Linux-Advocacy Digest #216, Volume #34 Sat, 5 May 01 14:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: IE (Bob Hauck)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: MS should sue the pants off linux-mandrake (was: Re: Winvocates confuse me -
d'oh!) ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: If Windows is supposed to be so "thoroughly" tested... (Roy Culley)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rick <[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: Sat, 05 May 2001 13:43:41 -0400
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > > "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > Being a "better DOS than MS-DOS" is damning it with
> > > > > faint praise. MS-DOS was *terrible*; DR-DOS was
> > > > > only slightly less terrible.
> > > >
> > > > Note: no response. I will ask again:
> > > > Since Windows ran on top of DOS. And DR-DOS was a better DOS than
> > > > MS-DOS, how can you support your point? (See above point)
> > >
> > > I have already supported it; I do so by poitned
> > > to important features that Windows has and DR-DOS
> > > has not.
> >
> > Ther you go AGAIN. WAS not IS. What did Windows/DOS have that
> > Windows/DR-DOS did not?
>
> MS-DOS and DR-DOS were *both* lousy things
> to saddle Windows with. I'm not endorsing MS-DOS
> over DR-DOS; I'm endorsing Windows with as little
> of either as can be managed.
>
Windows COULD NOT run without some DOS underneath. DR-DOS was superior.
And Microsoft used it monoply power to push DR-DOS out of the market.
> [snip]
> > > They may have done, for all the good it did them. But
> > > it isn't what landed MS in trouble, as far as I can
> > > see.
> >
> > Thats becasue you refuse to see.
>
> Guess that's one way to look at it.
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: IE
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 17:43:56 GMT
On Mon, 30 Apr 2001 16:53:57 +0100, Michael Pye <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Ouch. I though all was fine and dandy on the telecoms front if you lived
> in the US. Seems we have a better deal sometimes after all...
If I lived a few miles further north, I could get a cable modem and
have a choice of phone company. But in general, I've found that the
monopoly telcos in the US are about as responsive as BT is reputed to
be.
> > Six on my line. It actually took fifteen or twenty after accounting for
> > DNS delays and such. Still, that's perfectly acceptable.
>
> Hmm. The delays before the page starts to download fluctuate fairly widely
> depending on the network load and your local DNS database.
I run a local DNS on my LAN, so there will be a bit more delay for the
initial lookup (but less for subsequent ones). Also, my ISP has their
DNS a couple of network hops away from the POP I'm on. They are pretty
good in other respects...can't have everything I guess.
The actual page load was quite fast.
> The only problem is that it is another kind of user selectivity. Coding the
> alternatives and detection routines takes time because there is no actual
> request you can make for available fonts on a client's machine.
This is where the dichotomy between what HTML was meant to be and what
it is being used for comes in. The original idea was that the user was
in control of presentation.
I know you're talking about CSS, but CSS was an add-on to the original
idea. Certainly fonts are one of those things where if you use them you
need to know what the user has. But the HTTP protocol doesn't provide a
way to get that information because in the original design the page was
supposed to take what it was given, so to speak.
By trying to make the web about presentation, you are fighting against
fundmental assumptions of the system design. Even with CSS. And the
thing is, I don't believe that the users really care that much. Some
do, certainly, but two factors provide evidence that most do not:
1. The big growth of the web happened prior to CSS and sophisticated
layout becoming widespread.
2. Things like Flash and PDF are not particularly popular with users.
Sure, users will notice if your site is unusually cool in some
respect. But I don't think that influences their decision whether to
come back very much.
> The new embedded font standards are a possibility, but they depend on a new
> enough browser.
>
> > Which is another reason to write pages that do not need it.
> I'm not talking about cutting edge flashy shit here, NS4 does not support
> some very simple things.
NS4 is pretty old too. Mozilla branched off, what, three years ago?
There has not been much development of NS4 since. Mozilla does do most
of what you are asking for (Bellsouth's web site even likes it), but
since IE is bundled with Windows and AOL, not many Windows users are
going to bother with the download.
All of the newer browsers for non-Windows platforms (Mozilla
deriviatives, Opera, and Konqueror at least) have much better support
for the features you desire. As people upgrade their systems NS4 will
fade. I hardly use it any more except for sites that require plugins,
which are still problematic on other browsers. In another year you
won't have to worry about NS4 any longer.
> > It seems that a large number of companies and their web designers don't
> > understand this. They appear to think that a web site is like a
> > brochure or an advertisement. It shouldn't be in most cases.
>
> Well, it depends what sort of company you are and what sort of product you
> market.
Perhaps, but if your site has useful content then people will come back
even if it is not flashy. OTOH, if the content is not useful then they
won't. The web is not like a rack of magazines at the grocery store,
each shouting "pick me up" to the customers walking by. It is viewed
that way by lots of people, but I think if you study real users you
will find that they don't use the web that way. They use it more like
a library or a catalog and go looking for specific things.
> I read enough of your home page to gather that, but you do seem interested
> in the web and the content that makes it up...
Sure. I am far more interested in the content than in the presentation
of that content though. I think a lot of the commercial companies who
have jumped into the web have fundamentally missed the point that it is
all about the content and only peripherally about the presentation.
Even e-commerce sites are not about flash or presentation. If I go to
Amazon, I am already sold on buying something, usually something in
particular. All they have to do is to not put me off in some way, they
can't make me more likely to buy than I already am. I'm more likely to
be put off by an overly elaborate site that doesn't work right or is
slow than by one that has the "wrong" fonts.
It is not fundamentally important that the site look to the user
exactly as envisioned by the designer. It is important only that it be
functional and not off-putting. HTML was intended to provide that, not
precise layout. The add-ons help with layout but do not change the
fundamental paradigm.
> Cheers. You too. Or a productive one if it is business...
I was doing some field testing of a new product. Found one bug I have
to fix, and one unfunded new requirement. I guess that's productive...
I also redid my home page to get rid of the "one big table" 8->. Will
get that posted soon.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 20:30:56 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 4 May 2001 23:02:22
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 3 May 2001
> >> >On Thu, 3 May 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> >> >> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 2 May 2001 21:08:02
> >> >>> 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.
> >> >
> >> >For the nth time, this is false.
> >>
> >> For the nth+1 time, your contention is flawed.
> >
> >No, it isn't.
> >Prove it. By example.
>
> You cannot prove something is impossible by example, Ayende. I'd think
> if you're smart enough to program you should be smart enough to know
> that already.
Okay, point taken, prove that it's very hard, then.
That is how we proved speed of light limit.
*I* can prove that it *is* possible, you know.
I've given number of examples that show it is possible, already.
> >We have provided plenty of examples, you're stuck with "It's not true,
mommy
> >told me so!"
>
> No, I've stuck quite clearly with, "You seem to be misunderstanding what
> I am saying; none of those are examples, nor could there be any
> examples, because what you are suggesting is 'true' is physically
> impossible, like throwing paints into the air and having them land in
> the shape of the Mona Lisa."
What is the problem with that example? It's perfectly possible.
It has about the same chance as every molucole of air escaping the room and
strangling everyone, but it *is* possible.
However, T. Max, you don't have the knowledge to judge whatever this is
possible. Find one of your programmers friends and show them some of the
samples that I've posted, then make them write a post explaining what this
is wrong.
I would be very surprised if they could do it.
Most spesifically, I'm talking about this post:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=+%22class+array%22+author:ayende+author:ra
hien&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&scoring=r&rnum=2&ic=1&selm=9cv1rk%24n9a%241%40talies
in.netcom.net.uk
> >Such things can be of many uses for a programmer. From proof of concept
to
> >just studying the way the application work to debugging.
>
> So long as it remains solely useful to a programmer, to be honest, I
> don't give a fuck. Any snippet of code is supposedly protectable under
> copyright, but that doesn't make it a "program". From 'proof of
> concept' to 'example' to 'debugging aid', it might be code, but it ain't
> a "program". And, honestly, if you're a programmer and you disagree on
> this point, YOU ARE MISTAKEN.
Not supposedly, it *is* under copyright.
Everything you write is under your copyright.
What does this have to do with the discussion.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 20:36:46 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 4 May 2001 22:56:31
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [...]
> >> 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.
> >
> >It's done in pratice since just about forever.
> >Here is a code that rely on non existing library.
>
> It is WITHOUT ANY CONCEIVABLE DOUBT, the case that you misunderstood
> what "it" is. Perhaps you wish to fudge the concept of a 'non-existent
> library'. Perhaps you are under the impression this code is
> 'functional' or 'useful'. I doubt even you would be ignorant enough to
> believe anyone would pay you for it though. So theoretically, it might
> be copyrightable, but practically speaking, I don't think you need to
> waste your time registering it or anything.
It's *my* copyright, I don't need to register it.
If I wrote it, it's my copyright.
> By "in theory" I meant to exclude such moronic ideas as those coming
> from you right now. This "here is code" is THEORY. PRACTICE is when
> you make a real program that real people use.
This kind of snippet can and is used in programs that real people use.
Most people prefer std::vector, but this is routinely given in class
assignments everywhere people learn C++, and is later used as a foundation
to programs that you *could* sell.
Money has *nothing* to do with copyright, T. Max.
> >Here is the library's API:
> [...]
> >Now, I can gurantee you that anyone who code in C++ can:
> >A> implement the API
> >B> predict what the output of the program would be according to the API,
> >*without* implementing the API.
>
> Make money off it? That's the only part that counts in copyright, you
> know: you gets paid.
No, it isn't. And yes, I can make money of off it.
This particular API gurantee that I wouldn't have buffer overflow errors,
and would immediatly inform me if such a thing happened.
This mean that I could save valuable time fixing other stuff, instead of
worrying about this.
> >Give it to your friend with the extensive experiance in programming, T.
Max,
> >and convice him to say why he think that A & B are incorrect.
>
> My friends are no more concerned with THOUGHT EXPERIMENTS like this than
> I am.
It's no thought experiment, T. Max.
It's reality.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 20:40:48 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 4 May 2001 23:33:45
> [...]
> >> You are mistaken about what "it" is.
> >
> >Programming to an API without implementation.
>
> No, creating a program that is derivative of something that doesn't
> exist.
You can write a program that used a non existing API, whatever it's a
derivative of a library is another matter.
> >Possible, in practice, in fact, used just about everywhere in application
> >development.
>
> No real-world software has EVER been written to an *API* that doesn't
> "exist". If you write the program and say "some day their will be a
> library that..." then you have created the API. Whether you documented,
> coded, or 'implemented' it first is entirely irrelevant, you've defined
> it enough to use it, so it exists. You cannot use an API that doesn't
> exist. Nor is coding in a library the only thing which can be called
> "implementation".
An API has *zero* relationship to the implementation.
An API define how you talk to the application, what it does, and what it
tells you, period.
Nothing to do with the implementation.
Who talked about using non-existing API? We are talking about using API with
no libraries.
Writing a library is implementation, period. You implement the API.
> This isn't a situation of my ignorance of programming; I've explained
> that already several times, and don't understand why it is so hard to
> understand; you'd think programmers would be smart enough to figure it
> out after a dozen exchanges! The question has nothing to do with
> programming, it isn't a matter of what is or is not possible in
> programming, and it's getting to the point where programmers appear
> particularly ill-equipped to understand the *COPYRIGHT ISSUES* involving
> derivative works, and the FSF's claim, which does stand up however much
> you waste my time arguing against a point you don't grasp.
Before this go on any further, explain what you think an API is. Don't avoid
the issue this time, tell me do you think an API *is*.
You seem to have very loose connection to reality in this matter.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 20:43:12 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 4 May 2001 23:33:38
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 3 May 2001
01:14:57
> >
> >> >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.
> >
> >State it.
> >It being what you think API is.
>
> I'm tempted to ignore the post, or avoid the question, just to frustrate
> you, since in fact the issue is entirely off-topic. Still, just so you
> know: Application Programming Interface, and that is what it is, not
> just what I think it is. There's nothing about any of those terms which
> requires additional explanation (though you're probably a tad confused
> on 'interface', but that's not important now) but if you would like to
> learn more, feel free to ask.
And HTTP is Hyper Text Transfer Protocol, it doesn't tell me anything about
what HTTP *is*, T. Max, only what the abbrevation is.
Therefor, what is Application Program Interface, in your opinion?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS should sue the pants off linux-mandrake (was: Re: Winvocates confuse
me - d'oh!)
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 20:47:00 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 4 May 2001 23:25:54
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 2 May 2001
20:30:02
> >> >"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> [...]
> >> >When was Ada the next big thing?
> >> >I agree that the syntax can use improving, but the ideas on the basis
of
> >Ada
> >> >are *very* good.
> >>
> >> A couple decades ago, the U.S. Government defined ADA as a standardized
> >> programming language. All work done for the gov't was to be done in
> >> ADA, the 'hardware neutral' programming language, the 'next big thing'.
> >
> >I know what Ada is, and I know how badly the mandate was accepted.
> >I also know that there were many loopholes in it.
>
> Then you should have simply said "Ada was never 'the next big thing'",
> if you wanted to disagree with Tom's phrasing, rather than pretending to
> not understand it.
I thought he might have more knowledge of the subject then I am.
Considerring that he said that there was a time that Ada was the next big
thing, and that I knew of no such time, I asked about it.
I couldn't tell whatever he is right or wrong before knowing what he spoke
about.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roy Culley)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: If Windows is supposed to be so "thoroughly" tested...
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 19:11:19 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <DYLI6.22416$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <v_CI6.22359$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Well, if Open Source software is so thoroughly tested, how come programs
>> > like BIND have had the same bugs for 10+ years without being found?
>>
>> And how long before a fix was available once found? Also, Microsoft
>> must be reasonably confident with BIND since their own DNS has been
>> farmed out to a company that uses Linux/BIND following their recent
>> DNS embarrassment.
>
> Fixes to issues appear quickly from MS. There is quite a large list of
> hotfixes.
>
> You're trying to deflect your embarassment over being called on this. It
> doesn't matter what MS's confidence in BIND is, the fact of the matter is
> that bugs exist, and they sometimes exist for a decade or more with people
> looking at them every day. Yet bugs are also found without the source code,
> just as easily it would seem.
My embarrassment? All but the most trivial SW has bugs. Applications
like BIND, sendmail, etc were written long before the Internet became
a huge global network. sendmail had a horendous record for security
bugs because it is an extremely complex piece of SW. Virtually every
email received via the Internet passes through a sendmail server. I
can't remember when the last security bug in sendmail was
discovoured. No doubt there are more lurking in it somewhere but they
will be fixed within a very short space of time once
discovoured. Microsoft's record in regard to security is the worst by
far. Only since they have started to take the Internet seriously have
they bothered about their image with regard to security. They are
failing abismally at this moment in time and yet with .net they want
people to trust them with their data!
>> > Fact is, bugs exist. MS has fixed the problem in Windows 2000, which is
>> > what all their new OS's are based on.
>>
>> So you are saying that Microsoft have already stopped supporting NT4.
>> Shouldn't they inform the millions of NT4 users to 'upgrade' to W2K
>> immediately because their NT4 IP is basically insecure?
>
> Does Red Hat inform all their 5.0 users that they should upgrade because
> they have tons of problems?
They provide updated rpm's for all the versions they support when a
security bug is found. Microsoft aren't doing this for NT4 for the ISN
bug yet it is still a supported OS version.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
