Linux-Advocacy Digest #576, Volume #27 Mon, 10 Jul 00 19:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Mike Stump)
Re: M-systems DiskOnChip Linux Drivers conflict with GPL? (mlw)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (void)
Looking for Linux authors ("JeffK")
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Mike Stump)
To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (Aaron Ginn)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Jay Maynard)
Re: A MacOpinion of Open Source that REALLY HITS THE MARK (John Jensen)
Re: Advocacy Newsgroup, Right? (Arthur Frain)
Re: A MacOpinion of Open Source that REALLY HITS THE MARK (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (void)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (void)
Re: A MacOpinion of Open Source that REALLY HITS THE MARK (Aaron Kulkis)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 21:29:03 +0200
In article <8kcrd9$puu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefaan A Eeckels) wrote:
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Hyman Rosen escribió:
>> >>
>> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) writes:
>> >> > The LGPL does not have this problem. Nor the one
>> >> > I mentioned. But it doesn't serve the political
>> >> > agenda of the FSF - the point of the GPL really *is*
>> >> > to control and usurp the works of others.
>> >>
>> >> Of course this is a lie. The point of the GPL is to encourage
>> >> the development of free software.
>> >
>> > That only makes sense if you accept a priori that what the GPL
>> > calls free software actually is free software.
>>
>> Obviously. And as was argued here over, and over again, there
>> is no reason not to accept that GPLed software is not free,
>> albeit in a restricted fashion.
>>
>
> "free in a restricted fashion" can be said about almost anything.
> IE5 is free in a restricted fashion.
IE5 is free in the "free of charge" meaning.
>
>> > According to some opinion's (say, Mr. Dyson's and lately, my own)
>> > the GPL is not free in several meaningful ways.
>> The only signficant restriction is that sometimes one cannot use GPLed
>> software in combination with software that carries an incompatible
>> license, even if this is a "free" license.
>
> And that unless you make every contributor sign legal docs giving
> the copyright to you, everyone practically loses the right to change
> the software's license. Other licenses like the QPL (and the MPL?) try
> to avoid this.
By requiring you to go through the original author acting as a
clearinghouse. It's another type of restriction.
The point (at least as I see it) is not whether the GPL carries
restrictions, or makes it difficult to change the license (it
does), but that the (re-)distribution requirements somehow
disqualify it from being called a free license, which will remain
a value judgement.
>
>> > Thus, the purpose of the GPL is simply to promote the development
>> > of GPLd software. That is obvious in that, for example, the GPL
>> > discourages
>> > development of BSD-licensed software just as strongly as commercial
>> > software.
>> That's not true. The GPL doesn't allow you to license a derivative
>> work under the BSDL.
>
> And that discourages development of BSDL software.
It discourages the development of BSDL software based on existing
GLPed software. If, in your judgement, that means the license
cannot be called "free", then OK with me. Just don't present that
as an evidence that everyone has to accept.
> You are also not allowed to create, say, a BSDL program that uses a
> GPL library, can you?
Of course you can. When the CPL was created, there was no dynamic
linking to speak of, and
>
>> It discourages derivative works that are not
>> licensed under a compatible license.
>
> The only license compatible with the GPL are the ones that are
>
> a) Practically public domain (no-publicity BSD)
> b) The GPL
>
> That doesn't leave much room.
No, because the requirement to distribute source code is a very
big hurdle for most companies interested in selling packaged
software (software that has to earn its keep by selling in huge
quantities). GPLed software is an excellent basis/component of
custom systems. The general purpose improvements and bug fixes
are returned to the community (so the core doesn't need to be
modified when moving to a new release), and the custom bits can
remain proprietary (no distribution requirement).
>
>> It's the existence of GPLed code
>> that might discourage people to write compatible software under
>> another free license.
>
> Indeed, that is an aditional discouragement of free software development
> I had not thinked of.
Obviously, if people feel very strongly that the GPL presents
intolerable restrictions, they will be motivated to write a
"truly free" alternative, not?
>
>> > As long as you believe that's a worthy goal, there is no problem,
>> > of course, just say it clearly and not obfuscate the goal by using
>> > words that have multiple meanings.
>> That's a value judgement, and one should consider several points:
>> - precious few words have only one meaning, and the usage of
>> the word "free" by the FSF and in the GPL is not significantly
>> outside the range of meanings available for the word "free".
>
> It is. Free in this day and age, applied to a thing, means with no
> charge. Things can not be free in the freedom sense, because things
> have no rights.
That's a nonsensical argument used by people who want to avoid
the issue. Obviously, freedom is the results of rights granted
to individuals (or, in the loftier sense, rights that cannot be
taken away by the collectivity). The freedom meant by the GPL is
the right to obtain and modify the source code, and to distribute
the modified program under certain conditions. It seems to me that,
in the restricted frame of reference of software, is can honestly
be called freedom. There is no absolute definition of freedom, and
no language police that determines the correct usage, fortunately.
>
> You could say that you are free by using GPL'd software, or that
> someone is free to use it, but the software itself is not "libre".
The abbreviating "free software" is just as accurate as "free speech".
The latter means "freedom to say, with certain restrictions, what
you want". The former means "freedom to obtain, modify...etc".
It's a perfectly acceptable (if not totally unambiguous) figure of
speech.
>> - there is no reason to assume there was/is a desire to obfuscate
>> any goals, as the GPL is quite clear about its intentions.
>
> The GPL is anything but clear, but that's just MHO.
Obviously. I had no problem understanding it.
>> - The FSF and the GPL predate many other "free" licenses, and
>> thus the onus is not on them to change or drop their use of
>> the word "free" WRT to software (as rms was probably _the_
>> first, or one of the very first, to define the word "free" as
>> applicable to software).
>
> There's a funny scene in a movie with Ringo Starr, called 1000000BC,
> in which cavemen discover fire.
>
> The leader gives it a name: "Urgh".
> Then another character comes and says "fire!".
> "No, urgh". "fire" "urgh". "Ok. urgh".
>
> I could have called cars planes, that doesn't make them fly.
Granted, but if you were the first to name an object or concept,
and a bunch of johnny-come-latelies demand that you change the
name you coined because it doesn't fit their world view, I
guess you would do as RMS does: see if their interpretation
prevails in common usage.
>> Do you think KDE would have been more widely adopted if it'd
>> been licensed under BSDL, or put in the public domain?
>
> Honestly? I don't think it would have made any difference at all.
Thanks.
--
Stefaan
--
Ninety-Ninety Rule of Project Schedules:
The first ninety percent of the task takes ninety percent of
the time, and the last ten percent takes the other ninety percent.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Stump)
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 22:21:16 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Mike Stump escribió:
>A credit card's money is no more virtual than a dollar bill.
:-) Some don't like the notion that the dollar is more virtual
now-a-days, but I digress.
>A credit card's "dollar" is simply a reference to a dollar you
>promise to give to the bank in the not too distant future.
You said it yourself, A credit card is a promise of a future dollar.
It is in fact, not a dollar. Actually, a credit card isn't even a
promise, the use of the card creates a promise. A promise is what I
think one might reasonably call virtual. It is close, but when the
promiss isn't fulfilled, it does differ.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: M-systems DiskOnChip Linux Drivers conflict with GPL?
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 18:33:28 -0400
Richard Chapman wrote:
>
> I hope someone can clarify this for me. Suppose I want to sell
> a box with Linux and and M-systems DiskOnChip flash chip on it.
> Suppose I want to use M-systems Linux drivers in that product.
>
> Now, M-systems doesn't provide the full source code for their
> Linux drivers, only a .o file for a big chunk of it. Now, I understand
> that there is the "Linus exception" to GPL that says that device
> drivers that are dynamically loadable as modules can be distributed
> with Linux without the source code without violating the license
> agreement for Linux. However, the M-systems driver appears not
> to be a module, but statically built into the kernel. So, my question is,
> are they in violation of the Linux or GPL license agreements?
>
> If the answer to that is no, I perceive that I am not violating any
> license agreements: M-systems, Linux's, or GPL, if I sell my box
> described above. Correct?
>
I am not a lawyer, and do not wish to be one. That sounds like a
question which would be a prime candidate for lawyer involvement.
As for DiskOnChip, I would not use them within the kernel. I would use a
minimal bootable DOC of a compressed ram image, and run the embedded
system on a ramdisk. In the long run it is better and cheaper. If you
can compress your file system to 1/2 its size, you can get a smaller
DOC, and spend the difference on RAM. As you know DOC is way more
expensive than RAM.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
Nepotism proves the foolishness of at least two people.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (void)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: 10 Jul 2000 22:38:05 GMT
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 14:50:55 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>void wrote:
>
>> Preemptive multitasking is more than just a buzz-phrase -- it's an
>> important part of the architecture of anything claiming to be a real OS.
>> There's a good reason why it's one of the major marketing points for
>> MOSX.
>
>And considering that the fundamentals of pre-emptive multi-tasking
>were figured out in the mid 1960's, what the hell took MicroSloth
>so long to implement it in LoseDOS?
What're you asking me for? My OSs of choice tend to trace their lineage
back to a Bell Labs basement in 1969. Or was that a rhetorical question?
--
Ben
220 go.ahead.make.my.day ESMTP Postfix
------------------------------
From: "JeffK" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Looking for Linux authors
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 22:44:38 GMT
Sybex Inc., a leading computer book publisher in the Bay area, is looking
for Linux professionals to author numerous on the Linux operating system.
Qualified candidates should either work as a NetAdmin in a predominately
Linux based environment and/or work as a trainer teaching IT professionals
how to install, maintain, and troubleshoot Linux.
If interested, please contact me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] or 602-942-6479.
Jeff Kellum
Acquisitions Editor
Sybex Inc.
www.sybex.com
602-942-6479
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Stump)
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 22:42:53 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, Mike Stump wrote:
>> Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> copying of software does not diminish the availability of software.
>> You say that like it were true or something, it is not.
>
>Except that it is true.
>
>It's up to you to explain how my downloading of a file from tucows
>reduces its availability. It's *still there*.
Ok, I'll bite. Stupid me, as I know it will be lost on you, but I'll
do it for the benefit of the other readers still following.
Suppose there is some software on a site that has banner advertising,
and that the software can be downloaded by all that come to the site.
Suppose that the software is an mpeg movie player. Suppose that some
of the advertising revenue is folded back into the developement and
enhancement of that software. Suppose that 90% of the enhancement is
funded by this revenue stream. Now, suppose it was covered by the
BSDL, and that someone comes along and grabs it, and reoffers the
software on a different web site, but without source. Let's say that
it is 5% better than the old software. People will find it, and will
download it. Once people download it, they are less likely to
download from the other web site. Most users don't care about source
availability and hence, with good software reviewing guides, most
users will go to the new web site instead of the old web site. Let
say that number of hits lost is 50%. This will directly lead to
substantial decreases in funding for the original software. Since 90%
of the enhancements are funded this way, this leads to a 45% drop in
enhancements. This drop can be enough for the original author to stop
doing enhancements altogether. So we go from well maintained software
to software that bit rots and isn't maintained. This is a change is
the software. The previous level of software isn't maintained.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Date: 10 Jul 2000 15:20:27 -0700
Pete. Your posts about how Linux lags behind Windows are amusing to me.
Here's a little story about how Windows crapped out on me last night,
and how Linux rescued me. Windows could have never done this.
I have a dual boot system, Win98 and Mandrake 7.1. Last night, I
decided to restore my Windows registry from a master backup to improve
the sludgy performance that I've been seeing lately. According to the
online help that came with my NEC computer, this would simply require
a few reloads of applications. Like an idiot, I chose to believe
it...
Anyway, I rebooted and began to restore my drivers. I came to my 3COM
NIC driver and reinstalled it. What I forgot was that I had added this
NIC myself; it didn't come with the computer. You can probably guess
what happened next...
I rebooted and was greeted with an Explorer page fault violation. My
Windows partition is currently worthless now because I reinstalled a
driver! The problem was that I had upgraded to IE 5.0 after I had
added the NIC. Apparently, there is a dll conflict between these.
I hadn't told my wife that I was "fixing" the computer, so when she
found out she couldn't get to her mail, she was a little annoyed! :)
Anyway, I created her an account on my Linux partition, mounted the
windows partition as a vfat drive, and copied all her Windows mail
over to her new Linux account. Voila! It worked perfectly! She can
read all her old mail and send mail just like she did under Windows.
This gives me a few days breathing room! ;-)
There is no way Windows could have done this. First of all, Linux
would never render a computer unbootable because I reinstalled a
driver. Secondly, Windows would never be able to read an ext2
partition the way Linux can read FAT32.
So Pete, when you say Linux lags behind Windows, I can't help but
laugh. Linux is so incredibly versitile that to compare it to a
toy OS like Win9X is simply ludicrous to me. Perhaps Windows is
better for you, as it is for many people. But when you claim that
Linux is somehow inferior to Windows, be aware that you are referring
to yourself only. There are very few computer-literate people who
would agree with you.
Aaron
--
Aaron J. Ginn Motorola SPS
Phone: (480) 814-4463 SemiCustom Solutions
Fax: (480) 814-4058 1300 N. Alma School Rd.
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Chandler, AZ 85226
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jay Maynard)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 10 Jul 2000 22:53:43 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 22:42:53 GMT, Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Suppose there is some software on a site that has banner advertising,
>and that the software can be downloaded by all that come to the site.
>Suppose that the software is an mpeg movie player. Suppose that some
>of the advertising revenue is folded back into the developement and
>enhancement of that software. Suppose that 90% of the enhancement is
>funded by this revenue stream. Now, suppose it was covered by the
>BSDL, and that someone comes along and grabs it, and reoffers the
>software on a different web site, but without source. Let's say that
>it is 5% better than the old software. People will find it, and will
>download it. Once people download it, they are less likely to
>download from the other web site. Most users don't care about source
>availability and hence, with good software reviewing guides, most
>users will go to the new web site instead of the old web site. Let
>say that number of hits lost is 50%. This will directly lead to
>substantial decreases in funding for the original software. Since 90%
>of the enhancements are funded this way, this leads to a 45% drop in
>enhancements. This drop can be enough for the original author to stop
>doing enhancements altogether. So we go from well maintained software
>to software that bit rots and isn't maintained. This is a change is
>the software. The previous level of software isn't maintained.
So you would solve the "problem" of the market deciding that the 5%
improvement in the software is more important than source code availability
by legislating a different method.
You, sir, are a communist. There's no other way to describe this overt
overthrow of the free marketplace.
I don't suppose that it occurred to you that someone else might pick up the
freely available version and put the same improvements into it, therby
picking up where the original developer left off?
------------------------------
From: John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: A MacOpinion of Open Source that REALLY HITS THE MARK
Date: 10 Jul 2000 22:57:49 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: On 8 Jul 2000 04:25:04 GMT, John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: >What I liked was that he recognized that there were (at least) two
: >aesthetics involved. The first piece was a little too sure of right and
: >wrong.
: The two don't have to be mutually exclusive. NeXTstep
: demonstrated that a LONG time ago. Now guess what the
: next MacOS will be (bastardized NeXTstep).
When I was thinking of aesthetics I wasn't thinking about simple
ease-of-use. Mac people like a unified GUI, for one thing. UNIX people
like choice. Things like that seem hard to combine.
I do think a certain degree of ease-of-use can be created for UNIX
systems. NeXT certainly did much to prove that. On the other hand, I
think that a lot of casual users might be better served by something a
little simpler than any of the traditional personal computers (*NIX, Win*,
Mac included).
John
------------------------------
From: Arthur Frain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Advocacy Newsgroup, Right?
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 15:49:42 -0700
Matthias Warkus wrote:
> It was the Sun, 09 Jul 2000 16:27:17 -0700...
> ...and Arthur Frain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [ktop]
> > Gnome probably has a similar tool.
> Yes, gtop. Which absolutely rules -- at LinuxTag, we had a system
> administrator at our booth who nearly decided to migrate an office
> with 40 PCs to Linux and GNOME because he liked gtop so much :)
Hey, thanks!
I (embarassingly) broke my current copy of qps when
I was screwing around recompiling the Qt libs (long
story) and haven't had time to fix it yet. I have
all of the gnome stuff installed and gtop was right
there, and looks very nice. ktop is actually pretty
annoying in the way it updates the screen, so I
guess I'll try gtop for a while.
(After a quick look, I'm still not sure I'll like
it better than qps, but we'll see)
Arthur
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A MacOpinion of Open Source that REALLY HITS THE MARK
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 18:58:16 -0400
Mig wrote:
>
> Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> > He's kind of wrong when he claims that Open Source projects are not
> > "customer oriented". Some, like KDE for example, certainly are.
>
> Hmmm kind off. Really depends on how you define the customer. Neither GNOME
> nor KDE are really "customer" oriented since the "customer" is the
> developer or the people the use the desktop enviroment and make themselves
> heard. And both groups are technical oriented people.
regardless... to be effective in that quest... you have to make
something that OTHER people want to use.
>
> What KDE and GNOME needs is a group of nontechies that has some
> demands that must be met and some kind of veto before a new version
> is released. This is the only way to ensure end-user friendlyness and to
> have other people like interfaceexperts and graphical artists to
> participate in the developemnt. I dont think this is going to happen some
> day soon
non-techies have no clue what the hell they want.
>
> Cheers
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (void)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: 10 Jul 2000 22:44:19 GMT
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 19:00:26 GMT, Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>If it's so essential, why do Macs still have higher productivity?
I have higher productivity (whatever that is) on my NeXT than on my
roommate's Mac, which I'm sitting at right now. The two reasons I can
think of are: the Mac crashes a lot, and I don't know how to switch
between NiftyTelnet windows without using the mouse. The NeXT is showing
its age, though.
For the most part, give me a nice FreeBSD machine and I'm happy.
What was your question again? I'm a systems administrator, not a
manager or marketroid, so when you ask me things like that, don't expect
to get an answer that makes sense from your perspective.
Maybe if I post about how cool I expect MOSX to be some more, you'll
decide I'm sufficiently Apple-friendly and leave me alone.
--
Ben
220 go.ahead.make.my.day ESMTP Postfix
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (void)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: 10 Jul 2000 22:48:19 GMT
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 21:15:05 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 9 Jul 2000 04:03:48 GMT, void <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Sat, 08 Jul 2000 01:24:26 GMT, Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>Actually, it's simpler than that. In the other post, it seems like his
>>>friend tried using a SCSI drive on an iMac _without_ a SCSI-USB
>>>converter.
>>
>>He had the proper converter.
>
> Would you expect a random PCI SCSI card to work in a G4 Mac?
No, why do you ask? I wouldn't expect a random PCI SCSI card to work
period, I always research a piece of hardware before I buy it, unless
I'm buying from a systems integrator I trust[0].
[0] And usually even then, because I don't trust any systems integrator
very much.
--
Ben
220 go.ahead.make.my.day ESMTP Postfix
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A MacOpinion of Open Source that REALLY HITS THE MARK
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 19:07:32 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 23:34:44 +0200, Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> >> On Sun, 9 Jul 2000 23:16:28 +0200, Mig wrote:
> >> >Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> >> >heard. And both groups are technical oriented people.
> >>
> >> A lot of peopple on the user lists are not very technical at all. They
> >> certainly don't exclude non-techies.
> >>
> >> >What KDE and GNOME needs is a group of nontechies that has some
> >> >demands that must be met and some kind of veto before a new version
> >> >is released.
> >>
> >> I don't think that's a good idea. non techies don't know very much about
> >> software design. What's really needed is a dialogue between non techies and
> >> techies.
> >
> >Non techies not knowing much about software design is the point. Why should
> >they? The problem is in user interface design and consistency of that
> >design.
>
> They tend to ask for absurd things and then bitch and moan when
> those of us with some technical aptitude in the subject in question
> look at them as if they just got in from Mars.
Their non-understanding of the technology also makes them prone
to believe that many simple thing are impossible.
Basically, they have no idea of what is easily accomplished,
nor what borders on trying to implement mind-reading.
>
> >
> >I find it pretty amazing that you do not believe that end-users should
> >have influence on software design. After all they should/could be the vast
> >majority of users.
>
> Quite a few of them have no clue what it is that they really
> want and are prone to repeating marketing babble. Also, quite
"user friend"
"intuitive"
blah blah blah.
> a few of them have remarkably different needs than even other
> novice end users to the point where a general purpose machine
> really isn't suitable for them no matter how much you try to
> shoehorn them or the system to accomodate each other.
>
> >Its even good practice to involve end-users in analyses and design of
> >applications.. simply put any good software design makes the software adapt
> >to its users needs and not the other way around. If the users are only
> >techies then there are no problems.... but if the intention is to have
> >average people to use Linux/KDE/Gnome/whatever then they have to be heard
> >if you want to have succes.
> >
>
> IOW: one size does NOT fit all.
>
> The ideal situation is an end user that has become enlightened
> and knows what they want and is capable of expressing it in
> reasonable engineering terms.
Don't hold your breath.
>
> --
>
> Free Software: While some whine that it is not really 'free',
> others are freely exploiting it's potential to make them money
> with or without releasing the source to their own software.
>
> Naysayers are more their own enemy than potentially viral licences.
>
> |||
> / | \
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
