-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Loki Harfagr <l0k1@yahoo.fr> is thought to have
typed the following text on 2003-09-25:

> Bartosz Oudekerk <tyranas@Lappie.unreachablehost.net> wrote in
> news:slrnbn5p5j.o8u.tyranas@Lappie.unreachablehost .net:
>
>> But people can (and often are wrong) if I were to believe stones fall
>> upwards, would that suddenly be the truth?
>
> Tht's semantics now...
> Only you ? No way
> Then, if *most* of the people believed it that'll just
> be the truth, just a question of defining "upwards".
>
You got me there.

- --
Bartosz Oudekerk

Play Rogue, visit exotic locations, meet strange creatures
and kill them.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/dHoq256ZyNYAOpkRAuRYAKCVYq1NqDQUdtoJ6NWdfpPIoJ4CfQ CePSzp
MmKEhV8gFU7hcBmys4KsL7g=
=7d1m
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Joost Kremers <joostkremers@yahoo.com> is thought to have
typed the following text on 2003-09-25:

> Bartosz Oudekerk wrote:

>> There is *no* difference in the support[0], both distro's need to be
>> configured. RedHat just has a wizard to do it for you.
>
> and for many people, the wizard will make all the difference. for the
> simple reason that with the wizard, they are *themselves* able to get the
> hardware working. that's what they mean by "supported".
>
That's what they mean when they say supported, that doesn't mean it's
correct.

>> We both agree the distro supports what the kernel supports, but we
>> don't agree on is what is meant by the term "hardware support"
>>
>> Am I right?
>
> well, i can't speak for george, but no, not exactly. *we* (you and i) do
> agree on the meaning of "hardware support", but you and most of mankind
> don't... ;-)
>
Then we (as in you and I) agree on that at least ;-)

> (what we (you and i) do seem to disagree on is that you think the rest of
> mankind is wrong, whereas i believe that they're right in their own way. in
> my view, it is really just a matter of how detailed your "model" of reality

They *think* they're right, they *believe* they're right, but being so
is an entirely different thing.

> is. most of mankind doesn't see an OS as something that is composed of very
> different components. to them, it is just one thing, a black box, so to
> speak. and they're not wrong about that, because it is a very normal
> strategy of people to organise and classify the world around them. just as
> you (generally) see a house as one thing, and not as an intricate system
> composed of bricks, concrete, iron, wood and what not.)
>
Ah, but your example doesn't fit the discussion. You're completely
right about the PC and house, but it's not relevant in this case.

If you buy a house that's in great condition, but you can't get a
window open because a hinge is rusted, do you say the house was a bad
buy? Even though you see the house as a single thing.

- --
Bartosz Oudekerk

Play Rogue, visit exotic locations, meet strange creatures
and kill them.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/dH4B256ZyNYAOpkRAp6rAJ97DNDkvJZkhQAZ7yQOscWBhGoN3w CfS1bB
gSvxm9Mv40aLqcN/ysPHrGs=
=/QhA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Joost Kremers <joostkremers@yahoo.com> is thought to have
typed the following text on 2003-09-25:

> Bartosz Oudekerk wrote:

>> not saying they are telling a deliberate lie. I used to belong to the
>> particular group we're talking about now, but someone told me I was
>> wrong.
>
> then he was wrong. he changed your model of the world. with that, you
> gained the ability to manipulate reality more successfully, which gives the
> impression that before you were wrong and now you're right, but that's
> really just a judgement.
>
In your NSHO, but in mine it isn't.

>>>> if I were to believe stones fall
>>>> upwards, would that suddenly be the truth?
>>>
>>> actually, stones don't fall downwards either. they roll through space-time,
>>> because of the distortions that the earth's mass makes in space-time.
>>>
>>> or so would be the perspective of a physicist. (well, sorta... i'm no
>>> expert. ;-) so in *his* perspective, *you* would be wrong about stones
>>> falling downward.
>>>
>> If someone were to explaing such a thing to me in clear terms, I might
>> be 'converted'.
>>
>> BTW, they do fall down (on earth), your example explains *why*.
>
> no, it's hardly an explanation. it's just another model of the world.
>
> but let me keep it a bit simpler: in our perception, a stone falls down. in
> reality, the stone and the earth attract each other. its just that the
> earth is many times heavier than the stone, so that the earth doesn't move,
> just the stone.
>
But you forget one thing (which you shouldn't as a linguist), falling
is a human-invented word for things moving towards the earth, it
doesn't explain *why* things are moving towards the earth, so again
just an explanation.

> this, too, is just another model of the world, it is just more detailed
> than saying "a stone falls down". but this doesn't mean that the latter is
> wrong and the former is right. in daily life, the latter model works just
> fine: if you drop a stone, it's gonna fall, and if your toe is right under
> it, you'll need some bandage in a few seconds.
>
So it is right, not wrong. if you fill a balloon with helium you're not
saying "hey, look the balloon is falling upwards". What we're talking
about now has nothing to do with the original discussion, because it
describes the meaning of words, not the technicalities that cause that
meaning, while the original discussion was about those technicalities.
And yes, I know, I started with the bad example.

>>>> Hardware support *is* in the kernel, so Slackware has support for any
>>>> device supported by the kernel, if it's activated by default is
>>>> entirely another thing.
>>>
>>> in *your* eyes, but not in the eyes of many other people.
>>>
>> Look, perspective is only applicable in a few unprovable matters.
>
> no, in that you are wrong, at least according to the commonly held view in
> science. it's a commonly held conviction in science and philosophy that
> perspective matters *everywhere*. nothing in our observation, nothing in
> our understanding of the world, absolutely nothing, can escape it.
>
> this just has to do with the physical aspects of how we perceive the world:
> our bodies register all sorts of things (light, smells, objects through
> touching, temperature, sound) and with all that sensory information our
> brain constructs an image. but that image is not reality itself, it is just
> an image, a representation of reality. and because it is just a
> representation, the way in which it is represented has a fundamental
> influence on our perception. you represent an OS as something that is built
> up of a large number of components. but most of mankind represents an OS as
> a single solid unit. your representation is more detailed, and gives you
> greater control over a computer, but that in itself doesn't make your view
> more correct. it just makes it more useful.
>
I somehow get the feeling you're trying to obfuscate stuff here, and
since I also get the distinct feeling that we're both repeating
ourselves ;-), I suggest you read the last pharagraph of my other reply
to you.

- --
Bartosz Oudekerk

Play Rogue, visit exotic locations, meet strange creatures
and kill them.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/dIJH256ZyNYAOpkRAjlmAJ9CyzNP71FwO4HmfqL1Sje55BZQHQ CfUHRI
j+3mz83wQmq9OQBuSVkNhF0=
=Gzzh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Bartosz Oudekerk wrote:
>> (what we (you and i) do seem to disagree on is that you think the rest of
>> mankind is wrong, whereas i believe that they're right in their own way. in
>> my view, it is really just a matter of how detailed your "model" of reality
>
> They *think* they're right, they *believe* they're right, but being so
> is an entirely different thing.

yes, as in "there is no being right". ;-)

> Ah, but your example doesn't fit the discussion. You're completely
> right about the PC and house, but it's not relevant in this case.
>
> If you buy a house that's in great condition, but you can't get a
> window open because a hinge is rusted, do you say the house was a bad
> buy? Even though you see the house as a single thing.

the example of a house is a bad one, because no-one probably sees that
really as a black box. everyone recognises that it consists of walls,
doors, windows, ceilings, a roof, etc. but let's take something else: a
cell phone. if i buy a cell phone over here in europe, i know it's not
going to work in the US, because it'll be a GSM phone. now, i would say:
this phone doesn't support whatever system they have in the US. but someone
who builds or designs such phones for a living might say: no, you're wrong,
it's $CHIP that doesn't support it. you could easily fit your phone with
$OTHER_CHIP, and it'll work fine in the US.

probably this isn't exactly accurate, but let's say it is. now, my
statement that the phone only supports GSM is equivalent to saying that
slackware only supports soundcard X but not soundcard Y. is my statement
wrong? well, no, to me it's not, because i'm never gonna get that phone to
work in the US, not without help from others anyway.

think about it: the phone designer will say, no it's not the phone, it's
$CHIP that doesn't support the american system. but what will the chip
designer say? he might say: no, the chip isn't the problem, it's
$COMPONENT.

in the same way, you will say that it's the kernel that does or does not
support X, but a kernel hacker will say support for X is or should be in
module so-and-so. does that mean you're wrong and the kernel hacker has the
ultimate truth? of course not. he just has a more detailed view of
things.

--
Joost Kremers
since when is vi an editor? a discussion on vi belongs in
comp.tools.unusable or something... ;-)

if i buy a cell phone over here in europe, i know it's not
> going to work in the US, because it'll be a GSM phone. now, i would say:

just to be picky, i have a GSM cell phone and it works in the US, though
coverage sucks when you are in the middle of nowhere.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Joost Kremers <joostkremers@yahoo.com> is thought to have
typed the following text on 2003-09-26:

> Bartosz Oudekerk wrote:

> the example of a house is a bad one, because no-one probably sees that
> really as a black box. everyone recognises that it consists of walls,
> doors, windows, ceilings, a roof, etc. but let's take something else: a
> cell phone. if i buy a cell phone over here in europe, i know it's not
> going to work in the US, because it'll be a GSM phone. now, i would say:
> this phone doesn't support whatever system they have in the US. but someone
> who builds or designs such phones for a living might say: no, you're wrong,
> it's $CHIP that doesn't support it. you could easily fit your phone with
> $OTHER_CHIP, and it'll work fine in the US.
>
That's the entire point, Slackware doesn't need $OTHER_CHIP, it has the
same chip as $DISTRO. It just needs an configuration options changed
whilst $DISTRO has it already activated.

> probably this isn't exactly accurate, but let's say it is. now, my
> statement that the phone only supports GSM is equivalent to saying that
> slackware only supports soundcard X but not soundcard Y. is my statement
> wrong? well, no, to me it's not, because i'm never gonna get that phone to
> work in the US, not without help from others anyway.
>
Your statement isn't wrong, because the phone consists of all
components that make it up, including $CHIP. And since $CHIP supports
only GSM, the phone only supports it. Unless you want to explain to me,
what part of $PHONE is *really* the phone.

> think about it: the phone designer will say, no it's not the phone, it's
> $CHIP that doesn't support the american system. but what will the chip
> designer say? he might say: no, the chip isn't the problem, it's
> $COMPONENT.
>
I'll repeat. What part of $PHONE is *really* the phone, if you take
$CHIP out is it still the same PHONE? What are the parts that if you
take them out, $PHONE stops being $PHONE?

> in the same way, you will say that it's the kernel that does or does not
> support X, but a kernel hacker will say support for X is or should be in
> module so-and-so. does that mean you're wrong and the kernel hacker has the
> ultimate truth? of course not. he just has a more detailed view of
> things.
>
I don't really see what point you're trying to make with those
discussion. To remind you, this discussion started with the question:
are you wrong if you think hardware support is distribution dependent?

Slackware contains the same components (in our case kernel) as $DISTRO,
so I say they both support the same hardware, it just might take more
configuring in Slackware, if you think Slackware doesn't support that
hardware, you're wrong. You seem to be saying that slackware would need
some external stuff installed to support the same hardware as $DISTRO,
which simply isn't true, and thus wrong.

- --
Bartosz Oudekerk

Play Rogue, visit exotic locations, meet strange creatures
and kill them.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/dpcS256ZyNYAOpkRAgPPAJ9LLo7djBEXgAFx1XC2dlwVqKflSQ Cfb3NI
oIwGRLfSgtEtDry9pthKew0=
=WroF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Bartosz Oudekerk wrote:
> I don't really see what point you're trying to make with those
> discussion. To remind you, this discussion started with the question:
> are you wrong if you think hardware support is distribution dependent?

yes, and my claim is that you're not wrong if you think that. it just
depends on your perspective.

> Slackware contains the same components (in our case kernel) as $DISTRO,
> so I say they both support the same hardware, it just might take more
> configuring in Slackware, if you think Slackware doesn't support that
> hardware, you're wrong. You seem to be saying that slackware would need
> some external stuff installed to support the same hardware as $DISTRO,
> which simply isn't true, and thus wrong.

not necessarily some external component. it may also be some additional
configuration, like a (simple) modprobe or a (more complicated) kernel
compile. either of which is beyond many people. and for *those* people,
people IOW that are *not* able to get such hardware to work under slack, it
is not wrong to say that slack doesn't support X or Y.

if i had the skill, i'd probably be able to get my (so far windows-only)
scanner to work under slack. (i'd have to write the kernel-driver for it,
which i'm not able to do.) does this mean that slackware (or linux)
supports my scanner? you would have to say yes, because in principle it
*can* be made to work. but i say no, because *i* can't do it.

the point is that for me, writing said kernel driver is beyond me, so i say
slack doesn't support my scanner. for many people, configuring slack (or
the kernel) so that it can use hardware X or Y is beyond them, and so they
say slack doesn't support X or Y. *from their perspective*, that statement
is just as true as my statement that slack doesn't support my scanner.

the problem, i think, lies in the fact that you interpret the phrase "X is
supported" as "there is a linux driver for X". but for many people, "X is
supported" means "the distro recognises it and configures it
correctly". you probably think their interpretation is wrong. i don't.
because for them, it is the only interpretation that makes sense. and
*that*'s the point i'm trying to make. perhaps i could have done that in an
easier way, i don't know... ;-)

--
Joost Kremers
since when is vi an editor? a discussion on vi belongs in
comp.tools.unusable or something... ;-)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Joost Kremers <joostkremers@yahoo.com> is thought to
have typed the following text on 2003-09-28:

> Bartosz Oudekerk wrote:

> not necessarily some external component. it may also be some additional
> configuration, like a (simple) modprobe or a (more complicated) kernel
> compile. either of which is beyond many people. and for *those* people,
> people IOW that are *not* able to get such hardware to work under slack, it
> is not wrong to say that slack doesn't support X or Y.
>
You're right, it's not wrong to say it, but the statement in itself is
wrong.

> if i had the skill, i'd probably be able to get my (so far windows-only)
> scanner to work under slack. (i'd have to write the kernel-driver for it,
> which i'm not able to do.) does this mean that slackware (or linux)
> supports my scanner? you would have to say yes, because in principle it
> *can* be made to work. but i say no, because *i* can't do it.
>
IM(NS?)HO there's a difference between configuring something, which
anybody that can read can do, and creating a whole new addon.

> the point is that for me, writing said kernel driver is beyond me, so i say
> slack doesn't support my scanner. for many people, configuring slack (or
> the kernel) so that it can use hardware X or Y is beyond them, and so they
> say slack doesn't support X or Y. *from their perspective*, that statement
> is just as true as my statement that slack doesn't support my scanner.
>
- From their perspective it's true indeed, they don't know any better,
but the statement is actually wrong, wether they realise it or not.

> the problem, i think, lies in the fact that you interpret the phrase "X is
> supported" as "there is a linux driver for X". but for many people, "X is
> supported" means "the distro recognises it and configures it

Many people think so yes, but that doesn't make it anymore right.

> correctly". you probably think their interpretation is wrong. i don't.
> because for them, it is the only interpretation that makes sense. and
> *that*'s the point i'm trying to make. perhaps i could have done that in an
> easier way, i don't know... ;-)
>
I understand what you're trying to say, I just don't agree with it.

- --
Bartosz Oudekerk

Play Rogue, visit exotic locations, meet strange creatures
and kill them.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/dwiv256ZyNYAOpkRArZnAJ9vcKUMzGd1W/AtxzPdLpfPVF515wCeOd0S
r5T1gPpSwQkY/WjusmgBNxQ=
=75dk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On 24 Sep 2003 21:08:16 GMT, Joost Kremers wrote:

>
> that's my main complaint about the review. the reviewer just didn't
> understand what slackware is all about.

Why should she? She downloaded it an ran it as most users would.

A lot of people don't find out until after, or after they tried the install
and got confused.

Give her credit for trying, and I am sure her husband who is a Slacker did
give a little leg up on the install.