Linux-Advocacy Digest #151, Volume #27 Sat, 17 Jun 00 21:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: 10 Months of my time wasted on Linux. Back to Microsoft for me! (Terry Porter)
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy?
("Christopher Smith")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Paul 'Z' Ewande©")
Re: The Tholenbot is becoming a Mutlu! (was: Microsoft invites Canada south)
(Jacques Guy)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day ("Rich C")
Desktop Arm systems? (Daniel Mendyke)
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 ("Rich C")
Re: What UNIX is good for. (Dave Vandervies)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (joseph)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Chris Wenham)
Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day ("Rich C")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: 10 Months of my time wasted on Linux. Back to Microsoft for me!
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 18 Jun 2000 08:06:15 +0800
On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:53:47 GMT, Mingus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, 07 Jun 2000 23:01:13 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
>wrote:
>
>
>>[deletia]
>>>explained the lack of anti-aliased fonts to me and that was the end of
>>>that. A person who has to look at a screen for 8 hours a day with jagged
>>>fonts is an OSHA lawsuit in the making.
>>
>> This, I think, is the clincher. While I'll agree that there
>> may be certain subjective aesthetic considerations to consider,
>> this strikes me as much the same as certain OS advocates that
>> look down on cheap 19" monitors for no other reason then that
>> they are cheap.
>
>
>I have a cheap 19" monitor. I value high price / performence. One of
>my friends has a sony 19" and I can hardly tell the difference.
>(except of course his has a line accross the middle. Thanks Sony)
Thats because its a "Trinitron" tube, that uses fine hi tensile wires as a
shaddow mask, instead of the cheaper pressed hole plate type, you have.
The "wire" you see is a tensioning cable to hold the wire frame steady, and
must be in front of the frame, hence its visible if you look carefully.
Mine has 2 wires, but I don't notice them. What I do notice is the lack of
sharpness of the type of "high price/performance" cheap crap you use.
>
>The simple truth is... Linux looks fucking horrible on both.
Simple truth is you dont have a clue, about what your using, how it works, or
how to improve it.
You'd go for aparrent beauty, everytime, no matter how brain dead/unreliable
or cheap it was.
Linux looks stunning here, on my 17" trinitron Apple monitor.
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 4 days 13 hours 53 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or
fantasy?
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 10:08:12 +1000
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8igu95$tb2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Say what ? Please quote the relevant parts of whatever EULAS you're
> talking
> > about that says this.
>
> On a piece of paper that came in the "shrink wrap" software envelope in an
> upgrade package for a Microsoft product was this passage:
>
> What is a software upgrade?
>
> A software upgrade is a modification converting your installed software
into
> a new and better version. It is like remodeling a house, when you have
> finnish the remodeling, it is a new and better version of the house. You
> still have only one house any you can nolonger use you original house.
The
> same is true for a software upgrade, you have a new and better version of
> the software and you may no longer use the original software.
>
> In the license agreement of a Microsoft product upgrade from around the
same
> time there was this:
>
> ...The lincense you were granted by Microsoft for the prior version of the
> SOFTWARE is null and void. ...
I don't have any upgrade software to check, but it wouldn't have a chance of
standing in court.
Mainly because, what that essentially says is you only have one chance to
use your upgrade software, since to reinstall it probably requires you to be
running the prior version.
Anyone out there got an upgrade version of any software ? Post the EULA.
> > What would be the point ? Is there really any significant number of
> people
> > running Windows 1.x and 2.x apps ?
>
> What is a significant number? Lets say there are only two remaining, one
> who has a need for Windows 1.x and another who has a need for Windows 2.x.
> Who are you or anyone to say that their needs don't matter.
>
> The question is not should Microsoft do it, it is why shouldn't Microsoft
> offer them free of charge to anyone who would like them.
Well presumably if these people have Windows 1.x and 2.x apps, then they
also still have Windows 1.x or 2.x to run them on.
What possible benefit do they get from Microsoft giving away software they
already own ?
New versions of software appearing don't somehow magically make the old
versions stop functioning.
> Microsoft has no
> continuing financial interest in these packages and doing so would
generate
> some good will amoung users and potiential users.
By allowing them to run hopelessly obselete software ?
What possible goodwill would letting people run Windows 1.x or 2.x spread ?
> It could also have other
> good effects for the company, for one this would be news. Wouldn't you
> imagine that the employees and shareholders would like to see Microsoft
> honetly mentioned in a favorable light in the news?
I ask again why giving away 15 year old software would be seen as "good
news".
> If they are afraid of
> legal entanglement because of incompatibility with some current hardware,
> they could release the as is and without warrenty. And don't say that
> Microsoft could not afford to do it, many companies with less wealth and
> resources have done this with their "obsolete" products. And the results
> for them have been favorable, it has even generated sales of their latter
> products.
I sincerely doubt usage of Windows 1.x or 2.x would encourage people to buy
later versions.
> Microsoft has nothing too loose and everything to gain by doing this.
They have nothing to lose and nothing to gain - what's the point ?
------------------------------
From: "Paul 'Z' Ewande©" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 02:21:07 +0200
Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message :
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In article <8ig2k4$2dk2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Paul 'Z' Ewande©"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message :
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > > >
> > > > End users have no need "to futz around trying to learn the clunky
> > > > OS",
> > > > there
> > > > are trained/experienced people for that.
> > >
> > > Oh, I see.
> > >
> > > So end users don't have to learn how to use Windows? They just have
> > > trained people do all their computer work for them?
> >
> > Nope. They use the apps, period. Launching an app, doing what has to be
> > done, saving your work, and shutting down the computer seem as easy to
do
> > on
> > both the Macintosh or on Windows. What they need to be trained on is how
> > to
> > work on a particular app, not the intricacies of the OS.
>
> Wrong. They also have to learn file managemnet, at the very least.
And it's _substantially_ different from the Mac how ?
> > That's why they are here for, not to fool around with their 'puters.
>
> Then how do you explain the fact that Mac users have such dramatically
> higher productivity level?
I don't even try to. Then again I never experienced first hand a
_dramatically_ higher productivity level.
> > Trained people perform the maintenance of the boxes [setting up,
> > installing/replacing hardware/software and such practices].
> >
> > > No wonder TCO is so bac on Windows. ;-)
> >
> > Where I work, there are guys who are paid on _both_ Windows _and_ MacOS
> > to
> > take care of things such as setting up and tending to the boxes.
> >
> > I'm not convinced that it's an outrageously rare practice. Of course,
> > your
> > mileage may, and probably will, vary. :)
>
> All of which is irrelevant.
It is ? I though we were talking of users "futzing while trying to learn the
clunky OS."
> You stated that end users don't have to learn to use Windows. That's
> absurd.
Sez you. They have to be able to access their files, launch their apps, save
their work, and shut down the computer. And IMO, it's done as easily on
Windows or the MacOS, from where I stand.
You have Windows, icons, menus, and for basic operations, they work the same
way on Windows or on the Mac.
Yeah, yeah I know, the MacOS is somehow more "elegant", whatever that may
mean.
Frankly, if you find it so much easier on the Mac as to _dramatically_
enhance your productivity, well, more power to you, I won't even ask you to
describe me how.
For those tasks, and for an average user, they are equivalent IMO. A power
user could lean towards one platform or another, depending on his tastes
experience. However, I knew that your mileage would vary, let's just agree
to disagree.
Paul 'Z' Ewande
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 00:14:16 -0700
From: Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Tholenbot is becoming a Mutlu! (was: Microsoft invites Canada south)
tholenbot wrote:
> Fish are irrelevant, Jacques. Your reading comprehension problems are
> relevant.
>
> In any event, to use your metaphor, tholenbot always bites when someone
> responds to its messages. There is no record, as far as I am aware, of
> tholenbot failing to respond to a message. If you had decent tholenbot
> comprehension skills, you would have recognized this fact.
That was typical Hasan B. Mutlu
> Take it up with Dave Tholen. Or maybe Tholen is Mutlu in disguise, or
> vice versa? Do you have any sample Mutlu posts available with header
> information? Perhaps a comparison is in order.
And so was this.
And this too:
> Then why do you seem so proud of your discovery that tholenbot behaves
> like a bot?
But this is Eliza:
> What makes you think that the half that is there isn't worn out already?
This again is typical Mutlu:
> Illogical, given that you were replying to me, and I am not Hasan B.
> Mutlu. Do you understand how Usenet works, Jacques?
>
> Also illogical, given that above you referred to this person as the
> "late" Hasan B. Mutlu. Do you frequently attempt to converse with the
> dead, Jacques? More evidence of your illogical behavior. Of course,
> that is par for your course.
Now, how would Tholen the Bot know about Hasan B. Mutlu?
Elementary, my dear Ahmed Cosar, just do Altavista search
on "Hasan B. Mutlu". Here are a few URLs:
http://imperium.lenin.ru/~verbit/scs/Mutlu_whatis.html
http://www.jaedworks.com/shoebox/zumabot.html
http://www.kkc.net/eyenet/1994/net0728.htm
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 10:14:26 +1000
"Sam Morris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:awT25.4251$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > My real question is why do we Windows users have to put up with the
old,
> > > outdated, kludgey and quite honestly crap system of identifying
volumes
> by
> > > drive letter that Windows STILL uses? Legacy apps be damned, the
longer
> > it's
> > > left the way it is, the harder it will be to switch to a vaguely more
> > modern
> > > system.
> >
> > Because when you move up to NT or Win2k and can set the drive letters
> > yourself, it becomes just like the Mac system, albeit with only one
letter
> > volume names.
>
> Hardly. I am still unable to read multiple partitions on removable drives.
Eh ? Far as I know you can do this now since NT treats things like a Jaz as
a removable hard disk - ie you can partition it. I don't personally own one
though, so I could be wrong.
I also can't think of any reason why you *couldn't* have multiple partitions
on removable drives.
> Whenever I try to install a driver using the Hardware Wizard the default
> setting is still for the floppy on A: and, since I didn't want to waste a
> tenner on an FDD, I still have to wait thirty seconds for Windows to
realise
> that the floppy it tries to read from doesn't exist.
30 seconds ? Try about 5, if that. If you don't have a floppy drive
installed it won't even look at the floppy at _all_ since it doesn't know
it's there.
If you do have a floppy drive installed and just don't have one plugged in,
well, you deserve anything you get.
> And unless I
> specifically spread all the drives out amongst the letters of the alphabet
> before I install anything then adding a new drive will still screw all my
> shortcuts and programs up.
No, because in NT you can set any drive to any letter you want (except, I
believe, floppies).
> (Just out of interest, what do you do under
> Windows if you need access to more than 26 drives? Unlikely I know, but
> anyway?)
Your computer disappears in a puff of smoke :D.
------------------------------
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: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 20:22:36 -0400
"Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ic9il$e65$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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*.
So then the old Red Hat installation program where you had to tab tab tab to
the "OK" box and then press Enter is a GUI? or for that matter the old DOS
text editor is a GUI? (It had "buttons" of sorts.) The information was
"presented" in a graphical form, but you had to use keyboard commands to
make a selection. Are you saying that all these old DOS and text mode Linux
programs are GUIs???
>
> A Graphical User Interface is just that - it has absolutely zero to do
with
> how you then manipulate said interface.
I don't believe this is true. I think "GUI" defines the interface, which
consists of output AND input.
>
> For example, where is voice control going to fit in ? CLI or GUI ?
I would hate to tell my computer to "Click that OK button over there....no,
not that one, up a little....no not that one either.....THERE! That's the
one......CLICK IT!!!"
I think voice control will define a whole new interface, but, since voice
"commands" translate into words more readily than into images (if a picture
is worth a thousand words, it will take a thousand words to define it) i
think it will be more consistent with a CLI.
>
> Again, how a user manipulates an interface is entirely separate as to
> whether that interface is graphical, command line or whatever.
>
I don't buy this argument. As I've said above, the interface consists of
INPUT as well as output. For example, there were menus long before there
were GUIs. The menu driven interface is NOT a GUI (or maybe by your
definition it is.) The only thing the GUI added to menus was the ability to
point to a menu item and click it as opposed to scrolling up and down the
menu list and hitting Enter.
>
> You are equating a command line with the keyboard. It just ain't so.
You are saying a graphical presentation is a GUI, when THAT just ain't so.
Take for example the print preview function in WordPerfect 5.1....or the
Graph function in Lotus 123. Were THOSE GUIs? I don't think 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.
Do you USE a CLI on a day-to-day basis?
>
> > > > 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.
No, of course you haven't. That's because you have to WAIT for the next
graphical presentation to be painted on the screen before the computer will
even accept your next input, even IF you knew where the next button was
going to materialize. The speed at which someone can utilize a GUI is
limited by the CPU and graphics speed of the computer in question.
>
> > > 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.
So in your definition, a Menu-driven interface is a GUI, right?
>
> > 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".
So where is the presented list of keyboard shortcuts in Windows? Don't you
have to "know" the commands? Sure you can go to the help system to get them,
but that doesn't count, as any good text-based CLI has help too.
>
> However, I doubt your average MacAdvocate would agree with that :).
I'm not a MacAdvocate and I don't agree with it either. IMHO, a text-based
menu-driven interface is NOT a GUI. Perhaps it needs its own class
definition, but to me, it is more a CLI than a GUI.
>
> > 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.
The fuzziness seems to be where we disagree: what category do menus fit
into?
>
> > 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 ?
Not at all. Like I said, a user interface includes both INPUT and output. As
for voice control, see my response above.
>
> How about keyboard alternatives ?
Keyboard alternatives to what?
>
> > 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: Daniel Mendyke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Desktop Arm systems?
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 17:20:19 -0700
Is there a source for non x86 based general
desktop PC in the US? Most of what I've
seen so far have been either Alpha based
or 'black box' type servers.
Anyone making a desktop style ARM machine
or MIPS based system? Any source for motherboards
that would work with generic parts?
-Daniel
--
To reach me remove the 'nospam.'
my address is 'daniel at clacknet dot com'
------------------------------
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: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 20:29:42 -0400
"Jim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8ic9il$e65$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Well I must say that I think that's a silly definition to use :). Like
I
> > said before, where would a voice control system fit into this ?
> >
> > How about keyboard alternatives ?
>
> I think Rich (correct me, please, if I'm overstepping) would like us to
> be more specific, though to what purpose, I'm still unclear. Perhaps the
> following suggested list will stimulate thought:
>
> KUI keyboard
> CLI command line
> GUI graphics
> EUI eyeball
> VUI verbal
> NUI neural
> HUI handshake (literally, for wearable computer )
>
> Perhaps some of these could be "pure" interfaces (HUI, NUI?). Most of
> them would wind up being combined with others in a functional system.
>
> --
> Jim Naylor
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The original "purpose" was to dispute the use of keyboard shortcuts in
comparing a GUI's efficiency with that of a CLI. My contention was that
keyboard shortcuts are part of a CLI that is available through the GUI, not
part of the GUI itself. Even by Mr. Smith's definition, and I quote,
"A CLI is a command *line* interface that relies on you knowing the
commands, how they operate and what the results will be."
This defines keyboard shortcuts to a Tee in my book. Just because you don't
have a cursor blinking at you is irrelevant.
--
-- Rich C.
"Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people."
------------------------------
From: "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 20:32:26 -0400
"Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8idv4h$aif$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Jim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <8ic9il$e65$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > 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 ?
> >
> > I think Rich (correct me, please, if I'm overstepping) would like us to
> > be more specific, though to what purpose, I'm still unclear. Perhaps the
> > following suggested list will stimulate thought:
> >
> > KUI keyboard
> > CLI command line
> > GUI graphics
> > EUI eyeball
> > VUI verbal
> > NUI neural
> > HUI handshake (literally, for wearable computer )
> >
> > Perhaps some of these could be "pure" interfaces (HUI, NUI?). Most of
> > them would wind up being combined with others in a functional system.
>
> I think the point I'm failing to get across here is that the tool you use
an
> interface with is irrelevant to the class of that interface.
So the INPUT mechanism you use is irrelevant; only the OUTPUT (the graphics)
is relevant? You're only defining half of a user interface here.
-- Rich C.
"Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people."
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dave Vandervies)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: What UNIX is good for.
Date: 17 Jun 2000 23:51:43 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
void <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 04:10:58 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>There's also Emacs, a LISP interpreter masquerading as a text editor. :-)
>
>I thought it was an operating system?
Emacs has device drivers now? Last I checked, it was only a shell. :)
dave
--
Dave Vandervies [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[-hs-]>>target) do a websearch. Try www.goggle.com A good engine.
[Dave]>I think you mean www.google.com .
[-hs-]Oh yes, a godd engine ! - -hs- being corrected in comp.lang.c
------------------------------
From: joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 00:23:45 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > By the same token, claiming that the procedures are seriously flawed
and
> > difficult to use based on a personal episode can be misleading.
>
> Which is why I didn't.
>
> But I did say that I wanted a more granular update mechanism, and
> that points to what obviously is a flawed mechanism: The hideous
> amount of redundant code you download with every successive fixpack.
>
> The FixPack system is badly flawed for this reason alone.
Hideous and badly flawed are exaggerations.
The fixpack is robust, able to service any OS2 system at any state. It
can be easily distributed on a LAN and loaded off a local disk.
A fine grained update that does NOT require sequential application
creates exponential number of new OS configurations, decreasing
reliability and quality. An OS is a single item, not a collection of
independent features. Fixpacks manage the OS as a single item.
-- joseph
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
From: Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 00:43:59 GMT
joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > By the same token, claiming that the procedures are seriously flawed
> and
> > > difficult to use based on a personal episode can be misleading.
> >
> > Which is why I didn't.
> >
> > But I did say that I wanted a more granular update mechanism, and
> > that points to what obviously is a flawed mechanism: The hideous
> > amount of redundant code you download with every successive fixpack.
> >
> > The FixPack system is badly flawed for this reason alone.
>
> Hideous and badly flawed are exaggerations.
>
> The fixpack is robust, able to service any OS2 system at any state. It
> can be easily distributed on a LAN and loaded off a local disk.
> A fine grained update that does NOT require sequential application
> creates exponential number of new OS configurations, decreasing
> reliability and quality. An OS is a single item, not a collection of
> independent features. Fixpacks manage the OS as a single item.
>
> -- joseph
Did you just write that? It's dated June 18 but it's in response to
something I posted over a month ago.
Regards,
Chris Wenham
------------------------------
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: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 20:53:00 -0400
"Chad Irby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > 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.)
>
> The graphical interface is on the screen, not in the mouse.
Really? So it is a GUI as long the OUTPUT is graphical? What about the old
Lotus 123 Graph function? What about the WordPerfect "Print Preview"
function? Are THOSE GUIs? By your definition, they are.
A user interface is defined by HOW the user interfaces with the computer.
This includes BOTH input and output.
>
> The only people who insist that GUIs use mouse-only commands are
> desperate CLI junkies who are hopelessly trying to keep up the facade
> that CLIs are inherently "more efficient."
They are. The industry I consult for has done studies with computer
illiterate people (specifically security guards) as to whether command lines
or GUIs would be a more effective way of enabling the guards to interact
with the security system software. The overwhelming conclusion *for this
group* was that a CLI with short (3 letter) commands was much easier to
learn and faster to operate than a GUI.
>
> They're not. They're only somewhat faster for very specific operations,
> and massively slower for alomst everything else.
You must be thinking of VMS! :oP (oops, now I did it....someone is bound to
throw a "cousin it" at me any moment!)
>
> --
>
> Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
-- Rich C.
"Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people."
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
