Linux-Advocacy Digest #34, Volume #28 Thu, 27 Jul 00 16:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why use Linux? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: From a Grove of Birch Trees It Came... ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Why use Linux? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft
Ruling Too Harsh (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Why use Linux? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Why use Linux? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chad Irby)
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man! (Chris Wenham)
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft
Ruling Too Harsh (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Advocacy and Programmers... ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept? (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 13:46:20 -0600
Spud wrote:
>
> [snips]
>
> "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Gee, I need a car that offers me some protection against my being totally
> mangled during crashes. This one has air bags, crumple zones and several
> other related features. That other one doesn't. I'll take the second one.
> Hey, why doesn't this car have the safety features I wanted?"
Because the first won't run on the roads you need to travel over to get
to work.
The cross platform compatibility between MS's OWN OS'en is lower than
that between Unixware and Linux, fer gosh sakes!
> Absolutely. As an easy-to-use, friendly home-user platform. Compare NT4
> and 98; which one plays most games? It ain't NT; it was intended for use in
> environments where stability, not playtime, was the key feature. 98 went
> the other way. Picking 98 and then complaining it lacks the stability one
> needs is silly; if you needed the stability, why didn't you pick NT?
Because, as you just pointed out, it won't run all the programs he wants
to run.
> The usual answer is one of two: 1) It doesn't play the games or 2) It costs
> more. Both of these show that stability was _not_ the feature sought after;
Surprise! There is no cosmic law stating that one is only allowed to
keep one desired feature in mind when shopping for a suitable product .
. .
There is nothing wrong with wanting your gaming platform to be stable.
After all, I've never had my Nintendo 64 crash . . . EVER.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: From a Grove of Birch Trees It Came...
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 15:46:32 -0400
Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> >> Dream on. A lot of big business leaders are willing to contribute
> >> to the Democratic Party, if only to insure that both likely alternatives
> >> are thoroughly bought.
> >So, you admit that the Democrats are a bunch of whores.
>
> Just like the Republicans?
>
So, you admit that the Democrats are a bunch of whores.
> --
> Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
> My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
--
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] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: 27 Jul 2000 14:50:04 -0500
In article <8RPe5.6317$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Spud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Not acceptable.
>> Ten years ago, maybe, but not now. Linux doesn't crash.
>
>Balls; I can crash Mandrake, consistently, every damned time, just
>trying to set up the sound card on this box. You were saying?
So you have a box where probing the ISA port space causes the
hardware to lock up. How is that a Linux problem. I have
a box/modem card combination that works with Linux but will
cause Win95 to lock up when it tries to detect hardware.
>> I can honestly say that I have not suffered a single crash in the 12
>> months, that it's been in use here, and the Linux box is running for
>20
>> hours or so every day.
>
>Big deal; I run Win2K here 24 hours a day; I've had two crashes; one
>due to a drive failure, one due to a corrupted driver. I suspect
>Linux wouldn't fare much better in those regards, so what of it?
But how long did it take Microsoft to deliver a product where
you might really expect that? And how long have they been
claiming they had one? Why should you trust the claims now?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was:
Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: 27 Jul 2000 19:56:31 GMT
On 27 Jul 2000 04:33:22 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Most business owners work at least as hard as their employees. They
>>don't have time to play golf.
>
>Bill Gates obviously isn't working that hard, because Windows still
>sucks.
I don't think it's true that he "doesn't work hard". What's probably
more true is that as CEO, he didn't "work hard on programming".
>On the other hand, Linux was developed without a CEO, and it's not bad.
Linux didn't have a CEO, but it certainly had a "boss".
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 13:51:06 -0600
Spud wrote:
>
> [snips]
>
> Can't recall offhand _ever_ seeing NT brought down by an application.
Been there, seen it when I was attempting to install a new device
driver. The installation application brought the system down (after
all, if you can equate installing a sound driver in admin mode on Linux,
with running an application on Windows, then certainly we can compare
installing a driver in admin mode on Windows, with running an
application on Windows, right?)
> I'm sure it _could_ happen; big deal; nothing's perfect. Linux dies
> regularly, when trying to use its _own_ configuration tools.
So does NT. That, in fact, is what "safe mode" is all about.
'Course, in Linux, you get warned *BEFORE* hand that you are about to do
something that may bollix up the hardware so much that the system will
crash (the *SYSTEM*, as in hardware *AND* software, not just the OS).
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 13:55:02 -0600
MH wrote:
>
> >Any large application (eg office) is
> > liable to have some serious bugs somewhere - and let's not pretend
> > that Linux has solved the problem of non-trivial software having
> > bugs - so yes, it may be unstable there, too.
>
> Large applications? Hell, KDE mini-apps core constantly and running NN is
> pure masochism. I'll use KFM to view web pages until (usually three or four
> times a session) KFM won't render a page legibly. Ever try to edit a web
> page > 200K in Composer. Pack a lunch, and get ready to type:
> rm core
Typical FUDster response. Netscape hasn't crashed on me in more than a
year.
What are you guys so afraid of, that you misrepresent so much?
Hey, if you have that many problems, RUN SOME TESTS!
Get memtest86 and run it over a weekend on your box. If that shows zero
errors (and I'm betting that it will show lots of errors, if what you
post is true), then run a full and complete (read AND WRITE) test on
your disk drive (back up, first, of course).
Use bad hardware, get bad results.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Chad Irby <[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 19:30:01 GMT
"JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Microsoft never said "lets kill Netscape by integrating our browser".
Actually, that's almost exactly what they *did* say, when they referred
to "cutting off Netscape's air supply" in the memos that came to light
in the DOJ case.
--
Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
------------------------------
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 19:59:53 GMT
Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Now, if your argument is that you want innovative, yet still
> familiar interfaces on programs, then we are talking about totally
> different things.
I think there are enough computer users who have learned the
"familiar" and are ready to test the benefits of something that may
not necessarily be familiar but may still be better once learned.
Trying to make something /too/ familiar can often result in a farce
and the best example are the batch of mid 90's Telephony programs
that painted a picture of a telephone on your screen and required you
to click on a picture of a handset to answer a call, or worse.
Lotus Organizer is another example of an over-done "familiar" user
interface that's still around. You get a picture of a leather
organizer that takes up massive amounts of screen space and reduce
the space available for things like address listings, notes and
so-on. You click on the picture of the binder rings to remove the
menu-bar and button-bar and marginally increase the size of the
display a little. But this is not intuitive or an improvement.
Todays computer "desktop" is trying to be a real desktop, with pieces
of paper that you can move around, drop into shredders, overlap each
other and so on. This sounds great for a new computer user, but I'm
not a new computer user and I still think there's some potential
beyond the command line.
I personally hate the mess of overlapping windows, palettes and
dialog boxes. I run everything maximized, I wish I could have more
options for arranging the palettes in GIMP. But I have a friend who
prefers to leave windows overlapped.
The trouble is that I can't be rid of the UI that I don't like. A lot
of graphics programs seem to think it's okay to litter your screen
with little independently floating palettes and provide no mechanism
for automatically arranging them (the Window Manager provides a
/little bit/ of help, like snapping window borders). I crave a neater
arrangement but the current UI is inseperably bound to the program
underneath.
There are programs that use a really bad File Open/Save dialog
box. I'd rather be rid of them and opt for something similar to the
omnipresent "URL box" in StarOffice (an office suite I won't praise
too far because it has the worlds worst File Open/Save dialog when
you eventually have to use it).
That's just me, though. Someone else probably wants something else.
And now that duly brings me back to the idea of component software,
which I ought to leave to another discussion least I sound like a
broken record :-)
Regards,
Chris Wenham
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was:
Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: 27 Jul 2000 20:01:23 GMT
On 27 Jul 2000 04:29:28 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spewed this unto the Network:
>
>>When YOU go to work as an employee, you live in comfort knowing that
>>at the end of the week, no matter what business is like, you will get
>>paid.
>
>Not so. Employers are always trying to cut wages and fire employees
>to increase profits,
Yes, you can get fired, but *while you are an employee*, you must
get payed. An the payment is usually a gauranteed sum.
>a couple of shares sitting in a 401(k) somewhere, NOT the CEO and
>the people who own 5% or more of the company.
Yes, but the CEO gets fired if the company doesn't perform well. The
CEO certainly doesn't have better job security than anyone else in the
company.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Advocacy and Programmers...
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 14:06:24 -0600
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 16:34:24 -0600, John W. Stevens wrote:
>
> >Python is easier to learn than Perl or Java, requires less re-learning
> >than Perl does, by it's very nature is easier to read, and due in part
>
> Hmmm ... if you know awk, sed, shell script and C, you more or less know
> perl. So how hard it is to learn depends on who you are. Perl is fine as
> long as you understand its limitations.
Umm . . . no. Perl isn't just about learning the regular expression
syntax (which has some unique extensions above and beyond what
grep/awk/sed supply any way). The "line-noise" syntax, while compact,
is essentially meaningless until relearned after any reasonable (3 to 6
month) break.
This "line-noise-style" syntax makes defect rates higher, peer review
less efficient, and maintenance costs higher.
Been there, been part of the study. At one point, when I tried to
discuss this in the Perl news group, I was accussed of never having even
tried to learn Perl, even though I had used it almost exclusively as my
language of choice for over two years.
After a six month break, when I got back to it, I could not even
remember whether: $#var or @#var gives the number of elements in an
array, and I could not remember what the proper syntax was for
extracting an element from an associative array (hash) was, to say
nothing about complex data structures based on references . . . but with
Python, the only time I have to look at a manual, is when I need to use
a package/class, never to use the core language.
And a very simple mathematical analysis will show why TIMTWOTDI
*increases* costs all across the life cycle, while it's benefits are at
best, temporary and minimal.
> Personally, I love it as a shell
> script replacement
Once you learn it, and get used to it, it can be very powerful, so long
as you are using it almost solely for one-offs, or very short lived
programs, and you and only you are going to read/write/maintain it.
> Speaking of python, I just checked out the Qt bindings. Very nice -- like
> the C++ bindings, only the language is easier to work with ...
I have nothing against Perl, personally, but I think Eric Raymond said
it best in his article: "Why Python?" . . . so I'll let him say the rest
for me.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept?
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 15:02:39 -0500
"1$Worth" wrote:
> Thanks for your comments.
>
> The thing is that I don't accept that *if* there is a common standard
> (risky to say I know) for GUI that makes a Gnu-Linux system easy to use
> that it logically follows that:
> 1. The standard will be like windows (we already have windows thanks)
> 2. This standard will mean that we are precluded from the use of our own
> window manager or xserver or technologyX.
> 3. This "standard" means that we have to follow it.
>
> Let's just say for argument that there is a windows like interface that
> comes with easy to use configuration. Let's call this interface "KDE 5"
> and assume that this will cater for all the people who are stuck on
> windows and wish to transfer to Linux. I don't see that this will
> prevent me from running Gnome, or you from running the fab 3d thingy.
> BUT it means that we have some type of standard of integration and ease
> of use that allows people to use Linux.
>
> So here is the crux: Unix likes to have no policies, or rather as few as
> absolutely possible. A fine aim but not for some issues. Take the age
> old problem of printing, or as I mentioned, the reliance on only text
> file configuration. Why should a "standard" or at least a concerted
> effort in the same direction mean that it will take anything away from
> how things are done already (in terms of nerd-access)? Surely it will
> just add to the experience of those who otherwise would never use Linux?
>
> There can be many standards, but lets make sure that they all take the
> user (and programmer) into account. Duplication of efforts may seem
> wasteful, but like evolution. it allows choice which I guess is why most
> of use choose Linux.
>
> I agree that the issues are complex and indeed neer-religious to some,
> most windows advocates are more concerned with Linux acting like windows
> rather than producing a "better" OS. And I agree ease of use does NOT
> means acting like windows.
>
> p.s. Enlightenment is great and I'll check out ThreeDSIA!
I agree with most of what you have said, but my 'argument' was based on
what is happening within the groups of users already present. Not with
what 'should' happen, but with what 'is' happening. Until we get people
to focus on what they can do to rectify the situation, the situation
will always be a point of contention (like you said, a religious war of
sorts). I do fully think that we can have ease-of-use without
sacrificing the Linux identity. It does not need to be just like
Windows. And like you I feel that Corel has done nothing to help Linux
(Well, other than the Netwinder, which they promptly sold. Like I've
said before, couldn't do anything too good now could they?).
Enlightenment is kick-ass. It's the basis for a system I use at home as
a "home entertainment kiosk" sort of thing I'm actively working on. And
ThreeDSIA is the coolest concept to come down the pike in a long time.
I really hope they get it developed to the point where we start to see
real apps developed for it soon. I don't know how productivity apps
will fit in to it, but it is definitely a major step away from the
standard folders/files-desktop/papers look. Perhaps even a step in the
right direction, make the computer interface more like our real-world
interface. Isn't that the objective in the end. To make it familiar.
What's more familiar than walking down the hall, picking up an object
and manipulating it (walk down the hall, pick up a pencil and use it on
the paper, once they get it this far it will quickly look acceptable to
all of those that are currently saying it is too big of a step all at
once).
I can't wait to see how far they take ThreeDSIA. If you want to see it,
it's at sourceforge: http://threedsia.sourceforge.net
Very cool, and another step forward.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
