Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.user > #160738 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Alex Vong <alexvong1995@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-11-18 15:50 +0100 |
| Last post | 2015-11-19 02:30 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 110 — 22 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Adobe Flash Alex Vong <alexvong1995@gmail.com> - 2015-11-18 15:50 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-11-18 16:10 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Siard <shiems146@kpnplanet.nl> - 2015-11-18 16:40 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2015-11-18 19:50 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-11-18 20:40 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2015-11-19 00:50 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-11-19 01:30 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2015-11-19 14:10 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash moxalt <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2015-11-18 19:00 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-11-18 19:00 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash moxalt <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2015-11-18 20:30 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-11-18 20:40 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash moxalt <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2015-11-19 18:00 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com> - 2015-11-20 01:10 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Doug <dmcgarrett@optonline.net> - 2015-11-20 01:40 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash moxalt <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2015-11-20 08:00 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI <renaud@olgiati-in-paraguay.org> - 2015-11-20 09:30 +0100
Re: The word 'should'. (was: Adobe Flash) moxalt <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2015-11-21 05:50 +0100
Re: The word 'should'. (was: Adobe Flash) Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-11-21 10:00 +0100
Re: The word 'should'. (was: Adobe Flash) Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI <renaud@olgiati-in-paraguay.org> - 2015-11-21 10:30 +0100
Re: The word 'should'. (was: Adobe Flash) moxalt <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2015-11-21 13:40 +0100
Re: The word 'should'. John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2015-11-21 14:50 +0100
Re: The word 'should'. Mauro Condarelli <mc5686@mclink.it> - 2015-11-21 15:00 +0100
Re: The word 'should'. moxalt <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2015-11-21 18:20 +0100
Re: The word 'should'. Mauro Condarelli <mc5686@mclink.it> - 2015-11-21 18:40 +0100
Re: The word 'should'. Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-11-21 23:50 +0100
Re: The word 'should'. Mauro Condarelli <mc5686@mclink.it> - 2015-11-22 00:50 +0100
Re: The word 'should'. moxalt <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2015-11-22 04:10 +0100
Re: The word 'should'. Mario Castelán Castro <marioxcc.MT@yandex.com> - 2015-11-22 05:20 +0100
Re: The word 'should'. Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-11-22 12:20 +0100
Re: The word 'should'. Ben Stones <ben@b3ns.com> - 2015-11-22 13:00 +0100
Re: The word 'should'. Chris Bannister <cbannister@slingshot.co.nz> - 2015-11-23 00:10 +0100
Re: The word 'should'. moxalt <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2015-11-23 18:50 +0100
Re: Mauro Condarelli <mc5686@mclink.it> - 2015-11-22 18:00 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2015-11-20 09:30 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Mario Castelán Castro <marioxcc.MT@yandex.com> - 2015-11-22 00:40 +0100
Which repositories are permitted and which are not Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-11-22 01:20 +0100
The word 'should' Mario Castelán Castro <marioxcc.MT@yandex.com> - 2015-11-22 04:50 +0100
Re: The word 'should' John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2015-11-22 05:00 +0100
Re: The word 'should' Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-11-22 12:20 +0100
Re: The word 'should' Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2015-11-22 17:50 +0100
Re: The word 'should' Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-11-22 18:00 +0100
Re: The word 'should' moxalt <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2015-11-22 20:00 +0100
Re: The word 'should' Mario Castelán Castro <marioxcc.MT@yandex.com> - 2015-11-22 23:40 +0100
Re: The word 'should' Mario Castelán Castro <marioxcc.MT@yandex.com> - 2015-11-22 23:40 +0100
Re: The word 'should' Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI <renaud@olgiati-in-paraguay.org> - 2015-11-23 00:00 +0100
Re: The word 'should' Mario Castelán Castro <marioxcc.MT@yandex.com> - 2015-11-23 00:10 +0100
Re: The word 'should' Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI <renaud@olgiati-in-paraguay.org> - 2015-11-23 00:40 +0100
Re: The word 'should' Mario Castelán Castro <marioxcc.MT@yandex.com> - 2015-11-23 00:40 +0100
Re: The word 'should' Ben Stones <ben@b3ns.com> - 2015-11-23 01:30 +0100
Re: The word 'should' Bob Holtzman <holtzm@cox.net> - 2015-11-22 21:30 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-11-20 01:10 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash moxalt <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2015-11-20 07:50 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI <renaud@olgiati-in-paraguay.org> - 2015-11-20 09:30 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash moxalt <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2015-11-21 05:10 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2015-11-21 05:30 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash moxalt <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2015-11-21 05:50 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Glenn English <ghe@srv.slsware.net> - 2015-11-21 08:00 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI <renaud@olgiati-in-paraguay.org> - 2015-11-21 09:40 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-11-21 10:00 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI <renaud@olgiati-in-paraguay.org> - 2015-11-21 10:20 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2015-11-21 14:40 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash moxalt <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2015-11-21 18:10 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com> - 2015-11-21 16:00 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-11-21 10:00 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash moxalt <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2015-11-21 13:30 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash moxalt <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2015-11-21 13:40 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI <renaud@olgiati-in-paraguay.org> - 2015-11-21 10:20 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2015-11-21 15:00 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com> - 2015-11-21 16:20 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash moxalt <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2015-11-21 18:10 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com> - 2015-11-21 19:10 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Chris Bannister <cbannister@slingshot.co.nz> - 2015-11-22 02:40 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com> - 2015-11-21 16:00 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash moxalt <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2015-11-21 18:10 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash moxalt <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2015-11-21 05:50 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2015-11-21 19:00 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-11-20 13:40 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2015-11-20 14:20 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Chris Bannister <cbannister@slingshot.co.nz> - 2015-11-20 15:00 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2015-11-20 16:40 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Chris Bannister <cbannister@slingshot.co.nz> - 2015-11-20 17:00 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-11-21 12:30 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2015-11-21 13:00 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash moxalt <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2015-11-21 13:30 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2015-11-21 14:00 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com> - 2015-11-21 16:30 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash moxalt <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2015-11-21 18:00 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com> - 2015-11-21 19:00 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash moxalt <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2015-11-22 04:10 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2015-11-22 14:10 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-11-22 14:50 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com> - 2015-11-19 00:40 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Mario Castelán Castro <marioxcc.MT@yandex.com> - 2015-11-22 01:00 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash moxalt <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2015-11-22 04:00 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com> - 2015-11-22 16:10 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash moxalt <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2015-11-22 19:50 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Chris Bannister <cbannister@slingshot.co.nz> - 2015-11-23 00:10 +0100
"operating system" Mario Castelán Castro <marioxcc.MT@yandex.com> - 2015-11-23 02:50 +0100
pointless linguistic one-upmanship (was Re: "operating system") Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2015-11-23 10:40 +0100
Re: pointless linguistic one-upmanship (was Re: "operating system") Bob Holtzman <holtzm@cox.net> - 2015-11-23 20:30 +0100
Re: pointless linguistic one-upmanship (was Re: "operating system") Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2015-11-24 11:30 +0100
Re: pointless linguistic one-upmanship (was Re: "operating system") moxalt <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2015-11-24 15:50 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2015-11-18 19:40 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Tom Ashley <tomashleyjr@gmail.com> - 2015-11-18 22:10 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-11-19 00:30 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2015-11-19 01:00 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-11-19 01:30 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Tom Ashley <tomashleyjr@gmail.com> - 2015-11-19 02:30 +0100
Re: Adobe Flash Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2015-11-19 02:30 +0100
Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next page →
| From | <tomas@tuxteam.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-20 16:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qwVX4-Bk-25@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #160856 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 02:56:53AM +1300, Chris Bannister wrote: > On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 01:35:34PM +0100, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 12:37:06PM +0000, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > Please stop preaching. > > > > (Darn. Seems I was too subtle last time) > > > > Now you're preaching. Preachers preach... and they're important too > > Ummm, no. If you're religious, maybe, but if you're an athesist then > they're ... > (stopping myself before I say something I'll regret.) Uh, oh -- this is definitely straying too far from the list. Last one from me: you're always religious. The ones believe in this or that God (capitalized or not), the others in Invisible Hands and Shrugging Atlases, then there is Raison [1], Beauty & Truth or Goldbach's Conjecture. Pick a subset ;-) [1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_Reason> Cheers - -- t -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlZPNhEACgkQBcgs9XrR2kYXlQCfQmPB82fXzwnKQzMLjp+349og 86AAnAksmOzvXB4sW45pv0VPEXp3yAEY =Lmey -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Bannister <cbannister@slingshot.co.nz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-20 17:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qwWgp-IS-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #160860 |
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 04:02:41PM +0100, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 02:56:53AM +1300, Chris Bannister wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 01:35:34PM +0100, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 12:37:06PM +0000, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > Please stop preaching. > > > > > > (Darn. Seems I was too subtle last time) > > > > > > Now you're preaching. Preachers preach... and they're important too > > > > Ummm, no. If you're religious, maybe, but if you're an athesist then > > they're ... > > (stopping myself before I say something I'll regret.) > > Uh, oh -- this is definitely straying too far from the list. Last one > from me: you're always religious. LOL, being an atheist means that you *aren't* religious. But I'm not here to give you an English lesson. This is my last post on this issue. -- "If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing." --- Malcolm X
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-21 12:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qxewG-4By-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #160855 |
On Friday 20 November 2015 12:35:34 tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > OTOH we woldn't be here were > it not for one very vociferous preacher, RMS And there was I thinking I was here because of Linus and Ian. ;-) Lisi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-21 13:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qxeZI-4Mi-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #160905 |
Hi, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > > OTOH we woldn't be here were > > it not for one very vociferous preacher, RMS [Richard Matthew Stallman] Lisi Reisz wrote: > And there was I thinking I was here because of Linus and Ian. ;-) Standing on the shoulders of Dennis M. Ritchie, Ken Thompson, S.R. Bourne, and a crowd of mathematicians and electrical engineers. Have a nice day :) Thomas
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moxalt <moxalt@riseup.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-21 13:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qxfsJ-5d7-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #160907 |
On Sat, 21 Nov 2015 12:53:44 +0100, "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> wrote: > > > OTOH we woldn't be here were > > > it not for one very vociferous preacher, RMS [Richard Matthew Stallman] > > > And there was I thinking I was here because of Linus and Ian. ;-) > > Standing on the shoulders of Dennis M. Ritchie, Ken Thompson, > S.R. Bourne, and a crowd of mathematicians and electrical engineers. Standing on the shoulders of Al-Khwarizmi, Pascal, Jacquard, Babbage, Lovelace, Boole, Godel, Zuse, and Turing, not to mention countless others in the drama of the computer story.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-21 14:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qxfVL-5nt-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #160910 |
Hi, Special thanks to the first sea squirt larva, who refused to become sessile and digest its own brain. The price for life-time achievement goes to The Big Bang who loaded our stockpile of low entropy which we can use up for being a problem between keyboard and chair. Have a nice day :) Thomas
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-21 16:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qxigV-76u-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #160905 |
On 11/21/2015 06:21 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Friday 20 November 2015 12:35:34 tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: >> OTOH we woldn't be here were >> it not for one very vociferous preacher, RMS > > And there was I thinking I was here because of Linus and Ian. ;-) Me too. Where would be be without Linus? Ric -- My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say: "There are two Great Sins in the world... ..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity. Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad. http://linuxcounter.net/user/44256.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moxalt <moxalt@riseup.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-21 18:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qxjG3-7Xx-23@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #160925 |
On Sat, 21 Nov 2015 10:20:07 -0500, Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11/21/2015 06:21 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > On Friday 20 November 2015 12:35:34 tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > >> OTOH we woldn't be here were > >> it not for one very vociferous preacher, RMS > > > > And there was I thinking I was here because of Linus and Ian. ;-) > > Me too. Where would be be without Linus? Ric In Hurd-land ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-21 19:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qxkC5-8P-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #160926 |
On 11/21/2015 11:59 AM, moxalt wrote: > On Sat, 21 Nov 2015 10:20:07 -0500, Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 11/21/2015 06:21 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote: >>> On Friday 20 November 2015 12:35:34 tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: >>>> OTOH we woldn't be here were >>>> it not for one very vociferous preacher, RMS >>> >>> And there was I thinking I was here because of Linus and Ian. ;-) >> >> Me too. Where would be be without Linus? Ric > > In Hurd-land ;) I truly hope that Hurd becomes all that it can be. :) Ric -- My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say: "There are two Great Sins in the world... ..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity. Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad. http://linuxcounter.net/user/44256.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moxalt <moxalt@riseup.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-22 04:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qxtcm-6aY-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #160932 |
On Sat, 21 Nov 2015 12:54:27 -0500, Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11/21/2015 11:59 AM, moxalt wrote: > > On Sat, 21 Nov 2015 10:20:07 -0500, Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On 11/21/2015 06:21 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote: > >>> On Friday 20 November 2015 12:35:34 tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > >>>> OTOH we woldn't be here were > >>>> it not for one very vociferous preacher, RMS > >>> > >>> And there was I thinking I was here because of Linus and Ian. ;-) > >> > >> Me too. Where would be be without Linus? Ric > > > > In Hurd-land ;) > > I truly hope that Hurd becomes all that it can be. :) Ric Alas, I fear it is too late... Hurd is basically where Linux was in 1991. In a way it would probably have been better if Linux had never been developed. We could have just used a deblobbed BSD kernel or something in the meantime, while GNU would have given the Hurd its full attention. It would have been *even better* if RMS had just gone with the initial plan to use a simple monolithic kernel, rather than the technically ambitious kernel. It would probably have been done before Linux even started- and Linus would never have even needed to write a Minix clone for his PC... Either of these situations would have prevented the hijacking of free software by 'open source'. Actually, maybe even that was a good thing... it certainly popularised and spread our wonderful GNU system. Now all that remains is to bring the ethics of the matter back on the table and spread freedom everywhere... :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Curt <curty@free.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-22 14:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qxCyZ-4di-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #160959 |
On 2015-11-22, moxalt <moxalt@riseup.net> wrote: >> >> I truly hope that Hurd becomes all that it can be. :) Ric > > Alas, I fear it is too late... Hurd is basically where Linux was in 1991. > The important thing is to avoid yielding to the Hurd mentality. What was that poem already by W.B.? Oh yeah, I remember what lines this thread reminds me of: The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity. So true, so true. Plus ça change, etc...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-22 14:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qxDbH-4s4-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #160973 |
On Sunday 22 November 2015 13:02:02 Curt wrote: > The best lack all conviction, while the worst > Are full of passionate intensity. :-) Thank you for reminding me of this poem. I hadn't reread it for a while. Lisi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-19 00:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qwkut-1tE-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #160767 |
On 11/18/2015 02:24 PM, moxalt wrote:
> I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux, is
> in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux.
Depends who's version of the definition of OS you use:
Here's a quote from "The design of the unix operating system", Maurice
J. Bach, Prentice/Hall, 1986, page 4:
The operating system interacts directly with the hardware,
providing common services to programs and insulating them from hardware
idiosyncrasies. Viewing the system as a set of layers, the operating
system is commonly called the system kernel, or just the kernel,
emphasizing its isolation from user programs. Because programs are
independent of the underlying hardware, it is easy to move them between
UNIX systems running on different hardware if the programs do not make
assumptions about the underlying hardware."
http://linux.topology.org/lingl.html
"Personally, I am against re-defining the English language for political
and marketing purposes."
There ya go. Ric
--
My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say:
"There are two Great Sins in the world...
..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity.
Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad.
http://linuxcounter.net/user/44256.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mario Castelán Castro <marioxcc.MT@yandex.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-22 01:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qxqeu-403-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #160780 |
El 18/11/15 a las 17:39, Ric Moore escribió:
> On 11/18/2015 02:24 PM, moxalt wrote:
>
>> I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as
>> Linux, is
>> in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus
>> Linux.
> Depends who's version of the definition of OS you use:
> Here's a quote from "The design of the unix operating system", Maurice
> J. Bach, Prentice/Hall, 1986, page 4:
>
> The operating system interacts directly with the hardware,
> providing common services to programs and insulating them from hardware
> idiosyncrasies. Viewing the system as a set of layers, the operating
> system is commonly called the system kernel, or just the kernel,
> emphasizing its isolation from user programs. Because programs are
> independent of the underlying hardware, it is easy to move them between
> UNIX systems running on different hardware if the programs do not make
> assumptions about the underlying hardware."
> http://linux.topology.org/lingl.html
> "Personally, I am against re-defining the English language for political
> and marketing purposes."
>
> There ya go. Ric
There is a common false justification for calling the operating system
"Linux" instead of "GNU/Linux". Anybody who really thinks that Linux is
an operating system because operating system is synonymous with kernel
must start talking about "The kernel of {FreeBSD, Windows, OS X,
etcetera}" as the operating system as well for otherwise he'd be an
hypocrite in applying his own argument inconsistently instead of
acknowledging his own mistake in that in the modern meaning of
"operating system", Linux is NOT an operating system. The modern word
for that meaning of "operating system" is "kernel".
By the way, according to Debian, GNU/Linux is an OS and Linux is a
kernel. Look at the OS title ("Debian GNU/Linux") and package names.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moxalt <moxalt@riseup.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-22 04:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qxt2F-5Ri-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #160954 |
On Sat, 21 Nov 2015 17:50:07 -0600, Mario Castelán Castro
<marioxcc.MT@yandex.com> wrote:
> El 18/11/15 a las 17:39, Ric Moore escribió:
> > On 11/18/2015 02:24 PM, moxalt wrote:
> >
> >> I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as
> >> Linux, is
> >> in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus
> >> Linux.
> > Depends who's version of the definition of OS you use:
> > Here's a quote from "The design of the unix operating system", Maurice
> > J. Bach, Prentice/Hall, 1986, page 4:
> >
> > The operating system interacts directly with the hardware,
> > providing common services to programs and insulating them from hardware
> > idiosyncrasies. Viewing the system as a set of layers, the operating
> > system is commonly called the system kernel, or just the kernel,
> > emphasizing its isolation from user programs. Because programs are
> > independent of the underlying hardware, it is easy to move them between
> > UNIX systems running on different hardware if the programs do not make
> > assumptions about the underlying hardware."
> > http://linux.topology.org/lingl.html
> > "Personally, I am against re-defining the English language for political
> > and marketing purposes."
> >
> > There ya go. Ric
>
> There is a common false justification for calling the operating system
> "Linux" instead of "GNU/Linux". Anybody who really thinks that Linux is
> an operating system because operating system is synonymous with kernel
> must start talking about "The kernel of {FreeBSD, Windows, OS X,
> etcetera}" as the operating system as well for otherwise he'd be an
> hypocrite in applying his own argument inconsistently instead of
> acknowledging his own mistake in that in the modern meaning of
> "operating system", Linux is NOT an operating system. The modern word
> for that meaning of "operating system" is "kernel".
>
> By the way, according to Debian, GNU/Linux is an OS and Linux is a
> kernel. Look at the OS title ("Debian GNU/Linux") and package names.
The fact that the 'open source' crowd aren't willing to call Windows 'the
Windows NT kernel', FreeBSD 'the FreeBSD kernel' and Mac OS X 'the GNU
Mach kernel/FreeBSD kernel' demonstrates the utter ridiculousness of the whole
'operating systems and kernels are the same' position. It also demonstrates
just how ideologically motivated their reference to GNU/Linux as 'Linux' is-
they simply wish to downplay the FSF and the GNU project (without which Linux
would have been unusable as part of a free operating system, and without which
Linux wouldn't even be free (thanks to the GPL and RMS' persuasive influence))
and promote Linus Torvalds and his 'free software as a development model'
approach- open source.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-22 16:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qxEr7-5wP-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #160954 |
On 11/21/2015 06:50 PM, Mario Castelán Castro wrote:
> El 18/11/15 a las 17:39, Ric Moore escribió:
>> On 11/18/2015 02:24 PM, moxalt wrote:
>>
>>> I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as
>>> Linux, is
>>> in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus
>>> Linux.
>> Depends who's version of the definition of OS you use:
>> Here's a quote from "The design of the unix operating system", Maurice
>> J. Bach, Prentice/Hall, 1986, page 4:
>>
>> The operating system interacts directly with the hardware,
>> providing common services to programs and insulating them from hardware
>> idiosyncrasies. Viewing the system as a set of layers, the operating
>> system is commonly called the system kernel, or just the kernel,
>> emphasizing its isolation from user programs. Because programs are
>> independent of the underlying hardware, it is easy to move them between
>> UNIX systems running on different hardware if the programs do not make
>> assumptions about the underlying hardware."
>> http://linux.topology.org/lingl.html
>> "Personally, I am against re-defining the English language for political
>> and marketing purposes."
>>
>> There ya go. Ric
>
> There is a common false justification for calling the operating system
> "Linux" instead of "GNU/Linux". Anybody who really thinks that Linux is
> an operating system because operating system is synonymous with kernel
> must start talking about "The kernel of {FreeBSD, Windows, OS X,
> etcetera}" as the operating system as well for otherwise he'd be an
> hypocrite in applying his own argument inconsistently instead of
> acknowledging his own mistake in that in the modern meaning of
> "operating system", Linux is NOT an operating system. The modern word
> for that meaning of "operating system" is "kernel".
According to you. Not according to "The design of the unix operating
system", Maurice >> J. Bach, Prentice/Hall, 1986, page 4:
Now that I have cited a definition of "OS", please cite your reference.
Keep in mind that if your definition causes a student to fail a computer
literacy exam, then you have caused harm. :/ Ric
--
My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say:
"There are two Great Sins in the world...
..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity.
Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad.
http://linuxcounter.net/user/44256.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moxalt <moxalt@riseup.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-22 19:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qxHS1-7Fh-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #160984 |
On Sun, 22 Nov 2015 10:05:44 -0500, Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/21/2015 06:50 PM, Mario Castelán Castro wrote:
> > El 18/11/15 a las 17:39, Ric Moore escribió:
> >> On 11/18/2015 02:24 PM, moxalt wrote:
> >>
> >>> I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as
> >>> Linux, is
> >>> in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus
> >>> Linux.
> >> Depends who's version of the definition of OS you use:
> >> Here's a quote from "The design of the unix operating system", Maurice
> >> J. Bach, Prentice/Hall, 1986, page 4:
> >>
> >> The operating system interacts directly with the hardware,
> >> providing common services to programs and insulating them from hardware
> >> idiosyncrasies. Viewing the system as a set of layers, the operating
> >> system is commonly called the system kernel, or just the kernel,
> >> emphasizing its isolation from user programs. Because programs are
> >> independent of the underlying hardware, it is easy to move them between
> >> UNIX systems running on different hardware if the programs do not make
> >> assumptions about the underlying hardware."
> >> http://linux.topology.org/lingl.html
> >> "Personally, I am against re-defining the English language for political
> >> and marketing purposes."
> >>
> >> There ya go. Ric
> >
> > There is a common false justification for calling the operating system
> > "Linux" instead of "GNU/Linux". Anybody who really thinks that Linux is
> > an operating system because operating system is synonymous with kernel
> > must start talking about "The kernel of {FreeBSD, Windows, OS X,
> > etcetera}" as the operating system as well for otherwise he'd be an
> > hypocrite in applying his own argument inconsistently instead of
> > acknowledging his own mistake in that in the modern meaning of
> > "operating system", Linux is NOT an operating system. The modern word
> > for that meaning of "operating system" is "kernel".
>
> According to you. Not according to "The design of the unix operating
> system", Maurice >> J. Bach, Prentice/Hall, 1986, page 4:
>
> Now that I have cited a definition of "OS", please cite your reference.
> Keep in mind that if your definition causes a student to fail a computer
> literacy exam, then you have caused harm. :/ Ric
You gave a very unconventional definition of operating system, defining it to
mean the same thing as kernel. A kernel is still useless on its own. One cannot
'install' a kernel as such, whereas an operating system is a complete system
within which programs can be developed and run. This is the commonly used and
accepted usage of the phrase 'operating system', one which you too use (except,
curiously enough, when it comes to GNU/Linux. Hmm...). The burden of proof is
on you- citing one book which holds a rather strange view of operating systems
and kernels (a definition which is used nearly nowhere in the modern world,
except by you it would seem), as opposed to literally the way *everyone else*
uses the world 'operating system'.
Why don't you display some intellectual honesty and explain this discrepancy-
you call GNU/Linux 'Linux', after its kernel (which you maintain is the entire
operating system). Why do you not call Windows 'the Windows NT kernel' or
FreeBSD 'the FreeBSD kernel' or OS X 'XNU with bits of GNU Mach and BSD'?
As for my source I give you- the internet!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernel_(operating_system)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_system
There is a marked difference. The kernel is clearly defined to be a fundamental
component of the operating system, not the operating system itself. Which
source is the more trustworthy- two people with a niche view writing in 1986
(and not even then was that the commonly accepted definition) or the tens of
thousands of Wikipedia contributors, reflecting the commonly used modern-day
definitions of the terms?
Your definitions are just as ideologically motivated as all the rest.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Bannister <cbannister@slingshot.co.nz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-23 00:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qxLVE-21Z-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #160996 |
On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 09:43:37PM +0300, moxalt wrote: > On Sun, 22 Nov 2015 10:05:44 -0500, Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com> wrote: > > According to you. Not according to "The design of the unix operating > > system", Maurice >> J. Bach, Prentice/Hall, 1986, page 4: > > > > Now that I have cited a definition of "OS", please cite your reference. > > Keep in mind that if your definition causes a student to fail a computer > > literacy exam, then you have caused harm. :/ Ric > > You gave a very unconventional definition of operating system, defining it to > mean the same thing as kernel. Ummm, that book is a textbook in at least one course. > As for my source I give you- the internet! > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernel_(operating_system) > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_system > > There is a marked difference. The kernel is clearly defined to be a fundamental > component of the operating system, not the operating system itself. Give me 5 minutes and I'll soon change that. (Hint ... it's a wiki. :) ) -- "If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing." --- Malcolm X
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mario Castelán Castro <marioxcc.MT@yandex.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-23 02:50 +0100 |
| Subject | "operating system" |
| Message-ID | <qxOqu-3rN-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #160984 |
El 22/11/15 a las 09:05, Ric Moore escribió:
> On 11/21/2015 06:50 PM, Mario Castelán Castro wrote:
>> El 18/11/15 a las 17:39, Ric Moore escribió:
>>> On 11/18/2015 02:24 PM, moxalt wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as
>>>> Linux, is
>>>> in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus
>>>> Linux.
>>> Depends who's version of the definition of OS you use:
>>> Here's a quote from "The design of the unix operating system", Maurice
>>> J. Bach, Prentice/Hall, 1986, page 4:
>>>
>>> The operating system interacts directly with the hardware,
>>> providing common services to programs and insulating them from hardware
>>> idiosyncrasies. Viewing the system as a set of layers, the operating
>>> system is commonly called the system kernel, or just the kernel,
>>> emphasizing its isolation from user programs. Because programs are
>>> independent of the underlying hardware, it is easy to move them between
>>> UNIX systems running on different hardware if the programs do not make
>>> assumptions about the underlying hardware."
>>> http://linux.topology.org/lingl.html
>>> "Personally, I am against re-defining the English language for political
>>> and marketing purposes."
>>>
>>> There ya go. Ric
>>
>> There is a common false justification for calling the operating system
>> "Linux" instead of "GNU/Linux". Anybody who really thinks that Linux is
>> an operating system because operating system is synonymous with kernel
>> must start talking about "The kernel of {FreeBSD, Windows, OS X,
>> etcetera}" as the operating system as well for otherwise he'd be an
>> hypocrite in applying his own argument inconsistently instead of
>> acknowledging his own mistake in that in the modern meaning of
>> "operating system", Linux is NOT an operating system. The modern word
>> for that meaning of "operating system" is "kernel".
>
> According to you. Not according to "The design of the unix operating
> system", Maurice >> J. Bach, Prentice/Hall, 1986, page 4:
>
> Now that I have cited a definition of "OS", please cite your reference.
> Keep in mind that if your definition causes a student to fail a computer
> literacy exam, then you have caused harm. :/ Ric
I have enough of reference games in Wikipedia (I edit Wikipedia articles
in some technical topics). I am not going to play that game here, for I
reject its rules. Books are not the sole source of knowledge and always
treating them as such is a vice disguised as a intellectual virtue.
Using mainstream books as the sole ultimate provider of reliable
information means that we can't prove that there are, nor meaningfully
speak about systematic mistakes committed by most of the practitioners
of a field (like informatics in this case), because most books will by
definition, express those mistakes. Such is precisely the case here with
the name "GNU/Linux" and the meaning of "operating system" is similar
(but not identical): It is as if you asked me to prove that matter has
features much smaller than the wavelength of light by showing to you a
photograph of such features!. The constraints you intend to place on the
argument that refutes your posture preclude it. On the separate but
related "Linux" vs "GNU/Linux" topic, you can find books that call
GNU/Linux "GNU/Linux" and not "Linux". A good list of titles is just a
web search away and I am not going to save you some clicks. Those are a
minority, though, because of the systematic mistake I just talked about.
It makes sense to play the references game for issues that are a matter
of simple observation or hard deduction that follows from logic or
experimentation (in other words, hard sciences). For example, we can
rely on chemistry books to learn what the periodic table is and how its
periodic nature is a consequence of the structure of electron orbitals,
since this is a matter of verification by experiments. That is not the
case here.
What "operating system" means is mostly a matter of convention since it
is mostly intrinsically meaningless: almost anything can be called a
"system", and it "operates" in some way. It is as meaningless by itself
as the term "content management system". Terms like these are only
meaningful because they are used as mere labels for concepts that can
not be described by a few words. If you have seriously studied
mathematics, you know what I am talking about: "ring", "field",
"topology", "group", "algebra" (the structure, not the field of
mathematics). We could just as easily use the words "Rifugs",
"Ydlendugs" and "Arbulumpas". However, mathematicians know this. On the
other hand, informatics practitioners rarely realize this, and they led
the intrinsic meaning of terms be a source of confusion. Mathematicians
also know that it is a matter of convention whether the topology of a
topological space, has, for any pair of 2 (different) points, 2 disjoint
open sets that each contain one such point (separation axiom).
Informatics practitioners endlessly argue over such convention, because
they attach some properties to these meaningless labels a-priori (not to
the meaning of the labels, but the labels themselves), and therefore
what the meaning of those labels are has many consequences, often
political, so they are not arguing over nothing.
In reality, not the ancient history described in a book from *3 decades
ago* is that "operating system" means a software suite that is developed
or at least packaged coherently and provide an environment with certain
features, such as a kernel and a C library. FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD,
Windows, OS X and such are operating systems, so is GNU/Linux, and Linux
is no more an operating system than the kernel of {FreeBSD, OpenBSD,
NetBSD, Windows, OS X} is.
So in short: "operating system" is by its literal meaning, an almost
meaningless phrase. Its meaning in practices comes from convention. The
under the REAL and CURRENT convention, all of those software suites (and
not their kernels) already mentioned are operating systems.
If within any context, you want to _propose_ a convention where
"operating system" means kernel, be it because of your idea, of
something you have read in a book 3 decades old, then indeed by your
convention, "Linux" is an operating system and "GNU/Linux" is not,
neither is Debian an operating system distribution, and you are left
with no name for the real meaning of operating system; also consistency
and intellectual honesty compels you to tell people that UNDER YOUR
CONVENTION, neither Windows nor *BSD nor OS X are operating systems.
Your proposal will be rejected inasmuch as you elaborate on what changes
it entails on the ACTUALLY USED nomenclature
> Now that I have cited a definition of "OS", please cite your reference.
> Keep in mind that if your definition causes a student to fail a computer literacy exam, then you have caused harm. :/ Ric
That is an analogous game which professors who do not know better are
obsesses with, the "definitions" game. It is worthy of a book-length
essay of its own.
On the guilt you want to burden me with: An exam that asks for reciting
a textbook definition is flawed. An intelligent student either leaves
the class or knows that he must simply regard any such exam as an
exercise in social behavior (knowing what answer the teacher _wants to
hear/read_ and writing it) and must act correspondingly. Any student
that blindingly trust that the content of a mailing list discussion will
match what the teach wants to hear and fails the test has nobody to
blame but himself.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-23 10:40 +0100 |
| Subject | pointless linguistic one-upmanship (was Re: "operating system") |
| Message-ID | <qxVLl-8n9-31@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #161038 |
Why am I not surprised that a large thread ostensibly about "Adobe Flash" has devolved into two people arguing the definition of terms with each other. Can you at least change the Subject when you change the subject, or better yet, take it off-list?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user
csiph-web