Linux-Advocacy Digest #192, Volume #28 Wed, 2 Aug 00 21:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux, easy to use? (Ciaran)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux can save you money on electricity! (Andres Soolo)
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man! (Marty)
Re: Linux can save you money on electricity! (Andres Soolo)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Changing LILO in Mandrake? (Andres Soolo)
Re: AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG (Steve Chaney)
Re: LOREN PETRICH...CLOSET-DICTATOR (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept?
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
From: Ciaran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 17:00:48 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) wrote:
>On 2 Aug 2000 16:15:45 -0500, Tim Palmer wrote:
>>Slava Pestov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>I don't have to ty[e anything on Linux, either. In fact, I
can't
>>>remember the last time I ty[ed anything, on any OS.
>>
>>Lier. You tipe every time you log in.
>
>No, he doesn't "tipe". He doesn't "ty[e" either. BTW, what is a
>"lier" ?
lier \Li"er\ (l[imac]"[~e]r), n. [From Lie. ] One who lies down;
one who rests or remains, as in concealment.
There were liers in ambush against him. --Josh. viii. 14.
Cheers,
Ciaran
===========================================================
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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?
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 00:04:59 GMT
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 15:31:15 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >In article
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-- snip --
> >> No way. Not in such a way that anyone new to computers could
> >> figure out.
> >
> >-- snip --
> >
> >> Face it - people have a huge comfort level with certain
> >> applications, and by and large they don't run under Linux.
> >
> >So, people who are "new to computers" already have a "comfort level
> >with certain applications" eh?
> >
> >When you make up your mind as to what your argument is, let us know.
>
> Face it - the vast majority have some computer experience, by and
> large that's WinXX applications and OSs, and that's what they'll be
> comfortable with. Twist words all you like;
I'm not "twisting words" -- I'm simply observing *you* shift your
argument from "people who are new to computers" to "people who already
have a "comfort level with certain applications" as it suits you.
That is known quite simply as inconsistency. You cannot argue from both
positions as they contradict each other.
> the facts speak for themselves - Linux isn't a commercial success
The exact same thing was being said about Windows ten years ago . . .
Curtis
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux can save you money on electricity!
Date: 3 Aug 2000 00:07:35 GMT
Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Because it gets there wokr done. VI just doesant due the job.
Which job?
Say I want to ask you what do you mean by a post like this. Why should
I use MSOffice for this job over vi?
Say I want to write a miniature Pascal interpeter for a term project.
Why should I use MSOffice for this job over, say, Emacs?
>>But there are no dumb UNIX commands.
> Yes their is. Their all dum.
May I ask what's your criteria? How do you tell a dumb command from a smart
one?
>>Or fails to work through the GUI.
> UNIX just fales to work. The user has too due al the work.
Can you give us an example?
>>Some people just run their computers as servers that don't require
>>a user interface at all.
Well, a computer doesn't necessary to be a pure server in order to not
to need a user interface.
--
Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
A bore is someone who persists in holding his own views after we have
enlightened him with ours.
------------------------------
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: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 00:13:31 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 06:01:42 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 03:27:51 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
> >> >>> >> Otherwise your rant makes absolutely no sense at all.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >It tends to be difficult to follow when you delete the explanation
> >> >>> >and fill in the blanks with what you wanted to read.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >> [deletia]
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >See what I mean?
> >> >>
> >> >>Note: no response.
> >>
> >> The best you've come up with is ~ "it automates stuff".
> >
> >The best response you can come up with isn't even vaguely appropriate to the
> >question. Not surprising. Please reread the context again to glean what it
> >was I was commenting on. Do you read past a 5th grade level? I don't mean
> >that as an insult. You're honestly scaring me.
>
> You scare far too easily.
Apparently not easily enough, as I'm still responding to your vapid tripe.
Meanwhile, you've still failed to account for how your response could have
been even esoterically related to my question and the context.
------------------------------
From: Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux can save you money on electricity!
Date: 3 Aug 2000 00:23:47 GMT
Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>You can think of a terminal like an hardware-implemented telnet appliance.
>>There isn't virtually any difference from the user's point of view.
> So the terminnal telnet's to the computor and runs VI thear. Big differance.
Yes, it is. Terminals don't need backuping, restarts or software updates
and therefore the user is pretty well separated from any parts that she
might try to "service". For one.
>>By the way, for a textual interface it's pretty straightforward to leave
>>help sheets for all the access points with unambiguous instructions such
>>as "Now enter the customer's VAT registration number". How would you
>>do that for a graphics-based user interface?
> With a dilog box.
Point taken. It was probably a bad example.
But then again, how the user gets into the dialog box?
Does she have to click somewhere? Where?
Doesn't she need training to know that?
>>So he don't have to do t he maintenance. So he can't even think of doing
>>that. Terminals are very difficult to break accidentally--and if they
>>are, you can just plug in another one and on the show goes.
> But all UNIX does is manetannence! All you due in UNIX is try to make it work. W
> hat else is thear to do in UNIX?
Coming back to the grocery store example, the user might sit at the
cash register, smile at the customers and show the food being sold to
the barcode reader. Isn't that work?
>>> Eaze of use. Ever herd of it?
>>I don't know how the grocery stores in your area work but in mine the
>>cashier's main tool is a barcode-reader.
> At Customer Service desk they have computors. The computors run Windows.
I've serviced customers by the way :-)
And in our shop, only one of 6-10 (depending on the season, moon phase and
daytime) machines ran MSWindows. And that was not for using but for looking
how the dialogs look should you have to walk the user through one.
By the way, note that the Customer Service people generally don't do
the `work' commonly expected from a computer user. *They* do maintenance
and their work is to help the real users get along with their computers.
>>> Thats' why the adminnistrater has to do the work not make the user's work tha
>>> s what UNIX terminnals does.
>>Would you explain how exactly, please?
> It maks users tipe command's.
So you want the administrator come and type for the users?
I don't think you know what's a secretary do most of the day, do you?
I also don't suppose you think there are people who can spell?
I don't even think of thinking you can understand why using the keyboard
is generally faster than using the mouse.
--
Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
It's a very *__UN*lucky week in which to be took dead.
-- Churchy La Femme
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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?
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 00:16:58 GMT
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 17:10:49 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 10:54:05 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>On Tue, 01 Aug 2000 23:26:45 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
-- snip --
> >>> Such a person would have equal trouble with WinDOS.
> >>
> >>Already installed and configured. Nothing to do but turn it on.
> >
> > The same would be true of the Linux box, or BeOS box, or MacOS
> > box.
>
> Except that we're talking about a Linux box with Quicken on it
No we're not. We're talking about a box with the OS and apps
pre-installed and preconfigured, regardless of which OS and apps are
chosen. The point is that the only real reason Windows is "easy to use"
(and I use the phrase *very* loosely) is precisely because it *is*
preinstalled. The minor differences between running GNUCash on
Linux/GNOME and Quicken on Windows could be dealt with by any
intelligent user. End users have had to change paradigms numerous times
during the past couple of decades, from electric typewriters to
dedicated word processors to character-based PC word processors to GUI
ones. Compared to that, moving from Quicken to GNUCash is a walk in the
park.
-- snip --
> >>> WIMP under Linux is no different than WIMP under DOS or WIMP
> >>> under MacOS or WIMP under GEM.
> >>
> >>Uh...no. The Macsters will strongly disagree with that one
Irrelevant. The fact that mac users are, by and large, snobbish about
the Mac GUI does not invalidate that a GUI is pretty much a GUI,
regardless of platform. A Mac user might turn his nose up at the thought
of using a Windows box (or a GNOME or KDE box), but he could certainly
do so, and that's the point here.
-- snip --
Curtis
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Changing LILO in Mandrake?
Date: 3 Aug 2000 00:27:55 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...accept UNIX like dum abbriviations and call it LILO.CONF.
lilo.conf , not LILO.CONF . The spelling is not the only thing
that matters.
By the way, if you don't like abbreviating then why don't you
try to write `GNU/Linux' without abbreviating as a little home
assignment? :-)
--
Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Women are always anxious to urge bachelors to matrimony; is it
from charity, or revenge?
-- Gustave Vapereau
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Chaney)
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 00:47:39 GMT
On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 19:07:47 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Loren Petrich wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Loren Petrich wrote:
>>
>> >So, at the next election, if the majority of people vote "yes"
>> >on Proposition 457:
>> > "Loren Petrich shall be executed at sunrise"
>> >You are saying that this should be carried out, simply because
>> >the mob approved it?
>>
>> So what about that? The same could be said about a Constitutional
>> amendment stating the exact same thing. Of course, if it says "Aaron
>> Kulkis" instead...
>
>Why go to such lengths, when the identical results can be obtained
>by getting a simple majority of votes in the US Congress, and NO
>requirement for the approval of the several States.
>
>Yes, that is right. Congress can legally select any person, and
>sentance them to death. And I have no problem with that.
>
>Why? Because they aren't going to bother unless you're a traitorous
>prick on the level of Benedict Arnold.
They won't because they fear the watchful eye of the American People.
However, Kulkis, the people are fucking asleep on the watch now.
Congress could -frame- someone - say, a public enemy - and hang them
high on a trumped up charge.
You would be wise NOT to make such an "it can't happen here" claim in
the same country whose Democratic president ordered the IRS to audit
his political enemies (see: Larry Elder, Paula Jones) - this, of
course, being in the tradition of Richard "Audit the Jews" Nixon.
>> >> Mr. Kulkis makes a victim out of himself.
>> >In what way? I don't need to mooch, I'm self-reliant. I trade
>> >my talents and services for the things I need.
>>
>> This from someone who considers himself a victim of the government.
>
>Are you saying that if a shoplifter preys upon the goods in a certain
>store, and that store is still in business at the end of the year, then
>the shopowner is not a crime victim?
No, that's what David James would say.
That and "don't bother the cops with it."
Didn't you know it's a rite of passage?
>I suppose that if I shoot you several times with a rifle, but
>don't kill you, then you aren't a victim of violence either.
>
> Are you willing to put your theory to the test?
>
> I will GLADLY come out to Livermore, California, and
>non-fatally shoot you several times with a rifle, so that you can
>demonstrate your true beliefs that one can be harmed by another
>party and yet NOT be a victim of that parties actions.
Even bwian bwoitano wouldn't touch this.
This looks like a job for
DOC MANETTE!!!
Executive Director of The American Criminals' Labor Union
White rage?
Provoked by a USENET flamewar?
No problem!
Just call the ACLU Man and he'll get ya off the hook.
Or your money back.
>> >> Communism is NOT a unified front.
>> >This does nothing to disprove the testimony of SEVERAL defectors
>> >who all say that the whole "collapse of the Soviet Union" is a
>> >charade to get the US to unilaterally disarm.
>>
>> I've never heard of any such thing. But then again, birch trees
>> are not my usual habitat.
>
>Once again, when I get uncomfortably close to the truth, Loren
>attempts to shut down the discussion with a slanderous non-sequitor.
And you've NEVER done that before eh?
Lay off the thungerbird kulky.
-- Steve
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,soc.singles,alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: LOREN PETRICH...CLOSET-DICTATOR
Date: 3 Aug 2000 00:52:43 GMT
On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 18:55:04 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>Loren Petrich wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>What's the difference between Microsoft's Extortion and Racketeering,
>and Government Extortion and Racketeering?
The government throw you in jail for tax fraud if you don't pay your
federal tax, but Microsoft can't do anything if you opt out of the
Microsoft tax ? Subtle difference.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept?
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 00:53:52 GMT
On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 20:05:23 -0300, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>>
>> On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 21:43:18 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >In article <8m9a77$4dp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows) wrote:
>> >> In article <8m6lmj$r17$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> >> Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> > The final result is that the functionality can not be moved away
>> >from
>> >> > the toolkit except by doing massive reingeneering of all current
>> >> > toolkits. Which will not happen.
>> >>
>> >> The closest you can (reasonably) get is to have a common protocol "on
>> >> the wire" so that different toolkits can talk to each other. This is
>> >> what Xdnd represents, and in doing so it is a great improvement on
>> >> what went before (speaking from experience!)
>> >
>> >Indeed, and Xdnd, and having toolkits that support it, is good
>> >because of that. Xdnd is "just" a nice specification.
>>
>> Not quite.
>>
>> The previous standard was Motif DnD.
>
>Please notice that I said "nice". Motif DnD is much more complex,
>and difficult to implement, than Xdnd. Not to mention that, IIRC,
>it was not publically documented until a few years ago.
>
>> [deletia]
>>
>> It just didn't catch on amongst the free-lunch crowd.
>
>Do you really want me to explain to you why Motif DND is not
>as good a specification as Xdnd? Will this make you close
>your piehole about DnD, considering you seem to know
>nothing about it? (Not that I'm an expert, though).
>
>At least apparently I finally killed your "move Xdnd
>into a separate library" crap.
Did you?
I just stopped paying attention to you because you're vacuous.
If you actually supported your position rather than indulging
in attempts to assail my right to comment on the matter, then
please provide the message id.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
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?
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 00:58:33 GMT
On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 18:30:31 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 21:27:26 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 15:19:40 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 19:09:19 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 13:53:57 -0500,
>>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 'support' is really an absurd feature when it comes to
>>>>>>>> consumer computing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>How so?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Companies that don't want to waste the time or the money on you.
>>>>>> TEch support people that are no more than people willing to read
>>>>>> the manuals and are just paid to answer the phone for calls from
>>>>>> people not willing ot read the manual. TEch support people that
>>>>>> aren't even that bright and just drone off of a script.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I never bother with the first tier of support drones for exactly
>>>>>> that reason. Niether do any of my colleagues in or out of MIS,
>>>>>> regardless of the service level involved.
>>>>>
>>>>>I know plenty of people who'd rather pay $.15 per minute to speak with
>>>>>someone rather than read the manuals.
>>>>
>>>>$.15 per minute??
>>>>
>>>>$.15 per minute == $9.00 per hour. Who works for that wage?? You must
>>>>be getting some pretty sharp tech's for $9.00 per hour...huh?? Hell,
>>>>telco charges are more than that in most cases. If you are getting
>>>>what you think is usefull tech support from someone who makes $9.00
>>>>per hour then you must be worth even less.
>>>
>>>The customer generally pays only the long distance fee; the
>>>Quicken/Microsoft/whoever pays the tech support person to answer the
>>>phone and support you with any problems.
>>>
>>>That was pretty obvious....
>>
>> No it wasn't.
>>
>> http://www.intuit.com/support/quicken/options/live_phone.html
>>
>> For general 'tutorial' class tech support you will be
>> paying $1.95 per minute actual human phone support.
>
>You left out just a -little- bit:
>
>Free stuff:
>
>Installation of Quicken 98, 99, and 2000 for Windows and Quicken 98
>and 2000 for Macintosh (we help you install the program onto your PC
>or Macintosh).
Not relevant. This issue would be rendered moot by preinstallation.
Plus, it's not the sort of thing that consitutes the sort of end
user tutoring you seem to be implying that Quicken would provide
for free.
>Data conversion from prior versions of Quicken to current versions of
>Quicken on the same platform (ex. Windows to Windows, DOS to Windows,
>or Macintosh to Macintosh).
Another install issue rather than, "phone based tutorial".
>Product defects that are known to Intuit.
>Autopatch downloads.
>Registration of Quicken.
>View and Pay Bills.
>Quicken Quotes server issues.
>
>Does GnuCash offer any of that? Does GnuCash offer even $1.95/minute
>tech support?
Perhaps, perhaps not.
However, the bulk of the gratis support for Microsoft and Intuit
remains web or irc based (strangely similar to Linux) and anything
beyond that will cost you.
>
>> For Microsoft, the terms of what does and doesn't constitute
>> 'warranty' support is a bit vague (certainly moreso than for
>> Quicken) with non-warranty support being $35 per incident.
>
>It's pretty obvious to me - if it's NT or Win2k or BackOffice or
>similar productline (ie a business product) it's $35 per incident. If
>not, it's free - you only pay toll charges. I've used MS help a time
>or two with Outlook 98 and with MS Word 97. Free.
No, it is not that obvious.
Whereas Intuit spells things out rather clearly.
Figuring out how to do your monthly accounts with Quicken would
NOT be covered by Intuit's policy whereas the scope of Microsoft's
policy for Money is vague.
Knowning Microsoft it is intentionally vague so that it can mean
whatever they want it to mean at the time.
>
>> IOW, Microsoft and Intuit don't want to have your lazy ass leeching
>> free training off of their unpaid support lines.
>
>IOW MS has willingly helped me a time or two without any charge, and I
>was impressed with their service.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
