Linux-Advocacy Digest #352, Volume #29 Thu, 28 Sep 00 20:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (FM)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (FM)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (FM)
Re: programming languages and design (Jacques Guy)
Re: So did they ever find out what makes windows98 freeze up all the time? ("Dan
Jacobson")
Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS ("Philo")
Re: Linux? (Grega Bremec)
Re: filename extensions are NOT a kludge (Richard)
Re: IBM and Linux ("Philo")
Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS ("Ingemar Lundin")
Re: Linux? ("Ingemar Lundin")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (Bob Hauck)
Re: So did they ever find out what makes windows98 freeze up all the time? ("John
Garrison")
Re: Linux? (Grega Bremec)
Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS (.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (FM)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: 28 Sep 2000 22:50:09 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chris Sherlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Perhaps you should think about what you are saying here. You are asking
>a Linux advocate to leave comp.os.linux.advocacy
Well, I'm not really a Linux advocate, at least not
anymore.
>Although I have respect for the fact that you have ideas for a new O/S,
>wouldn't you be better off posting your ideas in comp.os.research?
Well, for one thing, it's a moderated newsgroup and
I fully hope that they would not let him post this
much nonsense.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (FM)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: 28 Sep 2000 22:52:12 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Chris Sherlock wrote:
>> Perhaps you should think about what you are saying here. You are asking
>> a Linux advocate to leave comp.os.linux.advocacy
>Hardly. I just asked him to stop hounding me and saying "me too,
>me too, me too" whenever someone else disagreed with me.
How ridiculous. I hardly ever repeated anyone else's
criticism. I also realize that you were completely unable
to refute any of my criticisms on their technical merits.
>> Although I have respect for the fact that you have ideas for a new O/S,
>> wouldn't you be better off posting your ideas in comp.os.research?
>You know, I've never thought of that. It's worth considering.
Ha.
Try comp.os.misc instead. Comp.os.research is too much of
a moderated group for you to be able to contaminate.
Dan.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (FM)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: 28 Sep 2000 22:52:53 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chris Sherlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>COBOL and BASIC. Perhaps you now see why I like C and C++?
Yuck. I understand now :)
You should try other languages though.
Dan.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 23:08:08 +0000
From: Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: programming languages and design
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> Tally Ho!
>
> I will merely comment that, at one point in the 80's or
> so, ANSI-standard Pascal was so sanitized one couldn't do
> a *thing* with it.
It was even worse than that! I remember my first
exposure to Pascal, with the compiler that came
with... I think it was the DEC-KL10 (or was
it the earlier Univac 1108? Doesn't matter,
read on). I wrote a little program, supposed
to produce some output on the screen (NOT
"hello world", it was meant to be _useful_).
It compiled fine, run fine, but did nothing.
I spent many hours trying to figure out where
the bug or bugs were. Finally, I found that,
if I rewrote it all in uppercase, it worked
fine! Now you've guessed. The compiler
ignored all lowercase characters because
they were not defined in the standard.
I never found a way of outputting lowercase
letters! I do not think there was one.
Turbo Pascal, on the other hand, was
designed by programmers, so it was useful
and practical. Of course it could not
comply with those silly standards!
If C was a disease, ANSI Pascal was
the Ebola virus!
------------------------------
From: "Dan Jacobson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.windows98
Subject: Re: So did they ever find out what makes windows98 freeze up all the time?
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 06:10:17 +0800
"David M. Butler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ?????
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > It's all well and good saying that people perhaps ought to report, and
> > give more accurate info on bugs, but who has time? If I reported
every
> > time win98 needed rebooting, I'd never be off the phone!
But won't reporting bugs possibly lead to an M$ investigation to see if
your 'papers are in order' and registered letters from their lawers if
your licences aren't 100% up to date or whatever? Therefore the silent
user mentality is produced.
> I've wondered for awhile now why MS doesn't have a semi-automatic bug
> reporting tool. Have a safe process running in the background that
grabs a
> dump of whatever when the system crashes. Ask the user if they'd like
to
> automatically (and anonymously) email the bug to MS when the system
reboots.
I notice the Windows Update homepage says it garners no info from your
connection... of course it could easy do a license check and turn off
your windows if you didn't pay up... therefore folks sometimes fear a
'free update' being 'party's over'.
--
www.geocities.com/jidanni E-mail: restore ".com." ???
Tel:+886-4-5854780; starting in year 2001: +886-4-25854780
------------------------------
From: "Philo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 18:12:05 -0500
you don't sound like a bad troll to me...
other than mac...
i use (or at least try out)as many operating systems as i possibly can.
since i've only gotten into computers during the last 14 months or so i have
been trying to make up for lost time.
somewhere in my house i have a machine which runs the following:
dos: 1 3 4 5 6 7 (including arachne)
win: 1 2 3 95 98
linux: red hat mandrake
os/2 : 2.1 warp3
nde
a cp/m emulator
and oh yes BeOs
and i agree BeOs is a damned nice OS but will need some more apps before i
will be using it on a daily basis (do you know of a *good* news reader &
where it might be found...i could use one)
probably use linux as my #2
and still using win98 most of the time due to the good usb support...
i'd say linux *and* BeOs will probably be gaining ground just as fast as the
applications grow.
i suppose i will have to wait for someone to give me their old mac before i
can comment in that area. people just keep giving me their old junk and i
keep finding something to do with it.
Philo
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Grega Bremec)
Subject: Re: Linux?
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 23:20:54 GMT
...and Ingemar Lundin used the keyboard:
>slackware is for <titel> OberGeneral peek geeks!
>
>nothing to do with "modern" Linux ;)
...meaning what?
Are you trying to say one can't run something on Slackware without a
considerable ammount of trouble, whereas that is possible on a
"modern" linux distribution?
Just what do you imagine as "modern"? A GUI install? Frontends that
change configuration files without you knowing it? Zillions of small
apps that make understanding what's going on even more difficult?
Oh, I forget, you just point & click... NOT!
FYI, Slackware is, as well as any other GNU/Linux distribution, an
ONGOING project. Just what that means, I'm leaving to you to think
over.
(The one thing I should disclaim right here is that I'm not expecting
you to come up with anything overwhelmingly smart, because you seem
all too prejudiced to me. Even the fact that you managed to post two
identical pieces of crap in your berserk mood tells enough about your
"objective" view of things...)
Chill out, dude.
--
Grega Bremec
grega.bremec-at-gbsoft.org
http://www.gbsoft.org/
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: filename extensions are NOT a kludge
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 23:22:54 GMT
"Donal K. Fellows" wrote:
> That's complete bollocks. The purpose of a programming language is to
> tell a computer what to do in such a way that a person can understand
> it too. English is *not* a programming language, and yet it can be
> used (and used effectively) to communicate with other human beings
> about computers. Hence, you're wrong.
Only because we don't have the AI technology to compile it. Quite
a few people would like to use natural human languages as computer
languages. ;-)
> Naturally, you claim to comprehend what these laws of beauty are? And
No, I only claim that they exist (I do know some of them but it's hardly
the level of comprehension) and that I go to great lengths to get a feel
for them. Comprehension will have to wait until I can read On The Nature
Of Order by Christopher Alexander, which will have to wait until the 4
volume book is actually published!
One of the laws of order is structure scaling with a ratio between
length scales of e.
> the fact that there are plenty of people arguing with you is not
> indicative of anything?
Only that I tend to have unusual ideas that people don't seem to
understand readily (this applies to politics and philosophy as well
as Design.)
> Having done program development and maintenance in SML, it is quite
> capable of being a complete pain-in-the-backside. What makes for a
> good programming language is not necessarily what you *think* makes
> for a good programming language. There isn't even (IMHO) a universal
> solution to the problem.
Was it piping that was at fault?
> C++ is awful though. :^)
:-)
------------------------------
From: "Philo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: IBM and Linux
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 18:23:15 -0500
here is the history of ibm as i recall it:
back when i was a kid...in the early 1960's...the word
"computer" and "ibm" were synonymous...
the computer was just as often called an "ibm machine"
and when we got the bills from the gas company...
it was on an "ibm" card.
from an interview i read with bill gates...
it took ibm about 5 years to develop a product so they ended up having to
"farm out" their work to speed up productivity.
and of course as we all know bill gates/microsoft was hired to do the
operating system (dos)...
when bill (i'm leaving the interview now) figured; why not do this myself
without ibm etc.
so even though ibm may have lost some ground in the past...they never lost
their reputation and with linux...i imagine they can potentially turn the
tables on bill gates.
right now they are working on a parallel processing supercomputer with cpu
and memory all on one chip...as a matter of fact supposedly with about a
dozen
cpu/memory units per chip...and a dozen of these per motherboard...
then again...whenever i read in the paper about what is being developed...
i don't always see it...
but who knows?
Philo
------------------------------
From: "Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 23:32:08 GMT
"Philo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
news:39d3d094$0$140$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> you don't sound like a bad troll to me...
> other than mac...
> i use (or at least try out)as many operating systems as i possibly can.
> since i've only gotten into computers during the last 14 months or so i
have
> been trying to make up for lost time.
> somewhere in my house i have a machine which runs the following:
> dos: 1 3 4 5 6 7 (including arachne)
> win: 1 2 3 95 98
> linux: red hat mandrake
> os/2 : 2.1 warp3
> nde
> a cp/m emulator
> and oh yes BeOs
and a life? you do have one....right? ;)
>
> and i agree BeOs is a damned nice OS but will need some more apps before i
> will be using it on a daily basis (do you know of a *good* news reader &
> where it might be found...i could use one)
dont swet... that will sure take some time - if ever ;)
>
> probably use linux as my #2
> and still using win98 most of the time due to the good usb support...
be carefull... you said a good thing about a ms product ;)
>
> i'd say linux *and* BeOs will probably be gaining ground just as fast as
the
> applications grow.
linux has already gained considerably ground as one of the few (if not the
only one) strategic
intel-based os besides nt/2000 (yeah yeah i know... "other *nix such as
....blah blah blah")
beos has'nt and will not gained anything near that!
>
> i suppose i will have to wait for someone to give me their old mac before
i
> can comment in that area. people just keep giving me their old junk and i
> keep finding something to do with it.
be glad to not knowing anything about mac:s ;)
/IL
>
> Philo
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux?
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 23:34:28 GMT
"Grega Bremec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> ...and Ingemar Lundin used the keyboard:
> >slackware is for <titel> OberGeneral peek geeks!
> >
> >nothing to do with "modern" Linux ;)
>
> ...meaning what?
>
> Are you trying to say one can't run something on Slackware without a
> considerable ammount of trouble, whereas that is possible on a
> "modern" linux distribution?
>
> Just what do you imagine as "modern"? A GUI install? Frontends that
> change configuration files without you knowing it? Zillions of small
> apps that make understanding what's going on even more difficult?
>
> Oh, I forget, you just point & click... NOT!
>
> FYI, Slackware is, as well as any other GNU/Linux distribution, an
> ONGOING project. Just what that means, I'm leaving to you to think
> over.
>
> (The one thing I should disclaim right here is that I'm not expecting
> you to come up with anything overwhelmingly smart, because you seem
> all too prejudiced to me. Even the fact that you managed to post two
> identical pieces of crap in your berserk mood tells enough about your
> "objective" view of things...)
>
> Chill out, dude.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!......AAAAAaaaaa......good one little slacker......;)
that did hurt didnt it?
/IL
> --
> Grega Bremec
> grega.bremec-at-gbsoft.org
> http://www.gbsoft.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 21:04:52 GMT
On 28 Sep 2000 22:09:07 GMT, Joseph T. Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>: True. Yes, the average american household is in debt...but, it's
>: for the purpose of paying of real estate.
>
>Most people in our line of work could afford to pay cash for a house
>if they would live within their means.
Eventually. Personally, I'd rather have the mortgage, since I have to
pay for a place to live one way or another while I'm saving up that
cash.
>When they choose not to, I conclude that they too are acting unwisely,
>and to their own detriment, in their use/abuse of debt.
For one thing, the debt to buy a house is subsidized by the government
through income tax deductions, lowering the effective interest rate by
30% or so. Further, the house and land gains value, usually at a rate
that's comparable to the interest. So a mortage is a decent deal for
most people, compared to renting for the same period of time.
>But for most people, loans for cars and computers and TVs and other
>depreciating consumer items are just plain stupid.
Sure, but houses bought by middle-class buyers typically *appreciate*
rather than depreciating, and if you aren't paying a mortgage you
usually have to pay rent instead. These factors make things come out
quite different in the case of a mortgage, particularly for a primary
residence, compared to typical consumer debt.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: "John Garrison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.windows98
Subject: Re: So did they ever find out what makes windows98 freeze up all the time?
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 19:41:34 -0400
M$'s site is so vast I wouldn't know where to post a bug report if I had
one!
--
Counfucious said:
He cannot die happy; that hasn't owned a Jeep.
"Dan Jacobson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8r0jck$k9h$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "David M. Butler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ?????
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > It's all well and good saying that people perhaps ought to report, and
> > > give more accurate info on bugs, but who has time? If I reported
> every
> > > time win98 needed rebooting, I'd never be off the phone!
>
> But won't reporting bugs possibly lead to an M$ investigation to see if
> your 'papers are in order' and registered letters from their lawers if
> your licences aren't 100% up to date or whatever? Therefore the silent
> user mentality is produced.
>
> > I've wondered for awhile now why MS doesn't have a semi-automatic bug
> > reporting tool. Have a safe process running in the background that
> grabs a
> > dump of whatever when the system crashes. Ask the user if they'd like
> to
> > automatically (and anonymously) email the bug to MS when the system
> reboots.
>
> I notice the Windows Update homepage says it garners no info from your
> connection... of course it could easy do a license check and turn off
> your windows if you didn't pay up... therefore folks sometimes fear a
> 'free update' being 'party's over'.
> --
> www.geocities.com/jidanni E-mail: restore ".com." ???
> Tel:+886-4-5854780; starting in year 2001: +886-4-25854780
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Grega Bremec)
Subject: Re: Linux?
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 23:59:13 GMT
...and Ingemar Lundin used the keyboard:
>
>HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!......AAAAAaaaaa......good one little slacker......;)
>that did hurt didnt it?
>
No, it didn't hurt. I know for what Slackware is worth. I've been
using it for six years now, and it wasn't exclusively, you know.
It's just that what you were trying to say above is so without any
grounds that it doesn't make sense. Go tell that to a friend of yours,
if he/she is willing to listen to that crap, but please, don't do it
in a public forum, to a person that's trying to get objective
information about some product.
Troll.
--
Grega Bremec
grega.bremec-at-gbsoft.org
http://www.gbsoft.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS
Date: 29 Sep 2000 00:04:44 GMT
Michael Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." wrote:
>> Solaris has not been fully 64 bit for a decade. You dont know what youre
>> talking about.
> True, 2.6 was 32bit, but had 64bit file/memory access available if a program
> was compiled with the right flags (man largefile).
> 2.7/7 was the first fully 64bit version.
>> What else exactly runs *everything* in thread families? Besides realtime
>> OSen I mean.
> NT does IIRC.
Ah, I should have been more clear...what I meant to say was "what else
exactly runs only multithreaded *everything*"
=====.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
