Linux-Advocacy Digest #130, Volume #28 Mon, 31 Jul 00 12:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux, easy to use?
Re: Linux, easy to use?
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Bob Hauck)
Re: Slipping away into time. (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Linux? You're kidding right? Some kind of a joke?
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark ("John Hughes")
Re: Star Office to be open sourced
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Slipping away into time. (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots
Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept?
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark ("John Hughes")
Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 08:36:59 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bart Oldeman) wrote in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >Readability? I don't see much of a difference.
>
> 'ls' is less readable than 'dir'
> 'cat' is less readable than 'type'
"type" is not an accurate name for the MsDos command. Issuing a command by
the name type makes it sound that somthing will be typed in to the computer
from the keyboard. You issue the type command with a command line parameter
of a filename, type will read that file and pass it contents to standard
output, which is normally the video display. A logical name for type would
be display, show, showfile, list, or listfile.
The name type is totaly inappropriate for it unless the system console is a
teletype like the ASR 33 series. Of course though by the time PC/MsDos was
developed video display consoles were pretty much standard and teletypes had
pretty much faded out for the then current design.
"cat" is not a unix subsitution for type rather it is a much more prowerful
command that can be used to work like type if you pass a single filename on
the command line. Cat can also accept input from standard in as well as
multiple files from the command line. When processing multiple files they
are concatenated together into standard out. That is the source of the name
cat, it is a shortened from of conCATenate.
> 'grep' is definately less readable than 'find' or 'search'
>
> I seem to remember the UNIX shells were designed to be cryptic; I can
agree
> with you in that the DOS shell is not much better, but I still think IMHO
> that 'dir', 'type' or 'find' is a bit more readable than the UNIX
> equivalents.
You are talking above about programs running under unix and there are
versions of them running under Dos and Windows as well.
Now as for the common lie that unix was designed to be cryptic. Unix was in
fact designed in the to be terse and brief to type as display. It has been
often stingy on the informations that commands and programs display unless
you as the user ask them to be more verbose. That comes from the fact that
in the early days of unix the most common terminal devices were 150 baud
teletypes and 300 baud dumb terminal. To fill a 80x24 character display at
300 baud would take about one minute and four seconds. The equivlent amount
of data on a 150 baud teletype could take around four or five minutes. At
those speeds you do want things to be terse. Being terse also saves on
supplies such as tty paper, ribbon or ink, paper punch tape. While many of
us don't use the devices at those speeds any longer, unix does still support
them.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 07:59:25 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Palmer) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> >>And xterm is a Lie-nux DOS box, but Lie-nux loosers insisst on calling
> >>it "xterm", probly to avoid traidmark infridngement.
> >
> >xterm existed long before DOS boxes, and comparing an xterm to a DOS box
is
> >a bit of a joke.
>
> Their both the same thing- you tipe commands in them and stop using GUI.
>
> >Any of the UNIX shell's easily beat the crap out of DOS
> >boxes - apart from readability.
>
> Tha'ts why Windo's has a GUI. DOS box's sucks.
Are you suggesting that the Windows graphical user interface has totaly
replace the command line in all functionality to the point that it nolonger
includes Dos Boxes? Are you also suggesting that Windows no longer ships
with any non-GUI programs?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 15:42:56 GMT
On Mon, 31 Jul 2000 01:09:58 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> However, none of this addresses the point I was addressing, which was
>> your assertion that OEMs could "always install any other browser".
>> While it is true that MS did not write "thou shalt not install Netscape
>> on the desktop" into the license agreements, and the judge agrees in
>> the FoF that they did not do this, they did still make it quite clear
>> to OEM's what was expected of them.
>Why is it that Toshiba was shipping Navigator on their desktop for almost 3
>years with it's laptops?
Gateway, Compaq, and IBM were also shipping Navigator, which is *why MS
was pressuring them*. The fact that MS pressure was not 100%
successful does not deny the existence of such pressure or an attempt
to restrain trade.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Slipping away into time.
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 10:44:07 -0500
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathaniel Jay Lee) wrote in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >Might I make a suggestion Pete?
> >
> >I believe the above statement is indicative of the additude that has
> >bothered so many of the Linvocates in here. Your statement that you
> >have 'found' another sound card unsupported by Linux seems to come
> >across as you 'went looking for' another sound card that was unsupported
> >by Linux. Not to be nit-picky, but that could offend someone that is a
> >Linux supporter (if they get upset easily).
>
> I'm not sure how my statement could be misread, I said "I found" and I
> didn't say "I went looking for".
>
> The sound card in question is one I obtained from work. As I said before, I
> work with device drivers, specifically audio device drivers. That covers
> ESS, Crystal and Analog Devices (AC'97). Some of these have Linux drivers,
> some don't. I don't deliberately pick cards that won't work with Linux - in
> this case I was given an S100 (ESS198X), as I found out later, not
> supported by Linux Mandrake 7.1.
>
> >While you may not have actually 'went looking for' a card that wouldn't
> >work with Linux, it could be easily miscontrued that way.
>
> That could be because that's what you're expecting to see, maybe?
>
> >Hope this doesn't bother you. Honestly, just trying to help.
>
> I'm not bothered, but, I am curious as to why people would read extra
> things into anything I say. It does sound like a kind of filter is being
> applied here, one that I can do little about.
Well, I personally try very hard not to do that, but I have seen it
happen a lot since 'joining' the group. I would say that whenever
possible, write things as you mean them and make sure they can't be
misconstrued. Of course, no matter what you say or write, someone in
here is going to find fault with it. My intention was simply to point
out, when you say 'you found' it does imply 'you were looking for'. It
doesn't necisarily mean the same thing. But it can be seen that way by
someone looking for a fight. In which case, they will probably find
something else to bitch about anyways. :-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux? You're kidding right? Some kind of a joke?
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 15:50:42 GMT
On Mon, 31 Jul 2000 02:27:49 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>So Linux is going to unseat god knows how many millions of Windows and
>Mac users?
>
>Sure it is :)
>
>Linux offers nothing to the Windows user other than scripts that need
>editing, hardware that is unsupported and various stuff that Windows
>supports right out of the box that becomes a nightmare under Linux.
>
>Want to see your hardware perform like 1980's hardware, run Linux.
It's funny you should mention that as Ataris were doing scanning,
cheap laser printing, video capture, amateur video special effects,
removable harddrives, GUIs and most of the things you would associate
with 'current style' computing in the 1980's.
>
>
>Linux just plain sucks big time and only the most dedicated nerd would
>be interested in it. Replacing Mac OS 9 with Linux is a travesty. What
>a loss of easy to use functions, all for the joy of running some 25
>year old operating system that hasn't made it in 25 years and won't
>like make it in the next 25 years. Eunuchs that is....
Actually, Unix has been one of the leaders in computing for
people that are serious about their work even handling tasks
usually associated with Macs and achieving things that WinTel
PC's are just barely starting to do.
>
>
>
>My advice is, if YOU are considering running Linux, think again and
>dump it fast. It sucks more than Monica lewinsky on her wedding night.
Mine crashes less and once configured stays that way.
--
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 Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 17:01:06 +0100
"John Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8%Zg5.2616$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "fungus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> > John Hughes wrote:
> > >
> > > > Add to this the known fact that Microsoft itself doesn't run
> > > > any of their internal databases (hotmail, msn, etc) on Windows
> > > > and we're left with what? Hot air about some new definition
> > > > of "scalability"....
> > > >
> > >
> > > This isnt a known fact. Can you provide references to your 'facts'.?
Or
> are
> > > you a liar.......?
> >
> >
> > John,
> >
> > It's been what, a whole week since the last thread about Microsoft
> > not using Windows for any of their stuff? Have you forgotton already
> > or are you doing this deliberately?
> >
> > Whatever...I certainly don't mind posting some more proof to the
> > Windows advocacy newsgroups, so here we go (again):
> >
> >
>
>
> Try again.
>
> Fungus :
>
> 'Add to this the known fact that Microsoft itself doesn't run any of their
> internal databases (hotmail, msn, etc) on Windows and we're left with
what?
> Hot air about some new definition of "scalability"....'
>
> YOU state that Microsoft doesnt run ANY (please proove this) of their
> INTERNAL DATABASES (and this). You know the difference between a database
> and a web site? Right?
>
> Or you just trying to change the subject?
>
Any chance of you answering this one, Fungus. Or have you been caught lying
again?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.sun.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Star Office to be open sourced
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 15:57:10 GMT
On Mon, 31 Jul 2000 14:02:07 GMT, Bill Vermillion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 18:55:26 +0100, Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>>>> Personally, I'd rather package managers be moot and applications
>>>> be capable of being treated as a single atomic entity capable of
>>>> being more or less completely non-dependent on system files.
>>>>
>>>..which means shared libraries cease to exist.
>
>> Not necessarily.
>
>> Space versus complexity is a tradeoff that might make sense.
>
>With today's capacity I'd not worry about space.
>
>It's the shared libraries so that one library update fixes all aps
>that use that which seems much more important from my point of
>view.
You can't be certain that one library upgrade will actually
'fix' all the associated apps. That's the whole motivation
for only associating a particular library version to the
application(s) it was built with.
[deletia]
Besides, you can always keep multiple copies of libraries and
sort out who uses what at runtime. You could even give the end
user enough control to arbitrate problems.
However, the end result would be a core system that you could
treat as readonly making it more robust.
--
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: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 13:04:18 -0300
"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>
> Said Isaac in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >So netscape and photoshop are derivative of any plug-in some clown decides
> >to write at some time in the future right? I don't think you've thought
> >through all of the consequences of your position. It leads to things
> >the FSF could never desire.
>
> You've completely switched contexts and expect your presumptions to
> follow? Hang on a sec'. Plug ins are not to applications as programs
> are to libraries.
Plugins are usually implemented as dynamically loaded libraries.
So, in most cases plugins ARE libraries, therefore plugins are
like libraries to applications in a trivial way.
> I don't think you've though through all the
> consequences of that position.
>
> >Works need not be complete.
>
> You say that as if its true.
You say that as if it is not?
> >A library is a work.
>
> If somebody says that it is, then I guess it must be.
Why wouldn't a library be a work? At least those who say it is
can point to a bazillion copyrighted libraries, who are considered
works already.
> But assuming it
> is because its software and software is copyrighted and copyrighted
> things are works seems like a tenuous link, to me. What precisely is a
> "work", in copyright terms. And is it the same as in software terms?
> If your answer is "yes", is it because you know that software is
> copyrighted, and they both use the word "work", so you assume the term
> 'work' must be the same?
>
> >Programs without a
> >necessary library can always be themselves compiled as a library.[...]
>
> If you are considering things like compiling, you've definitely missed
> my point. But at least you did get near it. No, whether a library's
> source code will compile is not necessarily (but could be, you are quite
> correct) what makes it a "work". Compiling is not publishing. Selling
> is publishing.
Actually, distributing, not selling, is publishing.
> [...]
>
> I'm sorry if I've been harsh; its just late. Overall your ideas show
> some promise. Check your assumptions and get back to me.
Oh, sweet Jesus.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[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: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 10:55:47 -0500
Charlie Ebert wrote:
[a bunch of potshots and bullshit at Windows user's expense]
Again, I don't think insulting people is the best way to win them over.
And I seriously doubt that all Windows users are idiotic, lazy, moronic,
shit-heads as you continously try to spout forth. I feel you do about
as much for Linux as Corel does. In other words, jack shit.
You piss off potential Linux converts. You frustrate Linux users and
Windows users alike with your constant diatribe against all Windows
users. You do not provide facts, but opinions as if they were facts.
I was once a Windows user. I moved to Linux precisely because I was
sick of using a system that was obviously not suited to my needs. If I
had met a few more people like you during my conversion period, I may
have given up on Linux altogether. As it was, it was only partially
frustrating to see the few morons using Linux tell me I should just
forget about Linux because it was 'too hard for me'. This was usually
based on the fact that I hadn't used it in the past. Well, I learned
how to use it, it sure doesn't seem to hard for me, and all those idiots
are still telling Windows users what losers they are. I don't say
that. I say they may be un-informed about the alternatives (as I once
was), or they know the alternatives and just don't care. That's fine,
but telling them they are morons over and over again isn't going to help
the public image of Linux. It is only going to alienate people that
could at least be passive towards Linux, or even become staunch
supporters of Linux in their own right someday. What is the use in
that?
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 15:59:21 GMT
On 30 Jul 2000 00:11:43 GMT, Loren Petrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Loren Petrich wrote:
>
>[on the retreat to the eastern side of the Brest-Litovsk line...]
>>> >Chechnya is merely a giant live fire exercise. I wouldn't be
>>> >surprised if half of the Chechnyan leaders are actually
>>> >agitators who are truly loyal to Moscow.
>>> So it's some sort of setup?
>>That's what Soviet Defectors have been saying for 15 years.
>>That's what Russian citizens are saying right now.
>
> Which ones?
Keep pressing this point.
None of the Russians I've known that have come here in the
last 10-30 years have this sort of opinion regarding Chechnia.
[deletia]
--
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] ()
Subject: Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept?
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 16:00:30 GMT
On Mon, 31 Jul 2000 14:43:46 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>> On Sat, 29 Jul 2000 00:06:20 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> > Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> [deletia]
>> >> put all effort into getting KDE2 out the door. Personally I
>think
>> >the right
>> >> decision was made.
>> >
>> >Allow me to add a 3.5 item:
>> >
>> >3.5 No desktop or toolkit, except KDE, Qt and JX, had announced
>>
>> This is why the 'uberdesktop' concept is so limited.
>>
>> Drag and drop is orthogonal to making pretty windows. One
>> doesn't necessarily need to imbedd the functionality of
>> one into the other one.
>
>This is why I know you have no idea what you are talking about.
WHY?
>It's awfully convenient for the programmer, if the DnD support
>is done through the toolkit.
[deletia]
--
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 Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 17:07:08 +0100
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:xH7h5.2896$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Bullshit. Want an example? The ENTIRE Lycos network including
> Lycos.com,
> > > Tripod, WhoWhere, Angelfire, MailCity, HotBot, HotWired, Wired News,
> > > Webmonkey, Sonique, Quote.com, Gamesville, and Lycos Zone runs on nix?
> No,
> > > it can't be it's WINDOWS 2000!!! What a suprise. And there are
> hundreds of
> > > other top shelf sites that use NT technologies just like these!
> >
> > LIAR.
> >
> >
> > Then why are all of the links on their home pages referring
> > to .html files? LOSE-DOS has .htm files.
>
> You make your entire argument based on file name extension? Geez.
>
> NT can use .html files as well, you know. Check netcraft if you don't
> believe it.
>
Lycos doesnt run WIndows 2000 because it cant run as .html.!! Oh the
evidence for the FUD isnt getting any better is it?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept?
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 16:02:30 GMT
On Mon, 31 Jul 2000 14:40:45 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>> On Sat, 29 Jul 2000 15:47:57 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >> >If you want a simpler way to use it, try something newer, like,
>say
>> >> >KDE 2.0 beta 2.
>> >> >
>> >> >> IOW: cite an example.
>> >> >
>> >> >Done, twice.
>> >>
>> >> Done never actually.
>> >
>> >Actually, done thrice: "If you want a simpler way to use it, try
>> >something newer, like, say KDE 2.0 beta 2."
>>
>> That is not an example.
>>
>> For someone obsessed with mathematically precise definitions
>> you have a very crude notion of proof.
>
>Ok, let's try again. You want an example of what, precisely?
Working drag & drop between diverse examples of applications
that have been built with Xdnd support including some variant
of KDE, preferably one that is sufficiently well working to
be included in one of the Linux distributions.
[deletia]
--
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.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
