Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

[News] Dana Blankenhorn Says Mark Shuttleworth Embraces GPLv3, Adds Anti-American Slant

3 views
Skip to first unread message

Roy Schestowitz

unread,
Aug 6, 2007, 7:49:22 PM8/6/07
to
Shuttleworth grasps open source political message

,----[ Quote ]
| In his interview today Shuttleworth also said Ubuntu will support GPLv3 and
| was careful not to criticize Linus Torvalds, who supports GPLv2, saying the
| differences in the contracts is more of a kernel issue than anything else.
|
| [...]
|
| But it’s Shuttleworth’s swipes at Microsoft and his rallying of anti-American
| sentiment which I believe will be the headlines, and should be.
`----

http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=1287

nes...@wigner.berkeley.edu

unread,
Aug 6, 2007, 8:25:12 PM8/6/07
to

> |
> | But it's Shuttleworth's swipes at Microsoft and his rallying of anti-American
> | sentiment which I believe will be the headlines, and should be.
> `----
>
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=1287

I read Blankenhorn's comments and the eweek article on Shuttleworth's
calling Microsoft extortionist, and I didn't see anywhere that
Shuttleworth "rallied anti-American sentiment". Did Shuttleworth
really do this, or is this just Blankenhorn's interpretation?

[H]omer

unread,
Aug 6, 2007, 9:25:34 PM8/6/07
to
Verily I say unto thee, that nes...@wigner.berkeley.edu spake thusly:
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:

You'd need to think like a typical Redneck Corporatist, in who's opinion:

. Free Software is Anti-American
. Speaking out against Microsoft is Anti-American
. Merely not being an American, is Anti-American
. Fighting for civil liberties and personal freedom is Anti-American
. Thinking for oneself is Anti-American
. Not being greedy, exploitative, and materialistic is Anti-American
. Not subscribing to the Redneck Corporatist agenda is Anti-American

GPLv3 is perceived, rightly or wrongly, as a severe threat to that
Redneck Corporatist agenda, so it's only natural they should lash out at
anyone speaking in it's favour, or speaking against one of their own.

Expect a McCarthy-style witch hunt against Free thinkers, any day now.
We're all Commie terrorists, allegedly.

--
K.
http://slated.org

.----
| "Proprietary licenses, the crack cocaine of software finance."
| - Matt Asay, CNET
`----

Fedora release 7 (Moonshine) on sky, running kernel 2.6.21-1.3194.fc7
02:23:05 up 7 days, 11:38, 3 users, load average: 0.50, 0.63, 0.72

Roy Schestowitz

unread,
Aug 6, 2007, 9:00:25 PM8/6/07
to
____/ nes...@wigner.berkeley.edu on Tuesday 07 August 2007 01:25 : \____

Dana Blankenhorn has a political blog and very often he turns 'open source'
debates into political ones. I like this type of mixture as much as I like
mixing technical discussions with religion (not very much).

--
~~ Best of wishes

Roy S. Schestowitz | #00ff00 Day - Basket Case
http://Schestowitz.com | Open Prospects | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Tasks: 119 total, 1 running, 118 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
http://iuron.com - knowledge engine, not a search engine

Roy Schestowitz

unread,
Aug 7, 2007, 12:07:11 AM8/7/07
to
____/ [H]omer on Tuesday 07 August 2007 02:25 : \____

> Verily I say unto thee, that nes...@wigner.berkeley.edu spake thusly:
>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>>> | But it's Shuttleworth's swipes at Microsoft and his rallying of
>>> | anti-American sentiment which I believe will be the headlines,
>>> | and should be.
>>> `----
>>>
>>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=1287
>>
>> I read Blankenhorn's comments and the eweek article on Shuttleworth's
>> calling Microsoft extortionist, and I didn't see anywhere that
>> Shuttleworth "rallied anti-American sentiment". Did Shuttleworth
>> really do this, or is this just Blankenhorn's interpretation?
>
> You'd need to think like a typical Redneck Corporatist, in who's opinion:
>
> . Free Software is Anti-American
> . Speaking out against Microsoft is Anti-American
> . Merely not being an American, is Anti-American
> . Fighting for civil liberties and personal freedom is Anti-American
> . Thinking for oneself is Anti-American
> . Not being greedy, exploitative, and materialistic is Anti-American
> . Not subscribing to the Redneck Corporatist agenda is Anti-American
>
> GPLv3 is perceived, rightly or wrongly, as a severe threat to that
> Redneck Corporatist agenda, so it's only natural they should lash out at
> anyone speaking in it's favour, or speaking against one of their own.
>
> Expect a McCarthy-style witch hunt against Free thinkers, any day now.
> We're all Commie terrorists, allegedly.

Well said. It's tiring to see that everyone who dared to say that Africans, for
example, deserve good jobs in IT (locally) are anti-American or whatever...

A lot of what we have now is the result of product of exploitation. As Red
Hat's CEO said a few months back, this leads to instability, including
terrorism (no, not Microsoft's corporate terrorism, but actual death).

--
~~ Best of wishes

Roy S. Schestowitz | Software patents destroy innovation
http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
05:05:02 up 7:58, 3 users, load average: 1.62, 1.90, 1.85
http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project

John Bailo, Texeme.Construct

unread,
Aug 7, 2007, 3:19:48 AM8/7/07
to
On Aug 6, 4:49 pm, Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@schestowitz.com> wrote:

> | But it's Shuttleworth's swipes at Microsoft and his rallying of anti-American
> | sentiment which I believe will be the headlines, and should be.

South Africa wants to start a war with US now?

Ok, great, they have some nice beaches...we can add them to the
Empire.

Hadron

unread,
Aug 7, 2007, 4:33:08 AM8/7/07
to

You mean to the places where you send your young men to die? I hate to
tell you, but the US has a worse track record in foreign conflict
results post WW2 than Saddam Hussein.

waterskidoo

unread,
Aug 7, 2007, 10:13:03 AM8/7/07
to
On 2007-08-07, Hadron <hadro...@googlemail.com> wrote:

>
> You mean to the places where you send your young men to die? I hate to
> tell you, but the US has a worse track record in foreign conflict
> results post WW2 than Saddam Hussein.

Mostly because we go into a war with our hands tied behind our backs.
It's almost to the point where our soldiers have to ask permission
to shoot the enemy.
Oh, and I am completely against the Iraq war. We never should have
gone in there. Seeing as the majority of the hijackers came from
Saudi Arabia, financing for terrorists is coming from other
middle eastern countries,Iraq would have been near
the bottom of *my* list.
Oh, I forgot, the Saudi first family are good friends of Bush.
Gee, I wonder if that has anything to do with it.
If th USA wanted to fight a war the proper way, Iraq would be
a pile of rubble within a week.

Hadron

unread,
Aug 7, 2007, 10:21:52 AM8/7/07
to
waterskidoo <water....@yahoo.com> writes:

The proper way? Like Blitzkrieg and bombing the shit out of the innocent
Civilian population? Yeah. Good one.

waterskidoo

unread,
Aug 7, 2007, 11:47:40 AM8/7/07
to
On 2007-08-07, Hadron <hadro...@googlemail.com> wrote:

>
> The proper way? Like Blitzkrieg and bombing the shit out of the innocent
> Civilian population? Yeah. Good one.

War has casualties, that's the nature of it.
The USA didn't knock their buildings down and the average US citizen
doesn't want to see every middle eastern person dead.
The real terrorists and countries that harbor and support them
should be put on notice to mend their ways or their entire infrastructure
should be reduced to rubble starting with the military installations and
moving on to their manufacturing and so forth.
And when the people, the innocent people, have had enough of what
their terrorist backing govt has done to them maybe *they* will
revolt and take back their country.
Fighting this war while at the same time trying not
to *offend* anyone is wrong.
IOW if it is believed that a particular mosque is harboring
terrorists it should be leveled to the ground.
But like I said, we attacked the wrong country.

nes...@wigner.berkeley.edu

unread,
Aug 7, 2007, 11:50:25 AM8/7/07
to

>
> Dana Blankenhorn has a political blog and very often he turns 'open source'
> debates into political ones. I like this type of mixture as much as I like
> mixing technical discussions with religion (not very much).

Me neither. You can see the results by the rest of this thread.

Nevertheless, it's easy to see why people (outside the US) will
conflate Microsoft's behavior with other things about the US that they
don't like. It doesn't play to Microsoft's advantage.


Kier

unread,
Aug 7, 2007, 2:32:03 PM8/7/07
to
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 15:47:40 +0000, waterskidoo wrote:

> On 2007-08-07, Hadron <hadro...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> The proper way? Like Blitzkrieg and bombing the shit out of the innocent
>> Civilian population? Yeah. Good one.
>
> War has casualties, that's the nature of it.

That's true. But in what is percieved to be a just war, casualties are
more likely to be accepted.

> The USA didn't knock their buildings down and the average US citizen
> doesn't want to see every middle eastern person dead.
> The real terrorists and countries that harbor and support them
> should be put on notice to mend their ways or their entire infrastructure
> should be reduced to rubble starting with the military installations and
> moving on to their manufacturing and so forth.

That isn't going to work. To begin with, a lot of these people don't much
care about the country, the infastructure, or the people. The innocent
ones among them will suffer while the terrorists slip away to resume their
crusade elsewhere.

Also, destroy infastructure, and you've huge proble later on when you have
to rebuild. It's harder to win hearts and minds when you've destroyed teh
only decent water supply and all the hospitals.

> And when the people, the innocent people, have had enough of what
> their terrorist backing govt has done to them maybe *they* will
> revolt and take back their country.

Maybe. But most of them are too tired of fighting, and too afraid. They
want peace, not more wars.

> Fighting this war while at the same time trying not
> to *offend* anyone is wrong.

Certainly you can't be delicate in war. But heavy bombing where civilians
are certain to be killed in huge numbers simply doesn't work. It didn't
work on us in the Blitz, it didn't even work on the Germans. In the end,
teh Allies went in on the ground and beat the enemy hand to hand.

> IOW if it is believed that a particular mosque is harboring
> terrorists it should be leveled to the ground.

That sounds fine in principle, but if there are a large number of unarmed
civilians inside, what then? We cannot combat evil by becoming evil
ourselves.

> But like I said, we attacked the wrong country.

We should be looking towards getting Muslims to modernise Islam, rather
than making more war.

--
Kier

Mark Kent

unread,
Aug 7, 2007, 1:39:40 PM8/7/07
to
waterskidoo <water....@yahoo.com> espoused:

> On 2007-08-07, Hadron <hadro...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> The proper way? Like Blitzkrieg and bombing the shit out of the innocent
>> Civilian population? Yeah. Good one.
>
> War has casualties, that's the nature of it.
> The USA didn't knock their buildings down and the average US citizen
> doesn't want to see every middle eastern person dead.
> The real terrorists and countries that harbor and support them
> should be put on notice to mend their ways or their entire infrastructure
> should be reduced to rubble starting with the military installations and
> moving on to their manufacturing and so forth.

The problem with that argument is that the US has supported terrorism
all over the world for years. Saddam Hussein himself is a product of US
finance, for example. Or was, until he was killed.

The right answer is not to threaten people, it's to talk to them, to
discuss with them.

--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |

Bob Hauck

unread,
Aug 7, 2007, 1:35:37 PM8/7/07
to
On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 15:47:40 +0000 (UTC), waterskidoo
<water....@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On 2007-08-07, Hadron <hadro...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> The proper way? Like Blitzkrieg and bombing the shit out of the innocent
>> Civilian population? Yeah. Good one.
>
> War has casualties, that's the nature of it.

Perhaps that is a good argument for fighting fewer of them, as opposed
to an argument for fighting them "better".


--
-| Bob Hauck
-| "Reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
-| http://www.haucks.org/

waterskidoo

unread,
Aug 7, 2007, 2:27:17 PM8/7/07
to
On 2007-08-07, Bob Hauck <postm...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 15:47:40 +0000 (UTC), waterskidoo
><water....@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2007-08-07, Hadron <hadro...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The proper way? Like Blitzkrieg and bombing the shit out of the innocent
>>> Civilian population? Yeah. Good one.
>>
>> War has casualties, that's the nature of it.
>
> Perhaps that is a good argument for fighting fewer of them, as opposed
> to an argument for fighting them "better".

Yes it certainly is.
Like I said, this war is wrong.

The Ghost In The Machine

unread,
Aug 7, 2007, 3:27:37 PM8/7/07
to
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, waterskidoo
<water....@yahoo.com>
wrote
on Tue, 7 Aug 2007 18:27:17 +0000 (UTC)
<f9adi5$98v$2...@registered.motzarella.org>:

I'll admit to wondering. On the face of it, Bush's
intentions are good (but why were they shifting reasons
for the war every few months some time back?). There
are many problems:

1. It's the wrong theater. Osama's last known location
is somewhere on the Pakistan/Afghanistan border.
Why'd we shift eastward to Iraq? Was there a mirage
or something? (Oh, and gotta love that impromptu
appearance of The Bearded One three days before the
2004 election!)

If one wants to get nasty to King Saud, one might point
out that many of the 19 hijackers (or, if one prefers,
"freedom fighters" -- freedom for whom?) were from
Saudi Arabia. But did we invade Riyadh? No.
We invaded Baghdad. My brain hurts.

2. Saddam and Osama, reportedly, were not speaking at the
time of the attack. To be sure, Saddam is not speaking
to anybody at the moment, unless one wishes to hold a
seance... :-)

3. Even if one grants that attacking Iraq was a good idea,
to liberate the populace, we are now sowing the seeds of
future rebellion, allowing Iraq to become a safe haven
for future terrorists (al Qaeda based or just the home
grown bunch). To be sure, recent news suggests that the
Iraqis are getting increasingly frustrated at picking up
the charred and meaty bits after the suicide explosions,
and some have reported that gently suggesting that
they would no longer be allowed to, among other things,
import cigarettes under a Taliban-like system, at least
gets them to reconsider, and in some cases switch sides.

Still...the road to hell, and all that. We'll see come
October. (I don't hold much hope for September.)

4. Does it really matter where one dies? True, one
might make a case for sacrificing 3600+ young men
and women (voluntarily enlisting, I might add) in
order to avoid sacrificing hundreds of thousands over
here...if one can show that a terrorist attack of, say,
an airborne dirty bomb would cause such (the risks to
me look more like the deaths by panic stampedes out of
the way of the bomb, than deaths from the bomb proper,
but I'd rather not find out the hard way).

But die they did, in service for their country -- and
hopefully not in vain, but one wonders why they had to
be in there at all.

May their families find peace.

--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #992381111:
while(bit&BITMASK) ;

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

dapunka

unread,
Aug 7, 2007, 5:29:20 PM8/7/07
to
On 7 Aug, 00:49, Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@schestowitz.com> wrote:
> Shuttleworth grasps open source political message
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
<snip>

> | But it's Shuttleworth's swipes at Microsoft and his rallying of anti-American
> | sentiment which I believe will be the headlines, and should be.
> `----

Correct me if I'm wrong: But Shuttleworth isn't American is he?
Canonical isn't American is it? So what the hell is so wrong, and so
news-worthy, about the guy spieling shit that isn't pro-America?

Or is it "unpatriotic" for a non-American to care about stuff other
than America's interest?


dapunka

unread,
Aug 7, 2007, 5:31:54 PM8/7/07
to
On 7 Aug, 02:00, Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@schestowitz.com> wrote:

> Dana Blankenhorn has a political blog and very often he turns 'open source'
> debates into political ones. I like this type of mixture as much as I like
> mixing technical discussions with religion (not very much).

Didn't you know? God uses Microsoft.

No wonder the Jewish, Christian and Islamic faiths are so fucked up.

dapunka

unread,
Aug 7, 2007, 5:34:00 PM8/7/07
to
On 7 Aug, 09:33, Hadron <hadronqu...@googlemail.com> wrote:

Maybe he meant that the USA has some nice beaches to add to the RSA
empire?

dapunka

unread,
Aug 7, 2007, 5:43:03 PM8/7/07
to
On 7 Aug, 15:13, waterskidoo <water.ski...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On 2007-08-07, Hadron <hadronqu...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > You mean to the places where you send your young men to die? I hate to
> > tell you, but the US has a worse track record in foreign conflict
> > results post WW2 than Saddam Hussein.
>
> Mostly because we go into a war with our hands tied behind our backs.
> It's almost to the point where our soldiers have to ask permission
> to shoot the enemy.

Have you noticed there's been a few interesting cases coming out of
Iraq recently. A unit of US troops went out to eliminate a "known
Iraqi insurgent" but couldn't find him. So they /murdered/ his
neighbour and planted evidence to make it look like the poor sod was a
bomber...

And even better - a bunch of US troops have been jailed for the rape
and murder of a 14 years old Iraqi girl and the murder of her family.
Yep, the USA knows how to fight a war...

> If th USA wanted to fight a war the proper way, Iraq would be
> a pile of rubble within a week.

Like in Afghanistan, where US troops and bombers have /repeatedly/
taken out civilian targets - like a huge number of wedding feasts!

Maybe they're right - if they kill /everyone/ in Afghanistan, they'll
certainly cut down big-time on the number of Taliban there.

Then they can nuke Pakistan to get the rest of the bastards!! Right,
y'all American patriots?


Mark Kent

unread,
Aug 7, 2007, 5:39:40 PM8/7/07
to
dapunka <dap...@googlemail.com> espoused:

> On 7 Aug, 00:49, Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>> Shuttleworth grasps open source political message
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
><snip>
>> | But it's Shuttleworth's swipes at Microsoft and his rallying of anti-American
>> | sentiment which I believe will be the headlines, and should be.
>> `----
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong: But Shuttleworth isn't American is he?
> Canonical isn't American is it? So what the hell is so wrong, and so
> news-worthy, about the guy spieling shit that isn't pro-America?

Well, no, he's from RSA, and Canonical is headquartered in the IOM,
which is part of the British Isles, indeed, it's a British protectorate.

>
> Or is it "unpatriotic" for a non-American to care about stuff other
> than America's interest?
>

Well, US interest is hard to define here anyway; I would say that free
software is in the overall interests of the US, but Microsoft would
claim otherwise.

nes...@wigner.berkeley.edu

unread,
Aug 7, 2007, 6:19:12 PM8/7/07
to
Gentlemen, may I gently suggest that we stay on topic in cola? I have
my opinions about wars, too.

waterskidoo

unread,
Aug 7, 2007, 7:21:42 PM8/7/07
to
On 2007-08-07, dapunka <dap...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 7 Aug, 02:00, Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@schestowitz.com> wrote:

>
> Didn't you know? God uses Microsoft.

Well that explains why the sky is blue <mesmiles>!

> No wonder the Jewish, Christian and Islamic faiths are so fucked up.

hehe.

Hadron

unread,
Aug 7, 2007, 9:56:40 PM8/7/07
to
"nes...@wigner.berkeley.edu" <nes...@wigner.berkeley.edu> writes:

> Gentlemen, may I gently suggest that we stay on topic in cola? I have
> my opinions about wars, too.
>

Yes. Bill Gates hasn't been blamed for the war yet. Get it back on topic.

--

Thufir

unread,
Aug 8, 2007, 3:30:34 AM8/8/07
to
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 23:21:42 +0000, waterskidoo wrote:

>> Didn't you know? God uses Microsoft.
>
> Well that explains why the sky is blue <mesmiles>!


ROFLMAO!


-Thufir

Roy Schestowitz

unread,
Aug 8, 2007, 6:33:00 AM8/8/07
to
____/ Thufir on Wednesday 08 August 2007 08:30 : \____

Haha. I missed the pun until you laughed.

--
~~ Best of wishes

Roy S. Schestowitz | Free 3-D Reversi: http://othellomaster.com
http://Schestowitz.com | Free as in Free Beer | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Load average (/proc/loadavg): 1.28 1.78 2.03 3/169 24017
http://iuron.com - semantic search engine project initiative

chrisv

unread,
Aug 8, 2007, 8:42:35 AM8/8/07
to
waterskidoo wrote:

>On 2007-08-07, dapunka <dap...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Didn't you know? God uses Microsoft.
>
>Well that explains why the sky is blue <mesmiles>!

Ha! That's a good one...

The Ghost In The Machine

unread,
Aug 8, 2007, 11:31:01 AM8/8/07
to
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Roy Schestowitz
<newsg...@schestowitz.com>
wrote
on Wed, 08 Aug 2007 11:33:00 +0100
<3579917.F...@schestowitz.com>:

> ____/ Thufir on Wednesday 08 August 2007 08:30 : \____
>
>> On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 23:21:42 +0000, waterskidoo wrote:
>>
>>>> Didn't you know? God uses Microsoft.
>>>
>>> Well that explains why the sky is blue <mesmiles>!
>>
>>
>> ROFLMAO!
>
> Haha. I missed the pun until you laughed.
>

The Blue Sky Of Death? Oy.

That's not a pleasant notion, thank you (though it
is a funny one :-) ).

--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Windows Vista. It'll Fix Everything(tm).

Roy Schestowitz

unread,
Aug 8, 2007, 1:06:40 PM8/8/07
to
____/ The Ghost In The Machine on Wednesday 08 August 2007 16:31 : \____

> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Roy Schestowitz
> <newsg...@schestowitz.com>
> wrote
> on Wed, 08 Aug 2007 11:33:00 +0100
> <3579917.F...@schestowitz.com>:
>> ____/ Thufir on Wednesday 08 August 2007 08:30 : \____
>>
>>> On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 23:21:42 +0000, waterskidoo wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Didn't you know? God uses Microsoft.
>>>>
>>>> Well that explains why the sky is blue <mesmiles>!
>>>
>>>
>>> ROFLMAO!
>>
>> Haha. I missed the pun until you laughed.
>>
>
> The Blue Sky Of Death? Oy.
>
> That's not a pleasant notion, thank you (though it
> is a funny one :-) ).

Well, at least a blue screen can calm you down.

Better than kernel panic, no?

--
~~ Best of wishes

Microsoft loves competition.
"I’d be glad to help tilt lotus into into the death spiral. I could do it
Friday afternoon but not Saturday. I could do it pretty much any time the
following week."
--bradsi, Microsoft


http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E

18:05:01 up 1 day, 20:58, 6 users, load average: 0.61, 0.82, 0.99

The Ghost In The Machine

unread,
Aug 8, 2007, 3:26:15 PM8/8/07
to
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Roy Schestowitz
<newsg...@schestowitz.com>
wrote
on Wed, 08 Aug 2007 18:06:40 +0100
<1910674.0...@schestowitz.com>:

> ____/ The Ghost In The Machine on Wednesday 08 August 2007 16:31 : \____
>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Roy Schestowitz
>> <newsg...@schestowitz.com>
>> wrote
>> on Wed, 08 Aug 2007 11:33:00 +0100
>> <3579917.F...@schestowitz.com>:
>>> ____/ Thufir on Wednesday 08 August 2007 08:30 : \____
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 23:21:42 +0000, waterskidoo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Didn't you know? God uses Microsoft.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well that explains why the sky is blue <mesmiles>!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ROFLMAO!
>>>
>>> Haha. I missed the pun until you laughed.
>>>
>>
>> The Blue Sky Of Death? Oy.
>>
>> That's not a pleasant notion, thank you (though it
>> is a funny one :-) ).
>
> Well, at least a blue screen can calm you down.
>
> Better than kernel panic, no?
>

That depends. An OOPS at least includes a recognizable
register dump. :-) Not sure where the registers are on
the NT stop screen (presumably they're somewhere, along
with part of one of the stacks [*] at the time it bombed),
and the Win95 stop screen had nothing but the message
"Sorry, I'm dead" (paraphrased). Panics contain
little more than a message, which hopefully someone can
intercept.

[*] there are two stacks, at least: the user's stack and
the much smaller interrupt stack. There might be a third
stack for the kernel, but I'd have to look.

--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #40490127:
for(;;) ;

waterskidoo

unread,
Aug 10, 2007, 4:54:56 PM8/10/07
to
On 2007-08-08, Roy Schestowitz <newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote:
> ____/ The Ghost In The Machine on Wednesday 08 August 2007 16:31 : \____

> Well, at least a blue screen can calm you down.


>
> Better than kernel panic, no?

True! I do believe that green is the most relaxing color though
which is why hospitals, schools etc tend to be painted with
some shade of green. Especially older ones.

The Ghost In The Machine

unread,
Aug 10, 2007, 6:12:46 PM8/10/07
to
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, waterskidoo
<water....@yahoo.com>
wrote
on Fri, 10 Aug 2007 20:54:56 +0000 (UTC)
<f9ijb0$mg1$2...@registered.motzarella.org>:

Maybe so; I'll admit it makes some sense from an
evolutionary standpoint (we're primarily a grasslands
creature). However, given the Linux limitations as they
stand today we'll probably have to be content with a
panic() message with basic white-on-black, unless someone
gets cute and fiddles with the foreground and background
colors during startup. :-)

Fortunately for everyone's sake, panic()s are extremely
rare. They could be handled better -- but it's far from
clear to me that the machine is in any state to do much
apart from trying to print a message into a specialized
memory region (which maps to the video screen if all
works well), if it feels the need to panic().

--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #889123:
std::vector<...> v; for(int i = 0; i < v.size(); i++) v.erase(v.begin() + i);

0 new messages