Linux-Advocacy Digest #41, Volume #29 Sun, 10 Sep 00 17:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: SmartShip needs multiple platforms (Was: Am I the only one that finds this just
a little scary? ("Anthony D. Tribelli")
Re: SmartShip needs multiple platforms (Was: Am I the only one that finds this just
a little scary? ("Anthony D. Tribelli")
Re: Vs: Vs: Vs: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... (T. Max
Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 16:30:38 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> [...]
>> >The quicken 2000 and 2001 user interface is entirely written in
>HTML.[...]
>>
>> I don't CARE! It doesn't MEAN anything. This is *after the monopoly*.
>> It doesn't MATTER what the ISV's do now, in order to maintain their
>> markets (as long, of course, as its precisely what Microsoft wants them
>> to do.)
>
>Obviously you don't care. Otherwise you would take the time to understand
>the market.
It is because I understand the market that I don't care. More
specifically, it is because I understand *free* markets that I don't
care. And I won't care until the monopoly is removed so that we have a
free market again. What you consider 'the market' is not a free market.
Thus, the really crappy design choices which developers are making are
not obvious as such, because competition is not what determines the
success of a product; it is how closely it ties to the monopoly (as
clearly evidenced by Quicken's stupid idea to replace a functional user
interface with a web page) which determines what gets built and sold.
>> Go away; you're annoying. NO, Microsoft software does not fail to be
>> crap because 'Quicken 2000' has a user interface is "entirely written in
>> HTML". All that means is that I'd never consider using Quicken 2000. I
>> don't go in for such nightmarishly and pathetically inefficient
>> mechanisms. Web browsers make halfway decent web browsers; they make
>> really shitty application interfaces.
>
>Spoken as someone that's never used Quicken 2000 or 2001. It's a *VERY*
>slick interface that works extremely well. Much better than their previous
>interface.
Spoken as someone who has no idea what makes an interface acceptable in
the real world.
About three years ago, the world of network management software tried to
move the same way. "Wouldn't it be easier if all these different
interfaces were all accessed through a web browser?" To be perfectly
honest, the logic of it entirely escapes me. Still, in network
management, ease of development and modification is quite a bit more
important than typical desktop software, so I 'went along for the ride'
and evaluated a number of such products. Some were entirely new, some
were radical redesigns of the old interface, and some were simple
'ports' which used various HTML and browser features to mimic the
existing interface.
Regardless of the approach or methods used, everyone of them had one
thing in common, not just in my opinion but in the opinion of the
market. They all SUCK. Even apart from the greatest difficulties of
supporting a 'web server' paradigm for distributing the interfaces (one
of the most prevalent justifications for doing this) the interfaces
themselves are truly pathetic, without exception.
I've seen people use NetID's (Nortel Network's IP management software)
browser-based interface (a java applet, actually, as these things
typically are in most cases) for an hour or so, and they, like you, will
marvel at how 'slick' and easy it is. That doesn't last long, though.
Within a day or two of trying to use the software routinely, they hate
the blasted thing. It tries to be something its not, and it fails
miserably at being either. All of the other 'HTML interfaces' are
generally used more sporadically (just about every piece of network
management software these days has 'web accessible' on the check-list;
they all fail horribly at providing operational functionality of this
nature), so the effect is not as noticeable, though it is no less
debilitating.
>Fact: You cannot judge the quality of a product you've never used. Fact:
>You cannot judge the quality of an inteface based something you don't
>understand.
Fact: I can, and do, accurately, consistently, and practically judge the
quality of products I've never used all the time. Anyone who ever
bought a piece of software they don't already have has done the same.
The difficulty of deriving the right answer for the latter group is what
makes my own skills at doing this rather valuable. Based on knowledge,
experience, reason, and *facts*, I can, without any great fear of
contradiction (aside from naked insistence, contrary to *fact*) tell you
that Quicken 2000's HTML interface SUCKs.
Now, usually, I will admit that I'd want to at least see the interface.
Possibly I might need documentation and some active demonstration of the
interface mechanisms, as well. On rare occasions, I must use the
software personally for some goodly portion of time, in order to provide
any reliable prediction concerning whether the interface sucks, for me
or anyone else attempting to use it. But the fact is, lack of
competition has made bad software and bad interfaces so prevalent in the
industry, that the job gets easier and easier all the time.
In this case, for instance, you have a typical and popular desktop
product which has long been successful because of the efficient
interface paradigm they have used. The construct of their controls and
their data representations are very effectively and efficiently suited
to the task at hand; personal finances. I first started using Quicken
in 1990, and was quite impressed, in fact. Having experienced several
personal finance packages on a couple of different platforms previously,
I immediately recognized a great deal of power and ease of use in
Quicken's design. (The back-end for such a programming is not difficult
at all, and since a tremendous amount of efficiency in entering data is
the greatest bottleneck in such a program, both diverse and similar
examples are available for comparison.) In 1997, I purchased the
Windows version, and was not disappointed too badly. Most of the
efficiencies were augmented, in fact, with inclusion of GUI mechanisms.
The added functionality of the newer software, however, evidenced a good
deal of inefficiency and confusion. In 1998 or 99, I believe, I
experienced the 'new version' of Quicken, and within twenty seconds of
observing a typical user's interaction (and one somewhat familiar with
the program, in fact), I identified no less than five different
'glitches' that were introduced in making the interface a bit more
'slick', and only one thing that any reasonable person might objectively
consider an 'improvement'. (I kept no records, as this wasn't a formal
study, so I'm afraid I can't tell you what the improvement or glitches
were.)
Now you tell me that the new version is 'all HTML'. Since there is no
way to make an HTML representation of a GUI any *more* efficient than
the GUI itself, but its not only common but almost guaranteed (due to
the limited control mechanisms available within a browser or a web page,
and the sloppy design which generally characterizes such attempts) that
it is not an improvement at all (as evidenced and supported by
experience and while fully aware of the potential benefits of such a
move), and I had already recognized that Quicken, like all Windows
software, does not get better with each version, but simply more
featureful, and generally at the cost of operational functionality, then
I can think of no logical dispute, save a penchant for whatever is new
and 'slick', to the judgement that Quicken 2000 and 2001, at least in
their use of HTML as an interface mechanism, SUCK.
>Your opinion on this matter is irrelvant because you don't have enough
>knowledge to make an informed decision on the subject.
You honestly haven't a clue, Erik, just how far and wide my knowledge
and information are on this or any other technical subject.
>> This is the kind of stuff that makes people like Erik so horribly
>> draining. The whole thing is so disfunctional after fifteen years of
>> monopoly that people actually can't tell a good idea from a stupid one.
>
>Yet again you fail to provide *ANY* reasoning behind this statement. I
>submit you have no reasons for this opinion other than "MS does it, so it
>must be bad".
See what I mean? Draining. In point of fact, it isn't MS, precisely,
that designed Quicken's HTML interface. Though it does seem obvious at
first glance and is substantiated by further examination that Microsoft
was instrumental in getting Quicken to implement such a pathetically bad
idea.
Not only does it support Microsoft's attempts to justify their illegal
activity (the 'componentized browser' misdirection), it makes Quicken
entirely dependant on Microsoft's monopolization. That it decreases the
usefulness, without question, of Intuit's software, which has always
been a thorn in the side of Microsoft who would like to 'cut off their
air supply' to begin with, if they could, or just cut their throat, in
order to clear the competition for their own knock-off, Money, well...
that's probably just a bonus.
>If you care to prove me wrong by providing valid reasons for your opinion
>then I'll gladly admit i'm wrong. But I doubt you are capable.
You're starting to get rather offensive, Erik. If you don't have a
point without being rude, you don't have a point. Make your case, or
shut your trap. Arguments from ignorance are hardly an acceptable
excuse for presuming you know anything at all.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 16:37:16 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> [...]
>> >The quicken 2000 and 2001 user interface is entirely written in
>HTML.[...]
>>
>> I don't CARE! It doesn't MEAN anything. This is *after the monopoly*.
>> It doesn't MATTER what the ISV's do now, in order to maintain their
>> markets (as long, of course, as its precisely what Microsoft wants them
>> to do.)
>>
>> Go away; you're annoying. NO, Microsoft software does not fail to be
>> crap because 'Quicken 2000' has a user interface is "entirely written in
>> HTML". All that means is that I'd never consider using Quicken 2000. I
>> don't go in for such nightmarishly and pathetically inefficient
>> mechanisms. Web browsers make halfway decent web browsers; they make
>> really shitty application interfaces.
>
>Why?
Mostly because the control mechanisms are pre-constructed, rather
limited, and not great in number. A web page is a paradigm created for
*browsing* information, not manipulating it. A 'native' interface is
always preferable, as it is more efficient, more effective, and more
expedient for the end user. The only efficiencies gained by using a web
browser interface is that it makes it more expedient for the
_developer_, which simply encourages crappy design to begin with, and
more effective for restricting the capabilities of the user.
>> This is the kind of stuff that makes people like Erik so horribly
>> draining. The whole thing is so disfunctional after fifteen years of
>> monopoly that people actually can't tell a good idea from a stupid one.
>
>It's the next generation interface for all document related applications.
>And logically, it should be.
So goes the brain-dead 'popular wisdom', yes. There's not a bit of real
logic in it, though, merely a lot of assumptions and a complete lack of
reasoning.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 16:38:49 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> [...]
>> >Because if you're happy enough to be factually INCORRECT with this, how
>do
>> >we know that you're basing your arguments on corroborated facts rather
>than
>> >your own hallucinations?
>>
>> Everything else I've said, and nothing more. Get it?
>
>I get it.
>
>0+0=0
My, how creative. Did you stay up all night thinking of that?
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "Anthony D. Tribelli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: SmartShip needs multiple platforms (Was: Am I the only one that finds
this just a little scary?
Date: 10 Sep 2000 20:43:05 GMT
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Said Anthony D. Tribelli in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Said Anthony D. Tribelli in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>>>Morphing "failures associated with NT" into "failures caused by NT" is not
>>>>very good "re-quoting". It is plain English, but whether it is accurate is
>>>>a big unknown. Which has been, and remains, my question. Your offerings
>>>>contain the assumptions, the conjecture. I'm still waiting to see real
>>>>info on these incidents.
>>>
>>> Only because you aren't going to get them, and you know it ...
>>
>>Bad guess on your part. The above is quoted from one of the earliest
>>articles about the incident. Much had been learned and written since then.
>>Inquiries regarding these other incidents would seem like a pretty obvious
>>thing to make when following up the original story. In any case, it is
>>very likely that other people have seen articles I have not. There could
>>well be good info that WinNT did croak and cause problems on board the
>>ship, I just haven't seen such info. When someone seems very convinced
>>that WinNT was responsible, it is reasonable to ask where they learned
>>this.
>
> Experience; NT is a flaming pile of crap. The flames don't shoot as
> high as DOS-based Windows, but the crap is about the same. The OS
> itself is crap, the applications written to use it are mostly crap, and
> even the programmers that try to use it for real work are pretty crappy.
> It isn't just the code that's crappy. The whole product is crappy; the
> *PLATFORM* is crappy. Get it?
Thank you, the above is a better troll than your previous two. Your
efforts are appreciated.
Tony
==================
Tony Tribelli
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Anthony D. Tribelli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: SmartShip needs multiple platforms (Was: Am I the only one that finds
this just a little scary?
Date: 10 Sep 2000 20:59:22 GMT
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Said Anthony D. Tribelli in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Said Anthony D. Tribelli in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>>>The one incident we have info on seems to show a naive server application
>>>>corrupting it's database and naive client applications depending on this
>>>>database to run equipment. Such a naive design is highly vulnerable
>>>>irrespective of the OS it runs on.
>>>
>>> The only 'incident' we have any real info on is the Navy is trying to
>>> use NT, and it sucks.
>>
>>Not really, the apps seem to be responsible for that incident according
>>to the chief engineer on board the ship at the time, the app's ddeloper,
>>the news agency that broke the story.
>
> An OS that notoriously and routinely seems to have lots of 'apps
> responsible for incidents' is an OS that would be classified by any
> rational person as "crap" ...
Not really, a rational person would observe that if these apps are only
running on one OS then we have no basis for a comparison. From what was
described, if these same apps were running on Unix the ship would have
also been dead in the water.
> ... Maybe it just comes down to the 'pointy
> clicky' happy horseshit on Microsoft platforms encouraged idiot
> programmers who make dumb errors ...
Doubtful, one of the benefits of open source is that the tools available
under Linux are also available for Win32. Not to mention the fact that
many Win32 tools can be used with or without GUIs, mixed and matched with
the open source tools, etc. You seem misinformed regarding Win32
development.
> ... maybe its that the platform doesn't
> elegantly handle app failures ...
You now seem extremely ignorant of Win32. Structured Exception Handling is
very powerful, and it may be used from many languages.
> ... Maybe its simply that the 'arcane'
> mechanisms of Unix are not merely more complex, but robust, and
> encourage good design. I don't know and I don't care ...
I agree with both, you "don't know" and you "don't care".
> ... All I know is
> that systems developed on NT suck more, much more, on the average, than
> systems written on Unix. It all comes down to the same thing: a lousy
> OS.
Actualy you are still in "don't know" and "don't care" territory.
Tony
==================
Tony Tribelli
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Vs: Vs: Vs: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 17:08:40 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Ville Niemi in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>Max, I was answering, originally, a message about how you can say a company
>is monopolizing if it isn't a monopoly.
>
>I answered this by saying, essentially, that a company can monopolize
>without being a monopoly. If I can say it, it can be said. Period.
You're being pedantic, I'm afraid. You're also slightly misrepresenting
what was actually asked, which was, "How you can monopolize without
being a monopoly?" You are the one who went post-modern and confused
whether you call someone a monopoly with whether they are a monopoly.
>The rest of this discussion has been you and me having a different
>definition of what word monopoly means. You using the legal US definition
>based on concept of free trade guaranteed by law. I use the common
>European concept of monopoly being an absolute thing guaranteed by state.
>
>So, I can say the things I said and be correct, and you couldn't.
>And, you can say the things you said and be correct, and I couldn't.
Well put. What you may be missing is that I've been on something of a
little crusade for the past few months to discourage people from calling
a company that is not monopolizing "a monopoly", simply because they
have a large market share. European anti-trust laws are essentially
similar to American ones (though I'd love to see some examples, to be
honest; do you have anything like the Sherman Act?) so while common
usage of the term may vary due to socio-political factors, the point is
that a monopoly is a company that monopolizes, regardless and
independent of whether they have exclusive or predominant market share.
>I'll try to consider such cultural differences in the future, but the
>original context was so harmless I got careless. Well, at least I learned
>something new they propably don't teach in business English courses.
I'm sorry for being an ogre. The reason I seem so adamant about what
many consider a trivial point is that they don't teach it in any
business courses, as far as I know. The immediate cause for my ranting,
which began weeks ago, was getting frustrated at the frequent posting of
the statement "its not illegal to have a monopoly, its only illegal to
use one to gain another". This is prompted by obvious causes, notably
the Microsoft verdict. One of the strong proofs I use to show that
"having a monopoly", which is to say 'monopolizing', or, at best,
'having a large market share and monopolizing' (in contrast to merely
having a large market share), is in and of itself illegal.
Section 2 of the Sherman Act outlaws monopolizing and attempting to
monopolize. Its not common knowledge, but Microsoft was convicted on
_two_ counts against section 2: one for *having a monopoly* in PC OSes,
and one for attempting to monopolize the market in web browsers. In
*addition*, they were convicted of one count of 'restraint of trade', a
section 1 offense, for tying the browser to the OS. They were acquitted
on a single count, of restraining trade by 'exclusive contracts'
intended to prevent Netscape from finding any distribution channels for
their browser.
When I want to sound really extremist, I define the crime of
monopolization as 'paying any attention whatsoever to your market
share'.
[BTW; is there something you can do about your newsreader? Like, get a
real one? Outlook Express is doing nasty things to the subject lines,
and regularly appears to botch threading, as well. Thanks.]
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
