Linux-Advocacy Digest #36, Volume #28 Thu, 27 Jul 00 17:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept? (Mikey)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Roberto Alsina)
Linux can save you money on electricity! (B'ichela)
Re: I had a reality check today :( ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: I had a reality check today :( ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man! (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mikey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept?
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 05:56:08 -0400
Thus Sprake "1$Worth":
> Thanks for your comments.
> This is a great case in point! Linux provides the simplicity for the
> "mom & pop" local business. This shows just how well Linux has
> progressed that you can use Linux in this way.
>
> But what happens why they want to buy a scanner, a new modem or a USB
> video unit? They will probably ask you of course, but what about people
> who don't have advice on hand?
True! That's where your local LUG comes in handy. (My LUG is
http://nolug.dhs.org, the New Orleans Linux User Group) We teach people
how to use Linux, do installs, and answer questions for *free*. It's
also based upon the individual too. Bring up Linux and promote it as
much as possible and let people know that you can help them. Granted,
it's extra work, but for Open Source software, I'll put in the extra
time. As far as scanners, they have UPC scanners, and all you have to
do is plug it in, and that's how they keep track of their inventory.
> There are many people that will be happy to let you set things up and
> not worry about adding hardware or software without asking you, but I
> suspect that there are many more people who would be willing to try.
> That's why I think that ease of use is a real and important issue.
Installing hardware for Linux is not too much harder than it was
installing and configuring hardware for DOS 5. Back then, it was
configuring the autoexec.bat & config.sys. With Linux, (for the most
part) it's /dev/devicefile and kernel.
When HW manufacturers start making installation programs for Linux, at
least (unless the device requires a kernel tweak), you won't have to
reboot your machine. :) I picture if that's the case, then install
programs will automatically add lines to the kernel and compile it for
the user, kinda like the way that devices will automatically write to
autoexec.bat, config.sys, etc. in the M$ world.
Speaking of reboots after updates, I just love gloating to NT SysAdmins
that I can change IP addresses without having to restart my box. :P
> 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).
I'm personally trying to create a Linux ISO that will just default to a
workstation install without access to the shell or anything other than
Office apps (except for root of course). Having to babysit the Win
boxen on my network, sometimes when I have a problem, I'll say to
myself,"I wish this were a Linux/Unix box, then it would be easier to
solve." So, if a Linux workstation is made easy enough for the user,
and robust enough for me to tweak as needed, I'll be in SysAdmin heaven.
--
Since-beer-leekz,
Mikey
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam
possit materiari?
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 17:59:23 -0300
"Aaron R. Kulkis" escribió:
>
> "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >
> > Said void in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> > >On Tue, 18 Jul 2000 03:28:22 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >>Said void in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> > >>>On Sun, 16 Jul 2000 18:16:23 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>If people keep popping up with it, it isn't a bogus argument.
> > >>>
> > >>>Tell it to Galileo.
> > >>
> > >>I missed the reference. Galileo?
> > >
> > >Apparently he found it hard to convince people that the earth revolves
> > >around the sun. I think it was Galileo, it's been a while.
> >
> > Ah, yes. Copernicus had already established the issue. Galileo
> > "simply" observed that Jupiter has moons encircling it, just as the
> > Earth does (and therefore presumably just as both Earth and Jupiter
> > orbit the Sun), and pointed out this supported Copernicus' conclusions.
> >
> > I think that's how it went, anyway. I know I was always confused by why
> > they said Copernicus discovered the heliocentric system, but Galileo was
> > the one thrown in jail for it.
>
> Copernicus worked out the math, but never published about it.
Ok, I'll go offtopic, historical variety.
Copernicus did nothing like that. He just changed the unfounded
theory of "everything moves in circles around the earth" with
his new unfounded theory "everything moves in circles around
the sun".
He happened to be almost right (as was Tycho Brae with his "everything
turns around the sun, which turns around the earth"), except that
if he had actually done the math, he would have noticed that the
observations didn't match the idea of the planets moving in circles.
The one that actually did the math was Kepler, who produced his
famous laws ruling the movement of the celestial objects, as they
used to call them, and of course, Newton did some more math
(that must be the biggest understatement in my life ;-).
Galileo didn't even do the math, he just believed Copernico's
theory better than Ptolemy's (I am not sure that's the right
english name, sorry).
> Galileo made the mistake of publishing....which got him in trouble
> with the church.
He did publish it, and was asked to withdraw his works from
publication and apologize, which he did, quickly. The "eppur
si muove" thing is just a legend.
> After that, he published "fiction", with character names like
> "Simplicio" and "Intelligentsio"
In fact, that was the work he was asked to withdraw. That was a
common way of publishing theory, as dialog. In fact, I have read
that the reason why he was harassed was that he was not impartial
in his exposition, showing the defender of the old theory as a
moron (which was, of course, a very stupid thing to do).
> No, no, you can't prosecute me. Any coincidence between my views
> and those expressed by Intelligentsio...and the clergy's views, and
> those expressed by Simplicio are....simply coincidental.
Those were not just the clergy's view. There is a very unfortunate
tendency today to believe people in the past were morons. They
were not! That was, simply, the state of the science at the time,
just like newtonian physics was a couple of centuries later.
The clergy just happened to defend that theory very strongly
for their own reasons.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (B'ichela)
Subject: Linux can save you money on electricity!
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 16:55:44 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
As someone on this newsgroup said quite snidely. Linux can use
the old style of computer equipment called terminals. I was thinking
of this and the latest complaints noted by the National Electrical
Reliability Council (NERC) in reguards to the electrical consumption
of computers expecially in consumer applications. The Nerc reports
point to the increasing demand for electrical power and the lack of
new generating plants.
A terminal is not a major power sucker unlike a workstation. A
terminal really draws squat! A Vt100 really only draws perhaps 85
watts. It does not require active cooling to operate. Nor does it have
a hard drive that would need to be kept up to date or online to
prevent the slow bootup times. A terminal is just ON or OFF. Terminals
don't require HUBS or NICs or any of the anciliary equipment that is
required for a LAN [1]. Thus terminals provide a simple window into a
workspace located on another machine.
On the Linux/unix server side, all the storage devices can be
located at one location with all environmental controls in that one
location. connected to the terminals in the offices of the people who
need them.
While for a small home or business environment some would say
"Big Deal". This can be a very big deal in a larger environment were
the system administration needs to not only maintain the hardware
including the Uninteruptable Power Supply (UPS) or the backup
generator(s)). With the main "GUTS" located in a centralized location
that means only one set of UPSs to maintain, one main computer to
backup and restore and only one copy of the needed software to worry
about.
Terminals also don't break down often or require a special
reconfig if terminal needs to be replaced. Terminals are generic
enough that replacements or repairs are very standardized. Because any
wyse 75 is a wyse75 and the configuration is not likely to change from
one wyse 75 to another. The users don't have the ability to physically
add a soundcard or a fibre channel card to a terminal. that means that
the system adminstration does not need to worry about computers with
special add-ons fouling up the clients Windows 2k system with strange
and funky drivers.
On my system here all I have are terminals. I was going to try
a lan, a 10base2 system (still have the card in the 486 for it). But
when I sat down and looked at the configuration of several clients
that would not be on 24x7 to save power or the tendency of users to
turn the machines OFF improperly I just said "screw this topoligy!"
Setting up NFS and NIS on both the server and clients and maintaining
backups across my planned 3 node network would have been an excersize
in frustration. (If thats bad for a 3 node, what about 40 node?)
Never mind that Windows or Linux/Unix workstations need to bootup and
proper shutdown is required, or a possible file system corruption can
happen thus a UPS would be required to protect against a mains power
failure (not good agains doofus users however). Multiple lan connected
workstations do not make sense. A lan can certainly be used to tie
several servers in the computer room together, In this use the system
will still be maintained by the system administration at one main
location.
[1] at one time a lan was a buss type topoligy that would have
allowed several clients/servers to connect to one wire. This was in
some ways where a LAN was conenient. With the use of 100/10baset this
is no longer the conveience that it once was. Like the dumb terminals
mentioned above you need one drop for each. Now a lan really is not
such a compettive system vs a set of terminals plugged into a terminal
server. The same wire used for a 100/10baseT system can be used with
terminals. In the wiring closet one still plugs them into a central
box. Only its a terminal server instead of a hub or switch.
Your comments on this piece are welcome.
--
B'ichela
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I had a reality check today :(
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 14:45:25 -0600
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > MS didn't accomplish this in Windows for another 8 years.
> >
> > The context was: Unix vs. MS (Windows), not Unix vs. MS. Aaron simply
> > used some short hand, because for the purposes of this discussion, Xenix
> > == Unix.
>
> No, the context is Unix versus Microsoft, not Unix versus Windows.
No, it wasn't.
>
> Go back and read the early statements.
I did. The context was Unix vs. Windows . . . MS has suceeded in
imprinting their "brand" into the public's mind, I gotta admit that.
> They were basically talking about
> how it took MS years to figure out the concepts that Unix has had for
> decades.
No. They were talking about how it took MS years to incorporate
concepts that Unix has had for years into *WINDOWS*, hence the reason
the discussion was re: Unix vs. WINDOWS.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 17:00:23 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said void in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
> > If the sticky bit is set on a regular file and no execute
> > bits are set, the system's page cache will not be used to
> > hold the file's data. This bit is normally set on swap
> > files of diskless clients so that accesses to these files do
> > not flush more valuable data from the system's cache. More-
> > over, by default such files are treated as swap files, whose
> > inode modification times may not necessarily be correctly
> > recorded on permanent storage.
> >
> >The page says nothing about what happens if the execute bits are set.
>
> *Ahem*.
>
> AFAIK...
>
> The actual purpose of the sticky bit (I thought, for this was all I knew
> of it) was for when the execute bits are set. An executable file with
> the sticky bit set runs with the access permissions of the *owner* of
> the file, rather than the account which executed it. It seems obvious
Close. That's the "Set User ID" bit
> why this information seems to have been lost in the mists of time: its a
> horrendous security problem if not watched extremely carefully. Common
It's still in VERY heavy use in Unix.
Example: you can't PROPERLY implement mkdir without it.
<confusion snippped>
--
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: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I had a reality check today :(
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 14:59:04 -0600
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> That's called Multitasking.
> >
> > Wrong. Tasks are not the same as processes.
>
> That depends on your architecture.
No, it doesn't. This is a discussion re: terminology, not specific
implementations of that terminology.
> Linux, for instance, is an entirely task
> based OS.
Wrong. Linux is entirely a process based OS that allows some processes
to selectively eliminate some aspects of a "process".
> > Aaron is right.
> >
> > Multi-processing does indeed mean: running multiple processes, it has
> > nothing to do with how many processors are in the box.
>
> I guess that's why SMP is called Symetric Multi-Processing then. Wait, that
> would invalidate your claims.
Overloaded terms are not new to computer science, just as they are not
new to anybody who has used a human language for more than a few years.
Besides which, SMP does not stand for "Symetric Multi-Processing", it
stands for "Symetric Multi-Processor" *AND* "Symetric Multi-processing"
. . . which invalidates *YOUR* claim, obviously, as with multiple
meanings, the term cannot be adjudged incorrect outside of it's context.
> Multi-processing has not been used to describe multiple proceses for at
> least 2 decades.
Wrong. The term has multiple meanings, Erik.
> Jargon evolves and changes.
No, terms accumulate *multiple* meanings. However, in this case,
"multi-processING" is not the same thing as "multiple processORS",
Erik. When used as: "Symetric Multi-processing", the term is a hardware
reference, not an OS reference.
> > So, you admit you were wrong?
>
> No, I'm admitting that the phrase is incorrect in todays useage.
Guess what? You tried again, and you are still wrong. The term is
correct in today's usage, within the context that it was used in this
thread.
> Many OS's don't have processes at all.
Some obviously do not.
> The actual term for running multiple programs for simultaneously is called
> Multi-programming.
That, too, is another term that is relatively old. At best, the term
"multi-processing" can be considered overloaded.
> > Your confusion stems from not knowing that the terms process and task
> > refer to two different things.
>
> I know the difference between the terms.
Then you should know that Linux has processes.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[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 16:03:48 -0500
Chris Wenham wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] () writes:
>
> > AbiWord and Gnumeric are both wide open in terms of their
> > components and the latest version of Netscape takes this
> > to the extreme allowing for entites like the gnome team to
> > bolt on a new front end much like one might do for sox or
> > mpg123.
>
> So what we're seing is that there isn't a standard way for a /user/
> to change the interface of a program. A programmer may be able to,
> and the new user interface would be chosen by the programmer instead
> of the user.
>
> Some programs come with secondary user interfaces (GIMP has a script
> console) but these are chosen by the programmer. For those that don't
> have socendary user interfaces, it would take programming knowledge
> to add one.
>
> Regards,
>
> Chris Wenham
Here's a complaint I see far too often. I believe what you are asking
for is power without knowledge and we have seen on many fronts what that
can lead to. You say you want a *standard* way for a user to change a
program interface, but in my mind what you are asking for would lead to
total chaos on the desktop. Each system, each user, each app, and each
little nuance would be changed by each user/system admin/etc. to the
point where you would not be able to use *computers* but you would be
able to use your particular computer in your particular way. And we can
ask for a *standard* way to change *standard* interfaces on *standard*
apps through a *standard* change mechanism, but unless someone is
educated in each of these *standard* and how they are implemented, you
would still have a system that the *standard* user would sit down at an
go "DUH!".
Anyway, on one hand we have users whining for standards. On the other
hand we have other users whining for the ability to customize. These
two kind of fight eachother. Now you come in with the third argument
that there should be a *standard* as to how to *customize* so that we
can easily create the chaos that all users are trying to avoid. I say,
learn a little bit about the system, and how to customize it. Then you
can do what you want, and not destroy the *standards* that already
exist.
Power without knowledge is not the answer. And if you feel it is,
perhaps you don't understand your own question? :-)
Seriously, the first thing needed is user education. Yes, ease-of-use
is important, but we are not yet at a point where you should be able to
functionally use a computer with absolutely *NO* knowledge of the
machine. Given the ability to change absolutely everything around you
(whether in computer terms, or real-life terms) and absolutely no
knowledge of how it works, or what each thing effects will lead to
chaos, and *very bad things*. Power requires knowledge. An unfortunate
(in some people's view) necessity I believe.
Maybe it appears I'm being an ass about this, but I believe you are
asking for *easy and absolute power* without knowledge. And in this
case (as with most) I don't believe that will solve any of the current
problems with computers.
You want the ability to change everything without knowledge of the
things themselves. I don't think that's the proper solution. One man's
take on it anyway.
--
[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
******************************
