Linux-Advocacy Digest #140, Volume #27 Sat, 17 Jun 00 10:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: So where ARE all of these supposed Linux users? (Peter Wayner)
Re: Open Source Programmers Demonstrate Incompetence (Peter Wayner)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Number of Linux Users (Salvador Peralta)
Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day (mathew)
Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day (mathew)
Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day (mathew)
Re: Linux is awesome! (Cihl)
Re: Software (Cihl)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Peter Wayner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: So where ARE all of these supposed Linux users?
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 13:10:51 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> The Linvocates have been spouting for sometime the "huge" number of
> people leaving Windows and downloading/buying (shudder!) Linux
> instead.
>
> So where are all of these folks?
Well, this was obviously flame bait, but it's still worth noting
that it's very hard to count Linux users. There's no central regime
collecting taxes, er fees for a copy, so there's no one counting.
I've got Linux on 4 machines in my office, but three of them are
just old machines I decided to dedicate to experimentation. Do
they count? I rarely use them.
And what about the embedded market? Tivo runs Linux. I'm sure there
are others out there. I saw an X-windows cursor on a Netscape terminal
on the NJ turnpike. The cursor was the only way I knew that they
had Linux underneith. The machine only let you touch the browser.
It's going to get harder to count in the future. So why don't
we quit counting.
--
-=-=-=-
Peter Wayner-- Turn to http://wwww.wayner.org/books/ffa/
for info on _Free for All_, a book about the open source/free
software movement. It will be published in July by HarperBusiness.
------------------------------
From: Peter Wayner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Open Source Programmers Demonstrate Incompetence
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 13:12:26 GMT
Jacques Guy wrote:
>
> Craig Kelley wrote:
>
> > This is more symptomatic of the C-family languages being awful than
> > anything else.
>
> > It's 2000, and we're still writing most of our software in a language
> > that can't even garbage collect
>
> But, which affordable languages do you know that do automatic
> garbage collections? The first and last I used for a long time
> was Simula 67. I do not remember if Oberon did, but I dropped
> Oberon: there were only Windows versions available. I have found
> two years ago, a nice language that does garbage collections,
> but I can never reliably tell how much free RAM I have left :-(
> Yes, I can, when my programs slow down so much that I suspect
> that it is swapping to disk. I call prevent it from swapping to
> disk, but then, it aborts without warning if it ever runs out
> of memory. So, to come back to my point, what is there that
> garbage-collects (apart from Euphoria, the language in question,
> which you now have for Linux too).
Java does. It might not be the kind of garbage collection you want.
But it does it.
--
-=-=-=-
Peter Wayner-- Turn to http://wwww.wayner.org/books/ffa/
for info on _Free for All_, a book about the open source/free
software movement. It will be published in July by HarperBusiness.
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 13:33:04 GMT
"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ie2i7$k1t$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <ITo25.4487$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> Not in 1994-1996. The Internet was much more geek-oriented then.
> >
> >That is just to say that back then, ordinary users didn't use the 'net.
> >
> >Probably because it was too hard. :D
>
> You mean before Netscape became popular? Back when you had to
> add in third party TCP dialers to Windows to use it?
Well, yes, before Microsoft mopolistically *crushed* the thriving,
competitive, TCP/IP stack market, by leveraging their evil, EEEVIL,
monopoly power. With a side of monopoly. :D
[snip]
> >That's not so. MS goes *much* farther than any Unix does to
> >interoperate with other vendors products.
>
> Yes, unix just implements the standards correctly...
Right. Unix implements the Unix standards correct. MS Windows
provides an architecture to plug in any protocol you want.
That's what I mean about MS going much father.
[snip]
> >IMHO, this is a problem with the specs- a problem that is almost
inevitable
> >given the standards process used to produce them.
>
> And a problem that can be avoided with a single test run. If you
> want to avoid it.
A single test run isn't anything like sufficient to test a Unix
emulation layer. Not even a mere POSIX emulation layer could
be testedd that way.
What you need to do is implement the *rest* of Unix's API,
as it actually is, rather than relying on a formal standard.
> >> They then go and make an incompatible version that does do what people
> >> expect and say "see, our stuff works better than that other crap,
> >> we have better features than the standard, switch to MS".
> >
> >Yup. That's their strategy for beating open source in a nutshell.
>
> And it is evil, if not strictly illegal when they bundle this
> stuff with products where they already have a monoply.
Certainly not. Providing better products is no doubt illegal
if you accept the DoJ's view of antitrust law- but it is not evil,
not even by the wildest stretch of the imagination.
[snip]
> >What makes you think it is likely to break with the next service pack?
> >Most things don't.
>
> MS has demonstrated their readiness to break authentication to
> a competing service in a service pack. How can you even ask
> that question now?
I'm not as paranoid as you are. I'm asking. *Why* do you think
MS is ready to do this?
You say they've demonstrated it. When? How?
> >With "open" standards, you are just committing to Unix. This is no
> >better in princinple than committing to OS/2 LAN Manager would
> >have been.
>
> First of all, it is better even if you were committed to unix
> because it is available from multiple vendors, but your
> statement is wrong by definition.
So's OS/2 LAN Manager, no? I don't think that counts
for much.
> If you follow protocols you are not committed to anything.
Sure you are. You are compatble only with other products
that use that protocol. In this case, that spells Unix.
Had MS standardized on Lan Manager the same way,
it would have spelled NT.
And that would have been a serious problem, because
real NT users needed and wanted to interoperate with
NetWare.
> >Well, if you do that you get to have the features of an NT server;
> >this may or may not be worthwhile. For a long time, many people
> >used NetWare servers for this because they felt that NT 4's
> >directory services were not up to snuff.
>
> And it is the last choice you ever get to make. The incompatibilities
> then prevent you from ever separately changing clients and servers.
Well, you can change *to* Windows clients because MS makes
their clients highly interoperable. Chaning *to* Unix clients
is rather harder, because they aren't as interoperable.
But on the other hand, Windows servers are also pretty interoperable,
if not as much so as their clients. It's not completely hopeless.
Of course, Unix vendors would be well advised to provide for
compatibility themselves, as MS does- relying on MS to do it
makes them vulnerable to MS's whims. Not a good idea.
> >> That's why there are so many non-MS clients for Exchange. That's why
> >> there are so many non-MS PDC and BDC servers.
> >
> >Now I don't know much about Exchange. But I *do* know there's a
> >documented API with which you can provide your own domain
> >controllers. If no-one has done it, maybe that's because no-one
> >feels it is worthwhile to go up against MS and NetWare both.
>
> More likely because no one trusts the next version release or
> service pack to work the same way.
That isn't so. Lots of people write software for MS OSes;
obviously they *are* willing to trust MS not to break their
stuff on the next service pack.
This isn't a plausible explaination. I think mine is better- they
don't see a lot of money in taking on MS and NetWare (and
even SAMBA!) all at once.
> >> Once again, MS redefines
> >> the language. MS's idea of interoperability is for their products to
> >> interoperate with their other products.
> >
> >And other peoples products.
>
> Like J++ works with real JVM's for example.
Sure. And J++ works with non-MS JVMs as well, not
just 'real' ones. :D
[snip]
> >That's not even the same interpretation you had before. *Now* you
> >are saying that if a company is successful in one market, they
> >are not allowed to expand into any other market, *regardless* of
> >how they do it. 'Leveraging' is not the point; you just can't expand.
>
> No, it was a matter of having end-to-end control of computers and
> their communications lines (both local and LD) that would give them
> the ability to leverage things. They could have entered a business
> field completely unrelated to communications.
No leveraging is involved in this case. You (and no doubt the DoJ)
are simpy saying that if you have a 'monopoly' you can't expand
*at all*.
> >That is a *horrible* stupid policy; it's destructive, immoral, and wrong
> >it just about every possible way.
>
> Having given up your choices to a monpoly controlling one thing
> should not force you to give them up in all related areas.
It doesn't of course, but you've shown how this isn't limited to
related areas or 'leveraging'.
> >> I don't think the DoJ has
> >> any interest in directing software design.
> >
> >Nonsense. They keep insisting on making product design
> >decisions for Microsoft. What is that if not directing software
> >design?
>
> Preventing a single company that already has a monopoly from
> dictating what everyone sees when they connect to the internet
> seems like a reasonable anti-trust action to me.
That would seem to argue they should be cheering MS on in their
efforts to dethrone Netscape, surely?
But nevertheless, this doesn't address the question I put to you.
The DoJ is telling MS what features they can have in Windows.
How can that not be directing software design?
> Actually it seems
> even better to prevent the same company from controlling television
> networks. AT&T would never have managed that in their monopoly
> days. Don't you even question *why* MS wants absolute control in
> these areas?
I don't even know *that* MS wants it.
> They could have easily backed away from bundling the
> browser and avoided the legal issues a long time ago.
I doubt it. MS tried compromising with the DoJ before, and
the DoJ ignored their own agreement and sued anway. I think
they would have found an excuse. If not this, something else.
> This has
> nothing to do with the look or action of the desktop which could
> be handled without internet browser capability.
That it *must* be handled without that capability is clearly
a software design decision that the DoJ is trying to shove
down everyone's throat.
------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Number of Linux Users
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 06:46:37 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It's not an accurate number. Not every http User-Agent: running under
linux (or bsd, et al) gives any information that it is running under
linux. Lynx isn't even recognized by most of the software. Neither are
most scripts. Not every program that analyzes User-Agent: does so
effectively.
One of my linux machines makes upward of a thousand http requests every
day as a client. I, on the other hand, make around 30 or 60 on my
windows machine. How well do you think that is tracked? In my case, it
isn't, yet. But thanks to you, I am going to remedy that oversight, and
encourage others to do the same.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> .3 percent.........
--
Salvador Peralta
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.la-online.com
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,talk.bizarre
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mathew)
Subject: Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 13:52:25 GMT
Rich C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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?
"Tog On Interface" reports an interesting result of some of the millions
of dollars of HCI research Apple did (around page 47 or so):
- Users consistently report keyboard shorcuts as faster than using the
mouse
- The stopwatch consistently reports using the mouse as faster than
keyboard shortcuts
(Anyone wishing to disagree with this should either cite large amounts
of expensive research to the contrary or SHUT THE FUCK UP.)
It has to be said, though, that this result probably doesn't apply to
Windows, because the Windows menus have several fairly basic design
flaws. One is the way sub-menus work when the mouse is moved diagonally
to the desired sub-command -- they don't. Another is that the menus are
on the application windows, which means you can't scoot the mouse to the
top of the screen, have it bang against the edge and come to a stop, and
be in the right position for a menu selection without having to do any
aiming. (Yes, there's a reason why the Mac menu is always at the top of
the screen.)
Having said that, if you're performing the same operation to half a
dozen random objects, it's faster to select the object with the mouse
(with one hand) and perform the operation with a shortcut (with the
other hand). This kind of situation is very rare, though.
So, the reasons applications have keyboard shortcuts are:
- Users think they're generally faster, even though they're not, and
they are therefore desirable features
- They provide a way to perform repetitive tasks with reduced mousing,
which helps reduce RSI
- When used with a mouse under certain rare circumstances, they are
slightly more efficient than using the mouse alone
I apologize for injecting facts into this discussion.
mathew
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,talk.bizarre
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mathew)
Subject: Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 13:52:30 GMT
Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> environment. I don't know the history of the interface research
> but there was something called 'CUA' for common user interface
> that must have been the basis for these and the subsequent GUI
> interfaces with the top menu bar/drop down menu styles.
CUA was an IBM standard ("Common User Access"), modelled on the
pre-existing interfaces of machines like the Macintosh. It described
both graphical and text-based application interfaces; the idea was that
if you had a graphical OS/2 application and a text-based OS/390
application run via a terminal window, both would have common interface
conventions for user access.
Some of Windows is clearly modelled on CUA, but Microsoft also dropped a
lot of the CUA requirements. (Such as having a help button on all
dialog boxes.)
> The difference, of course, was that back when it mattered the character
> based versions were about ten times faster.
Back then, all software was ten times faster.
mathew
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,talk.bizarre
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mathew)
Subject: Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 13:52:33 GMT
JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You should never have to crack open a manual for a GUI application,
> especially one that is not meant for specialized professional use.
This is in some ways a noble design goal; but it's also a complete myth.
Consider the humble pen and paper. About the most simple, uncluttered
and unconstrained interface in existence. It's used for everyday
communication and trivial tasks. We're taught it while our brains are
at their most receptive to learning.
Yet, it takes literally weeks of training to learn to operate a pen and
paper competently, and months before we are proficient enough to use it
for everyday work without it "getting in the way".
(If you think that's because we lack co-ordination as children, try
learning to write Chinese.)
So people who whine about needing to take a one day course to learn to
use a word processor properly are being utterly unreasonable, especially
given how much more functionality (and hence complexity) the word
processor has than the pen and paper.
mathew
[ Except, of course, that you can't wipe your butt with Microsoft
Word. ]
------------------------------
From: Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awesome!
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 13:58:26 GMT
Matthew McCleary wrote:
>
> I just thought I'd share my latest experience with GNU/Linux, namely Red Hat
> 6.2.
>
> Last night I upgraded my machine with an Abit BP6 motherboard, second
> Celeron-500 processor (I have two now with the same stepping, amazingly),
> and a SoundBlaster AudioPCI 128 card.
>
> I decided to do a fresh install of Red Hat 6.2 since I didn't really have
> anything that mattered on the machine anyway (I don't run Windows).
>
> After booting off the CD-ROM (slick) and partitioning my hard disk, Red Hat
> took about 20 minutes to install. After *one* reboot I discovered that the
> installer had detected I was running on an SMP machine and installed the
> 2.2.14-smp kernel automatically. Red Hat detected and started using both
> CPU's immediately upon bootup. No recompile required.
>
> It also detected my sound card on boot, configured it, and it works out of
> the box. No drivers required.
>
> I have installed Windows 98 and Windows 2000 on several occasions, and never
> have I had *every* component in the system work perfectly, out of the box,
> using only drivers supplied with the OS. Although my motherboard, video card
> and sound card all came with driver CD's, I never needed to put any of them
> in the drive. None of that "insert Windows 98 SE disc ... insert video
> driver disc ... insert Windows 98 disc again ... insert video driver disc
> again..." stuff. To my way of thinking, this signals that GNU/Linux finally
> has Microsoft beat.
>
> From now on I am running GNU/Linux and only GNU/Linux. I'm never looking
> back.
>
> Matthew McCleary
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I had the same thing with SuSE 6.4. These installation procedures are
really getting nicer all the time. I wonder what 6.5 will bring next.
------------------------------
From: Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Software
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 14:00:11 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Yea sure.....You go on and believe that one.
>
> Problem is the public is ignoring Linux.
>
> .3 percent of market share.
>
> How is that explained?
>
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 21:44:53 GMT, Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Linux follows the trends of the public directly, because it is made by
> >the public.
When are you going to SHUT UP!!!
SCRAM!! SHOO!! SHOO!! You're polluting this Usenet-group!
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
