>picture of the OSS movement as somesort of
>>'corporation' or 'business' whose goal is
>>to compete in the marketplace:
>
>They are supported by corporations, and they *are* competing,
>for mindshare, if nothing else. Whether they are a corporation
>in themselves is unclear
What is unclear about it? The OSS movement is not
a corporation. Can you show me the incorporation
papers for the OSS movement? In which country
was the OSS incorporated? Or is it an international
corporation? It's none of these things.
>but the totality of those working on open source
>certainly aren't doing it under one umbrella.
Which is why it's ludicrous to spew advice like
"The OSS movement should court Microsoft" or
"The OSS movement has to aggressively compete
in the office suit market" or "The OSS movment
has to clean up it's act with respect to having
too many GUI desktops" or "The OSS movement should
get Goldfarb-Lipschitz Inc. to do their accounting."
>I, for instance, am working on stuff
>that may never see the light of day, or that I might
>distribute through my web site, or something. But I'm
>not working for RedHat, Debian, Slackware, SuSE, etc. etc.,
>nor for my current employer, on this particular project.
There you go. Greenspan is telling you that
you just won't "succeed" if you don't compete
with or court businesses, or if you aren't
funded by one. So, here's what I suggest.
Go down to Redmond with a big placard saying
"HEY MICROSOFT! I AM COMPETING WITH YOU!".
Brandish it as you jump up and down in front of
MS corp headquarters. If that doesn't work, try
again with a placard saying "HEY MICROSOFT! I
AM COURTING YOU!"
As far as I am concerned, once you have coded up
your project as best as you can, and you feel it's
good enough to post on your site, you are successful.
Despite what idiots like Greenspan say, your success
is measured by how far you have fulfilled the original
goal you had in mind. Not by how much of the office
suite market you've ripped away from MS.
>>"To stay competitive, open-source companies and
>>communities must do a better job of courting a
>>group for whom they seem to have little
>>understanding or respect. Ironically, it's a
>>group they should know very well."
>
>That is very correct. Note that he says open-source
>companies, not company;
But note he said "open source communities" as well.
He also throws in "open source movement" all over
the place in his article. That is what I'm objecting
to.
If he wants to give some of his timeless,
valuable strategic business advice to, say,
RedHat or SuSE, that's fine. But he's addressing
much of it to "the open source community".
And that makes him sound just plain stupid.
>>Natually, with this incorrect mental picture
>>of the OSS movement, it is easy to suggest
>>that OSS will fail because it has no organized
>>marketing department, no armies of PHBs, no
>>telemarketers, no advertising deparment, no
>>human resources management layer, or other
>>bogosities irrelevant to loose groups of
>>volunteers who do what they do because they
>>find it interesting.
>
>OSS may not fail, but without staying competitive, neither
>will it succeed; it will just basically dwindle into a sort
>of gray limbo.
Let us assess the sanity of your remark. Have
a good look at some of the GPL'd/free projects
out there, coming from the OSS community. Eg,
http://sal.kachinatech.com/sal1.shtml
Let's take some examples:
R
R is a system for statistical computation and graphics.
It consists of a language plus a run-time environment
with graphics, a debugger, access to certain system
functions, and the ability to run programs stored in
script files.
Pari/GP
Calculator for number theory. The PARI system is a
package which is capable of doing formal computations
on recursive types at high speed; it is primarily aimed
at number theorists, but can be used by people whose
primary need is speed. It is possible to use PARI in
two different ways: (1) as a library, which can be called
from any upper-level language application, (2) as a
sophisticated programmable calculator, named GP, which
contains most of the standard control instructions of a
standard language like C.
PVM
PVM (Parallel Virtual Machine) is a software package that
permits a heterogeneous collection of Unix and NT computers
hooked together by a network to be used as a single large
parallel computer. Thus large computational problems can be
solved more cost effectively by using the aggregate power
and memory of many computers. With thousands of users, PVM
has become the de facto standard for heterogeneous cluster
computing world-wide. The source is available free thru
netlib and has been compiled on everything from laptops
to CRAYs.
Now, there is an awful lot of open source like this.
What do you notice here? Well, these projects have no
relevent analogy to the activities of a marketing
company, i.e., Microsoft. Most open source developers
simply could not give a shit about office suites and
such. Ah, but I can hear the objections: "nobody uses
this stuff, this isn't software your average Joe
understand or needs." And that's what these debates
always come down to. Because according to guys like
Greenspan and other MS drones, the above isn't real
software. Real software is the stuff MS markets. The
above, according to Greenspan's criteria, cannot be
successful, because they can neither compete with nor
court Microsoft.
But the guys who work on, say, Pari/GP define their
success a different way: by how well they can refine
number theory algorithms and turn them into high-performance
code. Since their code is absolutely fantastic, they *are*
a success, and they *have been* a success for a long time.
Same with R. R is excellent. I use it. Lots of people
use it. But it isn't an office suite and you don't see it
advertised on TV. It's a success. But to feeble minds like
Greenspan's, it isn't even worth mentioning.
Critics of OSS do not seem to understand that OSS
exists in a much broader world than the Land of Office
Suites, GUIs and the kind of mass-marketed shit Microsoft
peddles. Much bigger. This world has little to do with
MS and the wasteland of shrink-wrapped software. These
communities do not want to waste their time scheming
strategies to out-market Microsoft or Apple or whoever.
If Greenspan unloaded his advice on these developers,
they'd think he was a nut.
>Microsoft succeeded through hard work
>(unfortunately, it also used licensing, domination tactics,
>and scare tactics); in the Win3.1 days it was the best in the
>biz. It's still the most popular desktop option.
In many cases, if open source developers spent their
time fantasizing about Microsoftian competitive tactics,
nothing would have gotten done. They would have failed.
(I know, I know... Pari/GP isn't "real" software...
PVM isn't real... Joe Blow never heard of 'em...
yadda yadda.)
--
Don't think you are. Know you are.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
