Linux-Advocacy Digest #47, Volume #29 Mon, 11 Sep 00 01:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: [Q] linux on mac? ("Rich C")
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: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windows+Linux=True ("Ingemar Lundin")
Re: Linux to reach NT 3.51 proportions in next 2 years ("Rich C")
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (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: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 00:12:24 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>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.
Why are you being so obstinate? You came in in the middle of the
discussion, yes, but...
Said <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>> I'm not saying they don't, I just wonder were they are, I still remember
>> when a local computer store used to rent games.
>
>The two surviving companies that I know of that are doing this are
>Electronics Boutique and Babbage's
--
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: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 00:23:12 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >Examples of bad user experience due to componentized software please?
>>
>> Why, so you can quibble about each one and pull the standard 'omniscient
>> troubleshooting' hand-waving. No, sorry, the examples are too trivial
>> and numerous (and therefore not trivial) to be convincing to one who
>> isn't interested in being convinced no matter how compelling the
>> evidence. "DLL Hell" is a good way of generally characterizing many of
>> them, though.
>
>You're showing your incompetance again Max. COM objects do not suffer from
>DLL Hell. They were specifically designed to prevent versioning issues.
Too bad the DLLs that provide the code for them don't.
>The COM components themselves may depend on non-componentized subsystems
>that do suffer from DLL Hell, but the components themselves never have any
>problems with versioning.
Yea, as long as you don't have a problem with versioning. But I guess
you don't know what causes all those nightmares when a user installs IE
and their whole friggen' system starts puking all over the place.
You're showing your lack of experience again, Erik.
>DLL Hell is specifically a problem *BECAUSE* of a lack of versioning in
>DLL's.
You can compartmentalize the nature of Microsoft's crappy software all
you want; the point is its crappy.
>> Here's another 'experience' which might illustrate my point. I use a
>> news reader called Agent. It is reliable, relatively quick, and
>> efficient, if not perfect. I use a browser called Netscape, which is
>> neither of the first two, but more of the second than the alternatives
>> (at least insofar as I already have it and know how to use it.)
>>
>> With Agent, I can zip up the program directory (and data subdirectory)
>> in a zip file, copy the whole thing to a new computer (or the old one
>> after an OS re-install), unzip it, and its ready to go. With Netscape,
>> there are DLLs scattered all over the place, and I must re-install the
>> software in order to get it to work.
>
>Netscape is not a componentized product. Just because it ships in multiple
>pieces doesn't make it componentized. A componentized system is one which
>offers discrete components.
Well, then I've never seen or heard of any componentized products.
[...]
>Windows has a systemwide spell checker. Any product (and many do, such as
>Word, Lotus, etc..) can [...]
Yes, 'can' being the operative word. Silly me, I would expect 'does' to
be rather more convincing, if you are trying to refute the idea that
'componentized software' is a boondoggle.
>As for the common dialogs. It's *VERY* rare that I find an app that wasn't
>ported from Windows 3.1 or the Mac that doesn't use the common dialogs.
You're showing your inexperience again. *MICROSOFT's* own software
doesn't use the common dialogs. And did I mention that I hesitated to
even provide examples, knowing that the trolls were going to go into
handwaving mode?
>And of course you *CAN* use components of outlook. Look up the Outlook
>automation interface.
No, that would be 'a developer can use components of outlook'. And
you'll notice that none do.
>> Componentized design may sound like the holy grail to developers, but
>> from the user's perspective, it sucks, at least as its implemented
>> today, and probably as it would always be implemented in a commercial
>> software market. Its a ruse, not a software development practice.
>> Depending, of course, on what you mean by 'componentized design'.
>> Usually it means the 'chromeless browser window' idea, which is rather
>> stupid to begin with, just like browser-based help. Its laziness on the
>> part of the developers, not efficiency; at least not in the real world.
>
>Well, so far you haven't provided a single valid argument.
I guess that depends on what your definition of 'valid' is, eh?
--
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: "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Q] linux on mac?
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 00:41:01 -0400
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8pgu4t$1jt2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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).
>
>
Perhaps the hardest thing would be converting that cyclops mouse to
something with 2 or 3 buttons. You need to middle click to paste in many
Linux apps. You can simulate a third button with 2 buttons, but how do you
simulate a third button with only one?
-- Rich C.
"Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people."
------------------------------
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: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 00:41:42 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>If you understood the market, you would know that Quicken is not "in bed"
>with Microsoft. In fact, they are stiff competitors. MS has it's own
>"Money" product which they have been trying to get people to use for years.
>Quicken always beats MS and stays one step ahead of them.
Please don't use false quotations. I never said anything about Quicken
being 'in bed' with Microsoft. I said this is "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."
Your naive and ingenuous description of market activity notwithstanding,
Quicken has tied themselves to the monopoly. They've got a good
product, though, so I trust it will straighten itself out pretty well,
once the monopoly is gone and the market is free to reject stupid ideas.
[...]
>I know lots of users of Quicken that are not software developers, but rather
>blue collar or other white collar workers that are almost technophobes, but
>find Quicken very easy to use (My father for instance).
This is the monopoly effect that I've been referring to, and you've been
ignoring (or at least failing to comment on.) My twelve year old nephew
used Quicken without this stupid idea (without even a GUI) in 1992.
What's that mean?
It means that as long as someone can wrest *some* functionality out of
crappy products, those who have no conception of what a competitive
market would provide think that crappy products are acceptable, because
the alternative isn't good products, but no products at all.
[...]
>Just because you've seen some poor implementations does not mean that all
>implementations are poor.
And just because I've never seen a single good implementation throughout
the large and growing number of poor implementations I've seen is not a
reason to consider the idea stupid?
I'm sorry, if I had to rely on your kind of ignorant stupidity to do my
job, I wouldn't be able to do my job. I don't have the luxury of
feigning cluelessness in order to make up for Microsoft's stupid ideas,
or anyone else's.
>This, combined with your comments on software
>practices leads me to believe that you are unable to differentiate between
>what is part of something, and what is the whole of something. You seem
>incapable of understanding the basic logic of if a is a b, b is not
>necessarily an a.
I don't waste time with bullshit, but stick with valid and practical
troubleshooting, is that what you mean?
[...]
>This is usually because such products endeavor to be browser neutral, which
>causes them to only use features which are a common denominator between
>them. This severely limits their ability to create decent products since
>they are not allowed to use the browser interface to it's full potential.
Yes, we all know its better to tie your HTML code to using only
Microsoft's browser. Idiot. I'm getting bored.
[...]
>You are still making claims about Quicken without having ever used it. Use
>it for a month, then come back and tell me the same thing and I might find
>your statements more credible.
Yes, I'm sure you would. You would be more than satisfied, due to your
naivete, to presume that every single possible implementation of a
stupid idea has to be experienced in order to know it is stupid.
Fact is, I knew 'web interfaces' were a stupid idea, for all the reasons
I've already cited (lack of control mechanisms, ease of implementation
resulting in amateurish designs, and lack of flexibility in application
behavior, to paraphrase) before they started making them. I'm sure
you'll want to insist that "this just means I'm biased", but then,
stupid people always insist that those who aren't stupid are biased
against their 'brilliant' (stupid) ideas.
[...]
>There is a difference between being lucky, and "accurately judging"
>something. If you buy something without ever having used it, and it turns
>out to be a good product is luck, unless you rely on the judgement of others
>you trust who have used the product.
Your arguments from ignorance know no bounds, Eric.
--
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: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 00:42:34 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>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.
--
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: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 00:44:47 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>> Let me ask you something; did you ever upgrade your IE and have to
>> replace your video card?
>
>No.
So you're not Roger, but just some other brainless idiot who's decided
to be my pet troll, huh?
[...]
>> I don't support Microsoft by using their products; I support me by using
>> their products. If my customers use something different, and my company
>> uses something different, I'll use something different. You see how
>> that works? Microsoft has a monopoly because they make it hard for
>> everyone to use a different OS. Now stop boring me with this childish
>> bullshit.
>
>That's a very poor excuse for choosing to use Windows AT HOME! Now come out
>with it, what's the reason you support Microsoft by using their products at
>home? Do you use it at home so you can stay in practice for work or what? If
>you hate MS so much why do you freely choose to support them by using their
>products even when it is not necessary. Stop the lying for once and give an
>honest answer.
I use it at home because I work from home and my 'home PC' is my laptop.
--
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.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?]
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 00:46:48 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Eric Bennett in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote:
>> >I don't think they're using "monopolize" in the legal sense.
>>
>> I think they're using it in the 'we don't understand why monopolization
>> is illegal, so we'll make up whatever ad hoc rules appear to explain the
>> government's behavior in preventing it' sense. I'd prefer the legal
>> sense, since the simplicity of the Sherman Act is an important part of
>> understanding what is and is not allowed. It is illegal to monopolize.
>> There is no other sense.
>
>Here is another sense for you:
>
>http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=monopolize
>2.To dominate by excluding others: "monopolized the conversation."
>
>I submit that the behavior described in this sense is not illegal.
Touche.
[...]
>You're really overreacting. All I did was point out that there are
>other definitions of "monopolize" out there. I didn't say yours was
>wrong, just that you need to recognize that sometimes people are using
>other definitions.
I'd say that's rather pedantic, actually. If I didn't realize there
were people using 'other definitions', I wouldn't be trying to explain
why that's a self-destructive behavior, and they should start using the
correct definition.
--
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: "Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows+Linux=True
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 04:55:33 GMT
real mature...
/IL
> Sig mig lige.. er du fuld eller bare i pre-puberteten?
------------------------------
From: "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux to reach NT 3.51 proportions in next 2 years
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 01:02:18 -0400
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> It's even more intriguing when one throws in the choices of
> writing one's own window manager -- something I plan on doing,
> although it probably won't get wide exposure; I like the KDE window
> manager way of "snapping" to a border as one moves a window (something
> like this will undoubtedly be available in Windows Me, except that it
> will also include force feedback on a special mouse device; the
> KDE method is purely visual, slopping a bit from the current mouse
> position), but dislike all of the other stuff which I really don't need.
WindowMaker does this too. It's a neat feature that MS will undoubtedly
swipe soon.
> At home, I use fvwm (not fvwm2), which is extremely simple, but has
> several features which I also like, one of them being the ability to
> put a window in a blank area of the desktop if the blank area is big
> enough. It also doesn't have that tacky bottom icon bar -- although
> I will agree that it's convenient to be able to find processes
> down there; most of the other window managers seem to like to
> cover up their icons, or have a separate window containing them which
> takes up too much desktop for my taste.
WindowMaker has no "task bar" but just icons that sit in the corner of the
screen. But they can still get covered up. How about this for an idea for
your window manager:
Every window has a title bar with buttons to minimize, close, etc, right?
How about adding a button to pull up the task list? Then you wouldn't need a
task bar or access to the bare desktop to find your icons. You could also
include items to navigate between your virtual desktops as well. Your other
desktops and your running programs would always be a button click away, even
if you are running an app "full screen."
>
> I'm also familiar with a few methods of window management; the one I
> liked best was actually not an X desktop at all, but an old Apollo
> DOMAIN system, running Aegis. (Yes, it's dead. Sigh.)
> The 'DM' (Display Manager), as they called it, had a command
> window that could be used to type in commands such as
> 'cp' (create process), 'es' (enter string), 'en' (enter RETURN),
> 'xc' (copy or cut, I forget which), and 'xp' (paste).
> It also had 5 preset window slots; a newly created window would
> be guaranteed to appear in one of those slots. Key bindings are
> definable to execute a sequence of commands, not unlike Athena
> translation sequences, but a little more understandable.
> (I don't know if I want to steal all of the control keys, though.
> Maybe if there's a property on the window...I'll have to think about it.)
>
> I should have most of the information available from the O'Reilly
> manuals (I have an older set, but it has the basics) to write
> a window manager that emulates this in part. I suspect someone
> else has written something like this already, of course -- but
> why not write my own if I want to? :-)
>
> One can also write one's own widget set (I plan to do that, too),
> or use available ones such as Gtk or Qt (I like Gtk, but don't
> like some of its issues with respect to focus maintenance on
> list widgets; Windows can at least navigate lists using nothing
> but the arrow keys and the space bar; I intend to do something
> similar although I may end up doing something wildly different;
> I don't know yet).
Don't start from scratch, build on GTK or find a window manager that tries
to do what you want and modify it. That's what open source is all about
after all.
>
> With my luck, I'll have all this finished just before 2038.... :-)
Oh oh, better not write it in C then. ;o)
> By that time, we'll probably have computers that plug into the
> brain...
I don't think Billy G. will want to download what I'm thinking.............
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
-- Rich C.
"Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people."
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 01:05:37 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said David Sidlinger in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> Because you want an Oracle-optimized version and support for it, I would
>> presume, which is to say that you don't *have* to do any such thing.
>> Since the OS itself is free, you're entitled (and hopefully able) to
>> purchase such services elsewhere, or hire someone to do it as
>> work-for-hire, if you like. Its only the code that's free, not the
>> services which might make that code useful to you.
>
>Let's say, hypothetically, that Red Hat sells 10,000 copies of the optimized
>OS. I think this is a fair conjecture, as many companies would like to run
>Oracle, and Oracle for Linux is free, so the relative cost of running Oracle
>on a Linux server is small compared with running Oracle on NT or Unix. I'm
>assuming that what you're getting with this package is a tweaked kernel, and
>some enhancements (perhaps something like wizards or maybe full-blown
>executables) that facilitate your running of Oracle on the server. The
>gross revenue from these transactions would put Red Hat up $25,000,000.
I'd say you're also assuming that this 'package' is necessary to run
Oracle, which is not true.
>Now, I don't know the lengths that Red Hat went to customize the OS, but I
>think it would be fair to say that they may have paid 100 developers (pretty
>high estimate) about $50,000/year for about six months to pull this off.
I'd say 'pretty high' is a gross underestimate.
>Factor in another 50 phone support techs at $35,000/year (support only lasts
>a year), and you get the grand total of $4,250,000 paid out by Red Hat.
>Let's double this figure for testing, marketing, etc.
>
>So, now, we have a net profit of fifteen and a half million dollars by Red
>Hat. Have they really added *that* much value to an essentially free
>product. I just don't see how that can be. Aren't they (Red Hat) gouging
>the customer on this one?
Not if the customer is paying it, no. Its a competitive market. In
fact, Red Hat's development is pro-competitive. If you think you can do
better, grab a kernel, start optimizing, and start lining up phone
support. Twenty five hundred dollars is a lot of money, like you said.
If you can be more efficient and deliver the same benefits for $1500,
you've got yourself a market.
>Post Script: I know these figures may be a bit naive, as I have never
>attended business school, but I think we *can* assume a 40% profit margin at
>10,000 copies sold, and that margin would increase with volume.
You're thinking of the 'copyright wrapped in a trade secret' software
business models. Red Hat's 'Oracle optimized kernel' apparently uses
the 'business insurance' model. Which is to say that a large company
that stands to make millions of dollars in profit from their use of
Oracle on Linux would be more than happy to pay these kinds of costs, so
they don't have to bother 'optimizing' themselves, and can get support
from those that made the mods.
But if its successful, you can be sure there will be other people trying
to horn in on those '40%' profits. In the end, the free market will
prevent any such exorbitant inefficiencies. If optimized kernels are
popular, the market opportunity itself will force all vendors to scratch
out what minimum profits they can manage, amidst the competition to
produce better products more conveniently at a lower cost, and that's
just the way its supposed to work.
--
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
******************************
