Linux-Advocacy Digest #229, Volume #34 Sat, 5 May 01 20:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT (Giuliano Colla)
Re: IE (T. Max Devlin)
Re: IE (T. Max Devlin)
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) (T. Max
Devlin)
Re: Performance Measure, Linux versus windows (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux has one chance left......... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT ("JVercherIII")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 23:22:51 GMT
JVercherIII wrote:
>
[snip]
> One thing I dont understand about a lot of the arguments going on with
> GPL,etc is that no one is forcing you to use any license. If you do that
> it's your choice. What's the big deal? If I want to give something away I
> wrote and I'm proud of it's my business, not Microsoft's, and if I want to
> charge for it it's nobody's business either. It was like that before the
> Linux, Microsoft, GPL, etc and it will be that way later on too.
That's exactly what makes Microsoft furious. There's nothing they can do
about GPL, except screaming and whining.
They spent years giving away software to kill competition, and losing an
awful lot of money in the process. They tried to hide this fact with
clever tactics (like overdoing with stock options and hiding the
resulting debt, because of some legal loophole). And now, when they were
thinking to begin to milk the cow, it turns out that customers aren't so
eager to upgrade as they'd like to, and moreover big companies like IBM,
Sun, HP, not to speak of all the Japanese, are supporting free software,
which is good for their business, because they sell hardware and
services, and software licenses are just hampering their business.
If I were you I'd seriously consider switching from VB to Delphi: with
the same effort you'll get much better results, and you'll be ready to
switch to a different environment when you'll need to. (Borland has
released the Linux version of Delphi, which works quite well, as far as
I can tell, after a few weeks of testing).
G. Colla
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: IE
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 23:23:24 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 5 May 2001 12:27:37
[...]
>You want to talk about software, learn what you are talking about.
>Otherwise, don't be surprise if you don't understand what is going on.
If you want to talk about commercial software, learn what you are
talking about. Programmers are just cubicle-dwellers: they are
constantly surprised by the fact that *customers* understand software
and they do not. All they know is programming; they don't know
jack-shit about software, usually.
>Anyway, the short version, writing 1000 integers to a binary file takes 10
[...]
>But it wouldn't be *that* slow.
Says you. Find another programmer who cares.
--
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: Sat, 05 May 2001 23:23:29 GMT
Said Edward Rosten in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 05 May 2001 10:06:10
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>I don't follow what you mean. it is a way of arranging data in a
>heirachy.
That is what I meant, yes. Depending on how you abstract the term
'data', you are either wrong, or you are right, and thus the statement
is true metaphorically, but not analytically. Analytically, it is a way
of arranging *files* in a hierarchy. Files may be data, contain data,
or represent data, but they are files.
If you had used the term 'hierarchical datastore', you would have been
just as correct, metaphorically, and possibly more correct analytically
(the term 'database' has concrete meaning beyond 'any base of data',
being a particular method of storing data.) But still not entirely
correct, for the only correct way to say it is as I have: a file system
is a hierarchical organization of files, just as a hierarchical database
is a hierarchical organization of data. That data and files are
interchangeable in some contexts makes it sound like quibbling, but it
will increase the accuracy, consistency, and practical amount of
communication you can accomplish, if you recognize the difference
between what is analytically true, and what is only metaphorically true.
--
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: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 23:23:34 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 4 May 2001
>"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
[...]
>> > What exactly is your point?
>>
>> Point 1. Microsoft, in spite of its immense revenues,
>> big teams, beta programs, and testing, still
>> produces some amazing problems at regular and
>> frequent intervals. (Against which the problems
>> you quote above are essentially trivial.)
>
>Trivial? Considering that MS produces BILLIONS of lines of code every year,
>it's not surprising there are bugs.
Considering MS couldn't come up with a reliable design for an block of
wood, it is not surprising their bugs are so outrageously huge and
embarrassing, compared to the couple of trivial problems with Linux
software.
>A typical Linux distribution has billions of dollars worth of volunteer time
>put into it, and more people looking at it than MS, yet it still gets very
>major problems.
I think that's more of a wiffle than a waffle, but either way, its the
precise opposite of what MS actually claims, which is that the
'volunteer capital' of open source is worthless and that (get this!)
peer review is a *bad* thing! (Guffaw!)
>> Point 2. Microsoft exhibits arrogant grandstanding and a
>> contempt for the user's intelligence, honesty,
>> and freedom to choose.
>
>Much like you are exhibiting here.
No, like you are. Your arguments from ignorance are notorious, Erik,
and show contempt for the intelligence of honest people.
>> Point 3. I wouldn't trust Microsoft for security or fair
>> behavior.
>
>No, that wasn't your original point. Your original point was to say "Look,
>MS is insecure because they have bugs". Well, people that live in glass
>houses...
Check the subject line, billy.
>> Point 4. Free software is a good answer to Microsoft.
>
>Perhaps. We'll see.
You can see it now, in the long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT.
--
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]>
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 23:23:38 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 4 May 2001
>"Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>What's crap is your understanding.
>
>You can only brute force it if you know the decode algorithm. You can
>guess, and analyze and do lots of things, but it could be things like XORing
>the data against a pets name, while rotating 3 bits and compressing it using
>10 different compression algorithms. The number of possible combinations of
>decode algorithms is limitless.
You've got it backwards, Erik. You don't need to know the encoding
algorithm (there is no 'decoding algorithm' separate from reversing the
encoding algorithm) at all to use "brute force". That's why the 'number
of bits' is an issue; its the number of digits in the number (in binary)
which is the prime number used as a factor in the encoding. A brute
force attack against a 4-bit encryption would succeed quickly, while one
against a 128-bit scheme would take many orders of magnitude longer.
Perhaps you didn't realize that you were constraining the kind of
encryption which is at issue by talking about the number of bits.
"Pseudo-randomizing cyphers" (to coin a phrase AFAIK) like what you
describe aren't really secure at all, though the techniques for cracking
such substitution and re-arrangement 'codes' are quite different from
what is referred to as a "brute force" attack.
>Yes, if you had the software that encoded the data, you could probably
>reverse engineer it and figure it out, but if you only have encrypted data
>and know that a key is 4 bits, then you could spend eternity looking for the
>right algorithm.
If you have a cracking program, you don't need to reverse engineer the
cypher to read the data. It doesn't take even as long as a brute force
attack against a prime number factor. The key doesn't represent or give
away the cypher, so it doesn't matter how long it is, but the fact is
such cyphers aren't secure to begin with, easily falling to
computational recombination.
--
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]>
Subject: Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 23:23:40 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001 11:18:20
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>> You've tripped over your own rhetoric: you wanted to say this was a step
>> that Word doesn't need. But you are correct; Word is simply incapable
>> of doing it.
>
>You're grasping at straws.
Yea, right, sure, blah, blah, blah...
>I wanted to say Word does not need the extra step. Lyx does, and needs a
>filename. So what if Word is incapable of doing it?
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha! "So what if it sucks rocks: Microsoft makes it, so it
must be good!"
--
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:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 23:23:41 GMT
Said "JS PL" <hi everybody!> in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 5 May
[...]
>Microsoft offered three principal types of operating system license
>agreements: per copy, per system and per processor.
Yes, but did they offer all three of them, and at the same price, to all
OEMs? Doh!
[...]
>OEMs were not required to use a particular license type,[...]
Of course not: one party of a contract cannot be "required" to agree to
the contract. That doesn't prevent contracts in restraint of trade from
being criminal. Doh!
[...]
>> What an inane paragraph. You are either delusional or in the pay of
>> Microsoft. I fancy the former.
>
>During Microsoft's 1994 fiscal year - the final year in which it offered per
Sock puppets don't get paid by Microsoft; they get paid by the people
they sell their Microsoft stock to, which is why some of them spend so
much time spreading FUD as thick as possible on COLA.
--
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]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 23:23:42 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 5 May 2001 12:52:46
>"Salvador Peralta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:9d0802$t4e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> T. Max Devlin quoth:
>>
>> >>Sure, the scripting is good, I'll give it that. But as far as just a
>> >>basic shell, it's really not that great. Simple editing on the
>> >>command line for long commands isn't terribly easy. HOME and END
>> >>don't work, you have to use CTRL+A and CTRL+E (IIRC) which is much
>> >>less intuitive. It doesn't have a pop-up command history like
>> >>cmd.exe (the F7 key), it doesn't have very good TAB completion (in
>> >>cmd, subsequent hits of TAB cause cycling of files in the dir that
>> >>meet the search criteria).
>> >
>> > <*cough*>
>> >
>> > Try man bash, trollboy; some of this is configurable, IIRC. As for
>> > command history (use the arrow keys - Doh!)
>>
>> Just a typical example of someone who doesn't bother to learn the
>> system and then spreads a bunch of inaccurate information about it.
>> as you say, cycling through the commands using the up and down keys
>> provides one kind of history. Doing something like
>>
>> alias foo='tail -20 .bash_history'
>>
>> in the user's .bashrc provides another. Of course, tab provides
>> name completion or a list of choices rather than trying to guess for
>> the user. In most cases, giving the user the list means a quicker
>> result. Also, I don't get the point about <HOME> and <END>. Both
>> work fine on my system to jump to the beginning and end of the line.
>
>Okay, how do I get del to work correctly and not put ~ instead of deleting?
I don't know; ask your OEM. I've never seen such a thing; the delete
key works find on every installation I've seen or heard about.
>And in history, I think he meant F7 like, when you got a windows with all
>your recent commands.
Why the heck would you want or need a window for a command line history?
>And how do I get tab completion to work on bash, for that matter?
A wild-ass guess would be "TAB_COMPLETION=TRUE" in the .bashrc or
something. Check man bash, I'm sure it's in there.
--
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]>
Subject: Re: Performance Measure, Linux versus windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 23:23:44 GMT
Said Charles Lyttle in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Said Charles Lyttle in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 04 May 2001
>> >Benchmarks on the whole are crap. I
>> >can rig benchmarks to prove anything.
>>
>> The first statement does not follow from the second, I'm afraid.
>> Benchmarks on the whole are not absolute proof of anything, because
>> nothing, on the whole, is absolute proof of anything.
>
>If a benchmark can be rigged to prove anything, then benchmarks are
>crap.
No, that just proves that rigged benchmarks are crap.
>I can rig benchmarks to prove anything.
In theory, maybe. You can't rig my benchmark to prove anything. I can,
of course, but that's not the point. The point is not whether
benchmarks can be rigged, but whether they are rigged. Some are, some
aren't, and even if they're not, no one benchmark ever "proves"
anything.
>Therefore, benchmarks are crap.
What you are obviously ignoring is the fact that no on thing EVER
"proves" anything! Even if your logic were rigorous, it would be false.
Your 'therefore" is completely and entirely mistaken.
>A fundamental element of logic is that a false assumption can be used to
>prove anything.
A benchmark is empirical evidence, not an assumption. Whether or not a
false assumption cannot be used to prove anything, a true assumption
cannot be used to prove anything, either. If you knew anything about
logic, you'd know that.
>By making a false assumption when writing a bechmark, a benchmark can be
>used to prove anything.
Benchmarks are math, not assumptions. Empirical testing is valid, even
if it is potentially flawed, because ALL EMPIRICAL TESTING IS
POTENTIALLY FLAWED. Welcome to what we like to call "the real world".
>The only benchmarks that count are those you write to test your
>application. And they are meaningless for anyone else.
"Meaning" is not something that exists in absolute terms. Even false
data is data; if you know it is false, you can extract information from
it regardless. Especially (but not only) if you know how it is false.
Not that this has anything to do with benchmarks. Yes, ALL benchmarks
are INHERENTLY relative and uncertain, potentially false and potentially
unfalsifiable. But believe it or not, that's the real world.
Heisenburg proved the physical world is uncertain, and Einstein proved
it is relative, Socrates proved it is potentially false, and Popper
proved it is unfalsifiable.
In my forthcoming book, "I Am", I'm planning on proving that Socrates
was wrong, while unifying Popper, Einstein, and Heisenburg in a single
"unified metaphor theory" using a "trichotomous ontological
epistemology", or TOE. That's a plug, by the way. Not a very good one,
but I don't expect the book will be any more comprehensible than the
plug, so I don't think it will matter much.
Regardless of the flaky philosophy stuff, though, my training in
Calibration and Precision Measuring Equipment is enough to know that
your suspicion of benchmarks is valid but uncalled for. There's nothing
"proven" by any benchmark, but this does not prevent it from being
obvious that in terms of performance measure, Linux kicks the bejeesus
out of any Windows on a routine basis, if not on every occasion.
--
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]>
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 23:23:45 GMT
Said GreyCloud in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001 00:16:28
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 03 May 2001 22:19:30 -0700, GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Hell, you're still wet behind the ears!
>>
>> Depends on with whom the comparison is being made. They did still
>> teach vacuum tubes in college when I attended but I never saw a 701 or
>> anything. I do go back to the IBM 360 though although the IBM 370/168
>> was the first unit I was taught on.
>>
>> Point is I'm not a member of the "gui" generation but in fact was
>> there when a Selectric was the console.
>>
>> Flatfish
>
>Ah yes, those were the years. Funny when I was taught semiconductors
>and ICs back in the late 60s in the Army, and then moving over to the
>Navy... it was a major jump back in time! Navy was still using vacuum
>tubes and mag-amps to get things done... we called it boat-anchor
>electronics.
When I was taught tubes, semiconductors, and ICs back in the early 80s
in the Navy, I then went to a patrol squadron (airdale, intermediate
level radar/radio navigation) I worked on some of the most 'venerable'
black boxes there were. I called it "field repairable assemblies with
thirty years of reliable, predictable behavior". :-p
Not that I was all that happy about it at the time (those air force
pukes had it easy; as soon as one component was out of tolerance, they
sent the hole board back to depot) but it is a fact that if one tube
goes bad on a LORAN, you can fix it in five seconds; if one transistor
on an IC goes bad, it'll take five hours just to find it.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "JVercherIII" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 23:30:56 GMT
I don't know too much about Delphi but I'll look into it. I'm still
learning C++, Java, and Perl among other things in college. Pays to be
diversified.
"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> JVercherIII wrote:
> >
> [snip]
> > One thing I dont understand about a lot of the arguments going on with
> > GPL,etc is that no one is forcing you to use any license. If you do that
> > it's your choice. What's the big deal? If I want to give something away
I
> > wrote and I'm proud of it's my business, not Microsoft's, and if I want
to
> > charge for it it's nobody's business either. It was like that before the
> > Linux, Microsoft, GPL, etc and it will be that way later on too.
>
> That's exactly what makes Microsoft furious. There's nothing they can do
> about GPL, except screaming and whining.
> They spent years giving away software to kill competition, and losing an
> awful lot of money in the process. They tried to hide this fact with
> clever tactics (like overdoing with stock options and hiding the
> resulting debt, because of some legal loophole). And now, when they were
> thinking to begin to milk the cow, it turns out that customers aren't so
> eager to upgrade as they'd like to, and moreover big companies like IBM,
> Sun, HP, not to speak of all the Japanese, are supporting free software,
> which is good for their business, because they sell hardware and
> services, and software licenses are just hampering their business.
> If I were you I'd seriously consider switching from VB to Delphi: with
> the same effort you'll get much better results, and you'll be ready to
> switch to a different environment when you'll need to. (Borland has
> released the Linux version of Delphi, which works quite well, as far as
> I can tell, after a few weeks of testing).
>
> G. Colla
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
