Linux-Advocacy Digest #93, Volume #26 Wed, 12 Apr 00 16:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? (Curtis Bass)
Re: BSD & Linux (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Penfield Jackson bitch-slaps Bill Gates (Seán Ó Donnchadha)
Microsoft Haiku (Kathy)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (Mike Marion)
Re: BSD & Linux (Bill Vermillion)
Re: Penfield Jackson bitch-slaps Bill Gates (abraxas)
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? (Bart Oldeman)
Re: Penfield Jackson bitch-slaps Bill Gates (Seán Ó Donnchadha)
Corel Linux Office 2000 dubious at best? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Penfield Jackson bitch-slaps Bill Gates (abraxas)
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Looking forward to Apple's MacOX X (R. Tang)
Re: Linux for a web developer ("OOrkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Curtis Bass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 10:10:43 -0700
"John W. Stevens" wrote:
>
> Matthias Warkus wrote:
-- snip --
> > Execution involves concepts such
> > as addresses and control flow.
>
> Location in the HTML stream: address.
>
> Control Flow: Where and how on the screen to display a bit of data.
These examples seem like rather loose applications of definition. Isn't
the broswer rendering engine responsible for "where and how on the
screen to display a bit of data" based on the HTML markup? HTML is the
GUI analogy to the command-line switch. If I type "ls -alF
--color=term" at a shell prompt instead of simply "ls," would that
qualify as "programming?"
> > Your browser parses HTML, which is a
> > data structure, not a program.
>
> Programs are data structures. They are data, they are structured data,
> they are data structures.
Perhaps program => data, but does it follow that data => program?
> In fact, some simple programs have exactly the same struture as an HTML
> program: a directed, acyclical graph.
But HTML cannot go beyond a DAG, whereas a "real" programming language
can. And you even implicitly admit that a program has to be "simple"
before it can even compare to HTML.
IOW, again, HTML isn't "executed code" but simply a set of switches,
like command line switches/arguments.
BASIC, REXX, TCL, et al, while interpreted, still provide direct control
of flow mechanisms, unlike HTML (or command-line switches), so likening
HTML to an interpreted language to debunk my argument doesn't work.
Unless, of course, you would argue that command-line switches *do*
represent a "program."
> More complex programs, of course, are DCG's . . .
>
> Non-algorithmic programs are DCG's with no stopping point.
>
> > > You once again misunderstood my question: whether or not HTML is Turing
> > > Complete is irrelevant, as the question was, how is the *ACT* of writing
> > > an HTML document not-programming?
> >
> > The act of writing an HTML is not programming because the act does not
> > involve implementing an algorithm in a programming language.
>
> Hmmm. . . so neither English, nor the language you use in your own head
> to plan and describe things, is a programming language?
It depends on how loosely we define "programming." Personally, I
consider "English, [and] the language [I] use in [my] own head to plan
and describe things" to be *analysis* and/or *design* languages,
although they certainly can be used to low-level "program" (again,
depending on how loosely we define the term). Setting up a television
broadcast schedule is called "programming" and it's generally done using
English or its equiv.
> Generally, people claim that they are *SUPERIOR* to computers, not
> inferior to them.
Computers cannot directly understand something as expressively rich as
"English, [or] the language [I] use in [my] own head to plan and
describe things" so I have to break things down to building blocks that
even they can understand.
Again, it goes back to "Yes, X can do that like (simplified) Y can, but
Y can do several orders of magnitude more than X, ergo, X is not Y."
Curtis
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc
Subject: Re: BSD & Linux
Date: 12 Apr 2000 12:17:15 -0500
In article <8d1h76$6c9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Donal K. Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <Tl7I4.4746$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Bloody Viking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> What Linus did was not only create a new OS, but a new ideology, the
>> ideology of GNU freeware. It's the ideology of hacking (not cracking)
>> mentality put to use to benefit others.
>
>He didn't create it. He merely popularised it through his actions.
>Not that this is in any way insignificant, but Linux would not have
>happened without the "networking" (in the old, pre-computer sense)
>made possible by the Internet because you simply could not organise
>the distribution of so much code and discussion to so many people
>efficiently.
And note carefully that at least part of the popularization had
to do with his definition of the module interface to the kernel
which made no claim over modules as 'derived works'.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Penfield Jackson bitch-slaps Bill Gates
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 13:57:56 -0400
On Wed, 12 Apr 2000 16:07:50 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> Oh please. OpenStep is almost as far away from the Unix experience as
>> MacOS. The Unix experience is a command line - either on a text screen
>> or in a terminal window. . . .
>
>You obviously haven't used Unix for quite some time.
>
Unfortunately, I can only *WISH* that were the case.
>> >
>> >Unix, as geeks know it, is only *ONE* of the many, many
>> >different user interfaces available to Unix users. Unix is
>> >flexible.
>>
>> That explains the horrifying mangled mess of cheap imitations of
>> decent user interfaces that is the typical X Windows screen.
>
>"Cheap imitations"? I'd take my OpenWindows over Windoze 98
>any day.
>
You're welcome to it. For God's sake, OpenWindows' scrollbars alone
are enough to make it a joke compared to Windows. And given that
Windows' scrollbars are *FAR* from perfect, that's saying a lot.
OpenWindows is an abomination; it and AWT/Swing are proof positive
that Sun should stick to networking and stay the hell out of UI.
>
>And CDE, for instance (as well as a couple of others),
>gives you multiple desktops, which you can access at wiil.
>
Great. More space for alien creature heads around those terminal
windows.
>
>I think you simply haven't had the experience of using good
>Unix windows systems.
>
Absolutely true, but I'm keeping an eye out in case one comes along.
>>
>> Given that that's not even true today, it could hardly have been
>> true five *YEARS* ago.
>
>It was. You speak from ignorance.
>
Again, don't I wish! Ignorance of Unix GUIs was truly bliss.
>>
>> If a given app's availability is of primary concern to me, then its
>> lack most certainly *DOES* say something about the OS - to me. In
>> fact, it would be nothing short of stupidity for me to choose Linux
>> knowing full well that it doesn't run the apps I need.
>
>FWIW, Windize 98 doesn't run some of my favourite Windoze 3.1
>apps. Which is why my home machine is still Windoze 3.1.
>
>But I can still run the same stuff I ran in 1990 on my Sun machine.
>
Well of course! What else is there to run?
>>
>> How about the lack of a decent extensible multimedia framework at
>> the OS level?
>
>You mean the multimedia stuff that got buried inextricably into
>the kernel that is the most common reason for the horrible
>stability and reliability problems of Windoze?
>
I have no idea what you're talking about, but the framework I alluded
to is a set of user-mode libraries guaranteed to be available on all
versions Windows since 3.1, and part of the official Win32 API.
>
>And "extensible"? *sheesh*
>
I suppose that being able to add audio/video CODECs, filters, etc. via
a control panel applet and have all installed multimedia apps take
advantage of them immediately doesn't qualify as "extensible" in Unix
zealot land?
>>
>> Linux can't use DOS drivers for its own operation, . .. .
>
>SFW? You apparently don't understand the principles of
>emulation. OR of drivers.
>
Then please explain it to me. You have a device - say, a storage
device - that can only be accessed via a proprietary DOS-based driver.
How do you access it from Linux? If your answer is "emulation", try
again.
>>
>> . . .nor does it do a
>> good enough job at running the vast majority of the DOS apps
>> people wanted to run when Microsoft was designing Win9x (games
>> running within DOS extenders and banging the hardware directly).
>
>People who wrote such software should be taken out and blasted
>with a BFG9000.
>
Should that treatment extend to people who want to run such software?
>
>They did it for performance reasons.
>
Did what? Use DOS extenders or bang the hardware directly?
>
>What does it tell you
>about an OS that they have to bypass it to get any performance?
>
It tells me what I've known since around 1984 - that DOS is totally
inadequate as a modern OS. What does it tell you? Unfortunately,
Microsoft learned the hard way (OS/2 1.x) that DOS compatibility was
the one thing what would sell mainstream operating systems during the
late '80's and early '90's. Not until well after the release of Win9x
did DOS compatibility start losing importance, and that's only because
of Win9x's strong support for the gaming community.
>
>But, as it turns out, you can even emulate _hardware_ with
>appropriate code. Some folks I did some work for a while
>back were doing just that, providing a program that would
>run your game cartridge apps on a Windows machine.
>
Emulation is neat, but insufficient. That's why OS/2's "better DOS
than DOS" campaign backfired.
>>
>> Nonsense. Win9x can still use DOS drivers for its own operation, and
>> can still run all those old badly behaved apps. Its architecture was
>> deliberately compromised to do so. . . .
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Ahhh, the crux of the problem. And a reason why Windoze will always
>be a POS.
>
POS or not, it's the reason why Windows kicked the living shit out of
<insert your favorite OS> in the market, and why that market will be
running on some form of Windows for a *LONG* time to come.
>>
>> . . . The first OS Microsoft designed
>> from scratch for the 32-bit x86 architecture was NT. . . .
>
>Which says a lot about Micro$ux "leadership in innovation". ;-)
>
Really? I don't think they did too badly. Considering that they were
deeply committed to their doomed relationship with IBM for the OS/2
1.x project when the 386 was released, considering that they mostly
achieved binary Win32 app compatibility between two operating systems
with radically different internals, and considering that Win2K is now
out kicking ass all over the place with scalability and reliability as
well as excellent game support, I think they did rather well.
------------------------------
From: Kathy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Microsoft Haiku
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 14:10:18 -0400
In Japan, Sony Vaio machines have replaced the impersonal and unhelpful
Microsoft error messages with their own Japanese haiku poetry, each only
17 syllables:
=======================
A file that big?
It might be very useful.
But now it is gone.
========================
The Web site you seek
Cannot be located but
Countless more exist.
========================
Chaos reigns within.
Reflect, repent, and REBOOT.
Order shall return.
========================
ABORTED effort:
Close all that you have worked on.
You ask way too much.
=======================
Windows 98 crashed.
I am the Blue Screen of Death.
No one hears your screams.
=======================
Yesterday it worked.
Today it is not working.
Windows is like that.
========================
First snow, then silence.
This thousand dollar screen dies
So beautifully.
========================
With searching comes loss
And the presence of absence:
"My Novel" not found.
========================
The Tao that is seen
Is not the true Tao, until
You bring fresh toner.
========================
Stay the patient course.
Of little worth is your ire.
The network is down.
========================
A crash reduces
Your expensive computer
To a simple stone.
========================
Three things are certain:
Death, taxes, and lost data.
Guess which has occurred.
========================
You step in the stream,
But the water has moved on.
This page is not here.
========================
Out of memory.
We wish to hold the whole sky,
But we never will.
========================
Having been erased,
The document you're seeking
Must now be retyped.
--
Kathy
******* Computers: All they ever
think about is hex
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 18:15:49 GMT
A transfinite number of monkeys wrote:
> P-133, 32 MB RAM, Rocketport 16 port serial card. A great terminal server.
>
> Fast too, the machine only runs sshd and minicom...
Hmm... I just thought of something. We use Xylogics (Bay networks, Nortel,
whatever they are this week) remote annex servers for termsrvs. They were
brought in before I started here, and do the job ok. The biggest con: telnet
only (can you say plaintext across the company's net). Biggest pro: each port
can answer to an IP: i.e. we have a dns entry for <machinename>c that points to
the console port for that machine.
I wonder if the following exists or would be possible to setup:
A linux (or other) machine using ssh for encryption, that would have multiple
serial ports as you do, and either listen to multiple IPs (which it can) and
automatically redirect the connection to the proper serial port... or better
yet, use one IP, but have it work like apache's virtual domains and redirect you
to the proper port... hmm.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
What's the difference between a Van DeGraf static generator and a belt driven
vacuum cleaner?
Answer: Not much. Don't use a vacuum to clean your computer.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Vermillion)
Subject: Re: BSD & Linux
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 17:57:08 GMT
In article <8d0i3u$2ifh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Timothy Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>jd hendrex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>Linus wrote the kernel (and still maintains) and put it out for...
>>others Richard Stalman (MIT) started the GNU movement with a ...
>>printer driver Thousands of others the entire world over have ...
>>since contributed And the beat goes on ...
>I'm surprised at the way Minix has been written out of history.
>Linux started life as a Minix variant, in effect.
>Linus Torvalds had to use gcc, probably,
>because the Minix cc was the one commercial bit of Minix --
>bizarrely, as it was not particularly good.
Well Minix is still out there. Just this past month Tannenbaum
placed Minix under the BSD licensening scheme - not GPL.
--
Bill Vermillion bv @ wjv.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Penfield Jackson bitch-slaps Bill Gates
Date: 12 Apr 2000 18:22:46 GMT
Spell your name in ascii, asshole.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: Bart Oldeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 18:29:11 GMT
On Tue, 11 Apr 2000, John W. Stevens wrote:
> Irelevant. Programming != creating algorithms.
>
> There are a great many programs that are not "algorithmic".
>
> Fine. I understand your assertion. It just doesn't work . . .
>
> Programs are data structures. They are data, they are structured data,
> they are data structures.
>
> In fact, some simple programs have exactly the same struture as an HTML
> program: a directed, acyclical graph.
>
> More complex programs, of course, are DCG's . . .
>
> Non-algorithmic programs are DCG's with no stopping point.
Funny ... you seem to have different perception/definition of
"programming" than many other people in this newsgroup.
There is a book:
Wirth, N., Algorithms + Data Structures = Programs, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1976.
In my understanding, if you leave one of them out it's not programming any
more.
Example: although you can program in TeX, if I write a LaTeX document, I
don't consider myself as doing programming, because I don't need the
loop/if structures for most of my documents. I'm merely declaring a data
structure.
Interesting though, is when you write a recipe (for real cooking) in
LaTeX. W.r.t. TeX, you're not programming, but you are w.r.t. whatever
person who is going to use the recipe. Also, the recipe is useless without
ingredients ("data structures"). And without the cooking algorithm it's a
shopping list (which doesn't tell you _how_ to get the stuff).
"Put something in the pan. Cook for 10 minutes. Enjoy your dinner :-)"
Bart
------------------------------
From: Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Penfield Jackson bitch-slaps Bill Gates
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 14:53:16 -0400
>
>Spell your name in ascii, asshole.
>
Aw, Sweetie! Did I offend thee?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Corel Linux Office 2000 dubious at best?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 19:21:51 GMT
Petreley has got to be kidding in his latest Infoworld column.
First he says "The superb new suite for Linux".
Then he says " How much I like this suite and how You'll have to pry
it out of my hands".
Then, incredibly he goes on to state that one of the first things the
suite did was crash, and of course he finds a way to blame it on
Windows because apparently parts of Corel Linux Office 2000 runs under
a customized version of Wine.
I have the Windows version and it runs fine.
On top of that he can't get it to print on any other version of Linux
except Corel (sound familiar?).
So much for "I can take any program and run it on any Linux".
Looks like the fragmentation of Linux has already started. FWIW I
couldn't get Worperfect included with Corel Linux Deluxe to even
install on RH or SuSE or Caldera despite it being a *.deb file and my
using the kde package manager which supports deb files.
Wonder how many months he'll have to screw around with it to get it to
print under other Linuxen.
This is an unbelievable piece of biased journalism and I find it hard
to believe Infoworld would print such crap. I can't wait to read the
Letters to the editor next week.
It just goes to show once again that "supported, working, runs etc"
are words that have completely different meanings in the Linux
community.
It's incredible the crap Linux users have to suffer with in regard to
shrink wrap applications.
He should send it back and run the Windows version which works
properly, at least on my system.
Steve
Here is the url:
http://www.infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/00/04/10/000410oppetreley.xml
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Penfield Jackson bitch-slaps Bill Gates
Date: 12 Apr 2000 19:27:37 GMT
>>Spell your name in ascii, asshole.
>>
> Aw, Sweetie! Did I offend thee?
No...thats not quite the word id use for the irish-italian...:)
ISO character sets (I trust you know what those are) do not belong
on usenet.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 13:23:53 -0600
Curtis Bass wrote:
>
> "John W. Stevens" wrote:
> >
> > Matthias Warkus wrote:
>
> -- snip --
>
> > > Execution involves concepts such
> > > as addresses and control flow.
> >
> > Location in the HTML stream: address.
> >
> > Control Flow: Where and how on the screen to display a bit of data.
>
> These examples seem like rather loose applications of definition. Isn't
> the broswer rendering engine responsible for "where and how on the
> screen to display a bit of data" based on the HTML markup?
Is it?
Will the browser place the data in different locations on the screen
depending on whether you use a table tag, or a list tag?
> HTML is the
> GUI analogy to the command-line switch. If I type "ls -alF
> --color=term" at a shell prompt instead of simply "ls," would that
> qualify as "programming?"
Yes.
> > Programs are data structures. They are data, they are structured data,
> > they are data structures.
>
> Perhaps program => data, but does it follow that data => program?
Point your processor a your data. Say: go. Does the processor execute
that data?
The answer is: yes. The program may not be meaningful or useful to you,
the user of the computer, but a program is actually being executed.
> > In fact, some simple programs have exactly the same struture as an HTML
> > program: a directed, acyclical graph.
>
> But HTML cannot go beyond a DAG,
Really?
How about:
Page 1 --> Page 2 --> Page 3 --> Page 1
Isn't that a cycle?
> whereas a "real" programming language
> can.
Please define the difference between a "real" programming language and
an "unreal" programming language?
> And you even implicitly admit that a program has to be "simple"
> before it can even compare to HTML.
Yes. Are you saying that simple programs are not programs?
Is:
int
main(void)
{
printf("Hello, world!\n");
}
A program . . . or not?
> IOW, again, HTML isn't "executed code" but simply a set of switches,
> like command line switches/arguments.
Command line switches are instructions . . . IE, programs.
Simple programs, but they are programs.
> BASIC, REXX, TCL, et al, while interpreted, still provide direct control
> of flow mechanisms,
Which make 'em Turing complete programming languages, but "programming
language" != "Turing Complete Programming Language".
> unlike HTML (or command-line switches), so likening
> HTML to an interpreted language to debunk my argument doesn't work.
Sure it does. You've drawn an invalid definition: that to be a
programming language, the language has to have *EXPLICIT* flow control
to be defined as a programming language.
What about logic programming languages, are they programming languages
or not? Does C stop being a programming language if I don't use the if
statement?
> Unless, of course, you would argue that command-line switches *do*
> represent a "program."
They do. A very simple one, but a program, none the less.
> > Hmmm. . . so neither English, nor the language you use in your own head
> > to plan and describe things, is a programming language?
>
> It depends on how loosely we define "programming."
A misnomer . . . the term you should use is not "loosely", but
"abstractly".
> Personally, I
> consider "English, [and] the language [I] use in [my] own head to plan
> and describe things" to be *analysis* and/or *design* languages,
> although they certainly can be used to low-level "program" (again,
> depending on how loosely we define the term). Setting up a television
> broadcast schedule is called "programming" and it's generally done using
> English or its equiv.
So . . . are you saying that English has no imperative tense?
How about: "Shut the door!"
Isn't that a program?
> Computers cannot directly understand something as expressively rich as
> "English, [or] the language [I] use in [my] own head to plan and
> describe things" so I have to break things down to building blocks that
> even they can understand.
Yes. Are you saying that English is not a programming language because
it's too expressive?
> Again, it goes back to "Yes, X can do that like (simplified) Y can, but
> Y can do several orders of magnitude more than X, ergo, X is not Y."
Actually, you *DO* say that X is a Y even when X is simpler than Y.
This is, in fact, the basis for taxonomic classification, and of course
the heart of the specialization relationship in the Object Oriented
paradigm.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 13:31:29 -0600
Bart Oldeman wrote:
>
> On Tue, 11 Apr 2000, John W. Stevens wrote:
>
> > Irelevant. Programming != creating algorithms.
> >
> > There are a great many programs that are not "algorithmic".
> >
> > Fine. I understand your assertion. It just doesn't work . . .
> >
> > Programs are data structures. They are data, they are structured data,
> > they are data structures.
> >
> > In fact, some simple programs have exactly the same struture as an HTML
> > program: a directed, acyclical graph.
> >
> > More complex programs, of course, are DCG's . . .
> >
> > Non-algorithmic programs are DCG's with no stopping point.
>
> Funny ... you seem to have different perception/definition of
> "programming" than many other people in this newsgroup.
Why is that funny?
> There is a book:
> Wirth, N., Algorithms + Data Structures = Programs, Prentice-Hall,
> Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1976.
>
> In my understanding, if you leave one of them out it's not programming any
> more.
The title is a bit ambigous: an algorithm plus a data structure is a
program, but a program is not always an algorithm plus a data
structure. The old, p --> q, but q !-> p thing.
What, for example, would you define an OS as? Is it a program, or not?
However, if you insist on being pendantic, you will note that the
definition of an algorithm does not require that it contain
conditionals, so your following example is indeed programming:
> Example: although you can program in TeX, if I write a LaTeX document, I
> don't consider myself as doing programming,
Yet, you are, because the document describes an algorithm (how to type
set the data) and the data (the text of the document).
> because I don't need the
> loop/if structures for most of my documents.
If you wish to base this discussion on the title of Wirth's book, you
have made an error, because no where is it required that all algorithms
have conditionals . . . only that they stop. Which is why you could
reasonably describe an OS as not-a-program . . . they are not supposed
to stop.
> I'm merely declaring a data
> structure.
Nope. You are also issuing imperatives (instructions):
\begin{itemize}
\item Element 1.
\item Element 2.
\end{itemize}
Does not just structure your data, it also instructs TeX on how to
typeset your data.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (R. Tang)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: Looking forward to Apple's MacOX X
Date: 12 Apr 2000 19:20:27 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
M. Vaughn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> We need to see a rich, integrated, and
>> consistent UI on MacOS X, so that Linux hackers can see it ... and then
>> try for something better.
>>
>
>And fail due to the fact that while Apple can pay trained designers a
>shitload of money to desigh such an interface, the people who try to
>one-up them in the freenix development communities are going to be working
>for nothing and under little real management. Open-source GUIs, so far,
>look like they were designed by a committee because THEY ARE. Every UI I
>have used on Linux or FreeBSD (besides the command line) is a
>feature-laden (or leaden, if you will) beast that lacks any sort of
>consistency or real flair.
Let me assay an opinion that the latter will not work or look as
well as pay software because they were designed by programmers. A lot of
computer types have this mistaken notion that because they think they know
what looks good, they are as good of a designer as a professional who
makes their living doing design (i.e., all I really need to know about
design is in the Pagemaker/Quark manual).
It takes both TALENT and PRACTICE to be a good designer; being a
part time hacker on Pagemaker and Photoshop isn't going to hack it....
--
-Roger Tang, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Artistic Director PC Theatre
- Editor, Asian American Theatre Revue [NEW URL]
- http://www.abcflash.com/a&e/r_tang/AATR.html
-Declared 4-F in the War Between the Sexes
------------------------------
From: "OOrkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux for a web developer
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 15:37:05 -0400
"Salvador Peralta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I'd stay away from Mandrake 7.0
any particular reason ?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
