Linux-Advocacy Digest #624, Volume #25 Tue, 14 Mar 00 07:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: What might really help Linux (a developer's perspective) ("Rich Cloutier")
Re: Linux Sucks************************* (Mark S. Bilk)
Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux ([EMAIL PROTECTED],net)
Re: Linux Sucks************************* ([EMAIL PROTECTED],net)
Re: Linux Sucks************************* ([EMAIL PROTECTED],net)
Re: Giving up on NT (Jim Frost)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Rich Cloutier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What might really help Linux (a developer's perspective)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 03:37:55 -0500
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 13 Mar 2000 11:59:01 -0500, Robert Morelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >Well, let's go from there. I still need some manner of converting
> >keystrokes into text files. What UNIX application that is capable of
> >drag and drop do you suggest I use?
>
> Hell, I don't even use DnD under Windows. Maybe that's because I don't
> like to keep all my documents right on the desktop...too much clutter.
> So if I have to go drilling down, it is immaterial whether I do it inside
> a file open dialog or in explorer.
>
> Anyway, as far as Emacs not having it, I rather suspect it is because the
> Emacs userbase doesn't give a damn whether it has DnD.
>
> IOW, I think you've probably picked a feature here that even most Windows
> users don't use much. One of those things that makes another feature
> check in the reviews that hardly anybody actually uses.
>
If most Windows users don't use DnD it's because they are still using their
video displays at 800 x 600 or less and there is no room to open two windows
side by side to drag and drop anything, what with all the menus and toolbars
taking up all their screen real estate.
Also, most people really only use one app at a time, partly because they're
too afraid that Windows will crash and they'll lose TWO unsaved documents,
and partly because their computers are so underpowered that they will become
unusable if more than one program at a time is opened.
If EMACS users don't demand DnD, it may be because there are other ways to
accomplish the same thing. Ways that programmers have used and gotten used
to ever since the the old days of CLIs and "mouseless" computers.
Sometimes users just feel uncomfortable using a feature if they don't
understand what is really happening.
>
> >New UI ideas require new programming paradigms. If you want to be able
> >to embed a worksheet in a wordprocessing document, you need some kind of
> >desktop component object model, like ActiveX.
>
> Here, I think the problem is that the marketing is way out in front of the
> technical reality on the ground. While it may be fun and cool to embed
> documents this way, and it is easy to think of good uses for it, there are
> lots and lots of problems with it that simply haven't been solved. Users
> who try this tend to get bitten early and often and soon quit.
>
> The problems are severe enough, IMO, that this paradigm is pretty useless
> for serious work, particularly if you start allowing linkages between
> desktops and don't have adequate tools to manage the links, find out what
> links exist, back them up, and keep track of revisions. Yet NONE of the
> purveyors of this technology seem to think such tools are important, or
> else it is a hard problem that none of them have solved. Either way,
> relying on this technology for anything important is foolish in my view.
Take as an example Microsoft's slick marketing term "OLE" which stands for
"Object Linking and Embedding." Well, most people consider these two terms
almost the same, reinforced by marketing types smushing them together in one
catch phrase. However, when users actually try to incorporate OLE into their
documents, they wind up being utterly confused by what each term means, and
the ramifications on their data. This is further reinforced by the fact that
when you open a document in Word, for example, and there's a drawing in it,
it is not readily apparent whether this drawing is linked or embedded.
>
> Even using embedded links on the _same_ machine can become an exercise in
> frustration when you refer to that document six months later and half the
> links are broken because you have updated or removed the referenced
> documents. Ask anybody who has had to maintain a large web site how easy
> it is without automated tools. At least there _are_ tools for that.
And even these tools fall apart sometimes, when the web designer looks at
his pretty web page, but everyone else can't see any images because they're
all resident on the designer's computer. Imagine the poor businessman trying
to forward a document to his customer, not realizing that the punch of his
proposal, his slick performance graph, is still resident on his hard drive,
because he linked it instead of embedding it.
>
>
> >You know what? I agee and I don't usually use those IDEs. I actually
> >prefer using Emacs together with command line tools! The integrated
> >editors don't usually match Emacs in flexibility, etc., and on the whole
> >Emacs is preferable. But that's me and that's partly because I've been
> >using Emacs for 20 years. It's perfectly legitimate for a serious
> >developer to demand the features present in a full IDE.
>
> What makes you think you are unique? The thing you are missing is that
> serious developers as a group in fact have not demanded a "full IDE" as it
> is sold today. I think by and large they would prefer that the vendor fix
> bugs first before they add features. Once that's done they want features
> like version control, diagramming tools, clear and accurate documentation,
> and decent libraries rather than wizards to paste over the holes in bad
> libraries and "help" that looks nice but can't ever admit to any bugs or
> limitations.
Like the OLE example above, these sorts of features make people
uncomfortable unless they intuitively understand and trust what is happening
underneath. As a programmer, do you just start using version control, or do
you manually double check what the program is doing for the first two dozen
times you use it?
>
> Two things have got us on the IDE road we're on. One is the exponential
> increase in complexity of the Windows API. You pretty much have to have
> wizards and such because nobody can keep all of the API's straight in
> their head. MS is compensating for lousy API design with wizards and IDE
> features.
>
> The other thing driving IDE design is marketing. The compiler vendors
> want to expand their market by selling to new programmers. They also need
> to appeal to those who sign purchase orders, who are usually not the
> programmers. Marketing thus requires more "features" with every release
> even to the extent that bugs don't get fixed. The features that do get
> added tend to be the ones that marketing thinks will help less-skilled
> programmers use fancy features of the platform.
>
> I'm not saying IDE's are bad. I used to be a big booster of them until
> they got so monstrous that I started feeling like I was driving the Death
> Star by using a long, skinny, stick to poke at buttons I couldn't see (at
> which point I switched to command-line compilers and Emacs). My point
> being that the features IDE's currently have aren't what most of the
> experienced developers I know would have put in.
You experienced the "discomfort" I was referring to earlier.
>
> The IDE's are marketed to newbies and have newbie-friendly features
> because they are the growth market. Non-newbies continue to buy them
> because there is no other choice.
>
> I guess what I'm getting at here is that I personally question the value
> of many of these features that you think are so important. They are often
> barely functional experiments but you are speaking as if the world is lost
> unless Unix adopts them instantly. If Unix does that, it will have all of
> the brokenness of Windows soon enough. There are some good ideas in
> there, sure, but lots more thought and experimentation is needed before
> the stuff is complete and reliable enough for "real work". In my opinion,
> many features of Windows apps fall into this category. They sound cool,
> but aren't really usable for their intended purpose because of the mad
> rush to get them to market.
That's where OSS, IMO, is superior. The features that get added (or don't
get added) to software are driven by the people who need them, not by
marketeers who think they can sell more units if they have them.
>
> Ironically, DnD is a technology that basically works and doesn't fall into
> the above category. All that needs to be done is standardize the
> protocol. KDE and Gnome are doing that. Motif tried, but has become
> irrelevant in the Open Source world for licensing reasons.
>
It does fall into the above category in that it causes a level of discomfort
for some users. Personally, I always drag and drop with the right mouse
button in Windows, because MS is inconsistent about what happens when you
drag and drop, and I can't trust other software vendors to follow the model.
Am I copying, or am I moving, or am I creating a shortcut? Am I opening
another document window, or another copy of the program with the new
document in it? The context menu usually tells me or gives me the chance to
do what I REALLY want to do.
As far as standards go, this needs to be done at the LOWEST COMMON
DENOMINATOR ie, XFree86, so that every graphical program can conform to the
standards, whether it be KDE, Gnome, or Fred's Desktop Environment.
--
Rich C.
"Have you supported a new Linux user today?"
To reply by email, remove the "abc_" from my address.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk)
Subject: Re: Linux Sucks*************************
Date: 14 Mar 2000 10:56:21 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Matt Gaia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: With Multiple Personality Disorder, you're never lonely!
>
>Hey, being that Steve/Heather/whoever the hell/etc.. threatens
>to kill themselves, and seeing that they have Multiple Personality
>Disorder, if one of them tries to commit suicide, would it be a
>hostage situation? <g>
When did he talk about killing himself? Can you give a
DejaNews URL, or at least a quote? I certainly hope he
doesn't do anything like that. Life is precious, and
even if a person has behaved foolishly, they certainly
don't deserve to die. Likewise, thinking that they have
"sinned" sexually according to fundamentalist doctrine
is no reason to harm oneself.
If anyone is contemplating suicide, they should immediately
call Suicide Prevention, or simply dial 911.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED],net
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 11:29:13 GMT
On 14 Mar 2000 02:59:36 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk) wrote:
>In article <PGdz4.1927$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> On Sat, 11 Mar 2000 15:51:56 -0500, Jim Ross wrote:
>>>
>>> >I guess my experience with Corel and Netscape differ from yours.
>>> >I don't feel Linux is ready yet for the desktop.
>>>
>>> My experience is similar -- I had to learn to use it. Cut and paste *does*
>>> work differently in linux, but it still works. Now see if you can
>>> get that cut&paste to/from Netscape working (-;
>>>
>>> BTW, I haven't tried Corel. Still prefer Redhat.
>>>
>>I got it working.
>>Even though I believe it supports the CTRL-C and CTRL-V commands, WRT to
>>Location Bar, those keys don't work, but middle botton does.
>>I guess that reflects how I feel NS sucks under Linux. Just one more
>>reason.
>>
>>I have to say I feel Corel traded off stability for ease of use and
>>stability IS the selling point of Linux.
>>Corel 1.0 feels like a sad replica of Windows 9X now.
>
>This sounds like a religious fundamentalist who evaluates
>everything according to how similar it is to his sect's parti-
>cular narrow doctrines.
It is based upon personal experience one way or the other.
> MS-Windows is not the bible, and
>Gates is not God (more likely, the opposite >8^#).
See. There IS hope for you Mark :) At least you acknowledge there is a
God :)
> The fact
>that some Linux GUIs do things differently than Microsoft
>does not mean they suck or they're sad; it just means they're
>*different*.
I agree with this. Linux certainly does some things better, albeit
differently than Windows and the opposite is true as well.
>Jim, you complained that you couldn't copy and paste text, nor
>install deb or tar packages, under Corel Linux, and you claimed
>that therefore "Linux isn't ready for the desktop".
I had similar problems with Corel. Corel has a great install program.
It has a good set of tools and applications that some, not all but
some users will find sufficient for their needs. Updating Corel is a
mixed bag however. Corel seems to be, and correct me if I am wrong, a
bastardized version of Debian. Some *.deb updates work, others do not
because the required libraries are either not there, even with full
install, or are in customized locations. Example: Trying to get the
SBLive driver working under Corel is a nightmare, and I never did get
it to work properly. Was a breeze under SuSE and Caldera and not too
bad under Redhat. I suspect, but have not tried it, that under Debian,
real Debian, it might be easier.
After
>having the first operation explained to you in detail, and
>being told that the other two are indeed feasible, you contin-
>ue to maintain the same negative opinion.
Linux seems to bring that out in people.
>You're not the first person to claim that, for various reasons,
>Linux and Unix suck, are useless, aren't ready for the desktop,
>etc. This despite the fact that many millions of people are
>already using them, often on desktop computers.
Millions are NOT using Linux on the desktop. No way.
Server's maybe, but desktop? Where do you get these figures from?
> Most of the
>other naysayers are also not swayed by having their complaints
>remedied, leading many to think that their purpose is to spread
>anti-Linux propaganda, rather than to participate in an honest
>discussion. I hope it doesn't turn out that way with you.
People get pissed off with Linux, and Windows as well. I have more
rabid Mac nuts as friends then I can count. What really pisses people
off is when they ask a question and get a half truth. Example: Does my
foo printer work under Linux? Sure it does says the Linvocate. Then
the Windows convert finds out how his printer is reduced to a 1981
variety Epson dot matrix and get's annoyed. Same goes for suggesting
Lynx to web browse. Or saying Netscape never crashes. THAT is what
turns people against Linux. People used to having all the bells and
whistles working out of the box under Windows tend to expect the same
under Linux and will question why Linux requires them to make so many
compromises.
My personal experience is that just letting someone use Linux is
enough to send them scurrying back to Windows. I don't have to say a
word, the OS speaks for itself for better or worse. For certain folks,
and there is a lot of them,(webservers, servers in general, low cost
licensing, programmers, Microsoft haters, etc) it can be the holy
grail, but for others and there is a lot more of them, it is a waste
of time and resources.
>If you like Microsoft Windows better, and want to stay with
>it, go right ahead. You're welcome to it. Those who want a
>system that's reliable, understandable (even on the inside),
>conformant to worldwide standards of data and program inter-
>change, far less expensive, easier to program for, and avail-
>able on many major types of computers, will choose Linux or
>some other form of Unix.
I can't really take exception to that statement as I agree with it.
Steve
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED],net
Subject: Re: Linux Sucks*************************
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 11:47:02 GMT
On Mon, 13 Mar 2000 23:57:39 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
wrote:
>On Mon, 13 Mar 2000 22:58:23 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED],net
><[EMAIL PROTECTED],net> wrote:
>>On Mon, 13 Mar 2000 15:10:54 -0600, John Sanders
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Subject says it all***************************
>>>
>>> I'll bet you're the kind of guy that uses an application toaster. Am I
>>>right?
>>
>>I prefer Bagels myself, but toast will do.
>>
>>
>>> I'll bet the one you use is W95 or W98. Am I right again?
>>
>>Win 98SE in MY case. Works like a charm and supports just about every
>>piece of hardware on the planet. Sets up my internet conncetion
>>sharing, soundcard, network card, scroll mouse and so forth right out
>>of the box so I can concentrate on applications. You DO run
>>applications I take it?
>
> So? Take a bit of hardware that is newer than your distro
> of '98 and that starts to break down a bit. Alternately,
> take a bit of hardware older than a Linux distro and
> containing the appropriate drivers, you can replicate the
> same effect even with Slackware.
I have not seen a piece of hardware that does not come with Windows
drivers in the box. They would never be able to sell it otherwise.
Your argument makes no sense, with the exception of older hardware and
even that has holes in it. Example: Windows supports my IBM Proprinter
X24E and X24E XL (the long carriage version). Linux only lists, and
that is only under SuSE (appsfilter) a pro printer, which is th 9 pin
version and it half works. In this case Windows does a better job of
supporting older hardware.
> Although, Windows-'lets have a unstable binary registry db and
> no proper journalling'-9x is hardly comparable when comparisons
> involve more robust OSes.
I didn't know Linux has journaling?
>>
>>>Those OSs are for 'point and clickers'. Just point at the icon of the
>>>app you want, and (this is the fun part) 'click' on it. Pretty quick,
>>>your app pops up! Am I right? Then you 'do your real work'. Am I
>>>right?
>>
>>Yep. Something the Linux community dreams of at night. It's all about
>
> Silly FUDing troll. Just because we don't, can't, won't run
> MS FOO it doesn't mean we don't have any/enough shiny happy
> applications to feed cycles to.
Interface you have.. easy to use and install applications that
interface easily and are comparability as well with the rest of the
office community is debatable.
> There's nothing at all magically about the user interface
> that Microsoft took 10 years longer to finally develop
> than Apple, and even Atari of all people.
Had an Atari 520 and then a 1024ST (I think?). Loved both of them
dearly.
>>applications my dear, and since you have none, that the free world
>>would be interested in anyway, you need not apply.
>
> This is the same sort of 'MS rulez, everyone else sucks'
> gibberish that idiots like you have been spouting since
> the XT first debuted. You seem to be supporting it about
> as much as most who spew it.
No, it's about being able to get a 1.0 or higher version of a program
for just about any application one would want. Example: My daughter is
taking 8th grade Earth Science and needed some help. One trip to
CompUSA and $19.95 later she has raised her average almost one
complete grade (C+ to B+). Was that worth $20? I think so.
>>
>>Point click / Command line doesn't matter to me. Windows and Microsoft
>>have the applications world locked up tight. Linux has only a hodge
>>podge of ugly looking, hard to configure and hostile applications that
>>only a geek would love. Even the Linux equivilants of Windows
>
> It looks nice on a CRT but it's still a bed of lies.
> What are you so afraid of that you find the need to
> resort to spreading slander?
Slander? Take a look at the Linux setup groups and see how many
questions are posed containing comments about ugly fonts and general
ugliness of X-Applications.
>>applications are not up to the feature level of their Windows
>>counterparts. How about environmental software for the SBLive?
>
> Heavy Gear II.
RealPlayer...
Has Linux gotten past G2 yet? Is it still buried under "non-supported"
on the web page?
>>Taken a good look at Wordperfect for Linux lately? Notice how crappy
>>it looks?
>
> That's quite a subjective evaluation completely devoid
> of any sort of detail that could be metered or measured.
It's awful looking. Take a look at the InfoWorld/PcWeek reviews of
Corel linux. evidently they felt the same. The help system looks
equally awful with no way to resize the left column and characters
that are off the screen.
>>Windows version looks fine.
>>
>>Linux users can only dream of all the applications availible for
>>Windows users. Take a walk through CompUSA some day and see for
>>yourself. Now take a look at Freshmeat.net and see how many version
>
> A lot of it is chaff or things that you would never be
> interested it even.
A lexical parser for Emac's is not my idea of an application most
folks could make use of.
Here's another beauty:
AfSoek 0.2
Schalk Cronje - March 14th 2000, 06:04 EST
Can't wait to try this one out. Does it translate Ebonics into
english?
How about this one:
SXP 0.061
Ivan-Assen Ivanov - March 14th 2000, 05:41 EST
SXP stands for Simple XML Persistence, and is a lightweight C++
library built around expat which provides a simple mechanism for
enabling the objects in your application to persist (i.e. read from
and write to) in a XML file. SXP's major selling points are ease of
use, efficiency, and acceptable performance.
Changes: This version includes GNU autoconf for building on a wider
range of platforms. Linux/gcc incompatibilities have been removed from
the main version (you can build it without autoconf). RPM for
linux/IA-32 available.
Urgency: low
[ comments
Urgency:low says it all. Can't wait to fire this sucker up. How the
hell do you know if it is working or not? What is it supposed to do?
>>.998 applications are there. Also make sure you look at how long they
>>have been in development and still have NOT reached even version 1.0.
>>Trust my data to that crap?
>>
>> HELL NO!
>
> So? We just are a bit more honest about the state of software.
> When Linux developers state that something is a 1.0 release
> they're typically a bit more serious about it.
No. You have a bunch of script kiddie wannabe's writing all sorts of
wacko utilities just to see their name in lights on Freshmeat.
> Calling the first released version 3.1 just doesn't impress
> any of the sort of people that would be paying attention to
> a first Unix sourcecode release.
The first release was Windows 3.0 (not counting the disaster 2.0).
>>
>>Free software is just that....Free and full of comprimises...
>
> That's true of all engineering actually. If you think
> otherwise then you are sadly delluded. In the case of
> the toys that you like, engineering will take a back
> seat to release dates, marketing fluff and ensuring
> that you remain locked into a particular product.
I find far, far, far more compromises that have to made using Linux
software.
>>
>>Go play with Biff. Pine or Lynx but make sure you don't get any Tar
>>-xfv on your clothes.
>
> Personally, I just doubleclick on the little icon...
> ...much like I did in the 80's while people
> like you were still playing with DOS3.
Gee and thought you were a CLI type of guy.
Actually I miss DOS. Had some of my best times running DOS.
>[deletia]
Same..
Steve
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED],net
Subject: Re: Linux Sucks*************************
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 11:47:24 GMT
That's a big 10-4...
Steve
On 14 Mar 2000 00:17:13 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
wrote:
>On Mon, 13 Mar 2000 22:58:23 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED],net
><[EMAIL PROTECTED],net> wrote:
>
>>Easily reached via [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>Whatever you say...steve.
------------------------------
From: Jim Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 11:48:58 GMT
Joseph wrote:
> > So, MS decides to release a console, and the PC market is suddenly
> > gone? Get real.
>
> You go tell Bill Gates.
Gates wants the set-top box market bad; it's the obvious place for net access
to go. So far all Microsoft attempts at that market have been total failures,
but maybe if it plays games....
jim frost
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
