Linux-Advocacy Digest #45, Volume #28 Thu, 27 Jul 00 22:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Slipping away into time. (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Gnome or KDE (Christopher Browne)
Re: Gnome or KDE (Christopher Browne)
Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept? (Christopher Browne)
Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man! (Marty)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Slipping away into time.
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 01:33:17 GMT
Leonardo wrote:
> Charlie,
>
> You are just so full of it...
>
> --L
>
> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > I've been making some more observations and learning yet another Linux
> > OS.
> >
> > It's been pretty well known, for the last couple of years, that FreeBSD
> > is probably the fastest
> > server OS there is. Linux is significantly slower than FreeBSD. NT
> > was just about tied
> > with Linux 2.2 kernels, falling behind only a slight measure. Then
> > slightly trailing or leading
> > were the other OS's. Mostly trailing.
> >
> > The problem with FreeBSD is they have the fast kernel but, they rely on
> > GNU licensed software for
> > just about everything else. It's practically Linux with a FreeBSD
> > kernel and a slightly different install
> > mechanism.
> >
> > The problem with Microsoft OS is the cost, the poor performance, poor
> > reliability, the fact the
> > government will break them up,,,, it goes on,,, total lack of security
> > in design,,, on and on and on....
> > To design a corporate system using Microsoft as the centerpiece in this
> > day and age is foolish.
> > It's so foolish a notion that even some corporate executives are
> > beginning to see the light in switching.
> > Imagine how bright a light that must be.
> >
> > In the last month, I've switched to Debian 2.2 [Potato]. Potato isn't
> > out yet. It's still a beta.
> > It's rumored to be out sometime in mid August. Yet, I found the Dselect
> > packaging system superior
> > to the RPM based system found in Red Hat and the others. I found the
> > quality of the distribution much
> > higher than say Suse 6.4. I found all the tools readily available to me
> > without encumbrances.
> > And the cost of installing this OS over my Suse distribution was only 1
> > hour of my time.
> >
> > Then I loaded the new HELIX GNOME desktop. What a shining light it is.
> > In this desktop I have
> > all the functionality of Windows 2000 for free. And best of all,
> > Dselect knows to go to the Helix
> > FTP site to perform any upgrades Helix offers. It's all automatic. I
> > don't have to do anything.
> >
> > One final note on Dselect. I merely have to run it once a week to allow
> > it to upgrade all the packages
> > on my system. Dselect log's into FTP sites and retrieves information
> > about specific packages I have
> > installed which newer software versions are available for. Dselect also
> > alerts me to the presence of
> > new software never before offered. Then Dselect automatically
> > install's/upgrades what I tell it to do.
> > I don't have to personally download anything first then install it
> > myself. Dselect performs all this
> > for me automatically. Dselect even runs the scripted configuration
> > setup's for me on those packages
> > which require options. I merely answer the package setup options and
> > I'm free of editing files.
> > It makes system upgrades and maintenance very easy.
> >
> > Finally, we come to the Kernel. I've put the new 2.4 test kernel on.
> > The 2.4 test kernel is hardly anything
> > like the 2.2 in performance. It's much faster. Linux is knocking at
> > FreeBSD's door.
> >
> > There will probably never be another showdown between Microsoft and
> > Linux in the OS department.
> > Windows 2000 was a factor slower than NT. And the NEW Linux is
> > significantly faster than the OLD Linux. The two OS's are headed in
> > opposite directions of the performance spectrum as time goes on.
> > Linux just keeps getting faster while Microsoft just keeps edging it's
> > way slower.
> >
> > Microsoft is still locked in software problems, software not working
> > right. Linux on the other hand
> > is infinitely more secure and stable and getting better as time goes
> > on. Blue Screens do not exist on Linux.
> > Applications on Linux do not become so encumbered by memory situations
> > they die and leave the mix.
> > The Linux operating system has true multi tasking. This is the
> > difference.
> >
> > The two operating systems are no longer in the same ball park as they
> > once were. You couldn't do a
> > side by side test between them today.. What would you test if you did?
> > Linux would easily outrun
> > Windows 2000. Microsoft wouldn't have a remote chance in a security
> > showdown. Microsoft wouldn't
> > win in the COST of ownership department. If it were ease of use on the
> > desktop, they are currently
> > tied. There's nothing I can do on a Windows 2000 desktop I can't do on
> > a Gnome desktop.
> >
> > I don't even need to point out the fact that the government is going to
> > break Microsoft into pieces.
> > I don't need to remind you that Linux is immune to financial
> > considerations Microsoft must face.
> > Truly, RED HAT, MANDRAKE, SUSE, CALDERA, while they won't go bankrupt,
> > even if they did,
> > Linux would continue on. Debian is proof of that. Microsoft on the
> > other hand is a very cash conscious
> > company. Financial losses could harm Microsoft and thus cause their
> > operating system to cease to
> > exist and thus your corporate infrastructure with it.
> >
> > What I do want to point out is that Microsoft has an inferior operating
> > system from this point in time
> > forward. The amount of money they will be required to spend on their
> > system in an effort to catch up
> > with Linux will be enormous. Chasing Linux down the software trail is
> > similar to your family dog
> > attempting to retrieve a semi truck cruising through your neighborhood.
> > It's an impossible task.
> > Truly the efforts of 100,000 some odd volunteers working across the
> > entire Linux spectrum simply
> > dwarf the efforts of the total population of Microsoft employee's world
> > wide.
> >
> > At this particular point in time, Microsoft is staying in business on
> > it's past reputation solely as
> > Microsoft has no future. Microsoft has had 0% growth in the market
> > place in the last year. That's
> > the first year we've been able to measure this accurately since the
> > inception of the company.
> >
> > AND, while I'll probably be reading the usual brain dead comments from
> > the so-called in-the-know
> > future fast food employee's association, I just wanted to let the rest
> > of the user base know how things stand.
> >
> > Maybe it's time you made a change in your life and forgot what it might
> > do FFFEA folks and
> > their paychecks.
> >
> > After all, aren't you sick and tired of spending $2,000 a year on
> > Microsoft software and computers to
> > keep up with the Gates of this world after you'd been told all this time
> > there were noting but Windows.
> >
> > I encourage everyone I know to try Linux. I want you to be on a winning
> > team and be happy.
> >
> > Charlie Ebert
> >
> >
> >
This is typically the most powerful argument the Windows community can
produce in favor of their OS.
But let me assure you that even a person such as yourself can install Debian.
The Debian install script was tested in a zoo in Europe by 100 chimpanzee's.
97 of the 100 chimpanzee's succeeded in installing Debian successfully.
Of those who failed. One forgot you need to plug your P.C. into a power
source before using it. Another died shortly after relieving himself upon
a brand new 17 inch monitor. The last chimpanzee was disqualified when
it was discovered he was using his feet instead of his hands to run the
keyboard
whilst passing gas.
So you see, there's really nothing for the windows user to fear in learning
Linux.
Thank you sincerely for you comments.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 21:37:16 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said David Brown in alt.destroy.microsoft;
[...]
>I personally think Linux is competing fairly, but some people might well be
>of the opinion that giving away software is unfair.
There are a very large and often vocal number of people who seem to
think that profiteering is necessary for prosper. They base this, I
think, on a simple assumption that the rise in aggregation of
incorporate power is a *cause* of the current, though potentially
dubious, conditions of prosperity which many believe to exist.
The fact that this condition of prosperity is supposed to exist is
because the 16 corporations which control 90% of the world's media
report this to be the case. While occasional skeptics, or even cynics,
or possibly liberals, point out that 80% of the growth in economy in the
1980s rewarded the 10% of the population who were already most wealthy,
and that for the "common man", the last twenty years have been an
exciting time, but a fiscal deadwater. The average worker in the U.S.
is far *less* able to access capital then they were in the earlier parts
of the "Information Age".
It seems inherently probable, that the typical persons "world view" is
based on not just the local conditions of his environment, which might
well have stayed the same as well as changed in either direction, but
the mass and aggregate "messages" that the media itself presents of the
"news of the world". As such, it seems dangerously possible, even if
you wouldn't consider it likely, that the reality is that this
"economies of scale" delusion which "drives" the "global economy" is a
conjurer's trick, when it comes down to it. That the wholesale merger
and acquisition and conglomeration of the world's wealth into the hands
of the self-appointedly deserving few, those which profiteer on
software, media, entertainment, and anything else, mostly the generally
non-physical stuff is merely an *effect* of the grand implementation of
technologies which make modern life so entertaining and trivially
convenient.
No, giving away *anything*, even money, isn't "not fair" to anybody. As
long as you aren't using it as a ruse for monopolization, restraint of
trade, manipulative marketing, and profiteering.
>But, since there have
>been free systems around for longer than Linux has been popular, and they
>are still around, and (in the case of FreeBSD) are more mature and stable
>than Linux, there must be other reasons for Linux's popularity. Being free
>(both in terms of beer and speech) is a big help to counter MS's illegal
>tactics, but it is not enough on its own. I am not asking for a list of
>advantages - we all know what they are - I am just pointing out that Linux
>has had to have a number of very significant benifits to be able to compete
>fairly with Windoze.
Ooh, cool. Real anti-FUD. I guess the "interchangeable" nature of
window managers would be top of the list. Lots of advanced details in
those window managers, I hope, but I haven't had the opportunity to
explore them, myself. I hope others can suggest a few.
[...]
>BG believes he is acting morally - that is, he feels that he is doing the
>right thing. But he also believes he is acting ethically - that is, he
>feels that he is doing what society believes is the right thing (if I have
>understood your definitions correctly). He must now admit that MS's actions
>have been judged illegal (although he still claims that in fact they are
>innocent), but he does not see, and probably never will, that they are
>considered unethical. The point is, even if he were to conceed to the DoJ
>and accept the breakup, he would be acknowledging illegal activity, but not
>unethical activity and certainly not immoral activity.
I concur. So the debate moves on, to "If BG wasn't there, could
Microsoft be competitive?"
[...]
>I see your point. Single-minded stubornness has its benifits, but I think
>we can progress intellectually by persuing other lines.
>
>Try posting your Halloween stuff on a new thread for a new topic.
Yea, I guess, I should, huh? But I just ain't the kind of person who
can break continuity. I'd prefer if other's quoted a new thread header,
actually.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: Gnome or KDE
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 01:40:18 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when SL News Posting would say:
>In article <8lqfnk$bli$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> ishpeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>|> Nothing better than strait windowmaker. :)
>|>
>
>Sure there is - straight twm - been using it for 10 years[*] and
>have no need for all the desktop clutter, sound, moving menus,
>themes, etc. *tvtwm is available to provide a virtual screen
>larger than the physical screen for those who need such.
Ah. Wuss.
What you _want_ is wmx, which gets rid of even _more_ of the clutter...
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/>
If you add a couple of i's to Microsoft's stock ticker symbol, you get
'misfit'. This is, of course, not a coincidence.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
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: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 01:40:17 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when [EMAIL PROTECTED]
would say:
>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?
You are quite correct.
Unfortunately, people get all snarled up in that many of the systems
that install them try to put certain GNOME/KDE components "in charge"
of the X sessions, and apparently the results are, more or less,
"dueling X session configuration."
A pox on all of them for this; the value of them is _not_ in trying
to manage X sessions, but in providing _USEFUL APPLICATIONS_.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/>
If you add a couple of i's to Microsoft's stock ticker symbol, you get
'misfit'. This is, of course, not a coincidence.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 01:40:25 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when 1$Worth would say:
>So why is "Ease Of Use" a dirty concept?
Because when people say "Ease Of Use," they're usually _NOT_ really
talking about "Ease Of Use."
They're usually talking about either:
a) Conformance with IBM's CUA guidelines,
b) Conformance with Apple's Human Interface Guidelines, or
c) Conformance with however Microsoft decided to implement things
when they provided a user interface for [Pick Favorite Version Of
MS-DOS or MS Windows].
None of which necessarily indicate "ease of use."
>"Ease of use" to me means that you can get things done faster and
>better. It means "power" to the user that otherwise would not possess
>the knowledge to extract that power.
Usually, "Ease of Use" is associated with _diminishing_ the number
of choices so that the user doesn't need to work hard to figure out
what to do.
That often results in systems becoming less powerful, and in complex
interactions requiring long sequences of "manipulations" of the user
interface that wind up being very complex.
Those things may not agree with your sense of "ease of use," but
they _are_ very common properties of system implementations that
are marketed as "Easy To Use."
And I _think_ this probably is all that is needed to establish the
conflict.
>"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. It means that software producers MUST consider their
>software portability as the market share justifies investment. It means
>the GNU-Linux gets better. Better is good for us all.
>
>Surely the intelligence of any system, whether it is a fly-by-wire
>aircraft control system, a video camcorder or a computer system is in
>HIDDING the complexity of the tasks that they perform? And surely the
>beauty of Linux is to EXPOSE complexities to those of us who enjoy them?
>I propose that they are not mutually exclusive.
They don't need to be mutually exclusive, at least not until a Pointy
Haired Manager decides that there is a need to do a "complexity analysis,"
or to do "quantitative metrics," or something of the sort.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/>
If you add a couple of i's to Microsoft's stock ticker symbol, you get
'misfit'. This is, of course, not a coincidence.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 21:40:04 -0400
Leslie Mikesell wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Leslie Mikesell wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Anybody who works in a multi-platform environment needs to be aware
> >> >of the big/little-endian issue.
> >> >
> >> >> Platform-endian to neutral conversions and back, however, are very
> >> >> handy things. Example: I have to send data from a big-endian box to a
> >> >> middle-endian box; what use is a big-to-little endian here? None at
> >> >> all. However, a halfway well written snippet of C code with a defined
> >> >> neutral format doesn't care what the endianness of the platform it's
> >> >> compiled on is, it just works. :)
> >> >
> >> >Try dumping a jpeg from a big-endian platform onto tape, and then
> >> >loading it up onto a little-endian platform, and get back to me.
> >>
> >> Where's the problem? Jpegs have a platform-neutral representation.
> >> A tar tape copy would load and display on any machine.
> >
> >Les. If the jpeg is thrown onto tape in little-endian format,
> >and the exact same bytestream is uploaded onto a big-endian machine,
> >the jpeg data will be all fucked up
>
> No it won't, any more than it would be when delivered by
> a web server on the same machine. Writing to a tape is
> the same as writing to a socket.
Try writing a tar file to an 8mm tape on an HP PA-RISC machine,
and reading it on a SUN Sparc, and get back to me.
--
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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 21:48:19 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Yannick in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message :
>> Said Yannick in alt.destroy.microsoft;
[...]
>> No, you're right. NT 3.2 was the first version, because Microsoft was
>> touting at the time that it was the successor to Windows 3.1. Ha.
>>
>At least here they were kinda honest : if they had succeeded in making
>a working NT 3.2 for reasonably small computers, then NT 3.2
>would have been the successor to 3.1, and we would not need to
>bother with 95.
Indeed. But of course the "third time's the charm" rule still applies.
3.2 was crap, 3.5 was almost usable, and 4.0 was the one that wasn't so
broken as to be rejected by the market even from force of monopoly.
Of course, we have Windows "95", I think, because MS wanted to
discourage thinking of it as its rightful identifier "Windows 4.0".
That would have been enough, I'll bet, to blow the Consent Decree
entirely. MS never would have made it beyond tying Windows and DOS,
just as they haven't gotten away with tying IE with 'Windows'. If by
some further maneuvering Windows 4.5 came out, with "bundled/integrated"
IE, one can only imagine how the character of this trial would have
changed. The "big 16" would have *had* to reflect the outrage in public
sentiment, rather than quell and subvert it as I think they have.
I know that sounds like a fanatic lunatics ravings, believe me. But how
many local channel "What's up with these PC's?" stories do you think it
would have taken to make it "profitable" for the big 16 to cannibalize
MS's success? A couple major articles in Time (that rag; they've ruined
it) or Newsweek (likewise) or the New York Times or *gasp*, the WSJ.
BOOM! Microsoft is *EVIL*!!! Look what they have DONE! A couple
investigative reports, *the email*, a hundred thousand testimonials (a
million if you count the ones that just want to hate someone).
MS would have been taken out, and it would have become popular
entertainment. The big 16 sell ad space on it, and the "public" laps it
up.
It still sounds like a lunatic rant, I know. But you gotta consider it,
don't you? It just may be, or might be considered in historical
retrospect, that this trial is the last great stand between the
*citizens*, and the U.S. government, against the big 16.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?
Date: 27 Jul 2000 20:51:35 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Les. If the jpeg is thrown onto tape in little-endian format,
>> >and the exact same bytestream is uploaded onto a big-endian machine,
>> >the jpeg data will be all fucked up
>>
>> No it won't, any more than it would be when delivered by
>> a web server on the same machine. Writing to a tape is
>> the same as writing to a socket.
>
>Try writing a tar file to an 8mm tape on an HP PA-RISC machine,
>and reading it on a SUN Sparc, and get back to me.
The HP tape may very well be broken but it has nothing to
do with byte/bit order of the processor. Try it over
NFS and see how it looks before the drive touches it. I
swap tar tapes between a pentium and sparc without
problems and before that an AT&T 3b2 which was also
opposite-endian from a pentium. Things like jpegs
have to be stored in a standard representation or they
wouldn't work on the internet.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Marty <[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: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 01:50:38 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 23:11:12 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 01:40:50 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 03:16:38 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 23:46:02 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 23:11:26 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >Chris Wenham wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> [deletia]
> [deletia]
> >> Pretty much all GUIs have a fairly similar scheme for
> >> communicating between applications and windows, even
> >> including GEM.
> >
> >How is the socket-based X even remotely (pun intended) similar to entirely
> >local PMSHELL or Explorer in terms of communications between applications and
> >the window manager? Your "declarations of fact" are worthless.
>
> You're simply fixating on a lower level mechanism.
You're the one who brought up "communicating between applications and
windows".
> >> >> What Fvwm95 does reflects interface elements present in X
> >> >> since 1990 and a little bit of dressup to make it look more
> >> >> superficially like explorer.
> >> >
> >> >And it's that precise "dressing up" that nauseates me so. Why bother trying
> >> >to look like Explorer when it can have its own unique and respectable
> >> >interface?
> >>
> >> Then dress it up differently.
> >>
> >> This is what distinguishes actual Linux and FreeBSD users from
> >> posers and whining Lemmings. If you don't like fvwm95, at the
> >> very least bother to crack open .fvwm95rc and do something
> >> about it.
> >
> >Geez you are thick. I'm not saying I *can't* do it. I'm merely mentioning
> >that there is an alarming trend in a lot of Linux software to produce a
> >Windows-like environment on Linux.
>
> Why should it alarm you? What network effects do you think are
> going to force you to suffer a 'bad windows clone interface'?
It alarms me because I see effort wasted on cloning something that sucks when
brand new concepts can be introduced instead.
> Those of us with a clue just continue on using alternate
> interfaces or even build alternative interfaces that can
> interoperate with common (or even uncommon standards).
How would you know what those of us with a clue do?
> [deletia]
> >> >vomit.
> >>
> >> The user shell is typically not the worst aspect of any
> >> Microsoft Operating Enviroment.
> >
> >But why make software that mimics it at all?
>
> Why not?
Because you can spend your effort making something better. Why create a Pinto
with a big block engine when you can throw that same engine into a Cobra?
> This is the important part of your rant that is missing.
All of my alleged "rant" is missing because it is non-existent. I mentioned
in passing (to someone else) that Linux apps which imitate Windows apps
nauseate me. You then got your panties in a bunch and took it as an attack on
Father Tourvalds, putting words in my mouth as if I said that I couldn't
possibly avoid using applications that imitated Windows apps. Anything for
the sake of arguing, eh?
> [deletia]
Maybe if you left more of the post intact, you'd understand what was being
said. But I understand it's much more convenient to delete passages and
substitute in any words you like.
> As far as why goes: function before form would be the
> obvious practical reason.
>
> Although, in terms of function: why be limited to the way
> that Unix does things?
I'm not suggesting that limitation, contrary to what your limited mind read.
> Why simply whine about the derivative nature of end user
> interfaces? Why not go after the whole kit & kaboodle?
I've made it clear that I have no problem with the "kit & kaboodle".
> Wake us when you've got some code to show us.
I've been a little too busy to play with Linux:
http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com
http://seal.netlabs.org
So where's you resume'?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
