Linux-Advocacy Digest #605, Volume #27 Tue, 11 Jul 00 23:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: SPECweb99 results (Christopher Browne)
How to reduce static libraries? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Advocacy Newsgroup, Right? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Jay Maynard)
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451736 (Marty)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Mike Stump)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Mike Stump)
Re: MS advert says Win98 13 times less reliable than W2k (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard
))
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (Perry Pip)
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451736 (tinman)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Certifications on the internet by Brainbench? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [OT] intuitive (was Re: Hardware: ideal budget Linux box? (Re: I'm Ready! I'm
ready! I'm not ready.)) (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: SPECweb99 results
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 02:12:25 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Bob Tennent would say:
>I don't believe I've seen the latest SPECweb99 results mentioned here yet.
>They are truly spectacular. Three Dell servers with 1, 2 and 4 processors
>and running a new open source Linux web server simply wiped the floor with
>the competition: 1270, 2200 and 4200 simultaneous connections, respectively.
>For comparison, similar Dell boxes running IIS with 1 and 4 processors
>managed just 732 and 1598 connections, respectively. The only
>configuration that came close was an IBM RS/6000 with *8* processors;
>it managed 3216 connections. And one can't help noting the Netcraft
>result; on a ProLiant DL360 with 2 processors running IIS, just 1020,
>less than the Linux result with a single processor!
It seems to use "TUX", the "in-kernel web server."
To use it, it appears that you have to integrate part of the web app
into the Linux kernel.
I'm not sure how generally usable that will be; it may [not clear
yet] require a _tight_ integration of the application with the kernel,
and I suspect you'll not be using SSL with those connections.
That "negative" spin being said, the scenario may be sufficiently usable
for some realistic situations as to prove somewhat useful. But I don't
think it's going to be as flexible as using Apache...
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/linux.html>
Rules of the Evil Overlord #52. "I will hire a team of
board-certified architects and surveyors to examine my castle and
inform me of any secret passages and abandoned tunnels that I might
not know about." <http://www.eviloverlord.com/>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: How to reduce static libraries?
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 02:05:12 GMT
Hi ,advancer:
I had been use more than 5 days to work about this question :
hope can find (or write) a program
to remove some binary code form
static library which the OS(linux)'s
program not used ,to reduce the size of linux.
the gzip, strip had been used, but I hope to make it smaller.
u can use nm libc.a ,u will find there are many *.o's group
when my system is embedded in some chip or rom , some
*.o in libc.a or other *.a will not used in the future.
At this kind of situation,we can remove them use ar -d XXX.o XX.a
to reduce the static library.
There is a news ab
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Advocacy Newsgroup, Right?
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 02:06:12 GMT
I just swapped internal modems in my PC, and as a result I spent two
hours feeding Windoze my entire collection of vendor CDs while Windoze
re-discovered hardware that I've had forever. The entire horror story
is posted elsewhere, so I won't bore you with the details.
On the other hand, the same process took less than five minutes under
Linux.
And no reboot, either.
Windoze == "ease of use" is a baldfaced lie perpetuated by clueless
morons and cowardly corporate sheep.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 22:23:14 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED] () from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Mon, 10
[...]
>>I have had ISP problems: Here is a proof that the GPL is clearly
>>not unqualified 'free' software. Don't lump yourself into
>
> The only problem is that you choose for rhetorical reasons
> to focus on one and only one definition of the word free.
>
> The only thing that L/GPL restricts is the manner in which
> you distribute derived works. Don't derive and you don't
> have a problem.
>
> This has the effect of ensuring that the software and any
> works derived from it will always be accessable to it's
> users.
>
> Now, arbitrarily redefining end users to mean only people
> that need binaries conveniently avoids anyone that might
> want to be free to choose whatever platform they like to
> compute on like for example a special effects house or
> an online services provider or perhaps just an end user
> that might want to run more than just kludge klones.
>
>[deletia]
>
> The only motivation to treat a work derived from Free Software
> as your sole personal property is to place some sort of market
> barrier in front of your customers and to try and trap them.
Masterfully summarized, Jedi. I now officially claim that people who
think Free Software isn't Free are people who think freedom for some
people is Freedom, and that makes them as bad as Hitler.
Thank you, and good night. Put it in the FAQ.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
[A corporation which does not wish to be identified]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jay Maynard)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 12 Jul 2000 02:26:14 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 12 Jul 2000 02:04:28 GMT, Lee Hollaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Until RMS becomes the federal court judge hearing your copyright case,
>>>it makes little difference what he considers a derivative work.
>>Spoken like a lawyer. (Sorry, Lee, but it had to be said.)
>I should be insulted by that.
I know; there's not a good way to express that, unfortunately. My point is
that, to a lawyer, getting sued isn't a big deal, because he's intimately
involved with the process as his day-to-day work. To the rest of us, it's a
catastrophe. To a lawyer, doing something that might get you sued is a
calculated risk; to the rest of us, it's to be avoided at nearly any cost.
>A defendant in a copyright suit can get his attorney fees if he prevales
>and the court feels that the suit wasn't justified.
How often does that really happen, though? Everything I've read leads me to
believe that awarding attorney fees to someone who was wrongly sued is a
rare event; usually, the victim of such a suit is left with a mountain of
legal bills even if he wins. This, I believe, is one reason we're so
suit-happy: you can sue someone secure in the knowledge that you're almost
certainly not going to have to pay the other guy's costs too.
>But you're right, most people try to avoid litigation. But there are
>ways to lessen its impact.
Such as?
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451736
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 02:26:56 GMT
Tinman wrote:
1> Jumping into conversations again Karl? Cool, have fun!
Still posting for entertainment purposes, eh Tinman? Not surprising,
considering that you are being digestified.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Stump)
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 02:14:41 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> 7a1 and 7b seem to apply fairly well. 10 usually applies.
>>> 7a(1) : not obstructed or impeded : CLEAR
>>> b : not hampered or restricted in its normal operation
>>> I'm not sure why you think that either of these apply.
>> I am am not sure why you don't think they apply.
>
>I know that they don't apply. First, the GPL *does* raise restrictions
>and impediments toward the development of certain classes of software
>-- that are not limited to the proprietary software that GPLists so
>hate.
You could try and drive the wrong way on a freeway. You can say that
there are restrictions and impediments to doing this. However, this
is not the normal operation of the freeway or the normal operation of
a car on a freeway. Just because the freeways doesn't allow this in
their normal operation doesn't mean that the freeway isn't free for
people to use or doesn't mean that you can't call traffic free
flowing. That the freeway is limited or restricted doesn't make it
not free, or traffic not free flowing. It only makes it not free to
pedestrians and people that want to drive the wrong way. An accident
usually renders the term free flowing traffic not applicable. :-)
Likewise, the GPL isn't free for certain otherwise potential users.
>> Hint, take a servey of 10,000 people and ask them what they
>> normally do with GPLed software. You'll gain a clearer picture of
>> what normal operations for GPLed software is. You seem to think
>> you understand what normal is, when it is clear to us that you do
>> not.
>
>My statement is not dependent upon *where* extension and redistribution
>is used, but that there are restrictions on it, which invalidates the
>use of meaning 7a or 7b for your foolishness.
This would be like saying that one cannot call the traffic on a
freeway free flowing because one cannot drive 100. There both
impediments and restrictions against driving 100. These however, are
not enough to invalidate the use of the term free in free flowing.
Likewise, you cannot prove that these impediments and restrictions are
enough to invalidate the use of free in the term free software. If
you think you can, go ahead and try, but you cannot just assert it, as
you have been doing, you must prove it.
>>>>> * 1free10 often applies, but is the 'free beer' sense.
>>>> Sounds like you agree with me on 10. If 10 often applies, then why is
>>>> it a lie to call GPLed software, free software, when you even agree it
>>>> often is.
>>> Because the claim is that 'free software does not mean free beer, but
>>> free speech'.
>> I never claimed that 1free10 didn't apply to GPLed software. I never
>> said that we must reject all notions of 1free10. The point remains,
>> 1free10 usually applies. It isn't a lie to say that GPLed software is
>> at times 1free10.
>
>And I've never claimed anything about cost -- other open source
>licences eliminate cost. The claim is, again, about 'free speech', not
>'free beer'.
You keep saying that. My claim isn't that. My claim is that GPLed
software is reasonably in the set free software. free10 is one such
possibility. You can either agree, or disagree, or dodge. You have
chosen the later.
>> Not that you know what my point is, address it.
>
>You had a point? Seems you've confused yourself on that matter.
If this is the best example of your ability to refute my arguments,
than thanks for playing.
>>>>> * 1free12[a-b] doesn't apply.
>>>> I think 12 b also applies nicely.
>>> 12 b : not restricted by or conforming to conventional forms <free
>>> skating>
>>> Still doesn't seem to apply.
>> Before rms addressed what he thought was a problem by coming up with
>> the GPL, not many software packages in the world used terms as
>> infectious as the GPL. The GPL was for its time, unconventional. PD
>> was conventional for some software, use and enjoy and give me $10, was
>> by then conventional as well. Straight proprietary software was
>> conventional. An infectious clause as seen in the GPL was
>> unconventional.
>
>That applies to the days of the licence's creation, but doesn't mean
>much anymore.
I disagreem, it is still rather unconventional. Anyway, since you
have failed to refute this point, we can see that 12b also applies.
You cannot win by failing to refute my points. A `doesn't mean much
anymore' is kinda weak.
So, to recap, what we have seen is you make a claim, I refute it with
many reasonably possibilities, and then you dodge, ignore, and present
incredible weak reasons why what I've said is wrong. Thanks for
playing.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Stump)
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 02:26:15 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Austin has raised, through free inquiry, a question about whether GPL
>is truly described as free as in free speech, in comparison to open
>source software licenses of a different character.
>
>Free Speech is an inalienable right to express your views.
>Free Software, in the manner of the GPL, is provided as an equivalent
>concept by RMS.
>
>Can anybody agree or disagree with that statement (constructively), or
>doesn't it make any sense?
I reject that notion of free. I don't think it makes any sense. For
example, a book might be be written in a free speech environment,
should we call it a free book[1] just because, no. A movie might be
written/filmed in a free speech environment, should we call it a free
movie, no. The reason is that free speech is so pervasive that you
render the word worth less by using it in that context. Now, if we
lived in China, and the movie was one of the first 10 movies made with
complete freedom of speech, _then_ the term, free movie, or free book
might make sense. This distinguishes it from all the other books and
movies that were not free (less free).
I guess, if I applied the above to free software, then if most (or
all) software were in fact PD, then calling GPLed software free
software would be wrong.
[1] - This example isn't perfect, as it mixes up the notion of free of
cost in a way that I don't like. Ignore that one point, and the
example I think is ok.
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS advert says Win98 13 times less reliable than W2k
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 02:23:05 GMT
In article <3966fae4$0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Check out the MS advert in the June 6 edition
> of PC Magazine, where MS
> endorses the study by National Software
> Testing Labs which states that
> Windows 98 is 13 times less reliable than Win2k.
> I am no linvocate, but I
> find it incredible that a company can
> make this admission and then still
> push this (Win98/WinMe) onto the market.
First of all this isn't exactly earth shaking news. Some very rough
estimates of reliability expressed as mttr/mtbf
Windows 3.0 - 5 minutes/hour
Windows 3.1 - 5 minutes/3 hours
Windows 95 - 5 minutes/day
Windows 98 - 5 minutes/3 days
Windows NT 4 - 10 minutes/week (trivial or HA config)
Windows NT 4 - 10 minutes/4 days (complex config)
Windows 2000 - 15 minutess/month (complex config on HA).
Clearly Windows 2000 is a huge improvement over any previous
MICROSOFT Operating System.
However - look at a few more figures:
Linux - 10 minutes/quarter (complex configuration)
Linux - 10 minutes/6 months (HA configuration)
BSD Unix - 10 minutes/6 months (complex config)
UNIX(AIX, Solaris, HP_UX) - 20 minutes/year (HA config).
UNIX(AIX, Solaris, HP_UX) - 5 minutes/year (HA Clusters).
A bit of explanation.
A simple configuration would be a file/print server,
a SQL server, or a Web server
- with only one primary service per machine.
A complex server would be the eqivalent of 3-4 simple
services on a single machine.
Sometimes called "stuffing 10 pounds of potatoes
into a 5 pound bag).
A HA server would be a system using RAID controllers, UPC,
redundant network connections, and a controlled
access environment.
An HA Cluster would be MPI or PVM systems such as the SP/2 or
the Solaris E-10K where redundant access to redundant devices
assures recovery from single points of failure without
significant degradation. This is the hardest to measure
(because failures are so rare).
Microsoft Windows NT numbers exclude standard routine maintainence
which includes periodic scheduled reboots. Daily reboots are advised
for complex NT servers, Weekly reboots are advised for simple NT
servers or HA NT servers and Windows 2000 servers.
Linux numbers include semi-annual software upgrades of kernel.
Does not include other scheduled maintainance such as CERT alert
related kernel fixes.
> Shame on you MS!!!
Microsoft is being very honest and very streight for a change.
They are saying that if all you want to do is play games, buy
a toy machine like Windows 98. If you actually care about the
information on your machine, and you want to stick with Windows,
you should buy 2000. True, the hardware is 3-5 times more expensive,
but this is the price of Microsoft Compatibility (sortof) and
reliablity in the same box. If you want security as well, you have
to disable most of Microsfot office, most of the Microsoft Specific
features of Outlook, IE 5.0, and IIS (which you don't get in
Workstation versions). This also means you can't exchange most
office documents electronically.
If you want to save about 60% off the price of Windows 2000 hardware
and software, and are willing to pay about 20% more than 98, you
can get a fully configured Linux professionally installed on hardware
engineered to support Linux (and vice versa). You might even be able
to get a PC that runs BOTH Linux and Windows (Wine emulation).
Microsoft is relying on it's ability to keep Windows NDAs, Windows 98
"no modification" clauses, and obligatory incorporation of Windows-only
hardware, in place until the end of next year. They believe that by
then, Linux will have grown enough in it's own right to eliminate the
need for restructuring while at the same time, avoiding the interim
behavioral measures. If they can drag the process out long enough,
they can start producing a software combination that costs 3 times
the price of the hardware on which it is running. The OEMs will have
to take a loss to sell Microsoft products, and Microsoft will keep
the profits for themselves.
Somehow I think Microsoft may be overplaying it's hand. Assuming
there are only 30 million Linux users today, that Windows 2000 isn't
going to suddenly become hotter than Windows 98, and that Linux can
continue to sustain it's growth at 200%/year, this would mean 90
million by next july, and 270 million the following year. This would
still leave Microsoft with nearly 70% of the market (700 million
users/machines) ready to jump into Windows ME.
It almost looks like Microsoft isn't really betting on Windows 98 and
Windows 2000 to be it's "bread and butter business" anymore. It looks
like Microsoft is looking to sell game machines (X-box), PDAs,
and servers.
I don't know if Microsoft is just rolling over and playing dead,
hoping to get off with a gentle slap on the wrist from the Supreme
court, or if they have a new bag of tricks planned to torpedo Linux
systems and all Linux-friendly applications.
All I know right now is that we've established a beach-head and
we still have to fight our way through the other 97% of the way
to victory.
> James
>
>
--
Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
I/T Architect, MIS Director
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 40 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 5%/month! (recalibrated 7/2/00)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 02:25:03 GMT
On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 07:09:10 GMT,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Linux lags behind Windows in some hardware products
And Windows lags behind Linux in some hardware products.
>Linux desktop lags behind Windows.
Totally subjective. Most people are just used to one desktop or another.
>I believe there are (many?) other areas, but that's my opinion.
>
The opinion of a person with minimal Linux experience and knowledge
thereof. Most people with more substantial Linux experience and
knowledge thereof will tend differ with opionion.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451736
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 22:37:14 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tinman wrote:
>
> 1> Jumping into conversations again Karl? Cool, have fun!
>
> Still posting for entertainment purposes, eh Tinman?
That's tinman. ('
And why else would I post?
> Not surprising,
> considering that you are being digestified.
On the contrary. My polycarbonate exterior resists digestification.
--
______
tinman
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 12:43:54 +1000
"ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > >> >I mean, they aren't even the same *CLASS* of bus! SCSI is a
> > >> >*PARALLEL* bus, while USB is a *SERIAL* bus (hence the name:
> > >> >Universal SERIAL Bus).
> > >>
> > >> There are USB SCSI adapters. Pretty common on the Mac
> > >> marketplace.
> > >
> > >Where in the original article did he specify he had a converter?
> >
> > Should he need to?
>
> Around here, where we get wintrolls insisting that the Mac doesn't
> have plug-and-play because it won't magically work with hardware that
> doesn't have any Mac drivers, it would probably be a good idea for
> people to mention such things.
OTOH, we get Mac advocates claiming Windows doesn't have PnP because it
doesn't work perfectly with non-PnP hardware.....
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Certifications on the internet by Brainbench?
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 02:25:46 GMT
I have two Brainbench certs. The fact that someone you know told you it
was a difficult test does much to validate its worthfulness as an
accurate assessment of knowledge.
Personally, I dislike certifications. For one thing, there are too many
"certification boot camps" attracting way too many rote memorizers. The
fact that there are no bootcamps for Brainbench's tests is a big plus
for Brainbench.
The downside of Brainbench is that their examination procedure is
unsupervised, so theoretically you could invite all your Linux-savvy
friends over for a few brewskies and a test, and no one would be the
wiser when you aced that sucker out.
I guess it's really no better or no worse than any other certification
process. If you want to honestly assess your own skill levels,
Brainbench is better than most. If you want to impress the human
resources department of a future employer, its average. If you're a
dishonest scum who cheats his way into qualifying for a position, then
Brainbench sucks. Which is no different from the MCSE farce.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Subject: Re: [OT] intuitive (was Re: Hardware: ideal budget Linux box? (Re: I'm Ready!
I'm ready! I'm not ready.))
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 22:41:01 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Jonadab the Unsightly One from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Mon, 10
>"jmc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I would respectfully disagree with that. For example, if one has
>> never used a computer or a new OS before, nothing is familiar.
>
>And nothing is intuitive. I teach "Introduction to the Internet"
>classes.
:-) You don't know what intuitive means until you've taught newbies to be competent
:enough to be the newbiest of newbies to those who aren't newbies.
>Believe me, if it isn't familiar, people cannot figure
>out how to use it. Maybe a few rare people can, but in general
>people -- even smart, educated people -- are incapable of
>figuring out how to use an unfamiliar interface, however graphical
>and "intuitive" it may be, without either being taught or reading
>a manual, book, or some other form of instruction. (Video,
>audio, something.)
Well, that's the point, and why I have no reservation of unequivocally,
unilaterally, and absolutely stating that the most correct definition of
"intuitive" *is* "familiar", without exception. Because people *can*
figure out how to use it; everybody has to, and eventually does. Some
take Intro courses and such, but many don't, learning from books or
manuals rather than instruction. But no matter how the learning may
have been facilitated, once they've figured out how to use it, then they
know how to use it.
Now comes the glitchy part. Once they have *figured out how to figure
out*, they are no longer capable of entirely comprehending or
understanding (or remembering) what it is like not to already have
figured it out.
Everyone can figure out how to run a computer program. Some can be
figured out more easily; these we refer to as more intuitive. But it is
simply because there is then less to figure out. Some people can figure
out more easily; these we refer to as smart. Once you have figured it
out, it is familiar, and therefore intuitive; you don't have to "figure
it out" again, and it doesn't matter whether you are smart or not, you
can use the computer program.
>Online help is entirely worthless to the
>true newbie,
And entirely worthless to the advanced user, in equal but generally
inverse proportion. Which, by the way, makes it vitally useful to both,
to varying degrees.
[...]
>I think what most people mean by "intuitive" is that
>five minutes of instruction covers the basics.
So simple things are "intuitive" because they become familiar quickly,
being simple. Non-simple things are not. In some respects, then,
"intuitive" can be used to indicate "simple" as well as "familiar". But
even complex things become intuitive. It just takes longer to become
familiar; they never actually become simple.
>Once
>somebody deigns to explain the difference between clicking
>and doubleclicking, the different kinds of cursors, the
>principle of a toolbar button and a drop-down menu, and
>that sort of thing, the online help will get you through
>simple tasks. I prefer to call that "low initial learning
>curve". [...]
I don't want to dwell on it, because my advice was not requested. But
it is my considered opinion, and that is a professional one, in this
very context, that you really could use some help in clearing up some of
your ideas in terms of teaching and learning. Based on the comments I
snipped, but read, I would have to say that if you enjoy teach intro
Internet courses, either voluntarily or for profit, you would be
interested in polishing your abilities and techniques. If you would
like, feel free to email me, or post, and I will try to clear up some of
the more dangerous problems you seem to have comprehending the learning
process. Particularly in new users, and most particularly of all with
end-user computers, this is really much more intricate and precise a
thing than you seem to think. It isn't just a matter of presenting
concepts and procedures. If you've ever wondered why people don't seem
to pick things up, or why they pick the wrong things up, or just how to
get them to pick things up, I think I can help you. The reason I posted
this is concern, though I'll admit it might seem like more of an
arrogant advertisement. But to be honest, you really don't seem like
you'd be a very good Intro to Internet instructor, with your present
understanding of teaching computers.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
[A corporation which does not wish to be identified]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
