Linux-Advocacy Digest #764, Volume #27 Tue, 18 Jul 00 21:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Help with printer (Tim Palmer)
Re: I had a reality check today :( (Tim Palmer)
Re: Help with printer (Tim Palmer)
Re: A e-mail client with Outlook-like functionality (C Sanjayan Rosenmund)
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! ("Colin R. Day")
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! ("Colin R. Day")
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it (mlw)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451745 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("John W. Stevens")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Help with printer
Date: 18 Jul 2000 19:54:39 -0500
On Tue, 18 Jul 2000 11:55:29 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>Tim Palmer wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 09:40:12 -0500, Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Tim Palmer wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 22:13:09 +0800, Aravind Sadagopan
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >It has nothing to do with Winprinter
>> >>
>> >> It has to do with Lie-nux not evan beeing abal to support it's own printers.
>> >
>> >I didn't realize Linux had "it's own printers" (actually should be its
>> >own printers, but let's not get picky about spelling with Timmay!).
>>
>> Arvind sedd that a printer that Linux are suppost to support doesa'nt work with
>Lixnu but does work with Windo's.
>>
>> >So,
>> >is this some new project by the kernel people to create "Linux's own
>> >printers"?
>> >
>> >(THIS IS A JOKE! PLEASE CONSIDER THIS NOTICE WHEN REPLYING!)
>>
>> Linux are the jokes.
>
>Are you, Tim Palmer, drooling on your keyboard?
>
No the lienux poepal are the ones drueling because they wish they had Windo's.
>
>--
>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: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I had a reality check today :(
Date: 18 Jul 2000 19:54:28 -0500
On Tue, 18 Jul 2000 13:58:49 -0400, MH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Like most (L)users, I have just the sort of time to try and parse a core
>file to determine why the applet dejour barfed. A better question might have
>been why do these "bullet proof" linux distributions have the propensity to
>leave these core droppings littered about in the first place?
Becauze they expect you to fix thear bugs for them. Lie-nux if for poepal that watn to
play with script's
all day. Windo's for poepal who want to get on with their lives.
>
>
>> > > Are you saying that causing system-crashes is "good programming"
>!?!?!?
>
>> > Having to write script to remove almost daily Core files is?
>
>> You're right...it's better to do it the MS-way...
>> NEVER generate a core file, so NOBODY can ever figure out why
>> the program crashed.
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Help with printer
Date: 18 Jul 2000 19:54:49 -0500
On Tue, 18 Jul 2000 11:56:14 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>Tim Palmer wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 00:11:35 +0200, Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Aaron Ginn wrote:
>> >
>> >> words, it _only_ works with Windows. Also, you may not have parallel
>> >> port support compiled into your kernel.
>> >
>> >Youre probably right with kernel support since it does not detect it. Just
>> >tought it parallel port support was included in all kernels automaticly.
>>
>> Wat maid you tihk that? This is LIE-nux your tocking about hear. Like you sed, it
>work's fine with Windo's,
>> so wye not use Win and be happie?
>
>Being happy and using M$-Loseware are mutually exclusive experiences.
>
Maibe for you, but millians of happie poepal use it every dayuse it every day
>
>--
>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: C Sanjayan Rosenmund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A e-mail client with Outlook-like functionality
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 23:58:03 GMT
Bracy wrote:
>
> Check out CSCMail. It handles all 3 of the things you
> specified.
>
> http://www.cscmail.net/
He *did* already. see below. . .
>
> In article <8k3tpj$9pn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Adam Warner"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
<snip>
> > I didn't try kmail again recently because it appeared to previously eat
> > data. But I did try (from memory) Mahogany, CSCMail, Pronto, Ishmail,
^^^^^^^
> > XCMail, xfmail, Spruce, etc. I didn't try others that did not include
> > filtering (e.g. I think Balsa, etc.).
--
Sanjay
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Windows has detected that a gnat has farted near your computer.
Press any key to reboot.
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 20:03:38 -0400
Spud wrote:
> "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Pete Goodwin wrote:
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Ah but there are a few, they're here in COLA. They've asked me to
> modify
> > > my statement, so it becomes:
> > >
> > > Linux lags behind Windows in some hardware products and
> > > Linux desktop lags behind Windows.
> > >
> >
> > So which version of Windows has eight desktops out of the box?
>
> None. However, having worked on systems with multiple desktop tools
> installed (both Linux and Windows), I've yet to find any actual use
> for them. "I want to switch to application X" - okay, fine, alt-tab
> to it, or click it's taskbar entry. Oh, it's in another desktop?
> Okay, so I click the taskbar entry for that, instead. I've bought
> what, exactly?
The ability to have four xterms on one desktop, and Netscape on
another.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 20:04:21 -0400
Spud wrote:
> "Jim Broughton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Pete Goodwin wrote:
> >
> > > Linux lags behind Windows in some hardware products and
> > > Linux desktop lags behind Windows.
> > >
> > > I believe there are (many?) other areas, but that's my opinion.
> > >
> > > --
> > > ---
> > > Pete
> > >
> > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > > Before you buy.
> >
> > WARNING WARNING WARNING Will Robinson RANTS AHEAD. WARNING!
> >
> > I finaly have to take exception to a comment here in this newsgroup
> > (not that there aren't many to take exception too)!
> > Linux does NOT lag behind windows in some hardware products, product
> > manufacturers lag behind in writing drivers for thier products too
> > work on linux. So don't blame Linux or the people who DO write
> software
> > for it.
>
> I don't blame Linux for it... I just realize that until Linux *fixes*
> it, either by providing drivers written by the Linux coders, or by
> convincing the hardware vendors to do the job, Linux remains
> effectively useless for most of my machines.
Oh, your machine.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 20:20:17 -0400
Drestin Black wrote:
>
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Drestin Black wrote:
> > >
> > > "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > [snippage]
> > > > To simply say that the fortune 500 use NT, so it's good, is false. The
> > > > fortune 500 companies can pay for the huge expenses that an NT
> > > > environment will incur in exchange for the "strategic" business
> > > > opportunities which the monopoly Microsoft provides. For the merely
> > > > normal sized companies that do not have the clout to grab Microsoft's
> > > > attention and good graces, NT is a disaster of unreliability and poor
> > > > cost/performance.
> > > >
> > >
> > > unreliability and poor cost/performance? You couldn't be more wrong and
> if
> > > you'd quit living in 3.51 days you'd know this. When is the last time
> anyone
> > > not a linux zealot ever saw a blue screen?
> >
> > Actually, I saw one today with a dual processor domain controller.
>
> sigh... sure ... sure... and even if true - why is it that these things only
> happen around you and things you are near? hmmm...
Actually, I was working on code. I tried not to get involved. I just
heard about it while I was trying to work.
>
> >
> > > I can't remember. It's been over
> > > a year I think. Crashes? That's what W98 is for, and even the beta of
> > > Windows ME is as stable as most would want. W2K is as stable as any *nix
> you
> > > could name.
> >
> > I don't buy it, I don't believe it, and nothing I have seen indicates
> > that anything has changed with Windows NT. This is the game MS always
> > plays. The mantra is "The current release is really stable, unlike that
> > last release." This has been done in the 3.1 -> 3.5, 3.5 -> 3.51, 3.51
> > -> 4.0, 4.0 -> W2K. (Ignoring all the crap about the SPs)
>
> and have you actually looked? took an unbiased look? I doubt it, seriously
> doubt it. Comments you've made in teh past and in this very thread prove to
> me that your level of experience with NT is minimal, programmer wanna-be
> level attempts at best.
And there it is! the insults! "programmer wanna-be level" cute. So, I
say something you do not like, and you decide to try to discredit me by
claiming I have no experience with NT. This is clear proof that you lack
the intelligence to debate as a reasonable person. While I do have a
great deal of experience in "Windows" (9x, NT, W2K) development, it was
never even an issue in this discussion. You loose. Oh, BTW, wasn't it
you that said DCOM was great? Didn't we all hear that DCOM is going
away? Hmmm. Very interesting indeed.
> >
> >
> > > SP1 is coming out in the next week and it addresses a handful of
> > > issues, most esoteric and minor and just add to the 5 9's of reliability
> W2K
> > > is already able to deliver. 64,000 bugs? even 19,000 bugs? ha! not even
> 4
> > > digits... and this from a 40 million line OS version .0 -- can you even
> find
> > > a single comprehensive list of all the bugs and "issues" in the linux
> > > kernel?
> >
> > This is the same thing. W2K is real stable, as stable as any *nix, and
> > the next paragraph is about the next service pack which will make it
> > better.
>
> Oh so you suggest that a *Real* stable OS needs no service packs. No
> upgrades, no fixes no revisions. So, why have there been several hundred
> revisions of the linux kernal? Wow, must be a VERY buggy kernel indeed. I
> mean, if it's stable as you'd liek to suggest, it wouldn't need new kernel
> versions weekly now would it?
I was not suggesting that service packs were a bad thing, I was likening
them to releases. The "eat your children" attitude of previous releases
shows that NT zealots don't really take their claims seriously. "NT for
sp 3 is great, what do you mean its buggy?" etc.... And next month, you
will read something "NT SP4 buggy? what do you mean? SP 3 was buggy, but
sp 4 is great!" So on through releases and service packs. It is just
silly.
Released kernels in Linux are mostly good. There are some turkeys, but
even those aren't bad. The difference is two things, (1) we are
realistic about our reliability claims, and (2) our views of the past
kernels do not change the instance a new one comes out.
One more thing...
No one HAS to upgrade a Linux kernel "weekly." However, it should be
mentioned that progress marches on and improvements, additions, and yes,
bug fixes happen. The Linux community gets them quickly and can test
prior to upgrading.
>
> >
> > Seriously, I know the mantra of the Linux people is "It'll be in the
> > next kernel...." that is still better than "This release is really
> > stable, unlike that last release." (until the next release or sp)
>
The above paragraph is still true.
--
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: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 18:15:15 -0600
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Once again, you are making an assumption that it doesn't "need" it
> because it doesn't use it. Any second now the user is going to click
> the button that is going to make it "need" much much more than 2%, and
> on a client desktop it makes sense to have it for them, instantaneously.
Not neccesarily. The best ROI is achieved by maximizing machine
throughput, not by wasting a bunch of resources for the purpose of
making the machine react to human inputin 10 microseconds, instead of
100 microseconds.
> The program the operator is interacting with should get ALL available
> CPU cycles unless IT decides to give them up.
Nope. The process that is producing the greatest value for the user per
unit of computer resource should get all available cycles.
Your premise has a flaw, and it is this: that *interactive* programs
generate more value than batch programs. This is often *NOT* the case.
> Now, the reason this idea horrifies you software engineers, I believe,
> is because you can't for the life of you believe that one bad app won't
> screw the hole thing up.
Umm, no, the reason your suggestion horrifies me is that the end result
of doing what you want will be to drastically reduce machine throughput
while not making interactive programs even one bit more responsive.
10 million nano seconds is an eternity to a machine, yet for you, it is
a period of time to small for you to notice.
> Which is exactly why this is of value to the
> operator/user/consumer. One bad app *can* screw it up. Which is why
> cooperation is required of the vendors, as well as the code.
Which creates unneccesary relationships, defects and of course, a much
higher cost while creating absolutely no real benefit.
> Leaving
> this "gaping hole" that scares you guys so much is actually a mandate
> that *nobody* right bad software which hogs the CPU unnecessarily.
Hmmm . . . make the cost of making a mistake so high, that nobody makes
mistakes?
Sorry, but again, your basic premise is flawed. People do not make
mistakes because they can get away with them, they make mistakes because
the systems in question are far to complex to be exhaustively specified,
designed and tested.
> In a
> PMT system (though the cases, of course, can't really compare), that one
> app that takes 75% when it *really* only needs 2%, is still going to get
> its 75%, even when it *isn't* the focus of the user's attention.
No, it won't.
> "If". The phrase is "if the foreground app yields". ;-)
Precisely. Which requires the app to know whether or not it is the
foreground, as well as requiring the user to use his/her computer as a
single tasking system.
> Again, this happens all the time. It gets fixed all the time, too. The
> user, again, not theory, should decide if that is desirable. One bad
> apple can spoil the bunch is a good thing.
Err . . . no. Dead wrong. The entire underlying philosophy behind
modern software engineering methodologies is: "Reduce complexity by
reducing coupling". Your suggestion is that we increase coupling . . .
which is absolutely, totally wrong. Sorry.
> Its the only way you can be
> sure you have a good bunch, instead of just a good apple.
Nope. Another bad premise. There is no need to have "bunch". Package
each apple separately.
> The amount of processor time an app should yield depends only on what
> the *user* is doing.
Close . . . the limiting resource (in this case, processor time) should
be allocated to that process which will generate the greatest value for
the user.
The user tells the process scheduler the relative value per cycle costs
of each process through the priority setting.
> These are not servers! They are not shared hosts!
And your point is . . . ?
> There is no reason whatsoever to make *my* use of the software, *my*
> process, whatever is taking up my time and attention *now*, to be
> absolutely the fastest possible thing on the computer.
Did you mis-type the above? Because if you didn't, I agree with you:
the process you are interacting with does not necessarily need to be
given top priority to resource access.
> Virtually no desktop client-only users have interest in dealing with
> such intricacies,
This is simply a statment that illustrates the ignorance of the average
user.
> or need to.
This is wrong, and akin to saying that your daily to-do list does not
need to be prioritized, or scheduled.
> >You just need to give user interaction tasks very high priorities, so
> >the system remains responsive under load.
>
> We do. Its called CMT. :-)
No. CMT does not guarantee that interactive tasks will be given a high
processor priority.
> Yes, that's the point. Because in a CMT system, an app should only use
> a modal dialog when the user has to deal with whatever they're asking
> RIGHT NOW, even if the user is off doing something else in another app.
A mismatch between designs, then. CMT cannot support the concept of
RIGHT NOW.
> Not all dialog boxes are modal; few should be, in fact. Probably many
> fewer than are now. But that is a separate argument, and must examine
> the details of the case. In general, CMT with modal dialogs is a
> superior system for a desktop client system than PMT.
A assertion, nothing more. I will counter assert: PMT is superior to
CMT in all cases.
> Maybe its this automatic assumption that PMT is always superior and CMT
> is archaic
This is not an assumption. It is the result of noticing a very simple
fact:
CMT is a proper sub-set of PMT.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 18:20:10 -0600
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Well then its an incorrect logical conclusion, whether you want to
> recognize it or not. You cannot second-guess whether an app needs
> whatever it has taken;
Precisely. Hence the superiority of PMT. In a PMT system, it is the
user who tells the system whether or not that what the app has grabbed
is *needed*.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 18:22:47 -0600
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> So I'll ask again. Is it true that a scheduler is necessary to provide
> robust and reliable multi-tasking?
Yes.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451745
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 00:25:37 GMT
Here's today's Tinman digest:
1> On the contrary.
Even more pontification.
1> Of what?
Even more supporting evidence.
1> Lost your dictionary, Dave?
Non sequitur.
1> What alleged "pontification," Dave?
Yours, Tinman.
1> Of what, Dave?
Even more supporting evidence.
1> How so, Dave?
Even more supporting evidence.
1> By failed to be relevent, obviously.
Irrelevant, given that my answer was relevant, Tinman.
1> What alleged "answer," Dave?
Even more supporting evidence.
1> Which newsgroup, Dave?
Even more supporting evidence.
1> See above.
See my response above.
1> What you can digest is irrelevent, Dave.
Incorrect, Tinman.
1> Which one is that, Dave?
Even more supporting evidence.
1> On the contrary, posting is more relevent.
Incorrect, Tinman.
1> You failed to answer the question, Dave.
Incorrect, Tinman.
1> See above.
See my response above.
1> And again.
Even more supporting evidence.
1> One more time, Dave.
Even more supporting evidence.
1> Incorrect. You mention them first, Dave.
Even more pontification.
1> Why? You presume you are correct.
Incorrect, Tinman.
1> Yet you are incorrect.
Even more pontification.
1> On the contrary, they grow ever larger and more beautiful with
1> your every post.
Illogical.
1> You provide wonderous manure indeed. ('
Illogical, Tinman.
2> Personally, I enjoy Dave's conversations, in a sort of minimalist
2> bad-imitation-of-phillip-glass-wannabe sort of way.
I had no idea that you wanted to be Philip Glass. I do find it
ironic that you accused me of "spelling" your name wrong, yet here
you are "spelling" Philip Glass' name wrong.
3> I don't expect real conversation from Dave,
Why provide someone engaging in "entertainment" with a real
conversation?
4> Jumping into conversations again, eh Dave? ("
Obviously not, Tinman. Rather, it was Jacques who jumped in.
4> [snip]
5> No, he's blind--he does not C. ('
How ironic, coming from the person who doesn't understand that a call
to a random number generator also won't place responses appropriately.
Indeed, it's supposed to guarantee that they won't.
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 18:39:27 -0600
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Quoting void from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 12 Jul 2000 05:05:24 GMT
> [...]
> >Single-user or not, nobody wants their computer locked up because one
> >application has a serious bug. Operating systems should be resilient
> >against programmer error, because bugs happen and they happen a lot.
>
> No, desktop client operating systems need to be more resilient to user
> errors. Programmers are assumed to have done their job correctly.
And they do do their job correctly. But "correctly" does not mean:
"produces defect free code".
> That
> this doesn't always happen is not the issue,
No . . . the fact that programmers *cannot* produce defect free code
except in the most trivial of systems, is the issue.
> No. Can you find a way to make PMT as user-responsive as CMT?
I don't need to . . . it's already been done.
> Then all
> you're doing is implementing CMT.
Nope. CMT is nowhere near as responsive as PMT is.
> The result is the value, not the
> process. I don't care *how* you do the scheduling. As long as whatever
> program I'm working in has, as far as I am concerned 100% of the
> available time to keep up with me, even if it spends a lot of that time
> waiting. Of course, background processes shouldn't be ignored, but they
> only rarely have true priority.
This indicates incredibly unproductive work habits. I suggest some work
habits analysis and some corrective training.
> Again, I'm over-simplifying the case by assuming that everything is user
> applications, and I/O devices (network, drive) don't screw things up
> because they were locked out. I'm not sure how those details are
> handled, so perhaps I am merely arguing for a PMT system that pretends
> to be CMT, now that we are no longer limited to the stand alone
> "austere" environment which the Mac was developed in. But having you
> guys argue against the logic so hard and only concentrate on the
> engineer's view is a bit disconcerting.
Actually, nobody is concentrating on the engineer's viewpoint here.
Engineers do their thing in order to provide a solution to the customers
problem, which of course *requires* that we pay attention to the
customers point of view.
> Yes, that's what I've finally realized. Yet I suspect they are not as
> unrelated as theory indicates.
Which theory would that be?
> I would still always like to have the
> GUI have preference in multitasking.
That is a bad idea. The ability to choose whether or not the GUI has
preference, is a *GOOD* idea. Hence, PMT.
> PMT is not subtle in its annoyance value for the user, any more than
> modal dialogs are.
PMT has no annoyance value for the user.
A bad *implementation* of PMT may annoy the user, but PMT does not.
> Yes, and I'm worried it means that's not a single person who can be an
> engineer and still maintain an end-users perspective.
The fallacy here is in assuming that engineer's are not end-users . . .
we most certainly are.
> I have no use for clever algorithms!
Then why do you run computer programs?
> You speak in theoretical cases.
And your point is? Are you trying to use the word "theory" as short
hand for "disproven and incorrect theory"?
> When I've got five program instances running, I want the one I'm *using*
> to be the one taking up almost all of the computers time.
Why?
> When I go to
> thirty eight instances (I've done it; just me browsing the web, and
> ignoring the many other processes), I don't want the front one to be any
> slower, not just "only very slightly" slower.
Then . . . don't load that many programs. Virtual memory is a minimum
of five orders of magnitude slower than pure core.
> My point is that cycles spent waiting for the user on a desktop client
> system are not *wasted*. They are *spent*.
No, they are *wasted* if they could have been *spent* producing value
for the user.
> Waiting for me. Engineers
> have a warped, not inaccurate, but different, view of "noticeable" than
> end users do.
An unfair and inaccurate characterization . . . engineers *ARE* end
users!
> No, I overestimate the role of approach in how engineering gets done.
> I'm very ruthless in this regard: the user counts; the engineer's
> theory's don't.
Engineering *theory* is constructed from objective measurement and
logical analysis. The user counts, yes, but the engineers theories do,
too.
> I'm saying that if CMT is so horrid, and PMT is so superior, why is the
> Mac still outselling Linux PCs? :-)
As a generalist, you should know just how fallacious it is to try to
draw conclusions from an argument that focuses on just one of a
multitude of differences.
--
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
******************************
