Linux-Advocacy Digest #54, Volume #28 Fri, 28 Jul 00 06:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: God damm Microsoft ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Star Office to be open sourced (T. Max Devlin)
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Why Lycos Selected Microsoft and Intel (Jen)
Re: Linux can save you money on electricity! ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. ("David Brown")
Re: Gnome or KDE (Chem-R-Us)
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept? ("1$Worth")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 04:25:10 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >> Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >> [...]
> >> >> The downside to this is that it ties the DBM to a particular platform
> [...]
> >> >Oracle makes a standard API which is cross-platform compatible.
> >>
> >> That clearly isn't what he meant. Oracle still has to figure out how to
> >> support their cross-platform API on any new hardware architecture, if
> >> they're by-passing the file system.
> >
> >True, but that's a trivial task performed by Oracle [...]
>
> Which is to say it is a non-trivial task to Oracle, which is his point.
>
> >Yeah replication
>
> Its a bitch. Big time. More than engineers can fathom, if you want me
> to be completely honest. And I *don't* use the term prejudicially, not
> by a long shot.
I should have said "YAY! replication"
As in, after the Oracle guys come up with the new code for the
standard API on a new platform, it eliminates the need for
several thousand DBA's across the country to each come up
with their own independantly developed versions of the wheel.
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> Manager of Research & Educational Services
> Managed Services
> ELTRAX Technology Services Group
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
> my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
> applicable licensing agreement]-
>
> -----= 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! =-----
--
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: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: God damm Microsoft
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 03:41:11 -0500
"Jerry McBride" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <TKZf5.2555$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Outlook uses a common base service of the OS which is being patched,
which
> >is why both Outlook and Outlook Express suffer from the same problem.
> >Fixing one, fixes both.
> >
> >But, even so. I don't think you HAVE to reboot. MS often says you
should,
> >but that's a default response.
> >
>
> If the patched apps use or access *.dll's or if the patches alter any
*.dll's
> then my friend... YOU BETTER SHUTDOWN AND REBOOT! We're talking windows
here...
Untrue. You only need to shutdown and reboot (on Win9x machines) when a
file is in use when you try to patch it or replace it. If the file is not
in use, replacing it does not require a reboot.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 04:27:36 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
> >Do you know how much it costs to develop a custom database application
> >such as what Oracle, Informix, etc. are used?
>
> At *least* 60% of the Oracle implementations could be supported *better*
> by some Slackware, I swear.
>
> >Plan on 2+ years, and a minimum of $10,000,000.
> >
> >Given those types of figures, you don't just swap one database engine
> >for another on a whim.
>
> Ah, but that's the problem. It shouldn't be a matter of switching
> *engines* just to switch *databases*.
Actually, the database itself normally doesn't get changed
(other than passing through an "import" filter so that all
of the "metadata" is proper)...
Although often performed at the same time, Switching databases,
and switching engines are two completely different tasks
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> Manager of Research & Educational Services
> Managed Services
> ELTRAX Technology Services Group
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
> my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
> applicable licensing agreement]-
>
> -----= 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! =-----
--
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: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.sun.misc
Subject: Re: Star Office to be open sourced
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 04:31:05 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>I have to say that maintaining a Debian GNU/Linux system blows doors on
>any other OS I've touched (WinXX, WinNT, RedHat, SuSE (and other
>RPM-based Linuxes). Be interesting to see how the *BSD ports collection
>compares.
>
>Got some technical references on pkgadd?
>
>I've turned up a paper by Erik Troan from SANE'98 comparing RPM to
>pkgadd and swinstall:
> http://www.nluug.nl/events/sane98/daily/19/troan.html
>
>...unfortunately, it appears to be just an abstract.
>
>It doees, however, mention that RPM provides both source and binary
>packages, apparently a distinction from the proprietary systems.
The proprietary system of discussion, I think, is 'pkg', implemented in
the "pkgadd" and "pkg*" commands on Sun's Solaris. In fact, while there
were similar rudimentary features, IIRC, on Sun0S 4.x and earlier (BSD
flavor), the "package" facility didn't really appear until the SunOS
5,x, "Solaris", SystemV flavor. I had presumed, I guess, that there
were rudimentary capabilities of this nature in the AT&T SystemV spec.
The "package add" commands supported simple queries and such, I believe
similarly to RPM, but not as complete or comprehensive, I think.
How does SystemV relate to POSIX? And do any other SystemV Unixes have
package handling similar to Solaris?
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== 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: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 04:30:09 -0400
Sean LeBlanc wrote:
>
> "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > If you knew anthing about RDBMs you would know the os makes no
> > > > > difference on
> > > > > the outcome, THe RDBM doesn`t really use the os.
> > > >
> > > > HAHAHA - excuse me? I think that you are completely misinformed. You are
> > > > wrong. Totally. That's like saying: RDBM doesn't use files or memory.
> > >
> > > Actually, most high end DBMS systems circumvent the file system by
> > > accessing the lowlevel block device directly. Also, they usually
> > > allocate a huge amount of RAM and manage the memory internally.
> >
> > Does Oracle bypass the file system entirely? Does SQL Server?
> >
> > yes, they do manage their own memory but bypassing the OS and it's file
> > system (and security)?? I do not believe that is true for DB2, Oracle or SQL
> > Server - the only three I'm interested in herein.
>
> Oracle and Informix both do, I am sure of it.
>
> It's called raw mode.
>
> If one ever takes a Database Design class, this kind of thing is usually mentioned,
> at least in passing.
>
> Can't speak for SQL server or DB2 - Oracle is spin-off of DB2, so I can only
> imagine that DB2 does, too.
>
> Drestin, a kind word: you should really read up on something before making
> a rather strong statement like the one you made earlier on this thread.
> You said you are not a programmer, and so I assume you were not exposed to
> said Database Design course, and that's not your fault. But you shouldn't
> match wits on a topic that you obviously know little about - it just makes
> you look silly, and hard for people to take you seriously on other topics
> here on c.o.l.a. and that other advocacy group.
>
>
Drestin's problem is that the only subject he truly understands
is pornography.
Of course, even the cross-eyed janitor is an expert in that field.
--
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: Jen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why Lycos Selected Microsoft and Intel
Date: 28 Jul 2000 03:35:15 -0500
On Fri, 28 Jul 2000 04:21:39 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Serge J.Luca" wrote:
>>
>> http://www.microsoft.com/solutions/ecommerce/lycoscs.htm
>
>Because Microsoft audited them, and they had a couple more
>copies of word installed than their receipts showed, and
>Microsoft gave them two alternatives
>
>1) Go to court, and even if we fail, YOU will have such high
>legal bills that you will be out of business, or
>
>2) Let us dictate your Information Technology decisions.
>
>
>
>So, guess what Lycos did?
You have proof of that or are you just frustrated that the whole world
doesn't share your hate of Microsoft?
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux can save you money on electricity!
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 04:35:06 -0400
"Marada C. Shradrakaii" wrote:
>
> >Theyre wrong to begin with, the average desktop machine uses as
> >much power as two lightbulbs. And you spelled 'especially' wrong,
> >you illiterate bastard.
>
> Let's see: My machine (K6-2/400, one hard drive) uses 250W, and the monitor
That's doubtful. The 250W rating on your power supply is the rating
of the MAXIMUM power it can handle.
typical hard disks are < 10 W. Typical CD-ROMS are < 10 W
The whole motherboard *might* be 100W (and I'm really being generous
here)
> another 100. Without scanner and printer concerned, that's almost nine times
> as much as the 40W bulb I use in my desklamp.
>
> >Mine pulls 120 watts actually. The biggest sucker I have is 350watts;
> >and thats a PIII 450 w/4 hard drives.
> >
>
> I would think a terminal could be made that drew less current now (the drive
> and high-wattage CPUs do count for something)
>
> The smallest I've ran a standalone box on is 150W, plus the monitor's draw.
> --
> Marada Coeurfuege Shra'drakaii
> Colony name not needed in address.
> DC2.Dw Gm L280c W+ T90k Sks,wl Cma-,wbk Bsu#/fl A+++ Fr++ Nu M/ O H++ $+ Fo++
> R++ Ac+ J-- S-- U? I++ V+ Q++[thoughtspeech] Tc++
--
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: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 10:41:04 +0200
Damien wrote in message ...
>On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 16:24:58 +0200, in alt.destroy.microsoft
> David Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>| Is your K6-200 running on an Intel TX chip set, by the way? That chip
set
>| cannot cache more than the first 64 MB memory - performance with more
than
>| 64 MB depends greatly on the OS. For example, NT allocates memory from
the
>| bottom up and will make best use of the faster cached memory. Win95
>| allocates memory from the top down, and will slow down considerably if I
add
>| more RAM. Have you any idea what Linux does?
>
>You can't imagine how this hard this simple information was to find.
>
I can imagine, as I tried myself. Thank you so much for finding this for
me - I can now go and get some more memory, knowing that it will help.
>http://www.lostcircuits.com/memory/dimms2.html
>
>"How does exceeding the cacheable amount of RAM affect my system's
>performance? That depends on the operating system. UNIX or LINUX
>access memory from bottom to top (that means starting with the first
>bytes / memory addresses available) and therefore, a performance hit
>will occur only if the amount of used memory exceeds the amount of
>cacheable memory"
>
>Now how do I find out what kind of chipset I have. . . . .?
If you are lucky, it should be mentioned on the BIOS startup messages. Of
course, the motherboard manual will help too, if you have such a thing.
Other clues are the clock speeds - the TX chipset had only a 66 MHz FSB,
whereas most other non-Intel chipsets at the time of the K6-200 supported
100 MHz. But the TX was by far the most popular, until the Super7
motherboards became dominant. So if the board does not support speeds much
beyond 200 MHz, it is almost certainly TX-based.
>
>| Did you every try the QNX floppy demo? A single floppy with a full
>| real-time 32-bit OS, a GUI, a text editor, a file manager, a web browser,
a
>| small web server, and more. Ok, it is limited, but it has about 60% of
the
>| functionality many people need in less than 1% of the disk space required
>| for Linux or Windoze.
>
>Yeah, QNX is impressive that way. The single biggest obsticle to
>creating a similar Linux distro is the X window system. You'll find
>at least ten different mini-distros, most fitting on a floppy disk,
>with amazing capabilities. Most of them are text mode only, but I
>have found at least on exception: mu-Linux
>http://sunsite.auc.dk/mulinux/. Checkout the screen shot:
>http://www.tmn.com/Community/callaham/muscreen.gif Even here though, X
>has to be on a second floppy.
That is certainly very compact for an X system.
I remember hearing about a group making a new GUI for Linux which used the
framebuffer for video access. I thought it sounded like a great idea, until
I heard what API they were implementing - Wince.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 02:06:10 -0700
From: Chem-R-Us <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.networking
Subject: Re: Gnome or KDE
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.
Given the choice of those two, use KDE (Gnome is slower).
--
Chem-R-Us
------------------------------
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: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 05:11:52 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Damien in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 23:51:23 -0400, in alt.destroy.microsoft
> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>| True, but that's simply why you can't run X comfortably on a 486. Or,
>| for those who are used to real software on a decent system, any
>| low-level Pentium, or at least for me.
>
>Try a less bloated window manager, like fvwm.
But I want a big window manager, with lots and lots of functions *and*
features, and pretty graphics. So...?
>| Do you think there's any chance that the commercial possibilities of
>| developing Linux might produce a "re-draw" of X that's still somewhat
>| compatible without the bloat problem? That would be just *nasty*,
>| wouldn't it? A new super-optimized X? You could run it over the
>| Internet!
>
>You can run X over the internet now. Any re-designed X would have the
>same features and problems as X, especially if it tried to support the
>literal hordes of X client software.
Boy, if I were a troll, you'd be easy meat, you know that? I new
somebody would snap at that "run X over the Internet thing." I'm not
saying its not likely, I'm just saying its not common, OK?
[...]
>Of course it would. If everyone else was still running DOS on 486's
>Linux users would be running Linux, but all there apps would be
>ncurses based or something like that and everybody would be wishing
>they could buy one of those $10,000 Sun workstations or SGI's to do
>all that cool muti-media stuff.
And there wouldn't be a groundswell behind Linux. I never said it would
dry up and blow away. If X isn't on Linux, than Windows and trade
secret software can't be replaced by publicly available GPL science and
useful art. So give me a break, and spare me the purist diatribe.
>You called emacs a super-compact-ultra tool. I have to say I got a
>laugh out of that. If the church of vi were in power you would be
>burned at the stake for that heresy. Or maybe not. Seeing as how you
>would only be ridiculed for that statement and no one would believe
>you, hence no harm would be done. Anyway.
Ooh, yea, start a holy war about the
super-compact-ultra-vi-versus-emac-versus-ed-bullshit-who-the-hell-cares.
That makes sense, considering my comment.
[...]
>| And that's going to require some serious big apps, though they should
>| run light and nibble regardless.
>
>Or the same tools we have glued together with duct-tape like Tcl/Tk to
>make them easy to use and show all those pretty pictures.
No, its going to take real middleware. Not scripting languages
pretending to be programming languages pretending to be middleware
pretending to be applications.
>| I'll know the world has become more perfect than I ever imagined when
>| programmers never engage in work for hire. Its demeaning to their art,
>| in my opinion.
>
>I must say I'm rather found of that statement.
Don't let it go to your head. But you're welcome.
Its a cool thing, software. Even if you are "Ug, the Barbarian with
Glasses", painting on cave walls, its *something*, man. And we got a
long way to go before anyone and everyone can use software. Free means
free, you know?
--
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: 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: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 05:20:47 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft;
[...]
>> Anyway, (holy shit, he suddenly realizes in one of his characteristic
>> flashes of cross-linked ideas: that means you'll just use an interface,
>> and the *network* will be the *computer*.... - nah, he thinks,
>
>"The Network IS the Computer" -- 1985,Sun Microsystems
Uh, yea. But they also said the Netra was the ultimate Internet tool.
There's slogans, and there's vision. Sun had the vision, cool. They've
gotten about as far with it as I have.
You'll notice the crucial reason their slogan spawns NIS+ and Sbus and
NetPC is the cluelessness of thinking once you've figured something out,
you can profiteer on it. Sun's competitive instincts notwithstanding,
they're still out to sell proprietary computers with interoperable
technology in a world where non-proprietary systems are a commodity.
They need to focus on and hyperfocus on and slit their wrists if they
should fail to focus only and eternally on *quality/reliability*. If
they do, they'll be a rich and productive company for many years to
come.
My vision, obviously not uninspired, isn't a slogan. Its a potential
reality. It isn't "The Network IS the Computer"; its "the network is
the *computer*". Get it?
Imagine sitting down at your X desktop, and literally having your pick
of thousands of hosts from which to run all kinds of applications.
Napster for programs, anyone?
--
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: "1$Worth" <"1$Worth"@costreduction.plseremove.screaming.net>
Subject: Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept?
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 10:23:28 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> 1$Worth <"1$Worth"@costreduction.plseremove.screaming.net> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Byron A Jeff wrote:
> >
> > Yup, and that's why I feel that it does not have to be that way,
> > although we (linux community) should accept some changes to accommodate
> > this for the benefit of the majority of people.
>
> Sorry, but on that point I must disagree. We of the Linux community should
> NOT accept ANY changes to accommodate the majority of people. Not one
> environment, not one program, not one byte and not one bit! Many people
> have worked very hard consuming many man hours to create Linux as it is.
> Many if not most have done that with out any remuneration of any sort. Linux
> will continue to grow with or without the acceptance of the mass market and
> the great majority of people.
>
> The reason we have chosen Linux is because it serves our need just fine. If
> all we wanted was a dumbed down OS we would not have selected Linux in the
> first place. So, I say Terabytes for improvement desired by the community
> but not one bit for appeasement to buy general public acceptance.
>
> This does not mean that "easy to use" user environments should not be
> developed for Linux. That it not what I said at all. I would like to see
> more varity of user environments. I would like to see a Windows 9x user
> interface developed for Linux. I would like to see a Window 3.x user
> interface developed for Linux. I would like to see a MacOS user interface
> developed for Linux. I would like to see a ....... Well you get the
> picture. What I would like to see is a situation where someone could sit
> down at the workstation login and forget that they are not using the other
> operating system that they are used to using. As long as they don't do
> things like try to edit the registery.
>
> What is important here is that these are all user environemnt and not
> operating system issues. I don't want to see on bit of the existing
> programs changed to appease the mass market. Those environments could all
> be implemented as window managers and perhaps any supporting libraries.
> There is no need to make existing X programs adapt to those environments.
> What I mean by that is that a program like xdvi is fine just as it is for
> many of us. If there were a Windows 9x environment it should still pemit
> the use of the existing xdvi program. If it is felt that there is a need
> for a version of xdvi tailored for that environment then go ahead and
> develop that other version of xdvi lets say wxdvi, but the existing code
> base of xdvi should not be tampered with. Future releases of xdvi should
> work as though the Windows 9x environment had never been developed.
>
> Nothing here is limited to Linux either. What we are talking about is the
> window managers, libraries and maybe their dependent programs running on X.
> If they are properly written they should run on other unixes as well and
> maybe even other non-unix X platforms.
>
> The Linux community already has divergent user environment that do not
> interfer with each other, first there are all the shells to choose from,
> then there is SVGA graphics, then there is X. Under X we have a large
> varity already of window managers and in some cases supporting libraries.
>
> That is the way thing have been with Linux (and unix) and that is the way
> they should remain. The Linux computing platform is about choice and I will
> defened your right to choose and develop their prefered environment, but not
> if it impact in any way someone else who has not made the same choice as you
> have
I agree with most of what you say and have no wish to "dumb down"
anything. As I said at the start I don't believe that having at least
one choice of consistent easy to use GUI with system management tools
takes away from those of use who love the command line or exotic window
managers. After all Linux is about choice and as you say the people that
create linux did it to make better tools for themselves (and help us
along the way). And as you rightly hint at, Linux is not commercial and
there is no need to commercialise it. But I would suggest that there is
no crime in making it more accessible so that other people may enjoy it.
I don't mind digging around using pnptools to get my modem to work: but
other people who may well benefit from Linux would shudder at the
thought.
What I might have an issue with is the fact that maybe some aspects
should be "updated" (I should choose my words carefully here to avoid
flames). Again I give the printing sub-system as a rather old example
that was fine 20 years ago but no longer provides the functionality that
we need in a consistent way. I am sure that you will suggest that this
is the role of user-land apps and you'd be right. I would just like to
see some consistency so that when I want to program code to control a
printer I don't have to re-invent the wheel each time to get the most
out of its feature set. Of course from the end-users perspective this is
pretty neat. Get rid of our current filtering script etc.? Maybe not -
I'm not too sure.
p.s. I'm aware that there are effort to solve the printer issue, but
this illustrates the point quite well where sometimes the system (not
just kernel) needs some consistency.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
