Linux-Advocacy Digest #102, Volume #29 Wed, 13 Sep 00 21:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why NT is shite (Mark Johnson)
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! ("Nik Simpson")
Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?
Re: Why NT is shite ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux (Chris Harshman)
Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451800 (Marty)
Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451800 (Marty)
Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy? (Darin Johnson)
Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux ("Rev. Don Kool")
Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy? (Gary Hallock)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why NT is shite
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Johnson)
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 00:04:07 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joseph T. Adams) wrote in <8pp3pk$qq3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Nigel Feltham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: This application only runs on NT server (4.0 or above) so one of my
>: bosses decided
>: that there would be no harm in installing it on our main NT4 server.
>
>Software installs *often* break things under NT, although not always
>as dramatically as what you experienced. They need to be tested
>before rolling them out onto a production box.
>
>In theory the same thing could happen under Linux, or any other OS
>that uses shared libraries, but generally, user-space programs do not
>attempt to replace system libraries - at most, as you indicated, they
>will write new versions that can co-exist with the old ones. Linux
>installs that break unrelated programs are very rare, and I don't know
>of any instance where a botched upgrade of user-space software
>rendered an entire Linux system unbootable.
>
>W2K attempts to protect critical system files from software
>"upgrades." It may be worth a look if you can't get a Unix or Linux
>port of your app.
>
Agreed. Any descent Windows programmer should know better than to
"replace" the system libraries. If they have to do something so drastic
the installation should prompt the user if they wish to do so and back up
the originals.
I don't know if this illustrates how crappy NT is, but instead more how
crappy the software developers were. In short, they should have know
better.
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!!
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 20:04:44 -0400
"lyttlec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ermine Todd III wrote:
> In otherwords SuperRoot held by MS and its "trusted" partners. Otherwise
> you couldn't apply service packs which, on occasion, do replace SYSTEM
> functionality.
Bullshit. If something cannot be loaded/unloaded through the normal
mechanisms then you have to reboot for the change to take effect. In other
words if foo.sys is soemthing that can't be stopped and started on a running
system, the SP install renames foo.sys to foo.sys.old and puts a new version
of foo.sys on the disk which is loaded during a reboot. No need for any
magin "SuperRoot" except in your limited imagination.
>For MS service packs to *do* anything, they have to have
> access at a higher level than granted to administrator. Getting that
> access does not require the presence of a live human being, just putting
> a disk in the CD.
Again, more spurious bullshit from somebody who clearly doesn't understand
NT any better than he/she understands the fundamentals of operating system
design.
--
Nik Simpson
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 20:06:45 -0400
Mark Johnson wrote:
>
> Why are linux UIs so crappy? It's just little trivial things you'd think would
> be available. Like: (note: this is from my experience with KDE)
>
> * how come an application doesn't remember the last directory I opened a file
> from? I have to keep re-navigating to the directory.
Because it works on a different model.
ALL applications refer to "the current working directory" which is
determined at the start of execution.
If you want the app to start up from a certain directory, then GO to
that directory, and start up the app.
Alternatively:
How come the toilet seat is always down?
Why can't it just stay where I leave it?
>
> * how come I have to keep selecting what application I want to use with "Open
> With"?
Because Unix doesn't work on a "file typing" paradigm.
Most files are subject to be opening by MULTIPLE programs. Therefore,
assigning a certain filename suffix to one exclusive program is a
HINDRANCE.
>
> * how come I can't configure that I want to double click to open or start an
> application or file? Sometimes I'll accidently "click" on an icon and it opens
> up on me. This is a real pain.
LoseDows is the ONLY O/S that uses double-clicking.
Most people are smart enough to NOT click on icons that they don't want
to click on.
Apparently, you aren't one of them.
>
> * how come there are no descent web browsers for linux. Netscape and Mozilla
> keep crashing on me. Mozilla would be pretty cool if it'd stay up and was a
> lot quicker? Netscape is just pure 'D crap.
There are about 10 to choose from
Arena
Lynx
KFM
etc.
Beats being stuck with Internet Destroyer...
>
> * how come copy and paste keystrokes aren't consistent accross apps?
Because it's a MOUSE operation, dork.
copy: right mouse click
paste: middle mouse click
Why should you have to operate the mouse, then go to the keyboard,
then go to the mouse, and then go to the keyboard again?
>
> * how come font size isn't consistent among apps? One app will have teeny-
> weeny font while another will have big-chief tablet font.
You don't have your apps' .rc files configured properly.
>
> * how come Window Managers are so slow?
Because you have shit between your ears.
>
> Don't get me wrong - I understand it's hard and envovled to write these
> programs in general, but these seem like just little things that the developers
> themselves would put in just for their own sanity. It's been almost 10 years
> and the Linux UI while definitely better, just doesn't feel very mature. Even
> BeOS has a nice, refined, intuitive interface and I don't think it's been
> around a long as linux?
>
> I always have this subconscious feeling that Linux developers couldn't care
> less about the actual user. I just hear in the back of my mind a phantom Linux
> developer saying "Why would you ever want to do that!" Perhaps I'm paranoid.
>
> I feel so unproductive - I spend so much time re-clicking and re-typing and re-
> tinkering. I just want to get something done but the apps actually get in the
> way.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 00:20:24 GMT
On Wed, 13 Sep 2000 23:39:24 GMT, Mark Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Why are linux UIs so crappy? It's just little trivial things you'd think would
>be available. Like: (note: this is from my experience with KDE)
>
>* how come an application doesn't remember the last directory I opened a file
>from? I have to keep re-navigating to the directory.
That sounds like more a matter of preference than of capability.
Plus, it's something that has little if anything to do with the
presentation of the actual interface.
>
>* how come I have to keep selecting what application I want to use with "Open
>With"?
This is simply a matter of what you're used to.
>
>* how come I can't configure that I want to double click to open or start an
>application or file? Sometimes I'll accidently "click" on an icon and it opens
>up on me. This is a real pain.
This just sounds odd.
>
>* how come there are no descent web browsers for linux. Netscape and Mozilla
>keep crashing on me. Mozilla would be pretty cool if it'd stay up and was a
>lot quicker? Netscape is just pure 'D crap.
So does IE5 under Win2K.
If IE is your benchmark, and it likely is, then Linux is no
more deprived of a decent web browser than Windows is. Both
decendents of Mosaic are crap.
>
>* how come copy and paste keystrokes aren't consistent accross apps?
>
>* how come font size isn't consistent among apps? One app will have teeny-
>weeny font while another will have big-chief tablet font.
The expectation of distinctiveness amongst disinct things, how odd.
>
>* how come Window Managers are so slow?
Mine aren't. Then again, I actually bother to check out the
available options rather than using the first thing that is
put in front of me and acting as if that is the only option.
[deletia]
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why NT is shite
Date: 14 Sep 2000 00:36:41 GMT
Mark Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>
:>W2K attempts to protect critical system files from software
:>"upgrades." It may be worth a look if you can't get a Unix or Linux
:>port of your app.
:>
: Agreed. Any descent Windows programmer should know better than to
: "replace" the system libraries. If they have to do something so drastic
: the installation should prompt the user if they wish to do so and back up
: the originals.
: I don't know if this illustrates how crappy NT is, but instead more how
: crappy the software developers were. In short, they should have know
: better.
The problem is that if you use popular development tools such as VB,
or any third-party OCX controls, those depend on relatively recent
versions of system libraries (DLLs). There is no way to make them
work without installing them, and there is usually no decent
versioning on these libraries and no way to make multiple versions
coexist.
The Win32 platform truly is a nasty, loathesome beast, for this and
many other reasons. I'm very glad to be moving away from it, albeit
at what still seems like a snail's pace.
Joe
------------------------------
From: Chris Harshman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.admin
Subject: Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 17:38:40 -0700
Minix, SCO Xenix, Coherent, UnixWare - all of these UNIX operating systems ran
on the x86 architecture well before Linux arrived! Too, Linux runs quite
happily on a variety of boxes, notably DEC Alphas, Sparc / UltraSparcs,
PowerPCs, etc., etc.
Further, it's "Torvalds."
Chris
Ingemar Lundin wrote:
> And!... important to remember...Linux is for all all intents and purposes a
> *INTEL* system,
> - indeed a rarity for a Unix system before Linux came to life (thank god for
> Thorvalds,
> -or we all would have to use Windows NT/2000 as the only strategic OS on a
> Intel machine)
>
> /IL
>
> > The commercial Unices are mostly sold by hardware vendors, and often
> > are specific to their own hardware. Linux runs on almost all of the
> > same hardware, but may or may not perform as well or be as robust as
> > the "native" OS. It depends greatly on the quality of the
> > architecture as well as that of the port.
--
Chris Harshman
Supreme Commander of all that is UNIX
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+1-310-840-8967
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451800
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 00:37:08 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I'll just stick to following your lead,
> Stuyck (our-very-own-twice-elected-KOTM).
Quick Jim, throw yourself off of a tall building! It's for the greater
good!! ;-)
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451800
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 00:39:30 GMT
Dave "Fozzy" Tholen wrote:
>
> Marty writes:
>
> > Dave "Fozzy" Tholen wrote:
>
> Where did that come from, Marty?
Your lack of culture never ceases to astound.
> >> Marty writes:
>
> >>>> Jim "our-very-own-twice-elected-KOTM" Stuyck writes:
>
> >>> Why not pick a more unique name, like "Fozzy" or "Kermit"?
>
> >> Stuyck wanted to be addressed by his title, Marty. I'm simply
> >> following his lead, and he hasn't used either of those.
>
> > I'd like to be addressed by you as "Fozzy".
>
> Why?
Because that is what I would like.
> > Are you now going to follow my lead?
>
> Perhaps.
Aren't you sure?
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?
From: Darin Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 00:44:19 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Johnson) writes:
> * how come an application doesn't remember the last directory I opened a file
> from? I have to keep re-navigating to the directory.
I've got several Windows apps with the same problem!
Which brings up the first point: Are you criticizing UI systems, or
applications built for them?
> * how come I have to keep selecting what application I want to use with "Open
> With"?
Gosh, I have the same problem on Windows! I don't always want to use
the same application to open a file with each time.
Personally, the whole idea of associations breaks down badly with
files that aren't tied to a single application - do you open up JPG
files in IE, in Photoshop, in a viewer, etc? Even more confusing
with "text" files.
> * how come I can't configure that I want to double click to open or start an
> application or file? Sometimes I'll accidently "click" on an icon
> and it opens up on me. This is a real pain.
Yep a pain. Be glad there are a lot of configurable things though,
unlike Windows with it's one-choice-fits-all.
> * how come there are no descent web browsers for linux. Netscape and Mozilla
> keep crashing on me. Mozilla would be pretty cool if it'd stay up and was a
> lot quicker? Netscape is just pure 'D crap.
I rarely have Netscape crashes. I also don't upgrade it at the drop
of a hat. Maybe the latest/greatest isn't stable, whereas an older
version would be better?
I actually prefer the Netscape I used on UNIX to the one I have on Windows.
> * how come copy and paste keystrokes aren't consistent accross apps?
Because Motif decided to have their own standard, there's no
authoritative body to say "thou must use this method", etc.
There's confusion too - I once tried to get a developer at a place I
worked to use something that would work with XTerm's cut/paste, and
he said he did what Motif said, things worked with the editor he used,
customers haven't complained, if it ain't broke dont' fix it, etc.
> * how come font size isn't consistent among apps? One app will have teeny-
> weeny font while another will have big-chief tablet font.
How come many Windows apps fail when I switch to large fonts?
> * how come Window Managers are so slow?
That's a surprise. I find them fast.
> It's been almost 10 years
> and the Linux UI while definitely better, just doesn't feel very
> mature.
OK, I didn't really mean to be in a "Windows has the same problem"
mode, but Linux isn't the only OS with "maturity" problems. However,
one of the problem is that X Windows *is* mature; that is, it's been
around a long time and has a lot of history. New OS's have an easy
time making things consistent (all apps designed about the same time,
there's only one set of UI guidelines to work with, and people haven't
had time to try and expand the envelope).
> I always have this subconscious feeling that Linux developers couldn't care
> less about the actual user.
First, developer's ARE actual users. Many OS's forget this fact (look
at Windows based development tools, things made for people that
understand computers, and they still treat the user like a novice).
Second, they do. But "the actual user" comprises thousands of
different viewpoints. Not all the viewpoints can be accomodated
in a short period of time. Be glad that Linux is at least trying
to accomodate different viewpoints.
Third, there are lots of different developers. They're not identical,
and they're not all collaborating on the same things. Find the right
developers and complain to them, rather than lump all developers
together.
------------------------------
From: "Rev. Don Kool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.admin
Subject: Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 00:43:48 GMT
Nitin Mule wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> A lot of times I come across postings where some people use the term
> "Real Unix" and they argue that it is superior to Linux without giving
> any technical reasons to support that argument. I observed that often
> these people refer to the features of applications, device drivers etc.
> and not necessarily about the context switching, process management,
> etc. by the OS kernel. Their viewpoint then obviously doesn't make much
> sense to me.
>
> On the other hand, I have also seen some people (including notable
> authors of Unix sysadmin books) referring to Linux as "Modern Unix" when
> referring to the kernel architecture. I tend to believe that for obvious
> reasons but I'm not an expert on this topic and I am open to change my
> opinion! But for now, I think I will call the so called "Real Unix" as
> "Old Unix" and Linux as "Modern Unix". Is that fair?
Not really. UNIX is a trademark of The Open Group. Only operating
systems that are certified by The Open Group can properly be called
UNIX systems. LINUX can't pass certification so it is wrong to
refer to it as "Real Unix", "Old Unix" or "Modern Unix". It is no
UNIX system at all.
Hope this helps,
Don
--
********************** You a bounty hunter?
* Rev. Don McDonald * Man's gotta earn a living.
* Baltimore, MD * Dying ain't much of a living, boy.
********************** "Outlaw Josey Wales"
http://members.home.net/oldno7
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 20:46:06 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?
Mark Johnson wrote:
>
> * how come I have to keep selecting what application I want to use with "Open
> With"?
>
You don't. From kfm, Edit->Mime Types.
Gary
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
