All of this zealotry is completely useless, and idiotic...
Stephen S. Edwards II
Holy Guacamole! I simply _can't_ believe how much time some
Linux users seem to spend on inventing ways to bash Windows, and
coming up with their cute little "MicrosoftConspiracyTheories(tm)".
It's really pretty ridiculous.
First of all, understand this... operating systems, and computers
for that matter, __ARE TOOLS!__ They are not buddies that you
drink a smooth lager with... they are not girls... you can't kiss
them, or hug them, or take them to dinner... they are merely
machines which we use to get work done. If someone insults the
software or hardware you use (think about it for a sec), isn't
it VERY STUPID to let it affect you in any way whatsoever? I mean,
if someone spreads untruths about something, then hell yes, call
them an idiot, and make them look foolish... but if I say "Linux
sucks", and that stirs up a hornet's nest in you, then you must
find the nearest bar, and get laid as soon as possible. Aquisition
of a life, a spine, and a brain is your only salvation.
Linux is a good operating system, there is no doubt about that.
But it is not ______P E R F E C T______! In other words, it
doesn't suit everyone. Yes, I know it hurts to read, but please
just embrace that little fact, because many of you in c.o.l.a.
really are quite unaware of this little fact. I can think of
plenty of things that Linux is lacking that commercial OSen
have implemented quickly, and efficiently (no, I have no
interest in listing them, as I have no desire to turn this
into another one of those threads that goes on for 9 years,
because it really doesn't matter anyway (at least, if you are
of sound mind, it shouldn't)).
You know, I used to be a rabid Linux user as well. And guess
what I got done during all of that time I spent ranting and
raving about how better Linux was than Windows... all of two
things, jack and shit. Oh, I used Linux for getting work done,
but I soon found out that Linux didn't suit my purposes very
well, and I couldn't, for the life of me, figure out what in
the hell I was doing screaming about it to people's faces for
in the first place. So, I use WindowsNT. I like Windows. I
like Microsoft's software, and I'm happy as a clam with its
performance, and demeanor. In other words, it suits me.
Some of you Linux users need to get a grip on reality. These
little wet-dream topics that you people carve out for yourselves
to swim in are highly delusional at times. Whether Linux/freeware
is useful is hardly an argument. So what are you arguing about?
Whether Linux is good or bad? If you truly think it is the bee's
knees, why should you care what others think? Maybe you're still
trying to convince yourselves for some odd reason?
For an example, I point you to Derek Currie. He posts in
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy quite often, spewing forth
a lot of nonsense regarding Apple's new iMac, and how its
sales are crushing Microsoft. Now, Derek, as you may, or
may not know, is quite insane. As such, I have taken quite
a liking to his posts... they are most amusing.
But seriously, read a couple of his posts... do you people
really want to start looking like Derek? Do you people
want to look like Macintosh zealots?
Macintosh Zealots: Greatly Insane!
Some of you might think I'm right. Some of you might think
I'm wrong. Some of you might think that I am a complete
idiot... but the point is, you see, I really couldn't care
any less what anyone out here thinks about me. Why?...
because I don't have to justify anything. Comprendez-vous?
Use what you like. If you must justify using what you like,
then you seriously must consider finding a way to sexually
gratify yourself more effectively than with Rosey Palm and
her five sisters.
[] Footnote server is currently down...
--
.-----.
|[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
| = :| Support the shareware authors... register your software!
| | Please send all flames, trolls, and complaints to /dev/toilet.
|_..._| LUSER: I have a problem. ADMIN: Keep talking... I'm reloading.
Nathaniel Jay Lee
around here are aimed at starting intelligent discussion. Although usually
there are two or three individuals that will latch onto any semi-intelligent
topic and drive it into the ground, there are those of us that enjoy
debating (without constant derogitory comments) the merits of Linux or the
merits of NT. I am a huge Linux supporter, but I will admit right now (and
you can read my headers if you don't believe) that I am using NT with
Outlook Express to do my Newsgroup reading. However, for most of my serious
work I use Linux. I work for an IT department where Windows is considered
all there is, so I use Windows at home to learn a little more about it and
be more effective at my job. Sure, there are some things I like, and some
things I don't like (the things that drove me to Linux in the first place),
but both OSes serve a purpose.
I do believe that maybe someone has his priorities out of whack a little
suggesting that if you believe strongly in computers/software/hardware and
the issues surrounding them you need to get drunk and laid immediately. I
guess not everyone thinks the same things are important, and that is the
entire point of the advocacy groups. At least, as far as I understand them.
Maybe I'm the one who's wrong, and I'm willing to listen to people tell me
that too. As long as you don't rant without saying anything, I'll listen to
about any opinion of me and my ideas. So, having said my peice I ask, is it
really that bad to feel strongly about computer issues?
Nathaniel Jay Lee lee...@worldnet.att.net
Stephen S. Edwards II wrote in message <79t9ot$cip$2...@nnrp03.primenet.com>...
mlw
[...]
Well, from a human nature issue, finding community and rooting for ones
team is as old as civilization.
Unless you never: Vote by party, root for a sports team, prefer one
brand of car over another, like dogs better than cats, prefer blondes or
brunettes, or have any preferences at all, you are a hypocrite. Everyone
has a notion of my team. Linux is our team. We are Team C.O.L.A ya ya
ya!
Gimme an L
Gimme an I
Gimme an N
Gimme a U
Gimme an X
Linux, Linux, Linux!!!!
Who we gonna beat? Microsnot! Microsloth, Mickysoft!!
Yea! Linux!
(This momentary lapse into the land of whimsy has been brought to you by
a wonderful 10 year old Chianti Classico)
Mark.
BTW
Isn't it customary in english speaking counties to use "Jr." instead of
"II" when one is named after their father. So aren't you Stephen
Edwards, Jr? Normally one does not use roman numerals until it is "III,"
as in Stephen Edwards III.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 95, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit the Mohawk Software website: www.mohawksoft.com
link
But society tends to become very reliant on certain tools over time.
Who ever controls an all important tool, becomes all controlling.
The future of society and the future of technology are mixed, everyone has
their own ideas about what is the best way forwards.
The importance, that in the future these 'tools' will have, is far more
then many care to think about at the present time.
Houben S.H.M.J.
>Holy Guacamole! I simply _can't_ believe how much time some
>Linux users seem to spend on inventing ways to bash Windows, and
>coming up with their cute little "MicrosoftConspiracyTheories(tm)".
>It's really pretty ridiculous.
Hey! It's a *.advocacy group! If you want a serious discussion about
the advantages and disadvantages of linux, try one of the other
comp.os.linux.* groups. This group is for users who *like* cute
little "MicrosoftConspiracyTheories(tm)"[1]. ;-)
So what are you doing here if you are annoyed by them?
Greetings,
Stephan
[1] Hope I'm not violating any trademark rights rights now.
P.S. Perhaps this one could make it into the FRT.
The "Why are you being zealotous about a *operating system*
of all things? Aren't there more important things in the world?
Who cares? Isn't an OS just a tool?"-Frequently Rehashed Topic.
Answer: "This group is for people who *like* being zealotous
about an operating system. To Each His Own."
--
S.H.M.J. Houben
E-mail: hou...@natlab.research.philips.com
jb...@transarc.com
>
> Did I miss something? I am not too sure, but I think that most of the posts
> around here are aimed at starting intelligent discussion. Although usually
I think you missed something. There is very little intelligent discussion
in advocacy groups :) I agree though, the zealotry is completely useless
and idiotic but everyone needs a hobby.
Tom Ballinger
>
> Isn't it customary in english speaking counties to use "Jr." instead of
> "II" when one is named after their father. So aren't you Stephen
> Edwards, Jr? Normally one does not use roman numerals until it is "III,"
> as in Stephen Edwards III.
>
Well, as off topic as it is, I am named after my grandfather, thus not
really a Jr., I am considered a II. But I don't see the need to use it
as nobody has ever really confused me with my grandfather as he was dead
years before I was born.
tom
or is it Thomas C. Ballinger II
mlw
You should not be considered II then. My cousin is a IV, and he
specifically named his sons as to kill off the chain. So, are you saying
if one of his kids names their son after his father, that child could be
a V?
Stephen Edwards
: I do believe that maybe someone has his priorities out of whack a little
: suggesting that if you believe strongly in computers/software/hardware and
: the issues surrounding them you need to get drunk and laid immediately. I
*snicker* That was said mostly for purpose of exagerrated humor. I
didn't mean to present it as "gospel".
: about any opinion of me and my ideas. So, having said my peice I ask, is it
: really that bad to feel strongly about computer issues?
If you let it affect your daily life, perhaps. There's nothing wrong with
having an opinion (of course, DUH!@# :) ), but there is something wrong
with people who spend their lives behind a terminal while simultaneously
believing that they have a real life.
Another respondent queried "So what are you doing here?". My answer...
well, I hang around comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy just in case someone
posts a question for help. Not everyone understands what newsgroup is for
what when they first start posting to USENET.
alcy...@hotmail.com
ja20...@primenet.aux.com wrote:
> (rant snipped)
Oh man, do I feel like a fool. All this time I've spent here learning about
an operating system, debating its strengths and weaknesses, promoting its
advantages, learning from and maybe helping others... All this time I should
have been down at a bar becoming an alcholic, picking up sluts from which to
catch sexually transmitted diseases.
Thanks for the lesson on the proper way to live one's life.
<g>
-Dave
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
no_m...@my-dejanews.com
I have posted before about this as well. C.O.L.A. is the worst group in the
entire nntp realm for having any soft of rational discussion. Why? Because
99% of the people in this group treat Linux as a religion. Windows, OS/2,
Linux, OS/400, UNIX, WinCE, the USR Palm Pilot OS, even WFW and DOS are all
good OS's for a given purpose. Why is this so hard for people in this group
to accept? Why is it so difficult for you to accept that I have used Linux
for over a year now and for my home PC I *prefer* WINNT. This does not mean
I think WINNT is perfect - it means for the tasks *I* want to accomplish at
home WINNT suits my needs better than Linux - if you disagree fine, use Linux
- but don't tell me I am wrong - I have tried both and I prefer WINNT at
home.
It also amazes me that people in this group simply will *not stick to the
posted topic*. In this thread alone someone posted a response questioning
the original posters name?!?!?!?!. Another example is Persona and cwebber's
thread regarding Linux and Windows as a desktop OS. cwebber REPEATEDLY tried
to get Persona to talk about common desktop OS issues and Persona REPETEDLY
talked about Server and development issues while. Persona all repeatedly
called cwebber a MS apostle even after cwebber stated at least 10 times that
he used UNIX and Linux more than Windows and likes Linux servers *better*
than WINNT. A guy named Huck posted to this same thread urging persona to
stick to the topic - and someone responded to him about multi-threading on
the desktop OS.
It amazes me that by me saying I would rather use WINNT instead of Linux for
my *personal home PC* I can drive people in this group to the point of having
a mental breakdown.
You all need to get a life and grow the fuck up. Open your eyes and accept
that a computer is a machine - it is not a God. I could give a fuck if you
are using Linux at home. Why does it bother you so much that I use WINNT?
PJ
Stephen S. Edwards II wrote in message <79t9ot$cip$2...@nnrp03.primenet.com>...
>
>Holy Guacamole! I simply _can't_ believe how much time some
>Linux users seem to spend on inventing ways to bash Windows, and
>coming up with their cute little "MicrosoftConspiracyTheories(tm)".
>It's really pretty ridiculous.
Yea but its so much fun!!!
>Linux is a good operating system, there is no doubt about that.
>But it is not ______P E R F E C T______! In other words, it
>doesn't suit everyone. Yes, I know it hurts to read, but please
>
I'm sorry, I really didn't take the time to read the complete post cause I
really wanted to answer that. I personally and just speaking for
myself...don't want everyone to use linux. I like linux being a niche
operating system. When everyone uses linux, linux faces the possibility of
being dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. I really don't want
that. Anyway just my two cents.
PJ
I will now go back to reading the rest of this post.
alcy...@hotmail.com
no_m...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> This post is 100% accurate.
> (snip)
>
> You all need to get a life and grow the fuck up. Open your eyes and accept
> that a computer is a machine - it is not a God. I could give a fuck if you
> are using Linux at home. Why does it bother you so much that I use WINNT?
>
You must be crazy to use NT at home, there is no possible way it could meet
your needs. Who are you to determine what your needs are? That's for me to
decide.
Should I buy new shoes? Why is your nickname "no_modem"? How much does a
staple remover cost in France?
-Dave
no_m...@my-dejanews.com
> Who ever controls an all important tool, becomes all controlling.
>
<snip>
> The importance, that in the future these 'tools' will have, is far more
> then many care to think about at the present time.
OK, and while you are off recreating some sort of Issac Ismoiv's "I, Robot"
fanastsy land - I will be off having a beer with real live human beings. I
hope you don't get too lonely.
Ashp
> If you let it affect your daily life, perhaps. There's nothing wrong with
> having an opinion (of course, DUH!@# :) ), but there is something wrong
> with people who spend their lives behind a terminal while simultaneously
> believing that they have a real life.
The question here, is who are *YOU* to decide what a life is? Some people
do love computing more than anything in the world.
Some people love getting drunk, getting laid and doing little else. Some
people like to watch TV as much as possible.
A life is what you want it to be, as long as your happy, you have a life.
--
Ashley Penney - <as...@hivemind.org>
"A key to understanding all religion is that a god's idea
of amusement is Snakes and Ladders with greased rungs. "
Craig Kelley
ja20...@primenet.com (Stephen S. Edwards II) writes:
> >Oh man, do I feel like a fool. All this time I've spent here learning about
> >an operating system, debating its strengths and weaknesses, promoting its
> >advantages, learning from and maybe helping others... All this time I should
>
> And exactly how much money have you made during that time period? How many
> good friends have you brought into your life? Have you met a good woman
> who'll stick by you for life? Have you done ANYTHING useful at all? At
> the most, you've furthered Linus' "huh-huh, I have cronies now, so I'm going
> to be a l33d3r!" agenda, and the GPL-on-every-box wet dream by a nosehair.
Ohmygod Stephen, I never saw you as the name-calling type. You're a
pretty intelligent (or so I thought) individual.
FWIW, I will have a son in 2 months (May 5 -- cinco de mayo!!), am
happily married (http://inconnu.isu.edu/~ink/wedding/) and I *still*
love Linux. I develop on Linux as my job (which pays very nicely,
thankyouverymuch!). I have tons of friends (some of who now like
Linux as well) -- and I even know THREE couples who met over the
internet and are also now happilly married. (two of them were
US-sweden relationships, one moved to Sweden while the other moved to
the US -- the other one was a Kentucky-Idaho relationship).
You complained that the "cola crowd" was full of conspiracy theories;
if you think we are all forwarding some agenda of Linus' then *you*
are the one who is full of it.
And: As *IF* money were the bottom line for everybody (how audacious
of you to decide this).
> In the last two weeks, I've made a little money off some last-minute
> investments, I've made plans with my girlfriend for us to move into
> a house together, and I've seen several of some very good buddies
> from my college geek days. All the while, I was getting _REAL_ work
> done on my box at home (graphics and video stuff), not giving two
> shits about "whose OS is the best, and why everyone should use it, or
> else they're stupid" arguments.
Then why are you even in the advocacy newsgroups?
This is recreation. I debated for three years in highschool and for 3
semesters in college, I love to argue. I did this all through the 80s
on BBS systems, and now I do it on the usenet. It is *you* who needs
to take a step back and understand this for what it is.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- kell...@isu.edu
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger i...@inconnu.isu.edu for PGP block
Arthur
>
> In article <79v0p6$2rt$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, alcy...@hotmail.com spaketh unto
> USElessNET:
> >
> >In article <79t9ot$cip$2...@nnrp03.primenet.com>,
> > ja20...@primenet.aux.com wrote:
> >
> >> (rant snipped)
> >
> >an operating system, debating its strengths and weaknesses, promoting its
> >advantages, learning from and maybe helping others... All this time I should
Same here.
> And exactly how much money have you made during that time period?
Believe me, you don't want to know.
(And no, I'm not hiring)
> How many
> good friends have you brought into your life?
Got all I need. Better than I probably deserve.
> Have you met a good woman
> who'll stick by you for life?
Got that too - she brings in all the money, I
just spend it :) (we're business partners)
And a great daughter.
> Have you done ANYTHING useful at all?
Coached the league champ soccer team, backpacked some ('til
it got too cold), switched my entire system to Linux,
ski trip after Christmas - that's the high points.
Not too many parties - not much happens here in winter
- everybody hibernates - that's probably why I post
here now instead of lurking. Nice people here too.
> At
> the most, you've furthered Linus' "huh-huh, I have cronies now, so I'm going
> to be a l33d3r!" agenda, and the GPL-on-every-box wet dream by a nosehair.
Linus has my admiration - no question.
> In the last two weeks, I've made a little money off some last-minute
> investments,
Bought Linear Tech (LLTC) and Maxim (MXIM) at 42 and 22 respectively.
Both up 10% today - well over 100% since I bought in. (Sold some
after I made 30% though :( ) The more I listen to MSFT advocates,
the more I think I should short it.
> I've made plans with my girlfriend for us to move into
> a house together,
Been there, done that. Several times.
> All the while, I was getting _REAL_ work
> done on my box at home (graphics and video stuff), not giving two
> shits about "whose OS is the best, and why everyone should use it, or
> else they're stupid" arguments
Saved enough NOT buying NT to spend a week in the
Carribean - now I just have to find the time (business
is TOO good right now). Of course when I'm down there,
my system'll be running along just fine. I could
probably even telnet in from the beach to check
on it (yeah, right - that'll happen).
God, what a waste of time this has been. :)
Arthur I (who wishes he had a life - I'm sooo envious)
PS: I think I've proved conclusively that mine's bigger.
Arthur
>
> Stephen S. Edwards II wrote:
> >
> > In article <79v0p6$2rt$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, alcy...@hotmail.com spaketh unto
> > USElessNET:
> > >
> > >In article <79t9ot$cip$2...@nnrp03.primenet.com>,
> > > ja20...@primenet.aux.com wrote:
Replying to your own posts is probably a sign of
insanity, but I probably should point out that I
haven't done a damn thing (well, beyond the bare
minimum) all week. I spent a lot of time before
Christmas writing code to get my system switched
over to Linux. I'm not a programmer - I don't
know how some of you guys do this day in and
day out.
After a few weeks I start to dream code. Tomorrow
I get back to phase 2 of getting my system
together. Really. I'm finally going to code this all
the way through. Accounting - inventory - what
joy!
Arthur
Jim Welsh
That's exactly why I stick with AS/400 and it's non-existant graphics
Because I like it !
Furthermore...I am not an artist...
And how many of you brag about coding web pages with Notepad ?
Big Deal...Program an AS/400 with SEU...no point, no click, just type the
code...isn't that what programming is all about , writing lines of code ?
Well for this dinasaur...it still is
you can have your point, click and pray...and all those stupid decisions about
colors
Green man...green is the only way to go...wanna a little highlight with that ?
Some reverse image maybe .... no problem...2 seconds...done...now back to that
business problem...
okay okay okay...your right...green is dead...java is the real deal now...
so I can take an art class, sure, why not...
I don't know....
I'm gonna miss that green...but I can't wait to see the look on your faces when
ya'll wake up and smell the Java...OS...400 that iz...scalability, low TCO, and
high octane blazing saddles graphics galore...replacing an NT system near you...
ini files....registry? what an absolute convoluted mess...that stuff belongs in
a simple organized
database record with full object security and integrity.
whether it survives and thrives...or dies
I love it , that's why I work with it
soap box off
"Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
> Holy Guacamole! I simply _can't_ believe how much time some
> Linux users seem to spend on inventing ways to bash Windows, and
> coming up with their cute little "MicrosoftConspiracyTheories(tm)".
> It's really pretty ridiculous.
>
> First of all, understand this... operating systems, and computers
> for that matter, __ARE TOOLS!__ They are not buddies that you
> drink a smooth lager with... they are not girls... you can't kiss
> them, or hug them, or take them to dinner... they are merely
> machines which we use to get work done. If someone insults the
> software or hardware you use (think about it for a sec), isn't
> it VERY STUPID to let it affect you in any way whatsoever? I mean,
> if someone spreads untruths about something, then hell yes, call
> them an idiot, and make them look foolish... but if I say "Linux
> sucks", and that stirs up a hornet's nest in you, then you must
> find the nearest bar, and get laid as soon as possible. Aquisition
> of a life, a spine, and a brain is your only salvation.
>
> Linux is a good operating system, there is no doubt about that.
> But it is not ______P E R F E C T______! In other words, it
> doesn't suit everyone. Yes, I know it hurts to read, but please
> [] Footnote server is currently down...
> --
> .-----.
> |[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
> | = :| Support the shareware authors... register your software!
> | | Please send all flames, trolls, and complaints to /dev/toilet.
> |_..._| LUSER: I have a problem. ADMIN: Keep talking... I'm reloading.
--
Jim
http://www.netcom.com/~jimwelsh/welcome/welcome.html
mailto:jimw...@ix.netcom.com
Matthias Warkus
..and Nathaniel Jay Lee <lee...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Did I miss something? I am not too sure, but I think that most of the posts
> around here are aimed at starting intelligent discussion.
Usually, yes.
[Windows]
> Sure, there are some things I like, and some
> things I don't like (the things that drove me to Linux in the first place),
> but both OSes serve a purpose.
No doubt.
> I do believe that maybe someone has his priorities out of whack a little
> suggesting that if you believe strongly in computers/software/hardware and
> the issues surrounding them you need to get drunk and laid immediately.
So do I.
> I
> guess not everyone thinks the same things are important, and that is the
> entire point of the advocacy groups. At least, as far as I understand them.
> Maybe I'm the one who's wrong, and I'm willing to listen to people tell me
> that too. As long as you don't rant without saying anything, I'll listen to
> about any opinion of me and my ideas. So, having said my peice I ask, is it
> really that bad to feel strongly about computer issues?
It's not bad at all. People feel strongly about cars, books, music or
food; why shouldn't they feel strongly about computer issues?
Get computer issues out of their ghetto and make them sociable! How I
wish I could talk about computers at parties just like I talk about
girls, or books, or wine, or whatever.
mawa
--
Back in the dark ages BC (Before Computing), there existed a magical
device called a Teletype Model 33. This amazing machine contained a
shift register out of a motor and a rotor as well as a keyboard ROM
consisting solely of levers and springs. -- Steve Oualline
Matthias Warkus
..and Stephen S. Edwards II <ja20...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
> Holy Guacamole! I simply _can't_ believe how much time some
> Linux users seem to spend on inventing ways to bash Windows, and
> coming up with their cute little "MicrosoftConspiracyTheories(tm)".
> It's really pretty ridiculous.
You're right. MS bashing and conspiracy theories (whatever they are
about) are about as ridiculous as useless as it can get.
> First of all, understand this... operating systems, and computers
> for that matter, __ARE TOOLS!__ They are not buddies that you
> drink a smooth lager with... they are not girls...
Right.
> you can't kiss
> them, or hug them, or take them to dinner...
You don't know how weird people can get... :)
> they are merely
> machines which we use to get work done.
A tad more, sometimes.
> If someone insults the
> software or hardware you use (think about it for a sec), isn't
> it VERY STUPID to let it affect you in any way whatsoever?
If someone insulted the car you drive or the books you read, wouldn't
you be affected?
[schnibble]
> Linux is a good operating system, there is no doubt about that.
Yup.
> But it is not ______P E R F E C T______!
Right.
> In other words, it
> doesn't suit everyone.
Nothing suits everyone.
[schnibble]
> You know, I used to be a rabid Linux user as well. And guess
> what I got done during all of that time I spent ranting and
> raving about how better Linux was than Windows... all of two
> things, jack and shit.
I went through that phase in a couple of weeks. It really passes. What
remains? Sound, sober, reasonable enthusiasm that lasts.
[schnibble]
> But seriously, read a couple of his posts... do you people
> really want to start looking like Derek? Do you people
> want to look like Macintosh zealots?
Hum, I don't think that you can say that the community is an entity
that wants something. We are split in lots and lots of factions, some
of which are made up of complete lunatics, others of reasonable
people, and others of half-nutcases (typically people who can discuss
computer issues objectively and go completely nonlinear when you bring
politics up).
[schnibble]
BTW, I think you are reading way too much Freud. Did it ever occur to
you that people happen to engage in non-sexual activities for other
reasons than sheer lack of sex?
Matthias Warkus
..and Houben S.H.M.J. <hou...@natlab.research.philips.com> wrote:
> P.S. Perhaps this one could make it into the FRT.
> The "Why are you being zealotous about a *operating system*
> of all things? Aren't there more important things in the world?
> Who cares? Isn't an OS just a tool?"-Frequently Rehashed Topic.
> Answer: "This group is for people who *like* being zealotous
> about an operating system. To Each His Own."
Goes into the FRT. Section 10. Verbatim. OK?
Stephen S. Edwards II
unto USElessNET:
>Isn't it customary in english speaking counties to use "Jr." instead of
>"II" when one is named after their father. So aren't you Stephen
>Edwards, Jr? Normally one does not use roman numerals until it is "III,"
>as in Stephen Edwards III.
Customs has nothing to do with naming in the U.S. (IIRC, you are
somewhere in Europe, right?). In the U.S., you can name your
children whatever you want. Jr. and "II" are not considered
the same thing. I am legally registered as Stephen Stone
Edwards II. Putting anything else down on any sort of
important documents would be false information.
Stephen S. Edwards II
USElessNET:
>
>In article <79t9ot$cip$2...@nnrp03.primenet.com>,
> ja20...@primenet.aux.com wrote:
>
>
>Oh man, do I feel like a fool. All this time I've spent here learning about
>an operating system, debating its strengths and weaknesses, promoting its
>advantages, learning from and maybe helping others... All this time I should
And exactly how much money have you made during that time period? How many
good friends have you brought into your life? Have you met a good woman
who'll stick by you for life? Have you done ANYTHING useful at all? At
the most, you've furthered Linus' "huh-huh, I have cronies now, so I'm going
to be a l33d3r!" agenda, and the GPL-on-every-box wet dream by a nosehair.
In the last two weeks, I've made a little money off some last-minute
investments, I've made plans with my girlfriend for us to move into
a house together, and I've seen several of some very good buddies
from my college geek days. All the while, I was getting _REAL_ work
done on my box at home (graphics and video stuff), not giving two
shits about "whose OS is the best, and why everyone should use it, or
else they're stupid" arguments.
>have been down at a bar becoming an alcholic, picking up sluts from which to
>catch sexually transmitted diseases.
If you think that's what I meant, then trust me, you _REALLY_ need to get
out of that chair and get yourself some sort of life. Far be it from
me to tell you what a 'life' really _is_, but I can certainly tell you that
sitting in front of a glowing screen, whining about how much better Linux
is than Microsoft WindowsXX in 200+ line posts day-in, day-out, _is not_
a life.
mlw
>
> unto USElessNET:
>
> >Isn't it customary in english speaking counties to use "Jr." instead of
> >"II" when one is named after their father. So aren't you Stephen
> >Edwards, Jr? Normally one does not use roman numerals until it is "III,"
> >as in Stephen Edwards III.
>
> Customs has nothing to do with naming in the U.S. (IIRC, you are
> somewhere in Europe, right?). In the U.S., you can name your
> children whatever you want. Jr. and "II" are not considered
> the same thing. I am legally registered as Stephen Stone
> Edwards II. Putting anything else down on any sort of
> important documents would be false information.
>
Actually I am a US citizen, Massachusetts specifically. Custom has a lot
to do with law in the U.S, for instance, the term "Last will and
Testament" is a a literal translation (and is redundant) of the days of
english court when english and french were required. Last "will"
(English) and "testament" (French). I guess you can be named anything,
but, customarily it is Jr., III, IV, etc.
no_m...@my-dejanews.com
>
> > I've made plans with my girlfriend for us to move into
> > a house together,
>
> Been there, done that. Several times.
>
The fact that you have done this "several" times may indicate that you
*really* need to spend a little less time in front of a computer and a little
more time paying attention to your current wife or past girlfriends.
<snip>
alcy...@hotmail.com
My my, aren't we smug? Do you actually think you have a better life simply
because I participate in this newsgroup? What a pretty glass house you live
in. Need I point out that you too are participating in this newsgroup?
> And exactly how much money have you made during that time period?
Plenty. Enough such that I pay nearly twice the national median income in
taxes. Six figures is adequate for my desired lifestyle, and it supports my
favorite pastime, sailing.
> How many good friends have you brought into your life?
I have plenty of friends, thank you. Fortunately, none of them are as
judgemental or condescending as you are.
> Have you met a good woman who'll stick by you for life?
Actually, I have. :) She's wonderful, and conveniently her two daughters are
about the same age as my son.
> Have you done ANYTHING useful at all?
What do you define as 'useful'? I consider raising a family to be 'useful'.
Does that count? Pretty soon I'll be working on my sailboat's bottom,
getting it ready for launch this spring. Does this count? I enjoy
woodworking, making things for the house. Does this count? I like to cook.
Does feeding people count?
> At the most, you've furthered Linus' "huh-huh, I have cronies now, so I'm
> going to be a l33d3r!" agenda, and the GPL-on-every-box wet dream by a
> nosehair.
I have no clue what you're babbling about here.
> In the last two weeks, I've made a little money off some last-minute
> investments, I've made plans with my girlfriend for us to move into
> a house together, and I've seen several of some very good buddies
> from my college geek days.
Good for you. Congratulations to you and your girlfriend.
> All the while, I was getting _REAL_ work
> done on my box at home (graphics and video stuff), not giving two
> shits about "whose OS is the best, and why everyone should use it, or
> else they're stupid" arguments.
I get plenty of real work done too. I actually use my Linux box to
facilitate my work... I'm an Oracle database applications development
consultant and I use my Linux box to run Oracle. I have no agenda to force
everyone else to use Linux or any other OS. It really doesn't matter to me
at all what anyone else uses, unless the person in question is one of my
clients.
>
> >have been down at a bar becoming an alcholic, picking up sluts from which to
> >catch sexually transmitted diseases.
>
> If you think that's what I meant, then trust me, you _REALLY_ need to get
> out of that chair and get yourself some sort of life.
I had no idea what you really meant, you weren't very clear. And I will get
out of this chair soon because my coffee cup is empty. Unfortunately I'm
working today so I can't go out and enjoy the rather pleasant weather.
> Far be it from me to tell you what a 'life' really _is_,
Well, you certainly seem pretty eager to pass judgement on someone whom you
know absolutely nothing about.
> but I can certainly tell you that sitting in front of a glowing screen,
> whining about how much better Linux is than Microsoft WindowsXX
When, exactly, did I whine?
> in 200+ line posts day-in, day-out, _is not_ a life.
Whatever an individual chooses to define as 'a life' for her or himself is
entirely up to that individual. You are nobody to judge the lives of others.
Regards,
-Dave
westprog
> > > "II" when one is named after their father. So aren't you Stephen
> > > Edwards, Jr? Normally one does not use roman numerals until it is "III,"
> > > as in Stephen Edwards III.
> > >
> >
> > really a Jr., I am considered a II. But I don't see the need to use it
> > as nobody has ever really confused me with my grandfather as he was dead
> > years before I was born.
> >
> > tom
> > or is it Thomas C. Ballinger II
>
> You should not be considered II then. My cousin is a IV, and he
> specifically named his sons as to kill off the chain. So, are you saying
> if one of his kids names their son after his father, that child could be
> a V?
I thought the sequence was I, II, III, LXXXXV, LXXXXVIII, MM.
J.
jedi
><snip>
>
>>
>> > I've made plans with my girlfriend for us to move into
>> > a house together,
>>
>>
>
>The fact that you have done this "several" times may indicate that you
>*really* need to spend a little less time in front of a computer and a little
>more time paying attention to your current wife or past girlfriends.
You need to get outside your bubble more. That's fairly
mundane human behaivor even for the bits of the population
that never touch computers unless they absolutely have to.
--
Herding Humans ~ Herding Cats
Neither will do a thing unless they really want to, or |||
is coerced to the point where it will scratch your eyes out / | \
as soon as your grip slips.
In search of sane PPP docs? Try http://penguin.lvcm.com
Todd Bandrowsky
>fanastsy land - I will be off having a beer with real live human beings. I
>hope you don't get too lonely.
Actually, we're recreating the Foundation. You know, mass psychology used
to make prediction about the behaviors of people and thus control them...
Arthur
>
> On Fri, 12 Feb 1999 15:15:59 GMT, no_m...@my-dejanews.com <no_m...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> ><snip>
> >
> >>
> >> > I've made plans with my girlfriend for us to move into
> >> > a house together,
> >>
> >> Been there, done that. Several times.
> >>
> >
> >The fact that you have done this "several" times may indicate that you
> >*really* need to spend a little less time in front of a computer and a little
> >more time paying attention to your current wife or past girlfriends.
>
> You need to get outside your bubble more. That's fairly
> mundane human behaivor even for the bits of the population
> that never touch computers unless they absolutely have to.
ROTFL!! Once again Jedi hits the nail on the head - never
met him, but I like him.
Lessee - Girfriend 1.0 - moved in with her about 1972,
lived together on and off til 1976??
Girlfriend 2.0 (just counting the major revs here) - moved
in with her (sort of) 1978 until 1979. (She's a systems
programmer BTW)
Wife 1.0 - moved in to my house 1980, married 1981.
Bought first computer 1983 (?) Bought her first computer
1987. Last fight over who gets to use the computer 1987.
Computer use <-> love life seems to have no correlation.
I'm an EE (or was), not a programmer.
My wife and I are together almost 24/7 (since about 1991)
except on some vacations/travel when somebody has to stay
home and run the business. If you think that's easy, try
it some time - she says the same thing.
Arthur
Toon Moene
> Lessee - Girfriend 1.0 - moved in with her about 1972,
> lived together on and off til 1976??
You're doing some thing wrong - this whole "friend" thing is a lousy C++
invention; learn to use a Real Programming Language (i.e. one without
semicolons).
--
Toon Moene (to...@moene.indiv.nluug.nl)
Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG Maartensdijk, The Netherlands
Phone: +31 346 214290; Fax: +31 346 214286
g77 Support: for...@gnu.org; egcs: egcs...@cygnus.com
Arthur
>
> Arthur wrote:
>
> > Lessee - Girfriend 1.0 - moved in with her about 1972,
> > lived together on and off til 1976??
>
> You're doing some thing wrong - this whole "friend" thing is a lousy C++
> invention; learn to use a Real Programming Language (i.e. one without
> semicolons).
The switch to Wife 1.0 took care of some of that.
The problem there isn't with semicolons, it's that
if you eliminate the periods the app becomes bloated
and you inevitably spawn an expensive child process,
but with the periods user-friendliness often disappears.
Arthur
Matthias Warkus
Yeah, and a massive code base open to everyone... sounds familiar.
I wonder whether in 2050, some bank vault will open and the late
Richard M. Seldon and Hari Torvalds will talk to us about how they
want the community to proceed.
mawa
--
Tcl ist nicht als vollständige Skript- oder Entwicklungssprache
entworfen worden (obwohl [dies] Leute nicht davon abgehalten hat,
50.000-Zeilen-Skripte zur Steuerung von Bohrinseln zu programmieren).
-- Sriram Srinivasan, _Fortgeschrittene_Perl-Programmierung_
Martin Ozolins
Todd Bandrowsky wrote in message <36c4...@news.deniz.com>...
>>OK, and while you are off recreating some sort of Issac Ismoiv's "I,
Robot"
>>fanastsy land - I will be off having a beer with real live human beings.
I
>>hope you don't get too lonely.
>
>Actually, we're recreating the Foundation. You know, mass psychology used
>to make prediction about the behaviors of people and thus control them...
>
That was actually Psychohistory, a mathematical application. The
Foundations were formed to study that phenomena from both ends of the
spectrum.
>
>
>
Martin Ozolins
more efficient than anything else I've tried since the demise of Warp. It
does have one primary benefit. It doesn't crash unless I do something
stupid, and it even recovers a lot of 2am, six pack, strokes of genius
painlessly.
alcy...@hotmail.com wrote in message <79v931$aof$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <79v2ci$4cr$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> no_m...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
>
>> This post is 100% accurate.
>
>> (snip)
>>
>> You all need to get a life and grow the fuck up. Open your eyes and
accept
>> that a computer is a machine - it is not a God. I could give a fuck if
you
>> are using Linux at home. Why does it bother you so much that I use
WINNT?
>>
>
>You must be crazy to use NT at home, there is no possible way it could meet
>your needs. Who are you to determine what your needs are? That's for me
to
>decide.
>
>Should I buy new shoes? Why is your nickname "no_modem"? How much does a
>staple remover cost in France?
>
>-Dave
>
Craig Kelley
mawa...@t-online.de (Matthias Warkus) writes:
> > Actually, we're recreating the Foundation. You know, mass psychology used
> > to make prediction about the behaviors of people and thus control them...
>
> Yeah, and a massive code base open to everyone... sounds familiar.
>
> I wonder whether in 2050, some bank vault will open and the late
> Richard M. Seldon and Hari Torvalds will talk to us about how they
> want the community to proceed.
And Daneel Tux will watch from the moon.
Justin Jovic
the Linux holy war and support a Finnish guy's pet project?
Christopher B. Browne
<jjo...@pangeatech.com> posted:
>should I join the Linux holy war and support a Finnish guy's pet
>project?
Should you support a net transfer of federal funds from many states to
a private company in Washington State that appears to be fixated on
outsourcing development efforts to the much maligned "Indian
Sweatshops," or should you instead support development projects that
would not require paying a software tax to *any* state, supporting
developers widely spread across the United States and indeed the
world?
--
Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
-- Henry Spencer <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
cbbr...@hex.net - "What have you contributed to Linux today?..."
jedi
>
>
>"Christopher B. Browne" wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 14 Feb 1999 12:17:32 -0700, Justin Jovic
>> <jjo...@pangeatech.com> posted:
>> >Should I support an american company that makes great products or
>> >should I join the Linux holy war and support a Finnish guy's pet
>> >project?
>>
>> Should you support a net transfer of federal funds from many states to
>> a private company in Washington State that appears to be fixated on
>> outsourcing development efforts to the much maligned "Indian
>> Sweatshops," or should you instead support development projects that
>> would not require paying a software tax to *any* state, supporting
>> developers widely spread across the United States and indeed the
>> world?
>
>be so popular now had it not been for Microsoft leading the industry. What
Funny, it looked like it was the Internet FAD to me.
Microsoft certainly didn't do enough to make the
computer accessable to the common man before that
timeframe. Infact, it was rather dragging it's feet
in that regard.
If anything, Microsoft prevented wider adoption of computers.
The PC was equated with microcomputer giving microcomputers
a bad name in the process.
>will drive the Linux community to keep updating Linux? Egos? Yeah right.
>Money is what will drive Microsoft. If you want to compete with Microsoft,
>you had better be in it for the money.
People update Linux because they need to get things done.
Consumer software has always been very much against that
sort of thing. It rather interferes with the artifical
motivations to drive customers to re-buy the same old
thing (still fully functional but just dated) year after
year.
dpcole
But...
Although I don't like the people who represent Linux (c.o.l.a.), I must
defend them. You see, without such "zealotry" the Linux people (and BeOS
people and the Mac people and the slimey little OS/2 people) present, they
would never get applications since nobody knew they (an unexploited source
of money) existed. Since Microsoft is, by an undeserved margin, top dog,
users of "minority" operating systems MUST do whatever they can to get
applications. And I support any Linux user who points out the fact Windows
is bloatware. Having looked at the new Windows myself (Win2000), it is
time for a change. Once Win2000 becomes standard, who knows how much worse
future Windows versions will be. The power of windows must be slowly
whittled away or else we will all suffer, even you.
Applications are the real power to an operating system monopoly. The
government ought to sue the software makers along with Microsoft for they
have aided and abetted Microsoft. Software makers prefer money than
consumer support and risking $0.25 in order to support consumer choice. (I
now understand the actions of certain software pirates, they do it for
political reasons.)
--
"Idealism is a wonderful thing, all you really need is someone rational
enough to put it to proper use..."
That's my bloody signature. Be happy. :-)
David Kastrup
> Sweat shops? What the hell does that have to do with? Computers would not
> be so popular now had it not been for Microsoft leading the industry. What
> will drive the Linux community to keep updating Linux? Egos? Yeah right.
> Money is what will drive Microsoft. If you want to compete with Microsoft,
> you had better be in it for the money.
So you would say that one should rather buy at a stinking-rich vendor
instead of a vendor that takes pride in his products?
Well, have fun. But don't come whining back here if you find out that
you paid a whole lot of money for things that work only so-so.
--
David Kastrup Phone: +49-234-700-5570
Email: d...@neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de Fax: +49-234-709-4209
Institut für Neuroinformatik, Universitätsstr. 150, 44780 Bochum, Germany
PJ
PJ
Arthur wrote in message <36C5D684...@usa.net>...
alcy...@hotmail.com
Justin Jovic <jjo...@pangeatech.com> wrote:
> <!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
> <html>
> If you can't get laid or have a drink without becoming an alcoholic then
> all women are sluts and you are a loser without spell check on Linux?
Ever heard of sarcasm? ;)
Sorry for the typo.
ad...@circlesquared.com
Justin Jovic <jjo...@pangeatech.com> wrote:
> Should I support an american company that makes great products or should I
join
> the Linux holy war and support a Finnish guy's pet project?
>
Great products?
How about Dr DOS? Oh, sorry, they were driven out by fraudulent error messages
in W3.
Er...
Apple? Oh, that's right. Interface ripped off and greenmailed. BeOS? Aha! Got
one.
Yup. Stay with American products. Although that rules out the web and,
arguably, computers.
Ah, but the computer and the web have been made real by American companies:
that's true. It's also true of Linux.
Ho hum...
Maybe I should have answered "A pink fish".
Rizzzzzz.
(Ask a stupid question...)
jedi
>Justin Jovic <jjo...@pangeatech.com> writes:
>
>> What will drive the Linux community to keep updating Linux? Egos?
>> Yeah right. Money is what will drive Microsoft. If you want to
>> compete with Microsoft, you had better be in it for the money.
>
>much. It's a myth perpetrated by the capitalism apologists that money
>is a potent motivator. Have a look at the great works of art,
>literature, science (and software engineering :-)). They were all
>created out of love and enthusiasm for the work, not because of greed.
The need for money is rather a tool of coercion to
get people to do things that they really don't want
to and may not be suited for, wasting much energy
in the process, rather than just doing what labor
they may prefer to do.
Axel Boldt
> What will drive the Linux community to keep updating Linux? Egos?
> Yeah right. Money is what will drive Microsoft. If you want to
> compete with Microsoft, you had better be in it for the money.
So far, we have been doing fine without the money, thank you very
much. It's a myth perpetrated by the capitalism apologists that money
is a potent motivator. Have a look at the great works of art,
literature, science (and software engineering :-)). They were all
created out of love and enthusiasm for the work, not because of greed.
--
Axel Boldt ** ax...@uni-paderborn.de ** math-www.uni-paderborn.de/~axel/
Sponsor free software at the Free Software Bazaar visar.csustan.edu/bazaar/
David Kastrup
> Justin Jovic <jjo...@pangeatech.com> writes:
>
> > What will drive the Linux community to keep updating Linux? Egos?
> > Yeah right. Money is what will drive Microsoft. If you want to
> > compete with Microsoft, you had better be in it for the money.
>
> So far, we have been doing fine without the money, thank you very
> much. It's a myth perpetrated by the capitalism apologists that
> money is a potent motivator. Have a look at the great works of art,
> literature, science (and software engineering :-)). They were all
> created out of love and enthusiasm for the work, not because of
> greed.
Actually, a lot of the work of Balzac was churned out because
writing was his way to fend off impeding bankruptcy.
mlw
>
> Axel Boldt <ax...@uni-paderborn.de> writes:
>
> > Justin Jovic <jjo...@pangeatech.com> writes:
> >
> > > What will drive the Linux community to keep updating Linux? Egos?
> > > Yeah right. Money is what will drive Microsoft. If you want to
> > > compete with Microsoft, you had better be in it for the money.
> >
> > So far, we have been doing fine without the money, thank you very
> > much. It's a myth perpetrated by the capitalism apologists that
> > money is a potent motivator. Have a look at the great works of art,
> > literature, science (and software engineering :-)). They were all
> > created out of love and enthusiasm for the work, not because of
> > greed.
>
> Actually, a lot of the work of Balzac was churned out because
> writing was his way to fend off impeding bankruptcy.
What makes you think that money is a good motivator of the masses? When
one thinks about the amount of work that goes into hobbies like mountain
biking, climbing, hiking, working out, etc. It doesn't even compare to
the lifeless automata that attend a job every day. It takes dedication
and enthusuasm, money can not provide this.
Yes, the concept of money or security is an important factor in much of
any society, but, great work is done with passion. That said, money is
always good, and I bet Linus isn't hurting too bad. I would even go
further in saying he isn't doing very bad at all, all due to a free
kernel for the GNU stuff. Richard Stallman isn't doing too bad either.
domi...@localhost.localdomain
: In fact the more I think about it, WA is a tax hell (Californians
: thinking of moving, please note).
:
: (even including sales tax) since moving here. But it's much
: worse than California - believe me.
Man, you washington folk never give up, do ya? I mean, I understand the
contempt for californians (I was born and raised in Illinois, and have had
the misfortune of living in So Cal for the last year), but geez, people, you
don't have to try so damn hard.
Oh, btw, I'm planning on moving to Olympia. :)
: Arthur
--
Michael Chisari
domi...@beyondtheweb.com
Justin Jovic
Axel Boldt wrote:
> Justin Jovic <jjo...@pangeatech.com> writes:
>
> > What will drive the Linux community to keep updating Linux? Egos?
> > Yeah right. Money is what will drive Microsoft. If you want to
> > compete with Microsoft, you had better be in it for the money.
>
> So far, we have been doing fine without the money, thank you very
> much. It's a myth perpetrated by the capitalism apologists that money
> is a potent motivator. Have a look at the great works of art,
> literature, science (and software engineering :-)). They were all
> created out of love and enthusiasm for the work, not because of greed.
>
Justin Jovic
Justin Jovic
Chris Johnson wrote:
> The latter. Support American small business! Gates is killing the economy :P
>
> Chris Johnson
> @airwindows.com
> chrisj
Colin Day
> Bull, even Michaelangelo painted to pay off his debts. Money is a motivator.
But a motivator to do what? Tie up the internet with proprietary software?
Colin Day cd...@ix.netcom.com
Arthur
>
> : We've got plenty of taxes in Washington State, no doubt about it.
> : In fact the more I think about it, WA is a tax hell (Californians
> : thinking of moving, please note).
> :
> : (even including sales tax) since moving here. But it's much
> : worse than California - believe me.
>
> Man, you washington folk never give up, do ya? I mean, I understand the
> contempt for californians (I was born and raised in Illinois, and have had
You're doubly damned - I grew up in Wisconsin and lived there
until several years ago. :)
> the misfortune of living in So Cal for the last year), but geez, people, you
> don't have to try so damn hard.
> Oh, btw, I'm planning on moving to Olympia. :)
Haven't been there yet, but it looks like a nice area. Buy a
raincoat.
Dissing Californians is a popular pastime throughout the state, but
where I live, even 206'ers (Seattle is AC 206) get put down. Not like
we're provincial here or something. Generally though, I like most
everybody, but only in small quantities.
Arthur
Jason Fletcher
did this for fun too, knowing the firestorm it would produce. It might be
he would point to the resulting discussion as further proof of his claim,
which is somewhat akin to walking into a meeting for Philosophers Against
Self-Stultification, declaring that "I do not exist," and then complaining
about their reaction. (Okay, the example's a little obscure, but what can
I say: I got my training in both CS and philosophy. The combination does
odd things to you, presuming you're not odd to begin with.)
Stephen S. Edwards II wrote:
> Holy Guacamole! I simply _can't_ believe how much time some
> Linux users seem to spend on inventing ways to bash Windows, and
> coming up with their cute little "MicrosoftConspiracyTheories(tm)".
> It's really pretty ridiculous.
People outside a hobby often consider the time spent developing it quite
wasteful and ridiculous. (Let me qualify that by suggesting that posting
on c.o.l.a. would be the hobby, not Linux
programming/development/involvement in general.) Besides, I think you
vastly overrate the "time" spent in evaluating and composing for these
boards. Personally, it doesn't take me all that long to scan an advocacy
board, spot an interesting thread, read what's going on, and reply to it.
Regardless of how long it does take me, however, how would you pretend to
ascertain the time I do spend, especially if I post rarely? Thusly, your
hand-waving falls short on two counts: I can think of no reliable way for
you to measure the time said Linux users spend, etc..., and your
evaluation of the time spent is purely a subjective one. (Then, of course,
there are the smart-aleck responses: we're using the time we save not
hassling with Microsoft, it looks like work but is more fun (a la
Dilbert), time is relative, etc....)
> First of all, understand this... operating systems, and computers
> for that matter, __ARE TOOLS!__ They are not buddies that you
> drink a smooth lager with... they are not girls... you can't kiss
> them, or hug them, or take them to dinner... they are merely
> machines which we use to get work done.
Number of things here: (1) if your buddies are fellow Linux enthuasists,
you can talk OS/computers WHILE hanging with your buddies; thus, in the
true spirit of Linux, you're multitasking with multiple simultaneous
users. (2) transfer your argument from computers to various forms of
weaponry throughout human history. Weapons are just tools that soldiers
use to get work done (grisly as it is), but sitting around talking about
them (advocacy or no) allows adherents to educate one another and suggest
improvements, some of which make their way into the new tools. (If you
dislike the weapon aspect, transfer the argument to cobblers and their
tools or virtually any craft. Advocacy is one forum in which people come
together to "talk shop"; no particular reason to pick on c.o.l.a. alone.)
(3) Expansion of point one: the implication that involvement in Linux
advocacy REPLACES the personal interaction (shown here and later) is
unsupported and (I suspect) unsupportable (dealing as it does with
insufficient information, stereotype, and near-impossibility of framing
any kind of valid study.)
> If someone insults the
> software or hardware you use (think about it for a sec), isn't
> it VERY STUPID to let it affect you in any way whatsoever? I mean,
> if someone spreads untruths about something, then hell yes, call
> them an idiot, and make them look foolish... but if I say "Linux
> sucks", and that stirs up a hornet's nest in you, then you must
> find the nearest bar, and get laid as soon as possible. Aquisition
> of a life, a spine, and a brain is your only salvation.
Why is it "VERY STUPID"? I suppose if you're roughly a Stoic, it doesn't
make sense to be affected by the things you cannot control (namely, the
offender's desire to make such statements). On the other hand, if I
desire to be a responsible citizen who is genuinely interested in what my
fellow citizens believe and who wishes to be intellectually honest in what
I believe, my ire would naturally translate into "What makes you say such
a thing?" If one has reasonable and overwhelming arguments for that
position, it is epistemically responsible of me to hold that position as
well; if it is not, it seems to me that it becomes my responsibility to
press him further to either convince him of the falsity of his position or
encourage him to build a stronger case for it. To be a little provocative
here, if you say "Linux sucks" just to bug people, is it kinder (or more
responsible or proof of a life/spine/brain) just to let you remain an
irritating gnat, or is it more responsible to eschew the
bar/women/other-remedy and seek to educate you to rise above your
intrinsic gnatdom?
> Linux is a good operating system, there is no doubt about that.
> But it is not ______P E R F E C T______! In other words, it
> doesn't suit everyone. Yes, I know it hurts to read, but please
> just embrace that little fact, because many of you in c.o.l.a.
> really are quite unaware of this little fact.
False characterization here. From my observation, the assertion isn't that
"Everyone should use Linux regardless of personal goals or choice" but
that "More people should learn about Linux and use it because (a) it can
fulfill some of their functions better than the more well-known
alternatives, (b) generically, has better features than many/any other OS
out there, and (c) we should ask more of people than do some popular OSen
(i.e., worries about aiming toward the lowest common denominator instead
of trying to raise it.) Besides, suitability is often a subjective and
vastly changeable thing; thereby, your "little fact" today may represent
far fewer people in a few years, making the statement a truism with very
little relevance to the shifting tides of advocacy and public
opinion/education (setting aside for the moment the associated slur.)
> I can think of
> plenty of things that Linux is lacking that commercial OSen
> have implemented quickly, and efficiently (no, I have no
> interest in listing them, as I have no desire to turn this
> into another one of those threads that goes on for 9 years,
> because it really doesn't matter anyway (at least, if you are
> of sound mind, it shouldn't)).
This is fair? You make an unsupported assertion, then you explicitly tell
us you don't plan to support it (waste of your time? a bluff? perhaps your
list might be shown to be false?) THEN you tell us we shouldn't care about
your support because "it really doesn't matter anyway." If the thing
doesn't matter enough to be defended on the most basic level, why bother
making the statement in the first place? (Never mind the ad hominim slur
if one happens to disagree that controversial statements as a general rule
and this one in particular should be supported.)
> You know, I used to be a rabid Linux user as well. And guess
> what I got done during all of that time I spent ranting and
> raving about how better Linux was than Windows... all of two
> things, jack and shit.
Tough for you. Perhaps you should have been a little more efficient?
> Oh, I used Linux for getting work done,
> but I soon found out that Linux didn't suit my purposes very
> well, and I couldn't, for the life of me, figure out what in
> the hell I was doing screaming about it to people's faces for
> in the first place.
Ah, the real reason: you're a disillusioned convert! It's one thing to
conclude that you were somewhat foolish in the early stages of your
advocacy; it's quite another to extrapolate that experience to all other
users and imply their continued advocacy is illegitimate due to your
personal experience. This is one of the worst kind of generalization
errors that cripple public discourse about all sorts of issues.
> So, I use WindowsNT. I like Windows. I
> like Microsoft's software, and I'm happy as a clam with its
> performance, and demeanor. In other words, it suits me.
All right. Actually, I wouldn't disagree with you all that much about the
software; for my purposes, MS apps are what I'm used to and work fairly
reasonably. The complaint I have with them is they're MS-only (by design)
and that the company uses its OS supremacy to bully people into accepting
these apps (why is mysterious to me; if they work, they work, and the
tactics used by MS actually de-legitimize their valid successes.) If it
suits you, fine; it simply shows that, in general, you have different
goals/values than I do.
> Some of you Linux users need to get a grip on reality. These
> little wet-dream topics that you people carve out for yourselves
> to swim in are highly delusional at times. Whether Linux/freeware
> is useful is hardly an argument. So what are you arguing about?
> Whether Linux is good or bad? If you truly think it is the bee's
> knees, why should you care what others think? Maybe you're still
> trying to convince yourselves for some odd reason?
Number of things going on here (even discounting the deliberately
insulting and juvenile allusions.) First, there's a mistake of false
dichotomy (re "Linux is good or bad"); Linux and its related issues can be
and are stratified into far more layers and options that those two
simplistic options. Second, the implication is that as long that one is
satisfied that one has the true or correct belief about a subject, it's
just fine to stay in a sort of smug, superior state in which the contrary
utterances of others make no difference. Your assertion is a far less
generous characterization than it sounds; contrariwise, actually
responding to such statements indicates a level of concern for truth and a
desire that people (including yourself) not walk around with false
assumptions or beliefs. (See above comments on citizenship and the like.)
The last sentence sounds to me like pure projection, although it (oddly
enough) hits on an important value. Of COURSE we should continually be
trying to convince ourselves; honest minds constantly re-evaluate their
positions on the basis of new or competing evidence. That's part of what
the popular definition of an "open mind" is, after all. Debate and
interaction is an important process, especially when there are serious
responses to somewhat flippant invocations.
> For an example, I point you to Derek Currie. He posts in
> comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy quite often, spewing forth
> a lot of nonsense regarding Apple's new iMac, and how its
> sales are crushing Microsoft. Now, Derek, as you may, or
> may not know, is quite insane. As such, I have taken quite
> a liking to his posts... they are most amusing.
>
> But seriously, read a couple of his posts... do you people
> really want to start looking like Derek? Do you people
> want to look like Macintosh zealots?
> Macintosh Zealots: Greatly Insane!
What can I say to this? I don't know anything about Mr. Currie; I
especially don't know enough to ascertain whether your characterization of
him is accurate or demonization/trivialization of the opposition. There
is an implied indictment against all "zealotism" that I find
intellectually lazy, however common in post-modern middle-of-the-road
ideology; this complaint, however, has to do with a general trend to
accuse a position of "extremist" or "radical" as a de facto indictment of
the position regardless of the strength of its argumentation or
truth/falsity of its claims.
> Some of you might think I'm right. Some of you might think
> I'm wrong. Some of you might think that I am a complete
> idiot... but the point is, you see, I really couldn't care
> any less what anyone out here thinks about me. Why?...
> because I don't have to justify anything. Comprendez-vous?
I'm afraid not. Why don't you have to justify anything? Are you magic? Are
you the one person who gets to make claims that don't have to be justified
but gets to be thought responsible and respectable? It's one thing to be
secure enough in your beliefs and the justification for your beliefs that
you're not going to be knocked down because someone disagrees; it's quite
another to just do a brain-dump of your beliefs and then hide behind the
"it's my opinion" shield. Granted, that's just another manifestation of
the mistaken (and really ridiculous) generalization that "opinions are
neither true or false" (often phrased as "right or wrong"). If your
opinions contain truth claims about the world, then they can be true or
false; if your opinion is based on false information or makes logical
errors, that's a prima facie reason to believe your opinion is wrong.
(Sigh; there's so much about this to write about, but I've thrown enough
logic into a computer advocacy board already....)
> Use what you like. If you must justify using what you like,
> then you seriously must consider finding a way to sexually
> gratify yourself more effectively than with Rosey Palm and
> her five sisters.
What is there to say to this? I'm just glad my wife doesn't read these
boards...I hate to think how she'd reply to this implied slur....
Final notes: of course there are opportunities for reasonable people to
disagree on virtually all topics, be they operating systems or political
systems. That's part of what advocacy boards are for. Unfortunately,
these kinds of forums are polluted by unreasonable people making
unreasonable claims (yes, Stephen, I include you in this group.) Frankly,
I'm fairly new to Linux and not all that good at computer science, so I
can't tell you who beats what and why on memory management or filesystems
or threading or whatever. I can, however, tell when someone's making an
argument and when someone's blowing smoke. As someone who cares about
truth and honest, reasonable argumentation, I try to blow away the smoke.
If you, gentle reader, have bothered to read this far, maybe you're the
kind of person who tries to do the same thing.
Jason Fletcher
muddy
>
> Justin Jovic <jjo...@pangeatech.com> writes:
>
> > What will drive the Linux community to keep updating Linux? Egos?
> > Yeah right. Money is what will drive Microsoft. If you want to
> > compete with Microsoft, you had better be in it for the money.
>
> So far, we have been doing fine without the money, thank you very
> much. It's a myth perpetrated by the capitalism apologists that money
> is a potent motivator. Have a look at the great works of art,
other motives, but money is a prime one. I think the biggest problem is
US Engineers are payed about half what is fair. This causes a drain of
talent to Law, and business where it is largely wasted.
> literature,
I willing to bet almost no modern literature was created primary for any
other purpose than money. BTW if only 10,000 people read it, I don't think
its should get consideration.
science (and software engineering :-)).
I done some pretty good SW that I sure wouldn't have done for no pay. I
>They were all
> created out of love and enthusiasm for the work, not because of greed.
Bull Greed is the prime motivator is all human activies. It not always greed
for
money directly, but some times fame, or power. The FSF is a noble effort, and
open source is a great idea, but the idea that people are not motivated by money
is a result of engineers being deprived of the just fruits of there labors. If
you get a 10% raise for working 60 hours a week, and people who worked 35 get
5% then obviously money won't be a driving factor. If you reward engineers like
marketing, and a good, and hot engineer starts making several 100,000 thousand
money will become a prime motive. This has been proven over and over in
marketing
companies. In America at least, all real respect in the corperate world comes
with
a check.
Muddy
Volker Dittmar
>
> Should I support an american company that makes great products or should I join
> the Linux holy war and support a Finnish guy's pet project?
I don't care a damn what's better for america (I live in germany, and I was born
here, too).
And, mind you, the majority of the world thinks the same.
Bob
muddy wrote in message <36CC7420...@ti.com>...
>> So far, we have been doing fine without the money, thank you very
>> much. It's a myth perpetrated by the capitalism apologists that money
>> is a potent motivator. Have a look at the great works of art,
>Which Great work of art wasn't done for money? There may have been
>other motives, but money is a prime one. I think the biggest problem is
>US Engineers are payed about half what is fair. This causes a drain of
>talent to Law, and business where it is largely wasted.
>
Actually, I went into law because engineering is too boring. Once you get a
skill (I was a DSP programmer), that's all you do. I wrote C/assembly every
day. I hated it! Had I been able to continue from this job to board
design, then to VLSI design, then communications design, then system
engineering, then I'd have stayed in engineering. I think that if you want
engineers to stay as engineers, rotate them more often. Allow them more
opportunities in disparate parts of engineering. I think that this is would
be much more fun. Rotation is not how most engineering firms work, however.
Once you get a skill, you're stuck doing that skill until your skill is
useless (then you're laid off).
In law, I get a wide variety of different challenges every day. Even if all
I do is patent prosecution (filing for patents, essentially), the work is
very diverse. Throw in copyrights, trademarks, agreements, lawsuits, etc.,
and my job is fun. Much more fun than engineering. I look forward to going
to work, whereas I hated programming so much that I couldn't wait to get the
program over with.
Martin Ozolins
Arthur wrote in message <36CBCA21...@usa.net>...
Yeah Yeah! You're all just jealous. 'Cause we Californians have everything
we want or could possibly want. You should be careful or we'll secede from
the union and become the 5th largest economy in the world. Probably
dropping you guys to 8th or 9th in the process. :-).
>Arthur
Robert Kiesling
>Actually, I went into law because engineering is too boring. Once you get a
>skill (I was a DSP programmer), that's all you do. I wrote C/assembly every
>day. I hated it! Had I been able to continue from this job to board
>design, then to VLSI design, then communications design, then system
>engineering, then I'd have stayed in engineering. I think that if you want
>engineers to stay as engineers, rotate them more often. Allow them more
>opportunities in disparate parts of engineering. I think that this is would
>be much more fun. Rotation is not how most engineering firms work, however.
>Once you get a skill, you're stuck doing that skill until your skill is
>useless (then you're laid off).
>
>In law, I get a wide variety of different challenges every day. Even if all
>I do is patent prosecution (filing for patents, essentially), the work is
>very diverse. Throw in copyrights, trademarks, agreements, lawsuits, etc.,
>and my job is fun. Much more fun than engineering. I look forward to going
>to work, whereas I hated programming so much that I couldn't wait to get the
>program over with.
The problem, of course, is that lawyers and other beaureaucratic
detritus skew markets so the value of products isn't based on
technical merit. If suits didn't worry so much about who was going to
sue them, if that were possible, then they might have enough ambition
to spend more on engineering (and I'd lump documentation in with
that category).
k.lee
>> So far, we have been doing fine without the money, thank you very
>> much. It's a myth perpetrated by the capitalism apologists that money
>> is a potent motivator. Have a look at the great works of art,
muddy replies:
>Which Great work of art wasn't done for money? There may have been
>other motives, but money is a prime one.
False. We can demonstrate that this is false using both deductive and
inductive reasoning.
First of all, for the last two hundred years or so, in America at least, art
of any kind has been an inefficient way for individuals to make money. This
statement has been more or less true of most fine arts, but especially so of
writing[0]. Ergo, an artist, as a rational individual primarily motivated by
money, would choose to go into some other business.
Second, if we look back in retrospect, few major American writers (to take
one category of artists) have been made wealthy by their work. Edgar Allen
Poe died in a gutter. Herman Melville died in artistic obscurity, modestly
prosperous not by his writing (considered trash at the time) but by his
family's investments. The bulk of Emily Dickinson's poetry was never even
published in her lifetime. Most of the American modernist poets had to
support themselves with a day job: William Carlos Williams was a doctor,
Wallace Stevens an insurance salesman. Pound and Eliot wrote theater reviews
for newspapers (BTW they are *not* famous for reviews, but poetry).
None of these writers got rich off their work. Most of them had little reason
to believe they ever would. Yet they persisted. Money was most certainly not
the prime motivator.
>I willing to bet almost no modern literature was created primary for any
>other purpose than money. BTW if only 10,000 people read it, I don't think
>its should get consideration.
See the above. Do a bit of research before you make such unwise bets.
Now, the act of making art takes time, and it is certainly preferable for an
artist to get paid for his/her artwork rather than holding down a day job so
that (s)he may produce art. So every artist has some commercial concerns.
However, note that this is exactly the opposite of what you posit: the artist
wants money in order to spend more time doing art, rather than doing art in
order to make more money.
>I done some pretty good SW that I sure wouldn't have done for no pay.
Compare your software with Linus's, and tell me which motivated the greater
work: money, or love?
>Bull Greed is the prime motivator is all human activies. It not always greed
>for money directly, but some times fame, or power.
Ask Ken Thompson, Brian Kernighan, and Dennis Ritchie whether they invented C
and Unix for money, fame, or power. Ask Don Knuth whether he did his seminal
research on algorithms for those reasons. Ask Steve Wozniak why he invented
the Apple. Ask Doug Engelbart why he invented the mouse. Ask, in fact, any
living technical innovator in any computer field-- or search the web for
interviews with them-- and you will find that they did not do it for greed.
Most of them did it because they had a fascination with solving problems.
Anybody working in a creative field certainly hopes to be recognized and
rewarded for his or her work. However, this desire is not the prime
motivator. Psychological studies suggest that those who do work for its
intrinsic rewards-- not for external rewards such as money and fame-- are
both happier and more motivated than those who do it for external rewards[1].
>The FSF is a noble effort, and open source is a great idea, but the idea that
>people are not motivated by money is a result of engineers being deprived of
>the just fruits of there labors. If you get a 10% raise for working 60 hours
>a week, and people who worked 35 get 5% then obviously money won't be a driving
>factor. If you reward engineers like marketing, and a good, and hot engineer
>starts making several 100,000 thousand money will become a prime motive. This
>has been proven over and over in marketing companies.
I have a couple of issues with this.
First, let's get some of your faulty economics out of the way. "Marketing
companies"? I assume you are referring to advertising. In New York, a
competent software engineer gets paid more than your average employee in
advertising. An advertising executive at a major agency may make more, but
that's comparing apples and oranges[2].
Second, I am not at all sure that higher salaries will pull better engineers
into the profession. As a fourth-year CS student and sometime tutor, I find
that the best CS students are the ones interested in programming for its
intrinsic rewards-- those who find programming to be fun and interesting.
Students who took up CS because they heard there were a lot of high-paying
programming jobs tend to be less competent. They pay less attention in class
and write sloppier code, because all they want is the degree. They see no
need for beauty in the code-- as long as it gets past the grader, it's good
enough for them. When they get into programming, they'll approach code the
same way: just substitute "manager" for "grader".
I am not suggesting that programmers don't like money. I appreciate the value
of debt-free liquidity as much as the next guy. I hope to pay off my student
loans before I die, and if I got a million dollars tomorrow I could think of
a few things I'd like to spend it on. However, I don't think there's much
evidence that higher salaries produce better programmers.
On the other hand, I wouldn't object if programmers got paid higher salaries,
though that has little to do with motivating them to write better code[3].
~k.lee
[0] A painter has to have fine motor control and a strong color sense. A
sculptor has to have significant intuition about the physical properties of
various kinds of materials. A writer has to have verbal reasoning abilities.
Graphic designers, interior decorators, and lawyers generally make more money
than painters, sculptors, or writers. Rational economic decisions would
dictate that artists go into something other than art. (There was a period in
the 80s when painters got ridiculously rich, very quickly (e.g. Basquiat) but
it is debatable whether painting got better as a result.)
[1] For example, I read about a study on the web (I'll look it up and post
the URL if you like) in which psychologists gave children two activities to
do, and rated their preferences for these two activities. Then, they began to
require that children do one of the activities before they went to recess--
in other words, presented an external reward for an activity whose only
reward had previously been intrinsic. Immediately this activity became the
less preferred of the two, even among children who liked them equally before.
[2] In general I believe that managers the world over are overpaid (Thomas
Frank et. al. of the Baffler do a great analysis of management culture in
_Commodify Your Dissent_), but that's another issue.
[3] It has more to do with the fact that I believe workers should, in
general, be adequately compensated for the value they generate, a situation
not much in evidence in the world today.
Matthias Warkus
St John's Passion, St Matthew's Passion, almost everything written by
J.S. Bach has "SDG" on the first (or was it the last?) page.
Do you know what SDG means? Soli Deo Gloriam (sp?).
'nuff said
mawa
--
The utility of a fancy Web browser is damn near zero compared with the
utility of a really good text editor.
-- mawa
Axel Boldt
> Bull, even Michaelangelo painted to pay off his debts. Money is a motivator.
He would have painted even if he hadn't needed the money. By contrast,
the Mexican lady who cleans your toilets would stop working were it
not for the monetary motivation. Same for the Windows programmer in
the next cubicle.
muddy
>
> Alex Boldt wrote:
> >> So far, we have been doing fine without the money, thank you very
> >> much. It's a myth perpetrated by the capitalism apologists that money
> >> is a potent motivator. Have a look at the great works of art,
>
> muddy replies:
> >Which Great work of art wasn't done for money? There may have been
> >other motives, but money is a prime one.
>
> False. We can demonstrate that this is false using both deductive and
> inductive reasoning.
>
> First of all, for the last two hundred years or so, in America at least, art
> of any kind has been an inefficient way for individuals to make money. This
> statement has been more or less true of most fine arts, but especially so of
> writing[0]. Ergo, an artist, as a rational individual primarily motivated by
> money, would choose to go into some other business.
You need to retake your logic class. You failed to prove the first contention
that
art is not a good money maker. Second you totally ignore the fact that people's
talents vary by quite a bit. Eddie Van Halen is one of the best guitar players
of all time, but I don't think he would make a vary good Investiment banker. For
Eddie with a great deal of natural talent and interest, music was by far the
most efficient way to make money. You could use Shakespeare for another
example.
He was locked out of most business ventures by the class structure, and was
the most brilliant writer of all time, and so he wrote plays for a living. If
your
premise was true you would see a great number of investment bankers, and lawyers
giving up their high pay checks to practice some form of art they loved, but
were not good at. I don't see that happening. The few sucessful people you
drop traditional careers for art, are either real good at it, or they are
burn outs. Which one the successful writers, artest or even inventors were
giving up success for art and poverty? People create Art, science and
pickup garbage for the same reasons. It makes their life more better if
they are doing something they love, and are good at, but I have never seen
anything to leave me to believe money, power and sex aren't the prime
motivations.
> Second, if we look back in retrospect, few major American writers (to take
> one category of artists) have been made wealthy by their work. Edgar Allen
> Poe died in a gutter. Herman Melville died in artistic obscurity, modestly
> prosperous not by his writing (considered trash at the time) but by his
> family's investments. The bulk of Emily Dickinson's poetry was never even
> published in her lifetime. Most of the American modernist poets had to
> support themselves with a day job: William Carlos Williams was a doctor,
The fact that the writers failed to make a living, doesn't change their
root motives. Since the invention of the printing press, there have been some
writers who got rich. The fact that some very good writers don't, doesn't
in any way indicate that wasn't there goal. To prove art itself was the
goal you would have to show that there is a lot of great art being created by
people, and not shown to any one. In addition, you would have to show that
the creators knew their art would sell, and didn't care. The poets, who BTW
have a very high precentage of mental problems according to this months P.
Today,
are proablely gaining some version of sex and power in their own communities, or
it could be they just have a talent that doesn't pay well right now.
> >I willing to bet almost no modern literature was created primary for any
> >other purpose than money. BTW if only 10,000 people read it, I don't think
> >its should get consideration.
>
> See the above. Do a bit of research before you make such unwise bets.
>
> Now, the act of making art takes time, and it is certainly preferable for an
> artist to get paid for his/her artwork rather than holding down a day job so
> that (s)he may produce art. So every artist has some commercial concerns.
> However, note that this is exactly the opposite of what you posit: the artist
> wants money in order to spend more time doing art, rather than doing art in
> order to make more money.
>
> >I done some pretty good SW that I sure wouldn't have done for no pay.
>
> Compare your software with Linus's, and tell me which motivated the greater
> work: money, or love?
>
> >Bull Greed is the prime motivator is all human activies. It not always greed
> >for money directly, but some times fame, or power.
>
>
>
> I have a couple of issues with this.
>
> First, let's get some of your faulty economics out of the way. "Marketing
> companies"? I assume you are referring to advertising. In New York, a
> competent software engineer gets paid more than your average employee in
> advertising. An advertising executive at a major agency may make more, but
> that's comparing apples and oranges[2].
Actually I was poorly refering to Sales anyway. Adv. suffers from oversupply,
however good ceatives make very good money.
>
> Second, I am not at all sure that higher salaries will pull better engineers
> into the profession. As a fourth-year CS student and sometime tutor, I find
> that the best CS students are the ones interested in programming for its
> intrinsic rewards-- those who find programming to be fun and interesting.
> Students who took up CS because they heard there were a lot of high-paying
> programming jobs tend to be less competent. They pay less attention in class
> and write sloppier code, because all they want is the degree. They see no
> need for beauty in the code-- as long as it gets past the grader, it's good
> enough for them. When they get into programming, they'll approach code the
> same way: just substitute "manager" for "grader".
They do produce really pretty report covers though.
I actually have to agree with this point, and have to admit its a pretty good
argument. In fact I actually agree with the whole idea that great ideas are
created for love, not money. However I firmly believe that Engineering is by
far the most under paid profession in the US and other countries are often
worst.
If you doubled every engineers salary in the US they since would be getting
ripped off. Engineers are the smartest of the Professions by just about anyway
you measure. They keep more up to date than most(except perhaps lawyers) and
work more hours. While their starting salaries are good, they do really bad
over
time as measured by money. I always figure this partly do to their honesty in
describing their contributions, and the jealous of they inferiors.
Colin Day
> Axel Boldt wrote:
> >
> > Justin Jovic <jjo...@pangeatech.com> writes:
> >
> > > What will drive the Linux community to keep updating Linux? Egos?
> > > Yeah right. Money is what will drive Microsoft. If you want to
> > > compete with Microsoft, you had better be in it for the money.
> >
> > So far, we have been doing fine without the money, thank you very
> > much. It's a myth perpetrated by the capitalism apologists that money
> > is a potent motivator. Have a look at the great works of art,
> Which Great work of art wasn't done for money? There may have been
> other motives, but money is a prime one. I think the biggest problem is
> US Engineers are payed about half what is fair. This causes a drain of
> talent to Law, and business where it is largely wasted.
>
> > literature,
> I willing to bet almost no modern literature was created primary for any
> other purpose than money. BTW if only 10,000 people read it, I don't think
> its should get consideration.
But by what aesthetic criteria should one deny it recognition?
Colin Day cd...@ix.netcom.com
David Kastrup
> Justin Jovic <jjo...@pangeatech.com> writes:
>
> > Bull, even Michaelangelo painted to pay off his debts. Money is a motivator.
>
> He would have painted even if he hadn't needed the money.
Then how come that we have almost no painter worth noting from the
rich classes when looking, say, at painters from 1000-200 years ago?
It seems that people having loads of money don't paint.
Immanuel Litzroth
David> Axel Boldt <ax...@uni-paderborn.de> writes:
>> Justin Jovic <jjo...@pangeatech.com> writes:
>>
>> > Bull, even Michaelangelo painted to pay off his debts. Money
>> is a motivator.
>>
>> He would have painted even if he hadn't needed the money.
David> Then how come that we have almost no painter worth noting
David> from the rich classes when looking, say, at painters from
David> 1000-200 years ago?
Mattisse had money. As painters are not my cup of tea I might refer
you to rich composers:
Albinoni
Auber
Berg
Carpenter
Delius
Most of the russian composers 1850-1900.
Mendelsohn.
...
There's also a list of composers who held day jobs and still found the
time to compose (Ives springs to mind). There's a list of composers
who were starving and not making money (Shubert). Some have
written music (and books) at the expense of their personal safety and
some have been all too willing to oblige for personal gain.
I agree we need some simplification to understand what drove them all,
but I feel that the concept of money isn't sufficient for this
purpose. Maybe if we keep on making these overgeneralized,
undocumented claims we'll stumble onto something.
Immanuel
Alexander Deubelbeiss
David Kastrup schrieb in Nachricht ...
>Axel Boldt <ax...@uni-paderborn.de> writes:
>
>> Justin Jovic <jjo...@pangeatech.com> writes:
>>
>> > Bull, even Michaelangelo painted to pay off his debts. Money is a
motivator.
>>
>> He would have painted even if he hadn't needed the money.
>
>rich classes when looking, say, at painters from 1000-200 years ago?
>
>It seems that people having loads of money don't paint.
>
to hire painters, so's they wouldn't get paint on their hands themselves.
Donal K. Fellows
> Axel Boldt wrote:
>> Justin Jovic <jjo...@pangeatech.com> writes:
>>> What will drive the Linux community to keep updating Linux? Egos?
>>> Yeah right. Money is what will drive Microsoft. If you want to
>>> compete with Microsoft, you had better be in it for the money.
>>
>> So far, we have been doing fine without the money, thank you very
>> much. It's a myth perpetrated by the capitalism apologists that money
>> is a potent motivator. Have a look at the great works of art,
>
> Which Great work of art wasn't done for money? There may have been
> other motives, but money is a prime one. I think the biggest problem is
> US Engineers are payed about half what is fair. This causes a drain of
> talent to Law, and business where it is largely wasted.
There is quite a lot of research in management studies[*] into what
motivates people, and it turns out that only some people are primarily
motivated by money. Others are motivated by peer pressure, a desire
to prevent conflicts, a desire to be different, or just plain wanting
to see something done *right* (do a web search on Enneagram Types for
more details.)
For me, and many other people, money is not a prime motivator. Sure,
if everything else is equal, we'll go for the better-paying option,
but since when was everything else ever equal? Instead, we play off
the fact of what we like doing (our primary motivation) against the
fact that we need a certain amount of money to live. But power and
money are definitely not things that we seek out specifically. Our
(non-physical) desires are not all the same.
Donal.
[* OK, so I attended a seminar on this. Hey! I misread the title of
seminar and thought it was something on factors in human-computer
interfaces, and then it was still more interesting than debugging
the memory usage pattern of the piece of C I was having trouble
with at the time... :^) ]
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ fell...@cs.man.ac.uk
Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester, U.K. +44-161-275-6137
--
"And remember, evidence is nothing." - Stacy Strock <sp...@adisfwb.com>
muddy
>
> Mattisse had money. As painters are not my cup of tea I might refer
> you to rich composers:
> Albinoni
> Auber
> Berg
> Carpenter
> Delius
> Most of the russian composers 1850-1900.
> Mendelsohn.
> ...
movie Mozart was well rewarded for his efforts. In fact the era
he was from produced quite a bit of great music, and during the
whole period the upper classes were supporting popular composers
very well. This is obviously related. The idea of the poor
starving artist that neither expects or wants rewards is more
myth that fact. In my personnel opinion, Engineers are the
lowest paid group in relation to their production in history. If
you doubled all engineers pay, this would still be true.
Muddy
David Kastrup
> Im
> >
> > Mattisse had money. As painters are not my cup of tea I might refer
> > you to rich composers:
> > Albinoni
> > Auber
> > Berg
> > Carpenter
> > Delius
> > Most of the russian composers 1850-1900.
> > Mendelsohn.
> > ...
> I don't know if you would call him rich, but according to the
> movie Mozart was well rewarded for his efforts.
According to his biography and letters, he was pretty much under
stress to make ends meet. Yes, I agree that he might have been a
spendthrift, so one end was moving faster than perhaps necessary, but
he was always looking for employment in order to ease his personal
situation if I'm not very much mistaken. Perhaps the movie is not the
best reference for this, even if I cannot remember the movie touching
strongly on financial aspects at all.
> In fact the era he was from produced quite a bit of great music, and
> during the whole period the upper classes were supporting popular
> composers very well.
You mistake being rich with having a good income. The one means that
you need not work in order to live comfortably, the other means that
working can make you live comfortably.
As we were discussing motivation for work, confusing both of these
entirely different setups is not a good idea.
Most artists that were good at their work had a personal and most
often financial situation that made it important that they were good
at their work.
Apart from which I don't see how the above list of composers meets the
criteria I gave above. The list does not include people in the rich
class (not in need of earning money through their work), it does not
include painters, and it does not include people from the area of
200-1000 years ago, the area that I specified for making sure to be in
a timeframe where your way of life was basically a full-time job (all
days, all hours).
There are of course other examples in art where there is something
done even by the rich even in times where having a fad was not en
vogue. Poetry is one area, philosophy and a few others come to mind
as well, even playing the music was done by some great people.
But painting...
Joseph Totleben
>Im
>>
>> Mattisse had money. As painters are not my cup of tea I might refer
>> you to rich composers:
>> Albinoni
>> Auber
>> Berg
>> Carpenter
>> Delius
>> Most of the russian composers 1850-1900.
>> Mendelsohn.
>> ...
>I don't know if you would call him rich, but according to the
>movie Mozart was well rewarded for his efforts.
He may have been, but he did end up dying peniless.
David Kastrup
I knew that he more or less sold off his life by dying of the mental
and physical effects of overwork. I was not aware, however, that he
sold off his private parts before this. Who would have been the
recipient?
D. J. Birchall
>begin 644 Happy99.exe
>M35I0``(````$``\`__\``+@`````````0``:````````````````````````
>M``````````````````````$``+H0``X?M`G-(;@!3,TAD)!4:&ES('!R;V=R
>M86T@;75S="!B92!R=6X@=6YD97(@5VEN,S(-"B0W````````````````````
>M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
[snipped]
>M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
>M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
>M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
>*````````````````
>`
>end
Hmmm... posting a UUencoded Windows virus as part of an OS debate?
Well... I can see the logic of putting it on comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
(at least they can run it ;) but why on earth cross-post it to
a Linux group and a GNU group?
-Dan
P.S. Joe, you may want to run a virus scan on that PC.
--
Daniel Birchall, VP - Technology, Digital Facilities Management.
do.not....@digitalfm.com is no longer a real address for me,
since a bunch of illiterates spammed it! :) My username is djb.
http://www.scream.org/maisha/ is the Unofficial Maisha Fan Site.
Todd Bandrowsky
>> >> much.
Oh, hooray, hooray. You can be willing to make yourselves slaves, but I'm
not. I mean, if you think that programmers should all be enslaved to hand
over their expertise so you can sponge off it "open source like", then fine.
But I think that's a crock of s---. The bottom line is that the bulk of
Unix, or at least the key parts, was funded by Bell Labs, and the only
reason AT&T could afford to do something like was that, guess, what, they
were a monopoly.
So, your "free" Linux system is really just a re-implementation to
specifications created by research funded by US phone users. These phone
users weren't asked whether or not they should have to pay extra to fund
Unix, they just had their money taken from them.
>>It's a myth perpetrated by the capitalism apologists that money
>> >> is a potent motivator.
Either money or power is. You take your pick.
>>Have a look at the great works of art,
Art is not valued in western society. If it were valuable, people would be
willing to pay for it.
> If
>your
>premise was true you would see a great number of investment bankers, and
lawyers
>giving up their high pay checks to practice some form of art they loved,
but
>were not good at.
They probably would, largely because it would be an easier living. But they
choose to become lawyers and investment bankers because it is a relatively
risk free path to become upper middle class in American society. Innovation
and creativity requires risk taking, and the "smart" strategy is to avoid
taking risks.
>
>> Second, if we look back in retrospect, few major American writers (to
take
>> one category of artists) have been made wealthy by their work. Edgar
Allen
>> Poe died in a gutter.
He did actually make a bit of money off of the Raven, but the booze and
drugs that inspired it did him in.
>>Herman Melville died in artistic obscurity, modestly
>> prosperous not by his writing (considered trash at the time) but by his
>> family's investments.
Actually, Moby Dick was something of a hit in his day, but, Billy Bud got
panned. I think he squandered his money.
By the way, Mark Twain made a fortune.
The problem with art is that it is easy to do, or seemingly easy to do, so
it has no perceived value. People look at a painting, and say, "that's a
cool picture", but, by and large don't see why a picture is worth so much.
Usually, they just say, "who would pay for that".
>>
>> >Bull Greed is the prime motivator is all human activies. It not always
greed
>> >for money directly, but some times fame, or power.
Without exception.
>> Second, I am not at all sure that higher salaries will pull better
engineers
>> into the profession. As a fourth-year CS student and sometime tutor, I
find
>> that the best CS students are the ones interested in programming for its
>> intrinsic rewards-- those who find programming to be fun and interesting.
>> Students who took up CS because they heard there were a lot of
high-paying
>> programming jobs tend to be less competent. They pay less attention in
class
>> and write sloppier code, because all they want is the degree. They see no
>> need for beauty in the code-- as long as it gets past the grader, it's
good
>> enough for them.
That's not a bad tack, actually. If it is good enough to destroy the
competition, then it is good enough.
>>When they get into programming, they'll approach code the
>> same way: just substitute "manager" for "grader".
That's like that in any job. You have plenty of sloppy lawyers who love the
law, and you have plenty of greedy lawyers that practice excellent law. If
Software Engineers were paid more, we would be attracting people that might
prove N=NP instead of figuring how to get McDonalds to pony up a few million
bucks over a spilled cup of coffee.
>> On the other hand, I wouldn't object if programmers got paid higher
salaries,
>> though that has little to do with motivating them to write better
code[3].
Hmm, has anyone ever tried tying whether or not the program actually works
to the programmers compensation? I mean, if you get paid whether or not
your program actually works, then why make a program work?
Mark Metson
> So, your "free" Linux system is really just a re-implementation to
> specifications created by research funded by US phone users. These phone
> users weren't asked whether or not they should have to pay extra to fund
> Unix, they just had their money taken from them.
Thats not very nice, is it? Whyever werent
universities doing such research under
government grants? At least when tax money
is spent the people get to choose what its
spent on.
> >>It's a myth perpetrated by the capitalism apologists that money
> >> >> is a potent motivator.
>
> Either money or power is. You take your pick.
I am fairly sure that money is actually
a secondary (or tertiary etc) reinforcer.
All the stuff about how its a representation
of value may be smoke and mirrors. Its
motivational power is simply the degree to
which the animals have been conditioned to
associate it with primary reinforcers.
I thought that was basic psych 101 kind of
knowledge, has it been discredited? I mean
other than by smoke and mirrors. Exactly
how potent secondary reinforcers are as
motivators is studied in depth in experimental
psych, but that part is probably a 200 level
course.
The business administration and marketting
courses surely do not fail to incorporate
from time the findings of the psychologists
and sociologists? So whats the big mystery
about money?
Maybe I am way out of date? Did all the
experimental data suddenly change when (if?)
behaviorism fell out of favour? Why did it
fall out of favour, too close to uncomfortable
truths?
> >>Have a look at the great works of art,
>
> Art is not valued in western society. If it were valuable, people would be
> willing to pay for it.
Thats why they give away paintings for
millions of dollars at those big art
auctions in New York, eh? The bids are
just for play, they don't actually pay
those insanely huge amounts the newspapers
say that they do? That big red $5M(?) stripe
the Canadian government 'bought' for a museum
wasnt really bought at all?
Good thing we have you to inform us how
blatantly the mass media is lying to us about
this matter.
> >premise was true you would see a great number of investment bankers, and
> lawyers
> >giving up their high pay checks to practice some form of art they loved,
> but
> >were not good at.
They do, sort of. They give up the paycheque but
practice art criticism with the purchased art
rather than practicing to attempt such a feat
themselves. Part of admiring the work may be a
sort of being impressed by how hard it WOULD be
to do it themself, it could be precisely those they
would have the hardest time doing they might
value the most. Often tho its just another status
symbol (which is another token, akin to money in
many ways) and part of hoarding behavior.
> By the way, Mark Twain made a fortune.
>
> The problem with art is that it is easy to do, or seemingly easy to do, so
> it has no perceived value. People look at a painting, and say, "that's a
> cool picture", but, by and large don't see why a picture is worth so much.
> Usually, they just say, "who would pay for that".
> >> >Bull Greed is the prime motivator is all human activies. It not always
> greed
> >> >for money directly, but some times fame, or power.
>
> Without exception.
Hmm what exactly is greed, technically?
Obviously, a stage in a reinforcement schedule
but what schedule is used to produce it?
> >> that the best CS students are the ones interested in programming for its
> >> intrinsic rewards-- those who find programming to be fun and interesting.
> >> Students who took up CS because they heard there were a lot of
> high-paying
> >> programming jobs tend to be less competent. They pay less attention in
> class
> >> and write sloppier code, because all they want is the degree. They see no
> >> need for beauty in the code-- as long as it gets past the grader, it's
> good
> >> enough for them.
In general it seems to be the case that to
follow ones talents and inclinations results
in better work than to be shoehorned into someone
elses scheme of things.
> That's like that in any job. You have plenty of sloppy lawyers who love the
> law, and you have plenty of greedy lawyers that practice excellent law. If
> Software Engineers were paid more, we would be attracting people that might
> prove N=NP instead of figuring how to get McDonalds to pony up a few million
> bucks over a spilled cup of coffee.
Actually I expect that offering more
secondary reinforcement tokens ought to
simply result in more response from people
conditioned to associate such tokens with
primary reinforcers. That may give you a
larger pool of applicants to chose from if
degree of conditionedness is equal across
all levels of competence at a particular job.
But some professions involve knowledge of
conditioning and such; would people aware of
it blindly respond or is there any way even
in theory that they could have come up with
any way of counter-conditioning themselves
in order to take control of their own lives
rather than be manipulated by token systems
like monkeys in psych labs?
> Hmm, has anyone ever tried tying whether or not the program actually works
> to the programmers compensation? I mean, if you get paid whether or not
> your program actually works, then why make a program work?
Shareware comes to mind. Also the first
spreadsheet that wow-ed the market and
made all the money-conditioned apes love
computers was such a case was it not?
If it had no worked no-one would have
bought it. That may have been a case also
of the guy following his own talent and bent
rather than being told what to write by
someone else.
Marty Leisner
>
> Linus isn't doing bad? Financially, he drives a K-car.
>
And Jeff Bezos drives a honda accord...
Not sure that means much...
--
marty
lei...@rochester.rr.com
The Feynman problem solving Algorithm
1) Write down the problem
2) Think real hard
3) Write down the answer
Murray Gell-mann in the NY Times
Mark Metson
> The Feynman problem solving Algorithm
> 1) Write down the problem
> 2) Think real hard
> 3) Write down the answer
> Murray Gell-mann in the NY Times
That would be a nice Standard Approach to put in some
problem-solving newsgroup's FAQ , and users will be
thrilled because note the absence of any reading,
particularly of materials purported obscene (probably
most users find that purport accurate if no other).
Joseph Totleben
Birchall) wrote:
>
>Hmmm... posting a UUencoded Windows virus as part of an OS debate?
>Well... I can see the logic of putting it on comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
>(at least they can run it ;) but why on earth cross-post it to
>a Linux group and a GNU group?
>
>-Dan
>
>P.S. Joe, you may want to run a virus scan on that PC.
>
>--
>Daniel Birchall, VP - Technology, Digital Facilities Management.
>do.not....@digitalfm.com is no longer a real address for me,
>since a bunch of illiterates spammed it! :) My username is djb.
>http://www.scream.org/maisha/ is the Unofficial Maisha Fan Site.
Sorry, mea culpa. I don't believe I did this! I assure you that it
was an accident! It was probably something absent-minded on
my part. I assure you, I have many better things to do than post
seedy programs to USENET. (I have many better things to do
than to _write_ seedy programs.)
Very Apologetically,
Joseph Totleben <jo...@netscape.net>
Martin Ozolins
Mark Metson wrote in message <36DE2266...@knotwork.com>...
>Todd Bandrowsky wrote:
>> So, your "free" Linux system is really just a re-implementation to
>> specifications created by research funded by US phone users. These phone
>> users weren't asked whether or not they should have to pay extra to fund
>> Unix, they just had their money taken from them.
>
couple of other Monopolies were working with DOD on the coldwar.
>
>Thats not very nice, is it? Whyever werent
>universities doing such research under
>government grants? At least when tax money
>is spent the people get to choose what its
>spent on.
>
these two guys in the lab building a new computer, 3B2, and they needed some
software to test it. Well the software guys were behind their release date,
as usual, so Messrs Kernighan and Ritchie just threw some c code together
and voila! UNIX.
Ken Stox
In article <7brhsv$151$1...@news.campus.mci.net>,
"Martin Ozolins" <Martin....@cwusa.com> writes:
>
> Mark Metson wrote in message <36DE2266...@knotwork.com>...
>>Todd Bandrowsky wrote:
>>> So, your "free" Linux system is really just a re-implementation to
>>> specifications created by research funded by US phone users. These phone
>>> users weren't asked whether or not they should have to pay extra to fund
>>> Unix, they just had their money taken from them.
>>
> They weren't funding UNIX, they were funding ARPANET. AT&T and IBM and a
> couple of other Monopolies were working with DOD on the coldwar.
Bzzzt, please try again, UNIX predates DARPANET, and it was funded by private
Telco dollars. If memory serves correct, some ARPANET finds did contribute
towards BSD development, though.
>>
>>Thats not very nice, is it? Whyever werent
>>universities doing such research under
>>government grants? At least when tax money
>>is spent the people get to choose what its
>>spent on.
>>
> It actually wasn't intended to become a commercial system. There were just
> these two guys in the lab building a new computer, 3B2, and they needed some
> software to test it. Well the software guys were behind their release date,
> as usual, so Messrs Kernighan and Ritchie just threw some c code together
> and voila! UNIX.
Bzzzt, please try again. UNIX predates the 3B2's by 14 years. R&D UNIX Version
8 was out before the 3B2's.
Where do people get these ideas ? Do us all a favor, and do some reading
before spreading such mis-informed BS.
Martin Ozolins
Ken Stox wrote in message <7c3qck$4ni$1...@info3.fnal.gov>...
>Talk about clueless....
>
>In article <7brhsv$151$1...@news.campus.mci.net>,
> "Martin Ozolins" <Martin....@cwusa.com> writes:
>>
>>>Todd Bandrowsky wrote:
>>>> So, your "free" Linux system is really just a re-implementation to
>>>> specifications created by research funded by US phone users. These
phone
>>>> users weren't asked whether or not they should have to pay extra to
fund
>>>> Unix, they just had their money taken from them.
>>>
>> They weren't funding UNIX, they were funding ARPANET. AT&T and IBM and a
>> couple of other Monopolies were working with DOD on the coldwar.
>
private
>Telco dollars. If memory serves correct, some ARPANET finds did contribute
>towards BSD development, though.
>>>
>>>Thats not very nice, is it? Whyever werent
>>>universities doing such research under
>>>government grants? At least when tax money
>>>is spent the people get to choose what its
>>>spent on.
>>>
>> It actually wasn't intended to become a commercial system. There were
just
>> these two guys in the lab building a new computer, 3B2, and they needed
some
>> software to test it. Well the software guys were behind their release
date,
>> as usual, so Messrs Kernighan and Ritchie just threw some c code together
>> and voila! UNIX.
>
>Bzzzt, please try again. UNIX predates the 3B2's by 14 years. R&D UNIX
Version
>8 was out before the 3B2's.
Wrong. Try again.
Ken Stox
"Martin Ozolins" <Martin....@cwusa.com> writes:
>
> Ken Stox wrote in message <7c3qck$4ni$1...@info3.fnal.gov>...
>>Talk about clueless....
>>
>>In article <7brhsv$151$1...@news.campus.mci.net>,
>> "Martin Ozolins" <Martin....@cwusa.com> writes:
>>>
>>>>Todd Bandrowsky wrote:
>>>>> So, your "free" Linux system is really just a re-implementation to
>>>>> specifications created by research funded by US phone users. These
> phone
>>>>> users weren't asked whether or not they should have to pay extra to
> fund
>>>>> Unix, they just had their money taken from them.
>>>>
>>> They weren't funding UNIX, they were funding ARPANET. AT&T and IBM and a
>>> couple of other Monopolies were working with DOD on the coldwar.
>>
> private
>>Telco dollars. If memory serves correct, some ARPANET finds did contribute
>>towards BSD development, though.
>
>>>>
>>>>universities doing such research under
>>>>government grants? At least when tax money
>>>>is spent the people get to choose what its
>>>>spent on.
>>>>
>>> It actually wasn't intended to become a commercial system. There were
> just
>>> these two guys in the lab building a new computer, 3B2, and they needed
> some
>>> software to test it. Well the software guys were behind their release
> date,
>>> as usual, so Messrs Kernighan and Ritchie just threw some c code together
>>> and voila! UNIX.
>>
> Version
>>8 was out before the 3B2's.
>
> Wrong. Try again.
Oh really? Care to back that up with some facts ? BTW, Unix predates the C
language, too.
¿- Infinity Rising -?
> Oh, hooray, hooray. You can be willing to make yourselves slaves, but I'm
> not. I mean, if you think that programmers should all be enslaved to hand
> over their expertise so you can sponge off it "open source like", then fine.
> But I think that's a crock of s---. The bottom line is that the bulk of
> Unix, or at least the key parts, was funded by Bell Labs, and the only
> reason AT&T could afford to do something like was that, guess, what, they
> were a monopoly.
Now that's very interesting... no wonder Linus wanted to create a cheap copy and
distribute it for free. Maybe partly because he couldn't afford the real
thing, but to kick AT&T in the groin...
>
> So, your "free" Linux system is really just a re-implementation to
> specifications created by research funded by US phone users. These phone
> users weren't asked whether or not they should have to pay extra to fund
> Unix, they just had their money taken from them.
Quite. Worse, Linux is an extension of a 20+ year old platform. We're all
supposed to drop Windows, 20 year old code, for this?! Complete with no proper
GUI of any sort? Even I would prefer NT (and I prefer BeOS). Most computer
users want to use their computer all day, not configure the bloody thing.
>
> >>It's a myth perpetrated by the capitalism apologists that money
> >> >> is a potent motivator.
>
> Either money or power is. You take your pick.
One feeds the other sometimes while the other feeds the one in return. Gates
is still very money-hungry, despite his current situation. Okay, he's a nutter
psychopath but that's not my judgement to make.
Power is not necessarily based on money. IBM clones are a monopoly of sorts.
Oh, few have the IBM brand name but the technology was invented by IBM (using
cheap off-the-shelf hardware with an even lower-rate processor... it's not my
fault people preferred to buy the IBM computer because of the name "IBM" and not
because they thought things through.)
>
> Art is not valued in western society. If it were valuable, people would be
> willing to pay for it.
Open source art, hehehe.
>
> They probably would, largely because it would be an easier living. But they
> choose to become lawyers and investment bankers because it is a relatively
> risk free path to become upper middle class in American society. Innovation
> and creativity requires risk taking, and the "smart" strategy is to avoid
> taking risks.
And if America continues its "money over all else" philosophy, we'll end up in a
fairly sad state... profit is one thing. Circumventing certain ideals to make
the profit is another.
> >>
> >> >Bull Greed is the prime motivator is all human activies. It not always
> greed
> >> >for money directly, but some times fame, or power.
>
> Without exception.
Agreed.
>
> Hmm, has anyone ever tried tying whether or not the program actually works
> to the programmers compensation? I mean, if you get paid whether or not
> your program actually works, then why make a program work?
Exactly. Some people who I work for have hired a programmer contractor. She
worked for 36 hours in order to fix a database she purportedly damaged while
trying to find a way to convert the data from Excel to Acces... doesn't she
bloody know already? The problem still isn't solved and they've already been
billed for this work, especially since it has not been completed! Yipes.
--
"SMAQFWB: Small Mammals Are Quite Flavorsome When Baked."
Eat up!
http://www.geocities.com/~timanov --> New and improved, with only 25 percent
recycled material!
jedi
>
>> Oh, hooray, hooray. You can be willing to make yourselves slaves, but I'm
>> not. I mean, if you think that programmers should all be enslaved to hand
>> over their expertise so you can sponge off it "open source like", then fine.
>> But I think that's a crock of s---. The bottom line is that the bulk of
>> Unix, or at least the key parts, was funded by Bell Labs, and the only
>> reason AT&T could afford to do something like was that, guess, what, they
>> were a monopoly.
>
>Now that's very interesting... no wonder Linus wanted to create a cheap copy and
>distribute it for free. Maybe partly because he couldn't afford the real
>thing, but to kick AT&T in the groin...
>
>>
>> So, your "free" Linux system is really just a re-implementation to
>> specifications created by research funded by US phone users. These phone
>> users weren't asked whether or not they should have to pay extra to fund
>> Unix, they just had their money taken from them.
Actually, under standard patent terms, Unix should be in
the public domain by now. Under sensible copyright terms,
Unix would also be in the public domain by now, source
code and all.
>
>Quite. Worse, Linux is an extension of a 20+ year old platform. We're all
>supposed to drop Windows, 20 year old code, for this?! Complete with no proper
>GUI of any sort? Even I would prefer NT (and I prefer BeOS). Most computer
What constitutes a proper gui, precisely?
>users want to use their computer all day, not configure the bloody thing.
That why many of us dumped Windows. It required too much
ongoing maintenance. Whereas Unix just keeps on chugging
along for years after once installed.
[deletia]
>
>>
>> Hmm, has anyone ever tried tying whether or not the program actually works
>> to the programmers compensation? I mean, if you get paid whether or not
>> your program actually works, then why make a program work?
>
>Exactly. Some people who I work for have hired a programmer contractor. She
>worked for 36 hours in order to fix a database she purportedly damaged while
>trying to find a way to convert the data from Excel to Acces... doesn't she
>bloody know already? The problem still isn't solved and they've already been
>billed for this work, especially since it has not been completed! Yipes.
--
"I was not elected to watch my people suffer and die |||
while you discuss this a invasion in committe." / | \
In search of sane PPP docs? Try http://penguin.lvcm.com
Ralph Baumfalk
I am german,
do You allow me to say my opinion in this "american" discussion?
Perhaps You know this joke:
" America is like this guy on the party,
who give You cocaine for free,
but nobody likes him."
Well, M$ is not for free,
but it is stupid to use drugs.
And using M$-products is also stupid.
You could say:
"Linux is an international "product"
and M$ is american product.
It is good that an american product
is dominating the world market."
But:
Monopolies are never good for anybody,
but the monopoly itself.
Ralph
The Ghost In The Machine
Ralph Baumfalk <baum...@et-inf.fho-emden.de> wrote:
>Hi all,
>I am german,
>do You allow me to say my opinion in this "american" discussion?
Well, Microsoft might not like it, but they can't stop you. :-)
>
>Perhaps You know this joke:
>" America is like this guy on the party,
> who give You cocaine for free,
> but nobody likes him."
*snort* :-)
>
>Well, M$ is not for free,
>but it is stupid to use drugs.
>And using M$-products is also stupid.
>You could say:
>"Linux is an international "product"
> and M$ is american product.
> It is good that an american product
> is dominating the world market."
Depends on the definition of the word "good". :-)
>
>But:
>Monopolies are never good for anybody,
>but the monopoly itself.
Yep.
>
>Ralph
>
>
----
ew...@aimnet.com
Neil Johnson
> > specifications created by research funded by US phone users. These phone
> > users weren't asked whether or not they should have to pay extra to fund
> > Unix, they just had their money taken from them.
>
> supposed to drop Windows, 20 year old code, for this?! Complete with no proper
> GUI of any sort? Even I would prefer NT (and I prefer BeOS). Most computer
Heh, interesting :)
Linux isnt actually an extension its more of a devlopment. And no your
not supposed to drop anything!, for christs sake when will you people
understand that you use the best product for the job and not which
product has the best marketing. So Linux may be having a great time
with the media right now, but it wont be long before it gets too big and
every one slags it off like NT. Linux has its benefits and so does NT.
Which is better for America ? who cares, when it comes down to it i just
design networks with the experience i have. That means i dont use NT
where i personally think Linux or Netware is better. I dont use NT
because its made in america i use it beacause its a damn fine product.
Anyone who is preaching that Linux is better coded than NT is stupid and
vice versa.
As for cost, i think you will find that the actual physical cost of the
software is a tiny proportion of the overall costs of implementing and
supporting these products, and is largely irrelevant to most of my
clients. They are just as happy paying for Windows NT as they are using
'free' Linux. Most companies dont care about the inital software costs,
because they stand to loose alot more if the implementation fails and
their employees cant do their job properly. At the end of the day the
end user just wants to use his machine, send his emails and not have to
worry about whats going on under that nice pretty GUI.
--
Neil Johnson, MCSE
http://www.redhat.com - The choice of a GNU generation...
'a little lost sometimes.....'
Todd Bandrowsky
>>
>>Perhaps You know this joke:
>>" America is like this guy on the party,
>> who give You cocaine for free,
>> but nobody likes him."
Perhaps you've heard this joke. Germany declares war on United States,
twice. Record is what? I do believe it is 0 - 2. Oh, perhaps you've
heard this joke: Deutchland, Deutchland, Uber Alles.
Hah. I laugh at Germany.
>>You could say:
>>"Linux is an international "product"
>> and M$ is american product.
>> It is good that an american product
>> is dominating the world market."
It is good that America should dominate, if you are an American. Linux is
not an international product. It is an international clone of an American
design. I would be totally against Microsoft if it were not for the fact
that they are also an American company, crushing numerous enemy competitors
in Europe.
>
>>
>>But:
>>Monopolies are never good for anybody,
>>but the monopoly itself.
The AT&T monopoly invented the transistor, and also invented C, C++, and
Unix. That's not a bad track record, for an AMERICAN MONOPOLY.
witra
>It is good that America should dominate, if you are an American. Linux is
>not an international product. It is an international clone of an American
>design. I would be totally against Microsoft if it were not for the fact
>that they are also an American company, crushing numerous enemy competitors
>in Europe.
That is open to debate. Perhaps you are also of the opinion that
foreigners don't know how to do anything right. America knows best.
When foreigners manage to out compete American companies, they are
cheating.
You can probably guess by now that I am not an American, and I'm just
pissed off that some Americans try to dominate everything. :)
Colin R. Day
> >>
> >>Perhaps You know this joke:
> >>" America is like this guy on the party,
> >> who give You cocaine for free,
> >> but nobody likes him."
>
> Perhaps you've heard this joke. Germany declares war on United States,
> twice. Record is what? I do believe it is 0 - 2. Oh, perhaps you've
> heard this joke: Deutchland, Deutchland, Uber Alles.
Actually, the US declared war on Germany in WWI.
>
>
> Hah. I laugh at Germany.
>
> >>You could say:
> >>"Linux is an international "product"
> >> and M$ is american product.
> >> It is good that an american product
> >> is dominating the world market."
>
> It is good that America should dominate, if you are an American. Linux is
> not an international product. It is an international clone of an American
> design. I would be totally against Microsoft if it were not for the fact
> that they are also an American company, crushing numerous enemy competitors
> in Europe.
>
As an American, I wonder how Microsoft's achieving domination would
benefit me. My sense of identity is more abstract than the being a citizen.
I want Open Source to flourish because it encourages people to think
rather than to bow and scrape to Redmond. Also, why should I view
foreign companies as enemies?
>
> >
> >>
> >>But:
> >>Monopolies are never good for anybody,
> >>but the monopoly itself.
>
> The AT&T monopoly invented the transistor, and also invented C, C++, and
> Unix. That's not a bad track record, for an AMERICAN MONOPOLY.
--
Colin R. Day cd...@ix.netcom.com alt.atheist #1500
"The alleged short-cut to knowledge, which is faith, is only
a short circuit destroying the mind." Ayn Rand
Michael T. Babcock
> >>Perhaps You know this joke:
> >>" America is like this guy on the party,
> >> who give You cocaine for free,
> >> but nobody likes him."
>
> Perhaps you've heard this joke. Germany declares war on United States,
> twice. Record is what? I do believe it is 0 - 2. Oh, perhaps you've
> heard this joke: Deutchland, Deutchland, Uber Alles.
Any particular reason you decided to bring your racism into the discussion?
Or are you just an all-around pigheaded jerk?
> Hah. I laugh at Germany.
Whatever. They still make some of the best cars and have some of the best
engineers in the world (especially construction).
> It is good that America should dominate, if you are an American. Linux is
> not an international product. It is an international clone of an American
> design. I would be totally against Microsoft if it were not for the fact
> that they are also an American company, crushing numerous enemy competitors
> in Europe.
Do you have a clue? "Enemy competitors in Europe?" I'd love to use a
European-created version of Windows if it worked the way it's supposed to. I
don't like Windows because it doesn't work and it costs too much. That's it,
that's all. I don't care where it's made because I'm not a bigot.
> The AT&T monopoly invented the transistor, and also invented C, C++, and
> Unix. That's not a bad track record, for an AMERICAN MONOPOLY.
Do your research again. Look up C++ ... heck, look up C.
--
_____/~-=##=-~\_____
-=+0+=-< Michael T. Babcock >-=+0+=-
~~~~~\_-=##=-_/~~~~~
http://www.linuxsupportline.com/~pgp/ ICQ: 4835018
Todd Bandrowsky
Michael T. Babcock <mbab...@tyenet.com> wrote in message
news:37045EAA...@tyenet.com...
>Todd Bandrowsky wrote:
>
>> >>Perhaps You know this joke:
>> >>" America is like this guy on the party,
>> >> who give You cocaine for free,
>> >> but nobody likes him."
>>
>> Perhaps you've heard this joke. Germany declares war on United States,
>> twice. Record is what? I do believe it is 0 - 2. Oh, perhaps you've
>> heard this joke: Deutchland, Deutchland, Uber Alles.
>
>Any particular reason you decided to bring your racism into the discussion?
>Or are you just an all-around pigheaded jerk?
A German guy insulted the United States by hammering us for our countries
mistakes. Therefor, I retaliated by reminding him of his countries
mistakes. I believe that if someone hits me I should hit them back twice is
hard. Nationalism is not racism.
>
>> Hah. I laugh at Germany.
>
>Whatever. They still make some of the best cars and have some of the best
>engineers in the world (especially construction).
Of course they do, but a friendly historical rivalry is not wrong.
>
>Do you have a clue? "Enemy competitors in Europe?"
We are engaged in an economic war. Therefor, everyone who makes something
that competes with an American company is an enemy. That doesn't mean that
I won't buy it or use it. I have an NEC flat panel monitor for example, but
it does not change the fact that they are enemies.
>I'd love to use a
>European-created version of Windows if it worked the way it's supposed to.
You are actually bigoted by assuming that European automatically means
better.
>I
>don't like Windows because it doesn't work and it costs too much. That's
it,
>that's all. I don't care where it's made because I'm not a bigot.
I am not a bigot because I want my country to win. I used to live in Akron,
when a lot of people were laid off and plants were shut down, and the entire
economy of the city went south and the people right along with it. Maybe
you can look the other way and say, "oh, well, they are my next door
neighbors, and they should get some federal handout to compensate". But I
think it would be better if they simply kept their jobs, and if that means
that American companies should win and win at any price exacted on foreign
firms, then so be it.
>
>> The AT&T monopoly invented the transistor, and also invented C, C++, and
>> Unix. That's not a bad track record, for an AMERICAN MONOPOLY.
>
>Do your research again. Look up C++ ... heck, look up C.
Funded by American dollars. The stars of the show had certainly European
contributors. I mean, there aren't too many Americans named Bjorne. But the
entire Bell Labs Unix / C / C++ effort was funded by an American company.
Todd Bandrowsky
True. But WWI wasn't really a big deal for the United States and by the
time we were involved the British had already more or less won it with the
blockade.
>As an American, I wonder how Microsoft's achieving domination would
>benefit me.
Last time I checked, Seattle is part of the United States. Success for MS
means more tax revenue, helps contribute to a balanced budget, etc.
>My sense of identity is more abstract than the being a citizen.
>I want Open Source to flourish because it encourages people to think
>rather than to bow and scrape to Redmond.
I want Open Source to flourish as well. But I want America to win.
>Also, why should I view
>foreign companies as enemies?
Because they are.
Colin R. Day
> >Actually, the US declared war on Germany in WWI.
>
> True. But WWI wasn't really a big deal for the United States and by the
> time we were involved the British had already more or less won it with the
> blockade.
>
> >As an American, I wonder how Microsoft's achieving domination would
> >benefit me.
>
> Last time I checked, Seattle is part of the United States. Success for MS
> means more tax revenue, helps contribute to a balanced budget, etc.
But what is the value of those receipts if we all end up using
MS Office?
>
>
> >My sense of identity is more abstract than the being a citizen.
>
> >I want Open Source to flourish because it encourages people to think
> >rather than to bow and scrape to Redmond.
>
> I want Open Source to flourish as well. But I want America to win.
>
> >Also, why should I view
> >foreign companies as enemies?
>
> Because they are.
Even at the crudest level, you fail to see how international trade
is a positive-sum game. I want the best product to win.
David Kastrup
> Quite. Worse, Linux is an extension of a 20+ year old platform.
> We're all supposed to drop Windows, 20 year old code, for this?!
I assume that you also refuse to close your pants with either laces,
buttons or zippers. Their design is even older.
David Kastrup
> >>
> >>Perhaps You know this joke:
> >>" America is like this guy on the party,
> >> who give You cocaine for free,
> >> but nobody likes him."
>
> Perhaps you've heard this joke. Germany declares war on United States,
> twice. Record is what? I do believe it is 0 - 2.
Actually, Germany never declared war on the United States as far as I
know, even though there were some German mercenaries (i.e., Hessians)
involved in the independence wars. America, of course, declared war
on Germany in the second world war, and it was a pretty good thing
they did.
> Oh, perhaps you've heard this joke: Deutchland, Deutchland, Uber
> Alles.
That is the second "joke" of yours that does not have any punch line
even remotely funny. If you would have to wage war on Germany with
jokes, you would have a high chance of losing. And German humour is
far from being a "Geheimwaffe".
> It is good that America should dominate, if you are an American.
> Linux is not an international product. It is an international clone
> of an American design. I would be totally against Microsoft if it
> were not for the fact that they are also an American company,
> crushing numerous enemy competitors in Europe.
You are aware that Microsoft is crushing even more competitors in
America by emplying lots of programmers in third-world countries like
India at laughable salaries?
Christopher B. Browne
>Todd Bandrowsky wrote:
>> >Actually, the US declared war on Germany in WWI.
>>
>> True. But WWI wasn't really a big deal for the United States and by the
>> time we were involved the British had already more or less won it with the
>> blockade.
>>
>> >As an American, I wonder how Microsoft's achieving domination would
>> >benefit me.
>>
>> Last time I checked, Seattle is part of the United States. Success for MS
>> means more tax revenue, helps contribute to a balanced budget, etc.
>
>But what is the value of those receipts if we all end up using
>MS Office?
Success for MSFT means that the taxpayers wind up paying out a whole
lot of money to MSFT for product.
It is not at all obvious that things that accrue to MSFT's benefit
accrue to taxpayers' benefit.
>> >My sense of identity is more abstract than the being a citizen.
>>
>> >I want Open Source to flourish because it encourages people to think
>> >rather than to bow and scrape to Redmond.
>>
>> I want Open Source to flourish as well. But I want America to win.
>>
>> >Also, why should I view
>> >foreign companies as enemies?
>>
>> Because they are.
>
>Even at the crudest level, you fail to see how international trade
>is a positive-sum game. I want the best product to win.
Note that if the government doesn't pay out anything for software
licenses, this reduces the tax burden.
Note as well that it is a negative-sum game from taxpayers' point of
view when MSFT makes money:
- MSFT sells government a MS Office license for $400.
- MSFT winds up declaring profits of something on the order of $300 as
a result of that transaction.
- If MSFT pays taxes at a 50% tax rate, they thereby pay back $150 of
that revenue.
Net result for government: (400 - 150) or $250 net *expenditure.*
That's $250 that has to be made up by charging other taxpayers more
tax.
On the "positive" side of the equation, it means that MS Office
licenses don't cost quite as much to the government as they may cost
to others. But they certainly represent monies that have to be
extracted from other taxpayers...
--
Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
-- Henry Spencer <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
cbbr...@hex.net - "What have you contributed to free software today?..."
Anthony Ord
<tband...@del.net> wrote:
>>Actually, the US declared war on Germany in WWI.
>
>True. But WWI wasn't really a big deal for the United States and by the
>time we were involved the British had already more or less won it with the
>blockade.
>
>>As an American, I wonder how Microsoft's achieving domination would
>>benefit me.
>
>Last time I checked, Seattle is part of the United States. Success for MS
>means more tax revenue, helps contribute to a balanced budget, etc.
You have a balanced budget:? When did this happen?
>>My sense of identity is more abstract than the being a citizen.
>
>>I want Open Source to flourish because it encourages people to think
>>rather than to bow and scrape to Redmond.
>
>I want Open Source to flourish as well. But I want America to win.
And others to lose?
>>Also, why should I view
>>foreign companies as enemies?
>
>Because they are.
Trade is not a zero sum game.
Regards
Anthony
--
-----------------------------------------
| And when our worlds |
| They fall apart |
| When the walls come tumbling in |
| Though we may deserve it |
| It will be worth it - Depeche Mode |
-----------------------------------------