Linux-Advocacy Digest #215, Volume #28 Thu, 3 Aug 00 18:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows? ("Nik Simpson")
Re: Linux as embedded OS (Andres Soolo)
Re: Aaron Kulkis -- USELESS Idiot -- And His "Enemies" -was- Another one of
Lenin's Useful Idiots denies reality (Matt Kennel)
Re: AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark ("Mike Byrns")
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark (Arthur Frain)
Re: one of Lenin's Useful Idiots denies reality (SemiScholar)
Re: Learn Unix on which Unix Flavour ? (Grant Edwards)
Re: Linux & FreeBSD - security questions ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Linux or Windows 2000 ???? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Linux, easy to use? (Tim Palmer)
Re: Linux can save you money on electricity! (Tim Palmer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 16:24:38 -0400
"Nathaniel Jay Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Nik Simpson wrote:
> >
> > "Nathaniel Jay Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > Irational fears, mixed with lies and FUD, make for stupid, pointless
> > > posts.
> >
> > But if we banned such posts from advocacy groups by both sides of the
> > argument, the traffic would fall by about 90-95% :-)
> >
> > --
> > Nik Simpson
>
> And that would be a bad thing?
These groups would be a lot less entertaining ;-)
--
Nik Simpson
------------------------------
From: Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux as embedded OS
Date: 3 Aug 2000 20:35:47 GMT
Tim Magnussen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But how do one define a self contained system?
> Say we base our system on an x86 device using:
> *) Linux compiled for this specific hardware
Special configuration doesn't count as modification under the GPL.
The code is public anyways.
If you need to create kernel patches, they would be required to be under GPL
but if you really don't want to, you can do them as modules. Linux kernel
modules are allowed to be proprietary, but that means they might need
re-porting and debugging in every few release of the kernel.
> *) Xfree86 & GTK+ (which is GPL and not LGPL as I understand it?) - unmodified
Xfree is under MIT license that's extremely unrestrictive and thusly
comparable to the BSD license. I don't recall Gtk+'s license at
the moment.
> *) Apache - unmodified
> *) PostgreSQL (more free than GPL)
> *) Our own proprietary software
Mere aggregation of software doesn't count as modification under GPL.
This is specifically mentioned in it.
If you're going to build a system on top of them that uses them, it'll
go a little bit hairier--the GPL modification clause applies whenever
you do link something to a GPLed library but if you have scripts
interacting with the engine, you should be safe. With Apache it's
easy--the only exception would be new modules I guess. PostgreSQL
seems to be under a very unristrictive license, so the problem won't
even arise.
> The proprietary software that we write will link to these packages but will
> not require modifications hereof.
The line has traditionally drawn between the binary linking and non-binary
linking: if you link to binary object code, it's modification and
if you use, for example, Perl's pre-compiled SQL access modules, it's
the modules that do the modification (and are under GPL therefore) but
the script that uses them is not required to. You're also allowed
to pipe a GPLed program from a proprietary one and vice versa.
> We could contribute to Linux financially or with code, but parts of our code
> is absolutely vital to the organization and cannot be released. This leaves us
> stranded...
Which parts?
For example, a web application could reasonably be considered a separate,
self-contained product.
--
Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I had a lease on an OEDIPUS COMPLEX back in '81 ...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matt Kennel)
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.liberalism,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Aaron Kulkis -- USELESS Idiot -- And His "Enemies" -was- Another one
of Lenin's Useful Idiots denies reality
Date: 3 Aug 2000 21:02:13 GMT
Reply-To: mbkennel@<REMOVE THE BAD DOMAIN>yahoo.spam-B-gone.com
On Thu, 03 Aug 2000 03:03:37 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:The Supreme Court is just a collection of people, some of whom
:care not the slightest for what the Constitution means, in
:preference for how they can distort the words to their own
:statist ideals.
:
:If the Supreme Court rules that "The pursuit of happiness" justifies
:rape, would that make it so?
:
:Obviously not.
:
:Thus, it is evident that the SC is not the ultimate bearer of truth,
:but merely yet another political body, which can hand down any
:sort of nonsense which they so choose.
The Constitutional Convention was another political body which handed
down some sort of nonsense that they chose.
--
* Matthew B. Kennel/Institute for Nonlinear Science, UCSD
*
* "To chill, or to pop a cap in my dome, whoomp! there it is."
* Hamlet, Fresh Prince of Denmark.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.rush-limbough,soc.singles
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 20:58:45 GMT
>>>>> Donovan Rebbechi writes:
Donovan> On Thu, 03 Aug 2000 10:35:29 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> For example, if you are a retiree who wants INCOME, then you want
>> dividends.
Donovan> Care to name some dividend stocks that you believe are good enough ? I'm
Donovan> not an expert on dividend stocks ( admittedly having little interest in
Donovan> them ) but from what I've seen, it seems that the annual return of a
dividend
Donovan> stock is fairly poor unless the company is undergoing earnings growth
Donovan> ( with dividend stocks, such growth is small or nonexistent ) The dividend
Donovan> stocks don't offer true security and they don't perform that well on
average.
>> Thus, there are investors for whom it makes sense to want dividends,
>> and there are companies for which it makes sense to pay dividends
>> rather than plowing profits into capital purchases.
Donovan> I can see why it makes sense for the companies, but not for the investors
Donovan> ( unless the dividend is very good ). Again, usually, dividend stocks
Donovan> have a very poor return unless the company grows.
It never makes real sense, it is extraordinarily tax inefficient.
--
Andrew Hall
(Now reading Usenet in talk.politics.misc...)
------------------------------
From: "Mike Byrns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 16:04:40 -0500
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Windows droids don't understand how easy it is to munge headers.
>
> [snip]
>
> > > X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en]C-CCK-MCD {TLC;RETAIL} (Win98; U)
>
> Then why not munge it to something else?
I've got one you can't resist Aaron! How about:
X-Mailer: Drestin and Mike's Crack-smokin' Mailer v0.0 SM-OKE-CRA-CK
{noTLCforYou;GPL} (somenix; U too buddy :-)
------------------------------
From: Arthur Frain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 13:31:21 -0700
Stuart Fox wrote:
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Do you mind posting the sed script?
That isn't even necessary - all he'd have
to do to prove it is put some arbitrary
phrase in X-Mailer field, like his name.
Arthur
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SemiScholar)
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.liberalism,soc.singles
Subject: Re: one of Lenin's Useful Idiots denies reality
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 21:24:05 GMT
On Thu, 03 Aug 2000 18:31:54 GMT, "Marcus Turner"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"SemiScholar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Thu, 03 Aug 2000 12:57:00 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> >... Can you name one software product which Microsoft has developed
>> >successfully by themselves?
>
>Nope.
>Can You name a PC application in the last ten years that isn't based on
>prior art?
10 years? Hell, probably longer than that. But then, there was one I
wrote called SPAN-N - it was a networked program for sending
alphanumeric wireless pager messages from the desktop (win 3.1). It
used Foxpro files and Borland's OWL, so I suppose that was "prior
art", but was mostly 100% new stuff. If you're talking about small
custom applications like that, there are probably a lot, but most
people would never hear about them.
>
>
>> Are you asking me? If you think I'm a Microsoft fan, you couldn't be
>> more wrong, but I'll take a stab at it.
>>
>> Lessee... there was "Bob". Hmmm... welll, nevermind that one...
>>
>> Excel. They stole the idea of a spreadsheet, but they did write the
>> product. Same with Windows. And NT (although they hired the DEC VMS
>> guy to do it, but I suppose that counts).
>>
>> Ummm... well, they did _write_ a lot of things (as opposed to
>> purchasing them outright like SourceSafe or Visio), but I don't think
>> I can point to anything they can actually claim to have _innovated_.
>> Which is why it's always so comical to hear Bill Gates and Steve
>> Ballmer use the word "innovate". Especially Ballmer, who wouldn't
>> know innovation if it bit him. All MS ever does is see somebody
>> else's clever idea and mimic it. And by about the third iteration, it
>> becomes usable. "Microsoft: Where Quality Is Job 3.1"
>
>
>Aside from the Bob jokes, Microsoft's claim to fame is the tight and
>pervasive level of integration that it has in the OS to the apps. That is
>why it became so popular.
It was "popular" before that. That coupling has really come mostly
since Windows - and Win95 in particular. It first became popular
because IBM used MSDOS. After that it has been because of MS's
onerous contracts and unethical business practices, along with
aggressive courting of developers.
>
>
>
>
>
>> But I'm still waiting to hear about that pre-1980 Unix windowing
>> system. (and emacs doesn't count).
>
>So am I.
>
>
- SemiScholar
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Grant Edwards)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,alt.solaris.x86,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Learn Unix on which Unix Flavour ?
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 21:22:03 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Lew Pitcher wrote:
>Ed Reppert wrote:
>>
>> In article <8m36fh$dtt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Alan Coopersmith
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > Officially, any OS that gets certified as meeting the standards set
>> > forth by the Open Group can be called "UNIX(TM)" - currently that list
>> > includes Solaris, AIX, Tru64 (aka Digital UNIX), IRIX, UnixWare, HP-UX,
>> > and even IBM OS/390.
>>
>> OS/390 is Unix?! When did that happen?
>
>IIRC, 1998 or so. It happened when the MVS Unix System Services (USS)
>subsystem passed the X/Open conformancy tests. IBM made a big thing of
>it at the time; it officially permitted US Govt. purchasers to
>purchase MVS under the Posix-compliancy rules.
Posix-compliance and the right to use the Unix(tm) are two
different things, aren't they?
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! Life is a POPULARITY
at CONTEST! I'm REFRESHINGLY
visi.com CANDID!!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux & FreeBSD - security questions
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 21:24:35 GMT
Ok, all of the other posts here have been very good and well though
out. I'll try not to repeat too much. I'll also try to be as
openminded as possible, so do the same when reading it.
Agreed that FreeBSD development is not closed at all. None of
the *BSD's are. In fact if you have usefull code to contribute it is
quite easy to get it in to the project. (*BSD's are known as projects
and this is akin to distributions in the Linux world. *BSD stand for
any of the free Unix like OS's derived from the Berkely code) It is
easy that is , if the code is good and it was sent to the right place.
There are lots of things that non-committers contribute, porting
applications or tools is common, as is adding fixes to driver code or
patches to fix minor bugs in existing things.
That said the others have hit on another important thing. That
the Linux distro are organized a little different than the *BSD
projects. The Linux distros that are put out by corporations arguably
are done by people that do little or none of the coding that really
makes up the the distro. So they _may_ not understand things as well
as maybe they should. Then there's Debian which is a true free distro
project, which may have some advantages, including that the people
making the decisions of what goes in and such may have better knowledge
of the code. My knoledge of the other distros is sketchy Still, all
Linux distros take the kernel and add to it an assortment of different
tools.
With *BSD's they do have a little more cohesive control over
the whole project. The developers and those that put the project into
releases are the same people that hack the code. They really
understand what's going on and what implications the decisions they
make have on the code and it's stability, etc. This is potentially a
big difference.
Linux and Freebsd are both growing at a fantastic rate (in
lines of code and functionality). Linux perhaps faster? I've never 7
seen any data on that. This awesome pace of development is nearly
guaranteed to introduce new security holes. Security holes result from
bugs that turn out to be exploitable to gain certain priviledges, root
being the most sought after. Bugs are a reality in any software
project. And when development goes at that rate there are likely to
be too many to fix adaquately to make a highly secure release.
Especially when you take into account my earlier point that the people
putting out the linux distro's aren't always the most knowledgeable
ones. The *BSD projects tend to be a little more cautious than the
Linux distro's, but still fall prey to some of the same problems.
Whether FreeBSD is more stable than Gnu/Linux is hard to say.
But Gnu/Linux's slightly fractured development (some code written in
the kernel group, some more by the FSF (GNU), more by random
contributors, rest by those who put out the distributions) has the
potential for causing problems in the future if not addressed. The
*BSD code is little more mature, remember the Linux kernel did just
start recently (compared to the BSD kernel which Berkley has been
working on since the early 80's at least). But the maturity argument
taken alone does nothing to say FreeBSD is more stable. Windows has
been around longer than linux too, enough said.
For security the opensource model can work great in that your
code is out for all to see so it is possible that there are many more
eyeballs out looking at it, auditing it and sending in fixes. That is
one of the beauties of opensource. ***But what it does not do is
guarantee that any piece of code gets _enough_ auditing to make it
secure.*** This can't be emphasized enough. A lot of code has been
sitting around for a long time with buffer overflow bugs in them, that
have just been noticed. All it takes is one security vulnerability for
a cracker to get in. Being powerful and flexible, which both Linux and
the *BSD's are is not enough to make them secure. Try putting a
defualt install of any Linux distro or FreeBSD or NetBSD on the net
with a fast connection and you'll probably be rooted within days if not
hours.
So what's necessary is a comprehensive audit of the code for
security related bugs. The only project that has done this, that has
control over the project and is fully opensource is OpenBSD. There are
certain other projects that are working on trusted systems and such
(yes I know that is a little bit different ballgame) and auditing the
linux kernel, but they are either not fully opensource or are not the
people that are responsible for putting the whole system out.
So is OpenBSD perfect and the most secure OS ever? maybe,
maybe not. Security is such a big topic that it is hard (impossible?)
to develop metrics that can fully measure it. So you can't say OpenBSD
is best. OpenBSD isn't perfect for all tasks especially. They've chosen
to restrict what goes into the releases to that which has been audited
for security, and have a secure default install. Therefore a lot of
things Linux and FreeBSD people are used to are not there. So it's
probably not the desktop os you may be looking for, and is not
particulary suited to doing some of the things we want. But if
security is what you want, it's hard to deny the value of the
comprehensive audit that the OpenBSD people have done.
So my point is that no one thing is perfect for everything.
What I think drew us all to Linux and opensource in the 1st place ws
the power of choice. You mean I can run a powerful, flexible, fast
operating system for free, and you give me the code so I can change
what ever I want? How amazing that we have that opportunity. But
unfortunately, many opensource advocates, in their zeal to promote a 7
good thing resort to amiga-type advocacy. Remember them? The ones who
whenever computers came up told you how much better, faster, (insert
more superlatives here) their Amiga was and refused to listen to
anything you had to say about any other computer? I loved amigas, too
and wished they became more popular, point is that fanaticism, does
much more to harm the cause than anything M$ could hope to cook up.
Don't you reallize that the best thing M$ could do to hurt Linux's
reputation would be to go secretly into M$ newsgroups and spout off
endlessly about how incredible linux is?
This overenthusiasm is the kind of thing that fosters so many
flamers to put out crap about how much linux sucks etc. And is
precisely why poeple are led to think Linux is just a lot of hype.
And I hope I have not ended up doing any of it in my above comments.
Much better would be to present it as a choice. Do you want
an operating system you pay a lot for, crashes all the time, invades
your privacy and gives you no control over it, but runs all the
applications you can buy at Walmart, or one that is powerfull,stable,
flexible,free, but runs less applications, and is a little harder to
use (so far :)? Some would choose the former and you have to
understand that that is ok for them. But if Linux/*BSD were presented
as this choice instead of blind overexuberant hype that some but of
course not all Linux advocates put out, we'd all be farther ahead.
Maybe this last part should've been put in a separate post.
It's a little off topic to the post I'm following up to, but should get
read. Sorry this was so long. You who read all the way to the end
will be rewarded. :)
Tim
The lack of interesting .sig shall not be taken as implying the lack of
an interesting person behind it. Such an implication, if made, shall be
punisheable under Federal Statute 24a.3b
Des Dougan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I know little about FreeBSD, other than its background and that it is
> a closed development rather than the open environment Linux flourishes
> in. That said, I am working with a client who has been led to believe
> that FreeBSD is more secure (as a web hosting platform) than is Linux.
> Can someone point me at resources which explain the operational
> differences so that I can understand whether this is indeed the case?
> Expert comment is also welcomed.
The other's pointed to good resources. The Free,Net and OpenBSD
homepages are very informative.
> Many thanks,
> --
> Des Dougan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Linux or Windows 2000 ????
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 21:23:56 GMT
I have heard a lot of things about Linux.
I'm running happily W2K and now I'd like to know a valid
reason for switching from Windows 2000 to Linux? Why?
What advantage does the person gain running Linux?
Can some of you qeniuses tell me ???
Because Linux is a stable ?? Yes, I believe that, but so is W2K.
It costs less, yes it's true. But I'm only buying W2K once, and am all
set for at least 5 years if not more.
Besided, time is money. I will lose more money by screwing around
with a new system that I don't even know and that may not even support
the hardware that Windwows does.
What software am I going to run on it ??? All the world class software
is written for Windows. Hardly anything is ported to Linux.
I'm a Windows developer, why should I spend 2 years of my life learning
how to program a new ssytem, that may eventually die anyway ???
I can create a great application using Visual Basic or Visual C++ in a
matter of few days. I'm not sure if that's posible in Linux. I haven't
heard about any Visual development envir. for Linux ...
The only way they (companies) can defeat Microsoft is with the help of
mom - Government. That's the only way they can do it, they can't
succeed on the merit alone. Sun Microsystems goes even so far as to get
involved European Union. Now that's real abuse of government power.
Here is the clear indication who is THE LOSER.
I can't wait to see your replies
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: 3 Aug 2000 21:44:21 GMT
On Thu, 03 Aug 2000 13:47:47 -0400, Seán Ó Donnchadha wrote:
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>No, you just refused to see it. Two *products* cannot be tied together
>>in order to restrain trade (kill off the competition). You have to beat
>>them *competitively*, not by market manipulation.
>
>But that's exactly what IE did.
Not really. If they hadn't muscled Netscape out by bundling, Netscape wouldn't
have gone out of business.
>by two simultaneous developments (a) it was integrated with the
>Windows shell, and (b) it won all the reviews. How do we know to which
>development we should attribute its sudden rise in popularity?
Perhaps the fact that the rise in popularity really was "sudden" ? I mean,
it's not like everyone just suddenly downloaded IE.
>Yeah, right. Try taking the standard shell out of any of the Linux
>distributions without changing anything else (config files, etc.). See
>if you have a usable system after that.
Sure you can. Replace bash with any bourne compatible shell. Scripts tend
to be written for the bourne shell ( which has a bunch of compatible
implementations ).
Whether you realise it or not, you just squashed your own argument. UNIX
shells are an example of a product that can be provided by any vendor
( and not necessarily the OS vendor either ).
>That's ridiculous. If their intent was to prevent competition, then
>why did they bother making IE *BETTER* than Navigator, to the tune of
>nearly unanimous praise?
Why did Ben Johnson run as fast as he could, even though he cheated ?
> I'm not ignoring the emails at all. I'm simply questioning the
>soundness of using a few emails out of tens of thousands during a
>period measured in years to determine the intent of an entire
>corporation.
I'd be surprised if the evidence did not include several email messages.
> I'm saying that although the emails seem damning, a
>totally different picture of intent emerges when you consider the
>*OTHER* facts in this case - something that you and the judge refuse
>to do for some reason.
The judge, unlike you, has viewed and considered all of the facts of the
case. To pretend that you are better informed than the judge is foolish
and arrogant. You may well disagree with the judge, as may Microsoft's
lawyers who are also well informed. But it's not as if the judge didn't
"consider" facts of the case -- or if it is, then Microsoft's defence
are incompetent, which isn't really the judge's fault.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
Date: 3 Aug 2000 17:59:34 -0500
Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Tim Palmer wrote:
>>
>> Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I alreaddy told you its a DOS box on LIE-nux.
>> >
>> >You can't spell "already," and xterm doesn't have a command line.
>> >It requires a shell for that.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >C/
>>
>> What happen's when you open an xterm? A DOS box pops up, compleat with a COMMAND
>prompt.
>
>Enough!
>
>It is not a DOS box.
Whattever.
>A shell on Unix is not a DOS prompt.
So it has a differrent name and the back slashes are backword. Big deal.
>I know that
>no matter how many times it is said, Windows users are not going to
>believe that a Unix shell is not a DOS prompt and they aren't equivalent
>in any way other than both being command lines (and that does not mean
>they are equal). But the two are not equal.
>
>An xterm does not give you a DOS box. It gives you a shell in which to
>enter commands, but it isn't a DOS box. Please, try to understand that.
You run UNIX text commands in them, just like you runs DOS command's in a DOS box.
They're the same thing.
>
>Of course, you have yet to figure out how to spell, so I don't really
>expect you to understand this either.
>--
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux can save you money on electricity!
Date: 3 Aug 2000 17:59:44 -0500
Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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?
How can the cashere due that if all he due is sit arround edditing UNIX config fial's?
>
>>>> 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.
The sysadminns are suppost to do that.
>
>>>> 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?
They don't tipe UNIX commands.
>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
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
