Linux-Advocacy Digest #733, Volume #27 Mon, 17 Jul 00 14:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("JS/PL")
Re: one step forward, two steps back.. (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Microsoft (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Star Office to be open sourced (phil hunt)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (void)
Re: linux, of course!! (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Star Office to be open sourced (Rich Teer)
Re: Microsoft (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Star Office to be open sourced (Rich Teer)
Re: Where did all my windows go? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it (Arthur Frain)
Re: Star Office to be open sourced (Jay Maynard)
Re: Where did all my windows go? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: [OT] intuitive (was Re: Hardware: ideal budget Linux box? (Re: I'm ("John W.
Stevens")
Re: linux, of course!! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Star Office to be open sourced (I R A Darth Aggie)
Re: Star Office to be open sourced (I R A Darth Aggie)
Re: [OT] intuitive (was Re: Hardware: ideal budget Linux box? (Re: I'm ("John W.
Stevens")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 16:22:25 GMT
On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 11:35:38 -0400, JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"R. Tang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8kv4vh$7nqk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >"Joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> On Sun, 16 Jul 2000, JS/PL wrote:
>> >> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> >> You argue from an intentional position of ignorance. Its boring.
>> >> >
>> >> >No - a bunch of socialist personality types sitting around agreeing
>(and
>> >> >insisting) that government should steer the design of their software
>is
>> >> >boring.
>> >>
>> >> You don't even understand what's happened well enough to complain
>> >> intelligently.
>> >>
>> >> MS is being broken up so the government does not have to get involved
>with
>> >the
>> >> design of software.
>> >
>> >How naive are you?
>>
>> Not as much as you, apparently.
>>
>> >This ruling automatically assigns a team of government
>> >employees with the task of enforcing this assinine ruling until the end
>of
>> >time. If the ruling stands (*which most feel it won't) the United States
>> >Government will be designing the OS in a MUCH greater sense than your
>> >idiotic "so they won't have to get involved" foolishness.
>>
>> Don't be stupid.
>
>Let's have your take on it.
The oversight of an elected body rather than the whim of a
Robber Baron that is in a position to do anything it likes
being rather out of the control of the "invisible hand" at
this point.
Government is occasionally a necessary evil, usually to
counteract some other evil. Hopefully, all such evils
are checked in the end. This includes corporations.
--
The LGPL does infact tend to be used instead of the GPL in instances
where merely reusing a component, while not actually altering that
component, would be unecessarily burdensome to people seeking to build
their own works.
This dramatically alters the nature and usefulness of Free Software
in practice, contrary to the 'all viral all the time' fantasy the
anti-GPL cabal here would prefer one to believe.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 12:27:47 -0400
Reply-To: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 11:35:38 -0400, JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >Let's have your take on it.
>
> The oversight of an elected body rather than the whim of a
> Robber Baron that is in a position to do anything it likes
> being rather out of the control of the "invisible hand" at
> this point.
>
> Government is occasionally a necessary evil, usually to
> counteract some other evil. Hopefully, all such evils
> are checked in the end. This includes corporations.
The statement above has absolutely no facts to debate. Instead of reciting
the anti-MS "evil Microsoft" line try laying down some proven incidents of
wrongdoing on Microsoft's part.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: one step forward, two steps back..
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 00:02:41 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Sun, 16 Jul 2000 11:25:35 -0700...
...and KLH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <snip>
>
> >
> > I don't know about Gnome. Can anybody else fill this in?
> >
>
> GNOME has had xdnd support for a long time now. We've always had the ability
> to drag, lets say, urls from Netscape to the desktop, among other things.
Good to amaze people when demoing GNOME. "As long as we're still
practically forced to use Netscape, at least our project offers some
integration with it..." <teehee>
mawa
--
HELP PREVENT UNNECESSARY DEATH #4:
Hearts often stop beating from sheer surprise. However, a
defibrillator made from everyday objects (coat hangers, waffle irons,
car batteries, ignition coils) can often work wonders.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: Microsoft
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 00:00:19 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Sun, 16 Jul 2000 15:43:13 GMT...
...and greg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Gutenburg created the printing press.
>
> For what it's worth, the printing press had already existed for some time
> when Gutenburg came along. Gutenburg's credit was for inventing removable
> typeset,
Nope.
> which eliminated the need to create plates from scratch everytime
> someone wanted to create a new page. He actually improved on an EXISTING
> concept, allowing a better, faster, and cheaper means of duplicating printed
> materials.
Gutenberg didn't invent the printing press or movable types. However,
he innovated all of the technology needed to print books with movable
types. He almost single-handedly developed:
- a workable press
- a workable character set
- a workable alloy to make types
- a workable means of creating identical types in large numbers
- workable tools to typeset and justify text
That doesn't make him an inventor; but it makes him a heroic
innovator.
(BTW, it's Gutenberg, not Gutenburg. His actual name was "Johannes
Gensfleisch zum Gutenberg".)
mawa
--
Nickelallergiker!
Niederdrehzahlfahrer!
Omabesucher!
Opelhändler!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (phil hunt)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.sun.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Star Office to be open sourced
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 17:02:05 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 07:44:13 -0700, Pan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>phil hunt wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 16 Jul 2000 20:12:41 -0700, Pan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >In part because they need to attract developers and they realize that
>> >the best way to attract developers without paying them is to license
>> >under the gpl.
>>
>> That's possibly part of it.
>>
>> However, making a big complex program open source won't necessarily
>> attrack many outside developers -- look at netscape.
>
>True. But then netscape lost its corporate soul when aol bought them
>out. OTOH, look at Applix Office. They couldn't attract any third
>party vendors to work on their shelf projects. Then they switched to
>open source and they have literally been rolling in new developers.
I wasn't aware Applix Office was open source?
(Or is it just their scripting lasnguage which is?)
--
***** Phil Hunt ***** send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] *****
Moore's Law: hardware speed doubles every 18 months
Gates' Law: software speed halves every 18 months
------------------------------
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: 17 Jul 2000 16:22:33 GMT
On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 16:58:38 +0200, Lars Träger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>Well then, Linux doesn't seem to have a modern scheduler. The solitair
>app that comes with KDE in the Suse distro has a bug in one of the
>games. When it's triggered, the game hangs in a loop and everything
>slows to a crawl.
That's not news. See
http://www-4.ibm.com/software/developer/library/java2/index.html
--
Ben
220 go.ahead.make.my.day ESMTP Postfix
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: linux, of course!!
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 16:42:03 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, V'rgo Vardja
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on 17 Jul 2000 07:16:29 GMT
<8kubsd$1ldo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
>> This is a killer.
>>
>> 1. Linux is not an organization.
>>
>> 2. I have yet to see any case where "Linux killed someone"...
>
>Windows?
Despite the fervent wishes of some of the more rabid of us,
it's not dead yet. :-)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- maybe in a year or two :-)
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.sun.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: Rich Teer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Star Office to be open sourced
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 16:46:43 GMT
On Sun, 16 Jul 2000, KLH wrote:
> This is one of the times that I think they are doing it precisely for the
> publicity. Notice the qualifiers, hence: "Sun is *considering* GPLing
> StarOffice" not that they are actually doing it. I think it is part of some
I'm half-inclined to agree - although personally, I favour the BSD license
over the GPL.
> half-baked though probably successful strategy to increase mindshare for
> StarOffice. Just wait and see: they will not go through with it. Sun is one
> of the most propietary companies there are. And Sun knows all about
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Bullshit. Non-open source != proprietory, something Open Source advocates
should remember. For example, NFS, invented by Sun, is an open technology:
the specification is available for all to read, and you are free to write
your own implementation. Indeed, UNIX is an open technology.
Compare this with M$'s approach, where almost nothing is documented, and one
is forced to reverse engineer file formats and some APIs: now *that's*
proprietory.
Open systems were around long before Linux and other "Open Source" advocates
even invented the phrase.
--
Rich Teer
NT tries to do almost everything UNIX does, but fails - miserably.
The use of Windoze cripples the mind; its use should, therefore, be
regarded as a criminal offence. (With apologies to Edsger W. Dijkstra)
Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-online.net
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Microsoft
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 16:49:03 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Colin R. Day
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sun, 16 Jul 2000 21:29:24 -0400
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>KLH wrote:
>
>
>> >
>> > As Microsoft is the leading competitor of Linux companies,
>> > (leading in market share, not necessarily technical quality)
>> > bashing Microsoft might well be Linux advocacy.
>>
>> If that is true, then we have already lost.
>>
>
>No. Ever hear of the term "good will" in accounting? Well
>Microsoft has been pumping out "bad will".
Or perhaps "bad swill". :-)
>
>Colin Day
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Microsoft Beer2000. It only explodes once a week.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.sun.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: Rich Teer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Star Office to be open sourced
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 16:56:41 GMT
On Mon, 17 Jul 2000, phil hunt wrote:
> Another aspect is that MS Office doesn't run on Sun; Star office presumably
> does. If people on their expensive Sun boxes can run the same office suite
> that they run on their cheap Linux and Windows boxes, then Sun doesn't lose
> market share so quickly.
Err, Sun is gaining market share...
>
> (Without Linux, Unix would be perceived as a no-future OS by now, and Sun
> would be really struggling).
I agree with a lot that you've written - but not this! Naysayers have been
predicting the death of UNIX for almost as long as I can remember. Sure,
the hype around Linux has helped, but let's also remember that Linux isn't
the only free UNIX-like OS. Even without Linux's input, UNIX is still the
only viable solution for mission critical applications.
> MS Word has been getting *worse* since about 1995. The guy who came up
> with that stupid paper clip wants to be shot. What *were* they thinking of?
Yeah (& I don't even use the junk); I'll hold him, you shoot him! :-)
> Moore's Law: hardware speed doubles every 18 months
> Gates' Law: software speed halves every 18 months
It'd be funny if it wasn't true!
--
Rich Teer
NT tries to do almost everything UNIX does, but fails - miserably.
The use of Windoze cripples the mind; its use should, therefore, be
regarded as a criminal offence. (With apologies to Edsger W. Dijkstra)
Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-online.net
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Where did all my windows go?
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 11:00:15 -0600
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 04:25:37 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> (2) Slice and dice the words any way you want, but if the best available
> desktops for Linux have bugs, it is a usability problem for Linux.
No it's not. I don't use KDE. I do run Linux. So how can KDE bugs be
a usability problem for Linux?
KDE bugs are a problem for KDE users, regardless of the Unice they run
KDE on.
> Sure, KDE bugs are not kernel bugs, but they are *Linux* usability
> issues.
KDE != Linux.
KDE is not restricted to Linux.
> Why ? Because it's important that Linux has at least the best
> few desktops
KDE is not Linux-only. Remember, Unix is the only truly competitive OS
(because it is the only OS that provides enough of a standard interface,
*AND* it is sold by enough indepentdent commercial entities to be
competitive).
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Arthur Frain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 09:32:19 -0700
Otto wrote:
> Drestin does have a point and you seem to agree with it.
Drestin always has a point, it's usually wrong, and
I fail to see where I agree with him.
> There is a
> pronounced difference between sites, like between joesmuck.com and dell.com.
> Although Dell counts as one site which is running IIS, in actuality they
> probably have 20-30 web servers at least for load balancing and redundancy
> purposes. In the meantime, the server which has joesmuck.com, also has
> another 15-20 or more other domains similar to Joe's. That one server will
> be counted by Netcraft as 20+ sites running Apache. Netcraft's survey of the
> web servers is pretty useless, by any means.
Amazon runs Apache and counts as a single site too.
Amazon probably handles more traffic than most of the
Fortune 500 combined. Certainly there are people
who use IIS for virtual hosting, just not very many.
That seems to be a useful fact also.
Your argument basically reduces to "Dell uses IIS,
joesmuck uses Apache, therefore the Netcraft data
is useless". If I chose to argue on the same level,
I could say that "Doghouses of the South uses IIS,
Amazon uses Apache, therefore IIS is insignificant".
Either case is a fallacy of composition - the
underlying assumption is that a tiny subset
(less than 100 out of 17,000,000 sites sampled)
follows a certain pattern, therefore the entire
data set follows the same pattern. That's not
a valid argument IMHO, and doesn't justify
calling Netcraft "useless".
> : Perhaps it impresses Drestin that he can use IIS
> : "just like the big guys do", but it appears that
> : nearly 2/3's of the rest of world isn't so easily
> : impressed.
> 2/3? Take the statistic, however inaccurate, which favors your opinion an
> totally disregard any other data. Yeah.... you do have a point that way.
Yep, just like claiming what the Fortune 500 use for
web serving is significant in any meaningful way
(and less than 1/2 of the Fortune 500 at that).
Except that the 2/3's is a valid population statistic
describing what 2/3's of sites run. That is all
my opinion is, and I don't find anything dishonest
about it. It doesn't disregard any other data,
because that's the only data it represents. If
you want the claim something about the distribution
of the sites vs. some other measure of significance,
you'll have to generate some real data, not just
pull up an isolated example.
People who are sensitive to market share figures,
like you and Drestin seem to be, seem to find the
Netcraft numbers ominous and feel some need to
counteract them. If I were choosing a webserver,
I wouldn't particularly care about market share,
but I would care about things like performance
and cost. The only thing the Netcraft numbers
would say to me is "Why are so many sites using
Apache?" and I'd want to answer that question
*relative to my own needs* before making a choice.
Arthur
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jay Maynard)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.sun.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Star Office to be open sourced
Date: 17 Jul 2000 17:11:41 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
While I agree with the rest of your posting, I have to take issue with:
On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 16:56:41 GMT, Rich Teer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Even without Linux's input, UNIX is still the
>only viable solution for mission critical applications.
There are many other solutions out there even more suited for
mission-critical work than Unix, even though they're out of hacker favor:
OS/390, VMS, NonStop Kernel... The kinds of things hackers don't like
playing with, but that can run for literally years without ever having to
come down for any reason at all, *including* hardware failure.
Unix is certainly more suited for mission-critical work than Windows of any
stripe, but that doesn't make it necessarily the best.
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Where did all my windows go?
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 11:04:28 -0600
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> Windows has one desktop which can be replaced - I've seen other choices.
> True, there are far fewer than Linux, but then, why are a lot of these
> desktops there?
Power users + diversity.
Windows has so very few power users, that desktop choice is irrelevant.
And of course, Windows tends to reduce diversity.
> However, I don't think all these desktops came about because of offering
> the user choice.
And you'd be wrong. Programmers write programs because they can, and
because the programs that exist do not do what they want done, or do not
do what they want done in the way they want it done.
> They came about due to a lack of control and a lack of
> standards.
Wrong again. They came about *PRECISELY* because Linux is much more
standardised than Windows is.
The simple fact that you can run KDE applications under the GNOME GUI
proves that.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 17:08:56 GMT
On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 12:27:47 -0400, JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 11:35:38 -0400, JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >Let's have your take on it.
>>
>> The oversight of an elected body rather than the whim of a
>> Robber Baron that is in a position to do anything it likes
>> being rather out of the control of the "invisible hand" at
>> this point.
>>
>> Government is occasionally a necessary evil, usually to
>> counteract some other evil. Hopefully, all such evils
>> are checked in the end. This includes corporations.
>
>The statement above has absolutely no facts to debate. Instead of reciting
>the anti-MS "evil Microsoft" line try laying down some proven incidents of
>wrongdoing on Microsoft's part.
You could have chosen to dispute the fact that Microsoft is no
longer subject to control by the market for a start.
No, you are simply trying to avoid very damning arguments you
don't seem to have any satisfactory counter to.
Checks and balances are a nice concept when dealing with large
entities that can exert much control over the citizenry. That
concept shouldn't be merely limited to governments and
anti-government rhetoric should not allow us to avoid one
potential despot to be merely blinded to the threat of another.
Without the market to effectively check corporations, the next
obvious alternative is to allow governments to check them.
Mind you, this is one of the few areas in which the US government
is actually granted explicit power to act.
--
The LGPL does infact tend to be used instead of the GPL in instances
where merely reusing a component, while not actually altering that
component, would be unecessarily burdensome to people seeking to build
their own works.
This dramatically alters the nature and usefulness of Free Software
in practice, contrary to the 'all viral all the time' fantasy the
anti-GPL cabal here would prefer one to believe.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 17:11:11 GMT
In article <lSKb5.7577$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ahh, the laugh of the "elite" eh?
Visual Basic is seen as a toy by many people. It is BASIC after all, and
you don't get _real_ (sic) programmers using it, do you? 8)
Having said that, I worked in London for a financial services company -
half the group were VB programmers, the other half C++ programmers.
The nitty gritty stuff was done in C++ but a lot of the GUI stuff was
done in VB.
Each language to its place.
> hey, VB is easy to use. And it is fast and I dare say you won't find a
> language more universaly recognized than basic. It does the job
quickly -
> when you need a quick job done. Prototype, RAD or even some smaller
> client/server projects, VB has it's place. *I* laugh at the ignorance
of
> anyone that would choose to ignore a tool and prefer to do something
the
> harder way every time ... just because.
Yes it is easy to use, however, I've heard that once you get beyond a
certain point, things start to get very hard indeed.
I'm a Visual C++ programmer and I know how hard it is to create a GUI
using it's MFC package. I'm also a Delphi programmer and I know how much
easier it is to create GUI's in Delphi, much like VB. However, the fact
that the two packages look similar in terms of their IDE doesn't reveal
how _different_ the two are underneath. I've done some fairly complex
packages (3D Graphics) in Delphi.
Having said that I've hardly used VB so I can't really comment too much
on big applications with it. Plus I'm biased in favour of Delphi!
Oh yeah, Delphi is coming to Linux, is there a VB for Linux yet?
--
---
Pete
Coming soon: Kylix!
(I do not need the destruction of Microsoft to succeed).
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Subject: Re: [OT] intuitive (was Re: Hardware: ideal budget Linux box? (Re: I'm
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 11:17:41 -0600
Steve Mading wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : Quoting Jonadab the Unsightly One from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Tue, 04
> : [...]
> :>Intuitive? What does that even mean? It means it
> :>does what you'd expect, right? But then we should
> :>call Perl intuitive, and that makes no sense whatever.
> :>(I like Perl, BTW; that isn't my point.)
>
> : <G> Intuitive means, I have it on good authority (my own), "familiar".
>
> Nah - It means easily guessed. Something that is intuative is
> something that, even if you don't already have experience with it,
> you can figure it out pretty easily because your first guess is
> mostly correct.
Except that "guessing" is a (AI) gamma class activity.
As such, the really useful way to defined the word "intuitive", in the
context of a discussion re: computer software user interfaces, is:
"The interface leverages off of existing learning by conforming to
previously learned patterns."
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: linux, of course!!
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 17:16:47 GMT
There is a difference between cold-heartedly "killing" something and
the merciful act of "putting it out of its misery". Windows is old,
crippled, obese, toothless, and snaps at its owners without provocation.
If you'd do it for your pet, do it for Windows.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (I R A Darth Aggie)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.sun.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Star Office to be open sourced
Date: 17 Jul 2000 17:23:04 GMT
Reply-To: no-courtesy-copies-please
On Sun, 16 Jul 2000 20:20:00 -0700,
KLH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, in
<L0vc5.91120$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+ This is one of the times that I think they are doing it precisely for the
+ publicity. Notice the qualifiers, hence: "Sun is *considering* GPLing
+ StarOffice" not that they are actually doing it.
Good point. And why the GPL when they already have their own "open
license"?
James
--
Consulting Minister for Consultants, DNRC
The Bill of Rights is paid in Responsibilities - Jean McGuire
To cure your perl CGI problems, please look at:
<url:http://www.perl.com/CPAN/doc/FAQs/cgi/idiots-guide.html>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (I R A Darth Aggie)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.sun.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Star Office to be open sourced
Date: 17 Jul 2000 17:26:42 GMT
Reply-To: no-courtesy-copies-please
On 17 Jul 2000 00:32:44 -0600,
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+ Hell, how many people went out and got Office 2000, just because it's
+ the "new thing"? Can *anyone* name a must-have feature that demands
+ upgrading?
Not me.
+ (other than the file formats, that is...)
I told the locals who went Office2k that they _must_ send documents in
Office 97 formats.
James
--
Consulting Minister for Consultants, DNRC
The Bill of Rights is paid in Responsibilities - Jean McGuire
To cure your perl CGI problems, please look at:
<url:http://www.perl.com/CPAN/doc/FAQs/cgi/idiots-guide.html>
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Subject: Re: [OT] intuitive (was Re: Hardware: ideal budget Linux box? (Re: I'm
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 11:25:10 -0600
Jonadab the Unsightly One wrote:
>
> Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Nah - It means easily guessed.
>
> Yeah, but easily guess by *whom*?
By the guy who has previously learned the basic or underlying pattern.
> One man's "intuitive" is another man's "bizarre", that's
> basically what I'm trying to say here.
And that fact suggests that "intuitive" is relative to the speaker.
Which suggests that it is something intrinsic in the speaker, not some
attribute of the system, that makes the system "intuitive".
In short, intuitive means "I already know that pattern".
> But that learning curve at "first exposure" has a LOT to
> do with previous exposure to other similar things.
"A lot", vs. "everything", suggests that there are some basic, physical,
built-in things to take into account.
And there are. Such as: visual acuity, intrinsic counting ability,
motion relevance, etc.
> How
> intuitive are gestures?
Not. But the underlying *emotion* is oft-times intuitive, as you've
already learned the basic body, facial and kinetic patterns that denote
such things as anger, aggression, happiness, etc.
> > Just because training in something is widespread doesn't mean it
> > is intuative.
>
> True also.
It does, however, suggest a reason for why the "superiority" of the
MacOS GUI is basically irrelevant.
As someone once so elegantly put it: "I'm used to it. And it's
*AMAZING* what one can get used to!"
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
