Linux-Advocacy Digest #164, Volume #27 Sun, 18 Jun 00 03:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: How many times, installation != usability. (WhyteWolf)
Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day ("Christopher
Smith")
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy?
("Quantum Leaper")
Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server (Jeff Szarka)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (WhyteWolf)
Subject: Re: How many times, installation != usability.
Date: 18 Jun 2000 06:10:10 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tim Palmer wrote:
[sniped]
>>Actually the store people will do what they do no matter what you ask
>>them. They will stand there scratching thier heads going "DUH" and
>>drewling.
>
>Learn to speal "drool", morron.
your giving spelling lessons?
the world is truly doomed
>>> NT can handall 2 network card. All Linsux fools have to say about that is "one
>network card
>>> ought to be enough for anybody!"
>>
>>Um, I hate to break this to you, but I have two servers in the room
>>right above me that each have four network cards in them. You were
>>saying?
>
>Linsux slows down to a crawl when it has to handall more than 1 NIC. NT can run
>circels around
>Linsux with 2 NICs. Linux loser's only answer to this is 'why would you ever want to
>run a server
>with 2 NICs?'
bold face lies
good going ... nice tatics ... gota love that
so when is NT going to handle a S/390??
{and yes LINUX runs on the system
pure linux .. on the big iron ... }
>>> And then you half to drop to Linux's version of DOS in order to correct the
>shortcut.
>>
>>I don't know of any graphical file manager under Linux that won't allow
>>you to create links.
>
>I know of a few that will delay forever and a day when you try to lode a folder as
>big as /dev.
yeah? I wannt see that I havn't seen one yet
and I"ve used most of the most obsecure ones
only thing I've ever seen have that problem
was a windows box that tried readding a
network link to a huge directory over a
100/10 it hung the system cause windows
didn't know enough to stop reading on it's own
I figured that the client at least would have figured
out TIME_OUT
>>> Yeah, if you like wrighting a shell script everytime you nead the computer to do
>something that
>>> would be simpal under Windows.
>>
>>Um, no, it wouldn't even be possible under Windows most of the time.
>
>What woudlnt evan be possible? A script that takes the second word from every file in
>/etc and
>prints it all on one line? Who cares?
no ... what wouldn't be posable in windows is a script
that grabs all the headers for updated programs off of
freshmeat checks a database that was built with another script
of all the programs that you want it to update with the
latest stable release transparently of course
>>Let's see, browse the web,
>
> ...with Nutscrape. Try IE. You'll never look back.
tried IE ... 5.0 was when they first started
towards the right track ... they really have alot
more work to do ...
>
>>watch RealMedia streaming,
>
> ...with last year's version of the software...
nope 7.0 .. which is the latest version for windows
>
>>use imaging software,
>
>Photoshop? Or are you counting the GIMP as "imaging software"?
>
>>scan papers,
>
> ...only with scannars specially designed to be "standard" enough for Linux to
>recognize.
>
>>serve files, web servers, ftp servers,
>
> ...only as long as you like fucking around with /etc/inetd.conf,
>/etc/rc.d/rc.WHATEVER, etc.
yeah .. love fsking around with /etc/inetd.conf ... only hafta
enter the data once and it runs ... exatly like I want it to
with out having any problems ... everytime
>
>>NIS/YP servers,
>
>Only usefull on UNIX, whear you half to have the same numerric user-IDs across the
>whoal network.
>
>>play games,
>
> ...only crappy, open-sores games.
Quake III is open source?
UnReal Ternament is Open Source?
>
>>and pretty much any other thing you can dream up
>>doing with your precious Windows. Granted, I'm a writer as one of my
>>hobbies and Linux allows me much more flexibility with my writing, but
>>that doesn't mean I can't use it for a million other things. One of my
>>favorite Linux boxes is the one I use to rip and compress all of my CDs
>>into MP3s and then anytime I want to listen to a song it's just a few
>>mouse-clicks away.
>
>Don't you mean a few text commands away? Thears nothing on Linux that even counts as
>being
>functional to a WinAmp user.
nope mouse clicks ... XMMS is a nice little piece of work
looks and acts exatly like Winamp ... it's always
fun to listen to shoutcast streams in it sence it doesn't
take as much over head as winamp it self did ...
I was plesently surprized with the downbit streams i was getting
>>You aren't stuck with someone else's idea of what your computer should
>>"feel" like. That is the one thing that I hated about Windows. You had
>>to use your computer the way that Bill Gates decided you should use it.
>
>I'd rather have Bill Gates deciding how my computer should feel than having some apps
>decide
>they want to feel like GTK and other apps decide that they want to feel like KDE,
>etc, and
>none of them beign compattible with eachother.
not being compatable? what *ARE* you smoking??
i have QT proggies and GTK proggies working together all the
time and as for KDE ... I hate the feel of KDE ...
the shortcuts were to much like windows ..
>>The few times that X does crash you can typically just go to another
>>machine, log in through telnet and do a "rcxdm restart" (sorry, using
>>SuSE convention here) and be right back in business. Of course, if you
>>are on a non-networked machine you have a point. But I will also say
>>that the last time that X crashed on me was when I was hacking around in
>>a program and forgot some rather important clean-up functions.
>>Consequently when I launched the program a second time it kind of
>>overrode itself and locked up itself and X with it.
>
>A program doing the same thing on Windos would'nt crash the system.
bullshit ... a program that doesn't have clean up
in windows not only crashes the system it
has the side effect of leaking into the DLL's
>>Other than a screw up like this, it is pretty difficult to lock X
>>through every day use.
>
>You can lock it up with a trojan.
thats not everyday use
plus the fact that windows has a much
more difficult time with trojans the linux
lets see ...
NetBus,Back Orafice, SubSeven, ILOVEYOU.vbs,LOVEBUG.vbs
I even know a guy in new zeland that had his
harddrive formated from montana cause he had
NetBus on his system ... lost his entire
contract cause of a trogan
--
-=-=-=-=-
Ever wonder if taxation without representation might have been cheaper?
-=-=-=-=-
------------------------------
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: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 16:26:19 +1000
"Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8ihaic$up3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > 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???
> >
> > *I* would say that, yes.
> >
> > Once you get into text mode stuff though, it can get quite fuzzy. If,
for
> > example, you had a scale of 1 - 5 to measure from "CLIness" to
"GUIness",
> > I'd say (for something like text editors):
> >
> > sed (or, say, edlin) = 1
> > vi = 2
> > emacs (or, say, wordperfect) = 3
> > DOS EDIT = 4
> > Word (for Windows) = 5
> >
> > Like anything to do with computers and definitions, what something is
> > *defined* as is vastly different to what that same thing is commonly
> > *accepted* as. You can't just classify something CLI or GUI, because
what
> a
> > CLI is and what a GUI is very vague.
>
> Not to mention the fact that they can be combined into one interface, with
> elements of both types present, as with Windows and its keyboard
shortcuts.
> It's only vague because you refuse to take it apart and identify each
> component as belonging to one class or the other. Instead you are calling
a
> "primarily" graphical interface a GUI and everything that goes along with
> it.
It's vague because it's interdependant. If you take it apart and describe
the parts then your description is not applicable to the whole.
> That's like (to use a dreaded automotive analogy) calling a trailer part
> of the car just because it's hitched up.
No, you'd call it part of the vehicle.
> > > I don't believe this is true. I think "GUI" defines the interface,
which
> > > consists of output AND input.
> >
> > However, restricting "GUI" input to mouse only is silly.
> >
> > Is a Windows system running without a mouse somehow *not* a GUI ?
>
> It's only HALF a GUI: the output is GUI the input is CLI, because you have
> to know the shortcuts, or commands, to access the graphical elements.
Which is somehow different to knowing you have to move and click the mouse
*how*, exactly ?
What's the big different between the input device with 2 buttons, and the
one with 102 ?
You have to know what "commands" to enter, no matter what you're entering
them with.
> > Well, you wouldn't, you'd say "OK" and the machine would (hopefully)
> > automatically do it to the button that was in the window in focus.
>
> So how would you "tell" the machine where to focus?
Well in the case of a dialog it would probably be focussed automatically.
To switch focus you'd probably say something like the title of the window.
I can't say I've put much thought into it - current technology is *way* too
immature to develop a usable voice control system.
You certainly wouldn't be doing something like maneuvering a mouse cursor
around with voice commands, that's just plain dumb - it'd be like using a
mouse to pick out letters to enter commands into a CLI.
> To me, it is more
> natural to command the machine via voice commands, "Open file FOO in
folder
> BAR." or "Email file FOO to John Doe."
There's no reason why you couldn't do that with a GUI.
> > Not really, because a CLI is more typified by having to know what the
> > commands and manipulations are before you actually perform them (eg you
> have
> > to know what "ls" is and what it does, to see a file list), whereas a
GUI
> is
> > typified by having the "options" presented, and you pick one (eg, click
on
> a
> > folder and you see what's in it).
>
> While reading text may indeed be visual, speaking to a computer is not.
> Words translate more readily into commands than they do to the "n"th item
in
> a list or a button in a specific place on the screen.
That would be a really poor way to implement voice control. There's no
reason to do it like that even with the limits of today's technology.
> > Of course, real life usage falls in between those two extremes. Nothing
> is
> > ever black and white when it comes to computers (somewhat ironic, when
you
> > consider they're basically just a big collection of on/off switches :).
>
> Actually, all digital logic consists of a zero state (off) a one state
(on)
> and the gray area in between where the output is unpredictable.
That output isn't unpredictable, it's ignored. Ergo the end product is one
of two things - a 1 or 0.
> > Voice control could manipulate a GUI *or* a CLI just as easily.
>
> IMHO, the CLI would be easier to implement and easier to use.
Easier to implement, certainly.
Easier to use, entirely dependent on implementation.
Easier to *learn*, highly doubtful.
Be careful about the distinction between easy to learn and easy to use, they
are very different things.
> > > 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.
> >
> > The other big thing a "traditional" GUI added was more screen estate and
> > layered windows.
>
> If there were no GUIs, do you think we'd still be operating text mode
> displays at 80x25 or 80x50? There would surely be room for multiple
windows
> side by side, or tabbed such that one could be brought from the back to
the
> front with ease. This had actually already started with DOS before Windows
> took over.
That's what I said below.
> > Of course, there's no reason you couldn't do that in text mode. It'd
> really
> > be a step backwards, though.
>
> "Backwards" is dependent on which way you're facing. It would certainly be
> faster.
Oh I doubt that. That might have been true 5 years ago, but modern machines
are quite fast enough to display GUIs.
> > > > 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.
> >
> > Well, it is a *Graphical* User Interface.
>
> No, it's a graphical presentation. How would you "interface" to it?
Any way you want. DOesn't change the fact it's graphical.
> > My point was I've never had to wait for the machine to complete one task
> > before I perform the next. The bottleneck in the system is quite
clearly
> > *me* and my reaction speed.
>
> Not if you're waiting for the next level of dialog box to appear (which
> happens frequently to users with slow systems.)
No, I don't have to wait - that's my point. The system is fast enough to
display whatever the next thing is before I can decide what to do with it.
> What's worse, if you're
> doing things by GUI on a slow system, you've got to stick around and pay
> attention to what the system is doing, because you've got to continuously
> click dialog boxes as they come up. With a CLI, once you do the
> "preprocessing" you mentioned elsewhere, you can get up and get coffee and
> let the computer do it's thing (or, in my case, move to another system and
> start something else.)
There's nothing I can think of that I do on my system I can't do that with
in a GUI. Since 99% of all my use is interactive, the dialogs you refer to
are essential to actually using the thing.
Indeed, there's no inherent reason a GUI would exhibit the behaviour you
have described.
> > Sure, you can plonk NT4+IE4 on a 486/16 with 12MB of RAM and it'll just
> > about run backwards, but that's not inherently the *GUI's* fault.
>
> In a way, it is, because the GUI is taking resources that are not
abundant,
> thus adding to the lethargy.
That doesn't hold. By that logic a CLI is bad because it's slow on an XT.
> That's why Linux with a CLI runs so well on
> said 486/16 with 12 meg of RAM.
Well, it runs. I wouldn't call it "well" if you're actually _using_ the
thing.
> > > So in your definition, a Menu-driven interface is a GUI, right?
> >
> > Pretty much. Although, again, it's still shades of grey. A menu that
is
> > always there (eg, DOS EDIT) is "more" of a GUI than one which you have
to
> > specifically activate to use (eg Emacs, Wordperfect).
>
> I'll buy that the *PRESENTATION* is graphical, because the user *sees*
what
> the selected command or item is, but the input is command-oriented.
_All_ input is command oriented. Again, what's the big different between
the input device with 2 buttons and the one with 102 ?
> Now, if
> the menu interface were a *touch screen,* I would agree that that was a
GUI.
Personally I can't see how it would make a difference. A touch screen is
just like having a mouse, without the mouse.
How about a touch screen with a keyboard on, say, the bottom half of it ?
Where does that fit in ?
> > No, you're misunderstanding. With a CLI you have to know what you want
to
> > do *and how to do it* before you can do it. Eg you have to know that
you
> > want a directory listing and you have to know the command "ls" before
you
> > can get a directory listing.
>
> Not necessarily. There are CLIs where you can simply type "copy" and hit
> Enter and the interface will come back with "From:" at which point you
type
> "foo.txt" and hit Enter and the interface comes back with "To:" Type your
> destination and hit Enter. You don't always have to know the entire
command
> syntax up front to use the interface.
But you still have to know eg. what the files are.
GUIs give you context and the ability to visually manipulate the interface.
> > Yes, with a keyboard shortcut you need to know what it is, but that
> doesn't
> > change the fundamental difference in that the GUI presents you with the
> > things it can do and you do them and with a CLI you don't have the
> "options"
> > presented.
>
> The CLI we developed for the security guards (mentioned in a parallel
thread
> I think) allowed initiation of a conversation by simply typing the command
> string (3 letters) and the system would prompt the user with lists of
> options for each parameter. Alternately, the entire string could be typed
on
> one line, if the user knew what the options (s)he wanted.
This is where you move into the fuzzy area. In one way it's a CLI and in
another, a GUI.
[chomp]
------------------------------
From: "Quantum Leaper" <[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 07:05:37 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8igu96$tb2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > If so much is imbedded in the GUI shell, why can I change that shell?
> > LiteStep and the other available GUI replacements for Window 9x or NT 4.
>
> Once again Microsoft's dogma is crushed on the heel of reality. I wonder
if
> the Microsoft supporters will be mature enough to give you a tip of the
hat
> for that fact?
>
Next time try answering the question, instead of spouting BS.
------------------------------
From: Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 03:04:59 -0400
On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 01:06:48 -0400, "Colin R. Day"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Jeff Szarka wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 07:35:06 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >The only people who seem to dislike X, are those that don't know X. Yes,
>> >it is not as fast as it could be, but it is pretty fast. Accelerated
>> >versions of X are quite fast.
>> >
>> >What is X?
>>
>> I'm going to forward a copy of this message to my grandmother and see
>> what she thinks of X. The amount of the market that actually cares
>> about such things is very small. My grandmother (and her friends) make
>> up the other 90% Which market do you want?
>
>We want an OS that is not dumbed down to your grandmother.
and that's why Turbo Linux and Corel are laying off people. There
isn't a big enough market for even one Linux company.
>>
>>
>> People hate X becuase it's ugly and slow. They don't care why it's
>> ugly and slow, they just know it is.
>
>X isn't ugly, as you don't get to see X. KDE, Gnome. Afterstep can
>be beautiful or ugly.
KDE is ugly too. Seriously... the fonts look better on a 15 year old
Mac.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
