Linux-Advocacy Digest #42, Volume #29 Sun, 10 Sep 00 19:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Windows+Linux=True (.)
Re: [Q] linux on mac? (.)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows (jabali)
Re: Windows+Linux=True (Slip Gun)
Re: SmartShip needs multiple platforms (Was: Am I the only one that finds this just
a little scary? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux to reach NT 3.51 proportions in next 2 years (Slip Gun)
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux to reach NT 3.51 proportions in next 2 years (Slip Gun)
Re: Windows+Linux=True ("Tristan Wibberley")
Re: Linux to reach NT 3.51 proportions in next 2 years (Mathias Grimmberger)
Re: Why I hate Windows... (Slip Gun)
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Do you people really think that GNU/Linux is a great OS? ("Colin R. Day")
Re: How low can they go...? ("JS/PL")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Windows+Linux=True
Date: 10 Sep 2000 21:22:33 GMT
Ingemar Lundin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Know what i would like?
> Linux kernel and shell plus Windows 2000:s GUI
> Yeah thats right....easy enough for inexperienced users, and still the
> possibly to do some good ol' fashion die-hard nerd work in the shell (or
> "behind the GUI", whatever you like)
> KDE and Gnome? well version 1.2 of Gnome comes a long way, but still not
> easy enough for millions of Window users that Linux (hopefully) will
> attract... still no gnome windowmanager and a whole lot of inconsistencies
> in the GUI.(AND rather buggy still)
> there you have it
Darwin.
There you have it.
abbie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: [Q] linux on mac?
Date: 10 Sep 2000 21:23:41 GMT
Anon Y. Mous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> if i install linux on a mac, how difficult is the conversion?
It depends on what you mean by "conversion". LinuxPPC has become
(after quite a long time) incredibly easy to install. Same for
Yellowdog. Theyre both redhat based.
You of course wont be able to run any of your mac software, but
it could be argued that that is a Good Thing (TM).
abbie
------------------------------
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 17:50:52 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said lyttlec in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
[...]
>> You're simply squirming around, not addressing the point. No, an EULA
>> cannot prevent you from selling the 'product' you bought. What it does,
>> in the text that you guys are getting confused about, is prevent you
>> from selling just *part* of the 'product', that being either the license
>> to use OR the copy of the IP, without the other.
>>
>Bookmans has always insisted that all the original packaging (including
>the EULA) be present whenever they accepted software for trade. This
>seemed to satisfy the gamers, but not Microsoft. If your premis is
>correct, why would MS threaten to charge Bookmans with piracy?
My guess would be because Bookmans is doing this with OEM EULAs on
Windows, and the 'original packaging' included a computer which isn't
present.
--
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: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 11:55:34 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ingemar Lundin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:NzPu5.16$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> rpm is not Linux alternative to winzip thats gzip/gunzip, rpm is the
> alternative for .msi -files or rather .msi was invented by MS after rpm
had
> been around for awhile....strange he?
Not really strange, it is just another case of Windows playing catch up with
Linux / unix.
The best Linux / unix option to winzip is infozip software. zip and unzip
programs have predated winzip just as pkzip and pkunzip did. Since pkzip
and infozip predated Windows ports of the software. It is again just
another case of Windows playing catch up with Linux / unix and in this case
Dos.
------------------------------
From: <[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 12:10:06 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> You mentioned renting, that's all I asked about.
> >
> >As a matter of fact I didn't, I was talking about stores buying and
selling
>
> Don't get pedantic on me, mj. The subject of renting came up before you
> joined the discourse.
Except that I was not a part of that discussion. I started this subthread
citing the overt trade in preowned software to counter on particular point.
------------------------------
From: jabali <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 21:52:21 +0100
Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Yep, Apple's another sad case. They were in the market before IBM/MS
>and with a much better OS.=20
Apple's problem was its closed shop attitude. They won't license anybody =
to
produce a clone. No corporate buyer would consider a single source produc=
t.
Even Intel had to license AMD to provide an alternate source of chips. IB=
M PC's
architecture was open - clones flooded in - everyone was happy. When IBM =
tried
to produce a non-clonable prodcut - PS2 - they lost out and virtually had=
to
get out of the PC market.=20
QL (remember it - Sir Clive's baby), Atari, Amiga - all lost out because =
they
could not make up their mind where to pitch their products - in the gamin=
g
market or in the office market. They also did not allow cloning - though =
there
were not much enthusiasm for that from clone makers - which also played a=
gainst
them. No major corporation would take such a product seriously. Home mark=
et
does not make a computer viable, it is the corporate market.=20
--=20
jabali
------------------------------
From: Slip Gun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows+Linux=True
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 23:05:38 +0000
Ingemar Lundin wrote:
>
> > No we have not. Windows GUI is slow, illogical and inconsistent. Look at
> > the fancy newer stuff like Actide Desktop ans Channels.. nobody uses it
> and
> > if one does it just causes irritation. Look at dialogs like "Search" -
> > pretty messy for i dialog dont you think? (unfortunattely KDE emulates
> it).
> > Look at the "Start" button: You click on that one to close the system..
> > dont you think this is confusing? Try to make a new user right-click with
> > their mouse on a icon.. They just dont get it. Try to make them resize or
> > move a Windows. Doesnt work.
>
> Active desktop is a MS thing and can hardly be incorporated in to Linux...
Thank God....
>
> Exactly why do you think thats confusing?
Because it's completely illogical.
>
> confusing for new users? well for a Linux user perhaps...
So now you're saying that the average windoze user is more intelligent
than the average linux user?
>
> > So why do you exactly feel the Windows GUI is so good? Why not emulate the
> > MAC's -its consistent and logic and from where Windows got most of its
> > ideas.
> > Or what about doing something completely different; something that dumps
> > the "desktop" thingy.
>
> c'mon, Mac consistent? bah!
>
> Windows do not! get its ideas from Mac, thats pure BULL! regardless what
> Steve Jobs want to make out of it!
Huh! Gates nicked all his (good) ideas from the mac. Unfortunatly for
him, the mac's gui was designed from the ground up, but windoze wasn't.
Win 3.11 and earlier were good, because they didn't try and be anything
more than a shell to dos - they did what they achieved and they did it
well. Win95 and later tried to copy MacOS in being a full OS, and failed
miserably, leaving us with the steaming pile of sh*t we have today.....
I wonder how it will all end?
>
> /IL
>
> > Cheers
Cheers,
Ed
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 18:08:47 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Anthony D. Tribelli in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>> 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.
>From what was said, rather directly, that is not the case. It may have
been presumption on the part of Redman or whoever that the apps wouldn't
have failed so disastrously on Unix, based on a consideration that such
a bad design would have been apparent to people who are capable of
programming on Unix. Either way, it is the fact that we have no basis
for a comparison against Win32 that I so loudly and stridently point out
that Windows and all Microsoft software is crappy. If there were a
competitive environment, I wouldn't be saying that, for two reasons: 1)
I wouldn't have to; everybody would recognize it themselves, and 2)
crappy software doesn't survive in a competitive environment, so there
would be no issue to begin with.
>> ... 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.
You've tried this tact before, I think. Its arm-waving, at best. I've
never said that Win32 cannot implement what is available on Linux, nor
vice-versa. Nor have you ever said why programs developed on Win32 are
so notoriously crappy; you're observations don't account for that
information. Perhaps you'd prefer we ignore the information itself,
because it makes Windows look good?
You seem misinformed regarding the real world. Or should I say "what
the real world would be like if there were a competitive market instead
of a monopoly." Perhaps we've reached the point where so many people
have had so little experience outside of the industry as controlled by a
monopoly that there's little chance anyone has any ability to reason
anymore.
>> ... 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.
You now seem entirely delusional. Are you trying to tell us that
Windows handles application failures well?
>> ... 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.
Quit your trolling. Make your case or shut your trap. I'm sick of
having to defend my right not to be as ignorant a moron as the stupidest
person in the industry. And I HATE when fuckheads like you have nothing
to say but just love to hand-wave, ankle-bite, and misrepresent what
I've said. Get yourself some reading comprehension skills, sonny.
--
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: Slip Gun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux to reach NT 3.51 proportions in next 2 years
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 23:09:42 +0000
Apologies for my bad language just then, I got a little angry that
anyone could be so ignorant....
Cheers,
Ed
Slip Gun wrote:
>
> You obviously don't know shit, and aren't even worth replying properly
> to.
>
> Chad Myers wrote:
> >
> > http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS7572420206.html
> >
> > Real preemptability (not the fake they have now),
> > somewhat less than laughable SMP (as opposed to the
> > laughable MacOS 9-ish SMP they have now)
> >
> > "For example, as a desktop user I want to be able
> > to watch a movie and hear the sound, while also
> > running a browser and my mail program. And when
> > I use the mail program and the browser, I don't
> > want any glitches in the movie or sound. That
> > really requires improvements in Linux responsiveness"
> >
> > I must apologize. I had been giving Linux FAR too much
> > credit. I had assumed that they had at least a decent
> > PMT implementation, but according to this article, it
> > appears it's no better than the MacOS's CMT.
> >
> > Can't watch a movie and check email at the same time?
> > And this is supposed to be the OS that's the death of
> > the MS OS? Give me a break!
> >
> > Linux strives to be more like Windows in every iteration.
> >
> > Case in point?
> > http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/previews/2285/1/
> >
> > Let's look at the screenshot up in the upper-right
> > corner of this web page.
> >
> > - At the top of the screen, we have a MS Win95-ish
> > task bar, completely with pop-up menus, shortcuts
> > on the bar (like IE4 shell integration or Win98),
> > a SYSTRAY-like program notification area on the
> > right-hand side. It's bad enough they copied everything
> > lock, stock, and barrel, but they even had to put it
> > in the same positions. Linux developers are copying off
> > of the $millions of research Microsoft did to develop the
> > Win95 interface to make it efficient and conducive to
> > productivity.
> >
> > - We have Icons on the desktop that look remeniscent of
> > Win95. Of course, with the icons on the left-hand side.
> >
> > - We have another Win95 taskbar knock-off on the bottom of
> > the screen complete with clock.
> >
> > - We have a web-browser file navigator just like the IE4/
> > Win98 "View as Web Page" function that so many Linux
> > idiots make fun of Microsoft for, yet try so hard to
> > immitate (KDE, Gnome, and now Eazel)
> >
> > - We have the ability to "view as icons" which is a
> > direct knock-off of Windows 2000's "View as Thumbnails"
> > option
> >
> > Shall I go on?
> >
> > It's sad, really. It's sad that they bash on Microsoft for
> > the same things they try to emulate (and do a shitty job
> > of, BTW).
> >
> > -Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 17:10:42 -0500
On Sun, 10 Sep 2000 11:24:06 -0500, Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Yep, Apple's another sad case. They were in the market before IBM/MS
>and with a much better OS. Apple could very easily have been where MS
>is right now if they'd just learned to stay focused on the
>here-and-now instead of trying to be so far-future visionary and
>artsy-fartsy.
They also tried to make it a closed system, hard to program, etc.
That leads to less software, because only large companies are
in a position to do any real programming on it. A lack of software
hurt the Amiga, and the Mac's.
The fact that the early Macs were so big on using "mouse technology"
that they refused to put cursor keys on the keyboard was also pretty
stupid. :^)
--
Stephen Whitis
Email replies should go to...
scw120198 (at) whitis.com
The address in the header is not valid.
------------------------------
From: Slip Gun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux to reach NT 3.51 proportions in next 2 years
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 23:16:23 +0000
Ingemar Lundin wrote:
>
> up 39 minutes?
>
> im running Windows 98, and as we speak have been up 11 hour so far (not me,
> the system :-))
>
> /IL
My linux box has so far been awake for more than a month. Btw, when you
say 11 hours, did you actually run anything in that time? Or did it BSoD
a few minutes after loading, and you have left it there? (that's
probably the most likely, now I come to think of it.)
Cheers,
Ed
------------------------------
From: "Tristan Wibberley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows+Linux=True
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 23:31:30 +0100
Ingemar Lundin wrote in message ...
>well...95% of computer owners using a GUI based OS (Mac and Windows) doesnt
>seem to think that using a mouse is too difficult...did you teach 3rd grade
>drop-outs?
I try teaching my father, he can use the command line and keybindings (ahh,
wordstar :) but he's completely lost with MS Windows (after 7+ years of
trying) using the mouse; the fancy icons are meaningless to him - they just
look pretty.
I think this makes GUIs easier for some people in the middle, and
command-line/keyboard easier for others. How can an operating system allow
using only one of those to get your work done effectively and still be easy
to use for anyone but the people in the middle? Choice is a *must* - saying
"I love pork so all people must eat pork, even vegetarians, jews, and
muslims." is just silly. MS Windows doesn't provide the choice so you can't
standardise on it, you could when everyone using computers was able to use a
GUI, but now the technically illiterate want a peice of the pie, and GUIs
have too steep a learning curve (for them). Some people must and will use
other interfaces for exactly that reason. I never want to say that Linux has
standardised on a particular interface and that the useful tools will start
to exist only for that, because then I have to say that Linux is unusable
for a huge proportion of people that are beginning to desire the use of
computers from day to day.
--
Tristan Wibberley
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: Mathias Grimmberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux to reach NT 3.51 proportions in next 2 years
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 21:31:15 GMT
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS7572420206.html
>
> Real preemptability (not the fake they have now),
???
AFAIK the Linux kernel is not designed to be preemptable. Nor are the
majority of other OS kernels out there, for a reason I'd guess. KISS
principle and stuff.
> somewhat less than laughable SMP (as opposed to the
> laughable MacOS 9-ish SMP they have now)
I don't think you even know what you are talking about. MacOS 9 SMP and
Linux SMP are very different (basically MacOS 9 simply doesn't have it).
And Microsoft's NT has it's own peculiarities WRT SMP (e.g. doesn't HLT
idle processors with the SMP HAL - WTF?). Not to mention
DOS/W3.x/W9x/WME which wouldn't know what to do with more than 1 CPU
even if you kicked it really hard.
> "For example, as a desktop user I want to be able
> to watch a movie and hear the sound, while also
> running a browser and my mail program. And when
> I use the mail program and the browser, I don't
> want any glitches in the movie or sound. That
> really requires improvements in Linux responsiveness"
Seems to work for me. Really. ;-)
Improvements are of course possible, there is talk about reducing
latencies in scheduling processes and stuff. Heh, by now in Linux you
can even bind the IRQ of a NIC to a given processor if you know what I
mean...
> I must apologize. I had been giving Linux FAR too much
> credit. I had assumed that they had at least a decent
> PMT implementation, but according to this article, it
> appears it's no better than the MacOS's CMT.
??? Some random article doesn't define what an OS does or does not do.
It could even be wrong, now did you ever think of *that*?
> Can't watch a movie and check email at the same time?
I can.
> And this is supposed to be the OS that's the death of
> the MS OS? Give me a break!
Which MS OS? For there is more than one. Although anything not NT hardly
qualifies as OS.
> Linux strives to be more like Windows in every iteration.
So? Linux is the kernel and it doesn't look like Windows to me at all.
The rest is some distribution - the good thing is you have a choice,
down to individual software packages. Unlike Windows where you get to
take what MS offers you or not use Windows at all. My Linux boxes do not
look like Windows - because I don't want them to look like it. If I need
Windows I use the real stuff.
MGri
--
Mathias Grimmberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Eat flaming death, evil Micro$oft mongrels!
------------------------------
From: Slip Gun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why I hate Windows...
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 23:22:25 +0000
I'm not going to flame you. I'm just going to say "I don't believe you".
Cheers,
Ed
Tim Hanson wrote:
>
> I hafta tell ya...
>
> I've had my Windows 98SE up and running without a reboot for almost a
> year now with no problems. I just wish I could see something besides
> that blue screen.
>
> Anthony Wilson wrote:
> >
> > After using Linux for many months now, I have recently had to use W*ndoze
> > for a couple of days. These are just a few things that made me realize why I
> > started to use Linux in the first place
> >
> > 1. I have had to reboot many more times in one day of W*ndoze use (4) than
> > many months of Linux use (0)
> > 2. Linux does not crash when you attempt to browse your OWN hard drive - let
> > alone a network one
> > 3.Linux does not kill itself when you try to run an old console app, unlike
> > w*ndoze with DOS
> > 4. Linux dialup connections do not mysteriously stop working whilst in use.
> > 5. Linux does not suffer massive disk fragmentation in basic non demanding
> > use
> >
> > need I say any more...
> >
> > Anthony Wilson (happy Linux user)
>
> --
> A child of five could understand this! Fetch me a child of five.
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 18:25:35 -0400
Perry Pip wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Sep 2000 18:31:36 -0400,
> Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Perry Pip wrote:
> >> Sure, but what if they attacked around 1900,
> >
> >And no private firm would have built a transcontinental railroad
> >by then?
>
> We've already been thru this. Your trolling.
You haver made such assertions, but what evidence have
you offered?
>
>
> >
> >Oh gee, only 33 years to build a railroad.
> >
>
> There were five TC route's built by 1900. We've already been thru
> this. You're trolling.
>
> >What enemy?
>
> We already discussed that. You're trolling.
Yeah, right
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 18:26:18 -0400
Perry Pip wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Sep 2000 18:34:31 -0400,
> Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Perry Pip wrote:
> >
> >But how many western settlers lived near the route anyway?
>
> There were five TC routes completed by the year 1900, we've already
> been thruogh that. You're trolling.
And you never showed that no private firm would have built a railroad
by then.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Do you people really think that GNU/Linux is a great OS?
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 18:30:44 -0400
Yannick wrote:
> The card was a Realtek 8019 (IIRC), which is either PnP or NE2000-comp.
> As for the network card, it was partly my fault because I wanted it to stay
> in PnP mode for all other systems. IIRC I got it to run eventually, but this
> is
> pure luck because I still don't understand how I've done it.
>
I would suspect "embrace and extend".
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[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 18:38:47 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[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.
I don't use Quicken 2000, but I've used Money 2000 which relies heavily (if
not totally) on an html interface, the result is that the interface looks
very nice and is much more customized and unique looking than the standard
grey and white (pre-fab) window like interface present in most programs
created to run on Windows. Also isn't lacking any controls that I can see.
It's basicly a specialized database manipulation and rendering tool of the
highest quality and is recognized as such by the masses. I'm sure Quicken is
much the same and seems to be even more popular than Money. I currently use
Quickbooks and it is a superior product and has many straight html files,
wav files avi's and gifs in it's program folder like Money.
I don't know much about programming but I'm sure development of the programs
listed above might have even been cheaper which is always a good thing for
customers and stockholders alike. :-) An added bonus you might say.
>
> >> 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.
It's the next generation interface for all document related applications.
And logically, it should be.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
