Re: "Mother" == "computer-illiterate"

Re: "Mother" == "computer-illiterate"

[Kaz Kylheku]

Illiterate idiots, that should be:

    strcpy("Mother", "computer-illiterate") == 0

Mind what list you're on.

:)




-----Original Message-----
    From: <jlnance@unity.ncsu.edu>
    Sent: 1/9/03 1:24:52 PM
    To: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
    Subject: Re: "Mother" == "computer-illiterate"
    
    On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 12:40:19PM -0700, Val Henson wrote:
    
    > P.S. For extra credit (but no ThinkGeek certificate) you can look up
    > the following women in computer science, some of whom are mothers:
    > Mary Baker, Margo Seltzer, Monica Lam, Ellen Spertus, Carla Ellis, and
    > Barbara Simons.
    
    Am I the first person to tell you you left off Ada Lovelace?  She was
    way ahead of her time.
    
    Thanks,
    
    Jim
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: "Mother" == "computer-illiterate"

[Murray J. Root]

On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 12:47:12PM -0800, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> Illiterate idiots, that should be:
> 
>     strcpy("Mother", "computer-illiterate") == 0
> 
> Mind what list you're on.
> 
> :)
> 
Perhaps you meant
	strcmp("Mother", "computer-illiterate")
?

strcpy with two string literals won't compile.

-- 
Murray J. Root
------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/
------------------------------------------------
Mandrake on irc.freenode.net:
  #mandrake & #mandrake-linux = help for newbies 
  #mdk-cooker = Mandrake Cooker
  #cooker = moderated Mandrake Cooker

Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"

[Albert D. Cahalan]

Richard Stallman writes:

> Many people think GNU is a collection of tools, because the best known
> among the programs we developed for GNU are tools.  We also developed
> other programs for GNU that are not tools.  But GNU is not just a
> collection of various programs; it's an operating system which in 1992
> was mostly complete.  (See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/the-gnu-project.html.)
>
>     it would be
>     *inaccurate* to say anything but "Linux" when talking about "Linux,
>     the operating system."
>
> The term "operating system" has sometimes been used with the same
> meaning as "kernel", but nowadays when people speak of operating
> systems they typically mean complete systems such as HPUX, Solaris,
> Windows, MacOS, GNU, and GNU/Linux.

By "GNU" you mean the Hurd? That's not nice at all. Just where
did you get your network stack from? How about the bulk of the
hardware drivers?

I think Hurd/Linux or Linux/Hurd would be a proper name for
your kernel. Credit is due, right? Don't be a hypocrite now...

> If you call the system "Linux", you are misinforming other people:
> teaching them a false picture of the system's history.  Some of them
> may become so attached to the false picture that it distorts their
> thinking.  If you call it "GNU/Linux", this won't happen.

Calling the OS "Linux" has nothing to do with teaching anybody
about history. The true historical name for the kernel, given
by Linus, is "Freax". I'm not kidding. An FTP site maintainer
(named Ari Lemmke?) came up with the "Linux" name.

So Freax is our kernel, and Linux is the OS. The kernel has to
report "Linux" as the name of course, since the kernel is the
part of the OS which supplies /proc/version. Using one name
for everything reduces confusion. Regular people have enough
trouble telling the OS apart from the hardware it runs on.
(The "Start" button is part of a PC you know!)

Anyway, "GNU/Linux" inhibits the spread of free software.
Regular people care about how attractive the name sounds.
This alone should be reason enough to drop the crusade.
Ask somebody in marketing, sales, or psychology if you need
help understanding this concept. In addition, the effort
you spend on "GNU/Linux" is noise that dilutes your message
about the value of free software. People have limited
attention; it does no good to get side-tracked on some
personal conflict over a perfectly usable and accepted name.
The listener allows you a limited amount of conflict;
exceed some per-person threshold and you get dismissed
as a nut.

Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"

[Larry McVoy]

> 				That's not nice at all. Just where
>     did you get your network stack from? How about the bulk of the
>     hardware drivers?
> 
> The TCP/IP implementation in the Hurd comes from Linux, but the Hurd
> as a whole is very different from Linux.  (There are no drivers in the
> Hurd.)

Gimme a break.  You have drivers someplace and you got them from Linux
and you got the networking stack from Linux, so either call it Linux/Hurd
or back off on your constant GNU/Linux crap.

It is the ultimate in hypocrisy to ask others for something you aren't 
willing to do yourself.  I, for one, will remind you of this every time
you bring up GNU/Linux in this list.  It won't go away, I'll make sure
of that.  It's just pathetic what you are doing and I'll happily shine
a spotlight on it until you change your tune or go away.
-- 
---
Larry McVoy            	 lm at bitmover.com           http://www.bitmover.com/lm 

Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"

[Richard Stallman]

    It is the ultimate in hypocrisy to ask others for something you aren't 
    willing to do yourself.  I, for one, will remind you of this every time
    you bring up GNU/Linux in this list.

These two cases are similar, but not in the way you think.  In both
cases a large structure that is basically GNU or of GNU has a
component that is Linux or of Linux.

So why do we treat them differently?  In general, there's no ethical
obligation to cite each and every component of a larger structure in
the structure's name.  But in the case of "GNU/Linux" there are some
specific reasons why it is useful and proper to mention "Linux" in the
name.  See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#justgnu.

Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"

[Dimitrie O. Paun]

On January 7, 2003 08:40 am, Richard Stallman wrote:
> These two cases are similar, but not in the way you think.  In both
> cases a large structure that is basically GNU or of GNU has a
> component that is Linux or of Linux.

Richard,

You are a smart guy. I think you'd agree with me that this particular
battle (GNU/Linux) is lost. Assuming you are right, is it worth continuing
to fight? I know you have a very strong sentimental attachment to GNU,
and that's more than understandable. But in the great scheme of things,
it's a minor issue. As much as you like them to, people don't attach 
semantics to names. Period. They just want a catchy label, and that's all. 
Damn, they don't even know what a kernel is, let alone subtleties 
concerning the naming.

Bottom line is, the are only so many hours in a day. You have so many 
battles to fight, that would serve the community. Why continue this one,
when it's clear that all it's going is harming your reputation and
credibility. It's harming the community. Yeah, you could argue that
*if* things were different... but they are not! Given the present day
situation, it must be clear even to you that things can't possibly go
back, and all your doing is creating bad blood. Think about it.

-- 
Dimi.

Re: Nvidia and its choice to read the GPL "differently"

[Miles Bader]

"Dimitrie O. Paun" <dpaun@rogers.com> writes:
> I know you have a very strong sentimental attachment to GNU,
> and that's more than understandable. But in the great scheme of things,
> it's a minor issue. As much as you like them to, people don't attach 
> semantics to names. Period. They just want a catchy label, and that's all. 

I think you're quite wrong -- names are very important, much more so
than it may seem at first.

If someone's mom (having heard the gossip) asks their computer-literate
child, `What is this XXX thing, anyway?', the answer is likely to be
very different when XXX is "GNU" as opposed to when XXX is "Linux".

The reason is that GNU _starts_ with freedom as an idea, and builds
software on top of that; it's very hard to explain GNU without explaining
freedom too.  Most people that associate themself with the `Linux'
movement, OTOH, seem to start with `look at all the cool stuff it does;'
the freedom part, even for those that care about it, seems to remain on
the periphery (I hope I don't piss anyone off with this characterization,
this is just what I've observed!).

Which approach is the right one obviously depends on your priorities, but
it's pretty clear to me that these respective groups of people _do_
associate themselves with the names.  I think that's one reason Richard's
attempts to get people to use GNU/linux have met with such strong
resistance (yeah, I know it's not the _only_ reason).

Perhaps, if everyone starting using `GNU/linux,' it would actually
_dilute_ the meaning of GNU, since many people that had no idea about what
GNU means would suddenly start using it just because someone told them the
name had changed from Linux.  None-the-less, I think it would have some
of the opposite effect too, making people that previously never thought
about it wonder `what's this GNU?'

On a slight tangent:  I bought an electronic english/japanese dictionary
about 8 years ago, and it happened to have a definition of GNU in it,
complete with a short (and I think accurate) description of free software!
Recently I bought a new dictionary; it doesn't define GNU, but it does
contain a definition of `Linux' -- and the summary is `a competitor to
windows'!  It then goes into further detail saying it's `freeware'
(free-beer free), and worked on cooperatively by its users, but no
mention of `freedom' as such; it's clear the dicionary makers were just a
bit confused, but I wonder if they'd have gotten it right if the name
contained `GNU', with its strong associations with freedom...

-Miles
-- 
The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources.
  --Albert Einstein

"Mother" == "computer-illiterate"

[Val Henson]

On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 11:29:47AM +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
> 
> If someone's mom (having heard the gossip) asks their computer-literate
> child, `What is this XXX thing, anyway?', the answer is likely to be
> very different when XXX is "GNU" as opposed to when XXX is "Linux".

How come no one ever talks about a Linux distribution so easy that
your grandfather could install it?  Or a kernel configuration tool so
simple that even Uncle Timmy can use it?

Can we quit with the "clueless mother" examples already?  My own
mother has installed more distributions of Linux than I've even logged
into.  I know quite a few mothers who have PhDs in CS, own several
CS-related patents, and/or made important fundamental discoveries in
CS.  Hint: Find out who invented the spanning tree algorithm for
ethernet bridges, $10 ThinkGeek gift certificate to the first person
who emails me the correct answer.

-VAL

Re: "Mother" == "computer-illiterate"

[J Sloan]

Val Henson wrote:

>  
>
>Can we quit with the "clueless mother" examples already?  My own
>mother has installed more distributions of Linux than I've even logged
>into.  I know quite a few mothers who have PhDs in CS, own several
>CS-related patents, and/or made important fundamental discoveries in
>CS.  Hint: Find out who invented the spanning tree algorithm for
>ethernet bridges, $10 ThinkGeek gift certificate to the first person
>who emails me the correct answer.
>
Radia Perlman

Joe

Re: "Mother" == "computer-illiterate"

[Miles Bader]

On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 12:20:43AM -0700, Val Henson wrote:
> My own mother has installed more distributions of Linux than I've even
> logged into.

Then I suppose you would probably use a different example.  Great.

-miles
-- 
[|nurgle|]  ddt- demonic? so quake will have an evil kinda setting? one that 
            will  make every christian in the world foamm at the mouth? 
[iddt]      nurg, that's the goal 

Re: "Mother" == "computer-illiterate"

[Kent Borg]

On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 12:20:43AM -0700, Val Henson wrote:
> How come no one ever talks about a Linux distribution so easy that
> your grandfather could install it?  Or a kernel configuration tool so
> simple that even Uncle Timmy can use it?

I am new to this thread, but I do use the "my mom" example because my
mother *is* the computer pioneer I know in that generation, but one
who still finds them difficult.  She has been using computers since
she got a new Macintosh Plus and a 30 MB hard disk, and she has been
using e-mail since before it was clear to everybody that @-signs would
be a universal part of e-mail addresses.  However, she is also still
not a computer wiz and I think never will be--there seems to be a
generational thing here, like learning a foreign language in
adulthood, that keeps computers hard.  When my mother was a little
girl electricity was still new, and was useful for lighting.

My most recent e-mail from her was saying the some Apple support
person concluded her current problem is likely the Imac's hard drive
and to bring it into the store where she got it.  (Her other Imac
works better, but it is only OS X and doesn't work with her scanner.)
She keeps at it!

My father only recently got interested in computers, uses the new Imac
for video editing, but refers all support questions to my mother.  He
doesn't pretend to be self-sufficient on the topic.

> Can we quit with the "clueless mother" examples already?  

My mother is far from clueless, but she is stubbornly resistant to
becoming a power user who can reliably solve her own problems.  (The
fact that computers are still so damn buggy doesn't help either.)

I am encouraging them to get a DSL connection with a static IP, at
which point I will add a Linux computer to their collection--and I
will administer it remotely from 1000 miles away.

> My own mother has installed more distributions of Linux than I've
> even logged into.

I don't doubt that, but until computers get a lot easier to use and
administer the graphic image of the Clueless Mother is useful to shock
most geeks back to the reality that there *are* naive users.  Many of
us have mothers, and computer expert mothers are still rare.

> I know quite a few mothers who have PhDs in CS, own several
> CS-related patents, and/or made important fundamental discoveries in
> CS.

(You hang out in rarified circles, the number of women in CSci id
dropping.)

So don't imagine a general purpose "have given birth human"!  Imagine
a woman born in a modern western country, but 20 years before the
invention of the transistor.  These capable women mastered impressive
things, but computers are so obtuse!  And they are not the only ones
having trouble.  I am still having trouble getting my software Raid 1
to boot off of either drive if one goes south--without opening the box
and pulling cables.  And it seems like such a reasonable desire...


-kb, the Kent who insists that computers are more difficult than they
need be.


P.S.  Some of us are old enough to remember when mice and graphical
interfaces were considered toys for beginners and not suitable to real
users.  But at least then there was controversy!  Now, overlapping
windows are the undoubted standard and no one even complains.  These
traditions are too complicated, limited, and narrow, but it is hard to
think beyond them.  But imagining a naive user (maybe even knowing one
or two) is a useful way to ask basic questions.  If this naive user
isn't Your Mother, OK, but please don't forget that what is good for a
naive user (e.g., the mouse) is good for others too.

Re: "Mother" == "computer-illiterate"

[Val Henson]

On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 12:20:43AM -0700, Val Henson wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 11:29:47AM +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
> > 
> > If someone's mom (having heard the gossip) asks their computer-literate
> > child, `What is this XXX thing, anyway?', the answer is likely to be
> > very different when XXX is "GNU" as opposed to when XXX is "Linux".
> 
> How come no one ever talks about a Linux distribution so easy that
> your grandfather could install it?  Or a kernel configuration tool so
> simple that even Uncle Timmy can use it?
> 
> Can we quit with the "clueless mother" examples already?  My own
> mother has installed more distributions of Linux than I've even logged
> into.  I know quite a few mothers who have PhDs in CS, own several
> CS-related patents, and/or made important fundamental discoveries in
> CS.  Hint: Find out who invented the spanning tree algorithm for
> ethernet bridges, $10 ThinkGeek gift certificate to the first person
> who emails me the correct answer.

And the winner is David Hoose, who sent the answer to me 10 minutes
after the message to linux-kernel arrived in my mail queue.  The
answer is:

Radia Perlman

She is the inventor of the spanning tree algorithm, the author of
"Interconnections: Bridges, Routers, Switches, and Internetworking
Protocols" from Addison-Wesley, and the mother of at least two
children.  Honorable mention to: Joe Perches, Joe Sloan, Chris Ricker,
Larry McVoy, and "Disconnect," real name withheld.

-VAL

P.S. For extra credit (but no ThinkGeek certificate) you can look up
the following women in computer science, some of whom are mothers:
Mary Baker, Margo Seltzer, Monica Lam, Ellen Spertus, Carla Ellis, and
Barbara Simons.

Re: "Mother" == "computer-illiterate"

[jlnance]

On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 12:40:19PM -0700, Val Henson wrote:

> P.S. For extra credit (but no ThinkGeek certificate) you can look up
> the following women in computer science, some of whom are mothers:
> Mary Baker, Margo Seltzer, Monica Lam, Ellen Spertus, Carla Ellis, and
> Barbara Simons.

Am I the first person to tell you you left off Ada Lovelace?  She was
way ahead of her time.

Thanks,

Jim

Re: "Mother" == "computer-illiterate"

[Valdis.Kletnieks]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 539 bytes --]

On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 15:21:44 EST, jlnance@unity.ncsu.edu  said:
> On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 12:40:19PM -0700, Val Henson wrote:
> 
> > P.S. For extra credit (but no ThinkGeek certificate) you can look up
> > the following women in computer science, some of whom are mothers:
> > Mary Baker, Margo Seltzer, Monica Lam, Ellen Spertus, Carla Ellis, and
> > Barbara Simons.
> 
> Am I the first person to tell you you left off Ada Lovelace?  She was
> way ahead of her time.

I think Ada Lovelace and Grace Hopper were left off as "too easy"....

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 226 bytes --]

Re: "Mother" == "computer-illiterate"

[Andrew McGregor]

--On Thursday, January 09, 2003 15:30:54 -0500 Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu 
wrote:

> On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 15:21:44 EST, jlnance@unity.ncsu.edu  said:
>> On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 12:40:19PM -0700, Val Henson wrote:
>>
>> > P.S. For extra credit (but no ThinkGeek certificate) you can look up
>> > the following women in computer science, some of whom are mothers:
>> > Mary Baker, Margo Seltzer, Monica Lam, Ellen Spertus, Carla Ellis, and
>> > Barbara Simons.
>>
>> Am I the first person to tell you you left off Ada Lovelace?  She was
>> way ahead of her time.
>
> I think Ada Lovelace and Grace Hopper were left off as "too easy"....

Sally Floyd and Allison Mankin?

Re: "Mother" == "computer-illiterate"

[Randy.Dunlap]

On Thu, 9 Jan 2003 jlnance@unity.ncsu.edu wrote:

| On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 12:40:19PM -0700, Val Henson wrote:
|
| > P.S. For extra credit (but no ThinkGeek certificate) you can look up
| > the following women in computer science, some of whom are mothers:
| > Mary Baker, Margo Seltzer, Monica Lam, Ellen Spertus, Carla Ellis, and
| > Barbara Simons.
|
| Am I the first person to tell you you left off Ada Lovelace?  She was
| way ahead of her time.

and Grace Hopper (ugh, COBOL)

-- 
~Randy

Re: "Mother" == "computer-illiterate"

[Valdis.Kletnieks]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 206 bytes --]

On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 12:46:30 PST, "Randy.Dunlap" said:
> (ugh, COBOL)

Go back and research the alternatives available at the time.

Then ask yourself which you'd prefer to do maintenance programming on.



[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 226 bytes --]

Re: "Mother" == "computer-illiterate"

[Randy.Dunlap]

On Thu, 9 Jan 2003 Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:

| On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 12:46:30 PST, "Randy.Dunlap" said:
| > (ugh, COBOL)
|
| Go back and research the alternatives available at the time.

True.

| Then ask yourself which you'd prefer to do maintenance programming on.

I've done several years of COBOL (/me hides).
I'm familiar with its strengths in the right environment.

-- 
~Randy

Re: "Mother" == "computer-illiterate"

[Kristian Koehntopp]

Am Do 9.Januar 2003 21:46 schrieb Randy.Dunlap:
> On Thu, 9 Jan 2003 jlnance@unity.ncsu.edu wrote:
> | On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 12:40:19PM -0700, Val Henson wrote:
> | > P.S. For extra credit (but no ThinkGeek certificate) you can look up
> | > the following women in computer science, some of whom are mothers:
> | > Mary Baker, Margo Seltzer, Monica Lam, Ellen Spertus, Carla Ellis, and
> | > Barbara Simons.
> |
> | Am I the first person to tell you you left off Ada Lovelace?  She was
> | way ahead of her time.
>
> and Grace Hopper (ugh, COBOL)

and Adele Goldberg (Smalltalk-80).

Kristian

-- 
http://www.amazon.de/exec/obidos/wishlist/18E5SVQ5HJZXG

Re: "Mother" == "computer-illiterate"

[Alan Cox]

On Thu, 2003-01-09 at 19:40, Val Henson wrote:
> P.S. For extra credit (but no ThinkGeek certificate) you can look up
> the following women in computer science, some of whom are mothers:
> Mary Baker, Margo Seltzer, Monica Lam, Ellen Spertus, Carla Ellis, and
> Barbara Simons.

and of course Sally Floyd, and even Hedy Lamarr (bonus points for those
who know what her networking related patent is on)

Re: "Mother" == "computer-illiterate"

[John Adams]

On Thursday 09 January 2003 06:11 pm, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> and of course Sally Floyd, and even Hedy Lamarr (bonus points for those
> who know what her networking related patent is on)

Google makes this too easy. 
 http://www.german-way.com/cinema/lamarr.html
i

Re: "Mother" == "computer-illiterate"

[Chris Adams]

Once upon a time, Alan Cox  <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> said:
>and of course Sally Floyd, and even Hedy Lamarr (bonus points for those
>who know what her networking related patent is on)

That's HEDLEY!  Oh, but he doesn't have any patents.
-- 
Chris Adams <cmadams@hiwaay.net>
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.

Re: "Mother" == "computer-illiterate"

[jdow]

From: "Chris Adams" <cmadams@hiwaay.net>

> Once upon a time, Alan Cox  <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> said:
> >and of course Sally Floyd, and even Hedy Lamarr (bonus points for those
> >who know what her networking related patent is on)
> 
> That's HEDLEY!  Oh, but he doesn't have any patents.

No, it's Hedy Lamarr and she invented frequency hopping spread spectrum
with George Anthiel. I worked on one of the first practical implementations
of the concept back in the early 70s. Somehow it seems appropriate.

{^_^}  Joanne, jdow@earthlink.net

Re: "Mother" == "computer-illiterate"

[Val Henson]

On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 06:15:39PM -0800, jdow wrote:
> From: "Chris Adams" <cmadams@hiwaay.net>
> 
> > Once upon a time, Alan Cox  <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> said:
> > >and of course Sally Floyd, and even Hedy Lamarr (bonus points for those
> > >who know what her networking related patent is on)
> > 
> > That's HEDLEY!  Oh, but he doesn't have any patents.
> 
> No, it's Hedy Lamarr and she invented frequency hopping spread spectrum
> with George Anthiel. I worked on one of the first practical implementations
> of the concept back in the early 70s. Somehow it seems appropriate.

Chris was making a joke which you won't get unless you watch "Blazing
Saddles" (something I've never gotten around to myself).  Hedley
Lamarr was a character in the movie who, indeed, doesn't have any
patents.

Neat to hear you got to work on such an interesting project!

-VAL

Re: "Mother" == "computer-illiterate"

[Tom Diehl]

On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, jdow wrote:

> From: "Chris Adams" <cmadams@hiwaay.net>
> 
> > Once upon a time, Alan Cox  <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> said:
> > >and of course Sally Floyd, and even Hedy Lamarr (bonus points for those
> > >who know what her networking related patent is on)
> > 
> > That's HEDLEY!  Oh, but he doesn't have any patents.
> 
> No, it's Hedy Lamarr and she invented frequency hopping spread spectrum
> with George Anthiel. I worked on one of the first practical implementations
> of the concept back in the early 70s. Somehow it seems appropriate.

Hehe!! He got you Joanne!! Ever watch Blazing Saddles?? 

I am jealous though. In reading various messages written by you, you have 
clearly had way too much fun in life!! :-)

Enjoy,

-- 
.............Tom	"Nothing would please me more than being able to 
tdiehl@rogueind.com	hire ten programmers and deluge the hobby market 
			with good software." -- Bill Gates 1976

   			We are still waiting ....

Re: "Mother" == "computer-illiterate"

[Henning P. Schmiedehausen]

Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> writes:

>On Thu, 2003-01-09 at 19:40, Val Henson wrote:
>> P.S. For extra credit (but no ThinkGeek certificate) you can look up
>> the following women in computer science, some of whom are mothers:
>> Mary Baker, Margo Seltzer, Monica Lam, Ellen Spertus, Carla Ellis, and
>> Barbara Simons.

>and of course Sally Floyd, and even Hedy Lamarr (bonus points for those
>who know what her networking related patent is on)

Come on, she actually has a homepage: http://www.hedylamarr.at/

-> frequency hopping

        Regards
                Henning


-- 
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen       -- Geschaeftsfuehrer
INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH     hps@intermeta.de

Am Schwabachgrund 22  Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0   info@intermeta.de
D-91054 Buckenhof     Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20   

Re: "Mother" == "computer-illiterate"

[Tim Timmerman]

>>>>> "Val" == Val Henson <val@nmt.edu> writes:

Val> On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 11:29:47AM +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
>> 
>> If someone's mom (having heard the gossip) asks their computer-literate
>> child, `What is this XXX thing, anyway?', the answer is likely to be
>> very different when XXX is "GNU" as opposed to when XXX is "Linux".

Val> How come no one ever talks about a Linux distribution so easy that
Val> your grandfather could install it?  Or a kernel configuration tool so
Val> simple that even Uncle Timmy can use it?
     'make xconfig' works just fine for me.

     (Uncle) Timmy


-- 
tim.timmerman@asml.nl                              040-2683613
timt@timt.org   Voodoo Programmer/Keeper of the Rubber Chicken
I've never seen electricity, so I don't pay for it. I write right on
the bill, 'I'm sorry, I haven't seen it all month.'