Linux-Advocacy Digest #994, Volume #26 Fri, 9 Jun 00 16:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day (Starcap'n Ra)
Re: OSWars 2000 at www.stardock.com ("Quantum Leaper")
Re: OSWars 2000 at www.stardock.com (Chris Wenham)
Re: Segmentation Fault? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Dissecting Microsoft -- Where are all the astroturfers? (Tim Kelley)
Re: The future... (Tim Kelley)
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north (Alan Baker)
Re: How many years for Linux to catch up to NT on the desktop ? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: How many years for Linux to catch up to NT on the desktop ? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: MacOS X: under the hood... (was Re: There is only one innovation that
matters...) (Alan Baker)
Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day (Peter Ammon)
Re: How many years for Linux to catch up to NT on the desktop ? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: How many years for Linux to catch up to NT on the desktop ? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux+Java, the best combination of techologies ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day ("Christopher
Smith")
Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day (JEDIDIAH)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,talk.bizarre
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Starcap'n Ra)
Subject: Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 16:52:33 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthew Skala) writes:
> I am not just saying that I prefer command lines, in order to be mean or
> contrary. I really do prefer them. A GUI advocate who sets out to prove
> that I don't *really* prefer command lines must necessarily end up looking
> very silly. I know my own mind; you don't. Even if there were rational
> arguments against command lines,
Actually, there is rationale *for* command lines. For
instance, I can type 'cd /usr/people/kennedy/music/beethoven'
on a Unix system *way* faster than I can click on My Computer,
wait for the window to come up, click on E:, move the cursor
to the scroll bar and scroll down and look for Winnt, click on
Winnt, move the cursor to the scroll bar and scroll down and
look for Profiles, click on Profiles, click on Kennedy, move
the cursor to the scroll bar, scroll down and look for Start
Menu, click on Start Menu, click on Programs, click on Winamp,
and finally click on Beethoven. Not only that, but it hurts
my eyes to do all that perusing the windows looking for the
little folders with the tiny print to find the one that I want.
--Starcap'n Ra {ames,gatech,husc6,rutgers}!ncar!noao!asuvax!ra
{allegra,decvax,ihnp4,oddjob}--^
^---------------The Wrong Choice
internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Quantum Leaper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.be.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: OSWars 2000 at www.stardock.com
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 17:16:10 GMT
"Bob Germer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3940e65d$2$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
On 06/09/2000 at 11:21 AM,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (rj friedman) said:
> > » I can only imagine that you
> > »must be self-employed as I can't imagine a company putting up with
> > »efficiency penalties that using inferior tools would bring in.
> > That just proves that you will propound your opinion as if it were a
> > fact written in stone without having a leg to stand on. No different
> > than your pronouncements about OS/2, actually.
> Here, I absolutely agree with you. I am sure Brad would be shocked to find
> out how many small and mid-size companies refuse to replace DOS/Windows
> 3.11, WordPerfect 5.1, etc., etc. Many companies don't replace what ain't
> broke!
Interesting, atleast the companies my friends work for have replaced
DOS/Windows 3.11 because of Y2K issues. I know someone who spent 10 hours
watching a program update a database, they went from version 1.1 to 11.x,
simply because it wouldn't work correctly after Y2K. They also replaced the
XT computer with a P2. Alot pre Pentium computer have broke because of
Y2K. I know of a 1/2 dozen examples off the top of my head. Some required
hardware/software fixs and some just required a software upgrade.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.be.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: OSWars 2000 at www.stardock.com
From: Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 17:18:22 GMT
"Quantum Leaper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Alot pre Pentium computer have broke because of
> Y2K. I know of a 1/2 dozen examples off the top of my head.
That's very interesting. What were some of these examples?
Regards,
Chris Wenham
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Segmentation Fault?
Date: 9 Jun 2000 12:40:24 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Terry Porter <No-Spam> wrote:
>>>Hi,
>>>Everytime I try to view my processes, ie: ps , I get a segmentation
>>>fault...Any ideas whats wrong?
>>
>>If you have to ask that question, I'd recommend that you reinstall
>>completely from a recent version of a popular distribution.
>>
>I think what Leslie is saying here, is that you may have been CRACKED, and your
>inability to see what processes are running, prohibits you from knowing to what
>use your system is being put.
Not necessarily. More likely it is a simple mismatch of among the
shared libraries, kernel, and applications caused by an incomplete
upgrade or mixing different versions/distributions. It would
be possible to fix, but since a complete reinstall is quick,
easy, and gets you the latest of everything it is probably easier
to save anything of your own somewhere (maybe just another partition),
reinstall, then put anything back you still need.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Dissecting Microsoft -- Where are all the astroturfers?
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 12:52:48 -0500
"Mark S. Bilk" wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Bobby D. Bryant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Why is it that every time Microsoft has a big setback, the
> >steady-state level of astroturfing here drops almost to
> >nothing for a few days? Do they all get called back to
> >Redmond for a strategy meeting or something? Did Bill
> >fire them for failing to influence the outcome? Are they
> >hurriedly trying to learn something besides VB to put on
> >their resumes?
>
> Microsoft is actually one enormous organism, like a huge
> jellyfish. The astroturfers are poisonous stinger organs
> on its surface, that try to kill anything in the environment
> that it regards as a threat. They obviously haven't any
> intelligence of their own; they just say what the brain
> tells them to.
Nice. Actually, remember that horrible movie Starship Troopers?
win98 users-astroturfers are like those icky spider things, where
NT users are like those big hulking bugs that shot enormous
plasma bombs out of their butts. M$ is like the brain bug, win32
programmers are like the bugs that mothered, tended and herded
the other bugs. The whole movie I'm convinced was a metaphor for
the PC industry.
OK I'm in a weird mood but I thought the bug analogy was
appropriate.
--
Tim Kelley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The future...
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 13:03:22 -0500
Bones wrote:
>
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tim Kelley wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Oh yeah, netware is crap. The only reason it could ever exist
> > anyway was the fact that dos needed it. NDS for linux would be
> > nice. Has anyone messed with this?
>
> I disagree that Netware is crap, but Novell's pricing structure is.
Well, netware is ok performance wise. There are many nice things
about it. The problem I have with it is the user interface. It
is absolutely horrible. For example, the simple task of finding
out what process has what files open, for example, is impossible
(unless you want to spend several hours looking through the
process list). It is flat out the clunkiest system I have ever
worked with. Even NT is elegant by comparison. The console is a
horrible sort of "shell" that is useful only for loading
programs, and the other problem is that the all the programs
available suck.
I agree about their pricing.
--
Tim Kelley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Alan Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Canada invites Microsoft north
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 12:03:59 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, nohow
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Fri, 09 Jun 2000 10:36:34 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>(Jack Troughton) wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 8 Jun 2000 20:15:29, nohow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>On Thu, 08 Jun 2000 10:28:32 -0400, Jack Troughton
>>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Dunno about that... probably refugees from the Avro Arrow program.
>>>>Dief was an idiot; I personally know three people of that generation
>>>>that dumped the conservative party because of Diefenbaker's decision
>>>>to scrap the Arrow program.
>>>>
>>>>http://www.totavia.com/arrow/
>>>>
>>>>The Avro Arrow was well and truly ahead of its time... like warp,
>>>>you could say:)
>>>>
>>>
>>>It's the classic case of building an great product without knowing
>>>what the market wants. In this case there was little or no demand for
>>>high altitude, long range interceptors.
>>
>>Just out of curiousity, what makes you think that?
>
>I do admit that it's been close to 15 years since I've studied the
>history of the politics around the arrow in university so my memory
>could be a little fuzzy. At that time outside of the Yanks and
>ourselves who needed a high altitude, long range interceptor? The
>Americans were only interested in rolling their own and made that
>position well known so who did that leave as the potential customer
>base? If it had of been designed as a general purpose fighter or as a
>fighter/bomber than maybe some of our European allies, and 2nd and 3rd
>world countries might have been interested. As it was it was hard to
>justify the costs just to equip a couple of Canadian squadrons.
Funny how the Yanks are always complaining about restraint of trade when
Boeing can't sell enough 777's when since day one they've treated US
military procurement as a closed shop (while expecting other nations to
buy from American military suppliers).
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that
wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the
bottom of that cupboard."
------------------------------
Subject: Re: How many years for Linux to catch up to NT on the desktop ?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 19:04:29 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Culleton) wrote in <8hlggf$sgo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Efforts to dumb down the Linux installation process have led to a new
>generation of frustrated users. If you don't understand what is going
>on, you can't fix it when things go wrong. And I really feel sorry for
>all those users who say they can't use package X because they can't find
>an RPM for it. Linux installation won't be, and probably shouldn't be,
>the kind of hands off smoke and mirrors thing we see with windoze.
>
>Once installed, Slackware operates pretty much like any other distro.
There's a marked contrast between Slackware and Mandrake. With Mandrake, I
had my screen setup with a few clicks and selections; with Slackware I ran
xf86config and went through a massive question and answer question. I made
mistakes - I entered " in a few parameters and ended up with a broken
config file. Took a few attempts to get that one right.
Mostly I couldn't care less how to configure my screen. I'm not terribly
interested in tweaking it, I just want it to work. The only parameter that
might be interesting is refresh rate. 72Hz flickers less than 60Hz.
Pete
------------------------------
Subject: Re: How many years for Linux to catch up to NT on the desktop ?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 19:06:59 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) wrote in <8hovqh$tb0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>I've never called you a liar, yet I am surprised when you describe
>things that I know do not match a stock Mandrake system and
>omit any mention of changing it.
Well, you know, it could be that the differences between different hardware
could be causing some of the problems I'm seeing. What may work for you may
be a dog's dinner for me simply due to small differences.
Pete
------------------------------
From: Alan Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.be.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: MacOS X: under the hood... (was Re: There is only one innovation that
matters...)
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 12:10:15 -0700
In article <HuZ%4.10315$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Quantum
Leaper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"John C. Randolph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>>
>> Trevor Zion Bauknight wrote:
>> >
>> > In article <8h8jrn$a3m$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Stephen S. Edwards II"
>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > > : Microsoft already got its lucky break and had purchased from a
>> > > : third party what basically amounted to a pirated copy of the
>> > > : source
>> > > : of CPM/86 for $50k.
>> > >
>> > > "Pirated"? I hardly think so. Tim Patterson, QDOS's author stated
>> > > that he had used a CP/M manual as a guide for coding QDOS.
>> >
>> > It was said that disassembly of QDOS revealed Digital Research
>> > copyright
>> > strings. Not sure whether I believe that or not, but...it was said.
>>
>> IBM sure believed it. They paid DR millions to keep it out of court.
>>
>Paying a settlement, doesn't prove anything. IBM could have want to cut
>legal fee or didn't what to look bad to the press, for all you know.
>Alot
>of companies settle, even if the beleive they are right. Settling the
>case
>now can be cheaper in the long run.
I would say the relatively few defendants settle if they have deep
enough pockets to stay the course in court _if the expect to be
exonerated_. They fight it out to avoid precisely what we see here:
people believing them guilty of wrongdoing because they settled.
If Microsoft could have gone to trial with Digital Research and could
have expected the verdict to be unequivocaly in their favour why
_wouldn't_ they have done so?
Fear of the truth coming out appears a likely candidate. <G>
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that
wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the
bottom of that cupboard."
------------------------------
From: Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 12:13:44 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Starcap'n Ra wrote:
>
> Actually, there is rationale *for* command lines. For
> instance, I can type 'cd /usr/people/kennedy/music/beethoven'
> on a Unix system *way* faster than I can click on My Computer,
> wait for the window to come up, click on E:, move the cursor
> to the scroll bar and scroll down and look for Winnt, click on
> Winnt, move the cursor to the scroll bar and scroll down and
> look for Profiles, click on Profiles, click on Kennedy, move
> the cursor to the scroll bar, scroll down and look for Start
> Menu, click on Start Menu, click on Programs, click on Winamp,
> and finally click on Beethoven. Not only that, but it hurts
> my eyes to do all that perusing the windows looking for the
> little folders with the tiny print to find the one that I want.
There are much faster ways to navigate the filesystem (at least on Mac
OS and column browsers) than you describe. For example, on Mac OS with
the hard drive selected, you can type exactly what you did above if you
replace / with command-down arrow. But, since the Mac OS selects the
closest match, you can type "kenn" instead of "kennedy" and have an
excellent chance of success. You can probably even type "k" and then
hit the down arrow once or twice.
A GUI lets your keyboard become context-sensitive, and this is a very
powerful tool, indeed.
There is an argument against the command line included as standard on a
consumer-level OS: it can allow developers to be lazy. For example,
instead of giving their software a nice graphical installer, they might
include instructions like "open up Terminal.app and type in untar
/usr/people/people/downloads/myreallyreallycoolapp.tar.gz" This is a
bad thing.
The original Mac team was very worried about developers simply porting
applications from DOS with their horrible interfaces. That's part of
the reason they released MacWrite and MacPaint: to raise the bar. Apple
runs the same risk with their Unix compatibility and portability.
That said, if the command line isn't available on OS X, I will be pissed!
-Peter
------------------------------
Subject: Re: How many years for Linux to catch up to NT on the desktop ?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 19:22:08 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathaniel Jay Lee) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Ah, so Linux does have IPV6. Is anyone actually using it as yet? Has the
>> rest of the world caught up with this technology as yet?
>
>OK, I have to jump in here. You are asking if it supports something,
>then jumping on attack mode when someone tells you it does. What the
>hell is wrong with you?!?!?!?!?!?! I can't believe it. Every once in
>while you have valid arguments, but this one is stupid. It sounds like
>this:
Oops! I guess what I wrote appears to be an attack. It wasn't meant like
that. I was asking the obvious question - is anyone actually using it yet?
Pete
------------------------------
Subject: Re: How many years for Linux to catch up to NT on the desktop ?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 19:28:33 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Ahlstrom) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>There's a book from Microsoft Press, "The Dynamics of Software
>Development", by a former leader of the Visual C++ programming team. He
>says that Microsoft wants to drive the market, and that's why they're
>constantly innovating. If you decide to develop on Microsoft systems,
>you have to get used to constant change, he says. Fair enough.
Don't get me started on Visual C++. It's a pretty big package that has
hardly innovated anything for ages. MFC is a nice thin wrapper on top of
WIN32 but that's as far as it goes.
I'll stick to Borland's Delphi, THE innovative package on Windows!
>I remember writing some code and shipping it to my client. He
>complained that moving the mouse over a button caused the program to
>crash. I was able to quickly figure out that I needed to ship him a new
>version of COMCTRL32.DLL or some such. Microsoft provided a nice
>version for me when I installed their C compiler. But my program wasn't
>able to work with the older COMCTRL32.DLL that the client had. It is
>the price of rapid change.
This is the dreaded DLL Hell that gets mentioned every now and then. Also,
Microsoft do not licence you to ship out COMCTL32, you have to supply
something like 50COMUPD.EXE and run it as part of your installation.
>A certain amount of Microsoft code seems to me to be a brute-force and
>clumsy reinventing of wheels from the UNIX world. Just my opinion. For
>example, their Help files. They aren't as thorough as Man pages, and
>even Microsoft has been busy replacing them with HTML files.
The MSDN package is probably the best source of information I've found for
pretty much anything on Windows. I don't think man pages can compete with
it.
Pete
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux+Java, the best combination of techologies
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 19:26:06 GMT
In article <8hr5pl$fnp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> <snip!>
>
> : Hi Brian or anyone else that can offer some assistance,
> : I have everything connected properly and I set my classpath variable
> : using the bash command above. Thank you. But, I tried to execute a
> : program and I am getting a segmentation fault and a core dump.
>
> Hmm, that's not a good sign. Is this IBM's Java or Blackdown's?
> My guess is that if this is IBM's, there might be some compatibility
> problems between it and the Sun standard that Blackdown uses, so you
> might want to try that one instead.
>
> Even when Java executes bad code, the JVM should insolate your system
> from segmentation faults and generate Java errors instead before
> exiting semi-gracefully. So the fact that it's doing this is a
> sign of a JVM problem. Try switching Javas and see if you have
> better luck.
>
>
Well, it is Java 2 Runtime from Blackdown. I have tried setting the
classpath in the /etc/profile file and I have tried doing some more
research and I have yet to find a solution. Where have you come to
know so much about Linux and Java? I am just beginning.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 05:42:54 +1000
"Starcap'n Ra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthew Skala) writes:
[talk.bizarre trimmed. I got their FAQ once, I don't want it again :)]
> > I am not just saying that I prefer command lines, in order to be mean or
> > contrary. I really do prefer them. A GUI advocate who sets out to
prove
> > that I don't *really* prefer command lines must necessarily end up
looking
> > very silly. I know my own mind; you don't. Even if there were rational
> > arguments against command lines,
>
> Actually, there is rationale *for* command lines. For
> instance, I can type 'cd /usr/people/kennedy/music/beethoven'
> on a Unix system *way* faster than I can click on My Computer,
> wait for the window to come up, click on E:, move the cursor
> to the scroll bar and scroll down and look for Winnt, click on
> Winnt, move the cursor to the scroll bar and scroll down and
> look for Profiles, click on Profiles, click on Kennedy, move
> the cursor to the scroll bar, scroll down and look for Start
> Menu, click on Start Menu, click on Programs, click on Winamp,
> and finally click on Beethoven. Not only that, but it hurts
> my eyes to do all that perusing the windows looking for the
> little folders with the tiny print to find the one that I want.
This is true, but that signifies a lack of experience, rather than an
interface issue. For example, in Windows you could just hit WindowsKey+R
(for "Run") then type in the path and explorer will open up at that
directory. AFAIK there is no direct equivalent in MacOS, but I'm sure an
experienced user could make use of shortcuts to do it quite quickly as well.
Commandlines have their place. They are very good at automating tasks and
manipulating data through several programs one after the other with little
user interaction.
However, most day to day tasks performed by the vast majority of people do
neither of these things, or do them at such a basic level (or so rarely)
that the GUI is not really a hinderance. This is why GUIs are a boon to
most users - their disadantages are largely irrelevant and their advantages
are important.
GUIs have the advantage of instant, obvious and continuous feedback to the
user. You can see the files without having to specificaly list them. You
can see the directory hierachy and "where you are" without having to
specifically go out of your way and check. Filetypes can be represented
visually etc etc.
Having said that, I'd never use an OS without a CLI :).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 19:49:18 GMT
On Fri, 09 Jun 2000 12:13:44 -0700, Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Starcap'n Ra wrote:
>>
>> Actually, there is rationale *for* command lines. For
>> instance, I can type 'cd /usr/people/kennedy/music/beethoven'
>> on a Unix system *way* faster than I can click on My Computer,
>> wait for the window to come up, click on E:, move the cursor
>> to the scroll bar and scroll down and look for Winnt, click on
>> Winnt, move the cursor to the scroll bar and scroll down and
>> look for Profiles, click on Profiles, click on Kennedy, move
>> the cursor to the scroll bar, scroll down and look for Start
>> Menu, click on Start Menu, click on Programs, click on Winamp,
>> and finally click on Beethoven. Not only that, but it hurts
>> my eyes to do all that perusing the windows looking for the
>> little folders with the tiny print to find the one that I want.
>
>There are much faster ways to navigate the filesystem (at least on Mac
>OS and column browsers) than you describe. For example, on Mac OS with
>the hard drive selected, you can type exactly what you did above if you
>replace / with command-down arrow. But, since the Mac OS selects the
That's still a bit of commandline imbedded into your GUI.
If you were to totally dispose of any 'icky CLI artifacts'
you likely wouldn't have access to that. This seems to be
the essential WinDOS problem.
Their CLI was SO DAMN BAD that people went running and screaming
away from it minimizing the potential for useful hybrids being
created.
>closest match, you can type "kenn" instead of "kennedy" and have an
>excellent chance of success. You can probably even type "k" and then
>hit the down arrow once or twice.
>
>A GUI lets your keyboard become context-sensitive, and this is a very
>powerful tool, indeed.
>
>There is an argument against the command line included as standard on a
>consumer-level OS: it can allow developers to be lazy. For example,
>instead of giving their software a nice graphical installer, they might
Actually, I think character cell driven automation tools for
installation predate the "shiny happy ones".
>include instructions like "open up Terminal.app and type in untar
>/usr/people/people/downloads/myreallyreallycoolapp.tar.gz" This is a
>bad thing.
I'll keep that in mind the next time I see a *zip file on a
Windows Archive.
>
>The original Mac team was very worried about developers simply porting
>applications from DOS with their horrible interfaces. That's part of
>the reason they released MacWrite and MacPaint: to raise the bar. Apple
>runs the same risk with their Unix compatibility and portability.
>
>That said, if the command line isn't available on OS X, I will be pissed!
Why exclude those who might want to use the interface from a
DOS era WP from using the Macintosh? The existence of a more
"difficult" interface does not negate the "more usable" ones.
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 19:51:09 GMT
On Sat, 10 Jun 2000 05:42:54 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Starcap'n Ra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthew Skala) writes:
[deletia]
>> Actually, there is rationale *for* command lines. For
>> instance, I can type 'cd /usr/people/kennedy/music/beethoven'
>> on a Unix system *way* faster than I can click on My Computer,
>> wait for the window to come up, click on E:, move the cursor
>> to the scroll bar and scroll down and look for Winnt, click on
>> Winnt, move the cursor to the scroll bar and scroll down and
>> look for Profiles, click on Profiles, click on Kennedy, move
>> the cursor to the scroll bar, scroll down and look for Start
>> Menu, click on Start Menu, click on Programs, click on Winamp,
>> and finally click on Beethoven. Not only that, but it hurts
>> my eyes to do all that perusing the windows looking for the
>> little folders with the tiny print to find the one that I want.
>
>This is true, but that signifies a lack of experience, rather than an
>interface issue. For example, in Windows you could just hit WindowsKey+R
>(for "Run") then type in the path and explorer will open up at that
>directory. AFAIK there is no direct equivalent in MacOS, but I'm sure an
That would still be more awkward actually.
The Mac/OS2 counterpoint was far more effective.
[deletia]
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
