Linux-Advocacy Digest #973, Volume #26 Thu, 8 Jun 00 10:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day (Nathaniel Jay
Lee)
Re: Why UNIX Rocks (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day (The Ghost In
The Machine)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day (Nathaniel Jay
Lee)
Re: Yet Another Analogy: Military Aircraft. (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Linux+Java, the best combination of techologies ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Marty)
Re: Linux+Java, the best combination of techologies (Brian Langenberger)
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north (Eric Bennett)
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux (David E. Thomas)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 08:10:04 -0500
"James E. Freedle II" wrote:
>
> Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
> >
> > "James E. Freedle II" wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes there were great interfaces for Windows 3.x, I particularly liked Norton
> > > Desktop, but when Microsoft showed the new interface of Windows 95, I knew
> > > that was what I was looking for. The reason that I said that Windows was
> > > GUI, was that unless you specially went to the trouble of initiating a
> > > command prompt window, you would hardly use a CLI. In the future, there will
> > > be no CLI for ANY computer system on the planet. One does not have to look
> > > too hard to realize that CLI is a dead interface. Do you see a CLI on
> > > Macintosh (not that it is a very user friendly operating system)? Do you see
> > > a CLI on a Palm? Computer Systems have evolved where the Command line is a
> > > throw back to when the computer was not capable of producing a graphical
> > > display. In the future, the operating system that we use may be some form of
> > > UNIX, and then again it may be some form of Windows. Who knows, and more
> > > importantly how cares. I do not believe that the computing future should be
> > > rested in the hands of one corporation, but in the hands of the people that
> > > use the computer systems. The computers should be as easy to use as the open
> > > end wrench. At this very moment, Windows fits that bill. Linux, as the very
> > > nature of the operating system, is positioned to fill that void where
> > > Windows lacks. Humans remember things graphically. They remember pictures,
> > > sights and sounds. Words, structure and syntax are abitrary notions that
> > > take quite a bit of time for anybody to remember. I have not doubt that it
> > > has taken you several years to learn UNIX, and that system works great for
> > > you. I think that if we all can put I collective heads together to create a
> > > better system than all current offerings combined. Linux is closer to being
> > > an appliance than Windows, but realiability is not the only side of the
> > > equation. I am sure that you do not walk to work, I am sure that either you
> > > use a car, or public transportation of some sort. Walking will get you there
> > > realiably, but it is not very enjoyable.
> >
> > I don't know why I keep biting, but here we go:
> >
> > What really makes you think that all command lines will disappear? Not
> > only do I think you are wrong on that, I think your reasoning behind it
> > is wrong. The people that really push systems forward are the technical
> > users, and technical users still want to have access to that wonderful
> > command line. I know, there will always be systems that don't have a
> > command line in them, but there will always be demand for a CLI. I for
> > one would hate to see a computer without any access to the command
> > line. There are just so many things you can do with command line based
> > utilities. And with scripting and pipes and various other things you
> > can always have something more created quickly and easily. I think you
> > are basing your hopes for computers in the future completely on just one
> > persons needs, your own. Now, there is nothing wrong with that, but
> > don't say as a definite given something that is nothing more than
> > opinion. There are hundreds of thousands of Linux/Unix users out there
> > that left the Windows world to get a breath of fresh air and to get
> > access to a truly useful CLI shell. Why would they (which are usually
> > the creators of new shells CLI or GUI) push to eradicate one of the
> > things that they consider the most useful?
> >
> > Nathaniel Jay Lee
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Command line will disappear once people get over the notion that they
> are neccessary. I only use one when I have to, and not by choice. I am a
> technical user, and I do not use the CLI unless there is no other way. I
> see users everyday trip and fumble on CLI of the Sun server that we use
> everyday. The CLI is not very intuitive, because you have to visualize
> what to do next. The only people that think that the CLI is intuitive,
> are the people how where told that they will learn it, and therefore
> they pass this on. This is not improvement, but putting off the
> invetable. The CLI will fade just like the dinosaurs! In my experence,
> scripts are neccessary when the program was written incorrectly. The
> correctly written program would function as the user needs, not as the
> programmer's think. User's dictate the usage of the program, not the
> programmer!
That's a good one. Now you're backtracking. Earlier you said that
users should think like the programmer. Now you are saying the
programmer should think like the user. Actually, I agree with this
statement more, but the fact is that there are always going to be people
that want to do more than the program/utility/whatever was designed
originally to do. What are these people going to do for functionality,
hope that they can figure out a way to get a bunch of graphical programs
to pipe together to form something better? It's very difficult to use
graphical programs in scripting type environments. Maybe the CLI will
evolve at the same rate the GUI evolves. If you don't think that is
possible, check out http://threedsia.sourceforge.net . This is still a
shell with CLI capabilities, but built on a 3D based file-manager/chat
client/shell/... I don't think the CLI will disappear, but it should
continue to evolve with the rest of the system. GUI and CLI are not at
odds with eachother, but are actually useful compliments to eachother.
And that's the way it should be.
Nathaniel Jay Lee
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Why UNIX Rocks
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 13:20:33 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on 5 Jun 2000 08:24:49 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine) wrote in
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>Indeed. I used to work on a VAX 11/750 in '83 or thereabouts
>>that had the ultraphenomenal, amazing amount of memory of ....
>>8 megs. And we had 6 big Fujitsus, with 400 megs of disk space
>>each, for a grand total of 2.4 gigs. We also had, on another
>>machine (a PDP 11/34) a Memorex freestanding removable-pack
>>disk drive that was the size of a consumer washing machine
>>and could hold 300 megs.
>
>VAX 11/750 is getting a little old now. The workstations that came much
>later were much smaller and had more memory and disk space.
>
>>I will also note that the operating systems of yesteryear were
>>also had a lot less functionality than today's OSes (yes, even NT),
>>and were probably not quite as reliable, either.
>
>That's a generalisation, if ever I saw one. Are you including UNIX in your
>statement - that started in 1970? VMS was pretty robust.
Whoops.... :-) I stand corrected. I was thinking more along the
lines of DOS and/or older versions of RSX-11M.
But Unix didn't have shared libraries or mmap(), either, back then. :-)
(And the PDP 11/70 it ran on had 128 K of memory, if memory serves.)
>
>--
>------------
>Pete Goodwin
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 13:22:30 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, javelina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Thu, 08 Jun 2000 08:17:18 GMT <8hnkq4$gc6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Julian Waldby wrote:
>
>> Really? You collect eyeballs too, huh? I've got three
>> in a chest in my room, under a simple padlock.
>
>I collect chests and padlocks. The eyeballs are
>merely ornamental.
You can have my eyeballs when you can pry them from my cold, dead...
um...never mind. :-)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- "Silly? Naaaaaaaaaaah"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 13:24:44 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on 7 Jun 2000 15:26:49 GMT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Wed, 07 Jun 2000 09:34:09 -0400, Seán Ó Donnchadha wrote:
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) wrote:
>
>>Heh. Why not let the reader decide its relevance? Sometimes the most
>
>It's lack of relevance is crystal clear. We are talking about computers,
>and you bring up an unrelated discourse about cars. But a car is not
>a computer.
No, but some years back one of the selling points of Infiniti (IIRC)
was its internal fiber-optic network... :-)
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 08:23:23 -0500
"James E. Freedle II" wrote:
>
> Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
> >
> > "James E. Freedle II" wrote:
> > >
> > > I was really trying to make the point that Windows is much better to use.
> > > The reason that I say this, is that Windows is GUI. Linux is more like the
> > > DOS/Windows combination. Sure there are some points which Linux surpasses
> > > Windows, but lets get real, I have more important things to do with my time
> > > than trying to figure out how to make a stupid computer do what it needs to
> > > do in order for me to get my work done. I think in time that more of the
> > > Linux programmers will realize that there needs to be standard interface in
> > > order to get everything working together. UNIX has suffered from this
> > > problem for a very long time. I believe that if the UNIX system developers
> > > had realized that they were to busy infighting to help the users. This is
> > > why Linux will ultimately suceed over Windows. At this current time, I find
> > > Linux/UNIX to be a bear to use. I have a much easier time to get everything
> > > that I need done in Windows. I will be nice to see how all this plays out in
> > > time, but I think that more people will have to realize that as long as the
> > > main system remains free, that everything else can be commercial. The Linux
> > > community should develop a standard API and all the developers use this API.
> > > This IMHO is what is preventing Linux from taking the desktop from Windows.
> > > Depsite the arguments of "dumbing down" the operating system that people
> > > argue, it makes it much easier to use if all the configurations that you do
> > > to your computer is wrapped in a GUI shell, and that is the only shell you
> > > see. The other thing that is messed up is this business of logging on to the
> > > computer. If the operating system was good, and you were not on a network,
> > > it would not allow remote administration except through a logon. If the user
> > > was accessing the system while at the system, then it SHOULD be ready to go
> > > when you turn it on!
> >
> > OK, let's make sure that Linux doesn't allow users any choice in how to
> > do things either. Oh yeah, and lets remove all possible multi-user
> > functions, and make it suck at networking in large environments, and
> > make it nearly impossible to lock a normal user out of screwing with the
> > system wide configuration files, and make it so totally boneheaded that
> > you have to have a complete brain removal to think it's "cool" and then
> > remove anything the least bit usable by real users and then, maybe we
> > can finally have Windows beat. God, get real. We don't need to take
> > away all the things Linux is good at to make it better. We need to
> > enhance what it's good at. And as far as the log in problem, well, if
> > you can't handle logging in, then you probably should stick to Windows.
> > BTW, even Windows has a login screen by default, you have to give it a
> > blank password to make it disappear at boot up.
> >
> > Quite honestly I'm tired of hearing people say that Linux needs to be
> > exactly like Windows. Ever since my early days with Linux (Debian 1.3,
> > Red Hat 4.2) I constantly heard from my friends all these little things
> > Linux needed to be "usable". Like, why couldn't the filesystem be
> > non-case-sensitive (like DOS), why couldn't it use drive letters instead
> > of the Unix /... filesystems, why can't it look just like Windows
> > (although some interfaces are getting this one, more's the pity), why
> > can't it be exactly like Windows and still be free? After all, that's
> > what people really want. They want a free copy of Windows, but they
> > also want it to be stable and be able to do anything with it they want.
> > These two things are completely against everything that MS believes in.
> > So, pirate a copy of Windows if that is what you want. But don't tell
> > us how much we suck because Linux isn't a complete Windows clone.
> >
> > Nathaniel Jay Lee
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I really was not sugguesting removing multi-user from the operating
> system, only when it is installed on a home user's computer, where they
> will be the only person on the machine, that it be configured to not
> have to log onto the computer. Logging onto the computer is a waste of
> time, if you are the only user with access to the system. You really
> need to get real, and understand what is being said. I never said that
> Linux should be like Windows, but that it should be alot more user
> friendly. Personally I am glad that Linux has progressed as far as it
> has. Actually I like the way that the UNIX filesystem is, eventhough I
> would like to have more choice in where things go, after all that is
> what Linux is all about, choice. The system desides where things are to
> go, not me. That is just totally wrong!
Roll your own distribution if you want to decide where everything goes.
It isn't too difficult. There's a place for it
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org that will walk you through it. That's
how you get your choice. You have to have a CLI to do it though, so you
might be stuck having to learn something. Oh, and by the way, I still
think you would be stuck having to pull out all multi-user functionality
from Linux to make it not have a log in. Otherwise, how would you
differentiate root from a normal user account. Personally, I don't
think people should work as root. And that is the problem with Windows,
it is based on the concept that the user should have total free-reign,
no matter what thier skill level, to do anything to the system. This is
also why viruses like I-LOVE-YOU are so effective. Not a good idea. If
you were to remove the login capability of Linux I would think you would
have to be in as root or the equivalent so that you could install new
software if necissary, this would remove the usefulness of multi-user.
Some people like that, but it is dangerous in the Internet age. So, my
complaint was not just ranting. I've seen this type of thinking before,
and I do have justification for what I am saying. How about your
argument? It is focused on making the system exactly what you want.
Make your own distribution, and do it the way you want. Go go gadget
shit!!!!
Nathaniel Jay Lee
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Yet Another Analogy: Military Aircraft.
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 13:28:46 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Jim Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Tue, 6 Jun 2000 14:48:03 -0700 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Tue, 06 Jun 2000 09:59:14 GMT,
> The Ghost In The Machine, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
[snip for brevity]
>I think you are right, I was thinking of the bunsen burner flame
>of my youth, but as you point out, that's a hydrocarbon, not
>straight H2. So excuse me while I extract my foot from my mouth.
No problem; I've forgotten how many feet I've put in mine. :-) :-)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- "Kinky!" :-)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux+Java, the best combination of techologies
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 13:23:05 GMT
In article <8hlsar$bvb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> : Thank you. I have JRE installed and it works. Now I need to set a
> : CLASSPATH variable. I am not sure how to do this. Before, I set
it in
> : a BAT file with DOS but I don't know what kind of file or the
format of
> : the file for Linux.
>
> That depends on your shell, which you can look up in /etc/passwd
> if need be. For tcsh/csh(?), use the "setenv" command, like:
>
> setenv CLASSPATH "foopath:barpath"
>
> but for bash/sh, I think you need:
>
> CLASSPATH="foopath:barpath"
>
> Hopefully that'll be enough to get you started.
>
>
Thank you for the help above but I have another question for you. I
need to set a path to another machine. I am on a local network. Do I
need to map a drive? Is there a way to map a drive on Linux and if so,
how? And where is the best place to put this path in my startup file?
Thanks in advance. I really appreciate it.
Jeannie
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 13:32:28 GMT
Leslie Mikesell wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> >Local access to storage is faster than access from a foreign
> >> >machine.
> >>
> >> And less interesting. I already have that data.
> >
> >Well, I certainly wouldn't engage in an argument about what does and doesn't
> >interest you, but home users in general are not terribly interested in firing
> >up several computers to accomplish a task.
>
> No, they connect to the internet where the other computers are already
> running.
What does the average home user do on the internet besides surf the web and
write e-mail? Do they actually use more than one machine to *accomplish a
task*?
> >> >In addition, home users are far more interested in what can be done
> >> >on a single standalone box because they can't afford (or don't want to buy)
> >> >extra equipment.
> >>
> >> So, the application can only deal with my own typing?
> >
> >Not sure I follow...
>
> If you don't exchange data with others, where else are you going
> to get any input?
I'm not suggesting a complete absense of exchanging data. I'm saying that a
tradeoff of program interoperability for inter-machine interoperability is
favorable for home users. Heck, if you wrote a document in Product X and you
wish to share the document with someone using Product Y, if Product X doesn't
save in a format readable by Product Y, you can simply fire up Product Y on
your system and cut and paste the document across to it with reasonable app
interoperability.
> >> There is no trade off. Programs that actually do interoperate
> >> don't mind running on the same machine if that is all you have.
> >
> >But can they interact with other applications smoothly on the same box? An
> >example of what I'm talking about is VoiceType Dictation/Navigation on OS/2.
> >None of my applications have any particular knowledge of this app, yet every
> >one of them can be voice-enabled.
>
> How does this relate to not being able to work across machines/platforms?
> If you run X and have your voice control spliced into the keyboard
> you would be able to work with remote machines as well.
Ahh, but it's not spliced into the keyboard. That's the thing. It's spliced
into the OS. It talks to the window manager, figures out which menus are
visible on the window which current has the focus, looks for button labels in
the current window, etc., and builds a list of valid keywords on the fly.
With all of the different widget libraries used in X, such a thing would be
impossible to implement.
> >> Besides, anybody posting here probably has more than one machine
> >> at home too.
> >
> >How often are they doing anything non-trivial with more than one of them?
>
> There are often 3 busy at once in my home.
I have an extra box spitting out RC5 keys, but that's trivial. I used to have
an internet gateway machine, but that, too, is a trivial job. The average
user does not use more than one machine to accomplish an average task.
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux+Java, the best combination of techologies
Date: 8 Jun 2000 13:46:36 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
<snip!>
: Thank you for the help above but I have another question for you. I
: need to set a path to another machine. I am on a local network. Do I
: need to map a drive? Is there a way to map a drive on Linux and if so,
: how? And where is the best place to put this path in my startup file?
Hmm, what sort of machine is it? If it's a UNIX-type box, you'll want
to look into NFS to share the files you need to your local machine.
If it's a Windows box, you'll want to look into Samba instead.
Unfortunately, either case is a bit too complex to explain in a
simple usenet post, so you can find more information at:
http://www.linuxdoc.org/HOWTO/NFS-HOWTO.html
for NFS and:
http://www.linuxdoc.org/HOWTO/SMB-HOWTO.html
for Samba (particularly the "Accessing a SMB Share With Linux Machines" part)
I recommend making hard copy of the one you need and giving it a good
read to understand all the pesky concepts and security stuff that
comes with file sharing. But in the end you'll probably just be
making a slight adjustment to your /etc/fstab file or installing
an .RPM or two, so the amount of actual work on your end isn't
all that much.
: Thanks in advance. I really appreciate it.
We're just compulsive helpers :)
------------------------------
From: Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Canada invites Microsoft north
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 09:50:47 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > I might have given that statement some credit if it wasn't for the
> > > > way
> > > > you use the word "liberal" - as if it was a bad thing.
> > > It most assuredly is in the way it is used in the US. Liberal here
> > > means
> > > an all-controlling, big brother goverment which attempts to control
> > > every
> > > action of every citizen except the elite ruling class.
> >
> > If you're a right-winger, anyway. Of course, it's possible
> > right-wingers
> > are the *only* people in the US who still use the word "liberal".
> >
>
> No, we Libertarians use it too. It refers to people who believe
> that
> citizens are sheep incapable of thought and responsibility for their own
> actions.
> This philosophy leads to an ever expanding government which tries to do
> all the
> thinking for its citizenry until said citizenry is incapable of thinking
> for itself.
But then you are missing out on the conservatives, who think it
appropriate to regulate what people are allowed to see and do, and to
regulate aspects of their personal behavior. It's amazing how many
people (even libertarians) fail to pick up on the government abuses of
the conservative side.
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
From: David E. Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 06:49:03 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Arthur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>2. Having made a very good living for the past 13+
>years in sales and marketing related jobs including
>my own business, I will throw in the secret that
>every salesperson knows, but many non-salespersons
>fail to recognize: customers are people who buy
>your product or may buy it in the future. (I don't
>think this whole "customer" thing really applies here
>anyway, but I'll play along for now). Since the
>post being responded to quite clearly indicates the
>poster will *NOT* be using Linux (ignoring the fact
>that the post is entirely fiction to begin with), he
>is clearly not a customer. He is at most a waste of
>time. Therefore there is no reason to be "solicitous,
>concerned, caring, emphathetic, interested, and
>committed to helping out no matter how irritating",
>unless you would prefer wasting time to "making
>sales". Converting heathens is the work performed
>by missionaries, who make a lot less money than
>salespeople, and sell a lot less product. Don't
>confuse the two professions, especially if you
>ever plan on selling anything.
>
Allow me to point out something that should be pretty obvious to
someone with a background in marketing: Your responses are being
read by many more people (potential customers) than the original
poster.
The constant barrage of flame, skepticism and personal attacks
against anyone with the gall to post something less glowing
than "Linux is the best thing since the abacus" makes the entire
Linux community look extremely bad.
David E. Thomas
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
