Linux-Advocacy Digest #30, Volume #28 Thu, 27 Jul 00 14:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Some Windows weirdnesses... ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Star Office to be open sourced
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Re: Star Office to be open sourced ("Stuart Fox")
Re: Gnome or KDE (Rasputin)
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man! (Chris Wenham)
Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept? ("1$Worth")
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man! (Chris Wenham)
Re: Star Office to be open sourced
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man! (Chris Wenham)
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("JS/PL")
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Some Windows weirdnesses...
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 13:49:23 -0400
Tim Palmer wrote:
>
> Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Tim Palmer wrote:
> >>
> >> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Tim Palmer wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On 20 Jul 2000 00:24:56 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> >On Tue, 18 Jul 2000 19:24:03 +0100, Russell Wallace
> >> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> >>The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> >> >> >>> Even the ungraceful shutdowns aren't too bad, if one uses something
> >> >> >>> like reiserfs -- a full-fledged data-journaling file system.
> >> >> >>> (Disclaimer: I don't have it on my system, so can't say from personal
> >> >> >>> experience.)
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> By contrast, FAT is flat. :-)
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>FAT is one of the very few pieces of software I've ever come across that
> >> >> >>I really trust. I've seen any number of DOS/3.1/W95/W98 machines
> >> >> >>hard-shutdown due to power failures, crashes or whatever in the 12 years
> >> >> >>I've been working with them, and FAT doesn't mind in the least - all
> >> >> >>that happens is any uncommitted data was lost (obviously) and
> >> >> >>CHKDSK/Scandisk sometimes finds some lost sectors (that wouldn't have
> >> >> >>done any harm except waste a little bit of disk space).
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >When I used to run Windows 3.11, I would sometimes get "cross-linked"
> >> >> >files. This means that the MS FAT implementation would sometimes mix
> >> >> >files together! ScanDisk would "fix" the problem by truncating one
> >> >> >of the affected files (usually the binary file that is impossible to
> >> >> >fix by hand). Usually, these problems were only discovered after they
> >> >> >were present for a long time. I've never had this problem on an ext2
> >> >> >filesystem.
> >> >>
> >> >> When i used to run Lienux, it woold sometimes crash, and it woold fsck for an
> >> >> hour and a haff and haff
> >> >> the fials woold get deleited. I pull the plug on Windos, and affter a short
>ScanDisk,
> >> >> it come's back up,
> >> >> no ploblem.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >fsck does NOT delete files, it moves them to the directory lost+found.
> >> >
> >> >Positive proof that timmy is a crack-head.
> >>
> >> And why does'nt this derectary appere in the Desktop?
> >
> >Oh god! Hehe, you have got to be kidding!
> >
> >Getting to used to hand holding Timmy?
> >
> >Since it is file-system specific, lost+found is on each "partition", or
> >each filesystem seperately. That way you will know exactly what
> >"partition" the files in lost+found came from and you won't be forced to
> >try to figure it out yourself.
>
> I thogt that UNIX hid the partitians from you and made it look like one fialsystum.
>
> >lost+found is not the recycle bin Timmy. lost+found is a much better
> >way of dealing with "lost" files
>
> Windo's Recycal BIn does it the rite way. lost+found is a rediculus idea.
>
Wrong.
lost+found is for files detected during a filesystem consistency check.
What does LoseDOS do when it's filesystem checker finds a file?
oh yeah. it renames it 00007._DD and drops it in the top level
directory.
REALLLLLLLLLLLLL freaking helpful, and nowhere close to the "recycle
bin"
> >compared to the Windows scandisk method
> >of just creating a million files in the root directory. How many people
> >have seen the root directory of a Windows machine with a huge number of
> >files from scandisk checks?
> >
> >--
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Nathaniel Jay Lee
--
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] ()
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.sun.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Star Office to be open sourced
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 17:51:42 GMT
On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 17:34:03 GMT, Rich Teer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 27 Jul 2000, Jay Maynard wrote:
>
>> I've never understood the disdain some folks have for package management.
>> What's wrong with letting the computer do things the computer's good at,
>> like record-keeping?
>
>Lack of real-world, enterprise class, computing experiance would be by bet.
>
...either that or they have seen machines fail at simple things
and come to the conclusion that they cannot be trusted for more
complex things.
Personally, I'd rather package managers be moot and applications
be capable of being treated as a single atomic entity capable of
being more or less completely non-dependent on system files.
[deletia]
--
Unless you've got the engineering process to match a DEC,
you won't produce a VMS.
You'll just end up with the likes of NT.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 17:54:08 GMT
On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 17:32:01 GMT, Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] () writes:
>
>> > I know about classics such as Emacs, but what others can you think
>> > of? (This is not meant to contest, just looking for personal
>> > enlightenment. Oh, and that Window Manager sucks, too.)
>>
>> Lex is also a good example.
>
> Was Lex copied by someone else the same way Microsoft copied ideas
> from their competitors?
If you want to be really pedantic, I suppose you could
accuse the author of 'stealing' from Turing or Chomsky...
>
>
>> It's not at all apparent that you are paying any attention
>> to the periphery.
>
> Why did you say that?
You didnt' catch the mispelling for one.
--
Unless you've got the engineering process to match a DEC,
you won't produce a VMS.
You'll just end up with the likes of NT.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.sun.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Star Office to be open sourced
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 18:55:26 +0100
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Personally, I'd rather package managers be moot and applications
> be capable of being treated as a single atomic entity capable of
> being more or less completely non-dependent on system files.
>
..which means shared libraries cease to exist.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rasputin)
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.networking
Subject: Re: Gnome or KDE
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 17:56:52 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <Pig> wrote:
>Hi All:
>
>I am a newbie of Linux and using the SUSE linux 6.3.
>I've tried different GUIs.
>I think the Gnome and KDE are the best.
>So, which one is better? Pls. suggest.
You might as well ask: "Islam or Judaism"?
If anyone needs me, I'll be in my Flame Bunker (pat. pending).
<Any reason you don't want to try them both?>
--
Rasputin.
Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
From: Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 17:59:43 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () writes:
> Unix has a long history of allowing the end user to replace
> any and all subcomponent of the user interface. This includes
> the bits that might be 'too derivative' or 'too derivative'
> of the 'wrong interface'.
Does this mean I could, for example, replace the mouse-driven user
interface of GIMP with a command line UI? (I could use that, because
sometimes the pictures I want to make don't require freehand input,
and I'd rather enter the coordinates of primitive shapes through the
keyboard.)
Would that also mean that I can change the UI at more than the
superficial level imposed by a widget set or window manager?
I know that if I change the widget set, a program will still have the
same user interface, but the shapes on the screen will look
different. A badly designed dialog box that uses too many levels of
nested tabs will still have too many levels of nested tabs regardless
of the toolkit or window manager I use. (Psst! Find my name here:
http://www.iarchitect.com/tabs.htm ;-)
Apple's QuickTime has a particuarly stupid UI. It features a "draw"
of thumbnails for favorite movies, but it doesn't bother to label
those thumbnails and the whole "drawer" metaphor is dumb. Are you
saying that if this was implemented on Unix, I'd have the power to
either make it label the thumbnails or change the "drawer" to a list
box or menu?
In fact, how many of the problems catalogued at the User Interface
Hall of Shame could be fixed by the /users/ if the programs were
written for Unix?
http://www.iarchitect.com/mshame.htm
Regards,
Chris Wenham
------------------------------
From: "1$Worth" <"1$Worth"@costreduction.plseremove.screaming.net>
Subject: Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept?
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 18:57:53 +0100
Mikey wrote:
>
> Thus Sprake "1$Worth":
>
> > "Ease of use" means that Linux can be accessible to people whom
> > otherwise would be locked into closed source for-profits-only solutions.
> > It also means that the MARKET will take Linux as seriously as it does
> > with a Microsoft or an Apple. It means that even more device makers will
> > positively want their hardware to work to its fully optimised potential
> > under Linux.
>
> You could be talking about "Like Windows" in some cases. That's because
> people are have used windows for years and that's all they know and
> they're not real keen on change. OTOH, I set up a small network for a
> "Mom & Pop" local business. The server is Debian, gateway is FreeBSD,
> *and* the clients are Caldera with StarOffice. These people had minimal
> computer experience and it took a bit of instruction but they caught on
> and are very happy with their sophisticated & in-expensive network.
>
> My theory behind this is that they never had computers there before, so
> there were no predefined ideas of how to operate a computer. Or, they
> didn't have to un-learn the Windows concept of computer operation.[1]
>
> [1] I'm not against Windows. Use whatever operating system you want.
> --
> Since-beer-leekz,
Thanks for your comments.
This is a great case in point! Linux provides the simplicity for the
"mom & pop" local business. This shows just how well Linux has
progressed that you can use Linux in this way.
But what happens why they want to buy a scanner, a new modem or a USB
video unit? They will probably ask you of course, but what about people
who don't have advice on hand?
Without "the market" behind you as we know it is difficult to keep up
with all the exotic hardware coming into the market, also some
manufacturers seem not even to want drivers written for them for free
and withhold product information. Unfortunately these backwards thinking
companies only look at popularity and hard demand.
Then the installation of hardware follows wildly different paths.
There are many people that will be happy to let you set things up and
not worry about adding hardware or software without asking you, but I
suspect that there are many more people who would be willing to try.
That's why I think that ease of use is a real and important issue.
I agree that much of the fuss of "ease of use" may be more to do with
what people have been habituated to rather than an objective reason. But
I would put it to you that subjective reasoning ships boxes.
p.s. There is of course no pre-defined requirement that Linux should
even be "popular", but it seems such a unique opportunity to make the
world that little bit better. This does require some hard thinking as to
what path is best trodden. I sure don't want another version of windows,
just something that "normal" people can use, not just us geeks ever
quick to fire up vi for that quick tweak, or to debate long and hard as
to the "best" shell (naturally bash of course).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 17:45:59 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> the same programs. But the programs are a different story.
>
> Gnumeric is a clone of Excel.
>
> It goes on and on. I haven't seen any true originality or creativity
> expressd on the Linux platform /anywhere/.
>
> It's as if Free Software was good for only one thing: Copying the
> Proprietary.
Embrace and Extend
The classic weapon of proprietary software can be used by free software too.
Too often free software rushes off and implements a single good idea, and
disregards any of the accumulated wisdom from existing software. The result
is a toy. Potentially an interesting toy, but not a project that will ever
suplant existing production systems.
The gnumeric <-> MS excel relationship is an excellent example. I've used
spreadsheets for a long time and used them as display engines for large
projects. The interfaces to all of them, especially MS excel are ... I'll be
delicate .. suboptimal. There are huge numbers of limitations and problems
that I would love to see fixed. To that end I've tried every free/open
spread sheet I could get my hands on. Some were more successful than others.
Several had interesting new concepts. None were usable as replacements for
excel or applix. Gnumeric was the first free spreadsheet to attempt to
provide the critical subset of MS excel's features. It reads AND writes MS
excel and Applix spreadsheet formats. Is it the most 'innovative' (god I
hate that word), not yet. However, it does provide an open platform which
can be used to fix the glaring problems in proprietary spreadsheets, and
eventually to break new ground.
People like you complain that free software copies proprietary programs.
Others complain that every free program is different and requires users to
learn an entirely new interface.
Gnumeric is attempting to walk the middle ground.
As close to MS Excel as possible, but NO closer.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
From: Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 18:00:40 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () writes:
> Again, your point is moot and based on the dellusion that
> originality is a common thing when infact nearly everything
> is quite derivative. Even the apparently original is usually
> highly derivative and the creators of it will be quite upfront
> about their 'borrowing'. (Jobs, Plant)
Okay. So where are some examples of real originality expressed on the
Linux platform? Those ideas had to come from /somewhere/.
Regards,
Chris Wenham
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.sun.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Star Office to be open sourced
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 18:01:48 GMT
On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 18:55:26 +0100, Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> Personally, I'd rather package managers be moot and applications
>> be capable of being treated as a single atomic entity capable of
>> being more or less completely non-dependent on system files.
>>
>..which means shared libraries cease to exist.
Not necessarily.
Space versus complexity is a tradeoff that might make sense.
--
Unless you've got the engineering process to match a DEC,
you won't produce a VMS.
You'll just end up with the likes of NT.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
From: Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 18:02:09 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () writes:
> >> It's not at all apparent that you are paying any attention
> >> to the periphery.
> >
> > Why did you say that?
>
> You didnt' catch the mispelling for one.
Okay, I now know how to spell periphery. Was that all you were
refering to?
Regards,
Chris Wenham
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 18:03:46 GMT
On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 17:59:43 GMT, Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] () writes:
>
>> Unix has a long history of allowing the end user to replace
>> any and all subcomponent of the user interface. This includes
>> the bits that might be 'too derivative' or 'too derivative'
>> of the 'wrong interface'.
>
> Does this mean I could, for example, replace the mouse-driven user
> interface of GIMP with a command line UI? (I could use that, because
...now that you mention it: yes.
Do you even look into this stuff in the most cursory manner
possible before spouting off about it?
[deletia]
--
Unless you've got the engineering process to match a DEC,
you won't produce a VMS.
You'll just end up with the likes of NT.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 14:04:23 -0400
Reply-To: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Josiah Fizer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> JS/PL wrote:
>
> > "Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8loo9h$30l5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In article <8lomgp$da$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> kfm isn't distributed as a product. IE was and is and so is
Windows.
> > > >
> > > >IE and Windows are distributed together. IE for Windows is also
> > distributed
> > > >seperately, and when installs upgrades parts of the OS.
> > >
> > > Everyone who bought Win95 as it was distributed originally
> > > without IE and paid extra for the separate Plus pack containig
> > > IE knows this is a lie.
> >
> > Why would you buy the Plus Pack? Just type in the fricking MS or
Netscape
> > url and download either browser, or press one of the millions of idiotic
> > buttons that were (for some reason) at the bottom of every single Web
Page
> > of that era.
>
> You see, the first version of Windows 95 didn't have a web browser. So you
> couldn't "press one of the millions of idiotic buttons" as you had no way
to
> get to the web page
Yes you did, when you signed up for internet access the browser of your
choice was mailed to your house. If you by chance didn't get a choice from
your ISP, then within 5 minutes of logging on, you could be downloading your
choice.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 18:08:11 GMT
On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 17:45:59 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> the same programs. But the programs are a different story.
>>
>> Gnumeric is a clone of Excel.
>>
>> It goes on and on. I haven't seen any true originality or creativity
>> expressd on the Linux platform /anywhere/.
>>
>> It's as if Free Software was good for only one thing: Copying the
>> Proprietary.
>
>Embrace and Extend
[deletia]
>excel and Applix spreadsheet formats. Is it the most 'innovative' (god I
>hate that word), not yet. However, it does provide an open platform which
>can be used to fix the glaring problems in proprietary spreadsheets, and
>eventually to break new ground.
Once the core functional components are completed, those that
want to actually get off their toukas and 'innvoate the UI'
are free to do so. HELL, they could offer suggestions NOW,
if they have any.
>
>People like you complain that free software copies proprietary programs.
>Others complain that every free program is different and requires users to
>learn an entirely new interface.
Too true.
[deletia]
If it's not 'foo' is too unlike the 'One True Interface',
it's 'foo' is too much like the 'One True Interface'.
--
Unless you've got the engineering process to match a DEC,
you won't produce a VMS.
You'll just end up with the likes of NT.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
