Linux-Advocacy Digest #184, Volume #34 Fri, 4 May 01 11:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Performance Measure, Linux versus windows ("Donal K. Fellows")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (jim dutton)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Linux advocacy or Windows bashing? (pip)
Re: Feminism ==> subjugation of males ("un-parged")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Roberto Alsina)
Linus responds... (Aaron Ginn)
Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Need your recommendation for a full-featured text editor ("Keith Lomax")
Re: Bought out by MS geeks... ("Donal K. Fellows")
Re: Bought out by MS geeks... ("Donal K. Fellows")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Donal K. Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Performance Measure, Linux versus windows
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 15:13:34 +0100
Paolo Ciambotti wrote:
> This is only the first in a series of articles. This one is interesting
> only for the fact that subsequent benchmarks will have to take into
> account the poorer response times for WinNT.
Pretty easy to do, you know. Just run a few million iterations of the
code being performance-tested and the per-run cost of a grotty timestamp
should effectively vanish.
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- OK, there is the MFC, but it only makes the chaos object orientated.
-- Thomas Nellessen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
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: 4 May 2001 14:15:16 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 04 May 2001 04:16:38 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 3 May 2001 15:08:24
>>On Thu, 03 May 2001 15:02:48 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
>>>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.
>>
>>What can I say? It *is* possible, and I can prove it by example.
>
>What commercial grade product have you produced using this insane
>method, then?
When did commercial grade enter the picture?
But if you really need that, I produced a image archiving system for a
newspaper, without access to the database used by the newspaper.
I did have another database that implemented the same API, though.
>>>>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.
>>
>>Max, I wrote to the API. Those OSs later implemented the API and voilà,
>>my apps work with that implementation. because the API is not
>>the implementation.
>
>Because that API is implemented by many implementations, and thus is a
>proven and standardized API. You did not even approach the point of
>testing the issue, which is whether you can do this with an API that
>hasn't already been implemented to begin with, AT ALL.
That is done all the time, too. Look up "programming by contract".
>Now, if you have the balls and are so sure you're right, violate the GPL
>the way we've been discussing, market a commercial product with the
>results, and see if the court agrees with you. That's the only
>'example' that's going to prove your claim, I'm afraid.
I don't publish proprietary commercial software.
If it's any help, I *have* "violated" the GPL in this way.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
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: 4 May 2001 14:16:53 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 04 May 2001 04:16:40 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 3 May 2001 15:09:38
>>On Thu, 03 May 2001 15:02:55 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 2 May 2001 18:59:37
>>>>On Sun, 29 Apr 2001 18:27:42 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> This mean that I can implement this as a C array, linked list, binary tree,
>>>>>>>> hell, I could implement it as a database object, and anyone using this
>>>>>>>> wouldn't have a clue how I do it.
>>>>>>> Until, for some reason, they need to understand why their application is
>>>>>>> not working as expected. Right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Wrong. An API defines access to a service -- and if that service isn't
>>>>>>working right, then you go to the provider of that service to get it
>>>>>>fixed. The details of implementation aren't important to the user of
>>>>>>the API. (In general; there are cases when the implementation may be
>>>>>>discussed between supplier and customer, but this has more to do with
>>>>>>performance requirements than anything else.)
>>>>>
>>>>>In the real world, an application program ROUTINELY needs to know more
>>>>>about a function than the API documentation itself can provide.
>>>>
>>>>You know this because of your extensive programming eperience, right?
>>>
>>>No, I know it because people who have extensive programming experience,
>>>who's opinions I trust, and who understand my point correctly, say it is
>>>so.
>>
>>Let's see, we should agree we are wrong because you say other say we are
>>wrong?
>
>No, you should recognize you are mistaken because I can provide an
>comprehensible and reasonable explanation of your error.
If what you wrote so far is that "comprehensible and reasonable explanation",
I disagree about it being comprehensible, reasonable, or an explanation.
>>>>Ok: I *do* have an extensive programming experience, and if such a need
>>>>arised, the API needs to be fixed, not the implementation.
>>>
>>>Whichever. I've already told you that you can switch the terms
>>>"program" and "library" in the phrase "a program is derivative of the
>>>library".
>>
>>No, I can not, because it makes no sense.
>
>Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha.
I suppose that's yet another reasonable, comprehensible explanation.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
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: 4 May 2001 14:17:35 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 04 May 2001 04:16:41 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 3 May 2001
>12:28:48 -0400;
>>On Thu, 3 May 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 2 May 2001 18:59:37
>>>> Ok: I *do* have an extensive programming experience, and if such a need
>>>> arised, the API needs to be fixed, not the implementation.
>>> Whichever. I've already told you that you can switch the terms
>>> "program" and "library" in the phrase "a program is derivative of the
>>> library".
>>
>>Neither statement is necessarily true.
>
>Nothing is necessarily anything; a library is not necessarily a library
Yet another quotable quote.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (jim dutton)
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: 4 May 2001 14:17:24 GMT
In article <9ctka7$nmc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>OK, Aaron answre this...
>
>If homosexuality is such a sead end, how come it keeps cropping up n
>many, many formes of life, after hunderds of million years have, by your
>argument tried to get rid of it.
>
>If it's still here, there is probably a very god reason.
>
>-ed
A dog scooting across the carpet is not homosexuality.
It's worms.
-Jeem, HTH
========================================================================
http://www.ejeem.com Autococker2000/Dye SS
Steatopygias's 'R' Us. doh#0000000005 That ain't no Hottentot.
Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. DoD#564. tbtw#6. s.s.m#8. There ain't no more
"The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little long
er. " -- Henry Kissinger
========================================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
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: 4 May 2001 14:21:41 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 04 May 2001 04:16:42 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 3 May 2001 15:11:10
>>On Thu, 03 May 2001 15:02:56 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 2 May 2001 18:57:47
>>> [...]
>>>>>Until, for some reason, they need to understand why their application is
>>>>>not working as expected. Right?
>>>>
>>>>Removing that need is the whole point of the API.
>>>
>>>Yes, just like removing the need to come up with an original plot-line
>>>is the whole point of many derivative movies.
>>>
>>>>The API defines how the library must behave. If it doesn't, then
>>>>there is a bug and the library is not an implementation of the API.
>>>
>>>The API has metaphysical Truth, is that what you're saying?
>>
>>The API has existence. You can print it in a piece of paper.
>>
>>If a library doesn't do what the APi says, it is not an
>>implementation of such API. By definition of "implementation".
>
>Is it possible for there to be a mistake in the API, or would you
>metaphysically insist that it must be a mistake in either the
>documentation (what's printed on the piece of paper) or the
>implementation (the library)?
The API itself can be printed on a piece of paper, not only
the documentation.
An API can not be "wrong" because there is no platonic object
to compare it to, if you catch my drift.
An API can not be "wrong" like a rock can not be "wrong".
An API can be inadequate, though, and it can not fulfill its purpose.
An implementation of the API can be wrong, because its "platonic object"
is the API.
> Why is the 'implementation' of an API on
>a piece of paper not an implementation, just like the code?
You seem to have no idea of what an implementation is.
> If the API isn't code, how do you print it on a piece of paper?
"Riding the Iron Rooster" is not code, yet it's printed
on a (large) piece of paper.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
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: 4 May 2001 14:24:23 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 04 May 2001 04:16:44 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 3 May 2001 15:12:41
>GMT;
>>On Thu, 03 May 2001 15:02:56 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 2 May 2001 18:55:54
>>> [...]
>>>>There is no "correct" way to implement an API, there are MANY different
>>>>ways to do it.
>>>
>>>Let's just say that some of those ways MAY work, and some of them WILL
>>>work.
>>
>>If it's an implementation of the API, it will work as the API says.
>
>Nice tautology. I guess you never realized its unfalsifiable, did you?
>Unfalsifiable tautologies are worse than useless in this kind of
>context.
What can I say, if you say a tautology is not true, you are by
definition wrong.
>>Working
>>is part of being an implementation of the API.
>
>But somehow it is not a part of being a program? Why is that?
Because not all programs are implementations of an API.
>>If it doesn't work as the API requires, it is at best a partial
>>implementation.
>
>Would that cast doubt on the existence of the API, or merely its
>metaphysical integrity?
The API can't exist or not exist. If it doesn't exist, it is not an API
and it is not a car.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux advocacy or Windows bashing?
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 15:28:52 +0100
Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
> Mikkel Elmholdt wrote:
> >
> > Any damn fool can bash Microsoft ..... but try to put up a compelling
> > case for the use of Linux, would be a more challenging task, at least
> > for the majority of posters here.
> >
> Any damn fool can bash linux or its proponents.
> But to put up a compelling cas for the use of wintendo would be a more
> challenging task, at least for Mikkel.
Games (Wintendo does this well if not rather expensive) && Websurfing &&
Music (MIDI) programs && device drivers
In fact there are quite a few merits, but quality and reliability are
not some of them :)
Of course if you have two PC's and/or duel boot you can have the best of
both worlds.
------------------------------
From: "un-parged" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Feminism ==> subjugation of males
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 15:30:46 +0100
cross-post restored
Parg2000 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Subject: Re: Feminism ==> subjugation of males
> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ray Fischer)
> >Date: 5/3/01 2:10 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <9csheh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >Parg2000 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ray Fischer)
> >>>Parg2000 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>>>{Parg} You're right! It's ok tho. Insecure men like that one must
> >put>women
> >>>>down in order to get it up.
> >>>
> >>>Given how you so consistently put down men, you must be one messed up
> >>>bundle of insecurities.
> >>>
> >>{Parg} I don't "put men down".
> >
> >LOL!
> >
> >You're lying. You do very little else.
>
> {Parg} Where have I ever stated that all men are __________________fill in
your
> word of choice? You have mistaken the word "patriarch" for the word
"men".
>
> >
> >--
> >Ray Fischer When you look long into an abyss, the abyss also
looks
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] into you -- Nietzsche
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
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: 4 May 2001 14:38:29 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 04 May 2001 04:16:45 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 3 May 2001 15:14:08
>>On Thu, 03 May 2001 15:02:57 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 2 May 2001 19:41:07
>>>>On Sat, 28 Apr 2001 22:14:29 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>>>>I may be ruled by them. However this one is not one of them.
>>>>>
>>>>>Sorry, I am forced to declare that statement to be incomprehensible.
>>>>>How could you possibly know in which instances you are or are not ruled
>>>>>by the concepts in your mind, if you can be ruled by them at all?
>>>>
>>>>I am ruled by the concepts in my mind. This was not a concept in my mind.
>>>
>>>I'm afraid it is, Roberto.
>>
>>It is a concept in your mind.
>
>I am forced to insist it is more than that, because it is, instead, a
>scientific fact which you cannot refute through mere rhetoric.
If you start believing the concepts in your mind are facts, you
are delusional.
>>I only have a concept of my interpretation of
>>your expression of that concept. And the concept in my mind can be expressed
>>thus: "Max sure has a very wrong concept there".
>
>This is your error: the most max can have is a mistaken concept.
That is pretty much all you have.
>>So, no, I am not subject to this particular concept. I am subject to
>>another concept, that says that concept is crap.
>
>I never said anything about which particular concepts, Roberto;
Actually you did. You mentioned a specific concept, I said it only
existed in your mind, and that I was not ruled by concepts in your mind.
That's where this whole subthread started. Check it out through the
references.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Linus responds...
Date: 04 May 2001 07:30:10 -0700
http://web.siliconvalley.com/content/sv/2001/05/03/opinion/dgillmor/weblog/torvalds.htm
THIS is why Linus is so important. I'm sure there are many kernel
developers that could pick up the development slack should anything
happen to Linus, but his charisma and flair for leadership are his
most important assets, IMO.
Aaron
--
"Perl is worse than Python because people wanted it worse."
Larry Wall, 14 Oct 1998
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 14:51:35 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Fri, 4 May 2001 08:43:25 +0100
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>> MS uses a different communications mechanism: DCOM/COM+/ActiveX.
>> It's not a direct comparison -- and the details look a bit ugly
>> (to be fair, CORBA has an IDL which doesn't look pretty either),
>> but it can be used for IPC, or perhaps ICC (inter-code communication;
>> in some cases, the code is in another process).
>
>DCOM/COM across nodes is based on RPC. You can also use RPC directly if
>you don't want COM.
Interesting. Unless this is a different RPC (the one I'm familiar
with is Sun-based), that makes life slightly bodgy, though. :-)
>
>> NT (and presumably Win2K) also have named pipes, with a slightly
>> peculiar (but perfectly logical) naming scheme: \\.\pipe\pipename.
>> I suspect NT will have cross-system named pipes (also known as
>> 'sockets' to those of us familiar with TCP/IP) Real Soon Now.... :-)
>
>Yep, NT has had pipes for ages. Not the same as the command line pipe,
>but then NT doesn't need you to use a command line.
Unix has had named pipes for quite some time as well.
'man mkfifo'
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 4d:17h:59m actually running Linux.
Microsoft. Just when you thought you were safe.
------------------------------
From: "Keith Lomax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.comp.shareware.programmer,comp.editors,comp.lang.java.help,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.lang.java.softwaretools,comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Re: Need your recommendation for a full-featured text editor
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 14:57:48 +0000 (UTC)
If you program often, I would highly recommend VisualSlickEdit. It is
wonderful for Java.
Keith Lomax
Nils O. Selåsdal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in article
<40WH6.5332$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>
> "Nick Lockyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9cp672$hs0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > ultra edit version 8 for Windows
> > How about kdevelop, part of the KDE. It is a compete
> > editor/compiler/linker/debugger all in one!
> Unfortunatly it doesnt work wery well...
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Donal K. Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Bought out by MS geeks...
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 15:50:59 +0100
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> But regardless, that wasn't what I meant. I meant that most Unix
> programmers that write Windows code, tend to do so with a Unix mindset, such
> as massive command line arguments (even for GUI apps), spawning new
> processes instead of threads (for instance, instead of having thread pools
> listen to sockets, they make you run multiple copies of the app), etc..
There are a few advantages to the multi-process model, most notably
greater overall system stability. This comes, frankly, from the fact
that crashes hose a process (since processes are protection domains
containing threads) but if a service is implemented by multiple
processes, then losing one is unlikely to take out the whole service.
OTOH, threads are lighter-weight than processes so the theoretical
limit on bandwidth and service rates is higher. But none of that
matters in the slightest if the whole lot crashes and burns. :^)
The truly able programmer uses both paradigms, together with the single
threaded model as well (even threads can be too expensive in a truly
massive-scale system, given that each thread needs at least a page for
its stack...)
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- OK, there is the MFC, but it only makes the chaos object orientated.
-- Thomas Nellessen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: "Donal K. Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Bought out by MS geeks...
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 15:59:05 +0100
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> Use short names if the declaration is only a few lines away, as is
> common in tightly written functions in highly-modular code.
>
> Use longer names for class members. Supplement them with good comments
> and explanatory material.
And use the same (or as similar as possible) name to represent the same
concept everywhere; if lots of functions take a reference to some
context structure as an argument, use the same name for the variable.
Consistency is a marvellous thing...
Single letter variables should not be used for anything other than loop
iterators (i..n typically) and coordinates (x,y,z and t are just too
well known in the mathematical world. :^) Anything else and you are
asking for trouble.
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- OK, there is the MFC, but it only makes the chaos object orientated.
-- Thomas Nellessen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
