Linux-Advocacy Digest #140, Volume #29 Sat, 16 Sep 00 11:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy? (Emmett Plant)
Re: Another "feature" in IE discovered. ("MH")
Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux (Gary Hallock)
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools ("Sam Morris")
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools ("Sam Morris")
Re: Unix more secure, huh? (sfcybear)
Re: Unix more secure, huh? ("Otto")
Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451800 (Mark Kelley)
Re: Unix more secure, huh? ("Otto")
Re: Help! Steve please come back - all is forgiven!!!!!!!! ("James")
Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451800 (Marty)
Re: Metcalfe on Linux ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Donovan
Rebbechi)
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! (lyttlec)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Donovan
Rebbechi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Emmett Plant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 12:15:47 -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)
The answer is simple. All of the mainstream desktop operating systems have
undergone vast amounts of user testing. This means taking a random sample of
people, inviting them in to test the new interface, videotaping their conclusions
to see if the user 'gets it,' and changing the environment accordingly to make the
interface easier to navigate and use. Apple has been doing this since the
mid-80's, and even Microsoft did it with Windows.
> 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 think that the Linux developer base is so diverse that I'm sure at some twisted
end of the radical opinion spectrum, this must be true of at least one person -
an infinite number of monkeys, after all. I think that the opinion probably isn't
as pervasive as you think, though. It's just a case where adequate user testing
hasn't been done. Sure, a lot of people run Linux, and they're not all rocket
scientists, but the simple fact of the matter is that most of the people that
currently run Linux are techies of one strain or another. There are, of course,
the 'my grandma runs Linux' stories, and these are great, but they're no excuse
for real user testing done in a truly scientific environment.
The good news is that this is changing - I believe Eazel has real user testing in
the works for Nautilus, and Helix for the Helix Gnome desktop. I'm glad to see
this is happening, if only because I think computers should be something that can
help people. Best way for that ti happen is for people to be able to use them.
-Emmett
------------------------------
From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another "feature" in IE discovered.
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 08:31:10 -0400
I'd gladly trade my movements being tracked for a browser that can:
Deal with text entry forms properly. Some work, many don't. Basic
functionality. Don't have it? Your browser is worst than second rate.
Allow copy operations from any part of the page, and paste into any of my
text editors
I can't copy text off a page in NN and paste it into any of KDE's editors.
This blows.
Fully functioning hot keys for all important operations.
I'm not a mouser. NN makes me have to be one for may operations.
Let me tab to ALL elements of a page. 'Enter' buttons being the most
important.
(how irritating to tab to each text widget only to have to mouse click the
button)
I.E., for all of the faults it does have, handles all of the above without
flaw.
If Linux needs anything, it's a decent web browser. I'd be logged into Linux
*MUCH* longer if I wasn't stuck with second and third rate web browsing. I
really hope Mozilla is the solution, but I'm losing hope with that fast.
Besides, there are easy ways around the 'tracking' issue, as with most MS
induced 'features'.
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Mon, 11 Sep 2000 22:55:42 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (D. Spider)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >IE feature can track Web surfers without warning
> >
> > Hmm... I must have missed your post on the infamous Netscape brown
> > orifice bug...
> >
> > Of course, I'm sure my server just dropped it...
> >
> > It's not like you'd be spreading FUD or anything... right?
>
> Quick Jeff, I have a telnet:// adderess you *must* visit -- you *are*
> using Windows 2000, right?
>
> --
> The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
> Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 08:32:51 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.admin
Subject: Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux
"Rev. Don Kool" wrote:
> Gary Hallock wrote:
> > "Rev. Don Kool" wrote:
>
> > > While you're trying to learn, you should learn that LINUX is not a
> > > UNIX system in any way, shape or form. LINUX cannot pass the
> > >
>
> > Really?
>
> Yes.
>
> > And you would know this how?
>
> I checked with The Open Group. LINUX doesn't appear in their lists
> of UNIX systems.
>
You really are clueless, aren't you. Of course Linux doesn't appear in the Open
Group list. That's what I said. But that in no way proves, or even hints at
the possibility, that Linux can not pass the certification required to be a UNIX
system.
>
> > If you are so knowledgeable about
> > Linux and Unix then why do you insist on using Windows 98?
>
> Because I have a PC at home and that's what PCs are for.
So, in other words, you are a Windows troll who has nothing better to do than
post to newsgroups trashing Linux.
>
>
> > The fact is that
> > Linux has not been certified. There is no reason why it couldn't be if
> > someone wanted to spend the money to have it done. If you know otherwise,
> > then please explain what Linux is lacking.
>
> Supporters who believe in it enough to pony up the money to try and
> have it certified as a UNIX system. What it of course doesn't lack
> is a large number of adherents who mislabel it a UNIX system.
>
It most likely will happen at some point, given the commercial interest in Linux
these days.
Gary
------------------------------
From: "Sam Morris" <[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: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 13:44:20 +0100
> > > > 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.
>
> And the problem with change is????????
It depends on your viewpoint. I myself quite like living, and would prefer
the human race and many of the organisms around today to continue for some
time into the future. This is less likely to happen if there are changes in
our environment, and much much less likely to happen if these changes are
rapid.
I take the earlier example of a global scale nuclear war, causing (among
many other factors) a lack of light (many plant species die, and species
that depend on them, and so on), radioactivity (good for insects, but not
much else) and freezing temperatures (which noone enjoys all that much).
On the other hand, you seem to imply that you would prefer the human race
and other organisms to all die from failure to adapt to rapid climactic
change. This attitude reminds me of that of many of the people in a David
Brin novel called Earth (everyone should read it).
--
Cheers,
Sam
------------------------------
From: "Sam Morris" <[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: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 13:47:46 +0100
> >> > > > >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.
> >
> >My god, that sounds just like something Edwin would have said.
>
> Considering that there is no faith amongst society in general
> that the weather can be predicted, how can we take seriously
> any claims regarding after the fact analysis of why a particular
> weather event has occured?
Climate is what you expect. Weather is what you get. We are quite good at
predicting climactic change.
>
> [deletia]
>
> Part of effective science is the capability to successfully predict.
--
Cheers,
Sam
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix more secure, huh?
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 13:10:16 GMT
In article <VJDw5.1862$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://www.msnbc.com/msn/460824.asp
>
> Yeah, yeah, troll, not a troll... who cares.
>
> Discuss...
>
> At least someone found a good use for Linux!
>
> -Chad
Please read the LAST line of the article:
""Vendors have patches for these vulnerabilities, and I encourage system
administrators to install them," Poule said."
Hey, if an admin does not keep up with the patches, he/she is vulnerable
to getting hacked (this includes MS software).
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Otto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix more secure, huh?
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 13:33:58 GMT
"Jeepster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8pvd4d$3nf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
: www.msnbc.com is running Microsoft-IIS/5.0 on Windows 2000
:
: LOL
:
:
: pot calling the kettle black methinks.....
And that suppose to diminish the validity of the actual news how? Maybe you
should look at the following link, CERT released the warning about Linux and
DDoS on Friday:
http://www.cert.org/incident_notes/IN-2000-10.html
You are not the only one who is laughing, hundreds of other hackers do the
same.
Otto
------------------------------
From: Mark Kelley <[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: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 08:39:32 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Meanwhile, you're not trying to provide substantiation, Mark.
Would you care if I did? I've seen you stare at incontrovertible proof
before and deny its existence. You are not intellectually honest. It's a
game I won't play with you.
--
Mark Kelley
------------------------------
From: "Otto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix more secure, huh?
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 13:47:22 GMT
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:VJDw5.1862$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
: http://www.msnbc.com/msn/460824.asp
:
: Yeah, yeah, troll, not a troll... who cares.
:
: Discuss...
:
: At least someone found a good use for Linux!
What is to discuss here? Maybe the inability of administrators/users to
secure their system, which is connected to the Internet. As for the "good
use" part... A hacker needs a stable system to do DDoS attacks, Linux is
more suitable for this task than MS OSs :).
Otto
------------------------------
From: "James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Help! Steve please come back - all is forgiven!!!!!!!!
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 16:00:39 +0200
:-) Good one, PAC.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8ppdoi$abm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <39bfc2fe$0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This NG is really boring since you left. Please come back. All is
> > forgiven.
> >
> > James
> >
>
> What are you trying to do? The new medication seems to working. Leave
> him/her/them/it alone. If he/she/they/it has a relapse, it'll be on
> your shoulders.
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
------------------------------
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: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 13:58:48 GMT
Dave "Fozzy" Tholen wrote:
>
> Marty writes:
>
> > Dave "Fozzy" Tholen wrote:
>
> Where did that come from, Marty?
The previous attribution in this thread. I was just being consistent.
> >> Marty writes:
>
> >>>>> Dave "Fozzy" Tholen wrote:
>
> >>>> Where did that come from, Marty?
>
> >>> The previous attribution in this thread.
>
> >> You didn't explain whee that one came from, Marty.
>
> > Of what relevance is "whee" that one came from?
>
> Typical evasion.
On your part. I cannot address your inquiry until you clear up what it was
that you meant.
> >>> I was just being consistent.
>
> >> Consistent with the lack of an explanation, Marty.
>
> > Still having reading comprehension problems, I see.
>
> You see incorrectly again, Marty.
You're erroneously presupposing that I was seeing incorrectly before.
> >>>>>> Marty writes:
>
> >>>>>>> Dave "Fozzy" Tholen wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Where did that come from, Marty?
>
> >>>>> Your lack of culture never ceases to astound.
>
> >>>> I see that you didn't answer my question.
>
> >>> Incorrect.
>
> >> Tyopical pontification.
>
> > What is allegedly "tyopical" about it?
>
> Typical evasion.
On your part. I see you failed to answer the question again.
> >>>> No surprise there.
>
> >>> No surprise that you would ignore the answer I presented.
>
> >> What alleged answer, Marty?
>
> > See above.
>
> Where is the alleged answer above, Marty?
Haven't you been paying attention?
> >>>>>>>> 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.
>
> >>>> Why?
>
> >>> Because I would like that.
>
> >> Why?
>
> > Because I would find that to my pleasing.
>
> Why?
Because it would be something that I would appreciate.
> >>>>>>> Are you now going to follow my lead?
>
> >>>>>> Perhaps.
>
> >>>>> Aren't you sure?
>
> >>>> I have no idea what your "lead" truly is,
>
> >>> Not surprising.
>
> >> Because of your inconsistency, Marty.
>
> > What alleged "inconsistency"?
>
> The inconsistency of your "leads", Marty.
You're erroneously presupposing inconsistency of my "leads", Dave.
> > I see you failed to note my consistent use of
> > the attribution in this thread.
>
> The key words here are "in this thread". It's the other threads
> that demonstrate your inconsistency, Marty.
I see you are having trouble sticking to this thread for your argument. No
surprise there.
> >>>> Marty, given that you are so inconsistent.
>
> >>> Incorrect, given that I've used the attribution consistently in
> >>> this thread.
>
> >> What do you consider "this thread" to be, Marty?
>
> > The postings in which I have used the attribution "Dave 'Fozzy'
> > Tholen" and your responses to such postings.
>
> Classic illogical circular reasoning.
Not at all. The above specified precisely and exactly what I consider "this
thread". It can be narrowed down to a finite number of postings which were
precisely the ones to which I was referring. There's nothing illogical about
being self-referential when we are still contributing to what I consider "this
thread".
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Metcalfe on Linux
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 10:03:00 -0400
Marshall Price wrote:
> Bob Metcalfe, a columnist at www.infoworld.com who's resigning soon --
> and one of the leading figures in Internet history -- said on "The Diane
> Rehm Show" recently that Linux "doesn't do much" besides running Internet
> servers on PC's, if I heard correctly.
So Mr. Metcalfe doesn't use TeX?
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?
Date: 16 Sep 2000 14:21:46 GMT
On Wed, 13 Sep 2000 23:39:24 GMT, 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.
>
>* how come I have to keep selecting what application I want to use with "Open
>With"?
You don't. You can configure KDE to open different file types with different
programs
>
>* 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.
Huh ? I think you can.
>
>* 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.
Netscape doesn't crash on me.
>* how come copy and paste keystrokes aren't consistent accross apps?
Copy: Select with left mouse button
Paste: Click with middle button.
This is consistent.
>* how come font size isn't consistent among apps? One app will have teeny-
Because it's configurable on a per-app basis. If you want to
globally make things bigger, you can change the DPI of the X-server.
>* how come Window Managers are so slow?
twm was pretty fast last I tried.
>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.
That's a load of nonsense. The KDE and GNOME developers are working hard
to implement features that users want.
>I feel so unproductive -
Because you haven't learned to use the OS yet. Others are perfectly
productive using it.
You weren't "productive" the first day you used Windows. You shouldn't
expect the same for linux.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: 16 Sep 2000 14:31:54 GMT
On Sat, 16 Sep 2000 04:54:33 GMT, Richard wrote:
>What's wrong with ASKING a user what apps she wants associated
>with an application and which particular one from the list to
>use at run-time?? Oh, wait, that's right; that would move power
>and control from the hands of programmers and into the hands
>of users. And we can't have THAT, can we?
Cut the nonsense. Linux ( in particular, KDE ) has file associations,
and if you actually used Linux, you would know that.
The only users who are "lacking control" are the ones too lazy or
stupid to learn how to use the features provided.
If I refuse to learn how to do file association under Windows, it doesn't
work very well there either.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: lyttlec <[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: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 14:41:45 GMT
Jim Richardson wrote:
>
> On Fri, 15 Sep 2000 04:27:39 GMT,
> lyttlec, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
> >Questions for the group :
> >1. Should I publish the code and give every one power to crash every MS
> >OS on the net? (Hint: MS can't fix this without completely re-writing it
> >operating systems)
> >
> >2. Should I patent the 16 lines of code, take the money and run?
> >
> >3. Should I just say, "To hell with it. Any one running such a dumb OS
> >deserves it." and take what I can get?
>
> Assuming what you say is true. (like I would know, ring what?)
> 2 has the same effect as 1, since the patent is available for all to see.
Have you looked at the US patent system lately? It takes real effort to
find anything you don't specifically know about. So it wouldn't be
widely known about and I (or my company who would give me $50 for the
license) would make some money. IBM patented the method of doing the
same thing on the x286 and no one used it. They were having their fight
with MS at the time and refused to grant them license. That would seem
to be the real reason for the HAL in NT.
> I don't understand what you mean by 3. But I'd say go for 1 or 4, which is
> figure out the solution, and patent _that_ hehehe.
>
I saw a report recently that estimated that something like $10,000
million dollars is lost each year by computer versions of various
schemes that involve stealing pennies from each of lots of accounts. If
NT/2000 become the internet standard, then it would be easy to steal a
penny or two per month from millions of accounts world wide. The
advantage of this type of attack is that the user doesn't need to be
made aware that anything extra is on his computer. It won't show up in
task manager or on any directory. No virus checker would find it. But
that takes lots of time and effort to bring off. Only someone like the
Godfather or MS or a wiser than usual amoral script kiddy could get away
with something like that. Seeing the code MS has posted on its sites, I
think they must be aware of the problem.
> --
> Jim Richardson
> Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
> WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
> Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: 16 Sep 2000 14:46:42 GMT
On Fri, 15 Sep 2000 21:58:23 GMT, Richard wrote:
>Ian Davey wrote:
>> In article <8pq8u2$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.
See "man magic" or "man file". There's further typing, though not on
a kernel level.
GUIs like KDE can do further association, using either magic or extensions
or both.
>> >>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.
I guess you could write an "openfile" command that does this using the
existing functionality. The reason why no one's written such a thing is
more lack of interest than anyone else. The people who care about file
associations usually prefer to do this kind of thing via a GUI.
And the problem has been addressed at the GUI level.
>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.
Well if that's what you want, just don't close the program ( duh ! ). I
don't see the benefit of forcing the user to leave the program open.
>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,
Well yes, there is. Even a web server typically starts a seperate process
for every user. There is no clear benefit to running everything in a single
process.
> let alone for every single file. The
This is false. You don't need a new process for each file.
>whole Unix paradigm is fucked up from top to bottom.
Your paradigm is even sillier.
>> and associated application in the file manager. Then a single click will
>> launch it in the application.
>
>And of course, this does not work in the shell; there's absolutely no reason
>why it shouldn't but that's that.
What do you mean by "doesn't work in the shell" ? Several applications, like
vim, emacs, a2ps, etc respond to the file type they're given appropriately.
>But this would be Design,
Stay away from design, you are not very good at it.
HAND
--
Donovan
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
