Linux-Advocacy Digest #449, Volume #25 Tue, 29 Feb 00 22:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Giving up on NT (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Giving up on NT (JEDIDIAH)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: which OS is best? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Linux sales. (JEDIDIAH)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience (JEDIDIAH)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Why waste time on Linux? (proculous)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: which OS is best? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Why waste time on Linux? (Zio Coglioni)
Re: prepare Income Tax under Linux? (Zio Coglioni)
Re: Verwirrung (Zio Coglioni)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience ("Drestin Black")
Re: My Windows 2000 experience (Rob Hughes)
Re: Bundling inherently unfair to consumers - R people in here stupid?? (Jim
Richardson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 01:23:59 GMT
On Tue, 29 Feb 2000 12:26:17 +0800, Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> HDTV+Playstation3 will be the thing to beat for PC's and Macs. That
>> combo will be sooooo fast and gorgeous.
>
>By the time the PS3 + HDTV + network connects + everything else that makes a
>PC a PC, you are going to be spending more money on that system than a PC!
Perhaps, however the PSX screen will still be several times
larger. You can get a 60" projection TV for what some of the
better ~ 20" CRT tubes will cost you.
>
>And, you can still do other things with a PC as well...
[deletia]
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 01:25:51 GMT
On 27 Feb 2000 07:20:10 GMT, Marada C. Shradrakaii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Whats more I've never seen anyone
>>> run Quake style games in lower then 640x480
>
>I ran it at 320x200 so it would play tolerably on a P100.
This guy probably consumes all of his other video media
in 640x480 NTSC yet for games it just isn't 'good enough'
for him...
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 01:27:27 GMT
On 26 Feb 2000 08:05:25 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sat, 26 Feb 2000 14:31:55 +0800, witra wrote:
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) wrote:
>>>snip...
>>>The existence of *free* software is a public good. But I don't see why
>>>developers should be forced to give up the fruits of their labor. Noone
>>>else is expected to freely give away their productive labor on the grounds
>>>that it's a "public good".
>>>snip...
>>
>>Perhaps "share" might be a better word than "give away"?
>
>Perhaps. Still , the notion that anyone is obliged to share anything has
>no place under the assumptions of capitalism. Only if you're prepared to
>forgo those assumptions and capitalism itself are you in a position to
>suggest that sharing should be mandatory.
Then perhaps that should change.
Pure ideologies are foolish.
Pure capitalism brought us the great depression and 'pure-er'
capitalism makes it difficult for Americans to compete with the
Japanese.
The maxim "compete always" may be due for some revision.
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 01:31:19 GMT
On 28 Feb 2000 17:18:23 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 08:32:37 -0800, Jeffrey B. Siegal wrote:
>
>>What is silly about it is that open source software has been continuously
>>developed, is being developed now, and will continue to be developed in the
>>future. The suggest that open source software will always be limited to LaTeX
>>and Emacs (which isn't even true today), is absurd.
>
>My point is that if we limited ourselves to OpenSource today, this would
>be where it's at.
...which means I could quite nicely manipulate RTF files
with a shiny happy GUI. This would be true if we 'froze'
open source development at the state it was 18 months ago.
>
>>Extrapolate GNOME and GNOME Office out a few years
>
>... and it will still be a mile behind the commercial offerings. Hell,
The commercial offerings really aren't moving that fast.
That's why the market is seeking to replace those commercial
offerings. The market is tired of continually paying for the
same product over and over again. It's time for the spreadsheet
as it is currently known to go the way of public domain.
[deletia]
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 01:33:27 GMT
On 29 Feb 2000 18:29:53 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 29 Feb 2000 17:57:03 GMT, Jeremy Nelson wrote:
>>>>Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>
>>Just to summarize the confusion that you and I have over this point,
>>I will point out that until relatively recently, there was no such
>>thing as the concept of copyright protection on -- for example -- music.
>>Did not Mozart, Bach, Beethoven all survive and do reasonably well
>>in their field of endevours despite their music being in the public domain?
>
>Yes. At that stage, there did not exist the tools necessary to perform
>the kind of piracy we see today. Hell, there didn't even exist media
Bullshit. Anyone with a copy of the score could have spread
it across all of Europe. That's why we are even aware of the
likes of Mozart now.
[deletia]
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 01:40:54 GMT
On 26 Feb 2000 04:04:10 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 26 Feb 2000 03:49:31 GMT, Steve Mading wrote:
>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>: On Sat, 19 Feb 2000 19:35:59 GMT, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>
>>:> NO they aren't. They are exploiting artificial scarcity
>>:> that can only exist in the presence of government
>>:> interference.
>>
>>: There is no scarcity, artificial or otherwise. There is merely the
>>: right of the inventor to receive due compensation for their work.
>>
>>Unisys didn't invent GIF. It was a Compuserve thing. Unisys has
>>the current rights to it due to the wonderful world of coporate
>>takeovers. The "inventor" is not getting the compensation.
>
>Compuserve hold a *patent*, not a *copyright* on the GIF algorithm. Jedi
>and I were debating copyrights.
They are equivalent when it comes to legal theory.
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Linux sales.
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 01:39:45 GMT
On Tue, 29 Feb 2000 20:18:45 GMT, Will Ganz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>I'm not sure if Microsoft legimately won over that market
>>by making superior products in Windows, leveraged their
>>DOS into a graphics OS/environment (Windows 3.1, which was hugely
>>popular at the time), or did some shady tricks to prevent
>>their hugely popular Windows 3.1 from running on competitor's DOSes.
>
>right, wrong, or indifferent; the reality remains that Microsoft won
>the market, history is written by the winners and not by the whiners,
However, their position is not assured. They have a nasty habit
of doing their best to make enemies and ensure that everyone
else in the industry will do their best to oust them.
We have gratis OSes proliferating, even commercial ones and Sun
is even trying to 'cut off MS's air supply' with Star Office.
>
>the point today is that whether a 63000bug/$500 product will win
>against Linux/*BSD. Linux advocates/programmers need to keep the
>ratio below the 130bug per buck level, then advertise the hell out of
>it
>
>When the question is asked, "Where do you want to go today?", the
>answer should be "not to a GPF!"
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 01:47:01 GMT
On Tue, 29 Feb 2000 19:21:20 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Rob Hughes wrote:
>>
>> > Again, genuis, pcAnywhere wasn't written by MS. How, on god's green
>earth,
>> > can whatever excuse you use for a mind come to the conclusion that this
>is a
>> > problem in windows? This is exacly akin to me calling a crappily written
>and
>> > crashing xserver a bug in *NIX
>>
>> The point is that no application should ever be able to take down the
>entire OS.
>
>PC Anywhere isn't just an application. It's an application and a kernel
>mode device driver. A faulty device driver will crash any OS in existance.
Just why does PC Anywhere need kernel level access? It doesn't
really need direct access to any hardware. It's not as if it
manages a real framebuffer. It's essentially just another
iteration of libX11 and friends. (rather than an X server)
[deletia]
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 1 Mar 2000 02:15:01 GMT
On Wed, 01 Mar 2000 01:31:19 GMT, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>On 28 Feb 2000 17:18:23 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>My point is that if we limited ourselves to OpenSource today, this would
>>be where it's at.
>
> ...which means I could quite nicely manipulate RTF files
> with a shiny happy GUI.
Which is good for people who are prepared to settle for the features
offered by RTF.
> This would be true if we 'froze'
> open source development at the state it was 18 months ago.
Yeah, sure. 18 months ago, OpenSource Word Processors were at the same
level of the proprietary word processors of the mid 80s.
>>>Extrapolate GNOME and GNOME Office out a few years
>>
>>... and it will still be a mile behind the commercial offerings. Hell,
>
> The commercial offerings really aren't moving that fast.
> That's why the market is seeking to replace those commercial
> offerings. The market is tired of continually paying for the
> same product over and over again. It's time for the spreadsheet
> as it is currently known to go the way of public domain.
Hey, we agree on something. Office applications are so widely used that
they are likely to succeed as an OpenSource product, eventually. If you're
just looking for a spreadsheet, there's already a whole bunch of them.
The Office suite is a somewhat more complex problem to solve than a
spreadsheet, though we're seeing progress from the KDE camp.
In the mean time, those who don't want to wait for an OpenSource
product have many proprietary options to choose from.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: proculous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Why waste time on Linux?
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 02:06:05 GMT
When there are so many great windows and mcintosh programs out their
what is the point of wasting time on a build it as you go along system?
i've used linux and as far as i am concerned it is a complete waste of
time to configure and set up all in the hopes that there might be some
application that you can really use. Hardware support is in many cases
at a very basic level. I can walk into just about any store and buy an
application that will do anything. mention linux and people start to
look at you funny.
you linux supporters have no idea how much you are missing in the way
of great applications. Too busy compiling your cernels i suppose.
windows rulez!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
linux blowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwssssssssssssssssssssssss!!!
Too many rightwangers and left_wang_nut homo's in this bunch anyway.
looks like a good ol' fashioned linux barbeecuuuu...
the weird and down-trodden are always welcome....
please shower before coming.....
--
I love my kernel. I really do. I hate my girlfriend.I love only Linux.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 1 Mar 2000 02:25:26 GMT
On Wed, 01 Mar 2000 01:33:27 GMT, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>On 29 Feb 2000 18:29:53 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bullshit. Anyone with a copy of the score could have spread
> it across all of Europe. That's why we are even aware of the
> likes of Mozart now.
Anyone today can still photocopy a score and distribute it. But what are
you going to do with that score ? You still need to hire an orchestra to
get it performed. Each time you wanted to listen to it, you'd need to
hire an orchestra again. Since the cost of the composer was a relatively
small part of the total cost ( unlike today where the distribution costs
are negligeable ), funding the composer was not difficult.
And again, I'll point out that a discussion about music of the 17th century is
hardly relevant to a discussion about the 20th century software industry.
Arguments by analogy are useful for explaining ones opinion but they do not
prove anything.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 1 Mar 2000 02:30:28 GMT
On Wed, 01 Mar 2000 01:27:27 GMT, JEDIDIAH wrote:
> The maxim "compete always" may be due for some revision.
My suggestion is this -- let everyone license the software as they choose,
and let the best software win. If OpenSource is really "the right way", the
market will choose it. I don't believe that it is right to ram OpenSource
software down everyone's throat.
On the other hand, I think there's a case to be made though for
government sponsorship of free software projects, on the grounds that
these projects develop infrastructure that benefits everyone.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: 1 Mar 2000 02:37:19 GMT
On Wed, 01 Mar 2000 01:40:54 GMT, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>On 26 Feb 2000 04:04:10 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Compuserve hold a *patent*, not a *copyright* on the GIF algorithm. Jedi
>>and I were debating copyrights.
>
> They are equivalent when it comes to legal theory.
The important difference which you are ignoring is that copyright does not
infringe on your freedoms. You can choose to simply not use or otherwise
have anything to do with the copyrighted work, and the copyright holder
can not and will not bug you.
Not so with patents. Patents are an obstruction to developers. It is possible
for a hypothetical person on a desert island to violate patent law, but
almost impossible for them to violate a copyright.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why waste time on Linux?
From: Zio Coglioni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 18:50:03 -0800
In article <89htuc$oel$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
proculous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When there are so many great windows and mcintosh programs out
their
> what is the point of wasting time on a build it as you go along
system?
Adversity builds character.
> i've used linux and as far as i am concerned it is a complete
waste of
> time to configure and set up all in the hopes that there might
be some
> application that you can really use.
Depends on your requirements, expectations, and skill level.
> Hardware support is in many cases
> at a very basic level.
About on a par with WinNT, light years ahead of W2K. A crashed
OS with good hardware support is still a crashed OS.
> I can walk into just about any store and buy an
> application that will do anything.
Ship me a copy of makemeabillionaire.exe, will ya?
> mention linux and people start to
> look at you funny.
Maybe it's your cute butt...
> you linux supporters have no idea how much you are missing in
the way
> of great applications.
Strange, I don't seem to be missing anything... except for the
recurring expense of putting it all together using MS products.
> Too busy compiling your cernels i suppose.
Cernels? CERNELS? WTF is a CERNEL? Using MS spellchecker
again, aren't you?
> windows rulez!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Linux also supports autorepeat, moronnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn.
> linux
blowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwssssssssssssssssssssssss!!!
.. away the competition.
> Too many rightwangers and left_wang_nut homo's in this bunch
anyway.
Your deviant political and sexual inclinations would best be
served by other newsgroups.
> looks like a good ol' fashioned linux barbeecuuuu...
Try one of the alt.food groups....
> the weird and down-trodden are always welcome....
You're not, and you qualify on both counts.
> please shower before coming.....
Please leave before showering.
Geez, why are we getting all the trailer trash here all of a
sudden?
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
Subject: Re: prepare Income Tax under Linux?
From: Zio Coglioni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 18:52:19 -0800
Y'know, I'd be happy if we could just do ours with Windows. Our
1099-G kept showing up on the wrong line at first, now we can't
get it to appear at all. Wife's given up after printing the
fscking return eight times, it's just easier to fill it out by
hand now. And she found out we can't e-file until she gets some
sort of a bank routing number (for a refund? why do we need some
fscking number from our bank for a REFUND?). And can't e-file the
state 'cause they haven't posted the current e-forms yet.
Screwed out of thirty dollars... what a joke.
This is the first year we've ever tried one of these packages,
and it's the longest it's ever taken us to fill out the forms.
Labor-saving device my ass. Never again.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Verwirrung
From: Zio Coglioni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 19:03:01 -0800
Kennsch de wayne?
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 21:50:29 -0500
"5X3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:89hk8p$8su$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> But the bug is also in Windows 2000 because it allowed a
> >> buggy application to crash the OS. If pcAnywhere modifies
> >> system files, installs device drivers etc then Windows 2000
> >> should not even have allowed pcAnywhere to install. At least
> >> that's what Microsoft lead me to believe "System File
> >> Protection" does for me.
>
> > Hey, moron, it doesn't modify system files. It installs itself
> > as a driver. It's not modifying system files, and therefore
> > there's no system files to protect.
>
> Then how in the world does it crash such an advanced operating
> system?
>
Similar to how X can hang Linux requiring a hard reboot?
------------------------------
From: Rob Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 21:07:08 -0600
Sorry. The "fuckhead factor" is so high in these groups that I took your
post as implying that I didn't know what I was talking about. Perhaps
you might make it clearer next time that you aren't disputing what was
said. I'll try not posting right after finishing a project that I've
been given a whopping half day to complete.
On Tue, 29 Feb 2000 13:02:26 -0500, Hobbyist
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:"Rob Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
:
:> I'm talking about SCAM, genius. Try reading the posts before your knees jerk
:> you into a usenet group next time.
:
: See here? <g> Thanks for the kind welcome. I didn't mean to
:hurt your feelings of technical superiority there. I will not for one
:moment claim to have more knowledge than you, dear sir, in this area
:and I'm sorry if I implied the contrary as I must have. This is remote
:from my personal area of specialisation. I made the comment more to
:illicit clarification more than anything else. You see, I delve into
:this sort of thing as a hobby, hence my handle.
:
: Tell me something? Is behaving like an asshole a
:prerequisite to regularly posting on usenet? You are the last person I
:expected this sort of response from. I expected it more from the likes
:of 'petilon'.
:
: Anyway, no harm done.
:
:> "Hobbyist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
:> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
:> > Rob Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
:> >
:> > > The ID is determined by the device's position on the SCSI chain.
:> >
:> > Really? The ID my SCSI devices get are the ID's I assign them through
:> > switches on each device. It has nothing to do with their position on
:> > the chain.
:> >
:> >
:> > --
:> > -=Ali M.=-
:> >
:>
:>
:>
:>
:> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
:> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
:> -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Bundling inherently unfair to consumers - R people in here stupid??
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 18:23:16 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 29 Feb 2000 17:22:26 -0600,
Chad Myers, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>
>
>"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Tue, 29 Feb 2000 15:27:42 -0600, Chad Myers wrote:
>>
>> >They (Linux/OSS) need to get more feedback from the average joe.
>>
>> This is already done somewhat informally through mailing lists. KDE and
>> GNOME have mailing lists where end users can talk about their concerns.
>
>You're not getting it. The people that need the most help are not
>going to be on mailing lists or newsgroups or anywhere but in person
>or over the phone. These people are intimidated by computers and
>only use them for their job requirements.
>
>A data entry cleark comes in, fires up Windows, logs on, word autoruns,
>she starts typing. She saves, she prints, she shuts down, she goes home.
>
>She doesn't use mailing lists. How is this person being served by
>the linux/oss community?
A data entry clerk comes in, logs in (via a point-n-click kdm
interface, enters password.) Wordperfect or other app is
auto-started, she starts typing, she saves, prints, logs out,
second shift comes in, logs in, Applix auto runs, they type.
save, print...
>> The idea of involving users this much is relatively new. The FSF had a
>> somewhat more aloof approach. To sum it up, it is changing, and this
>> seems to reflect in the improvements that KDE and GNOME have made over
>> traditional UNIX desktops and applications.
>
>Relatively new to the OSS approach. Companies like IBM, Microsoft,
>and other companies interested in serving customers have focus groups,
>hands-on testing labs and other face-to-face type elements.
Which resulted in Win 3.1/95/98, not impressed...
<snip>
>> The KDE and GNOME projects are not just written to serve developers.
>
>They're a giant leap in usability over other Linux-type applications,
>but, if they're not written for the developers, then who are they
>written for? They're not written for the average end user.
>
>KDE and GNOME seem more geared toward the mildly computer literate
>wanting to make a leap from Windows to Linux, but is too scared of
>the command line.
>
>It serves this demographic quite well, actually.
>
>However, the computer illiterate is not served well at all by these interface.
>
Why? what is different to the consumer re: KDE and Gnome?
>> >It's a catch 22, really. Most people don't use Linux because it
>> >doesn't have enough (or the right) features for them, so they
>> >don't give any feedback.
>>
>> There's a problem with this reasoning. It's not so black and white. There
>> are people using Linux, despite the fact that it doesn't have every feature
>> they need. So they get onto these user mailing lists and start griping.
>> Pretty soon, the developer works out that the users want (X) and they
>> add (X) into the application.
>
>But you're still dealing with a limited demographic. These people that
>are on mailing lists are still pretty computer literate, and therefore
>aren't demanding the same things that an average joe user would require.
Some of them are, and the changes/improvements are coming. Faster
and faster. Many new users also have an experience linux user to
help them. (I am helping several people start with linux, one who
is converting her home office to linux because W98 was too buggy
and WNT/2000 way too expensive.)
>Trust me, companies like Novell, Microsoft, IBM, Apple (especially),
>have dumped billions into usability, fesability, accessibility, and
>intuitiveness.
And companies like IBM, Novell,Compaq, Apple, HP, etc are working
with linux and helping to improve it. (well Apple was, don't know
what the status of the MkLinux project is now.)
>I'm not sure how Linux/OSS is going to catch up in this respect,
>as it has a long way to go to gain the knowledge and understanding
>that these companies have obtained over many years.
See above, we made an endrun...
>Perhaps a usability Guru from one of these companies will defect
>and join The Cause. That would be a boon, but save for that,
>it's a long road ahead. It's very important though, and is a key
>to acheiving market dominance in today's world.
>
>Unfortunately, the majority of "users" just demand a simple, intuitive,
>working interface and applications. They don't need the customizations
>and just want it to work. Windows serves this quite well. Linux is the
>opposite, it allows maximum customization, but it doesn't work so well
>right out of the box, and it's difficult to acheive the simplicity
>that the Windows interface brings.
<free clue>
the various distros are doing this for the user.
Corel for one is aimed squarely at the newbie.
</free clue>
>Keep in mind, I'm not bashing Linux. I realize that it's not a function
>of the OS, it's more a mindset of the developers. It's easily fixed,
>it's just going to take some concerted effort.
>
>-Chad
>
In-Process
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
