Linux-Advocacy Digest #145, Volume #34 Thu, 3 May 01 11:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: t. max devlin: kook (T. Max Devlin)
Re: IE (T. Max Devlin)
Re: IE (T. Max Devlin)
Re: IE (T. Max Devlin)
Re: there's always a bigger fool (T. Max Devlin)
Re: there's always a bigger fool (T. Max Devlin)
Re: OEM Windows licenses not transferable to charities (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Bill Hudson admits that he, Dave Casey, V-man and Redc1c4 are
liars. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: t. max devlin: kook
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 15:02:37 GMT
Said Peter Hayes in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 02 May 2001 21:43:48
>On Mon, 30 Apr 2001 14:06:46 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>> Said Peter Hayes in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 29 Apr 2001 22:00:26
>> >On Sun, 29 Apr 2001 05:49:54 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >> >If the Apple Lisa, Classic or whatever it was that I saw in Lasky's store
>> >> >in Glasgow in the early 80s had launched its apps with a single mouse click
>> >> >I would have been attracted to it, maybe even bought one. As it was, all I
>> >> >got was precious little, and I left unimpressed.
>> >>
>> >> Live and learn. Who was worse off for this, you or Apple?
>> >
>> >Apple. Mind you, I now hate the things for their closed proprietry hardware
>> >and inefficient outdated OS (OSX excepted, since I've not seen or used it I
>> >can't pass judgement). So, thankfully, I missed buying Apple.
>>
>> Well, you're the one complaining, and I don't recall any press releases
>> bemoaning their loss.
>
>I don't suppose Apple give a monkeys about my computer buying habits, but
>their market share isn't exactly wonderful.
No, actually, they're quite good at it and they still support a thriving
market.
>> >> And from that point on, they're doomed. The will never ever understand
>> >> the desktop metaphor, nor the computer underneath, but simply mindlessly
>> >> click and hope things work the way they expect or imagine.
>> >
>> >We're dealing with the desktop and how to launch the app, not how to use it
>> >thereafter. One click or two to launch it has no effect on how it's used,
>> >or the user's approach to it.
>>
>> That's silly.
>
>Not at all. The red "on/off" button on my TV remote control is an icon. It
>has no effect on the way the rest of the remote control works
You really think that's an "icon"? You're getting metaphysical, dude.
Get a grip.
--
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.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: IE
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 15:02:39 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 3 May 2001 00:39:28
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> Just so the other technologists don't laugh at you for using the wrong
>> word, Ayende, I thought I'd point out that this isn't, then a 'port' of
>> the registry. It is instead an emulation of the registry. A port would
>> be what IE does, or what Seagate (now Veritas) Nervecenter does.
>
>You really need to read what my messages, T. Max.
I do, Ayende, and forgive me for disputing your meaning, but I suppose
it means you're not making yourself clear.
>BTW, note that this is a case where coding against the API is enough.
So you're going to tell me that all Windows apps run on Wine? Guffaw.
>I asked why using WINE is so slow, since, while the registry is faster, it
>should be *that* slow.
I think you answered your own question. Obviously, emulating the
registry with a file system is going to be slower than directly
accessing the binary hierarchical database on Windows.
>I made it clear that WINE's emulation & the Registry behaviour are
>different.
Only if we're to assume you are correct that it is different; that's
begging the question.
>It may be that MS wrote a registry to Solaris, and it may be a part of why
>it takes a long time to load (another reason would be the need to load the
>routines windows already use for the shell, etc).
>
>What is Seagate Nervecenter?
It's an SNMP-based network management program. A fascinating study in
software history. It is based on a product initially designed by a
company called NetLabs as a commercial repackaging of some fascinating
code written as "DuoManager". It was capable of instrumenting both SNMP
and CMIP equipment, and used an incredibly efficient "instantiation
model" to monitor huge amounts of equipment on few resources
(bog-standard unix box) using non-deterministic connectivity. (This was
late 80s, and the world wasn't "all IP" back then, internetwork
connectivity being a new thing.)
DuoManager became NetLabs Manager, a platform similar to SunNet Manager
(king of the hill at the time) or HP OpenView or CastleRock SNMPc. A
"next generation" re-write was planned (with typical corporate
incompetance). It was to be called 'DiMONS'. Ongoing development
didn't pan out, but along the way Sun bought an image of the code as the
basis of *their* next generation product, Sun Enterprise Manager. This
was eventually released, and bombed rather badly, though it was
implemented by a number of telecom systems, in essentially the same kind
of role and environment that DuoManager was written for. The original
DiMONS product was never released, although the next version of the
original code was then called DiMONS. (Guffaw.) It didn't last long,
though, because NetLabs sold out to HP because they had become the king
of the hill.
HP needed a 'correlation engine' for their platform to answer whining
from customers about event flooding (actually, it was mere cluelessness,
but you don't tell forty million dollars worth of customers they're
clueless, and HP was no less clueless in its response to the demand), so
they paid NetLabs to strip their product of its 'platform' bits which
competed with OpenView, leaving the instantiation model as a
'correlation engine', and market it as "NerveCenter", an add-on to
OpenView. NetLabs sold the product to Seagate, and that's where things
took a really bad turn. Seagate bought into the NT hype (almost
everyone did in the network management world in the late-mid-90s), and
decided to kill a few birds with one big rock. They needed to make the
product client/server, replace the GUI, and support NT.
They decided on a strategy I call "back-porting". They re-wrote the
software from the ground up, on NT, and then back-ported it to Unix.
Along the way, they did an amazingly bad job on the GUI, (it was written
to be portable, so they didn't really 'use' Windows, in a few odd
respects which were more conventional flaws than new widgets),
interfered greatly with the performance and scalability, made several
major design errors, and even institutionalized several bugs. In at
least one instance I can describe, the Seagate engineers mistook what
was a bug in the original code for a feature, to the substantial
detriment of the suitability and usability of the product. He thought
it was a feature to ensure newbies could run the software, being
apparently ignorant of the fact that we don't let newbies run enterprise
network management software, even if it runs on Windows. (I've talked
to him about this, in fact.)
Its still a valuable product, used by a lot of companies, but its
shamefully unreliable. The server wedges, crashes, and hangs, as does
the client, sometimes just dying, *poof*. This on either Windows or
Unix (Solaris 1 & 2, HP-UX), though of course its much less reliable on
Windows. The instantiation model is incredibly powerful, and even with
all the layers of ruination caused by Seagate, and Veritas who bought it
from them and continued to mangle it, adding feature after feature. The
bulk of these extra features were all designed to do the same thing,
provide "down-stream correlation" on a network where there is no
"down-stream". In one version alone, three different ways to 'solve'
this non-existent 'problem' (all three were included, of course, because
none really worked) were added.
That original instantiation model code was written by Larry Wall, by the
way, who is also the author of perl. If he were dead he'd be spinning
in his grave, seeing what they've done to his software. As it is, I
hope he's laughing his ass off.
--
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.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: IE
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 15:02:40 GMT
Said Edward Rosten in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 03 May 2001 01:21:44
>> With the registry mapping layout as a FS, so it shouldn't be *overly*
>> slow. Windows would do it faster, because the registry is a hirercial
>> database, which is a damn fast design.
>
>An FS is usually an implementation of a heiracial database.
Only metaphorically.
--
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.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: IE
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 15:02:41 GMT
Said Michael Pye in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 2 May 2001 16:31:41
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>
>> I'm sorry, there is a rather large amount of doubt there, as far as I
>> can determine. It is undoubtedly a better *platform*, since Netscape
>> isn't a platform, but a browser. As a browser, I have never seen
>> anything suck as much as IE, simply because it is not a browser, but a
>> platform.
>
>A valid point. But an interpreter of HTML pages including CSS and
>Javascript, I have never seen anything suck as much as NS4...
Works fine for me, better than any alternative.
>> Netscape 4 is MUCH closer to ALL of those requirements; IE can't hold a
>> candle to it. You don't notice the lack of performance or incredible
>> resource use of IE, because the bulk of it is bolted into the OS, so it
>> doesn't look like "the browser". Of course, this just makes the OS
>> slower and more piggish and unreliable, but that's a different
>> discussion.
>
>Indeed. But it when it comes down to it, when using windows it makes sense
>to use IE because on that platform it is faster and displays pages better...
Using IE causes the computer to behave unpredictably; Netscape just
crashes. That's what counts to me: I don't use the Internet because it
is fast, and NS displays pages just fine, and far more reliably.
--
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,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: there's always a bigger fool
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 15:02:42 GMT
Said Zippy in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 02 May 2001 17:41:04 GMT;
>the "contracts in restraint of trade" mentioned in the Sherman ANTI-TRUST
>Act are specifically contracts which one company signs with another, not
>limitations imposed by the government. so when microsoft signs a contract
>which limits Compaq or IBM's ability to ship their machines witha
>different operating system, they are breaking the law.
>
>any other reading of the Sherman ANTI-TRUST Act is absurd and impertinent.
>
>>No, troll-boy, it doesn't help, because it is mistaken. Free market
>>competition means that Microsoft should be able to sign any LEGAL
>>contracts that anyone ELSE is willing to accept, without coercion.
>>Contracts in restraint of trade are outlawed by section 1 of the Sherman
>>Act, as any contract which unreasonably prevents anyone from selling or
>>promoting whatever they want is obviously not compatible with "free
>>market competition".
I'm not quite sure what your comments are supposed to mean, or how they
are supposed to pertain to mine, Zippy.
The 'restraint of trade' which contracts violating the Sherman Act cause
is not necessarily a restraint on either of the parties to the contract.
If a contract between two parties has the effect of "unreasonably"
(oops) restraining trade by a third party, the contract is felonious.
--
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,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: there's always a bigger fool
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 15:02:44 GMT
Said The Danimal in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 02 May 2001 14:45:26
>Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>
>> t. max fagass:
>> > Said Zippy in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 30 Apr 2001 05:42:20 GMT;
>> > >this is a matter of opinion and speculation, not what anybody "knows about
>> > >computing." if you think splitting up microsoft is going to harm them, or
>> > >end their predominance in the computer world, YOU haven't learned anything
>> > >about monopolies.
>> >
>> > Your ignorance is almost preposterous, I'm afraid. If there is
>> > something you don't understand about how the split will restore
>> > competition, I'll be happy to explain it to you, but you have to ask
>> > questions, so I know where you're getting hung up. I would suggest that
>> > its likely to be this idea of "end their predominance of the computer
>> > world". It is the free market competition that will result from the
>> > remedy, not the remedy itself, which is going to take care of that.
>> >
>> > If you don't understand why, it is certainly because you do not quite
>> > understand what "free market competition" means.
>>
>> free market competition means that microsoft should be able to sign any
>> contracts they want, including contracts preventing those they deal with
>> from selling or promoting competing systems.
>> hth
>> jackie 'anakin' tokeman
>
>How about contracts to have their competitors assassinated?
>
>You are talking about something else: free vendor competition.
>The 'market' consists of consumers. For the 'market' (i.e., consumers)
>to be 'free' they must have have two things:
>
>1. Complete information about the products of all vendors
>2. Unrestricted access to the products of all vendors
>
>There must also be a sufficient number of vendors to insure that
>no vendor has the ability to fix prices.
>
>Of course in practice no market is entirely 'free' because consumers
>have incomplete knowledge and various constraints on access to goods.
>Economies of scale and the benefits of standardization also tend
>to produce oligopolies in many markets.
>
>Vendors have a natural interest in seeing that markets become less
>free because competing in a free market is not in a vendor's interest.
>The vendor would like to eliminate competition by any means, restrict
>consumer choice, and thereby gain the ability to sell inferior products
>at higher cost.
>
>When vendors are completely free to advance their own interests, the
>result is mob rule (see: Russia) in which a common and highly profitable
>tactic is to hire assassins to take out the top executives of your
>competitors.
>
>The result of free vendor competition is economic inefficiency and
>slow growth, because vendors have a profit motive to do something
>other than advance the interests of consumers.
>
>The analogous consumer behavior is looting. From the consumer's point
>of view, the most profitable strategy is to steal. When consumers are
>completely free to act in their own interests the result is the
>collapse of trade.
>
>Long experience has proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that the best
>overall solution is to establish rules that limit the selfish behavior
>of consumers and vendors. Consumers must pay for the products they
>consume, and vendors must not restrain trade by destructive methods
>(assassinating competitors, establishing monopolies).
Very well said.
--
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
Subject: Re: OEM Windows licenses not transferable to charities
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 15:02:45 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 2 May 2001
>"David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:9coouq$op1
>> >So you're saying that the mere concept of charging for something should
>> make
>> >it fit for any possible purpose the end-user might put it to?
>> >
>> >So, if you buy a Yugo, you should expect it to be able to haul rocks in a
>> >quarry?
>>
>> No, there is a step in between. MS (and others - MS typifies this type of
>> EULA, but they are not alone) says that even though you paid for the
>> software, they don't guarentee that it is fit for anything. I think that
>> standard consumer laws should apply to software.
>
>The EULA also says "the the extent allowed by law". Which means that if you
>aren't happy with your states laws concerning consumer protection, call your
>lawmaker.
Like the EULA has to say that for it to be true. Duh!
>> I just think that if a company has charged money for some software, then
>> they should accept a certain degree of responsibility and liability for
>it.
>
>Why accept liability if the law doesn't require you to? That's not good
>business practice.
That depends on whether your customers are at your mercy, I'd think.
--
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,soc.men,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bill Hudson admits that he, Dave Casey, V-man and Redc1c4 are
liars.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 15:02:46 GMT
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 02 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 01 May 2001
>> >billh wrote:
>> >> "Aaron R. Kulkis
>> [...]
>> >> Why didn't you answer the question, "war-hero" wannabe? We'll take it this
>> >> means that you don't know the answer and will continue to use the wannabe's
>> >> "off-the cuff guide'.
>> >>
>> >> That's your problem, Kulkis, every thing you post about the military is "off
>> >> the cuff". It's why you are mostly wrong. Your classics of "class 2 food",
>> >
>> >I never claimed such. Food is class I.
>>
>> Wouldn't that be "class 1"?
>
>No. US Army supply classes are in Roman numerals.
Then why does Bill keep talking about "class 2....
Oh, I get it.
>>
>> >> "strategic road marches",
>> >
>> >Germans conducted MANY during WW2.
>>
>> If I understood the official definitions that Bill has provided, these
>> would be operational road marches, wouldn't they?
>
>Those who could be stuffed into trains and trucks rode.
>Those who couldn't, were marched. Sometimes hundreds of miles.
Still thinking the difference is a matter of distance, I guess.
[...]
>You are making the mistake of assuming that current USAF doctrine
>is an absolute which MUST apply to everybody, at all times.
No, you are making the mistake of assuming it is in error, at least
rhetorically.
[...]
>I understand that cargo planes with MUCH less cargo capacity,
>and much shorter range SUCCESSFULLY carried out strategic supply
>missions.
>
>Go do some research on the China-Burma-India theater of operations,
>and the US aircraft that were "flying the 'Hump'", that is, performing
>strategic supply OVER the Himalayas.
You're taking yourself, and this discussion, far too seriously. Why on
earth would I bother doing research on military trivia?
--
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: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 15:02:47 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 2 May 2001 21:08:31
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 1 May 2001 22:53:55
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> [...]
>> >> How precisely does a project that required people to test their
>programs
>> >> against a "stub library" make the existence of the library unnecessary?
>> >> I would think it proves just the opposite, or you wouldn't need the
>> >> stub, eh?
>> >
>> >Because you:
>> >A> don't code against the stub library, you code against the API.
>>
>> Which; the one that doesn't exist yet, or the one that does?
>
>There is only *one* API.
>The stub library is a half-made implementation of the API. It conform to the
>function declaration, but not to what it does.
I've told you before, I know what a stub library is. You're missing the
point.
[...]
>No, I'm not talking about copyright here. I'm talking software design.
[...]
Well, that's the problem then.
--
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: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 15:02:48 GMT
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 2 May 2001 21:08:02
>On Wed, 02 May 2001 21:01:44 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 1 May 2001 23:06:41
>>>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> [...]
>>>> A program which *requires* a library cannot be written until the library
>>>> has been sufficiently designed (whether this is coding or documentation
>>>> of the API is meaningless, which is the point you guys keep tripping
>>>> over) to *base* the program on the functionality provided by the
>>>> library. Thus, a program is derivative, in a legal copyright sense, of
>>>> the library, and no time travel is required to make it so.
>>>
>>>No, a program that *requires* a library cannot be written until the
>>>library's API are known, nothing more is required.
>>
>>In theory. Not in practice. How many times do we have to go through
>>this: YOU ARE JUST BEING IDEALISTIC.
>
>It has been done, IN PRACTICE. That you, who has never exercised the
>craft claim that what has already been done is impossible, is quite
>irritating.
I'm sure. No, it has not been done in practice; it is impossible in
practice to write a program which requires a library that doesn't yet
exist in any way.
>I have written programs that work in OSs I never saw, linked to
>libraries I have never seen. Because those libraries implement
>the same APIs as others I use.
That is not in dispute.
--
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: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 15:02:49 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 3 May 2001 00:51:33
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 1 May 2001 23:06:41
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> [...]
>> >> A program which *requires* a library cannot be written until the
>library
>> >> has been sufficiently designed (whether this is coding or documentation
>> >> of the API is meaningless, which is the point you guys keep tripping
>> >> over) to *base* the program on the functionality provided by the
>> >> library. Thus, a program is derivative, in a legal copyright sense, of
>> >> the library, and no time travel is required to make it so.
>> >
>> >No, a program that *requires* a library cannot be written until the
>> >library's API are known, nothing more is required.
>>
>> In theory. Not in practice. How many times do we have to go through
>> this: YOU ARE JUST BEING IDEALISTIC.
>
>I *did* it, T. Max. You didn't, don't tell me it doesn't work in practice.
You are mistaken about what "it" is.
--
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: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 15:02:50 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 3 May 2001 00:53:04
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 1 May 2001 23:51:57
>
>> >That wasn't the requirement, remember?
>> ><Qoute
>url="http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&ic=1&selm=an_699310481";>
>> >How about you deliver a "simple
>> >application" that does *both* associate multiple extensions with an
>> >existing file type or a new file type, regardless of whether those
>> >extension are registered with another existing file type. We'll see how
>> >non-simple it is, eh?
>> ></Qoute>
>>
>> I presume that the word "application" means it is efficient, usable, and
>> worth the effort. You're little cobbled together piece of shit doesn't
>> count. Doh!
>
>Here you go assuming again, if it run, it's an application.
The adverb "simple" was supposed to give you a clue: I wouldn't have
included it if "braindead" were acceptable.
>It does what you asked for, it does so efficently, with as little code as
>possible. You don't ask more than a programmer.
I think you mean "from a programmer", and yes, indeed, I do.
--
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: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 15:02:51 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 3 May 2001 01:14:57
[...]
>> No, YOU are misusing the "real words", presuming that, because it is a
>> 'programmers terminology' (not a dialect; it shows more ignorance of the
>> discussion that you suggest the word)
>
>I use a different language to think, sometimes it slip throught.
I think it is just that you've misconstrued the argument.
>> that the real words are somehow
>> degenerate forms of the technical terms, when the opposite is the case.
>
>Yes and no.
>Force, for a someone with a PhD in physics, has a totally different
>interpertation than it has to a common person.
>Physics defined this word very clearly, there isn't yes or no regarding this
>word in physics.
If the word is defined very clearly, doesn't that mean there *is* "yes
or no regarding this word" in physics? It doesn't have a "totally
different interpretation", it merely has a more precise meaning. But
notice that the precise meaning is farther from correct outside of the
specialty domain, just as the terms of programming get mangled when
discussing copyright, so that programmers might very well misunderstand
some very fundamental things about how copyright works. Notably, in
this case, the concept of 'derivative works'. What makes a work
derivative in copyright might well have no relation at all to what makes
it derivative in terms of programming.
>For computer programmers, there is a terminology of their own, which tries
>not to leave ambiguaties
>It would help if you told us what you *think* an API is, then we could
>disillution you.
The issue is not what I think an API is; I have an entirely correct
understanding of the term. The discussion concerned copyright, and
whether a program is derivative of a library which it requires.
--
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
******************************
