Linux-Advocacy Digest #144, Volume #34 Thu, 3 May 01 11:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Nomen Nescio)
Re: How is FreeBSD faster than Linux? (David Turnbull)
Re: "Portability is for Canoes" (Chris Ahlstrom)
Why is Microsoft opening more Windows source code? (jtnews)
Re: Major Microsoft FUD tomorrow!! (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Why is Microsoft opening more Windows source code? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) ("billh")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Isaac)
Re: Primary and secondary missions ("You've got MALE.. sex organs!")
Re: Winvocates confuse me - d'oh! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. ("You've got
MALE.. sex organs!")
Re: Major Microsoft FUD tomorrow!! (mlw)
Re: Major Microsoft FUD tomorrow!! ("Adam Warner")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (John Hasler)
Re: Why is Microsoft opening more Windows source code? (.)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Microsoft and McCartheism (Zippy)
Re: Major Microsoft FUD tomorrow!! (Tim Hanson)
Re: article on Windows 2002 (Neil Cerutti)
Re: What is 99 percent of copyright law? was Re: Richard Stallman (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Why is Microsoft opening more Windows source code? (Craig Kelley)
Re: Why is Microsoft opening more Windows source code? (Tim Hanson)
Re: My Favorite Linux APP!! (Fred K Ollinger)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Nomen Nescio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 13:10:03 +0200 (CEST)
Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nomen Nescio wrote:
>
> > Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > :> What an absurd statement, you're the one being completely illogical.
> >> > :> If a hetrosexual can be "converted" then clearly they already have
> >> > :> homosexual leanings.
> >> > :
> >> > :Proof?
> >> >
> >> > Know anybody who 'came out of the closet' who said ``I honestly had
> >> > absolutely no desire for guys before and got turned on by women only,
> >> > and I wasn't just acting.'' ?
> >> >
> >> > Why is it called 'coming out of the closet' as in their personality
> >> > was hidden, rather than, ``changing my mind about what gender I wanted
> >> > to boink.''
> >>
> >> Also take this logic as well. Would some one wakeup one day and say,
> >> "I'll join one of the most despised groups, lose most of my friends and
> >> then to
> >> top it all off, get rejected by my family". Doesn't sound logical, does
> >> it?
> >
> > yet l. ron hubbard has thousands of followers to this day.
> > jackie 'anakin' tokeman
> >
> > men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth - more than ruin,
> > more even than death
> > - bertrand russell
>
> Who's Ron Hubbard?
obi wan never told you what happened to your father...
jackie 'anakin' tokeman
men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth - more than ruin,
more even than death
- bertrand russell
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Turnbull)
Subject: Re: How is FreeBSD faster than Linux?
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 11:20:41 GMT
>
> I run Debian. Love it. But it's not as fast as FreeBSD.
>
> I run Linux because I want that 4400+ packages and it has 10 times
> the module support for my hardware that FreeBSD does.
freebsd has 5624 as of Mon Apr 16 13:35:00 MDT 2001
>
> Debian also has a nicer desktop than FreeBSD does. Works better, ect,ect...
huh? elaborate.
linux and freebsd can both run X, with any bloated WM like GNOME or KDE.
>
> They need to dump that BSD style license and expand the system
> for more hardware support for starters.
how would dumping the BSD license help them in any way?
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: "Portability is for Canoes"
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 11:34:33 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 2 May 2001 16:40:08
> >
> >Correct, you are often have to make a choice between portable, and fast.
> >Being unportable means that you can take advantages of what your enviroments
> >gives you, being portable doesn't, and sometimes it can be a pain.
>
> You missed his point; it isn't a matter of priorities, it is a matter of
> competence.
Competence, to the extent that it takes additional experience and
discipline to write portable code.
Priorities, in that Microsoft chose (probably correctly) to stick
to a single platform (perhaps after their Xenix experience?).
It worked well for them in building their empire. However,
Microsoft then chose (incorrectly) to stick to a single platform.
The loss in experience for them is incalculable, and a big
reason why free software is giving them heartburn.
Now Microsoft is trying, however feebly, for platform independence,
using what is essentially a lowest-common-denominator wrapper
library. Probably not the best solution. Ironically, the older
technology, C code and makefiles with autoconf, automake, etc.,
is probably more appropriate. It surely results in better (faster
and more optimized) code for a given hardware platform.
Just my semi-learned opinion after dicking around with C code for
a couple decades.
Chris
--
Free the Software!
------------------------------
From: jtnews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Why is Microsoft opening more Windows source code?
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 11:36:30 GMT
On CNBC this morning I heard that they're
making opening more of Windows source code
due to pressure from the open source model
of Linux.
If open source is so bad, according to Microsoft,
why are they suddenly changing their tune now?
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Major Microsoft FUD tomorrow!!
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 11:42:01 GMT
pip wrote:
>
> Flacco wrote:
> >
> > And here's a picture of Mundie and a Microsoft lobbyist shmoozing it up
> > with a congressman:
> >
> > http://www.mccullagh.org/image/950-15/microsoft-party-craig-mundie.html
> >
> > Insert your own painfully humorous caption.
>
> Mundie: "...and by 2010 those communist countries are going to take this
> red licensing blob if we don't get some slack"
> Politician :"Well as long as you stay legal"
> Mundie: "Legal? We ARE the law"
Good captions, but more likely he's saying...
"Check out the tits on this babe!"
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why is Microsoft opening more Windows source code?
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 06:39:48 -0500
"jtnews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On CNBC this morning I heard that they're
> making opening more of Windows source code
> due to pressure from the open source model
> of Linux.
>
> If open source is so bad, according to Microsoft,
> why are they suddenly changing their tune now?
Open Source isn't bad, according to MS. The GPL is. They support Open
Source licenses such as the BSDL.
------------------------------
From: "billh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 11:55:12 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis"
> Roberto Alsina wrote:
> You claim to be in the United States.
LOL!!! Pathetic, KuKu, just pathetic.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Isaac)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 11:43:33 GMT
>On Wed, 2 May 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>> That there are some choices the
>> library programmer can make which do not cause changes in the API might
>> be true, but it might also be true that this is a measure of the
>> inefficiency of the code and the API.
Yet another quote for the comedy file.
Isaac
------------------------------
From: "You've got MALE.. sex organs!" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,us.military.army
Subject: Re: Primary and secondary missions
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 06:09:56 -0600
The problem with the right wing Republicans who post to the
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh (who insist they THEY represent modern
"conservatism") are ignorant bigots.
Why else would anyone make a bigot like Rush Limbaugh their
hero and mentor?
Tom Wilson wrote:
>
> "Ray Fischer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9cq63h$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > The problem with right-wing Republicans is that they're stupid
> > bigots.
>
> Wow. My Black conservative neighbor will be shocked to hear this.
>
> PS: Don't be a sheep. Turn off your TV. Don't believe everything you are
> told. Think for yourself.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Winvocates confuse me - d'oh!
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 07:02:39 -0500
"Rob S. Wolfram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> I disagree here. If this were true, then 16-bit applications should not
> >> be able to crash the complete OS, but at most the set of 16-bit apps.
> >That's not true. Netware NLM's are perfectly capable of crashing the
NOS,
> >because the NOS had no memory protection between processes.
>
> Via NLM's, yes. I think (but I haven't tried) that you can also
> trivially crash Linux by writing to /dev/kmem. The DOS that was used to
> boot the system isn't available for the job anymore though.
In older versions of Netware, NLM's *WERE* the applications.
> >Note that chad said "decent 32-bit process isolation", not "perfect" or
> >"complete".
>
> The phrase I fell over is quoted above. "W9x takes over". It most
> certainly does not.
You seem to be confusing memory protection with an OS having control. An OS
can certainly have control while opening itself up, DOS for instance has no
memory protection, nor does AmigaOS. OS/2 has many areas of world writeable
memory that are shared between processes, yet clearly OS/2 "takes over".
My point here is simply that your argument is flawed. Memory protection has
nothing to do with whether or not any particlar OS is in control, since the
OS can open up any memory it likes (and often does, for such purposes as
shared memory or memory mapped files).
------------------------------
From: "You've got MALE.. sex organs!" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.survivalism.losers,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.paranoid.gunny.right.wing.dufuses
Subject: Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day.
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 06:20:38 -0600
We really need to outlaw all those Evil Liberal organizations, who
dare to lobby against the Noble Republicans and their Noble Republican
World Corporations!
Let's simply suppress anyone who doesn't agree with you!
Walter Daniels wrote:
>
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2001 12:16:46 -0500, Kurt Lochner
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Fraud Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> again twisted the meaning of:
> >> silverback wrote:
> >> >Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > > silverback wrote:
> >> <etc,... snip>
> >> > >> wrong again liar. Fascism is corporate rule. The Nazis allowed the
> >> > >> corporations to write the laws.
> >> > >So, then, you agree that it's bad to let the Sierra Club and similar
> >> > >groups write environmental law, and that it's a bad idea to let
> >> > >those with a vested interest in the welfare bureacracy to write
> >> > >welfare laws.
> >> > nope, the Sierra club is hardly a corporation buttfuck.
> >> From http://outingleaders.sierraclub.org:8082/Common/ins_manual/index.asp;
> >> [...]
> >> The Sierra Club, which includes the chapters, groups, and sections,
> >> is considered one corporation under California corporation law.
> ><sigh> I let the disengneuous fraud out of my kill-file, and he's
> >still trying to misrepresent even the simplest of concepts as some
> >kind of defense for his intentional ignorance..
>
> Tell me. Where exactly does the "Sierra Club," get a major portion
> of its funding? IIRC, it hasn't been "individual contributions," for
> some years. It gets most, from "foundations," and "eco programs." NOw,
> if most of their "funds," come from "special interests," who do they
> really answer to? They do not have an "endowment" to fund their
> operation, which means they have to "sell" something. In the case of
> the "Sierra Club," it is "environmental causes." Since the vast
> majority of "foundations" are liberal, democratic in outlook, they
> must figure that the "SC" is doing what they like.
>
> When you factor in the history of _how_ they "protect the
> environment," it's pretty obvious who they really are. Someone who
> would "protect the environment into destruction." To themn, like most
> "enviro extremists," it is "set it aside for the smallest number who
> can afford to use it." What's that, it's elitism? Damn straight it is.
> Make me pay for it, but then tell me I can't use it, because I'm not
> "special" enough.
>
> >--What part of "not-for-profit" do you not yet comprehend, Fraud?
>
> %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
> FBN Graphics prints specialties in small quantities at reasonable
> prices. Express your interests with a Custom printed T-shirt, mug,
> mousepad, or carry bag. We cheerfully print in quantities as small as
> one. http://www.digiserve.com/fbngraphics/
> Answer the design survey, and win a free prize.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Major Microsoft FUD tomorrow!!
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 08:31:50 -0400
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
> pip wrote:
> >
> > Flacco wrote:
> > >
> > > And here's a picture of Mundie and a Microsoft lobbyist shmoozing it up
> > > with a congressman:
> > >
> > > http://www.mccullagh.org/image/950-15/microsoft-party-craig-mundie.html
> > >
> > > Insert your own painfully humorous caption.
> >
> > Mundie: "...and by 2010 those communist countries are going to take this
> > red licensing blob if we don't get some slack"
> > Politician :"Well as long as you stay legal"
> > Mundie: "Legal? We ARE the law"
>
> Good captions, but more likely he's saying...
>
> "Check out the tits on this babe!"
He is, after all, talking to a congressman. What else would they be talking
about. By and large, members of congress are to lowest of low. Look at the
statistics on arrests, bounced checks, spousal beatings, etc.
--
I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Major Microsoft FUD tomorrow!!
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 00:36:51 +1200
Here's one of the first articles:
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/03/technology/03SOFT.html
I haven't seen it b/c I'm not registered. Can anyone please post the URL to
the MSNBC reprint, etc. when it is up?
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
From: John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 12:41:19 GMT
Isaac writes:
> Yet another quote for the comedy file.
More pitiful than funny. Quit playing with him. Either reel him in or let
him off the hook.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Why is Microsoft opening more Windows source code?
Date: 3 May 2001 13:21:25 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "jtnews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On CNBC this morning I heard that they're
>> making opening more of Windows source code
>> due to pressure from the open source model
>> of Linux.
>>
>> If open source is so bad, according to Microsoft,
>> why are they suddenly changing their tune now?
> Open Source isn't bad, according to MS. The GPL is. They support Open
> Source licenses such as the BSDL.
Alright, fair enough, but why exactly is microsoft spending so much time
and energy slamming the GPL? Is it some sort of threat?
=====.
--
"Great babylon has fallen, fallen, fallen;
Jerusalem has fallen, fallen, fallen!
The great, Great Beast is DEAD! DEAD! DEAD! DEAD!"
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 13:25:47 GMT
"Seán Ó Donnchadha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:xZ1I6.1069$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think you are letting your, um, ideology show too much.
> > Nobody can possibly take you seriously when you say
> > things like that.
>
> You amaze me, Daniel. How can you remain calm when dealing with this
> lunatic? How can you smile and call "ideology" that which is so obviously
a
> psychosis?
Mr. Devlin is *so* much more fun if you don't take
him too seriously.
Try it some time. :D
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft and McCartheism
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Zippy)
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 13:36:04 GMT
what is the TRUTH? i'm a linux advocate, so you're barking up the wrong
tree. but as far as i'm able to tell, the sum total of everything published
by the register is ranting and unsubstantiated hearsay.
have it your own way. but don't expect anybody to take you seriously.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 07:42:01 -0700
From: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Major Microsoft FUD tomorrow!!
Adam Warner wrote:
>
> Here's one of the first articles:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/03/technology/03SOFT.html
>
> I haven't seen it b/c I'm not registered. Can anyone please post the URL to
> the MSNBC reprint, etc. when it is up?
>
> Regards,
> Adam
"cypherpunks" as name and password didn't work?
It's up on ZDNet, from Reuters.
http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/2001/17/ns-22616.html
--
"This process can check if this value is zero, and if it is, it does
something child-like."
-- Forbes Burkowski, Computer Science 454
______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
With Seven Servers In California And Texas - The Worlds Uncensored News Source
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Neil Cerutti)
Subject: Re: article on Windows 2002
Date: 3 May 2001 14:43:36 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Erik Funkenbusch posted:
>"Glitch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> http://www.msnbc.com/news/567993.asp
>>
>> Is it just me or does Microsoft have trouble figuring out a consisten
>> naming scheme for their operating systems?
>>
>> I think they have an identity crisis or something. I wish it would stop
>> whatever it is.
>
>I don't see how it's a big deal. They're keeping the year
>naming scheme for the enterprise products, such as the Server,
>SQL Server 2000, Exchange 2000, etc...
Windows 98 was an enterprise product?
--
Neil Cerutti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: What is 99 percent of copyright law? was Re: Richard Stallman
Date: 3 May 2001 14:46:39 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 02 May 2001 22:18:01 GMT, Barry Margolin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>And that seems to me a breach of the letter of the GPL. Yet the
>>FSF doesn't mind.
>
>Did you see the message I posted on Monday? I think it's obvious that the
>FSF never intended that clause to apply when an application is included
>with a system.
Actually, I have reasons to believe they *did* intend it to apply.
If they didn't, it would be trivial to link any GPL'd code to
anything (at least for some).
In any case, the FSF should say it, not you or me.
> It was intended to apply when the application is shipped
>separately and the library is included with it.
That's just guesswork.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why is Microsoft opening more Windows source code?
Date: 03 May 2001 08:47:13 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) writes:
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "jtnews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On CNBC this morning I heard that they're
> >> making opening more of Windows source code
> >> due to pressure from the open source model
> >> of Linux.
> >>
> >> If open source is so bad, according to Microsoft,
> >> why are they suddenly changing their tune now?
>
> > Open Source isn't bad, according to MS. The GPL is. They support Open
> > Source licenses such as the BSDL.
>
> Alright, fair enough, but why exactly is microsoft spending so much time
> and energy slamming the GPL? Is it some sort of threat?
They (rightfully, IMHO) don't want government projects to use GPL
software because it doesn't benefit *everyone*, only other GPL
software projects. If the government does open source, they want it
under a free license instead (like the BSDL) so that everyone can
benefit.
By the same argument, of course, government projects shouldn't use
commercial software either.
--
It won't be long before the CPU is a card in a slot on your ATX videoboard
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 07:49:02 -0700
From: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why is Microsoft opening more Windows source code?
"." wrote:
>
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "jtnews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On CNBC this morning I heard that they're
> >> making opening more of Windows source code
> >> due to pressure from the open source model
> >> of Linux.
> >>
> >> If open source is so bad, according to Microsoft,
> >> why are they suddenly changing their tune now?
>
> > Open Source isn't bad, according to MS. The GPL is. They support Open
> > Source licenses such as the BSDL.
>
> Alright, fair enough, but why exactly is microsoft spending so much time
> and energy slamming the GPL? Is it some sort of threat?
Well, for starters,
http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-05-03-002-20-NW-BZ-HE
"This victory for IBM's S/390 architecture, and for the Linux operating
system, comes at the expense of Microsoft's Windows NT. Banco Mercantil
has eliminated thirty Windows NT servers by replacing them with SuSE
Linux installed on a single IBM System/390 G6 mainframe. "
...and it's only beginning.
--
"This process can check if this value is zero, and if it is, it does
something child-like."
-- Forbes Burkowski, Computer Science 454
______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
With Seven Servers In California And Texas - The Worlds Uncensored News Source
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Fred K Ollinger)
Subject: Re: My Favorite Linux APP!!
Date: 3 May 2001 14:58:43 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: "Terry Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
: > > He does have somewhat of a point.
: > Only that a lot of Linux apps are not above ver 1.0. However I see no
: > reason to support his other clain, that its unstable as a result ?
: Not even AT 1.0, much less above.
I use many very stable apps that are below 1. When I'm working I don't
care about number, I just care about stability. Numbers tell the order
or versions and maybe an opinion on how stable it is from developer. Only
opinion. Linux people are more modest and honest. I like modesty and
honesty from my developers. Others like to be fooled I guess.
: > > Not just Linux, of course, but much of
: > > the Open Source software is pre 1.0 and has been that way for years.
: For
: > > instance, many of the window managers such as blackbox, enlightenment,
: > > Windowmaker, etc.. Hell, even Gnome stayed pre-1.0 for a LONG time.
: > True, maybee its our CVS that only adds 0.01 to every revision ;-)
: Many revision control tools on Windows also do. PVCS, MKS SI, Perforce,
: etc..
And which one is MS using? Are you telling me they made 2000 stable versions
of office? No. It's all marketing hype. People who obsess over numbers over
all other things are suckers.
: > > I'm sure some people will say this is a good thing, that products aren't
: > > being rushed to release before they're ready. On the other hand, it's a
: > > handy excuse as to why your product is unstable simply to never go to
: 1.0.
: > Have you found Linux software to be generally unstable Eric?
Well, you do have the source so if anyone has trouble then you can fix it and
get that number over 1. If you don't help, then don't complain, it's a
free os after all. Can you say the same thing about things you don't like in
office? There are lots of things I would like to change there. Starting with
the price.
: Depends, really. I've found most window managers to be very unstable.
: There are a few that are quite good, but most are buggy at best.
Then don't use them. You have been warned. Do commercial apps warn you when
they are clearly unstable? Why aren't you bitching about the lies of
commercial developers? Why is linux's honesty suddenly bad? People have
been bitching that linux people lie for years. Now lying is suddenly good?
: But in any event, the frequency of bugs is irrelevant to this conversation,
: which is that lots of Linux software sits behind 0.x version numbers for
: years.
I think that the frequency is totally relevent. If someone says, of there
might be some bugs here and there are few, this is better than someone
saying that this is verion 2000, and then you find some bugs. People do like
to be decieved, though. I say, great, go out and buy windows and use it.
Conversation over.
Fred
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 15:02:32 GMT
Said Roberto Alsina in alt.destroy.microsoft on 2 May 2001 18:47:45 GMT;
>Chad Everett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>In this debate alone, he has said:
>
>If by "he" you mean I, I don't know what you mean by "said", since I have not
>written any of the things you claim I said.
>
>>
>>All killing in war is murder
>>All killing is murder
>>All killing is murder, except killing in self-defense.
>>All non-self defence killing is murder, including killing at war.
>>
>>When trying to pin him down on some of these things, the debate
>>will quickly revert to what "murder" means and what "is" is
>
>I know what is is. I can not explain it, though.
"Is" == abstraction: it causes two things within the physical world
(usually, one is an abstraction and one is a concrete label, but the
distinction is relative and uncertain, as everything else in our
universe is) to become identical in a metaphysical (non-existent, apart
from the physical world) way. "Is" creates language, a chaotic and
fractal physical operation which creates identity and self-awareness.
It is like a mathematical operator, the basic function of language;
whatever you put on one side becomes a 'word', while one or more words
on the other side cause the 'word' to become an abstraction (concrete
label, rhetorical abstraction, metaphysical concept, whatever).
HTH
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 15:02:35 GMT
Said billh in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 02 May 2001 21:45:55 GMT;
>"T. Max Devlin"
>
>> Any force will injure, and all injurious force qualifies as "rough",
>> according to the rather empty use of the abstraction you've given. If
>> you've gotten far enough that you're willing to understand that
>> dictionaries *record* the use of words, they do not *determine* the
>> meaning of them, then perhaps you've be wiling to take the next little
>> baby step to realize that violence is not merely rough and injurious,
>> but caused by human beings.
>
>You are quite correct the Army is a violent organization specifically due to
>the actions of humans. Just who do you think plans and executes
>engagements, battles, and operations.
Rational, non-violent soldiers when duly authorized to use force. They
are never authorized to use violence, unless they are unethical and
their government is unfounded and their nation is not free.
Violence is not generally tolerated in the U.S. Armed Forces. Punch
your commanding officer and see what happens, if you think it is. Or
beat a civilian, for that matter.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
