Linux-Advocacy Digest #37, Volume #28            Thu, 27 Jul 00 18:13:04 EDT

Contents:
  Re: Yeah!  Bring down da' man!
  Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (void)
  Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was:    Microsoft 
Ruling Too Harsh
  Re: Linux can save you money on electricity! (abraxas)
  Re: Yeah!  Bring down da' man!
  Re: Yeah!  Bring down da' man! (John Jensen)
  Re: Yeah!  Bring down da' man!
  Re: Gnome or KDE (Doc Shipley)
  Re: Gnome or KDE (2:1)
  Re: Aaron Kulkis -- USELESS Idiot -- And His "Enemies" -was- Another  ("Aaron R. 
Kulkis")
  Re: Yeah!  Bring down da' man! (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
  Re: Aaron Kulkis -- USELESS Idiot -- And His "Enemies" -was- Another  ("Aaron R. 
Kulkis")
  Re: Yeah!  Bring down da' man! (Chris Wenham)
  Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... ("Drestin Black")
  Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... ("Drestin Black")

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 21:19:20 GMT

On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 19:59:53 GMT, Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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.

        I think you overestimate that considerably.

[deletia]

        These are nations of people who likely don't even have
        the time on their VCR set...

-- 
        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] (void)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: 27 Jul 2000 21:13:29 GMT

On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 17:59:12 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"void" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> If programs brokenly conform to a broken API, the fault lies with the
>> provider of the API.  If they had a reasonable DLL scheme, then software
>> would use it.
>
>Lazy programmers.
>
>Win16-era DLLs, IIRC, had very little in the way of versioning and avoiding
>namespace collisions.  AFAIK Win32 changed that, but programmers didn't take
>advantage of it.

Microsoft should have made it more difficult to use the old scheme than
the new.  They're good at things like that.

>The fact that in Win2k they've had to resort to actually monitoring system
>DLLs to make sure application installers don't try to overwrite them, says
>loads about the application programmers.

Application programmers will take what they're given.  Especially when
the giver is Microsoft.

>> Instead of explaining unix's shared library technology to you, I'm going
>> to ask you to supply a single solitary example of this kind of thing
>> happening on unix.
>
>I find it difficult to believe you've used Linux or Unix for any legnth of
>time and never had any sort of shared library problem.

Sure I've had shared library problems, but only when screwing around
with things I shouldn't have.[0]  When using systems as an end-user,
never in my memory.

I think this is largely because I have avoided Linux.

>> I couldn't care less.
>         ^^^
>I'm aghast, someone who actually uses the phrase _properly_.  You can't be
>an American :).

You're right.  I'm from New York City.

>If you want to make statements like "Win95 is poorly engineered" and be
>believable, back em up.  Some examples that are clearly and unquestionably
>the fault of Windows, would be useful.
>
>Engineering is all about compromise.  Think on that.

That's why I don't push my viewpoint on this all that hard -- I'm never
sure what MS's design goals *really* are, so it's hard to say how well
they've accomplished them.

[0] I tend not to feel that I understand an operating system
    until I've broken it and fixed it a whole bunch of times.

-- 
 Ben

220 go.ahead.make.my.day ESMTP Postfix

------------------------------

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
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 17:21:28 -0400

Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spewed this unto the Network: 
>On 27 Jul 2000 04:33:22 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

>>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".

You have a point. Bill Gates probably worked very hard at preventing people
from realizing that not all OSes suck as much as Windows.

Or did he hire a team of spin doctors and a team of lawyers to do it
for him?

>>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".

Not nearly in the same way that Microsoft has a boss (many bosses if
you count in the middle management). 

-- 
Microsoft Windows. Flaky and built to stay that way.


------------------------------

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: Linux can save you money on electricity!
Date: 27 Jul 2000 21:22:57 GMT

B'ichela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>       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.

Theyre wrong to begin with, the average desktop machine uses as 
much power as two lightbulbs.  And you spelled 'especially' wrong,
you illiterate bastard.

>       A terminal is not a major power sucker unlike a workstation. A
> terminal  really draws squat! A Vt100 really only draws perhaps 85
> watts. 

Mine pulls 120 watts actually.  The biggest sucker I have is 350watts;
and thats a PIII 450 w/4 hard drives.




=====yttrx


------------------------------

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 21:24:19 GMT

On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 16:03:48 -0500, Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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

        ...that wouldn't be a problem so long as the system could
        reconform to a common baseline.

[deletia]

        Actually, more well defined standards would allow for better
        customization in the end. Certain tasks can then be expressed
        in the abstract, in terms of the operating enviroment.

        Instead of futzing with a menu with a particular bit of text,
        only standard because the most common devtool happens to set 
        up things a certain way, you can try and define the system as
        abstractly as possible requiring less application changes when
        an interface changes due to a user preference file being 
        changed or new technology arriving.

        Something percieved as part of the 'one true UI' and worthy
        of being set in stone should be... with possibility of the
        stone being able to morph.

-- 
        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: John Jensen <[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: 27 Jul 2000 21:30:44 GMT

[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: On 27 Jul 2000 15:04:14 GMT, John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

: >By 'flim-flam', you mean research like this of course?
: >
: >     http://www.ics.uci.edu/~franz/ComponentSW.html

:       Yes, Flim Flam.

:       How is a little more information hiding going to solve the 
:       problem of "the web of dependencies"? Shared library 
:       systems already manage concurrent revisions of interfaces.

This level of information hiding attempts to more completely separate
"interface" from "implementation".  I have a quote with some more
flim-flam on the subject (lots of good links from this site):

   "The goal of component-oriented programming is to enable component
    markets that trade independently developed components to be
    individually composed by the customers. Technically, component-
    oriented programming builds on late composition and contractual
    specification of components."

   http://www.math.tau.ac.il/~guy/COP/

A system structured to support "independently developed components" would
seem at least as favorable to the distributed development of open source
software as it is to commercial interests.

:       Besides, this research appears to be primarily addressing the 
:       sorts of problems that the tools that people such as your self
:       have been hyping to begin with.

John

------------------------------

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 21:35:15 GMT

On 27 Jul 2000 21:30:44 GMT, John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>: On 27 Jul 2000 15:04:14 GMT, John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>: >By 'flim-flam', you mean research like this of course?
>: >
>: >    http://www.ics.uci.edu/~franz/ComponentSW.html
>
>:      Yes, Flim Flam.
>
>:      How is a little more information hiding going to solve the 
>:      problem of "the web of dependencies"? Shared library 
>:      systems already manage concurrent revisions of interfaces.
>
>This level of information hiding attempts to more completely separate
>"interface" from "implementation".  I have a quote with some more
>flim-flam on the subject (lots of good links from this site):

        That's already done.
        
        The problem you're describing is when that interface changes.

>
>   "The goal of component-oriented programming is to enable component
>    markets that trade independently developed components to be
>    individually composed by the customers. Technically, component-
>    oriented programming builds on late composition and contractual
>    specification of components."
>
>   http://www.math.tau.ac.il/~guy/COP/
>
>A system structured to support "independently developed components" would
>seem at least as favorable to the distributed development of open source
>software as it is to commercial interests.

        Sounds like what Unix has already.

>
>:      Besides, this research appears to be primarily addressing the 
>:      sorts of problems that the tools that people such as your self
>:      have been hyping to begin with.

        This stuff seems more like an attempt to remedy problems with
        C++ and component standards that are entirely too low level
        in terms of what the calling application needs to be aware of.

-- 
        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: Doc Shipley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: 
alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.networking
Subject: Re: Gnome or KDE
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 21:36:49 GMT

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.

 If you haven't tried the other environments, you should. IceWM, XFCE, Blackbox, and 
WindowMaker
without KDE are all good choices. All have text-file-based menus, so they're easy to 
trim and
customise. Ice, XFCE and Blackbox are much smaller and faster than KDE or Gnome. All 
will run KDE-
or Gnome-based apps if you have the libraries installed. 
 Ice is my choice, for ease of hot-key configuration (I'm too lazy to reach for the 
mouse), speed
and simplicity. Unfortunately, it looks a lot like Windows.
 XFCE is also small & fast, has sound effects out-of-the-box, and is very easy to 
customise.
 Blackbox takes a little more skill to customize, but is the best choice if you don't 
have much
memory, or a slow CPU.
 WindowMaker is the prettiest & most polished.
 They're all attractive, and they all have their points. As has been suggested, set up 
a bunch of
user accounts, and give each a different windowmanager/environment. See which YOU like 
best.

-- 
 Doc Shipley
   Network Stuff
      Austin, Earth

------------------------------

From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: 
alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.networking
Subject: Re: Gnome or KDE
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 22:58:28 +0100

I'm still a bit comfused about this one, but I thought that KDE and
GNOME were a set of libraries providing nice functions. They often run
with the ??? and Enlightenment wm respectively, although this is not
necessary. So can't you just install both sets of libs, choose a wm and
play with whatever apps you want, be they KDE or GNOME apps?

HTH

-Ed


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.

--
Did you know that the oldest known rock is the famous Hackenthorpe rock,
which
is over three trillion years old?
                -The Hackenthorpe Book of Lies
remove foo and revers e-mail address to make it any use



------------------------------

From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: 
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.liberalism
Subject: Re: Aaron Kulkis -- USELESS Idiot -- And His "Enemies" -was- Another 
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 17:50:07 -0400

Perry Pip wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 12:58:09 -0400,
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> >Wrong fucking wrong.  THE MAJORITY of women do not have brains
> 

That's NOT what I said, and you know it.


> No wonder you can't get laid.

my gf says otherwise.
hehehehehehe




-- 
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: 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 16:48:24 -0500

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>         Actually, more well defined standards would allow for better
>         customization in the end. Certain tasks can then be expressed
>         in the abstract, in terms of the operating enviroment.
> 
>         Instead of futzing with a menu with a particular bit of text,
>         only standard because the most common devtool happens to set
>         up things a certain way, you can try and define the system as
>         abstractly as possible requiring less application changes when
>         an interface changes due to a user preference file being
>         changed or new technology arriving.
> 
>         Something percieved as part of the 'one true UI' and worthy
>         of being set in stone should be... with possibility of the
>         stone being able to morph.


I have no problems with standards, and I have no problem with
customizing.  I just think there is a balance point between the two and
passing that balance point on either side isn't going to make anyone
happy in the end.  The entire concept of *make it all the same* yet
*give me customizability* is at the heart of the matter opposed to each
other.  The two aren't completely mutually exclusive, but they don't
necissarily get along perfectly either.  Anyway, I don't see it that
way.

-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee

------------------------------

From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: 
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.liberalism
Subject: Re: Aaron Kulkis -- USELESS Idiot -- And His "Enemies" -was- Another 
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 17:53:17 -0400

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spewed this unto the Network:
> >>
> >>  3. Kulkis thinks that democracy will best be served if
> >
> >I don't give a fuck about democracy.
> >
> >Democracy is 6 wolves and 2 lambs voting on what to have for dinner.
> 
> You're one of those people who thinks that the U.S. Government is
> perfect


Absolutely not.  it's FAR too socialistic.


>          and that everybody should be controlled by a regime that
> is organized in the form of a representative republic.

That IS the law of the land.


> 
> >
> >>     wealthy people can pay for as many political campaign
> >>     advertisements and other contributions as they want.
> >>     This is called "One dollar -- one vote", or more simply,
> >>     legalized political bribery and corruption.
> >
> >So, let me get this straight...you're saying that the votes cast by
> >YOU and all of your co-workers will be in the exact same proportion
> >as how much each candidate spends on campaign advertising?
> >
> >YOU automatically vote for the candidate who spends the most?
> >
> >Or do you vote for the candidate who presents the clearest reason
> >for YOU to vote for him or her?
> 
> It doesn't matter who I vote for. If the candidate I vote for
> starts passing fucked-up laws, my only option is to wait for the
> next election and vote for another candidate that will do the same
> god damn thing without even attempting to reverse the laws that
> the previous candidate passed. Before you suggest that I run for
> office myself, know that running for office is only a viable option
> for extremely charismatic people with lots of money to spend on
> a campaign.
> 
> When U.S. free software programmers start getting sued for infringing
> software patents, there will be no hope at all for them. And they
> WILL start getting sued, because voting, which you claim gives us
> all this control over the government, doesn't give us enough control
> to do anything at all about software patents. We (the _real_ we, not
> "we" as in the U.S. Government that claims to represent us) have
> to wait for the lawsuits to start flying and hope that lawyers are
> enough for those programmers who can afford them.
> 
> Sounds to me like your representative republic is 4 wolves deciding
> what 12 wolves and 240 sheep will have for dinner.

Note if we returned to a Constitutional Senate (where the
state legislators elect the Senators, not the common people,
which merely turns the Senate into a 2nd House of Representatives
full of political careerits.)



> 
> BTW, you still haven't answered my post regarding how voting
> for government officials couldn't stop the DMCA and UCITA from
> becoming law. You know it'll take more than voting for politicians
> to repeal them.
> 
> >> And now -- here are the good folks on Kulkis' enemies list!
> >> It's become all too clear why he has enemies: he's an obnox-
> >> ious, spamming, blowhard, paranoid, Right-wing jerk.
> >
> >Wrong.  I'm a libertarian.  I find right-wingers (Fascists) as
> >repugnant as left-wingers (Communists).
> 
> I find repugnant anyone who thinks that a maximum wage would cause
> the minimum wage to rise.

There is no connection between the two.


> 
> --
> Microsoft Windows. It could be worse, but it'll take time.

true...


-- 
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.

------------------------------

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 21:59:00 GMT

Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> 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.

 If the interface is built of components that are accessable by all
 computers, then the storage requirements of the "customization
 instructions" shouldn't be very high (and we could prohibit any kind
 of customization that /would/ result in huge .*rc files). So small in
 fact that they could be carried in a flashable ROM on a keychain. I
 could go from computer to computer and my preferred interface would
 go with me and not step over the prefered interface of other users
 who have access to that computer. (I wouldn't even need the keychain
 if a ubiquitous, secure network was in place)

 But the research being done into user interfaces that anybody can
 walk-up-and-use means that there should be no computer that can't be
 reset back to a generic interface should it be necessary. We'll make
 the user interface to that reset button very intuitive - it'll be big
 and red and it will have the word "PANIC" on it :-)


> 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!".

 I didn't say "DUH!" when I was confronted with OpenDoc. If it's
 asking me for my preferred text editing widget then I can figure that
 out as easily as when it asks me for my favorite command interface
 ("menu or flashing prompt, sir?").

 I might like to use Emacs style key bindings in everything as trivial
 as the username box on a web page, or I might want to use Vi style
 bindings and behavior. I know I can survive moving to a QWERTY layout
 from the Dvorak keyboard I use on my own computer, and I think I can
 survive brief trips to Vi too. I'm not going to make myself incapable
 of using a computer just by customizing too far.

 Users must still learn even the interfaces they have today. I've
 fielded calls from a guy who didn't know how to get the "vibrating
 bar from the top to the bottom" (he needed to click the mouse on the
 "Password" field after filling out his username) and some say they've
 seen people try to drag the mouse down the leg of the table to make
 the cursor go down the screen.


> 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.

 I don't think it's a big deal to ask that the gadget I use to
 customize GNOME should behave similar to the gadget I use to
 customize AbiWord. A tree of categories is fine, but other programs
 want a tabbed notebook and others present a menu.

 (I am not even suggesting that the customization method should be
 customizable itself. If we use the tree, then lets use a damn tree
 and not have some radio button somewhere that transforms it into a
 series of OS/2-style tabs or menus or crap.)


> Power without knowledge is not the answer.  

 It sounds like you've seen examples of power without knowledge being
 abused, specifically in user interfaces. Can you provide some of
 them?

 Perhaps we might notice a solution that doesn't require dismissing
 the whole idea Wile E. Coyote style.


> 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.  

 I'm not actually advocating that customizability would give us
 "walk-up-and-use" style interfaces. On the contrary, I would like to
 take good programs that were built with such interfaces and refit
 them with expert interfaces.

Regards,

Chris Wenham



------------------------------

From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: 27 Jul 2000 17:00:56 -0500


"abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8lkvp9$12oj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> >
> > I NEVER claimed to be a "Soooooper" or super programmer. I claim and am
a
> > programmer. I think a good one but not a "great" one.
>
> You're kidding yourself.  You're a horrible web designer to boot, and
ANYBODY
> can do THAT shit.

ANYONE? hahahahahaah - did anyone tell you that putting all your text in the
middle all centered in one font one lame line after another is ugly? Dude,
your site is just so 31eet - woo hoo!!! mr. body puncture...hahahahaha

amazing - how many broken links can one person have on his "homepage?"

ANYBODY can do html but obviously you cannot - you don't even have those
lame skillz



------------------------------

From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: 27 Jul 2000 17:01:25 -0500


"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> abraxas wrote:
> >
> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I NEVER claimed to be a "Soooooper" or super programmer. I claim and
am a
> > > programmer. I think a good one but not a "great" one.
> >
> > You're kidding yourself.  You're a horrible web designer to boot, and
ANYBODY
> > can do THAT shit.
> >
> > -----yttrx
>
> Drestin reminds me of the kind of guy who has changed his own oil
> and air filters for the last 20 years, and fancies himself to be
> an ASE Certified Master Mechanic.
>

you must be very familiar with this ...



------------------------------


** 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
******************************

Reply via email to