Linux-Advocacy Digest #112, Volume #27 Fri, 16 Jun 00 01:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day ("Rich C")
Re: What UNIX is good for. (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Hardware and Linux - Setting the Record Straight (Gary Hallock)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes ("Rich C")
Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day ("Rich C")
Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day ("Christopher
Smith")
Re: OT Aboriginal Lifespans was Re: Canada invites Microsoft north (Bob Germer)
Re: OT Aboriginal Lifespans was Re: Canada invites Microsoft north (Bob Germer)
Good Work Mozilla.. (OSguy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Rich C" <[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, 15 Jun 2000 23:35:32 -0400
"Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8i9qu6$70t$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Hmmm.....keyboard "shortcuts".........that should tell you something
right
> > there. Why do you think they are called "shortcuts"? If GUIs were so
> great,
> > why should there even BE keyboard shortcuts?
>
> Please explain why using a GUI means you can't use the keyboard. Heck,
> Windows has been specifically designed from day one to be as usable from
the
> keyboard as from the mouse.
>
You are attempting to compare the speed (efficiency) of a GUI vs. a CLI. By
using "keyboard shortcuts" you are using keyboard commands and NOT graphical
commands (clicking buttons in a dialog box.) This subverts your comparison.
I'm not saying that a GUI shouldn't have keyboard shortcuts; in fact I
believe quite the opposite. Keyboard shortcuts allow experienced users to be
MORE EFFICIENT than by using the graphical part of the interface alone. This
supports my original statement that the GUI is less efficient.
> > True, they are more intuitive
> > than command lines (UNLESS the command help is properly included) and
they
> > are great for drawing programs, but certainly slower to a trained
> > individual.
>
> That would depend entirely on what you're doing. There are some areas
where
> CLIs as _vastly_ superior to GUIs (and are likely to stay that way).
Right. And there are some areas (drawing programs, image editing) where GUIs
are vastly superior. However, even with graphical applications, the
availability of keyboard shortcuts (which are really keyboard commands
accessible directly from the GUI without going to a "console") can still
make use of such programs easier faster for the experienced individual.
>
> However, most of them have little to do with the day to day usage patterns
> of most people.
Most people don't realize that there is often more than one way of doing a
task, or else they don't believe they can learn a faster way once they have
been ingrained with the method they use.
>
> > So when you are learning a new OS or program, you use the GUI,
> > then when you become more proficient, you "graduate" to the keyboard
> > shortcuts, then to the command line. (At least that's the way I did it.)
>
> No, quite simply the more you use an interface, be it GUI or CLI, the
better
> you get at it.
True, but with a GUI there is a limit to how fast you can go, only to be
improved with faster hardware. Whereas, with a CLI, I have never heard of
someone overflowing the typeahead buffer.
>
> Who ever said that GUI == mouse and CLI == keyboard ?
So what is a text-based "graphical interface"? (such as the old DOS PC-tools
shell without a mouse.) Is that a graphical interface? Or is it simply a
slicked up text interface? Is it a GUI once you have a mouse installed and
you can click on stuff, even though it's still just text and text-based
graphic characters? What about the old WordPerfect 5.1 which had a mouse and
menu interface? Was that a GUI?
I guess I am saying YES, GUI == mouse and CLI == keyboard.
However that is not to say that a GUI interface such as Windows cannot have
CLI components, such as a *chuckle* DOS window or keyboard shortcuts. When
you grab your mouse, point to a button or a menu item, and click it, you are
using the GUI. When you type commands into the keyboard you are using a CLI.
-- Rich C.
"Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: What UNIX is good for.
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 03:45:18 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on 15 Jun 2000 10:56:18 -0500 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>UNIX is very good at shuffelling text aroumd. LinoNuts call that
>"powerfull". I call it "pointless".
Yeah, whatever, d00d. Information shuffling (of which text shuffling
is a subset) is the entire point of the Internet.
Does one really need a full-fledged high-speed graphical
connection just to run a program that writes to a file?
>
>However, doing annything else with UNIX is a chalange.
Including spelling, apparently. At least for you. :-)
>It's not fast enough to be any kind of server, so if you realy
>want to shuffel text around and then send it out to Windows 2000
>sevrer where it can be axcessed by users,
Linux not fast enough?
What stuff have *you* been smoking? Must be mighty good.
(For the record: my understanding is that Windows NT has terrible
switching latency, if more than one process is running. I don't
know about Win9x, although Windows, to be fair, wasn't originally
designed to be preemptive multitasking, and what multitasking it does
have is fragile because of memory protection issues.)
>you still nead 20 UNIX boxes just to keep up with the
>servor. You can save the money you would spend on the 20 UNIX boxes
>(and the days it would take just to figure how to make it shuffall
>text and send it to Windos) just by doing everyting on
>the Windos 2000 server.
"The"?
Oh yeah, 1 Win2K server = 20 Solaris boxes.
Uh huh.
Pull the other one.
(To be fair, 20 (new) Solaris boxes would cost quite a bit; there
are some issues here. But performancewise, they'd blow
the one (new) Win2K server away. Not sure about a 1-1 comparison;
part of that is hardware-related, of course.)
>
>You can barely do anything with graffics in UNIX.
I take it you've never used Interleaf, Framemaker, Mentor Graphics,
Cadence, Intergraph, or other such things, then.
What do you think Mentor Graphics does? Cardboard boxes? :-)
>The Gimp is a joke when you compare it to Adobe
>PhotoShop (by it and see for yourself if your not to chepe),
Adobe Photoshop probably started out on Macs. (Anyone know for sure?)
I'm not sure about the GIMP. But then, I'm a Deluxe Paint user
from way back; now there's a program I can use! :-)
>or even a good LOGO interporator.
Oh yeah, I want Win2K just to allow kids to program in LOGO!
Brilliant!
(IMO, one would be better off buying a used Amiga for that sort
of thing, or perhaps an old Mac II. A top-of-the-line enterprise-
ready operating system to move a turtle and deposit droppings?
Feh.)
>And if you do anything with grafix, you can only save a JPEG or
>PNG (forget GIF's! their "pollitacolly incorrect",
No, they're patented. Anyone who writes a GIF generator may be
required to pay royalties.
Per picture, if I'm not mistaken.
(And yes, I think that's stupid.)
>like everything ealse that doesn't work on UNIX!) and immbedding or
>intergrating anything is a no-no (un-P.C. again), so you halve to
>have the text in one file and the graficks in another fial, or use
>HTML (another joke excuse for what you can do in Windows
>with Office, or even WordPad, and the text and graffix still half to
>be in different fials), and NO ANIMATIONS OR ANYTHING THAT CANT BE
>REPARSENTED BY TEXT OR A BITMAP!!
Two words: Java Applets.
I suppose one could belittle HTML for having the text in one file
(the HTML page proper) and the images in another (referenced by
<IMG SRC=...>). However, I'm not sure what the point of all this is.
Amiga and MacOS did it more or less right, with IFF and PICT chunks.
Microsoft kludged it, as far as I can tell -- and have a closed
document format, to boot.
>
>So what is UNIX good four? Prettending its' the 1970s, i gess.
>Look mommy, I'm the Sysadmin! You can be my user. Type "elm"
>if you wan't to rede your e-mial,
As opposed to your atrocious spelling.
(Granted, Netscape has some weird-ass bugs, and likes to crash
too often for my tastes. But it does have a MIME-compliant
mail reader and can display animated gifs. And it doesn't get
infected by stupid viruses written in Visual Basic!)
>e-mails you write get sent once a week thru UUCP,
Oh gosh. You're *really* reaching if you have to go that far back!
UUCP died out 5 years ago, if I'm not mistaken; Unix boxes have
understood how to find the Internet host for a particular email
address for at least that long.
>and look at this it's real kewl! If you want to chat, with the other
>users you can type "write",
Or 'irc'. (Hey, Unix users can read RFC1459 too. :-) )
>but you'll always be the only user logged in anyway. Oh, and the CD drive,
>sound card, scanner, printer, modem, graffics card, and floppy
>drive arent' working annymore
They aren't?
Lessee.
cdrom: /dev/cdrom
Floppy: /dev/fd0, /dev/fd1, /dev/fd[01][DH]*
Sound card: various, typically /dev/audio, /dev/sequencer, /dev/dsp,
/dev/midi*, and /dev/mixer.
Printer: /dev/lp*
Modem: /dev/modem (symbolic link) or /dev/ttyS* (unless it's a WinModem,
which sucks anyway)
Graphics card: this one might not have a device proper, although some
variants might use a framebuffer device. There are also OpenGL
libraries.
Scanner: Dunno, don't have one; SCSI scanners might use /dev/sg0;
some distributions might have /dev/scanner.
You were saying?
>like they did when we had Windoas, but thats' only because they were
>all propietrary and bad and stuff. We just half to get new ones,
>thats' all.
You might want to get new ones anyway. Higher quality stuff
always works better. :-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- "gee, I saved $10 on a Winmodem that doesn't work!" :-)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 23:49:56 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Hardware and Linux - Setting the Record Straight
Tim Palmer wrote:
>
>
> Linofreaks don't run games. All they run is text fillters and C compialer. Real
>"powerful" stuff.
>
And how do you suppose those games you love to run on Windows came to be? I figure
it must have
been some Winofreak running a C compialer. You sure do hold the people that bring
you all these
great games in low regard, don't you.
Gary
------------------------------
From: "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 00:02:25 -0400
"Sam Morris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:DTS05.1239$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > CD sessions (volumes as you call them) are NOT the same as partitions
on
> a
> > hard drive. When you insert a multi-session CD into a CDROM drive, you
get
> > ONE drive letter. Since there is only one data track on a multi-session
> CD,
> > that's all that is required. The CD player can read the audio tracks
from
> > the other sessions, and so can the [windows] file manager, but they are
> > displayed as being on the same drive letter.
>
> I'm sure this isn't how it works. If I burn some files onto a CD on my PC,
> and then add another session later, the files still show up in the same
> volume/partition/whatever on the PC and the Mac. But many CDs I have
> knocking around my house have multiple volumes/partitions/whatever on
them,
> of which my PC only sees the FAT one (heh), but which my Mac mounts both
the
> HFS and FAT volumes/partitions/whatevers.
I originally thought that a CD-XA formatted CD could only have ONE data
session, and multiple audio sessions on it. Apparently though, it can have
multiple data sessions as well. However, the PC can ONLY read ONE data
session, whereas the MAC can apparently read more than one data session.
This is probably also due to the fact that Apple, with its smaller market
share, has done more "bending over backwards" to accommodate the Windows
community while receiving less reciprocation from them.
>
> > Windows first assigns drive letters (besides a and b) first to primary
> > partitions on all fixed drives, then to logical drives within extended
> > partitions; and finally to removable drives and CD-ROMs. You can easily
> add
> > a hard drive without shaking things up if you do a little planning.
>
> Just out of interest - how? I remember doing this on Win2k, but my
> System/Device Manager/Disk Drives/*/Settings' properties all have the
> Start/End drive letter assignments greyed out.
Yes, that's true. Let's say you have a fixed disk that you have partitioned
into 2 drives, installed on IDE0/Master. Windows will assign these drives
the letters C and D. C corresponds to the primary partition, and D
corresponds to the logical drive inside the extended partition. Lets say
also that your CD-ROM drive has been set to J by the Device Manager/CDROM
Drives/Properties/Settings tab. (I assign my CD-ROM drives to J, K, and so
forth, to prevent them from moving as I add hard drives to my system,
consolidate partitions, or whatever.)
Now you want to add a hard drive on IDE0/Slave. If you partition this drive
into, say 2 partitions, just like your original drive, and install it,
Windows will assign drive C to the primary partition in drive IDE0/Master,
drive D to the PRIMARY PARTITION on IDE0/Slave, drive E to the logical drive
in the extended partition of your original drive IDE0/Master, and drive F to
the logical drive in the extended partition. Thus, your original drive D
will move to E, and E will become the first partition on your new drive.
This will royally screw up any programs you had installed on your original
drive D.
However, FDISK will allow you to partition the new drive WITHOUT a primary
partition. So lets say you wanted the new drive divided into 2 logical
drives. You simply partition the new drive with ONE extended partition that
takes up the whole drive, and then divide it into 2 logical drives.
Voila! Windows will leave your original drive as C and D, and will add the
two logical drives of your new drive as E and F.
Of course with Linux, you can just edit your FSTAB, and put any partition
anywhere you like! ;o)
-- Rich C.
"Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people."
------------------------------
From: "Rich C" <[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: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 00:13:44 -0400
"Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ic6hf$6jv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Please demonstrate why a keyboard is *not* a "feature" of a GUI.
>
A keyboard most certainly can be a feature of a GUI. For instance, you can
hold down the CTRL or SHIFT keys to affect the meaning of what the
interface does when you click the mouse button(s). But using keyboard
shortcuts is NOT the same as using the graphical part of the GUI. It is
using commands that are accessible from the GUI.
> I suppose you think a mouse can't be a feature of a CLI, either ?
>
>
You most certainly can. I discuss this in another response to you in this
thread. The PC WordPerfect 5.1 interface (or was it later?) had a mouse
interface to select text and use the menus. Of course, once you have a menu,
you no longer have a pure CLI either. :o)
-- Rich C.
"Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people."
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[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: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 14:15:32 +1000
"Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8i9qu6$70t$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > Hmmm.....keyboard "shortcuts".........that should tell you something
> right
> > > there. Why do you think they are called "shortcuts"? If GUIs were so
> > great,
> > > why should there even BE keyboard shortcuts?
> >
> > Please explain why using a GUI means you can't use the keyboard. Heck,
> > Windows has been specifically designed from day one to be as usable from
> the
> > keyboard as from the mouse.
> >
>
> You are attempting to compare the speed (efficiency) of a GUI vs. a CLI.
By
> using "keyboard shortcuts" you are using keyboard commands and NOT
graphical
> commands (clicking buttons in a dialog box.) This subverts your
comparison.
Clicking on a button is no more a graphical command than pressing a key that
activate the button on screen. GUIs are about how the information is
*presented*.
A Graphical User Interface is just that - it has absolutely zero to do with
how you then manipulate said interface.
For example, where is voice control going to fit in ? CLI or GUI ?
> I'm not saying that a GUI shouldn't have keyboard shortcuts; in fact I
> believe quite the opposite. Keyboard shortcuts allow experienced users to
be
> MORE EFFICIENT than by using the graphical part of the interface alone.
This
> supports my original statement that the GUI is less efficient.
No, a GUI is not inherently less efficient. It *is* less efficient at
_some_ things, but so is a CLI.
Again, how a user manipulates an interface is entirely separate as to
whether that interface is graphical, command line or whatever.
> > > True, they are more intuitive
> > > than command lines (UNLESS the command help is properly included) and
> they
> > > are great for drawing programs, but certainly slower to a trained
> > > individual.
> >
> > That would depend entirely on what you're doing. There are some areas
> where
> > CLIs as _vastly_ superior to GUIs (and are likely to stay that way).
>
> Right. And there are some areas (drawing programs, image editing) where
GUIs
> are vastly superior. However, even with graphical applications, the
> availability of keyboard shortcuts (which are really keyboard commands
> accessible directly from the GUI without going to a "console") can still
> make use of such programs easier faster for the experienced individual.
You are equating a command line with the keyboard. It just ain't so.
> > However, most of them have little to do with the day to day usage
patterns
> > of most people.
>
> Most people don't realize that there is often more than one way of doing a
> task, or else they don't believe they can learn a faster way once they
have
> been ingrained with the method they use.
Well I'm afraid I can't think of any day to day tasks I perform that a CLI
would improve on.
> > > So when you are learning a new OS or program, you use the GUI,
> > > then when you become more proficient, you "graduate" to the keyboard
> > > shortcuts, then to the command line. (At least that's the way I did
it.)
> >
> > No, quite simply the more you use an interface, be it GUI or CLI, the
> better
> > you get at it.
>
> True, but with a GUI there is a limit to how fast you can go, only to be
> improved with faster hardware. Whereas, with a CLI, I have never heard of
> someone overflowing the typeahead buffer.
I can't say I've ever outrun a GUI.
> > Who ever said that GUI == mouse and CLI == keyboard ?
>
> So what is a text-based "graphical interface"? (such as the old DOS
PC-tools
> shell without a mouse.) Is that a graphical interface?
I would call it that, yes. A CLI is a command *line* interface that relies
on you knowing the commands, how they operate and what the results will be.
CLIs are almost always typified by very little user feedback (relatively
speaking), and less information being presented at any given time.
> Or is it simply a
> slicked up text interface?
A text interface is not automatically a CLI.
> Is it a GUI once you have a mouse installed and
> you can click on stuff, even though it's still just text and text-based
> graphic characters?
It is a GUI interface, IMHO, as soon as you move away from having to know
the commands and are instead "picking from a list" of "presented options".
However, I doubt your average MacAdvocate would agree with that :).
> What about the old WordPerfect 5.1 which had a mouse and
> menu interface? Was that a GUI?
Like most things in computing, it's all fuzzy shades of grey. Parts of WP I
would call a CLI, but the menues a GUI.
> I guess I am saying YES, GUI == mouse and CLI == keyboard.
Well I must say that I think that's a silly definition to use :). Like I
said before, where would a voice control system fit into this ?
How about keyboard alternatives ?
> However that is not to say that a GUI interface such as Windows cannot
have
> CLI components, such as a *chuckle* DOS window or keyboard shortcuts. When
> you grab your mouse, point to a button or a menu item, and click it, you
are
> using the GUI. When you type commands into the keyboard you are using a
CLI.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT Aboriginal Lifespans was Re: Canada invites Microsoft north
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 04:23:51 GMT
On 06/15/2000 at 03:00 PM,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (billy ball) said:
> yup... can't stand Academy twits... most of 'em can't manage their way
> out of a paper bag, and they think the world's their oyster... i put up
> with prancing, mincing Academy goose-steppers for 20 years, but never
> took any of their sh*t...
Jimmy Carter was an Anapolis product. 'Nuff said? Fortunately, I was an
NROTC Regular. Our parish was home to a half dozen 06 and Flag Trade
School graduates working for (at the time) RCA on the Aegis development. I
got great fun out of pointing out to them that Jimmy was their schoolmate
when he went to Mexico and said to the press in the presence of Lopez
Portillo, the Mexican President, "The last time I was in Mexico I got
Montezuma's Revenge." I understand the Alumni Association tried to get his
class ring back.
> ring-knockers are a bastard plague in the services, and their usefulness
> (to ensure a faithful core of officers in case of military mutiny) is
> long past...
Amen to that! I learned my first real lesson about the relationship
between officers and ratings as a Middie 4th Class. A classmate of mine
and I went to the old Bolling AFB in DC on the Friday before Palm Sunday
looking for a hop to Truax AFB in Madison, Wisconsin. We got on on a
Brigadier General's C-47 along with the General, a bird Colonel, a Light
Colonel, a Captain, and two MSGT's.
When the officers boarded, we stood to attention and saluted. The General
said, "Forget that shit, boys. This is the Air Force, not the Navy." By
the time we were five minutes in the air, the General, two of the officers
and both sergeants were on hands and knees on the deck shooting craps.
That wouldn't have happened with Naval Academy types stranded on a desert
island with a couple of enlisted men.
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice 2.19zf Registration Number 67
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT Aboriginal Lifespans was Re: Canada invites Microsoft north
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 04:28:12 GMT
On 06/15/2000 at 05:08 PM,
Eric Remy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Military academy graduates. I've always heard it in reference to West
> Point grads, but then again I was in the Army. I assume USNA and USAFA
> grads are the same in spirit. (Although I've had mixed experiences:
> some are normal guys, some are pricks.)
I think you are wrong about the majority of West Point grads. Look at the
number of non-grads who wear stars. In fact, at least two of the last four
heads of the Army were not from West Point. John Shalikashvili (sp?) was a
mustang (entered as a Private and rose to Chief of Staff). Colin Powell
was an ROTC graduate from CCNY. Were the Army Brass the old boys network
that the Navy is, that couldn't have happened.
The Navy, on the other hand, has only a very minute percentage of
non-Canoe U grads among its Flag officers to this very day. Don't really
know about the AF or Marines.
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice 2.19zf Registration Number 67
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
From: OSguy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Good Work Mozilla..
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 00:14:56 -0500
Mozilla is going to have a nice product when it is ready.
The Speed of the M16 Browser is the fastest I've seen yet,
and certainly makes IE look sick.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
