Do you have any idea what the staggering support cost will be of being on the upgrade treadmill from Linux?
Let's see...worst case, assuming I want to do a full reinstall of the OS each time there's a new Red Hat release...$70 US or so -- less if I go to Cheapbytes. That's good for every box in the shop. Meanwhile, M$ license fees will continue to rise with each upgrade, and they apply to every box running the OS. It's almost geometrically in favor of Linux.
Can you really afford to hire staffers whose whole job will be to scan Usenet posts and mailing lists to apply the latest security patches?
This must be the astroturf campaign at work here. Have you never heard of mailing lists? Like... "redhat-security"? or "redhat-announce"? or "bugtraq"? Tell me, what email lists does Microsoft provide for their registered customers? I'm a registered M$ owner, and they certainly have my email address (judging from the amount of spam in my box from microsoft.com), yet they don't have the common decency to tell me about their security bugs???
Can you afford the downtime to apply the weekly kernel upgrade?
Aha! It *is* the astroturf campaign!! I knew it. Total downtime for kernel upgrades around here averages about 120 seconds, every 5 or 6 months or so. Upgrading anything else doesn't require a reboot. How about those M$ OSes?
Can you afford the support costs of handholding every user who needs to change something?
[SARCASM]Yes, there aren't any users of Microsoft products who need handholding, are there?[/SARCASM] Meanwhile, I can telnet/ssh to a Linux box and fix most anything without leaving my desk. And you?
When a power outage hits, can you afford the cost of recovering each desktop machine's fragile ext2fs, a decent percentage of which WILL be permanently corrupted by the sudden power outage?
Hmmm...Again, I have no idea what you're talking about. The only time I've lost data with ext2 is due to hardware failure, not power outages.
Meanwhile, let's talk about the far more common cause of data loss under Microsoft operating systems: namely, crashes of the OS itself! Here you are worrying about the occasional power outage (haven't had one here in over a year), and M$ users suffer from data losses perpetually -- and due to nothing other than the poor choice they made in operating systems.
This was a good entry in the astroturf campaign, but really you need to forget the FUD. It won't float here.
you still have to pay the salary of the guy who downloads it.
You still have to pay the salary of the NT admin too.
You still have to pay to burn CDROMs to install multiple machines.
FTP, NFS, WWW installs of Red Hat, along with the software RH is working on to automate multiple installs == non-issue here too.
You still need to pay your support staff.
For any OS at all.
Start adding up those costs for any OS, and $200 per seat quickly becomes a drop in the bucket.
But it's still $200 per seat MORE. And over enough users the cost adds up.
You are right, however, that the costs for a Win shop to move to Linux could potentially be on the high side -- but then again, so is the cost of being on the upgrade treadmill from MS.
The original AC poster said that because the GPL differs from all other open source licenses, it is the GPL that is the cause of license compatibility issues when it comes to linking unlicensed code.
It's fair to say that the GPL is older, but that doesn't make it better; and if in fact it's true that said linking is not a problem for the other open source licenses, then IMO the original AC was correct: the source of incompatibility is the GPL.
This is the natural interpretation anyway, since it's what RMS intends: he doesn't want to make it easy for people to use GPL-ed code (as opposed to LGPL-ed) with non-GPL-ed code. He wants to make it impossible for those who want to keep their code private while still selling binaries.
That's the developer's choice, of course, but it's silly to "blame" Qt for licensing problems when it's the GPL that actually generates the problems in the first place.
This is only flamebait if it is untrue. Is it true that the GPL (as opposed to the LGPL) does not allow linking to non-GPL-ed code? Do all other open source licenses permit said linking?
If the answers to these questions are "yes" and "yes" then this is not flamebait; it is the victim of political oppression by the GPL jihad.
On the other hand, if the author is guilty only of hyperbole in saying "all" other open source licenses, does that really constitute "flamebait"?
I personally feel the GPL creates less problems than the BSD license
How about some examples of this?
Personally, the only class of "problems" associated with a BSD-style license that I see is that the original developer of the code may never see one penny of compensation should someone use his code in a proprietary product -- but that's a risk the developer is apparently willing to take. On the other hand, the restrictions associated with the GPL seem to me to create more problems for the developer unless he is self-consciously planning to give away his own code. Otherwise, he has to more carefully consider whether he's willing to give up proprietary rights to his own code (which "feature" of the GPL earns it the nickname of "virus").
FWIW, the developer faces the same risk with either the GPL or BSD license: he isn't going to make a dime off of someone else's commercial product. For that developer, the GPL/BSD licenses make his code a gift to others. The BSD seems to be a bigger gift because it allows others to go proprietary.
Religiosity and morality do *not* exist at right angles to each other.
Morality is based upon one's worldview/philosophy/religion/whatever you want to call it. Good and evil, right and wrong, good and bad, sin and righteousness -- again, whatever you want to call it -- are terms that receive their content from the worldview that underlies them.
The simple fact is that even people with "high" morals do bad things -- sometimes even things they themselves would condemn -- and people with "low" morals do good things -- even when their own worldview doesn't necessarily require it of them.
The obvious proof of my assertion is in the fact that Katz the Drooler foolishly claims that religion and freedom are somehow at odds -- yet he conveniently ignores the fact that the most repressive and brutal regimes in the history of the world were/are officially atheistic.
Rather than idle rants, actual proof would have been a useful thing: for instance, demonstrating that Christianity is a foe of liberty (something he would be unable to accomplish). Meanwhile, I could easily demonstrate that under atheism there is no reason to defend or oppose either freedom or tyranny, so we ought not to be surprised to find either one...but that the tendency will be towards tyranny.
"You have heard that it was said "eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."
The problem with the typical understanding of this statement is that it is never understood in the full context of Jesus' life. He also used a whip to clear the moneychangers out of the temple. This is not what one might call "turning the other cheek." Further, he also said, "I did not come to bring peace, but a sword" (Matthew 10:34). And this: "...he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one" (Luke 22:36).
In the passage you quote, Jesus is talking about submitting to persecution for being a believer in Christ, not submitting to abuse generally. He is NOT saying that women shouldn't resist a rapist.
This passage doesn't indicate what you think. Jesus did not "correct" the OT. The OT wasn't wrong in the first place.
...with a practitioner of reasoned discourse. He's on a Crusade, and won't be happy till the world is free of anyone who might question his amoral pseudo-ethics.
He has demonstrated once again that his total knowledge of history goes back as far as...oh, his birthdate. Maybe. Talking about Augustine -- someone who lived over 1500 years ago -- will only confuse him. It's simply beyond his reckoning to accept the fact that an African bishop could be one of the most significant thinkers in the history of the world. It is inconceivable to him that anyone -- never mind a religious man from the 300s -- could have an impact that spans centuries.
Either that, or Katz is a troll. I can't make up my mind.
Christianity has long been able to overlook slaughter if its done in God's name. What nonsense. Let's try this:
"This actually has some historical precedence in the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China. Atheism has long been able to overlook slaughter if it's done in the name of the state."
The whole time you're looking silly using vague generalizations, you're overlooking the fact that you've given us no proof whatsoever -- just a throwaway mention of two periods in history that don't have many (if any) defenders among modern Christians (and the Inquisition has never had *any* defenders among Protestants, who weren't even around for the Crusades either).
An honest question deserves an honest answer. The New Testament makes clear that the religious ceremonies practiced by the Jews prior to Christ's coming were temporary things, and that they are no longer binding.
Jesus was a member of the Jewish church Judaism is not a church.
defying many of the teachings in the Old Testament Do you have *any* evidence for this claim whatsoever? You are correct, however, that he called himself the Son of God. This is something that his critics sometimes deny -- an exercise in futility.
Yet again, Mr. Katz has vomited out another article that can only be described as the rant of a vitriolic bigot -- or a clever troll. The evidence:
never-ending struggle between technology and the self-proclaimed forces of morality Of course, moral people always are "self-proclaimed", and they are always in opposition to technology, aren't they, Mr. Katz?
It's a confusing time to be a moral guardian. Of course, moral people (including, at least in Katz's view, the makers of this game) always style themselves as moral guardians, don't they, Mr. Katz?
There is, for example, the big-budget, Christian audience-marketed "Charlton Heston's Voyage Through the Bible," a CD-Rom released in l995 with readings by Heston (now president of the National Rifle Association) This is a rather transparent effort at painting moral folk as gun-toting fanatics. Are moral people now guilty by association with Mr. Heston, Mr. Katz?
Maybe they should add an "H" rating for holy.Sarcasm rather than addressing the issues, Mr. Katz? How tolerant.
"spiritual warfare," the notion that non-physical agents of good and evil (which might well include TV, movies, the Net, animation and recorded music) Are you this ignorant of everything you criticize, Mr. Katz?
Religion and freedom have never really gotten along Totally unsubstantiated. Atheism and freedom don't seem to get along either, Mr. Katz. Or have you utterly forgotten the Soviet Union? Have you forgotten China? Is it possible that you have no historical perspective whatsoever?
Technology, a disseminator of so much information, a force for freedom, has always come under fire as Satan's ally. Yes, I'm sure that the greatest pamphleteer of all time -- Martin Luther -- was actually a secret foe of Guttenberg's printing press. Is it possible that you have no historical perspective whatsoever, Mr. Katz?
This is nothing more than a grossly offensive screed. Katz is no troll; he's a venomous bigot. He spews out gross generalizations and over-simplifications in the hope that his readers will join him in pretending that this drool passes for reasoned discourse.
Sorry Katz. No dice. This is nothing but pseudo-intellectual drivel.
Once again: nothing to see here, folks. Move along. It's just Katz the Drooler salivating all over himself again.
Though I was *not* "arguing against change" as you suggest, it ought to be said that the simple fact of "change" is not *necessarily* good. While it is foolish to argue against change just because it's change, it's likewise foolish to be in favor of change because it's change. You have to look at the content of the change -- what you're changing from and what you're changing to, along with the reasons for the change -- before you can say anything valid about the legitimacy of the change.
For what it's worth, I think GUI's have their place (I'm typing this in Netscape), but there are things for which I prefer the flexibility afforded by the command line. I positively deny that the GUI can completely replace the command line.
I have no idea what you're talking about. I say nothing to even suggest that. Don't you realize that you have to refute what *I* say in order to win an argument with *me*?
You said "there is absolutely no reason to use command line tool." This is patently false. Reason number 1: scripting. I have now provided sufficient proof to completely debunk your assertion that command line tools have "absolutely" no uses.
Secondly, *my* argument was that the features in GUI apps have a price: bloat. Further, their feature lists are limited by what the developer puts into them. This does not lend itself to the freedom and creativity one may exercise at the command line with pipes, redirection, etc.
They were saying back in the early 80's that "Unix is dead." One such voice was John Dvorak, but he was hardly alone. The simple fact is that these critics of the command line (they weren't criticizing X Window) didn't know what they were talking about.
Lastly, I didn't call you a troll, so why are you whining to me about being called a troll?
Scrap steps 3 through 5 and install qmail which is very secure and which has a trivial mechanism for rewriting the From header (which is answered in the qmail FAQ, not in the bowels of some obscure man page).
What is with all the complaining about MUAs tonight? It's not only you but several others. There *are* GUI alternatives to mutt -- netscape, kmail, etc, and these do what you want.
Mutt on the other hand does what mutt users like: one thing. I haven't heard the mutt lovers here screaming about the bloat associated with GUI mail programs; why is it that the GUI types are whining about a program they're not even required to use???
If you're not happy with the GUI alternatives, then go scream at the developers of the GUI mail programs, not at the muttfolk. We're a happy lot. We've FOUND our mail client.
Have a nice day.
Re:Support for multiple POP3 accounts?
on
Mutt Hits 1.0
·
· Score: 1
The post above may be a troll, but there's a grain of truth in it.
There's no more than a grain of truth, if any at all. While I'll freely acknowledge that there are lots of features in Outlook, the simple fact is that its users are dependent upon M$ for the features that are there.
In contrast to CLI tools, the GUI user has only those features available to him that the developers provide -- and no more. And the price of those features is bloat.
To argue that the command line is "archaic" or that it's doomed to die is to display only one's own ignorance (I know you didn't do this; it was the original poster). Power users will go for the command line. They have *vastly* more control than any GUI app can hope to provide in anything less than 1GB of RAM and disk space each.
instead of aborting them, maybe mothers could give them to you.
I have an even better idea: maybe if the moms and dads kept their clothes on, there wouldn't be any babies for mommy and daddy to decide to kill! There's a thought! Self-control is a marvelous thing.
here's your own list...
This makes no sense. Are you suggesting that these wars were fought over religion? Are you suggesting that Stalin's purges were motivated by his religious principles?
Hmm. Fascinating. I get moderated down for attacking Jon Katz because of an article in which he has this to say about those who disagree with him: Patriotism is invoked by blockheads in the United States so often...
He effectively calls those who consider this a free and morally superior country "self-deluded." Those who criticize Peter Singer as a monster (rightly so) are "praised" by Katz as "outrageously simple-minded and hysterical".
Meanwhile, Katz seems to endorse Singer's monstrosities, parroting him with the Orwellian notion that killing babies is "compassion".
Katz can get away with trashing religion as one of the "bloodier influences in modern history" while I get moderated down for criticizing him. Say, Katz (or moderator): please name for me a religious war in the last century that resulted in anything like the killing involved in any of the following:
World War I
World War II
Stalin's slaughters of his own people
The Cultural Revolution
The plague of abortion
Heck, I'll go one better: name me a religion-inspired war in the last half-millennium that resulted in the same number of deaths as did the Cultural Revolution in China *or* the terrors of Soviet Russia.
But of course, it's okay for Katz to flame religious people, but I get moderated down for flaming Katz the Drooler. Okay. I've got it now. Thank you.
"Fear" is probably too strong; but the simple fact (conveniently ignored by the purveyors of monstrous ideas -- like Singer, though I'm certain he is aware of it) is that ideas have consequences. When elites start believing (as they all too often do) that they know better than the rest of us how we ought to live our lives, for example, they invariably begin to act upon that belief -- usually resulting in increased governmental intervention in the affairs of common citizens.
Ideas have consequences. Singer's monstrous definitions of what makes a human being would lead to euthanasia on a massive scale if they were ever accepted. The elderly would be next on the list, notwithstanding any pompous protestations of Singer's to the contrary.
When once we begin with arbitrary definitions of what it is to be human, we will inescapably start down a road of terror that we won't easily escape.
Of course, that's already happened. In the sixties opponents of abortion warned that its legalization would lead eventually to euthanasia. They were scoffed at then. And here we are, talking about it as if it were a serious question. Ideas have consequences. A society that will not seek to preserve its own ideals *cannot* survive. A society that destroys its own members as "not human" (according to some idiot academic's or bureaucrat's demonic definitions) doesn't deserve to survive.
And Katz the Drooler doesn't deserve to post here; his narcissistic tantrums bear no resemblance to the world as it truly is. He's a fable spinner seeking nothing more than to anger people and perhaps to crank up the page hits at Slashdot.
Katz the Drooler gets the same treatment he dispenses to those with whom he disagrees. There's no point in attempting to debate a drooler. Katz the Drooler doesn't engage in reasoned discourse in his tantrums; he vomits out lame recycled rhetorical devices that he first saw others using. He flames those with whom he disagrees, and then (astoundingly) expects us to treat his tantrum as though it were reasoned discourse.
And that is the last thing that would ever come to mind as a description of this "article" of his. He has no evidence; he doesn't understand history; he doesn't understand the people he attacks; he doesn't seem to understand much of anything.
I won't bother dealing with Katz's "ideas" (that's a charitable term for them) until/unless he dispenses with the narcissism and the bitter vitriol he reserves for his perceived enemies. Until then, his "ideas" (more charity) aren't worth the time.
In the drooling world of Jon Katz, the actual meaning of censorship has been lost. We no longer remember the cases (in past centuries, and -- yes, Katz, even in this "enlightened" one, in areligious countries like China and the Soviet Union) where people were imprisoned and their books burned because of their books' content.
Nope. For Jon The Drooler Katz, censorship occurs (or is threatened) whenever anyone protests federal subsidies of some hack's so-called "art" (my, but it's a long road from Rembrandt and Van Gogh to some loser throwing elephant dung and calling it "art").
Katz is a drooler. Remember that, and give his tantrums the respect that drool deserves. I sure do.
This has to be the most over-the-top Katz piece yet. It's clear that Mr. Katz is the most bigoted contributor to this forum.
Sigh. I don't even know where to begin in dissecting this tantrum of his, but I'm not really sure it's worth the effort.
In the first place, I can't shake this feeling that Katz is nothing but a poser: a pure pseudo-intellectual with delusions of self-importance. There is little if anything in this rant of his that could be substantiated by either a) evidence, or b) logic. The First Amendment has never been a particularly popular one. ???? Puh-leeazze! What dorky planet are you from, Katz? Oh, and this is choice, too:
Singer exemplifies America's founders [sic] prescient convictions - born out of centuries of observing the gruesome interaction between religion and monarchies and free speech -- that it's often the most upsetting ideas that warrant discussion - and need protection.
Katz, have you ever read a history book? I doubt you that you have. It's obvious that you are dreaming up this fantasy worldview of yours as you go.
There's nothing to see here in Katz's latest crybaby, narcissistic tantrum, folks. It's nothing more than the latest troll from Slashdot's own resident troll: a two-bit, indefensible pseudo-intellectual screed not worth the electrons it's made from. If only it were true that he would go away if we'd just ignore him...
...you could start taking programing classes their.
...then could goto C.
And Practical computer skills are tought
...and their are only...
They could have at least taught me how to spell decently.
Is this a troll?:-) Well, even if it isn't, you are certainly right: at the very least they might have taught you how to spell. The system is so badly broken that it's scary.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's see...worst case, assuming I want to do a full reinstall of the OS each time there's a new Red Hat release...$70 US or so -- less if I go to Cheapbytes. That's good for every box in the shop. Meanwhile, M$ license fees will continue to rise with each upgrade, and they apply to every box running the OS. It's almost geometrically in favor of Linux.
Can you really afford to hire staffers whose whole job will be to scan Usenet posts and mailing lists to apply the latest security patches?
This must be the astroturf campaign at work here. Have you never heard of mailing lists? Like... "redhat-security"? or "redhat-announce"? or "bugtraq"? Tell me, what email lists does Microsoft provide for their registered customers? I'm a registered M$ owner, and they certainly have my email address (judging from the amount of spam in my box from microsoft.com), yet they don't have the common decency to tell me about their security bugs???
Can you afford the downtime to apply the weekly kernel upgrade?
Aha! It *is* the astroturf campaign!! I knew it. Total downtime for kernel upgrades around here averages about 120 seconds, every 5 or 6 months or so. Upgrading anything else doesn't require a reboot. How about those M$ OSes?
Can you afford the support costs of handholding every user who needs to change something?
[SARCASM]Yes, there aren't any users of Microsoft products who need handholding, are there?[/SARCASM] Meanwhile, I can telnet/ssh to a Linux box and fix most anything without leaving my desk. And you?
When a power outage hits, can you afford the cost of recovering each desktop machine's fragile ext2fs, a decent percentage of which WILL be permanently corrupted by the sudden power outage?
Hmmm...Again, I have no idea what you're talking about. The only time I've lost data with ext2 is due to hardware failure, not power outages.
Meanwhile, let's talk about the far more common cause of data loss under Microsoft operating systems: namely, crashes of the OS itself! Here you are worrying about the occasional power outage (haven't had one here in over a year), and M$ users suffer from data losses perpetually -- and due to nothing other than the poor choice they made in operating systems.
This was a good entry in the astroturf campaign, but really you need to forget the FUD. It won't float here.
You still have to pay the salary of the NT admin too.
You still have to pay to burn CDROMs to install multiple machines.
FTP, NFS, WWW installs of Red Hat, along with the software RH is working on to automate multiple installs == non-issue here too.
You still need to pay your support staff.
For any OS at all.
Start adding up those costs for any OS, and $200 per seat quickly becomes a drop in the bucket.
But it's still $200 per seat MORE. And over enough users the cost adds up.
You are right, however, that the costs for a Win shop to move to Linux could potentially be on the high side -- but then again, so is the cost of being on the upgrade treadmill from MS.
It's fair to say that the GPL is older, but that doesn't make it better; and if in fact it's true that said linking is not a problem for the other open source licenses, then IMO the original AC was correct: the source of incompatibility is the GPL.
This is the natural interpretation anyway, since it's what RMS intends: he doesn't want to make it easy for people to use GPL-ed code (as opposed to LGPL-ed) with non-GPL-ed code. He wants to make it impossible for those who want to keep their code private while still selling binaries.
That's the developer's choice, of course, but it's silly to "blame" Qt for licensing problems when it's the GPL that actually generates the problems in the first place.
If the answers to these questions are "yes" and "yes" then this is not flamebait; it is the victim of political oppression by the GPL jihad.
On the other hand, if the author is guilty only of hyperbole in saying "all" other open source licenses, does that really constitute "flamebait"?
Methinks the moderator is a wee bit touchy...
How about some examples of this?
Personally, the only class of "problems" associated with a BSD-style license that I see is that the original developer of the code may never see one penny of compensation should someone use his code in a proprietary product -- but that's a risk the developer is apparently willing to take. On the other hand, the restrictions associated with the GPL seem to me to create more problems for the developer unless he is self-consciously planning to give away his own code. Otherwise, he has to more carefully consider whether he's willing to give up proprietary rights to his own code (which "feature" of the GPL earns it the nickname of "virus").
FWIW, the developer faces the same risk with either the GPL or BSD license: he isn't going to make a dime off of someone else's commercial product. For that developer, the GPL/BSD licenses make his code a gift to others. The BSD seems to be a bigger gift because it allows others to go proprietary.
But it's up to the individual developer.
Morality is based upon one's worldview/philosophy/religion/whatever you want to call it. Good and evil, right and wrong, good and bad, sin and righteousness -- again, whatever you want to call it -- are terms that receive their content from the worldview that underlies them.
The simple fact is that even people with "high" morals do bad things -- sometimes even things they themselves would condemn -- and people with "low" morals do good things -- even when their own worldview doesn't necessarily require it of them.
The obvious proof of my assertion is in the fact that Katz the Drooler foolishly claims that religion and freedom are somehow at odds -- yet he conveniently ignores the fact that the most repressive and brutal regimes in the history of the world were/are officially atheistic.
Rather than idle rants, actual proof would have been a useful thing: for instance, demonstrating that Christianity is a foe of liberty (something he would be unable to accomplish). Meanwhile, I could easily demonstrate that under atheism there is no reason to defend or oppose either freedom or tyranny, so we ought not to be surprised to find either one...but that the tendency will be towards tyranny.
The problem with the typical understanding of this statement is that it is never understood in the full context of Jesus' life. He also used a whip to clear the moneychangers out of the temple. This is not what one might call "turning the other cheek." Further, he also said, "I did not come to bring peace, but a sword" (Matthew 10:34). And this: "...he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one" (Luke 22:36).
In the passage you quote, Jesus is talking about submitting to persecution for being a believer in Christ, not submitting to abuse generally. He is NOT saying that women shouldn't resist a rapist.
This passage doesn't indicate what you think. Jesus did not "correct" the OT. The OT wasn't wrong in the first place.
He has demonstrated once again that his total knowledge of history goes back as far as...oh, his birthdate. Maybe. Talking about Augustine -- someone who lived over 1500 years ago -- will only confuse him. It's simply beyond his reckoning to accept the fact that an African bishop could be one of the most significant thinkers in the history of the world. It is inconceivable to him that anyone -- never mind a religious man from the 300s -- could have an impact that spans centuries.
Either that, or Katz is a troll. I can't make up my mind.
"This actually has some historical precedence in the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China. Atheism has long been able to overlook slaughter if it's done in the name of the state."
The whole time you're looking silly using vague generalizations, you're overlooking the fact that you've given us no proof whatsoever -- just a throwaway mention of two periods in history that don't have many (if any) defenders among modern Christians (and the Inquisition has never had *any* defenders among Protestants, who weren't even around for the Crusades either).
An honest question deserves an honest answer. The New Testament makes clear that the religious ceremonies practiced by the Jews prior to Christ's coming were temporary things, and that they are no longer binding.
defying many of the teachings in the Old Testament Do you have *any* evidence for this claim whatsoever? You are correct, however, that he called himself the Son of God. This is something that his critics sometimes deny -- an exercise in futility.
This is nothing more than a grossly offensive screed. Katz is no troll; he's a venomous bigot. He spews out gross generalizations and over-simplifications in the hope that his readers will join him in pretending that this drool passes for reasoned discourse.
Sorry Katz. No dice. This is nothing but pseudo-intellectual drivel.
Once again: nothing to see here, folks. Move along. It's just Katz the Drooler salivating all over himself again.
For what it's worth, I think GUI's have their place (I'm typing this in Netscape), but there are things for which I prefer the flexibility afforded by the command line. I positively deny that the GUI can completely replace the command line.
I have no idea what you're talking about. I say nothing to even suggest that. Don't you realize that you have to refute what *I* say in order to win an argument with *me*?
You said "there is absolutely no reason to use command line tool." This is patently false. Reason number 1: scripting. I have now provided sufficient proof to completely debunk your assertion that command line tools have "absolutely" no uses.
Secondly, *my* argument was that the features in GUI apps have a price: bloat. Further, their feature lists are limited by what the developer puts into them. This does not lend itself to the freedom and creativity one may exercise at the command line with pipes, redirection, etc.
They were saying back in the early 80's that "Unix is dead." One such voice was John Dvorak, but he was hardly alone. The simple fact is that these critics of the command line (they weren't criticizing X Window) didn't know what they were talking about.
Lastly, I didn't call you a troll, so why are you whining to me about being called a troll?
What is with all the complaining about MUAs tonight? It's not only you but several others. There *are* GUI alternatives to mutt -- netscape, kmail, etc, and these do what you want.
Mutt on the other hand does what mutt users like: one thing. I haven't heard the mutt lovers here screaming about the bloat associated with GUI mail programs; why is it that the GUI types are whining about a program they're not even required to use???
If you're not happy with the GUI alternatives, then go scream at the developers of the GUI mail programs, not at the muttfolk. We're a happy lot. We've FOUND our mail client.
Have a nice day.
So use Windows like he said.
There's no more than a grain of truth, if any at all. While I'll freely acknowledge that there are lots of features in Outlook, the simple fact is that its users are dependent upon M$ for the features that are there.
In contrast to CLI tools, the GUI user has only those features available to him that the developers provide -- and no more. And the price of those features is bloat.
To argue that the command line is "archaic" or that it's doomed to die is to display only one's own ignorance (I know you didn't do this; it was the original poster). Power users will go for the command line. They have *vastly* more control than any GUI app can hope to provide in anything less than 1GB of RAM and disk space each.
instead of aborting them, maybe mothers could give them to you.
I have an even better idea: maybe if the moms and dads kept their clothes on, there wouldn't be any babies for mommy and daddy to decide to kill! There's a thought! Self-control is a marvelous thing.
here's your own list...
This makes no sense. Are you suggesting that these wars were fought over religion? Are you suggesting that Stalin's purges were motivated by his religious principles?
You're right. I was a bit wound up.
He effectively calls those who consider this a free and morally superior country "self-deluded." Those who criticize Peter Singer as a monster (rightly so) are "praised" by Katz as "outrageously simple-minded and hysterical".
Meanwhile, Katz seems to endorse Singer's monstrosities, parroting him with the Orwellian notion that killing babies is "compassion".
Katz can get away with trashing religion as one of the "bloodier influences in modern history" while I get moderated down for criticizing him. Say, Katz (or moderator): please name for me a religious war in the last century that resulted in anything like the killing involved in any of the following:
Heck, I'll go one better: name me a religion-inspired war in the last half-millennium that resulted in the same number of deaths as did the Cultural Revolution in China *or* the terrors of Soviet Russia.
But of course, it's okay for Katz to flame religious people, but I get moderated down for flaming Katz the Drooler. Okay. I've got it now. Thank you.
"Fear" is probably too strong; but the simple fact (conveniently ignored by the purveyors of monstrous ideas -- like Singer, though I'm certain he is aware of it) is that ideas have consequences. When elites start believing (as they all too often do) that they know better than the rest of us how we ought to live our lives, for example, they invariably begin to act upon that belief -- usually resulting in increased governmental intervention in the affairs of common citizens.
Ideas have consequences. Singer's monstrous definitions of what makes a human being would lead to euthanasia on a massive scale if they were ever accepted. The elderly would be next on the list, notwithstanding any pompous protestations of Singer's to the contrary.
When once we begin with arbitrary definitions of what it is to be human, we will inescapably start down a road of terror that we won't easily escape.
Of course, that's already happened. In the sixties opponents of abortion warned that its legalization would lead eventually to euthanasia. They were scoffed at then. And here we are, talking about it as if it were a serious question. Ideas have consequences. A society that will not seek to preserve its own ideals *cannot* survive. A society that destroys its own members as "not human" (according to some idiot academic's or bureaucrat's demonic definitions) doesn't deserve to survive.
And Katz the Drooler doesn't deserve to post here; his narcissistic tantrums bear no resemblance to the world as it truly is. He's a fable spinner seeking nothing more than to anger people and perhaps to crank up the page hits at Slashdot.
And that is the last thing that would ever come to mind as a description of this "article" of his. He has no evidence; he doesn't understand history; he doesn't understand the people he attacks; he doesn't seem to understand much of anything.
I won't bother dealing with Katz's "ideas" (that's a charitable term for them) until/unless he dispenses with the narcissism and the bitter vitriol he reserves for his perceived enemies. Until then, his "ideas" (more charity) aren't worth the time.
Have a nice day.
Nope. For Jon The Drooler Katz, censorship occurs (or is threatened) whenever anyone protests federal subsidies of some hack's so-called "art" (my, but it's a long road from Rembrandt and Van Gogh to some loser throwing elephant dung and calling it "art").
Katz is a drooler. Remember that, and give his tantrums the respect that drool deserves. I sure do.
Sigh. I don't even know where to begin in dissecting this tantrum of his, but I'm not really sure it's worth the effort.
In the first place, I can't shake this feeling that Katz is nothing but a poser: a pure pseudo-intellectual with delusions of self-importance. There is little if anything in this rant of his that could be substantiated by either a) evidence, or b) logic. The First Amendment has never been a particularly popular one. ???? Puh-leeazze! What dorky planet are you from, Katz? Oh, and this is choice, too:
Singer exemplifies America's founders [sic] prescient convictions - born out of centuries of observing the gruesome interaction between religion and monarchies and free speech -- that it's often the most upsetting ideas that warrant discussion - and need protection.
Katz, have you ever read a history book? I doubt you that you have. It's obvious that you are dreaming up this fantasy worldview of yours as you go.
There's nothing to see here in Katz's latest crybaby, narcissistic tantrum, folks. It's nothing more than the latest troll from Slashdot's own resident troll: a two-bit, indefensible pseudo-intellectual screed not worth the electrons it's made from. If only it were true that he would go away if we'd just ignore him...
Yogosloviva
And Practical computer skills are tought
They could have at least taught me how to spell decently.
Is this a troll? :-) Well, even if it isn't, you are certainly right: at the very least they might have taught you how to spell. The system is so badly broken that it's scary.