i had the pleasure to read the PHP's manual today.
http://www.php.net/manual/en/
although Pretty Home Page is another criminal hack of the unix lineage,
but if we are here to judge the quality of its documentation, it is a
impeccability.
it has or possesses properties of:
• To the point and useful.
PHP has its roots in mundaness, like Perl and Apache. Its doc being
practicality oriented isn't a surprise, as are the docs of Perl and
Apache.
• Extreme clarity!
The doc is extremely well-written. The authors's writing skills
shows, that they can present their ideas clearly, and also that they
have put thoughts into what they wanted to say.
• Ample usage examples.
As with Perl's doc, PHP doc is not afraid to show example snippets,
yet not abuse it as if simply slapping on examples in lieu of proper
spec or discussion.
• Appropriate functions or keywords are interlinked.
This aspect is also well done in other quality docs, such as
Mathematica, Java, MS JScript, Perl's official docs.
• No abuse of jargons.
In fact, it's so well written that there's almost no jargons in its
docs, yet conveys its intentions to a tee. This aspect can also be seen
in Mathematica's doc, or Microsoft's JScript doc, for examples.
• No author masturbation. (if fact, you won't see a first-person
perspective, as is the case with most quality tech writing.)
We must truely appreciate the authors of the PHP doc. Because, PHP, as
a free shit in the unix shit culture, with extreme ties to Perl and
Apache (both of which has extremely motherfucked docs), but can wean
itself from a shit milieu and stand pure and clean to become a paragon
of technical writing.
------------
Reminder for the purpose of this post:
The world's mother fuckers are the community and doc writers of: Unix
(man pages), Perl, Apache, Python.
As i have alluded or expounded before, the unix & Apache are criminally
the worst, Perl being a close follow up. Python's on a class of its
own, being a mutated Computer Sciency fuck that is possibly even worse
on the whole than Perl's doc.
Here a sample list of a variety of quality technical writings:
• Mathematica
http://documents.wolfram.com/mathematica/
• Microsoft's JScript official docs
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/script56/html/js56jsconjscriptfundamentals.asp
• Emacs Lisp Introduction (by Robert J. Chassell)
http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/emacs-lisp-intro/
(GNU project's documentations are almost always quality documentations.
For example, the official emacs and elisp docs ale both of high
quality.)
• Java official doc
http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/docs/api/index.html
Java, being a bottled-up inflexible language with incessant lies
backup by huge amounts of $money$, nevertheless hired professional
writers for its huge official documentation — produced a very well
done doc for a very complex language. (however, the official Java
Tutorial is a fucking crap)
• Scheme (R5RS)
http://www.schemers.org/Documents/Standards/R5RS/HTML/r5rs-Z-H-2.html
• Scheme (Teaching yourself Scheme in Fixnum Days)
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/dorai/t-y-scheme/t-y-scheme-Z-H-1.html
These are all quality technical writings. They have different styles
and audiences and coverages. If you want to see clarity and concision,
see JScript, PHP, and Scheme intro. If you want to see clarity with
verbosity, see Emacs Lisp Intro. For clarity sans arcana yet covers
esoterica, see the Mathematica doc. Some of these are written for
people with no experience in programing, yet functions as equivalent to
teaching/documenting extremely advanced programing concepts. If you
want to see proper use of jargons at a IT professional level, see the
Java doc. If you want to see exemplary tech writing in a academic
style, see the Scheme R5RS.
Related essay:
Why OpenSource Documentation is of Low Quality
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/gubni_papri.html
Xah
···@xahlee.org
∑ http://xahlee.org/
"Xah Lee" <···@xahlee.org> writes:
> i had the pleasure to read the PHP's manual today.
>
> http://www.php.net/manual/en/
>
> although Pretty Home Page is another criminal hack of the unix lineage,
> but if we are here to judge the quality of its documentation, it is a
> impeccability.
>
> it has or possesses properties of:
>
> • To the point and useful.
>
> PHP has its roots in mundaness, like Perl and Apache. Its doc being
> practicality oriented isn't a surprise, as are the docs of Perl and
> Apache.
>
> • Extreme clarity!
Do you have an "Approved by Xah Lee" seal logo they could put on their web page?
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
"Remember, Information is not knowledge; Knowledge is not Wisdom;
Wisdom is not truth; Truth is not beauty; Beauty is not love;
Love is not music; Music is the best." -- Frank Zappa
From: Ulrich Hobelmann
Subject: Re: Xah's Edu Corner: Examples of Quality Technical Writing
Date:
Message-ID: <3vlo9oF16bvipU2@individual.net>
Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
> Do you have an "Approved by Xah Lee" seal logo they could put on their web page?
Funny, that'd *exactly* mirror the opinion I have of PHP :D
(btw, why is this posted to every newsgroup EXCEPT a PHP one? make us
feel good?)
--
Majority, n.: That quality that distinguishes a crime from a law.
Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> writes:
> btw, why is this posted to every newsgroup EXCEPT a PHP one?
Xah's a pretty well-known troll in these parts. I suppose he thinks someone
is going to take the bait and rush to "defend" the other languages or some
such nonsense.
sherm--
--
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Hire me! My resume: http://www.dot-app.org
Post-modernism, Academia, and the Tech Geeking fuckheads
• the Sokal Affair
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_Affair
• SCIGen and World Multi-Conference on Systemics, Cybernetics and
Informatics
http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/
• What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities, Xah Lee
http://xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_dir/t2/oop.html
• Politics and the English Language, George Orwell
http://xahlee.org/p/george_orwell_english.html
Xah
···@xahlee.org
∑ http://xahlee.org/
I don't know about anyone else, but you'd impress me much more if you
didn't swear in your posts. I am personally not offended, but it does
lower your credibility in my eyes. Just a tip.
Brad
recently i got a project that involves the use of php. In 2 days, i
read almost the entirety of the php doc. Finding it a breeze because it
is roughly based on Perl, of which i have mastery.
i felt a sensation of neatness, as if php = Perl Improved, for a
dedicated job of server-side scripting. Everything is so-built-in, and
the integrated functions for web application programing such as
CGI/Database is so convenient. What a PRACTICALITY! It has gotten a
long way, even now with a independent interpreter and engine (Zend) for
embedded computation of any other mark-up lang. And, its array/hash is
kinda linguistically cleaner, by combining the two into one. (after
all, array indexes are unique, so they are denotationally and
mathematically list of keyed pairs (hashes) too) As for nested
structure, it does away with Perl's ${x}->{'whatnot'}[$x]->[$y{'z'}]
insanity. And I'm most impressed by its extremely well-written
documentation.
But as i know the lang more, my feeling changed, yet “Perl
Improved” is still apt, with a new interpretation.
see
http://tnx.nl/php
If Unix, Apache, Perl, MySQL etc shit can impact the world with
motherfucking evolutionary outrageous $free$ lies, why should we fault
Pretty Home Page?
Xah
···@xahlee.org
∑ http://xahlee.org/
On 9 Dec 2005 11:15:16 -0800, "Xah Lee" <···@xahlee.org> wrote, quoted
or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>recently i got a project that involves the use of php. In 2 days, i
>read almost the entirety of the php doc. Finding it a breeze because it
>is roughly based on Perl, of which i have mastery.
that's very lovely, but off topic. Trolling for language flame wars
belong is comp.lang.java.advocacy.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
From: Thomas G. Marshall
Subject: Re: PHP = Perl Improved
Date:
Message-ID: <zXpmf.29$b57.6@trndny06>
Roedy Green said something like:
> On 9 Dec 2005 11:15:16 -0800, "Xah Lee" <···@xahlee.org> wrote, quoted
> or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>
>> recently i got a project that involves the use of php. In 2 days, i
>> read almost the entirety of the php doc. Finding it a breeze because it
>> is roughly based on Perl, of which i have mastery.
>
> that's very lovely, but off topic. Trolling for language flame wars
> belong is comp.lang.java.advocacy.
I had plonked him back in May for this kind of crap. I suggest you do the
same.
--
If I can ever figure out how, I hope that someday I'll
succeed in my lifetime goal of creating a signature
that ends with the word "blarphoogy".
Thomas G. Marshall wrote:
> Roedy Green said something like:
>> On 9 Dec 2005 11:15:16 -0800, "Xah Lee" <···@xahlee.org> wrote, quoted
>> or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>>
>>> recently i got a project that involves the use of php. In 2 days, i
>>> read almost the entirety of the php doc. Finding it a breeze because it
>>> is roughly based on Perl, of which i have mastery.
>> that's very lovely, but off topic. Trolling for language flame wars
>> belong is comp.lang.java.advocacy.
>
> I had plonked him back in May for this kind of crap. I suggest you do the
> same.
>
It's better just to ignore him because he is only looking for the
attention and pseudo respect..
"You don't put a fire out with gasoline".
--
Thanks in Advance...
IchBin, Pocono Lake, Pa, USA
http://weconsultants.servebeer.com/JHackerAppManager
__________________________________________________________________________
'If there is one, Knowledge is the "Fountain of Youth"'
-William E. Taylor, Regular Guy (1952-)
Roedy Green wrote:
Of course I have Xah plonked but thanks to your
> On 9 Dec 2005 11:15:16 -0800, "Xah Lee" <···@xahlee.org> wrote
>> [...] Perl, of which i have mastery.
I had the laugh of the week.
Thank you very much, you really made my day.
jue
Xah Lee wrote:
> recently i got a project that involves the use of php. In 2 days, i
> read almost the entirety of the php doc. Finding it a breeze because it
> is roughly based on Perl, of which i have mastery.
I suspect that you are a computer program posing as a human
usenet correspondent.
Please answer these questions:
If Alice goes to the supermarket to buy a pint of
milk, does her head go with her? Please elaborate.
What is the difference between my disher blowing
a fuse and your boss blowing a fuse? Please elaborate.
How can you turn off the light of a candle? Why does
it work?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
>>>>> "Tin" == Tin Gherdanarra <···········@gmail.com> writes:
Tin> Xah Lee wrote:
>> recently i got a project that involves the use of php. In 2 days, i
>> read almost the entirety of the php doc. Finding it a breeze
>> because it is roughly based on Perl, of which i have mastery.
Tin> I suspect that you are a computer program posing as a human
Tin> usenet correspondent.
Tin> Please answer these questions: [...]
Will you accept a solution in Perl? He has mastery of that language,
you know. You might have better luck if you phrase your questions in
Perl, too, since he doesn't seem to understand it when people tell him
to bugger off in plain English.
Say, there's a thought...
Martin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using Mailcrypt+GnuPG <http://www.gnupg.org>
iEYEARECAAYFAkOg0CUACgkQYu1fMmOQldVP9ACfSzQBq7S1QX0jA2/nA2JaC+BB
4ZoAoMOn5Qe9oJHGtINWKNBQsz879R6r
=bp6G
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Martin Christensen <·······················@gmail.com> wrote:
> Perl, too, since he doesn't seem to understand it when people tell him
> to bugger off in plain English.
"It" buggers off if everybody ignores it. "It" posts because it knows that
its actions pisses off so many people.
--
John Small Perl scripts: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Perl programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
I ploink googlegroups.com :-)
Martin Christensen <·······················@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>> "Tin" == Tin Gherdanarra <···········@gmail.com> writes:
>
> Tin> Xah Lee wrote:
>>> recently i got a project that involves the use of php. In 2 days, i
>>> read almost the entirety of the php doc. Finding it a breeze
>>> because it is roughly based on Perl, of which i have mastery.
>
> Tin> I suspect that you are a computer program posing as a human
> Tin> usenet correspondent.
>
> Tin> Please answer these questions: [...]
>
> Will you accept a solution in Perl? He has mastery of that language,
> you know. You might have better luck if you phrase your questions in
> Perl, too, since he doesn't seem to understand it when people tell him
> to bugger off in plain English.
OK, lets try:
die;
--
M�ns Rullg�rd
···@inprovide.com
«use bytes; # Larry can take Unicode and shove it up his ass
sideways.
# Perl 5.8.0 causes us to start getting incomprehensible
# errors about UTF-8 all over the place without this.»
From: the source code of WebCollage (1998)
http://www.jwz.org/webcollage/
by Jamie W. Zawinski (~1971-)
The code is 3.4 thousand lines of Perl in one single file. Rather
incomprehensible.
Xah
···@xahlee.org
∑ http://xahlee.org/
From: Tin Gherdanarra
Subject: Re: Post-modernism, Academia, and the Tech Geeking fuckheads
Date:
Message-ID: <40b9tfF19a7shU1@individual.net>
Xah Lee wrote:
> Post-modernism, Academia, and the Tech Geeking fuckheads
>
> • the Sokal Affair
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_Affair
>
> • SCIGen and World Multi-Conference on Systemics, Cybernetics and
> Informatics
> http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/
>
> • What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities, Xah Lee
> http://xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_dir/t2/oop.html
>
> • Politics and the English Language, George Orwell
> http://xahlee.org/p/george_orwell_english.html
>
> Xah
> ···@xahlee.org
> ∑ http://xahlee.org/
>
I agree with everything you say. You should check
out the following links. They will amuse and
enlight you.
Post-modernism, Schizo-Islamism and the world at large:
http://www.rhfweb.com/mctom.html
S.N.A.F.U., D.I.S.C.O. and C.R.I.S.I.S. reaching crisis
proportions:
http://koti.welho.com/mjack1/
The Dalai Llama is just another EVIL spitting mammal:
http://pages.123-reg.co.uk/sumon-262452/
It's a pussy-eat-pussy world. Tech Geek fuckheads might beg
to disagree, however:
http://www.johnnydisco.com/
Secularism, homosexuality, fringe humor finally dominating
occidental tech elite. End neigh, doctors say:
http://www.qgeeks.org
Don't mention it, at your service
Tin
Why do you have such a need of being hating everything and everybody
and expressing it so offen?
Can you live without hate?
Can you let others live without your hates?
"javuchi" <·······@gmail.com> wrote in message
·····························@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Why do you have such a need of being hating everything and everybody
> and expressing it so offen?
> Can you live without hate?
> Can you let others live without your hates?
A person can live without hate, living love and working towards bettering
humanity.
But as for people in general - I'm not so sure. I'm not sure my opinion on
hate - since I value people's opinions and diversity, hate seems unbecoming,
but then so does computer gaming ;)
Westernization sweeps accross all countries though, and it is no longer
vogue to be so self centered. This will help with the most overt types of
hatred.
--
LTP
:)
From: Keith Thompson
Subject: Re: Xah's Edu Corner: Examples of Quality Technical Writing
Date:
Message-ID: <lnr78ei27j.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>
"javuchi" <·······@gmail.com> writes:
> Why do you have such a need of being hating everything and everybody
> and expressing it so offen?
> Can you live without hate?
> Can you let others live without your hates?
Xah Lee is a well-known troll. Replying to him is a waste of time.
Please just ignore him. (A killfile is an effective way to do so.)
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ·····@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
Responsible Software Licensing
Xah Lee, 200307
Software is a interesting invention. Software has this interesting
property, that it can be duplicated without cost, as if like copying
money. Never in history are goods duplicable without cost. But with the
invention of computer, the ephemeral non-physical programs break that
precept. In digital form, programs and music and books all become goods
in essentially infinite quantity.
All is good except, bads in digital form can also multiply equally,
just as goods. Well known examples are computer viruses and email
spams. Unknown to the throng of unix morons are software bads. In a
unix moron's mind, the predominant quip among hackers is “where is
your code?”, singnifying the mentality that a hacker's prestige is
judged on how much code he has contributed to the community. Therefore,
every fucking studs and happy-go-lucky morons put their homework on the
net, with a big stamp of FREE, and quite proud of their
“contributions” to the world. These digital bads, including
irresponsible programs, protocols, and languages, spread like viruses
until they obtained the touting right of being the STANDARD or MOST
POPULAR in industry, as if indicating superior quality. Examplary are
C, Perl, RFC, X-Windows, Apache, MySQL, Pretty Home Page (and almost
anything out of unix). The harm of a virus is temporal. The harm of
irresponsible software (especially with unscrupulous promotion) is the
creation of a entire generation of bad thinking and monkey coders. The
scale can be compared as to putting a bullet in a person brain, versus
creating a creed with the Holocaust aftermath.
Distribution of software is easily like pollution. I thought of a law
that would ban the distribution of software bads, or like charging for
garbage collection in modern societies. The problem is the difficulty
of deciding what is good and what is bad. Like in so many things, i
think the ultimate help is for people to be aware; so-called education;
I believe, if people are made aware of the situation i spoke of, then
irresponsible software will decrease, regardless any individual's
opinion.
The most important measure to counter the tremendous harm that
irresponsible software has done to the industry is to begin with
responsible licenses, such that the producer of a software will be
liable for damage incurred thru their software. As we know, today's
software license comes with a disclaimer that essentially says the
software is sold as is and the producer is not responsible for any
damage, nor guaranteeing the functionality of the software. It is this,
that ferments all sorts of sloppitudes and fads and myths to rampage
and survive in the software industry. Once when software producers are
liable for their products, just as bridge or airplane or transportation
or house builders are responsible for the things they build, then
injurious fads and creeds the likes of (Perl, Programing Patterns,
eXtreme Programing, “Universal” Modeling Language...) will
automatically disappear by dint of market force without anyone's
stipulation.
In our already established infrastructure of software and industry
practices that is so already fucked up by existing shams, we can not
immediately expect a about-face in software licenses from 0 liability
to 100% liability. We should gradually make them responsible. And this,
comes not from artificial force, but gradual establishment of awareness
among software professionals and their consumers. (Producers include
single individual to software houses, and consumers include not just
mom & pop but from IT corps to military.)
Please spread this idea.
--------------------------------
This post is archived at
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/responsible_license.html
Xah
···@xahlee.org
∑ http://xahlee.org/
On 16 Dec 2005 16:52:43 -0800, "Xah Lee" <···@xahlee.org> wrote:
>Responsible Software Licensing
>
>Xah Lee, 200307
>
>Software is a interesting invention. Software has this interesting
Soft, like your head
>property, that it can be duplicated without cost, as if like copying
it costs to dup, dup
>money. Never in history are goods duplicable without cost. But with the
wrong, you can dup your bullshit evrywhere for free
>invention of computer, the ephemeral non-physical programs break that
you don't know what a computer is
>precept. In digital form, programs and music and books all become goods
i bid a gigabuck for that gigabyte
>in essentially infinite quantity.
in a for() loop maybe
>
>All is good except, bads in digital form can also multiply equally,
get a calculator, bad is negative and subtracts, not multiply
>just as goods. Well known examples are computer viruses and email
virus and email or virus in email?
>spams. Unknown to the throng of unix morons are software bads. In a
"software bads" is like asian bads, dumber than dog shit
>unix moron's mind, the predominant quip among hackers is �where is
whats on the morons mind anyway Zah?
>your code?�, singnifying the mentality that a hacker's prestige is
when is mentality signified, do a cat scan do any good?
>judged on how much code he has contributed to the community. Therefore,
per line or content? if the dude is dumb does his software get demoted
>every fucking studs and happy-go-lucky morons put their homework on the
right, the 9 inch dicked moron with the genious iq, and very tall..
>net, with a big stamp of FREE, and quite proud of their
free... suck my 9 inch dick, and quite proud
>�contributions� to the world. These digital bads, including
well, a big dick is a gods gift to women (or did u mean digitial dick)
>irresponsible programs, protocols, and languages, spread like viruses
every program i ever met was irresponsible and never wore condoms
(i never fucked with them so "i" don't know)
>until they obtained the touting right of being the STANDARD or MOST
yup, down south we call them the "John Henry", definetly the standard
>POPULAR in industry, as if indicating superior quality. Examplary are
nah, superior "dick size" doesen't mean mind
>C, Perl, RFC, X-Windows, Apache, MySQL, Pretty Home Page (and almost
oh, u name dropper your so intelligent
>anything out of unix). The harm of a virus is temporal. The harm of
a "virus" is a physical ailment, not a mind doodoo
>irresponsible software (especially with unscrupulous promotion) is the
i never knew a responsible software, can u name one? they don't
talk to me, maybe cause i just curse them out...... hahahaaaaaaaaaaa
>creation of a entire generation of bad thinking and monkey coders. The
i think you mean monkey jakkingoff, which usually leads to bad
thinking, i mean really man step away from the gun and put your hands
in the air...
>scale can be compared as to putting a bullet in a person brain, versus
you mean surgically, i never saw one "put" in there. anybody seen
this happen?
>creating a creed with the Holocaust aftermath.
omg, bring the jews into into it.....
>
>Distribution of software is easily like pollution. I thought of a law
so shit flows downhill eh...
>that would ban the distribution of software bads, or like charging for
keep the software bads to yourself (whatever that is)
>garbage collection in modern societies. The problem is the difficulty
nothin wrong with garbage, its a 3 billion dolla industry
>of deciding what is good and what is bad. Like in so many things, i
can we leave good/bad up got god, or at least anybody with a brain?
>think the ultimate help is for people to be aware; so-called education;
i think toilet paper helps alot better, edu is a mind fuk divorced
from reality ... like u
>I believe, if people are made aware of the situation i spoke of, then
awareness comes when you "find" your navel
>irresponsible software will decrease, regardless any individual's
>opinion.
i never knew a "mind" software that considered itself irresponsible
>
>The most important measure to counter the tremendous harm that
is the epa
>irresponsible software has done to the industry is to begin with
can't we all agree "software" is not people ...
>responsible licenses, such that the producer of a software will be
can't we all agree licenses were made for marriages and dog tags ..
>liable for damage incurred thru their software. As we know, today's
your software killed my country, i want 1 trillion in damages
>software license comes with a disclaimer that essentially says the
i wish marriage license did
>software is sold as is and the producer is not responsible for any
software is sold. i think you should be instead, we know what u can do
>damage, nor guaranteeing the functionality of the software. It is this,
software functions as it was programmed, not as your conception of
its use ... you should find out what "it" doess first
>that ferments all sorts of sloppitudes and fads and myths to rampage
sounds like the internet and "blogs" ... lots to waste time on there
>and survive in the software industry. Once when software producers are
you won't live long enough to survive it
>liable for their products, just as bridge or airplane or transportation
hey, lets start with the automotive industry first, eh.,, you want to
survive "their" software first don't ya?
>or house builders are responsible for the things they build, then
hahaaaa, hurricane andrew destroys 50,000 homes ... when the
"wind" gets big u know ..
>injurious fads and creeds the likes of (Perl, Programing Patterns,
i'm all wadded up in injuries, send the chiropractor ..
>eXtreme Programing, �Universal� Modeling Language...) will
backticks ? errr, ahhh, jeez.......
>automatically disappear by dint of market force without anyone's
>stipulation.
man, you better switch to vegatables, i think your health will
deteriorate if you keep swallowing the software shit you are
dishing out ...
>
>In our already established infrastructure of software and industry
i just can't, i mean i could but, its so close to the bottom and
jeez, i'll just summ up on the bottom .
>practices that is so already fucked up by existing shams, we can not
>immediately expect a about-face in software licenses from 0 liability
>to 100% liability. We should gradually make them responsible. And this,
>comes not from artificial force, but gradual establishment of awareness
>among software professionals and their consumers. (Producers include
>single individual to software houses, and consumers include not just
>mom & pop but from IT corps to military.)
>
>Please spread this idea.
>--------------------------------
>This post is archived at
>http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/responsible_license.html
>
> Xah
> ···@xahlee.org
> ? http://xahlee.org/
"mom & pop but from IT corps to military"
Xah, please admit to me that your under the influence of
physocopic drugs! This hurt me to do this to you man
but, and I respect you but, you need some serious, serious
evaluation by a shrink.
You can redeam yourself if you post some original dynamite,
earth shaking code that a phenom such as yourself in criticism
really shows he knows what he is talking about. That will only
add credibility to your words (as disjunctive as they are).
Show us how good your really are man, post those genius words
into some God code so we can all really believe in what your
saying!
Thanks
From: Gunnar Hjalmarsson
Subject: Re: Xah's Edu Corner: Responsible Software Licensing
Date:
Message-ID: <40i23fF1ak5mmU1@individual.net>
robic0 wrote:
> Xah Lee wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>
> <snip>
So, at last they found one another. :(
--
Gunnar Hjalmarsson
Email: http://www.gunnar.cc/cgi-bin/contact.pl
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 09:55:10 +0100, Gunnar Hjalmarsson
<·······@gunnar.cc> wrote:
>robic0 wrote:
>> Xah Lee wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>
>> <snip>
>
>So, at last they found one another. :(
Thanks for the coaching Gunnar !!!
<robic0> wrote in message ·······································@4ax.com...
> On 16 Dec 2005 16:52:43 -0800, "Xah Lee" <···@xahlee.org> wrote:
>
> physocopic drugs!
>
Please do us all the favour of taking a basic literacy course. You aren't
even close half the time, which just confirms you're a halfwit.
Matt
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 10:34:21 -0500, "Matt Garrish"
<···············@sympatico.ca> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted
someone who said :
>Please do us all the favour of taking a basic literacy course. You aren't
>even close half the time, which just confirms you're a halfwit.
are you bawling out robico or Xah?
Attributions are necessary for personal attacks.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
From: Gunnar Hjalmarsson
Subject: Re: Xah's Edu Corner: Responsible Software Licensing
Date:
Message-ID: <40jsu4F1aj1cvU1@individual.net>
Roedy Green wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 10:34:21 -0500, "Matt Garrish"
> <···············@sympatico.ca> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted
> someone who said :
>
>>Please do us all the favour of taking a basic literacy course. You aren't
>>even close half the time, which just confirms you're a halfwit.
>
> are you bawling out robico or Xah?
Does it really matter?
--
Gunnar Hjalmarsson
Email: http://www.gunnar.cc/cgi-bin/contact.pl
robic0 wrote:
> Xah, please admit to me that your under the influence of
> physocopic drugs!
He could be schizophrenic.
Seekers of all things wierd on the internet can do no better than Gene
Ray's Timecube:
http://www.timecube.com/
His outpourings are so well known that he even gets a mention in the
wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Ray
And once you've fully absorbed the fact that "You are educated as a
stupid android slave to the evil Word Animal Singularity Brotherhood",
why not play the game of the theory over at:
http://atrocities.primaryerror.net/timecube.html
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 11:27:58 +0000, Mark Carter <··@privacy.net>
wrote:
>robic0 wrote:
>
>> Xah, please admit to me that your under the influence of
>> physocopic drugs!
>
>He could be schizophrenic.
>
>Seekers of all things wierd on the internet can do no better than Gene
>Ray's Timecube:
>http://www.timecube.com/
>
>His outpourings are so well known that he even gets a mention in the
>wikipedia:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Ray
>
>And once you've fully absorbed the fact that "You are educated as a
>stupid android slave to the evil Word Animal Singularity Brotherhood",
>why not play the game of the theory over at:
>http://atrocities.primaryerror.net/timecube.html
what would Einstien do? take a trip on a beam of light....
robic0 wrote in ·······································@4ax.com:
> On 16 Dec 2005 16:52:43 -0800, "Xah Lee" <···@xahlee.org> wrote:
>
>>Responsible Software Licensing
>>
I worship you, Xah.
--
Eric
`$=`;$_=\%!;($_)=/(.)/;$==++$|;($.,$/,$,,$\,$",$;,$^,$#,$~,$*,$:,@%)=(
$!=~/(.)(.).(.)(.)(.)(.)..(.)(.)(.)..(.)......(.)/,$"),$=++;$.++;$.++;
$_++;$_++;($_,$\,$,)=($~.$"."$;$/$%[$?]$_$\$,$:$%[$?]",$"&$~,$#,);$,++
;$,++;$^|=$";`$_$\$,$/$:$;$~$*$%[$?]$.$~$*${#}$%[$?]$;$\$"$^$~$*.>&$=`
Xah Lee wrote:
<cut>
Nice rant, btw in most EU countries the software creator can not
withdraw the responsibility of his/her/it creation, regardless of what
the disclaimer says. The law is the leading authority and not some
Disclaimer/EULA, that's why most US EULA's are unauthoritative in the EU.
--
mph
Martin P. Hellwig wrote:
> Xah Lee wrote:
> <cut>
> Nice rant, btw in most EU countries the software creator can not
> withdraw the responsibility of his/her/it creation, regardless of what
> the disclaimer says. The law is the leading authority and not some
> Disclaimer/EULA, that's why most US EULA's are unauthoritative in the EU.
Actually most EULAs are unauthoritative in both the USA and (parts of)
the EU, because the customer usually doesn't know or sign the EULA
before he buys the software. At least that's what I heard.
The piece that a European programmer can never withdraw responsibility
could be a big problem to open-source software, though. I'm not sure
I'd want to freely publish anything that could result in liability for me.
--
If you have to ask what jazz is, you'll never know.
Louis Armstrong
Ulrich Hobelmann wrote:
<cut>
>
> The piece that a European programmer can never withdraw responsibility
> could be a big problem to open-source software, though. I'm not sure
> I'd want to freely publish anything that could result in liability for me.
>
Not that big of a problem, in EU a user is still primary liable for his
own action unless he's deliberately been mislead without any possibility
to know that, think in terms of trojans and viruses.
So no suing over spilling hot coffee here unless the container it's
carried in is faulty
--
mph
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 11:47:29 +0100, "Martin P. Hellwig"
<········@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>Xah Lee wrote:
><cut>
>Nice rant, btw in most EU countries the software creator can not
>withdraw the responsibility of his/her/it creation, regardless of what
>the disclaimer says.
Pretty big damned statement there boy! As about a coverall
generalization for all faults if I ever heard!
> The law is the leading authority and not some
>Disclaimer/EULA, that's why most US EULA's are unauthoritative in the EU.
If the software opens a file and is in the middle of writing to it,
then the user dumps the power to the machine and ends up having to
reformat, thereby losing all his data, at what point does the
liability stop? And how is fault proven or dished out? Does the
law specifically state "repeatability" in its language?
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 18:42:52 -0800, robic0 wrote, quoted or indirectly
quoted someone who said :
>If the software opens a file and is in the middle of writing to it,
>then the user dumps the power to the machine and ends up having to
>reformat, thereby losing all his data, at what point does the
>liability stop? And how is fault proven or dished out? Does the
>law specifically state "repeatability" in its language?
It would expect it to work much the way a car works. If you have an
accident, that is your fault. If the fuel pump is badly designed so it
catches fire, that in the manufacturers fault.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 10:05:59 GMT, Roedy Green
<································@munged.invalid> wrote:
>On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 18:42:52 -0800, robic0 wrote, quoted or indirectly
>quoted someone who said :
>
>>If the software opens a file and is in the middle of writing to it,
>>then the user dumps the power to the machine and ends up having to
>>reformat, thereby losing all his data, at what point does the
>>liability stop? And how is fault proven or dished out? Does the
>>law specifically state "repeatability" in its language?
>
>It would expect it to work much the way a car works. If you have an
>accident, that is your fault. If the fuel pump is badly designed so it
>catches fire, that in the manufacturers fault.
You'ld have to prove the fuel pump caused your accident wouldn't you?
I'm reversed when it comes to engineering. I always assume defects
when buss loads of people are killed.
If software ever guards lives that isin't certified then its a
manufacturing defect. That is imbedded software though. Not the
for public consumption. I know that fly-by-wire military software
has 100 levels of precaution. Hey but its a 7 million dollar plane
and a 700 billion dollar budget. The written requirements for a
single design is a book 5 inches thick. Ever see that for
Joe bullshit software designer?
From: Steven D'Aprano
Subject: Reliable software [was Re: Xah's Edu Corner: Responsible Software Licensing]
Date:
Message-ID: <43A669AC.1080705@REMOVEMEcyber.com.au>
robic0 wrote about software liabilities:
> If the software opens a file and is in the middle of writing to it,
> then the user dumps the power to the machine and ends up having to
> reformat, thereby losing all his data, at what point does the
> liability stop? And how is fault proven or dished out? Does the
> law specifically state "repeatability" in its language?
This question is hardly unique to software. All
manufacturers and suppliers have to deal with the
question of what is covered by warranty.
But it is possible to code defensively. For instance,
instead of writing directly to the user's file, you
should write to a temporary file, then when the write
is complete, you rename the temp file to the "real"
file. On some OSes that can be an atomic operation, but
even if it is not, your danger zone where a power
failure can cause the user to lose data is strongly
reduced.
As a general rule, closed source software suppliers
have a terrible reputation for responding to bug
reports quickly and in good faith. It sometimes seems
that the bigger and more successful the software
supplier is, the more likely they are to sit on bug
reports, doing nothing to fix them, and threaten to sue
if you disclose -- all the more so if it is a security
exploit.
Follow-ups to comp.lang.python please.
--
Steven.
Responsible Software Licensing & Free Software Foundation
Xah Lee, 2005-07
Dear Programers,
I have always respected the Free Software Foundation (FSF) and its
community.
when i wrote the article a couple years ago on Responsible Software
Licensing, i thought it might not be welcomed by the free software
community, because in a way responsibility is implicitly a antithesis
against the free software community.
I have high respect for the Free Software Foundation, even though i do
not believe their tenet and dedication that ALL software MUST be
“Free”. Nevertheless, i respect its founder Richard Stallman and
the community on the whole. I think it is a very good group in a
capitalistic software environment, as i'm also a strong advocate and
believer in the goodness of laissez-faire system.
So, as i was thinking that a movement towards Responsible Software
Licensing may be opposed by the free software community in general, in
principle and in practice. In principle because FSF's ethics focuses on
the goodness of individuals, as opposed to some forced regulations such
as licenses and contracts. In practice because most people in the free
software camp are there because they are poor students and are totally
ignorant of sociology, economics, business, law. As a class of the
young, they are OpenSourcing fanatics for the thiefing and gratis and
noise-making parts.
In a commpercial software, where money are paid to acquire, it is
reasonable to demand workability from the sold goods. However, in Free
Software, almost always it is never a commercial item (i.e. practically
it is always free of charge), therefore demanding that the software
hold some responsibility for its consumers may seem inappropriate. We
cannot stipulate warranties and insurances from gifts. (Nor can we, for
some conceived ethics, to force some behavior by law, as history shows
us that is not going to work well.)
However, i think the free software community can in fact advocate
responsible software licensing, and be a pioneer in this movement.
As i've indicated in the Responsible Licensing article, that today's
software come with disclaimers that essentially say the producer is not
liable even if the software don't work at all. It will be hard to
change this zero responsibility stance to a 100% responsibility stance.
However, we can start in small ways. Suppose, if you write a piece of
email program, although there are a myriad scenarios that it will have
problems sending email and in reality such problem happens often, but a
responsible software programer can at least GUARANTEE, that the
software WILL work to some extent of its described utility. In the
email program example, a responsible author can say “We GUARANTEE
that this software will send out emails in a normal setting. If not, we
will refund the money you have paid, or, send you $1 USD.” Although
this may seem fuzzy and silly, but it is a start. By giving a very safe
minimal guarantee of functionality, possibly with a nominal liability
assurance, the author will have made a _Responsible License_.
The Free Software Foundation's GNU project has been a pioneer in many
aspects. It is a pioneer in the concept of Free Software with its GPL
license, which is the main force behind the success and ubiquity of
Linux and a massive collection of freely available software and
components. It in fact has made a major impact in society, even beyond
the realm of software industry. (for instance, the massive grass-roots
online info-encyclopedia Wikipedia.org is a indirect consequence FSF
and GPL) Free Software community also has done pioneering leads in
software technology. For example, its emacs text editor, is a
all-encompassing, self-documented, self-sustaining software, and a
quality work at that. It embodies the LISP programing language, and in
fact emacs is mainly responsible for spreading the quality concepts
that is functional programing to most industrial programers. The GNU C
Compiler (now GNU Compiler Collection), is critical in starting Linux
and a massive collection of software in the unix industry.
This is why i think Free Software Foundation can be a leader towards
responsible software licensing. There are a huge number of Free
Software followers. Many of us also publish our programs, big or small.
By starting with a very small, nominal statement in the license, we can
spread the attitude of responsible software. Gradually, this practice
can spread to commercial software, and to such a degree of competing
offers of liabilities and guarantees as we have in for example USA's
consumer products.
Please think about this. If you agree, please spread the idea.
----------
This post is archived at:
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/responsible_license_FSF.html
Xah
···@xahlee.org
∑ http://xahlee.org/
"Xah Lee" <···@xahlee.org> writes:
> As i've indicated in the Responsible Licensing article, that today's
> software come with disclaimers that essentially say the producer is not
> liable even if the software don't work at all. It will be hard to
> change this zero responsibility stance to a 100% responsibility stance.
> However, we can start in small ways. Suppose, if you write a piece of
> email program, although there are a myriad scenarios that it will have
> problems sending email and in reality such problem happens often, but a
> responsible software programer can at least GUARANTEE, that the
> software WILL work to some extent of its described utility. In the
> email program example, a responsible author can say “We GUARANTEE
> that this software will send out emails in a normal setting. If not, we
> will refund the money you have paid, or, send you $1 USD.” Although
> this may seem fuzzy and silly, but it is a start. By giving a very safe
> minimal guarantee of functionality, possibly with a nominal liability
> assurance, the author will have made a _Responsible License_.
You have a problem of definition of the meaning of "normal setting".
This problem is easily resolved with the source of the program: the
source of the program IS the CONTRACT. If you respect the language
(the semantics, or underlying virtual machine expected by the
program), and if you respect the pre-conditions embedded in the
program, then you get the guarantee plainly written in the program as
post-conditions. You cannot get it more explicitely than from the
sources of the program (and the specifications of its programming
language).
So wanting more than the mere sources, you are wanting to reject
programming language not formally specified, and programs provided
without the sources. We can do better on the programming language
formal specifications side, but on the program sources side, I don't
know what we can do more than GPL or BSD...
Actually, the whole point is to let the _user_ of the program to take
_responsibility_ for the program he uses, and not to cowardly
discharge his (the user's) responsability to somebody else.
When you compute the tip to add to your invoice at the restaurant, you
don't ask the inventor of the multiplication algorithm or your
teachers to take any responsibility for your wrong or right
application of the operation. Let the users be responsible!
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never
stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and
neither do we. -- Georges W. Bush
The Bug-Reporting Attitude
Xah Lee, 2005-02, 2006-01
People,
There is a common behavior among people in software geek forums, that
whenever a software is crashing or behaving badly, they respond by
“go file a bug report” as if it is the duty of software consumers.
When a software is ostensibly incorrect, and if it is likely in
connection to egregious irresponsibility as most software companies are
thru their irresponsible licensing, the thing one should not do is to
fawn up to their ass as in filing a bug report, and that is also the
least effective in correcting the software.
The common attitude of bug-reporting is one reason that contributed to
the tremendous egregious irresponsible fuckups in computer software
industry that each of us have to endure daily all the time. (e.g.
software A clashed, software B can't do this, C can't do that, D i
don't know how to use, E download location broken, F i need to join
discussion group to find a work-around, G is all pretty and
dysfunctional... )
When a software is ostensibly incorrect and when the organization
behind it is irresponsible with its licensing, the most effective and
moral attitude is to do legal harm to the legal entity. This one can do
by filing a law suit or spreading the fact. Filing a law suit is
appropriate in severe and serious cases, and provided you have such
devotion to the cause. For most cases, we should just spread the fact.
When the organization sees facts flying about its incompetence or
irresponsibility, it will immediately mend the problem source, or cease
to exist.
Another harm sprang from the fucking bug-reporting attitude rampant
among IT morons is the multiplication of pop-ups that bug users for
bug-reporting, complete with their privacy legalese infomercial
intrusion.
2006-01 Addendum
• In early 2005 or late 2004, OS X's Safari browser contains a button
on the top right that is use to send bugs to Apple. As late as 2006-01
in Safari 2.0.2, one can turn on the send bug button by right clicking
on the toolbar. (screenshot).
• In about 2004-2005, every Mac OS X's tool bar has a Quality
Feedback button for user to report problems and suggestions to Apple.
Mac fanatics are fanatical about reporting bugs back to Apple.
• In 2004-2005, the Adium multi-chat client for OS X will popup a
dialogue box whenever it crashes, and ask the user whether if he wishes
to report the bug.
• In 2005, Microsoft Windows XP will popup a dialogue box when a
program crashed, and will ask the user about whether she want to report
it back to Microsoft.
• In 2005, the Open Sourced Netscape/FireFox browser will auto-start
a separate bug-report program whenever it crashed, and will bother the
user about whether to report the bug.
Much of these harassment come with technical notices and or privacy
legalese, that assures the user nothing personal is being sent or
collected. Some will also contain an option to turn this
user-contribution auto-solicitation off for good, but not all.
These bug-reporting phenomenon didn't start until early 21st century.
Such direct user intrusion was unknown or unthinkable in 1990s. Part of
the reason of their rise can be attributed by a few factors: (1) the
mainstreaming of the internet. (2) The collectivism and fanaticism
ushered by Open Sourcers. (3) The fanaticism ushered by Mac fanatics.
Group (2) and (3) are largely incompatible, but each lives in their
utopian vision.
----------------
This post is archived at:
http://www.xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/bug_report_attitude.html
Xah
···@xahlee.org
∑ http://xahlee.org/
On 2 Jan 2006 13:16:26 -0800, "Xah Lee" <···@xahlee.org> wrote:
>The Bug-Reporting Attitude
>
>Xah Lee, 2005-02, 2006-01
>
>People,
>
>There is a common behavior among people in software geek forums, that
>whenever a software is crashing or behaving badly, they respond by
>�go file a bug report� as if it is the duty of software consumers.
>
"software" found 3 x
>When a software is ostensibly incorrect, and if it is likely in
>connection to egregious irresponsibility as most software companies are
>thru their irresponsible licensing, the thing one should not do is to
>fawn up to their ass as in filing a bug report, and that is also the
>least effective in correcting the software.
>
"software" 3x ... "companies" 1 x
>The common attitude of bug-reporting is one reason that contributed to
>the tremendous egregious irresponsible fuckups in computer software
>industry that each of us have to endure daily all the time. (e.g.
>software A clashed, software B can't do this, C can't do that, D i
>don't know how to use, E download location broken, F i need to join
>discussion group to find a work-around, G is all pretty and
>dysfunctional... )
>
"software industry" found 1 x
>When a software is ostensibly incorrect and when the organization
>behind it is irresponsible with its licensing, the most effective and
>moral attitude is to do legal harm to the legal entity. This one can do
>by filing a law suit or spreading the fact. Filing a law suit is
>appropriate in severe and serious cases, and provided you have such
>devotion to the cause. For most cases, we should just spread the fact.
>When the organization sees facts flying about its incompetence or
>irresponsibility, it will immediately mend the problem source, or cease
>to exist.
>
"software"(1x)..."organization"(2x)
>Another harm sprang from the fucking bug-reporting attitude rampant
>among IT morons is the multiplication of pop-ups that bug users for
>bug-reporting, complete with their privacy legalese infomercial
>intrusion.
>
>2006-01 Addendum
>
Since I work for a software industry, company, organization,
I thought I'd offer my 2 cents here.
The software industry/company/organization are run by
snake-oil salesmen/marketing who discard the programmers as fast
as they do bug reports. Given that, who do you think "cuts" out
the problem parameters for the programmer? Think its a master
problem solver programmer/manager who is not influenced by
marketing? Got a bright programmer who looks at the condition
then at the parameters for the fixes to implement who see's the
fallicy of the fix parameters. Why yes, yes you do. Well why
doesen't he jump up and down in the organization then?
Because his job hangs by a thread, with seasonal layoffs and
outsoursing, lessening pay/benifits, contract status, etc...
Contrary to popular belief the fixer has to research his part
of the code, and is forced to know more than what he is being
tasked to do. The falicy is that he has control of it, he see's
the big picture fopa's but can't do a thing about it.
So you see, when you say "software" so many times, you imply the
programmer is at fault. For simple bugs that may be true, however
in the face of induced snake oil marketing induced CONCEPTUAL ERRORS,
well brother, what have I got to do to just get my next paycheck?
Imagine that software designed by snake-oil salesmaen/marketing,
comercial ad agencies, conceptual designers without proof-of-concept.
In todays world, the word "software" is a mis-nomer. Its not
software anymore, its a concept of some dude on ACID !!!
Any questions?
On 2 Jan 2006 13:16:26 -0800, "Xah Lee" <···@xahlee.org> wrote, quoted
or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>When a software is ostensibly incorrect, and if it is likely in
>connection to egregious irresponsibility as most software companies are
>thru their irresponsible licensing, the thing one should not do is to
>fawn up to their ass as in filing a bug report, and that is also the
>least effective in correcting the software.
I think a lot of us have a problem with you pontificating in such a
grandiose style when you have not first proved you know what you are
talking about with participation in the discussions of day to day
coding problems.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
Roedy Green <································@munged.invalid> wrote:
>On 2 Jan 2006 13:16:26 -0800, "Xah Lee" <···@xahlee.org> wrote, quoted
>or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>
>>When a software is ostensibly incorrect, and if it is likely in
>>connection to egregious irresponsibility as most software companies are
>>thru their irresponsible licensing, the thing one should not do is to
>>fawn up to their ass as in filing a bug report, and that is also the
>>least effective in correcting the software.
>
>I think a lot of us have a problem with you pontificating in such a
>grandiose style when you have not first proved you know what you are
>talking about with participation in the discussions of day to day
>coding problems.
Xah Lee (1) is a write-only poster who pontificates but never reads
replies, and (2) cares not a whit that the rest of us believe him to be a
moron.
In a sense, I envy him. I hold a number of strong and somewhat
controversial opinions that I hesitate to expose in public, for fear of
being laughed at and labeled as a nutcase. Xah Lee has absolutely no such
fears.
--
- Tim Roberts, ····@probo.com
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
The Bug-Trolling Attitude
Hax Eel, 2006-01-02
People,
There is a common behavior among people in software geek forums, that
whenever a software is crashing or behaving badly, they respond by writing
stupid essays about it and cross-post it to multiple newsgroups as if it
is the duty of Usenet readers to suffer through their egocentric rantings.
When a troll is full of shit, as is likely in connection to egregious
irresponsibility as most trolls are unable to spell "thru", the thing one
should not do is to fawn up to their ass by responding to their post and
treating their verbal diarrhoea with dignity, as that is the least
effective method in correcting the problem.
The common attitude of responding to trolls is one reason that contributed
to the tremendous egregious irresponsible egotistical arrogant
know-nothing adjective-over-users on Usenet that each of us have to endure
daily all the time.
When a poster is ostensibly incorrect and full of hot-hair about
licensing, the most effective and moral attitude is to do legal harm to
the poster. If you live in lawyer-happy countries like the USA, you
can do this by filing a law suit for mental anguish and emotional distress
against the poster. If you live in the United Kingdom, you can apply for
an Anti-Social Behaviour Order or ASBO. In severe and serious cases, it
may be appropriate to pop a cap in the fucker's arse.
----------------
This post is archived at:
http://www.trolling-for-you.org/FullOfCrap_dir/crap/bug_trolling_attitude.html
Hax
··········@trolling-for-you.org
∑ http://trolling-for-you.org/
IT Industry Predicament
Xah Lee, 200207
As most of you agree, there are incredible wrongs in software industry.
Programs crash, injurious tools, uninformed programers, and decrepit
education system. Over the years of my computing industry experience
since 1995, i have recently gradually come to realize the cause and
plan a solution. I wanted to write a cohesive account of my thoughts
one day. Here's a quick beginning:
• Most agree that computing industry has lots of problems, including:
extremely poor software quality, poorly qualified programers, and a
strayed education system. One final metric is the quality of today's
software, and consumer's experience with computers.
• In pretty much free market system of America, we can say that
software quality (or software related things) being the way it is is
out of natural selection. In other words: “driven by economy”, or,
a result that evolved naturally from competition.
• This naturally evolved result, does not mean it is the “best”
outcome. Simply put: “outcome” does not mean “desired outcome”.
Think of it this way: the solutions from genetic algorithms arn't best
solutions, but best outcome from a given set of criterions and gene
pool and the coupling environment.
• We can see now that the state of software or industry is not
determined by idiotic and simplistic expectations such as quality of
design or intelligence of programers. How things come to be in society
do not have simplistic explanations, but sensible understanding is not
impossible. In a commercial software world, software's popularity or
trend is determined by the choices consumer makes. How consumer ends up
purchasing a software has a myriad of factors among them awareness, but
most responsible being the price/performance ratio, or just price.
Also, the majority of consumers are morons with respect to evaluating
software for their own good. This is why, the inept and FREE unixes and
Perl and C are everywhere. It is also why, the fucking incompetent
unixes though $free$ but has little place to stand in comparison to a
charging Microsoft when performance also enters the equation. This also
explains, the exorbitantly priced fashion-statement Apple
software/hardware combo are no more populous than those affluent. (not
because some fucking fashionable chant about how
good-things-are-always-unpopular fucking fuck chant loved by vain
above-it geeks.)
• The reason fucking languages like C and family mask technically
superior ones like lisp are in large part due to the unix phenomenon as
explained above. C + Unix, incompetence + irresponsibility
bootstrapping each other $freely$. The unix things teach programers to
unthink. With their greed-based speed-based freely-distributable
popularity-based iconoclastic irresponsibilities spreading like
corruption do.
Solution: Understand and spread the word that writing bug-free software
are not difficult at all, and quality software can be as intuitive as
extra hands. When good programers understand this and catch on, good
software with responsible licenses will emerge. Eventually software
vendors will compete for more responsible software, one's that offer to
be penalized for every bug or crash or misfeature. In turn, this will
eliminate all fucking fashions and idiots in the software industry such
as the Design Patterns and eXtreme Programing or the TIMTOWTDI Perl
fuck or the OOP fad or the fucking “Universal Modeling Language”
fuck.
Do you want software/industry to improve? Everyone want to be
millionaire when asked, but when they have to pay to be a millionaire,
they reconsider.
--
This post is archived at:
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/it_predicament.html
Xah
···@xahlee.org
∑ http://xahlee.org/
From: Ulrich Hobelmann
Subject: Re: Xah's Edu Corner: IT Industry Predicament
Date:
Message-ID: <43cs00F1lpid1U1@individual.net>
Xah Lee wrote:
> • The reason fucking languages like C and family mask technically
Contrary to popular opinion, languages don't multiply. Certainly they
don't have sex. Most (human) languages merely have something called
gender, and words don't interact. C has a bastard child called C++,
true, but that was basically created by genetic manipulation of the
original C, and indeed it's said to be 100% backward-compatible to C.
> Solution: Understand and spread the word that writing bug-free software
> are not difficult at all, and quality software can be as intuitive as
> extra hands. When good programers understand this and catch on, good
Yes, please go ahead. Oh, you said "good programmers." Never mind.
I know, don't feed the troll. Sorry 'bout that.
--
The problems of the real world are primarily those you are left with
when you refuse to apply their effective solutions.
Edsger W. Dijkstra
Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> wrote:
[ snip bait ]
> I know, don't feed the troll. Sorry 'bout that.
To quote Space Balls:
"Don't be sorry, be *quiet*!" :)
Cheers,
Tim Hammerquist
Xah Lee wrote:
> IT Industry Predicament
>
> Xah Lee, 200207
>
> As most of you agree, there are incredible wrongs in software industry.
> Programs crash, injurious tools, uninformed programers, and decrepit
> education system. Over the years of my computing industry experience
> since 1995, i have recently gradually come to realize the cause and
> plan a solution. I wanted to write a cohesive account of my thoughts
> one day. Here's a quick beginning:
>
> • Most agree that computing industry has lots of problems, including:
> extremely poor software quality, poorly qualified programers, and a
> strayed education system. One final metric is the quality of today's
> software, and consumer's experience with computers.
>
> • In pretty much free market system of America, we can say that
> software quality (or software related things) being the way it is is
> out of natural selection. In other words: “driven by economy”, or,
> a result that evolved naturally from competition.
>
> • This naturally evolved result, does not mean it is the “best”
> outcome. Simply put: “outcome” does not mean “desired outcome”.
> Think of it this way: the solutions from genetic algorithms arn't best
> solutions, but best outcome from a given set of criterions and gene
> pool and the coupling environment.
Doing good...
>
> • We can see now that the state of software or industry is not
> determined by idiotic and simplistic expectations such as quality of
> design or intelligence of programers. How things come to be in society
> do not have simplistic explanations, but sensible understanding is not
> impossible. In a commercial software world, software's popularity or
> trend is determined by the choices consumer makes. How consumer ends up
> purchasing a software has a myriad of factors among them awareness, but
> most responsible being the price/performance ratio, or just price.
> Also, the majority of consumers are morons with respect to evaluating
> software for their own good. This is why, the inept and FREE unixes and
> Perl and C are everywhere. It is also why, the fucking incompetent
> unixes though $free$ but has little place to stand in comparison to a
> charging Microsoft when performance also enters the equation. This also
> explains, the exorbitantly priced fashion-statement Apple
> software/hardware combo are no more populous than those affluent. (not
> because some fucking fashionable chant about how
> good-things-are-always-unpopular fucking fuck chant loved by vain
> above-it geeks.)
I'm sorry, but the $free$ Unixen are actually better operating systems
than Windoze. I didn't switch because I thought it was cool or because
it was free, I switched because Linux crashed less, let me build it how
I wanted, and had loads of free software that actually worked. The
Unixen are the best thing out there right now, but a few of us are
working on (what we hope is) something better instead of just
complaining (kvetching) about it.
I agree about Apple, however.
>
> • The reason fucking languages like C and family mask technically
> superior ones like lisp are in large part due to the unix phenomenon as
> explained above. C + Unix, incompetence + irresponsibility
> bootstrapping each other $freely$. The unix things teach programers to
> unthink. With their greed-based speed-based freely-distributable
> popularity-based iconoclastic irresponsibilities spreading like
> corruption do.
Unix does teach programmers to think in C, that I must admit. I hope
that an operating system based on a better language (I know two which
will prominantly feature Lisp as a systems-programming language, Tin
Gherdanarra's Lisp OS and my Glider) will become popular enough to solve
that issue.
>
> Solution: Understand and spread the word that writing bug-free software
> are not difficult at all, and quality software can be as intuitive as
> extra hands. When good programers understand this and catch on, good
> software with responsible licenses will emerge. Eventually software
> vendors will compete for more responsible software, one's that offer to
> be penalized for every bug or crash or misfeature. In turn, this will
> eliminate all fucking fashions and idiots in the software industry such
> as the Design Patterns and eXtreme Programing or the TIMTOWTDI Perl
> fuck or the OOP fad or the fucking “Universal Modeling Language”
> fuck.
So the solution is to understand and spread the word that the problem is
unneccessary? Feh! Try something that will actually get the code
monkeys writing better stuff!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X11_color_names
excerpt:
«
In computing, on the X Window System, X11 color names are represented
in a simple text file, which maps certain strings to RGB color values.
It is shipped with every X11 installation, hence the name, and is
usually located in <X11root>/lib/rgb.txt.
It is not known who originally compiled the list. The list shows
neither a continuity in selected color values nor in color names (for
example, darkgray but lightgrey), and many color triplets have multiple
names. Despite this, graphic designers and others got used to them
making it practically impossible to introduce a more stringent and
logical alias list.
»
Fuck the unix mother fuckers.
-----
See also: Responsible Software Licensing
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/responsible_license.html
Xah
···@xahlee.org
∑ http://xahlee.org/
Xah Lee wrote:
> usually located in <X11root>/lib/rgb.txt.
on AIX and Linux (SuSE 9.3) the file is in <X11root>/lib/X11/rgb.txt
> neither a continuity in selected color values nor in color names (for
> example, darkgray but lightgrey)
On AIX and Linux (SuSE 9.3) each color name which contains "gray" is
also aliased as "grey" for the benefit of both Yanks and Brits. Thus,
I have:
211 211 211 LightGrey
211 211 211 LightGray
169 169 169 DarkGrey
169 169 169 DarkGray
I'm curious what UNIX system does not dual-spell this color? (neutral,
actually; gray is not a color). I thought these color (neutral) names
were dual-homed on all reasonably modern UN*X systems.
--
http://DavidFilmer.com
······@DavidFilmer.com wrote:
> On AIX and Linux (SuSE 9.3) each color name which contains "gray" is
> also aliased as "grey" for the benefit of both Yanks and Brits. Thus,
Yankee, n. In Europe, an American. In the Northern States of
our Union, a New Englander. In the Southern States the word is
unknown. (See DAMYANK.)
"Xah Lee" <···@xahlee.org> writes:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X11_color_names
>
> excerpt:
> �
> In computing, on the X Window System, X11 color names are represented
> in a simple text file, which maps certain strings to RGB color values.
> It is shipped with every X11 installation, hence the name, and is
> usually located in <X11root>/lib/rgb.txt.
>
> It is not known who originally compiled the list. The list shows
> neither a continuity in selected color values nor in color names (for
> example, darkgray but lightgrey), and many color triplets have multiple
> names. Despite this, graphic designers and others got used to them
> making it practically impossible to introduce a more stringent and
> logical alias list.
> �
>
> Fuck the unix mother fuckers.
I thought you'd fallen off recently, but this one is really good. I
hope this means you're stepping your game back up to where it used to
be.
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | Free Mumia Abu-Jamal! |
,--' _,' | Abolish the racist |
/ / | death penalty! |
( -. | `-----------------------'
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
here's a site: http://www.longbets.org/bets that takes socially
important predictions. I might have to enter one or two.
i longed for such a accountable predictions for a long time. Usually,
some fucking fart will do predictions, but the problem is that it's not
accountable. So, lots fuckhead morons in the IT industry will shout
about their opinions on society and technology such as for example
“Microsoft will fall within a decade” or “linux will rule”, or
some technology issues such as “singularity”. But the problem is,
any moron can sound big when there's no accountability associated with
their cries. This website, at least makes it possible to do accountable
opinions. (in the form of mandatory monetary donations) But i really
wished for a mechanism, so that any fuckhead tech geekers with their
loud cries will hurt badly when they open their mouths in public with
wantonness.
For more info about the longbets.org site, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Now_Foundation
Xah
···@xahlee.org
∑ http://xahlee.org/
Xah Lee <···@xahlee.org> wrote in comp.lang.perl.misc:
> ...a mechanism, so that any fuckhead tech geekers with their
> loud cries will hurt badly when they open their mouths in public...
Yeah, good idea!
Anno
--
If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers.
Anno Siegel wrote:
> Xah Lee <···@xahlee.org> wrote in comp.lang.perl.misc:
>
>
>>...a mechanism, so that any fuckhead tech geekers with their
>>loud cries will hurt badly when they open their mouths in public...
In this above I hear the voice of someone badly disappointed seeking an
apology and excuse for being in that condition in the world around and
not inside himself.
My guess from the experience of being, as Usenet newbie, first a victim
of Xah trolls and from the experience of watching Xah activities over
currently more than one year, is that:
The turning point, when one could start to be like Xah is, when
suddenly for oneself some simple truths which has not been recognized
for so long before, get revealed before the inner mental eye.
One finds himself in a situation where own past stupidity becomes so
apparent, that it is hard to accept this fact as it is. The ways to
manage such condition can be very different. One of the possibilities is
to look for the 'outside' reasons and make them responsible for the
misery. There was, is and will be always enough idiocy around, disguised
as by many people fully accepted absolute truths, which can be made
guilty of keeping a believing them individual relatively stupid for a
very long time (or even forever).
The revelation of the simply fact, that one was 'cheated' for so long by
from the just achieved point of view as impertinent insulting and
stupid considered authorities without being able to see it directly
already in the past, hurts so much, that it results in strong emotional
reaction manifestating itself often also in using many dirty words. It
almost appears in this context, that the past ignorance could be
considered a blessing ...
After the first caused by the above effect deep depressions has been
overcome, it can happen, that one starts to hope to manage the misery by
getting in touch with others to share the just reached level of
enlightenment in order to progress towards getting rid of eventually
still existing remaining wrong believes.
The result of this approach can be the experience, that there is as good
as none to oneself meaningful response and instead of being understood
one is accused of trolling.
At that point two aspects important in someones life can start to
compete against each other:
the accumulated experience and insight, that it makes not much sense
to ask the most important to oneself questions publicly
and
the need for staying in active relationship and mental exchange with
others.
The outcome of such battle can be, that the only way out of this dilemma
is to actually start to troll to get some fun out of the responses and
to get the feeling of having impact on others.
There are sure many other ways to manage the situation of becoming
smarter than before and of staying in contact with many others - Xah has
chosen to become a troll as one of the most easy variant out of them. I
hope, that one day, he stops to misjudge own level of enlightenment and
starts to gain satisfaction out of searching for an also for another
people valuable way out of the misery his intellect is trapped in
instead of continuing his mostly trolling motivated postings.
By the way: I found _this_ posting by Xah very interesting and even if
maybe not at first glance noticeable, very close related to what is all
the time and continuously hot discussed in the programming related
newsgroups.
I don't expect Xah to read and reply to this posting, but in spite of
this, I would be glad to hear from him here, how my guess is close to
his actual motivation.
>
>
> Yeah, good idea!
Sure it would be very interesting to see the bets and the reasoning
behind the pro and contra.
Claudio
>
> Anno
From: IchBin
Subject: Re: Xah's Edu Corner: accountability & lying thru the teeth
Date:
Message-ID: <McGcnZ--cvXkimneUSdV9g@ptd.net>
Claudio Grondi wrote:
> Anno Siegel wrote:
>> Xah Lee <···@xahlee.org> wrote in comp.lang.perl.misc:
>>
>>
>>> ...a mechanism, so that any fuckhead tech geekers with their
>>> loud cries will hurt badly when they open their mouths in public...
> In this above I hear the voice of someone badly disappointed seeking an
> apology and excuse for being in that condition in the world around and
[snip crud]
>>
>> Yeah, good idea!
> Sure it would be very interesting to see the bets and the reasoning
> behind the pro and contra.
>
> Claudio
>>
>> Anno
This is a TECHNICAL JAVA PROGRAMMING NG. Take it to a NG who care. AT
best to the c.l.j.advocacy. Dear Abby may still have a column some where
or "due haste, take ye to a nunnery".
Thanks in Advance...
IchBin, Pocono Lake, Pa, USA
http://weconsultants.servebeer.com/JHackerAppManager
__________________________________________________________________________
'If there is one, Knowledge is the "Fountain of Youth"'
-William E. Taylor, Regular Guy (1952-)
From: Ulrich Hobelmann
Subject: Re: Xah's Edu Corner: accountability & lying thru the teeth
Date:
Message-ID: <45dmspF66tepU1@individual.net>
Xah Lee wrote:
> here's a site: http://www.longbets.org/bets that takes socially
> important predictions. I might have to enter one or two.
>
> i longed for such a accountable predictions for a long time. Usually,
> some fucking fart will do predictions, but the problem is that it's not
[...]
OMG, he's back.
I predict, Xah will haunt us for years to come.
--
Suffering from Gates-induced brain leakage...
From: Edi Weitz
Subject: Re: Xah's Edu Corner: accountability & lying thru the teeth
Date:
Message-ID: <ulkwel19f.fsf@agharta.de>
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 10:40:41 +0100, Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> wrote:
> OMG, he's back.
>
> I predict, Xah will haunt us for years to come.
It shows that you're pretty new to Usenet...
--
European Common Lisp Meeting 2006: <http://weitz.de/eclm2006/>
Real email: (replace (subseq ·········@agharta.de" 5) "edi")
From: Ulrich Hobelmann
Subject: Re: Xah's Edu Corner: accountability & lying thru the teeth
Date:
Message-ID: <45du9vF693koU1@individual.net>
Edi Weitz wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 10:40:41 +0100, Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> wrote:
>
>> OMG, he's back.
>>
>> I predict, Xah will haunt us for years to come.
>
> It shows that you're pretty new to Usenet...
Why? You don't think this prediction is true?
--
Suffering from Gates-induced brain leakage...
From: Edi Weitz
Subject: Re: Xah's Edu Corner: accountability & lying thru the teeth
Date:
Message-ID: <u1wy6awk2.fsf@agharta.de>
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 12:47:11 +0100, Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> wrote:
> Why? You don't think this prediction is true?
It's just that he's been doing this for many years already. There's
not much to predict.
--
European Common Lisp Meeting 2006: <http://weitz.de/eclm2006/>
Real email: (replace (subseq ·········@agharta.de" 5) "edi")
Edi Weitz <········@agharta.de> writes:
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 10:40:41 +0100, Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> wrote:
>
> > OMG, he's back.
> >
> > I predict, Xah will haunt us for years to come.
>
> It shows that you're pretty new to Usenet...
>
Ah yes, the unix hater that seems to use nothing but unix!
--
Tim Cross
The e-mail address on this message is FALSE (obviously!). My real e-mail is
to a company in Australia called rapttech and my login is tcross - if you
really need to send mail, you should be able to work it out!
Ulrich Hobelmann wrote:
> Xah Lee wrote:
>
>> here's a site: http://www.longbets.org/bets that takes socially
>> important predictions. I might have to enter one or two.
>>
>> i longed for such a accountable predictions for a long time. Usually,
>> some fucking fart will do predictions, but the problem is that it's not
>
> [...]
>
> OMG, he's back.
>
> I predict, Xah will haunt us for years to come.
>
WTF is wrong with Xah? He posts an occasional article in good faith and
leaves it at that. ignoring the insults that follow.
In the end we have one good-faith article and a bunch of personal
attacks from a Usenet chorus of self-appointed finger-shakers creating
more pollution than he ever did.
If only some of the people castigating Xah for daring to use Usenet
would post as rarely as he, and show as much restraint.
ken
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 23:59:19 GMT, Kenny Tilton
<·············@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>Ulrich Hobelmann wrote:
>> Xah Lee wrote:
>>
>>> here's a site: http://www.longbets.org/bets that takes socially
>>> important predictions. I might have to enter one or two.
>>>
>>> i longed for such a accountable predictions for a long time. Usually,
>>> some fucking fart will do predictions, but the problem is that it's not
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> OMG, he's back.
>>
>> I predict, Xah will haunt us for years to come.
>>
>
>WTF is wrong with Xah? He posts an occasional article in good faith and
>leaves it at that. ignoring the insults that follow.
Apparently you've never actually read one of his articles.
>
>In the end we have one good-faith article and a bunch of personal
>attacks from a Usenet chorus of self-appointed finger-shakers creating
>more pollution than he ever did.
>
>If only some of the people castigating Xah for daring to use Usenet
>would post as rarely as he, and show as much restraint.
>
Restraint? Now I know you haven't read it.
--
Al Balmer
Sun City, AZ
Al Balmer wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 23:59:19 GMT, Kenny Tilton
> <·············@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Ulrich Hobelmann wrote:
>>
>>>Xah Lee wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>here's a site: http://www.longbets.org/bets that takes socially
>>>>important predictions. I might have to enter one or two.
>>>>
>>>>i longed for such a accountable predictions for a long time. Usually,
>>>>some fucking fart will do predictions, but the problem is that it's not
>>>
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>OMG, he's back.
>>>
>>>I predict, Xah will haunt us for years to come.
>>>
>>
>>WTF is wrong with Xah? He posts an occasional article in good faith and
>>leaves it at that. ignoring the insults that follow.
>
>
> Apparently you've never actually read one of his articles.
Have you read his web page? Like I did? Get back to me after you come up
to speed on Xah.
>
>>In the end we have one good-faith article and a bunch of personal
>>attacks from a Usenet chorus of self-appointed finger-shakers creating
>>more pollution than he ever did.
>>
>>If only some of the people castigating Xah for daring to use Usenet
>>would post as rarely as he, and show as much restraint.
>>
>
> Restraint? Now I know you haven't read it.
>
<g> Note that I was not endorsing the content.
The restraint I was talking about was in ignoring you. If you and
everyone else ignored his articles there would not be this thread. Which
is not being dragged out by Xah.
You all dis Xah, yet he is larger than you: you cannot resist heaping
abuse on him. If you could, his articles would appear and disappear
without leaving a trace. Instead we get people with half his wit making
lame attempts at witty put-downs, embarrassing only themselves.
Xah acknowledges his problem, you clowns do not even know you have one.
kenny
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 04:55:33 GMT, Kenny Tilton
<·············@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>> Apparently you've never actually read one of his articles.
>
>Have you read his web page? Like I did? Get back to me after you come up
>to speed on Xah.
Given the aspect he presents on Usenet, why on earth would I want to
go to his web page?
Why should I want to "come up to speed" on him? I have him filtered,
have for a long time, and I can understand that it would be better if
everyone filtered or ignored him, but I don't see posted complaints
about him being any worse than your complaints about the complainers.
I have no idea why anyone would defend such inane, worthless,
obscenity-laced articles.
--
Al Balmer
Sun City, AZ
Al Balmer <········@att.net> wrote:
> have for a long time, and I can understand that it would be better if
> everyone filtered or ignored him,
The best would be if everybody instead of posting replies would complain
to his ISP and Usenet provider. Xah is a major and offensive troll. Those
only stop when you make their accounts go faster then they can find new
ones. I know people who have wasted quite some money, each time more and
more to keep on trolling. In the end, some see how much it's going to cost
to post just another message or they end up in a cancelbot or 2, and are
kicked off some major news servers.
--
John Small Perl scripts: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Perl programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
I ploink googlegroups.com :-)
John Bokma wrote:
> Al Balmer <········@att.net> wrote:
>
> > have for a long time, and I can understand that it would be better if
> > everyone filtered or ignored him,
>
> The best would be if everybody instead of posting replies would complain
> to his ISP and Usenet provider. Xah is a major and offensive troll. Those
> only stop when you make their accounts go faster then they can find new
> ones. I know people who have wasted quite some money, each time more and
> more to keep on trolling. In the end, some see how much it's going to cost
> to post just another message or they end up in a cancelbot or 2, and are
> kicked off some major news servers.
According to his web site, Xah lives in a car, and probably uses some
free wi-fi, so don't waste your time. Secondly, Xah is not a troll. If
you actually look at his web site, you'll realize that he's deviant
(Xah has naked pictures of himself online, and pictures of a pregnant
prostitute he's proud of meeting - if it's not obvious enough) If you
are disturbed by Xah's messages, but are unwilling to pay for
psychiatric help for him, perhaps it's best to just ignore him?
Kenny Tilton <·············@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> If only some of the people castigating Xah
you misspelled castrated
--
John Small Perl scripts: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Perl programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
I ploink googlegroups.com :-)
From: John Thingstad
Subject: Re: Xah's Edu Corner: accountability & lying thru the teeth
Date:
Message-ID: <op.s4yw3gcvpqzri1@mjolner.upc.no>
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 10:33:49 +0100, Xah Lee <···@xahlee.org> wrote:
> i longed for such a accountable predictions for a long time. Usually,
> some fucking fart will do predictions, but the problem is that it's not
> accountable. So, lots fuckhead morons in the IT industry will shout
> ... <more obscene language>
Fine, I will hold you accountable for what you said abot IT security
two weeks ago. Let's see 'By switching from C to a high level
language like Lisp all security problems go away, it's that simple.'
Look up 'insertion attack' Then eat SOAP.
lol
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
I noticed, that in just about all emacs programs on the web (elisp
code), it comes with this template text as its preamble:
;; This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
;; modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as
;; published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2, or (at
;; your option) any later version.
;; This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
;; WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
;; MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU
;; General Public License for more details.
;; You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
;; along with this program; see the file COPYING. If not, write to
;; the Free Software Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place - Suite 330,
;; Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA.
Concerned parties and the FSF foundation, please remove the middle
section of this template. That section is mainly for lawyers, for
programers to protect themselves in the context of modern society's law
system. Legally speaking, that section is redundant because it is in
the GNU General Public License itself. The effect of that section in a
license summary is fueling the habit and sanction of irresponsible
programing we see all around us.
In place of that section, i'd propose replacing it with the following
gist:
«This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful. The
author(s) has responsibly produced it, and will take reasonable
responsibilities with regards to the program's intended purpose and
workability. For legal aspects of WARRANTY, please see the GNU General
Public License for more details.»
Regarding these issues, please read:
Responsible Software Licensing
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/responsible_license.html
Responsible Software Licensing & the Free Software Foundation
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/responsible_license_FSF.html
Xah
···@xahlee.org
∑ http://xahlee.org/
Xah Lee <···@xahlee.org> wrote on 4 Mar 2006 10:21:11 -0800:
> I noticed, that in just about all emacs programs on the web (elisp
> code), it comes with this template text as its preamble:
[ .... ]
> ;; This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
> ;; WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
> ;; MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU
> ;; General Public License for more details.
[ .... ]
> Concerned parties and the FSF foundation, please remove the middle
> section of this template. That section is mainly for lawyers, for
> programers to protect themselves in the context of modern society's law
> system. Legally speaking, that section is redundant because it is in
> the GNU General Public License itself.
That section is there to draw people's attention to the lack of a
warranty, to cause them to contrast it with the "warranty" offered by
non-free software, which typically is restricted to replacing the
distribution CD if it can't be read.
> The effect of that section in a license summary is fueling the habit
> and sanction of irresponsible programing we see all around us.
My impression is that irresponsible programming tends to come with a
guarantee to replace the distribution CD if it can't be read.
> In place of that section, i'd propose replacing it with the following
> gist:
> ??This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful. The
> author(s) has responsibly produced it, and will take reasonable
> responsibilities with regards to the program's intended purpose and
> workability. For legal aspects of WARRANTY, please see the GNU General
> Public License for more details.??
Nah, that's too defensive and wooly. If you get an Email from a stranger
that says "checked virus-free by ....", would you believe that? No?
Then why would you believe a programmer who feels he has to assert he has
done his work "responsibly", whatever that might mean? It's legally
dubious, and wouldn't inspire any confidence whatsoever. Responsibility
is shown by actions and results, not promises.
[ .... ]
> Xah
--
Alan Mackenzie (Munich, Germany)
Email: ····@muuc.dee; to decode, wherever there is a repeated letter
(like "aa"), remove half of them (leaving, say, "a").
On 17 Dec 2005 19:34:36 -0800, "Lars Rune N�stdal"
<···········@gmail.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
said :
>hi,
>everyone thinks youreoay faggot and that youreh stupid .. now go
>fugkght yourselfes
If you want to insult someone, please spell it correctly and be
accurate. Your anger has nothing to do with his sexual preference.
In the process you got me thinking about plonking you to avoid ever
helping a bigot with his Darwinian quest.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
From: Thomas G. Marshall
Subject: Re: Xah's Edu Corner: Examples of Quality Technical Writing
Date:
Message-ID: <8repf.138$ul2.131@trndny05>
Lars Rune N�stdal said something like:
> hi,
> everyone thinks youreoay faggot and that youreh stupid .. now go
> fugkght yourselfes
>
> peasse out .. yo!
Idiot. <PLONK>
sometimes in the last few months, apparently Microsoft made changes to
their JavaScript documentation website:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/script56/html/1e9b3876-3d38-4fd8-8596-1bbfe2330aa9.asp
so that, one has to goddamn press the "expand" button to view the
documentation, for every goddamn page.
What the fuck is going on?
And, good url before the change are now broken (giving HTTP error 404).
Many of the newfangled buttons such as "Copy Code" doesn't goddamn work
in Safari, FireFox, iCab, Mac IE.
And, in any of these browsers, the code examples becomes single
congested block without any line breaks. e.g.
«Circle.prototype.pi = Math.PI; function ACirclesArea () { return
this.pi * this.r * this.r; // The formula for the area of a circle is
r<SUP>2</SUP>. } Circle.prototype.area = ACirclesArea; // The function
that calculates the area of a circle is now a method of the Circle
Prototype object. var a = ACircle.area(); // This is how you would
invoke the area function on a Circle object.»
WHAT THE FUCK is going on?
Answer: Motherfucking incompetence has come alive.
-------------
For a collection of essays on OpenSource documentation problems, see
bottom of:
http://xahlee.org/perl-python/python.html
Xah
···@xahlee.org
∑ http://xahlee.org/
Xah Lee wrote:
> sometimes in the last few months, apparently Microsoft made changes to
> their JavaScript documentation website:
Their *JScript* documentation website - here's the keyword.
See:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/browse_frm/thread/a4a1e9736dc8fa11/9f41a436cf9d8f44>
After the official breakup with IE for Mac OS:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/browse_frm/thread/e85ccf55553d8da2/5dddd18b0949b792#5dddd18b0949b792>
JScript site is now only and exclusively for Internet Explorer 5.5 and
higher under Windows 98 SE and higher.
Any other visitors are out of support and interest of Microsoft - at
least in JScript domain. It is bad and rude, but it is and I'm affraid
it will be.
Xah Lee wrote:
> sometimes in the last few months, apparently Microsoft made changes to
> their JavaScript documentation website:
>
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/script56/html/1e9b3876-3d38-4fd8-8596-1bbfe2330aa9.asp
>
> so that, one has to goddamn press the "expand" button to view the
> documentation, for every goddamn page.
>
> What the fuck is going on?
They are still using browser sniffing to determine what CSS to send to
the browser (IE 5.2 gets 'ie4.css', Safari gets 'n6.css'. Despite
that, they deliver js files with hundreds (maybe thousands) of lines
of code to browsers that can't execute them. Why bother sniffing?
They are still using '<!-- -->' inside their style and script elements
- ya gotta wonder who would visit a page about browser scripting using
a browser that doesn't know what a script element is (and is probably
more than 10 years old).
In a file called 'whidbey/script.js' they still use document.all
without any fall back to getElementById. Isn't whidbey the code name
for Visual Studio .NET 2005? Does it use document.all exclusively?
The frame pages generate lots of errors, including really basic things
like no doctype and unclosed tags in documents that pretend to be XML.
[...]
>
> WHAT THE FUCK is going on?
>
> Answer: Motherfucking incompetence has come alive.
>
Yes. Their documentation for the Office XML standard runs to 1,900
pages. The documentation of their streaming media server and media
player interfaces and formats was deemed utterly useless after being
given 18 months to deliver same.
What did you expect?
[...]
--
Zif
Zif wrote:
> In a file called 'whidbey/script.js' they still use document.all
> without any fall back to getElementById. Isn't whidbey the code name
> for Visual Studio .NET 2005? Does it use document.all exclusively?
I'm wondering if they meant for that documentation to be read in VS 2005?
> What did you expect?
There are two interpretations to this Microsoft's JavaScript doc
problem:
1. They didn't do it intentionally.
2. They did it intentionally.
If (1), then it would be a fucking incompetence of inordinate order. If
(2), they would be assholes, even though they have the right to do so.
On the other hand, in terms of documentation quality, technological
excellence, responsibility in software, Microsoft in the 21st century
is the holder of human progress when compared to the motherfucking Open
Sourcers lying thru their teeth fuckheads.
Xah
···@xahlee.org
∑ http://xahlee.org/
--------------------------------------
Xah Lee wrote:
sometimes in the last few months, apparently Microsoft made changes to
their JavaScript documentation website:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/scri...
so that, one has to goddamn press the "expand" button to view the
documentation, for every goddamn page.
What the fuck is going on?
And, good url before the change are now broken (giving HTTP error 404).
Many of the newfangled buttons such as "Copy Code" doesn't goddamn work
in Safari, FireFox, iCab, Mac IE.
And, in any of these browsers, the code examples becomes single
congested block without any line breaks. e.g.
«Circle.prototype.pi = Math.PI; function ACirclesArea () { return
this.pi * this.r * this.r; // The formula for the area of a circle is
r<SUP>2</SUP>. } Circle.prototype.area = ACirclesArea; // The function
that calculates the area of a circle is now a method of the Circle
Prototype object. var a = ACircle.area(); // This is how you would
invoke the area function on a Circle object.»
In comp.lang.perl.misc Xah Lee <···@xahlee.org> wrote:
> If (1), then it would be a fucking incompetence of inordinate order. If
Have you ever thought that your cross-postings are "incompetence
of inordinate order"?
Of course not since you are a troll.
Axel
Sometimes you want your text to flow into multiple columns, as in
newspaper's layout. However, as of 2005-12 this is not yet possible.
One can make-do by hard-coding it into HTML TABLE using multiple
columns. It is a pain because when you change your text, you have to
manually cut and paste to justify each and every columns by
trial-n-error.
A proposed solution is in CSS3 “Multi-column layout”, drafted in
2001 but not yet in any mainstream browsers as of 2005-12. See
http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-css3-multicol-20010118/
With all the whizbang of styles and features in CSS2, a basic,
necessary, functional layout feature as multi-columns is not there yet.
This is a indication of the fatuousness of the IT industry's
technologies and its people.
Xah
···@xahlee.org
∑ http://xahlee.org/
--------------------------------------
Xah Lee wrote:
sometimes in the last few months, apparently Microsoft made changes to
their JavaScript documentation website:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/script56/html/1e9b3876-3d38-4fd8-8596-1bbfe2330aa9.asp
so that, one has to goddamn press the "expand" button to view the
documentation, for every goddamn page.
What the fuck is going on?
And, good url before the change are now broken (giving HTTP error 404).
Many of the newfangled buttons such as "Copy Code" doesn't goddamn work
in Safari, FireFox, iCab, Mac IE.
And, in any of these browsers, the code examples becomes single
congested block without any line breaks. e.g.
«Circle.prototype.pi = Math.PI; function ACirclesArea () { return
this.pi * this.r * this.r; // The formula for the area of a circle is
r<SUP>2</SUP>. } Circle.prototype.area = ACirclesArea; // The function
that calculates the area of a circle is now a method of the Circle
Prototype object. var a = ACircle.area(); // This is how you would
invoke the area function on a Circle object.»
There are two interpretations to this Microsoft's JavaScript doc
problem:
1. They didn't do it intentionally.
2. They did it intentionally.
If (1), then it would be a fucking incompetence of inordinate order. If
(2), they would be assholes, even though they have the right to do so.
On the other hand, in terms of documentation quality, technological
excellence, responsibility in software, Microsoft in the 21st century
is the holder of human progress when compared to the motherfucking Open
Sourcers lying thru their teeth fuckheads.
From: Harlan Messinger
Subject: Re: Xah's Edu Corner: Tech Geekers and their Style
Date:
Message-ID: <41ljouF1emfjbU1@individual.net>
[followups to comp.infosystems.www.authoring stylesheets, since that's
the only newsgroup the OP addressed where this is relevant (LISP?? what
was he thinking?]
Xah Lee wrote:
> Sometimes you want your text to flow into multiple columns, as in
> newspaper's layout. However, as of 2005-12 this is not yet possible.
> One can make-do by hard-coding it into HTML TABLE using multiple
> columns. It is a pain because when you change your text, you have to
> manually cut and paste to justify each and every columns by
> trial-n-error.
It's also pointless since that balances the text only in *your* browser,
using your settings. It will look unbalanced in other people's browsers.
>
> A proposed solution is in CSS3 “Multi-column layout”, drafted in
> 2001 but not yet in any mainstream browsers as of 2005-12. See
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-css3-multicol-20010118/
>
> With all the whizbang of styles and features in CSS2, a basic,
> necessary, functional layout feature as multi-columns is not there yet.
> This is a indication of the fatuousness of the IT industry's
> technologies and its people.
It isn't either basic or (obviously, since the world is still turning
after all these years without it) necessary.
"Xah Lee" <···@xahlee.org> writes:
> Sometimes you want your text to flow into multiple columns, as in
> newspaper's layout. However, as of 2005-12 this is not yet possible.
> One can make-do by hard-coding it into HTML TABLE using multiple
> columns. It is a pain because when you change your text, you have to
> manually cut and paste to justify each and every columns by
> trial-n-error.
>
> A proposed solution is in CSS3 “Multi-column layout”, drafted in
> 2001 but not yet in any mainstream browsers as of 2005-12. See
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-css3-multicol-20010118/
>
> With all the whizbang of styles and features in CSS2, a basic,
> necessary, functional layout feature as multi-columns is not there yet.
> This is a indication of the fatuousness of the IT industry's
> technologies and its people.
In general, the IT industry doesn't address the needs of the Neandertals.
If you want a narrow column, you just reduce the size of your window!
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
"You question the worthiness of my code? I should kill you where you
stand!"
From: David Golden
Subject: Firefox "follow-mode" [was Re: Xah's Edu Corner: Tech Geekers and their Style]
Date:
Message-ID: <%evtf.3931$j7.88160@news.indigo.ie>
Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
> If you want a narrow column, you just reduce the size of your window!
>
Well, what if you want multiple columns side by side like emacs
follow-mode? The firefox engine (gecko) could likely be massaged into
doing it, would be a handy feature for gits like me with multiple
hi-res LCD monitors. Web "design" weenies do persist in making their
pages either strangely over-narrow or split articles into 10 pages you
have to click "next->" through unless you use their "print view", which
in turn would look much better in 2-3 columns on a hi-res display...
The kludgy way would be to just render the page multiple times* in
side-by-side-frames, probably disabling form elements and javascript in
all but the first (since multicolumn mode would mostly be useful for
reviewing long articles on line comfortably that mightn't be too much
of a loss), and just link the scrolling roughly as in emacs
follow-mode.
(For the non-emacs-heads: emacs follow-mode is a handy mode
letting you edit text files with the file displayed effectively in
multiple columns by showing the same file in multiple side-by-side
windows with the scrolling and cursor movement linked. The multiple
columns are just how the file is _displayed_, a matter of presentation,
the file itself remains just an ordinary linear sequence.
http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/Follow-Mode.html
).
*Probably much better to do it at a deeper level in the engine so that
javascript and forms worked 100%, but that would also probably be more
work, so I ain't likely to do it while I have my day job, anyway.
Hell, there's probably already a firefox extension that does it. :-)
Apologies for responding to a Xah Lee thread, but I think
a firefox "follow-mode" would actually be vaguely useful.
It would probably also be more difficult to link the scrolling if
both frames weren't equal width. So you'd want to equalise the width,
perhaps in the initial implementation by not allowing dynamic sliding of
the boundary but just providing "view in 2/3/4 columns" options...
From: John W. Kennedy
Subject: Re: Xah's Edu Corner: Tech Geekers and their Style
Date:
Message-ID: <_BStf.13686$L75.1024@fe12.lga>
Xah Lee wrote:
> With all the whizbang of styles and features in CSS2, a basic,
> necessary, functional layout feature as multi-columns is not there yet.
> This is a indication of the fatuousness of the IT industry's
> technologies and its people.
No, this is an indication of what happens to an industry paralyzed by
organized crime and a corrupt government.
Microsoft delendum est.
--
John W. Kennedy
"But now is a new thing which is very old--
that the rich make themselves richer and not poorer,
which is the true Gospel, for the poor's sake."
-- Charles Williams. "Judgement at Chelmsford"
Sometimes you want your text to flow into multiple columns, as in
newspaper's layout. However, as of 2005-12 this is not yet possible.
One can make-do by hard-coding it into HTML TABLE using multiple
columns. It is a pain because when you change your text, you have to
manually cut and paste to justify each and every columns by
trial-n-error.
A proposed solution is in CSS3 “Multi-column layout”, drafted in
2001 but not yet in any mainstream browsers as of 2005-12. See
http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-css3-multicol-20010118/
With all the whizbang of styles and features in CSS2, a basic,
necessary, functional layout feature as multi-columns is not there yet.
This is a indication of the fatuousness of the IT industry's
technologies and its people.
Xah
···@xahlee.org
∑ http://xahlee.org/
--------------------------------------
Xah Lee wrote:
sometimes in the last few months, apparently Microsoft made changes to
their JavaScript documentation website:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/script56/html/1e9b3876-3d38-4fd8-8596-1bbfe2330aa9.asp
so that, one has to goddamn press the "expand" button to view the
documentation, for every goddamn page.
What the fuck is going on?
And, good url before the change are now broken (giving HTTP error 404).
Many of the newfangled buttons such as "Copy Code" doesn't goddamn work
in Safari, FireFox, iCab, Mac IE.
And, in any of these browsers, the code examples becomes single
congested block without any line breaks. e.g.
«Circle.prototype.pi = Math.PI; function ACirclesArea () { return
this.pi * this.r * this.r; // The formula for the area of a circle is
r<SUP>2</SUP>. } Circle.prototype.area = ACirclesArea; // The function
that calculates the area of a circle is now a method of the Circle
Prototype object. var a = ACircle.area(); // This is how you would
invoke the area function on a Circle object.»
There are two interpretations to this Microsoft's JavaScript doc
problem:
1. They didn't do it intentionally.
2. They did it intentionally.
If (1), then it would be a fucking incompetence of inordinate order. If
(2), they would be assholes, even though they have the right to do so.
On the other hand, in terms of documentation quality, technological
excellence, responsibility in software, Microsoft in the 21st century
is the holder of human progress when compared to the motherfucking Open
Sourcers lying thru their teeth fuckheads.
On 30/12/2005 16:45, Xah Lee wrote:
[Follow-ups trimmed to c.i.w.a.stylesheets]
[snip]
> A proposed solution is in CSS3 “Multi-column layout”, drafted in
> 2001 but not yet in any mainstream browsers as of 2005-12.
Quite rightly so, in my opinion. The Multi-column layout module is
currently a working draft and, as I recall, a relatively vague one at
that. It would be rather foolish to produce anything but a
proof-of-concept implementation until its various aspects are finalised.
[Aside]
If I remember correctly, Mozilla implemented the W3C DOM Level 3 Events
module, which introduced a keyboard event type (KeyEvent). In a later
revision, this interface name was replaced with TextEvent. Later on, a
similarly named interface (KeyboardEvent) was introduced, focusing
specifically on low-level keyboard events. These radical changes
wouldn't mean very much had Mozilla waited.
The DOM Level 3 Events module has been a Working Group Note since
November 2003. This probably marks the end of its development.
[/Aside]
[snip]
Mike
--
Michael Winter
Prefix subject with [News] before replying by e-mail.
Xah Lee wrote:
> i had the pleasure to read the PHP's manual today.
>
> http://www.php.net/manual/en/
>
> although Pretty Home Page is another criminal hack of the unix lineage,
> but if we are here to judge the quality of its documentation, it is a
> impeccability.
>
> it has or possesses properties of:
>
> · To the point and useful.
>
> PHP has its roots in mundaness, like Perl and Apache. Its doc being
> practicality oriented isn't a surprise, as are the docs of Perl and
> Apache.
>
> · Extreme clarity!
>
> The doc is extremely well-written. The authors's writing skills
> shows, that they can present their ideas clearly, and also that they
> have put thoughts into what they wanted to say.
>
> · Ample usage examples.
>
> As with Perl's doc, PHP doc is not afraid to show example snippets,
> yet not abuse it as if simply slapping on examples in lieu of proper
> spec or discussion.
>
> · Appropriate functions or keywords are interlinked.
>
> This aspect is also well done in other quality docs, such as
> Mathematica, Java, MS JScript, Perl's official docs.
>
> · No abuse of jargons.
>
> In fact, it's so well written that there's almost no jargons in its
> docs, yet conveys its intentions to a tee. This aspect can also be seen
> in Mathematica's doc, or Microsoft's JScript doc, for examples.
>
> · No author masturbation. (if fact, you won't see a first-person
> perspective, as is the case with most quality tech writing.)
>
> We must truely appreciate the authors of the PHP doc. Because, PHP, as
> a free shit in the unix shit culture, with extreme ties to Perl and
> Apache (both of which has extremely motherfucked docs), but can wean
> itself from a shit milieu and stand pure and clean to become a paragon
> of technical writing.
>
--- original Sat Dec 31 11:44:54 2005
+++ corrected Sat Dec 31 11:56:59 2005
@@ -1,28 +1,28 @@
-i had the pleasure to read the PHP's manual today.
+I had the pleasure to read the PHP's manual today.
http://www.php.net/manual/en/
-although Pretty Home Page is another criminal hack of the unix
lineage,
-but if we are here to judge the quality of its documentation, it is a
+Although Pretty Home Page is another criminal hack of the unix
lineage,
+if we are here to judge the quality of its documentation, it is an
impeccability.
-it has or possesses properties of:
+It has or possesses properties of:
- To the point and useful.
PHP has its roots in mundaness, like Perl and Apache. Its doc being
-practicality oriented isn't a surprise, as are the docs of Perl and
+practicality-oriented isn't a surprise; so are the docs of Perl and
Apache.
- Extreme clarity!
The doc is extremely well-written. The authors's writing skills
-shows, that they can present their ideas clearly, and also that they
-have put thoughts into what they wanted to say.
+show, they can present their ideas clearly, and they
+have put thought into what they wanted to say.
- Ample usage examples.
- As with Perl's doc, PHP doc is not afraid to show example snippets,
+ As with Perl's doc, PHP's doc is not afraid to show example
snippets,
yet not abuse it as if simply slapping on examples in lieu of proper
spec or discussion.
@@ -31,18 +31,18 @@
This aspect is also well done in other quality docs, such as
Mathematica, Java, MS JScript, Perl's official docs.
-- No abuse of jargons.
+- No abuse of jargon.
- In fact, it's so well written that there's almost no jargons in its
-docs, yet conveys its intentions to a tee. This aspect can also be
seen
+ In fact, it's so well written that there's almost no jargon in its
+docs, yet it conveys its intentions to a tee. This aspect can also be
seen
in Mathematica's doc, or Microsoft's JScript doc, for examples.
-- No author masturbation. (if fact, you won't see a first-person
+- No author masturbation. (In fact, you won't see a first-person
perspective, as is the case with most quality tech writing.)
-We must truely appreciate the authors of the PHP doc. Because, PHP, as
+We must truly appreciate the authors of the PHP doc. Because PHP, as
a free shit in the unix shit culture, with extreme ties to Perl and
-Apache (both of which has extremely motherfucked docs), but can wean
+Apache (both of which have extremely motherfucked docs), can wean
itself from a shit milieu and stand pure and clean to become a paragon
of technical writing.
HTH
--
Brad