Linux-Advocacy Digest #55, Volume #28 Fri, 28 Jul 00 06:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Newton (was Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.) ("David Brown")
Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept? ("1$Worth")
Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept? ("1$Worth")
Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept? ("1$Worth")
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. ("David Brown")
Re: Does VB and SQL work under linux? (David M. Cook)
Re: Why vi/emacs (Dale Lakes)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Newton (was Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.)
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 11:36:02 +0200
T. Max Devlin wrote in message ...
>Said David Brown in alt.destroy.microsoft;
> [...]
>>>Did you know that Thomas Edison was more like Bill
>>>Gates than most people realize?
>>Yes - among other things, he claimed he invented the light bulb, even
though
>>both he an Lumier simultaneously copied it from a Scottish schoolteacher.
>
>I wasn't aware of that detail. Thanks.
Scots have a long history of inventing things then failing to make them into
marketable products (or at least, failing to market their products), or
failing to realise their significance. Along with the lightbulb there was
penicilin, the television, radio (before Marconni), kola (without the
cocain, and not fizzy, but otherwise basically the same as Coke), the
telephone, ...
>
>>Did you know that Isaac Newton was a nasty, scheming plageriser who
>>terrorised many of his contemporary scientists?
>
>Well, sure. Didn't everyone? Are we know to make the argument that
>only bastards make great contributions to society? ;-)
>
>The story I heard was that he was a general pain to live with, but had
>independently developed his work. What basis is there for considering
>"scheming"?
There is plenty of reason to believe that he was a genius and developed a
lot of his stuff himself. But there is also evidence that he build on ideas
of others (doesn't everyone) while seldom giving due credit (the nasty
part), and often intimidating others into silence (the even nastier part).
The story of Calculus is perhaps the best example.
Newton delevoped the theory of Calculus (using the f(x), f'(x) notation) as
a tool for his other work. At roughly the same time, though almost
certainly slightly earlier, Leibniz also developed the theory of Calculus
independantly in Germany (using the dy/dx notation). When Newton realised
how important Calculus was, he was very unhappy to hear people saying that
both he and Leibniz invented it. He presuaded the Royal Society (the
highest scientific authority in Britain) to invistigate the matter and
decide who was first. Newton was the winner, which is hardly surprising
since he was president of the Royal Society at the time, and the
"independant" panel of judges consisted entirely of friends of Newton
(although some were paid "friends"). As Leibniz died, a broken and
depressed man whose reputation had been unmercifully crushed with false
accusations of plagerism, Newton wrote in his diary "I took great delight in
breaking Leibniz's heart".
------------------------------
From: "1$Worth" <"1$Worth"@costreduction.plseremove.screaming.net>
Subject: Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept?
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 10:29:36 +0100
Charles M wrote:
>
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2000 00:43:34 +0100, "1$Worth"
> <"1$Worth"@costreduction.plseremove.screaming.net> wrote:
>
> >Well we seem to be on the same path but I say again: Why does ease of
> >use take away the power from a system? For example I may use Linuxconf
> >for some tasks and for others I may just pop into /etc, I still have the
> >choice - the power, it's just some things are easier done by GUI (take
> >for example GUI programming - I'd rather have a RAD builder than write
> >this boring code myself again and again, yet I still have access to the
> >source, the complexity if I choose - now that's what I call power!).
> >
> >
>
> Actually, you can't . Linuxconf, using your example, has in the past
> (I've not used it recently) been known to overwrite ANY manual edits
> you do. It quite simply allowed you to ONLY use the GUI tool and stuck
> you with whatever limitations (and there are many) it has. (Oh,
> Linuxconf did have an option to turn that behavior off, but when I
> tried it, it didn't do so and still overwrote any manual edits) So,
> that's a case where the "ease of use" only seemed to be "ease of use"
> but in actuallity was "difficult of use". You'ld be using Linuxconf,
> happy as could be until one day you needed to do something its doesn't
> handle. At that point, it prevents you from setting things properly,
> perhaps to the point where you would have to re-install your OS,
> depending on how experienced you were and how well you could get
> around its locks. So, there's an example of an "ease of use" situation
> from hell.
>
> And I think that that's where "ease of use" has gotten a bad name.
Yes you are right and I have used many a colourful adjective to refer to
Linuxconf at some times. But this is still a problem with the program
not the concept. Perhaps I should be more selective: but that's my point
that Linux does in fact lag behind in these easy to use tools. I know
that they are improving, I would just like people not to condem the
concept as "evil".
>As
> another poster put it, the term is often a misnomer, applied to poorly
> designed, but flashy, gee wiz looking config tools. I don't think that
> a tool that has really proven to falicitate "ease of use" is looked
> down upon by anyone, be it GUI, CLI or whatnot. Most CLI have proven
> themselves to work. A lot of GUI tools seem to be geared toward the
> "more common", basic tasks only and fall apart when things get rough.
> But, in sys administration, that's precisley when you need a good
> config tool. Hence, a lot of people look down on them (fool me twice,
> and shame on me and all that).
>
> CMM
I agree BUT, ee may not need GUI config tools, but others do. It would
be a shame to keep others away from Linux just because there was no
concerted effort to improve things (and in fact there is now).
------------------------------
From: "1$Worth" <"1$Worth"@costreduction.plseremove.screaming.net>
Subject: Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept?
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 10:34:30 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "1$Worth" <"1$Worth"@costreduction.plseremove.screaming.net> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > So why is "Ease Of Use" a dirty concept?
> >
>
> "Ease of use" is a purely subjective measurement.
>
> If you type 65 wpm and have the manpages committed to memory, the mouse
> is an impediment in Linux. Its like having a keyboard with only two
> keys; eight otherwise useful fingers are completely idle.
I can type faster and remember (most) of the important stuff, yet if I
were moving say 20 different files from one location to the next it
would be faster using GUI (assuming these 20 files have different
names+extentions and there is no logical pattern which may be applied).
I put it that it depends on the task in hand. The combination is VERY
powerful yet I am not saying that one needs to be removed, just
improved. No dumbing down, just getting better.
------------------------------
From: "1$Worth" <"1$Worth"@costreduction.plseremove.screaming.net>
Subject: Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept?
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 10:39:12 +0100
Christopher Browne wrote:
>
> Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when 1$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."
True, and we needn't follow any of the above. Just implement something
that is easy to use. Naturally as others have pointed out this is a
subjective measurement, so I suggest "most people find easy to use".
> 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.
Yes.
> 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.
Yes, but we will still have the Linux way. For novice users the (I
should say) unix way is rather frightening.
> 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."
Agree. Linux *can* be better than others as it can be based on technical
merit not profit.
> And I _think_ this probably is all that is needed to establish the
> conflict.
>
>
> 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.
And that is the "Linux Advantage", no pointy haired clueless manager!
:-)
------------------------------
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 11:53:52 +0200
> [...]
>>>And this is a reason not to prosecute a rich corporation?
>>
>>No - the US courts should do their best. But I don't think they will
>>suitably punish MS for their crimes (in at least some other countries, the
>>top leaders in MS would be personally on trial as well, not just the
>>company) - history has shown that the US courts do not suitably punish or
>>restrain rich companies or individuals. They should not give up, but I
will
>>not believe that MS will be properly punished by the US courts until I see
>>it happen.
>
>You misunderstand. The courts have no intention, nor power, to punish
>MS for its crimes. Its unfortunate, but true. I mean, they could maybe
>fine it an hour or even a day's profits, but the "Microsoft" is an
>entity incorporated by law, not nature. It isn't a person, and can't be
>"punished". It would be unlawful to punish its employees or
>stockholders, either, though the courts have no responsibility or
>authority to secure the jobs or guarantee the investment of either
>group.
>
Are you saying that if a US company commits crimes, there is no American
court or law that can punish them? The best that can be done is to prevent
re-occurances in the future? In terms of the common criminal, after
commiting armed robbery, all the courts can do is take away your gun?
If MS, as a company, cannot be held criminally liable, then surely the
people that made the illegal decisions are the real criminals, and should be
punished. At the very least, BG and his gang should be jailed for fraud.
In Europe, employees (be they at the top or the bottom of the heap) can be
punished if they commit crimes. I remember a recent case where a large meat
distributer here in Norway was found to have knowingly re-sold out-of-date
food without remarking it as such. The company and the managing director
(who knew about and allowed the sale) were heavily fined.
>The breakup is a *remedy*, not a punishment. I'm not sure if the fact
>is that European courts actually work to "punish" corporate businesses,
>or whether that is merely your interpretation, based, I'm afraid, on
>metaphoric descriptions. There are many in the U.S. who also make this
>error, so I'll have to wait for more information on the anti-trust
>activities and individual perspectives of the European courts.
>
>All I have to go on in terms of European courts is what the big 16
>decide to show me, and that's next to worthless, as far as I am
>concerned.
>
> [...]
>>Americans have their rights "guarenteed" by their constitution, and
probably
>>most laws (with the exception of attrocities like the DCMA) are reasonably
>>fair regardless of money.
>
>I know its late to say this, but I am truly entirely unfamiliar with the
>acronym "DCMA", though I've been able to get by on context to this
>point. What the hell is it?
"Digitial Copyright for the Millenium Act". Surely you must have heard of
it? There are many features of it, but one of the most debated is that if a
copyright owner puts some encryption on some data to protect their
copyright, then they have lots more rights to the data. They suddenly not
only own the data, but have a free reign to restrict your use of that data
in any way they want. The big case at the moment is with DVDs, which are
encrypted. The encryption is designed with two purposes - it allows the
huge media companies to control the regions in which discs are played to
ensure that they can charge as much as the market will bear (most DVD
players can be adapted to get round these restrictions), and it allows the
media companies to control the DVD players (software and hardware) and
charge royalties for them. The claim is that it is to hinder pirating, but
pirates simply copy the whole disk, encryption and all.
Since there was no player available for Linux, a Norwegian guy broke the
encryption and wrote a player for Linux, which was then widely distributed.
The mediaocracy went bananas, because they were no longer in control. All
the guy wanted to do was play DVDs which he had legally bought, on the OS of
his choice.
Look it up on some news sites - it is something you should know about (more
monopolising mega-corps to feed your paranoia).
>
>> But you are naive in the exteme if you believe
>>that the optimum weapon for fighting oppression of liberty is "knowledge
and
>>integrity" - the optimum weapon for fighting in the American courts, more
>>than in most other democratic countries, is money and good lawyers.
>
>I believe that depends on if your criterium for what makes something
>"optimum" is to be successful, or to be right. The courts are only one
>battlefield against oppression, and the campaigns in the war are quite
>complex, though guided only by the "invisible hand". Ain't evolution
>spectacular?
>
>Quite a number of "discontents" from Europe seem to have found the
>shores of America. We have much more of a problem with ADD, but we also
>are a hotbed of innovation. Go figure.
>
>>It
>>would be oversimplifying to say that the big company can just spend more
and
>>more money on the case, forcing the smaller company to do the same, until
>>the smaller one runs out of money and has to conceed the case, but that is
>>certainly a prominent feature of some cases.
>
>Yes, unfortunately it is. Obviously one of the most critical problems
>in a republican capitalist state. Some insist that I'm a socialist,
>even a communist, for daring to think that the power of government is
>pre-eminant over any business, or even an individual. But I still would
>not go so far as to want conventional acceptance of government
>interference in social interactions. We might guard our freedoms a bit
>too closely for your taste, but we've reason to believe that's the only
>way to keep them in the end.
>
The trouble is, you can't give everybody full freedom. There always has to
be a balance somewhere. But yes, our tastes are different - I am willing to
let the government have a little more control, in return for a little more
protection.
>>I have seen it happen - I know an American who wrote a program, and had
been
>>selling it for years. A company that he worked for fired him and then
sued
>>him for trying to use the program. After a long court battle, in which
the
>>company had obtained an injuction against him so that his personal
business
>>was ruined, and after he had been virtually bankrupt by legal costs, the
guy
>>won, as the facts were clearly in his favour. He has proved himself
right,
>>but at the cost of his house, his job, his career, his customers,
virtually
>>everything he owned, and an enormous amount of time, money, stress, pain,
>>and dispair. Theoretically, he could counter-sue, but he does not have
the
>>money and could not face going through the court battles again even if he
>>did.
>
>A pitiful shame, to say the least. Why aren't you blaming the unethical
>business on the fact that government didn't already protect his work?
>I'm assuming, of course, that he actually was righteous in his claim.
>You know, a lot of people just aren't aware of the extent of the claim
>of "work for hire" that an employer has over the product of the
>employee.
>
In this case, he was right in his claim (he wrote the software before coming
to the company - the company had rights to use it while he was employed
there, but they thought that once he was there, they could just fire him to
save expenses and keep his software).
I don't know who to blame, or how to solve such a problem. All I know is
that the US legal system was not able to protect the rights of this
individual against a rich opponent. I am not even claiming that other
systems would necessarily have treated him better - I am just poking a
little doubt in your confidence in the American system of freedom über
alles.
>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.
>
>>Now, explain again exactly how the US courts and legal system protected
this
>>"little guy", armed with knowledge and integrity, against the large
company
>>with piles of cash? I know that a single example does not prove that this
>>is always the case, but it is certainly very strong evidence.
>
>You haven't given any concrete reason to believe that the guy actually
>owned the work.
I haven't given the reasons, because I don't know them - the guy in question
told me he owned the work, and the courts upheld that.
>Chances are good, in fact, that the company just gave up
>after many years of fighting,
They went fought through to the bitter end.
>after the software was worthless anyway.
The software in question is for industrial control systems, which have a
much longer life-span than desktop PC software. The guy in question now
works for a new company, which has got the rights to the software, and is
improving and expanding the software. Through this other company, he has
got a second chance at his market.
>They paid the guy, just to make him go away;
They most certainly did not.
>it was their software all
>along, if he was their employee, and a programmer, particularly of
>similar software, when he wrote it.
>
I know that, in general, your employer owns the software you write, even if
you do so in your own time. But in this case, the software was written long
before he joined the company.
> [...]
>
>Oh, you certainly have my agreement there. The *pace* of U.S. Justice,
>particularly in terms of intellectual matters, is abysmal, I'll agree.
>There is something to be said, though, that a single case doesn't make
>or break a society, and it might be better to be careful and thorough
>than quick and decisive.
>
>The fact is, MS should have been stopped, in my opinion, by re-alignment
>of statue if necessary, when they did what they did with BASIC before
>the PC ever existed. There just wasn't enough money involved at the
>time to make any one claim substantial enough to be convincing. Such is
>the power of unethical behavior, and why it must be stamped out.
>
> [...]
< Snip to seperate post for greater general interest >
>
> [...]
>>Perhaps, since MS is an American company, Europeans and their governments
>>are more outraged and less accepting of MS's behaviour than the US is.
>
>Yes, quite possibly there is an appreciable amount of nationalist
>sentiment.
>
>>For
>>example, the German government has a rule that says official offices
cannot
>>have financial dealings with Scientologists. Since W2K uses defragmenting
>>software written by a Scientologist company, the German goverment ruled
that
>>no official body would touch W2K. MS then had to make a special version
for
>>them without the deframenting software. Would the US government have made
>>such a strong stand as to refuse to even consider buying products from one
>>of its biggest companies?
>
>You have to love the very real and forthright nature that the European
>shows sometimes. The U.S. is so much more a matter of facade and
>pretention. Three cheers to the German government, I say, if they can
>strike a blow against both Microsoft and Scientology with one sweep.
>
>The US gov't, or parts of it, has certainly taken such a stand, and
>promptly ignored it, I'm told.
>
> [...]
>>The EU courts are also incredibly slow - I would recommend we send Judge
>>Dredd instead.
>
>Now you got me thinking about Aaron's sniper rifle again....
>
>>The American courts said "You illegally used your OS monopoly to get a
>>monopoly in the browser market - we will stop you doing the same thing in
>>the future". The EU courts are saying "You are trying to illegally use
your
>>desktop monopoly to get a server monopoly - we will stop you before this
>>happens". Of course, it remains to be seen whether the EU courts have any
>>success.
>
>Good luck, certainly. The Outlook/Exchange thing is the most horrendous
>boondoggle I think has ever been executed.
>
> [...]
>>>To the US court's mind, that is the entire intent and purpose of the
>>>breakup. In the 80s, this was commonly referred to as a "chinese wall".
>>
>>And that is why the breakup is necessary (although I am not sure it is
>>sufficient).
>
>It doesn't stand alone, not by a long shot. In fact, at first it seemed
>that the breakup was aligned with the restraint conviction, and the
>"behavioral restrictions" were premised on the monopoly charge. Since
>the restraint conviction is more dubious (for reasons I've explained
>elsewhere, I won't bore you again unless you ask) many believed that the
>breakup will be overturned. Still do, AFAIK, though I think it almost
>impossible for this to happen at this point. Microsoft's continued
>leveraging of their pre-load monopoly to extend their power to
>additional markets (notably the .NET strategy to cut off the ASP threat)
>is clear evidence that the breakup is essential for any remedy of either
>'activity'.
>
>But the behavior restrictions, which are seldom talked about, are really
>the meat of the matter; the breakup is merely the necessary step to
>prevent alternative monopolistic strategies.
>
>Microsoft, as far as I have heard (and not in clear language, I'll point
>out) will be unable to negotiate discriminatorally, which means they'll
>no longer be able to use their quintessential strong-arm tactic, "Go
>along with us or we'll raise the price of Windows." That seems almost
>enough by itself, but it goes on to prohibit a lot of individual
>mechanisms for "leveraging" monopoly power.
>
>The goal is to neither *remove* nor to *supplant*, and certainly not to
>*regularize*, the monopoly. The goal is to allow the free market to
>refuse it if it is in the market's best interest, or not.
>
>A lot of trust us 'mericans place in the "invisible hand", I'll agree.
>But we've been trained since infancy to trust almost anything more than
>the government. Unfortunately, I think the lesson took a little too
>much for some folks, and they're convinced that someone trying to sell
>them something is more trustworthy than a public official. Neither line
>of work is necessarily a character reference, of course, but unethical
>behavior shouldn't be tolerated any more in one than the other, either.
>
That is such a wierd attitude for a democratic country. The government is
supposed to represent the people's interest. You might as well live in a
dictatorship - at least then you have the excuse that you can't do anything
about it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David M. Cook)
Subject: Re: Does VB and SQL work under linux?
Date: 28 Jul 2000 10:03:40 GMT
On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 20:36:19 GMT, YAWN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>i am thinking of putting Linux on my laptop (32MB RAM, P200, 2.0GB),
>and i am wondering if i can run Visual Basics and SQL in Linux. the
I was sure I saw a Gnu project to do a VB clone somewhere (kinda nutty,
huh).
But right now, no, you can't run VB natively on Linux. And you're right,
32MB is not enough memory for vmware.
There are many SQL databases for Linux. Postgresql is a reasonably complete
implementation. However, if you mean *Microsoft* SQL in particular, the
answer is no.
If you're interested in programming in general, you'll find Linux a good
learning environment.
Dave Cook
------------------------------
From: Dale Lakes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why vi/emacs
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 10:09:30 GMT
KLH wrote:
> Cameron Kerr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> So, what editors do you use, why do you use them, why turns you off in an
> editor? All peaceful views welcome.
>
I think that both vi and emacs are incredibly sophisticated and flexible
editors. As such it takes a non-trivial investment of time to gain mastery over
either one.
I can only speak for myself but I use vi because that happened to be the editor
I started using lo these many years ago and now it is the editor with which
I get the job done fastest. This is especially pertinent if iyou're plumbing
their depths while actually getting sysadmin or programming work done on
somebody elses dime.
Oddly enough I once felt the same way about kornshell v. perl: I knew
kornshell, I knew kornshell would be installed on 99.999% of all UNIX boxen
I sat down at and why futz with perl when I could hammer out a ksh script in a
few minutes rather than to learn a new language. Well, this year I decided that
I was going to curl up with Perl and I'll never look back - what an excellent
tool!
On a related note I spend a good deal of my time at home in front of one of my
linux boxen and usually in X Window. The choice of editors increases
exponentially within the GUI framework and therein I use nedit for the bulk of
my work - for coding in C, Java and marking up HTML pages - BUT I use vi for
writing ksh and perl jobs... it just doesn't *feel* proper pounding them out in
a gui editor.
Hmmm... now which SuSE cd was that emacs RPM on? ;-)
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Open Source Zealot | "The only intuitive user interface is
Linux Advocate | the nipple. Everything else is learned."
AIX Whore | --Bruce Ediger
--------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
