Linux-Advocacy Digest #549, Volume #28 Mon, 21 Aug 00 22:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Open source won't protect you - how licensing is being perverted to strip you
of your own rights (Jim Broughton)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (Donovan Rebbechi)
The Powerful Linux GUI Interfaces - Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept?
(R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Linus says Mindcraft was accurate (Tim Hanson)
Re: Linus says Mindcraft was accurate (Tim Hanson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim Broughton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Open source won't protect you - how licensing is being perverted to
strip you of your own rights
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 21:50:51 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thermodynamic wrote:
>
> Did you know that Microsoft, Corel, and others are trying to make it so that
> any document or spreadsheet or whatever that you make on their production
> software automatically becomes THEIR copyright? We buy the LICENSE to use
> THEIR software and the legal issues which are thrown into the faces of
> anybody installing the software make that clear. We use their tools. Oh, I
> write a paragraph commentary and send to ZD NET or BIRD TALK MAGAZINE for
> their magazine or online commentary - it automatically becomes their
> property according to their legal notice -- this news is no surprise to me
> and if I cared about making or losing money from my viewpoint I'd never post
> anywhere. Sad, but true and it's an outrage against consumers. Yes, that's
> Corel which also visibly supports Linux and you can now understand why.
> Applications will end up being infinitely more lucrative than just the
> operating system and Corel is making sure you pay for it.
Can you coroborate this? If what your say has even one grain of truth to
all it will take is 1 lawsuite and that will end. Copyright laws are very
susinct if you write its your copyright. Its like saying smith-corona claims
your work because you used their typewriter to do it.
--
Jim Broughton
(The Amiga OS! Now there was an OS)
If Sense were common everyone would have it!
Following Air and Water the third most abundant
thing on the planet is Human Stupidity.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: 22 Aug 2000 01:58:04 GMT
On Sun, 20 Aug 2000 05:02:36 GMT, Mike Byrns wrote:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8nk811$v1c$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> > Nonsense. If you feel a need to throw an ad hominem at me,
>> > I'm game, but be specific, or go fuck yourself.
>>
>> Thank you, you have proven my point for me in this issue.
>
>Actually, he's proven his own point. You need to be more specific.
>
>Aren't you two nix people? Looks like the dissention in the ranks like
>we've always heard doesn't happen.
Your statement assumes that both of them are "in the ranks". A dubious
conjecture at best. ( IMO, one of them is "in the ranks", and I'll leave
it to the intelligent reader to work out who )
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: The Powerful Linux GUI Interfaces - Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept?
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 01:52:51 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"1$Worth" <"1$Worth"@costreduction.plseremove.screaming.net> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> So why is "Ease Of Use" a dirty concept?
>
> Like it or not, many posters to this very NG
> and some vocal sections of
> the GNU-Linux community see "ease of use" as
> synonymous to a Microsoft OS design.
There may be some die-hards, but most do care about ease of use.
The bigger issue is different concepts of ease of use. Microsoft
is excellent at ease of use in terms of making it very easy for
someone who has no experience with computers - to learn Windows
fairly quickly. Much of this is still a function of having so
many people familiar with the product easily available, the
availability, of video tapes and Computer Aided Instruction.
> One recent example:
> "The real key to getting rid of Microsoft is not a GUI,
Actually, Linux has a number of GUIs, which, when the user is given
the choice of the "Redmond95" (windows-like) and others such as
KDE, Enlightenment, or even FVWM2 with AfterStep, indicates that
those interested in Linux are least interested in Redmond95 (the
look and feel of Microsoft).
The fact is that people who use computers regularly have little
problem making the transition to the other Linux interfaces. They
are often surprised to find that the middle button on a 3-button
mouse (or both buttons down at the same time) provides even more
special treats and commands.
> not some ease of use BS [but to address the M$ rebooting idiom]"
> For Linux to be propelled onto the desktop I'd urge
> posters to drop this assumption for the good of the community.
I would agree. I'd also suggest that any Windows adovocate who
claimes that Linux lacks "ease of use" is speaking from a position
of total ignorance. The fact is that many of the interfaces available
for Linux have been adapted from, and often enhanced by, some of the
best GUI designers in the industry, including members of PARC, members
of NeXT, members of OpenLook, members of GNOME, and members of the
KDE projects. In addition, there will be new interfaces coming out
from the designers of the Apple Mac and iMac interfaces. Furthermore,
Linux offers ways to get most of the best features of all of these
different environments. To say that the GUI designers in Redmond
are the only ones qualified to produce an easy-to-use interface
is just silly.
The best part of all these interfaces is that they are completely
interchangable. I can launch KDE applications from Enlightenment,
I can launche GNOME applications from KDE, and I can launch Athena
applications from Afterstep, and you can easily use any of the above
combinations interchangably. This is because the ICCCM formalized
the standards of communicating between windows clients. This makes
the alteration or substitution of desktops and window managers
transparent to both the user and the application.
If you look closely, most of the WinTroll attacks have been based
on the difficulty of installation. This is where the single
installation with two sets of dialogues (one at the very beginning
and one after all of the software is installed) with no reboots,
gives Linux an advantage over equivalent installations of Microsoft
Windows and Multiple Applications that involve numerous reboots and
manual configuration using an exclusively interactive GUI panel.
A GUI is a great thing when you are doing something only once, and you
need feedback at every step, but when you want to do the same thing
many times, or you want to schedule the interactive dialogues such
that you only need to have one set of dialogues and complete that
phase at a later time, Linux used the approach of creating GUIs
that create scripts. This gives the advantages of a GUI, with the
stability and reproducability of scripts. This makes it easy
to configure one machine - using GUIs, then copy the control files
and essentially say "just like that, but change my IP address and
hostname".
> IMHO:
>
> "Ease of use" to me means that you can get things done faster and
> better.
On this I would give you unqualified agreement.
> It means "power" to the user that otherwise would not possess
> the knowledge to extract that power.
Were moving into murky waters here. Often, users shouldn't have
too much power if they lack knowledge. If they start routing a
10.*.*.* address out through your T1, that's a problem. If they
decide to make up an IP address because they don't realize that
each address must be assigned, or worse, they get the IP address of
the mainframe, thinking that should be the IP address they are supposed
to use, you can end up with very unhappy system administrators.
> "Ease of use" means that Linux can be accessible to people whom
> otherwise would be locked into closed source for-profits-only
> solutions.
Agreed. I'm still not sure that every one will want Linux. There
are those who want "Freeze-dried-instant-microvable success, with
a lawsuit guarantee", and think they will get it with Microsoft.
Even though the track record over a 5 year period indicates just
the opposite.
> It also means that the MARKET will take Linux as seriously
> as it does with a Microsoft or an Apple.
The industry is starting to take Linux VERY seriously. When you
have IBM, DELL, HP, Compaq, Sun, Gateway, and Sony, Toshiba, Sega,
and Nintendo all considering Linux to be a strategic product,
it's foolish not to pay attention.
When you see an industry that triples every 9-12 months, and has
already sold nearly 6 million units in the previous year, you pay
attention. There's a good chance that the number will be 18 million
this year and 54 million next year. That gets noticed quickly.
When you have an industry in which freely distributable software
has created and fueled growth which indicates that roughly 3
installations are made for every copy sold and shipped commercially,
and apply that to the numbers above, you suddenly realize that
you could have 150 million people using Linux within 24-36 MONTHS.
Thank GOODNESS you don't have to completely retool everything.
> It means that even more device makers will
> positively want their hardware to work to
> its fully optimised potential under Linux.
I think this is already happening. Furthermore, Linux is
creating demand for after-market products such as realmodems,
Linux compatible video and sound cards, and even Linux compatible
USB peripherals.
> It means that software producers MUST consider their
> software portability as the market share justifies investment.
Fortunately, the Linux/UNIX community has been trying to make
this easier instead of harder. Most of the tools used in Linux,
such as PERL, Python, Java, and even GCC/EGC are now available
for Windows as well.
Meanwhile, Microsoft, attempting to continue to hold a captive market
at bay, has been trying to convince ISVs to use even more proprietary
APIs and to become even more dependent on Microsoft.
> It means the GNU-Linux gets better. Better is good for us all.
GNU-Linux is getting better. One of Microsoft's biggest problems
is that Linux is such a moving target. By the time Windows 2000
came out, Linux had already eliminated most of the performance
bottlenecks in the Linux 2.2.11 kernel. The 2.4 kernel is due
out in a few weeks and has been delivering performance numbers
that are staggering. And 64 bit Linux is already a reality for
SPArC, Alpha, and PPC, and just awaiting Silicon from AMD and INTEL.
In fact, the 64 bit market could heat up very quickly if Linux
starts creating markets for Non-Intel platforms such as Transmeta,
ARM, and MIPs chips. Low-cost 64 bit chips could have a huge impact
on the "WinTel" monopoly.
But Linux keeps evolving in the GUI and Ease of Use arena too.
KDE is now offering features that aren't even available on Windows,
and GNOME has created software that implements technology that is
still on Microsoft's "drawing board". Microsoft talks about things
like Application servers while Linux provides the ability to run
nearly any application from either workstation or server.
Furthermore, KDE and GNOME have shown that the CORBA model can be
very powerful in it's own right. Not only has this enabled the
development of remotely accessible applications, but it has also
enabled single applications to benefit from the power of large
clusters of servers.
> Surely the intelligence of any system, whether it is a fly-by-wire
> aircraft control system, a video camcorder or a computer system is in
> HIDING the complexity of the tasks that they perform? And surely the
> beauty of Linux is to EXPOSE complexities to those of us who enjoy
> them?
This is true. Even in a device as complex as an automobile, there
are thousands of complex parts engaging in millions of complex
interactions per second. To the user, he still experiences the
same driving controls he had on his dad's 53 Chevy. But to the
mechanic, everything has changed radically under the hood. The
"tune-up" is done every 2 rotations of the engine, by a computer
that needs to be reprogrammed based on the engine wear. The
carburetor has been replaced by a fuel injector which supplies
microscopic amounts of fuel to each cylinder in a place and at a
time that will assure the maximum vaporization and the most effecient
burn. The two valves per head have been replaced by 4, and the
camshafts have also increased from 1 to as many as 4.
On some cars, you can't even change the spark plugs without completely
removing the engine. On others, you can replace even the timing
belts with almost no special tools.
The result, to that user, who still thinks he's driving the same
kind of car that is grandfather drove, is an automobile that gets
5 times more distance per gallon of gas, emits 3 times less air
pollution, and runs over 120,000 miles without a significant repair
bill. Unlike Grampa's Chevy, today's driver is very unlikely to
need more than oil changes, tire changes, brake linings, and some
occaisional check-ups and inspections.
> I propose that they are not mutually exclusive.
I would agree. Just as the driver's view of an automobile is very
different from the Mechanic's view, the Linux user's point of view
can and should be very different from the administrators view, which
should be very different from the Installer/OEM's view.
In the Air Force, they hire PhDs to design planes flown by College
Graduates, that can be fixed by High School drop-outs (if neccessary)
and still leave the country with a functional fleet of planes.
> If you look at the wonderful projects that
> are around such as Gnome and
> Eazel, and then you look at the first
> stages of graphical configuration
> utilities and the installer programs
> of the latest Linux distributions
> then this indicates that ease of use
> is actually what people want.
Much as that 2000 Lexus was very different from Grandpa's chevy,
the 2000 Linux is very different from even the earliest Macs and
Windows.
The Linux community understood that much of what existed in the
UNIX engine was the result of some of the most intense engineering
effort in the world. UNIX has been supported, enhanced, and
evolved in all 7 continents, over 400 countries, and by over
170,000 engineers, before Linus ever released his first 10,000
line version of Linux (on display on the Red Hat annual report).
Since then, Linux has become the point of convergence for this
engineering effort.
Linux isn't just an OS kernel. If it were, it would probably
have been userped by freeBSD back in 1994. Linux has become
synonymous with one of the most full-featured, robust, and
extensive collections of intellectual property ever produced.
Beneficiaries reaped the benefits of prior development efforts,
and contributed in their own way as their way of returning the
generousity. For some, this meant coding, writing new software
such as KDE, GNOME, or AfterStep. For others, this meant
documentation such as participation on the Man, Howto, and other
LDP projects. For others, this meant participating as advocates.
For others, it meant 1 to 1 promotion such as Linux "install parties".
Many of the "WinTrolls" have never quite experienced the better side
of the Linux community. In some cases, they tried to install a copy
of Linux that they downloaded from an FTP site (often using different
dates of releases), and then attempted to install the software with
access to minimal documentation. Furthermore, they used randomly
chosen equipment, often without regard to Linux compatibility.
The result was quite predictable. It would be like inviting a
16 year old kid to a junk yard and telling him to "build yourself
a car". To help him out you give him a couple of box end wrenches
and a couple of screwdrivers.
> Indeed is is what some people *need* in order to use Linux.
Absolutely. And much of what is needed to provide this for that
type of user is a community large enough and committed enough to
achieve the kind of "critical mass" that reduces the number of
incidents of first-time would-be Linux newbies simply attempting
to "download off the web and do-it-yourself".
It can be done. But I recall some of the frustrating experiences
of my own that could easily have deterred a neophyte Linux user.
Much of this is getting easier. The OEMs are now offering Linux
integrated into the PC/Console. Many Linux server makers are
making it possible to configure using a simple web browser interface
(Linux or Windows, take your pick). The "fine tuning" can be done
with LinuxConf, DrakeConf, YAST, or similar GUI based configuration
tool. In many cases, the tool is even easier to use than the Windows
Control panel (since the tabs are sequenced in the order of the
dependencies).
> Microsoft clearly stole their ideas
> from Apple and Apple clearly stole
> their ideas from Xerox Parc and Xerox PARC
> created their ideas from some
> of the finest scientists of the time.
And most of the Xerox PARC scientists including a number
of affiliates in Rochester/Webster NY were actively involved
in the X11 project as well. The "virtual Window" desktops
were a Xerox invention which was given to Athena/X11 but
excluded from Microsoft and Mac. (Microsoft has something similar,
but not quite the same).
Many of the developers on NeXT contributed to AfterStep. Many of
the concepts and even people on CDE were integrated into KDE.
> It is not a dirty word, but a goal
> to achieve. It is not Microsoft or Apple,
> it is just good computing.
Agreed. What I find somewhat tedious is your insistance that
Linux is so completely lacking in this domain that it couldn't
possibly be as good as ANY version of Windows or Mac.
Linux lets you go both ways. You can use the GUI to create/edit
the text files, or you can initialize the text files using programmatic
tools and modify them with the GUI later.
> Linux has served me very well as a
> reliable server and a programming
> platform, but as a desktop platform
> it just does not measure up to its
> peers in terms of ease of use.
I have to ask. Which platform were you using?!?
I find that the biggest challenge in making the transition
from Windows to Linux is remembering not to double-click
(so that I don't kick off two instead of one), and that
I can do something else while I'm waiting for the X-Window
to expose itself. I don't have time to compose a memo, but
I often have time to scroll through the rest of a web page,
add another paragraph to a text editor, or even read another
page of documentation while I'm waiting for the launched window
to expose itself - ready to run. While it isn't as "entertaining"
as watching all those half loaded, half-blank semifunctional,
always disruptive pop-ups and "baby windows" try and grow into
something marginally functional (while frantically trying to
sneak a peak at documentation between "pop-ups").
Linux is a new paradigm. Once you get used to it, you learn to
love it.
The other frustration I've had is when Linux programs try to act
like Windows programs. The most frustrating is Netscape Navigator
4.5, which seems to gobble memory like a Microsoft Office application.
I've learned some work-arounds (like popping up the simple text editor
when composing a deja-news reply). This seems to be a memory leak,
and it seems that Netscape has no particular commitment to fixing it
in the 4.x releases. I'm planning on trying 6.0 ASAP.
> That's not bad! It just means that Linux is young.
Young and Old. Linux uses the older paradigm of smaller, modular
components which can be used, combined, and interchanged using simple
tools and scripts rather than the newer paradigm of componants bound
together at compile/link time and then set in concrete as "the
application".
> In summary it would just be refreshing
> when people would not attack
> others who are not comfortable
> with the way things work in Linux.
But one needs to be more specific than "Linux has an awkward
intereface". I drive a 5-speed transmission. Each time I get
behind the wheel it takes me about three jerky stops to realize
that there is no clutch, that my right foot is trying to slam
the brakes, and that I need to put my left leg as far away from the
pedals as possible. Then I can relax - until I get back to my
5 speed and the engine dies because I forgot to hit the clutch
when coming to a stop.
Linux has a GUI interface. It's a very DIFFERENT GUI interface,
and much like it's predecessors, Small-talk, Lisa, Mac, Windows 3.1,
and Windows 95, has some quirks that take some getting used to
(I remember the difficulty of teaching Mac users to double-click).
I'd love to see an intelligent discussion on what works and what
doesn't about the Linux/UNIX/X11/KDE-GNOME interface as it exists
on a "Desktop Release" such as Mandrake (6.5, 7.0, or 7.1) or SuSE
(6.2-6,4). If you want to tell me how bad the Red Hat interface
for 4.0 is/was I'd have to disqualify it as a discussion.
Keep in mind that up until July of 1998, the goal of Linux GUIs was
only to make the system easy to administer as a server. It wasn't
until July of 1998 that "taking the desktop" was officially recognized
as a goal. Even at the Raleigh NC Linux expo in late 1998, I was
amused when a workshop on GUI interfaces turned into a discussion
of "Star Wars" and "The Matrix".
However, it's two years later, and my how things have changed.
Those who took up the Gauntlet have definitely delivered some
extraordinary work. Mandrake, which starts with a basic Red Hat
release and packs it with hundreds of new GUI-based applications
which can be launched without going to the shell console, gives
a sense of how much can be done with Linux in such a short time.
Very few of these applications even existed three years ago.
Even old favorites like Lyx have received KDE facelifts.
Even old EMACS looks more like "Word on Steroids".
Linux now supports 15 HTML browsers, plus a few XML browsers. It
also supports 4 office suite equivalents, and the commercial versions
all support import/export to Microsoft compatible formats.
Meanwhile, we're also seeing tools like Cygnus, which let developers
compile Windows versions of the more popular Linux utilities.
> There is already too much FUD in the world.
Very true. Perhaps the worst form of this is claiming that Linux
has no GUI interface. Or claiming that Linux is inferiour because
users can/do go to the text interface. Although I've successfully
configured servers, workstations, and even applications without
resorting to the CLI, I've also found myself in situations which
would have required editing the registry (or reloading the box)
on Windows that were trivially corrected using the CLI on Linux.
> Comments please?
Nicely woven into your very intelligent proposal.
--
Rex Ballard - I/T Architect, MIS Director
Linux Advocate, Internet Pioneer
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 42 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 5%/month! (recalibrated 8/2/00)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linus says Mindcraft was accurate
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 02:01:14 GMT
Robert Moir wrote:
>
> "Tim Hanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Robert Moir wrote:
> > >
> > > "Tim Hanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >
> > In the end it hurt Microsoft when it hit the mainstream IT media,
> > exposing the company as nothing more than Gates psychosis carried out on
> > a multi-billion dollar scale. Now the world is on to him.
>
> Isn't it time to talk about black helicopters now?
I'm not talking about conspiracies; you're talking about conspiracies.
I just read the emails published in open court. Why are you afraid of
black helicopters? Something we don't know about?
--
Mustgo, n.:
Any item of food that has been sitting in the refrigerator so
long it has become a science project.
-- Sniglets, "Rich Hall & Friends"
------------------------------
From: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linus says Mindcraft was accurate
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 02:03:23 GMT
Robert Moir wrote:
>
> "sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8nqanj$766$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >
> > Yes. and in the real world it's buyers beware! In short, one should not
> > put too much faith in such bench marks.
> >
>
> I don't. When a benchmark puts one product ahead of another it doesn't mean
> that one product is "good" and another is "bad" it means at best that one
> got a slightly higher score than another in some lab bench test. Maybe good
> stuff to add to a business case.. but only maybe. Certainly not a reason by
> itself to decide on one product over another.
If I suspect that one of the sides paid for the testing and framed the
parameters, then conceals its involvement, that product is history in my
company.
--
Mustgo, n.:
Any item of food that has been sitting in the refrigerator so
long it has become a science project.
-- Sniglets, "Rich Hall & Friends"
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
