Linux-Advocacy Digest #131, Volume #29 Fri, 15 Sep 00 20:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: The internet was built on WIndow 95? (was Re: How low can they (lyttlec)
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux (Steve Mading)
Re: The Government's Decision to Use Microsoft (Steve Mading)
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Computer and memory ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Unix rules in Redmond (Jeff Szarka)
Re: Computer and memory ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (Jeff Szarka)
Re: Linux to reach NT 3.51 proportions in next 2 years (Steve Mading)
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (Jeff Szarka)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Date: 15 Sep 2000 23:06:45 GMT
On Fri, 15 Sep 2000 20:15:31 GMT, Yannick wrote:
>This, of course, can be considered not useful (what with admins installing
>the programs and setting up proper securities).
Well actually, on UNIX, program install with sensible permissions by
default. So in practice, you don't need to worry about "accidently
deleting" things. Still, file system corruption or seomthing like that
could occur at least in theory, and that's when you use rpm -V
>case when you install some software yourself and don't want to take the time
>to set up the permissions i
The good thing about UNIX is that the permissions are reasonable in the
first place.
> so as to prevent yourself from removing the
>program, in that case the auto repair might come useful, although this is
>only comfort.
Well like I said, you can use rpm -V which will report missing files,
then re-install.
>> > and also that possibility to advertise optional
>> >functionality with on-demand installation ? And the package
>transformations,
>> >allowing multiple package customizations while reducing HD space ?
>>
>> I don't know what you mean by the above.
>Since I don't know which one you refer to, I'll detail both :
>- on-demand installation lets you install some menu options, shortcuts,
>etc... referring to elements that are not really installed until you invoke
>them.
I see. IN LInux, you'd acheieve this goal by having multiple packages.
vim-color
vim-common
vim-X11
...
qt
qt-devel
qt-documentation
...
>you're the sysadmin. You want to decide what elements are needed for each
>category of users, and perform an automatic installation of those packages.
>For each category of users, you build a transformation of the MSI package
>describing the actual setup options. This transformation is not a new
>package, it really is the definition of the transformation : when you
>install with the transformation, it uses the original MSI package. Thus, if
>you have ten different categories of users with different needs, you'll only
>have one big MSI file and ten much smaller files describing the
>tranformations.
Are you saying you install the software once for each user ? I'm confused.
>Now you set up everything so that the install starts when your users log off
>on friday evening and shutdown their machines after completion.
If you want to set certain times for installs, you can do this with
cron.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: lyttlec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The internet was built on WIndow 95? (was Re: How low can they
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 23:10:35 GMT
Simon Cooke wrote:
>
> "sandrews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > (Jim Richardson) wrote:
> > > On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 16:48:15 GMT,
> > > Ingemar Lundin, in the persona of
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, brought forth the following
> > > words...:
> > >
> > >>FUTILE....
> > >>
> > >>/IL
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> Better check the calendar again, it's still the 20th century for a
> > >>> few
> > >>more
> > >>> months.
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >
> > >
> > > Futile to correct you? I know, but the post was for others more than
> > > you.
> > > Exposing you're ignorance isn't work, it's just fun.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Jim,
> >
> > It`s the same as how windows works. If it`s close enough then it works.
> > They can`t be bothered by wether or not it is correct. Just a reboot will
> > solve your problems. But Hey they will buy windos anyway.
>
> The point is that everyone but pedants celebrated the new millennium *this*
> January 1. If you want to be really pedantic about this, it's not 2000 years
> since the last one anyway because of the Gregorian/Julian date changeover.
> Which makes the new millennium (depending on how you look at it) either:
>
> 1 January 2001
> 19 December 2000 (Julian calendar converted to Gregorian)
> 3 March 2000 (Julian calendar converted to Gregorian, Julian New Year)
>
> ... not to mention all the differing month lengths, the fact that if you're
> jewish, the new millennium is on 17th September 2240 (Jewish New Year,
> 6001AM), or if you're islamic it's 28th December 2562.
>
> So... take your pick. Claiming that it's "Jan 1 2001" is about as good a
> guess as anyone's, I guess.
>
> To be honest, either way it doesn't matter -- both are party dates.
>
> Simon
>
> Simon
Until you try to write a calendar and forget that there isn't a year
zero in any of the above. But I do agree that two parties are better
than one. I hope Rome does better with its millennium party than the US
and London did.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: 15 Sep 2000 23:09:14 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: On 15 Sep 2000 03:16:33 GMT, Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
:>: On 5 Sep 2000 22:17:14 GMT, Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>:>In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
:>:>
:>:>: Person 7 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
:>:>: news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
:>:>:> On Fri, 26 May 2000 03:16:59 GMT, in comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,
:>:>:> ([EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)) wrote:
:>:>:>
:>:>:> >If you have a sufficiently fast Internet connection and an existing OS
:>:>:> >(even one as old as DOS), the only things you'd need to download for
:>:>:> >RedHat is 'bootnet.img' and 'rawrite.exe'. :-) The rest is sucked
:>:>:> >in later. :-)
:>:>:> >
:>:>:> Emphasis on "UN-metered" connection.
:>:>:> You should see what I have to pay for my Internet connection.
:>:>
:>:>: That is why Linux is available through so many channels. On-line, in
:>:>: stores, free with books, etc. You can pick the method that best fits your
:>:>: situation.
:>:>
:>:>I generally prefer to buy an off-the-shelf copy at a store, for two
:>:>reasons: 1 - $50 or so is worth the savings in time (downloading
:>:>an entire CD's worth onto hard disk, then burning my own CD from
:>:>that is an annoyingly tedious task, and takes up lots of disk space
:>
:>: ???
:>
:>: Even doing all of this stuff at the commandline is hardly
:>: tedious. There are a plethora of gui tools available for
:>: burning an Image to disc under Linux. Downloading those
:>: images is also not something that can be reasonably called
:>: tedious. It may take a long time. However, that's merely
:>: a matter of having a file transfer dialog open on your
:>: desktop for a few hours.
:>
:>Errr - "few hours"? Ever try downloading a 650 Mb over
: Mind your grammar. It was not merely the download process
: that you were implying was tedious. Correspondingly, it
: was not merely the download process I was commenting on.
Adding more steps to a manual process cannot decrease its tediousness,
it can only increase it. Therefore a manual process cannot be less
tedious than its most tedious component step. If the download is
tedious, then the manual process that contains the download inherits
that tediousness.
: Follow your own advice.
: [deletia]
: I shudder to think what you would have done in the 1200 bps era.
The 1200 bps era? I certainly wasn't sitting around thinking, "gee,
I sure wish I could download a Linux distro - too bad it's only 1990
and it doesn't exist yet."
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Government's Decision to Use Microsoft
Date: 15 Sep 2000 23:20:44 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Of course, the Windows programmer was an uneducated boob (who woulda
: thunk it),
: who failed (who woulda thunk it) to safeguard against such an occurance
: (who woulda thunk it).
: Microsft and usage is all about being uneducated.
A safer solution would be to let the offending program die like it's
supposed to when a bug like that comes up - BUT - design the system
so that it has lots of processes spread around so a crash in one
server doesn't crash the others, so you don't lose all your functionality
at once. While it's easy to blame the programmer for this, don't forget
that Windows process design encourages monolithic processes with threads
rather than independant processes.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 19:17:08 -0400
Jack Troughton wrote:
>
> Missed the original reply to my post, so...
>
> Sam Morris wrote:
> >
> > > > > > >I wonder how the eco-paranoids can explain the ice ages and
> > tropical
> > > > > > >fossils well north of 40 degrees North latitude which occurred many
> > > > > > >millions of years before the rise of man.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Plate Tectonics. Look it up.
> > > > >
> > > > > I know that. I was wondering how the eco-nuts would explain it since
> > they
> > > > > claim that man is responsible for climatic changes, etc. --
> > > >
> > > > They are not exclusive. Just because there are non-human processes
> > > > that lead to climatic changes, doesn't necessarily mean that human
> > > > processes can't also lead to climatic change.
> > > >
> > > > The big problem with human-induced climatic change is the time scale
> > > > involved. If human processes accelerate climatic change, causing a
> > > > change that would normally take hundreds or thousands of years to
> > > > occur happen in years or decades, the amount of time available to
> > > > adjust and survive becomes reduced, making it harder for us to adapt
> > > > to it.
> > >
> > > Name one. Please provide concree, unassailable evidence that
> > > can prove (beyond any doubt or controversy) that without human
> > > activity, the climatic change would have happened more slowly.
> > >
> > > Name ..just...one.
>
> Go look up the deserts of Northern Africa. In the time of Rome, they
> weren't deserts. They are now. It is generally accepted in the
> scientific community that the use of slash-and-burn agriculture was
> a major if not the determining factor in causing this change, and
> certainly accelerated it a great deal.
>
> > My god, that sounds just like something Edwin would have said.
>
> Dunno about Edwin... is he obnoxioux too?
>
> > > > For example, human beings possess the power to change the climate in
> > > > a matter of days; if there was a full scale nuclear war, winter
> > > > would almost certainly follow within days and last for years.
> > >
> > > When have we done this?
>
> We wouldn't be talking about this if we had. It doesn't mean that
> the capability is not there.
>
> > Noone's saying we have.
>
> I get the idea that facts such as what was and was not said mean
> little to Mr. Kulkis. The important thing to him seems to be that
> he's right and anyone who disagrees with him is a <delete expletive
> of the moment> moron.
>
> > > > It's the same problem with genetic engineering. A migration of genes
> > > > from the Arctic Char to the tomato can happen; however, normally
> > > > that would take several million years. We managed to do it in less
> > > > than ten. The rapid change in the genome means that other species
> > > > that are parasitical/symbiotic/competitive with the tomato only have
> > > > a very short period of time to adjust, if they need to.
> > >
> > > That is not CLIMATE, fool.
> >
> > It's an example to illustrate how humans can enact change over a vastly
> > shorter timespan than would have normally occurred.
>
> I would've added my own response, but Mr. Morris summed up the
> reason for my example nicely. Besides, all of this is off-topic;
> haven't you noticed the subject line, Mr. Kulkis?
>
> Or are you too busy mentally masturbating over your atomistic view
> of nature?
>
> > > > Now, let's suppose that someone makes an alteration to wheat that
> > > > makes it very successful. The new more successful wheat crowds out
> > > > the older varieties quickly because it is far more able to survive
> > > > in its niche. However, there's one problem with this imaginary
> > > > wheat; the change has also rendered it inedible to humans. What do
> > > > you do then?
>
> Note: no response.
>
> > > 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.
> >
> > What the hell are you trying to prove? Your overly long signature seems to
> > suggest you have a problem with insecurity.
>
> No, I think he has more of a problem with hostility. His problem is
I only RESPOND to hostility WITH hostility.
> that he's incapable of restraining it. If he acted in face-to-face
> encounters with other human beings with even a fraction of the
> rudeness and crudeness that he displays on usenet, then he'd
> undoubtedly be spending a lot of time nursing black eyes and bloody
> noses.
>
> Oh yeah, he's almost completely lacking in a sense of humour as
> well. Him and the city of Detroit seem well suited to each other.
> Well, probably not the real city of Detroit, just its caricature. He
> fits the caricature of Detroit to a T.
>
> Jack
> Montreal PQ
> CANADA
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: "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"
I: 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: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
their behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 19:18:24 -0400
Steve Mading wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : Why is it the US's fault that there's a small link between here and
> : there?
>
> It's two countries fault. If one of them (US) is unwilling to help build
> a better link, there isn't a damn thing the other country can do about
> it, whether they have the money or not.
>
> : American companies have no incentive to build one because the UK laws
> : are so restrictive that demand for Internet in the UK is low -- or rather
> : the availability and fesability of getting Internet access is low.
>
> : Besides, why is it completely America's responsibility to build a bigger
> : link. What have the brits done besides bitch that we don't spend all our
> : money and build them a bigger link to us?
>
> You must be speaking a strange language that is almost but not quite
> entirely unlike English, seing as how in your language the word "all"
> means something different than it does for the rest of us.
>
> : Who's stopping the Brits? Like I said, quit whining about us and just do
> : it.
>
> So are you advocating that they trespass on US waters and build the whole
> cable themselves?
Satellites are cheap.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: "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"
I: 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: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
their behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 19:31:51 -0400
On 15 Sep 2000 14:19:53 -0700, petilon
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Internally when Windows 2000 was announced, people were told not to
>even think about using it for production because it was too unstable,"
>says this ex-Microsoftie.
Win2k Beta 3 was running microsoft.com.
I love Linux FUD though, keep it coming.
====== 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: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 19:19:21 -0400
Ian Westcott wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Christophe Ochal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> :> : You really should look in the mirror
> :>
> :> And you should start to think about what you see in the mirror. If anybody
> :> is arrogant then it is the Europeans, they have nothing but complains...
>
> : I have no reason to complain, i speak multiple languages, i have a good &
> : free health insurance, assured incomes even if i loose my job, i can buy
> : just about anything i need.
>
> : What i am reacting against is the attitude you & chad have, you seem to
> : think that the us is the centre of the world, well, guess what, there's
> : nothing but magma in the centre of the world.
>
> Actually the "center" is solid. It's the magma that covers it on the
> outside, and the crust is a very thin layer over that. Earth: Gooey
> exterior with a warm crunchy center.
>
> : You're just as dependant on other countries as they are on you, so what if
> : most of the current tech is invented in the states, you sell it to anyone
> : willing to buy it anyway.
>
> : You guys are no worse or better then Europeans, Asians or whatever, live
> : with it
>
> Something that the non-Americans seem to have been dodging in this
> thread is that the telecom situation in GB really IS horrid. I can't
That's what you get when you decide that the government should
run everything.
> say anything for the rest of Europe, since I don't know what the
> situation is like there.
>
> --
>
> Ian Westcott Rakarra@IRC
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: "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"
I: 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: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
their behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 19:39:20 -0400
On Wed, 13 Sep 2000 21:39:34 -0400, Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,38736,00.html
>
>=====
>Graeme Devine, a designer at Id Software, which makes Doom and Quake,
>said that overall, Mac OS X is a stronger operating system than Linux or
>Windows NT.
It's really pointless who likes it and who dislikes it. It makes no
difference.
It's a good thing Apple finally has a decent OS but unless Apple ports
it to x86 it's doomed to join the likes of.. well... the current MacOS
and BeOS PPC.
I actually don't see why Apple is so scared of x86... I'm sure their
cultists... or... loyalists rather... would still pay the fruit tax
and pay 25-50% more for a Apple PC over a Dell PC.
I bet a lot of PC users would consider buying a x86 imac. In the end,
it'd help them a lot more than it'd hurt them.
====== 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: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux to reach NT 3.51 proportions in next 2 years
Date: 15 Sep 2000 23:32:09 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: 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.
Irrelevant, since Windows copied the start menu idea from X windows'
root menu in the first place, and it copied the taskbar idea from
the iconbox available with so many X window managers.
------------------------------
From: Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 19:42:47 -0400
On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 12:06:46 -0500, Mike Byrns
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> You are the ones getting there rocks off on the fact that *A* developer
>> likes the OS! If the fact that *A* developer likes an Apple OS seems to
>> be such big news makes it sound as if developers NEVER liked Apple. I
>> know that's not true but you all are sure acting like it is.
>
>Game developers, as a rule, never liked Macintosh because it failed to
>support many technologies available on Windows -- technologies that made
>their programming easier and more productive. Now game developers can
>use OpenGL on both platforms (and linux too if you count MESA :-)
OpenGL? You're living in 1997...
DirectX has actually matured into a very decent API and is now being
exclusively used for *MANY* projects. Including the follow up to the
game of the year, Unreal Tournament.
Given the comparisons of OGL vs. DX for features, it's no wonder so
many are switching. Add to that the disappointing sales of Quake 3 for
Linux, the extra portability added via OGL is even less relevant.
====== 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] ()
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 23:42:36 GMT
On Fri, 15 Sep 2000 21:58:23 GMT, Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Ian Davey wrote:
>> In article <8pq8u2$fje$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren
>Petrich) wrote:
>> >Aaron R. Kulkis mindlessly blathered:
>> >>Because Unix doesn't work on a "file typing" paradigm.
>
>Incorrect. Unix types files into arbitrary "executable" and "non-executable"
>categories. This is much worse than Windows associating only a single process
>with each type; Unix only ever associates one process for *any* file.
At the level of the kernel, that's all that's really required.
Furthermore, this is an extended attribute rather than just an
element of the filename. So what Unix has is actually a superset
of what Windows can provide.
>
>> >>Most files are subject to be opening by MULTIPLE programs. Therefore,
>> >>assigning a certain filename suffix to one exclusive program is a
>> >>HINDRANCE.
>
>Which is a complete non sequitur. One should be able to associate an
>arbitrary subset of all processes (they don't have to be programs, let
>alone applications) with a type so that whenever a user commands the
>shell to process an object, it returns a list of associated processes
>instead of forcing the user to hunt down the one process they want from
>an endless list of completely irrelevant objects.
>
>And that's another thing, the Unix model of starting a program to deal
>with a file and then closing that program (thus erasing any kind of run-
>time configuration the user made) is complete nonsense. Processes should
>have Orthogonal Persistence, which means that they start running the
>first time a user calls upon it and they stop "running" either when the
>system is shut down or when someone with authority explicitly removes it.
Why should a user process resemble a server process? What is
really the point of keeping some file handler forever resident.
Windows doesn't even bother to do this, especially if you are
indulging in lots of OLE.
>
>Take a text editor for example. Conceptually, it's a type of windowed
>server that takes filenames as input and generates file changes as output.
>There is *no* reason why a different "text editor" server process needs
>to be started for every single user, let alone for every single file. The
>whole Unix paradigm is fucked up from top to bottom.
No, it's not unecessarily complicated. You've mutated a potentially
quite rediculously simple process into something that now has to
deal with and be aware of security and concurrency issues.
The benefit of complicating a simple text editor in this fashion
is far from obvious.
[deletia]
Emacs is convoluted enough on it's own (compared to apps like vi)
without finding the need to turn an editor into a little Oracle
wannabe.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
