Linux-Advocacy Digest #440, Volume #29 Wed, 4 Oct 00 01:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway? (David M. Butler)
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (dc)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: The real issue (David M. Butler)
Migration --> NT costing please :-) ("Adam Warner")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 00:23:08 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Richard in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> Why not?
>
>Because people "want" Unix compatibility and that's something I won't
>provide. And *even* if I provided it, it just wouldn't be Unix and
>people are comfortable with Unix.
Some do. Most couldn't care less, as long as it works and it doesn't
cost a lot.
>> We're assuming, I guess, that you're designing a system that
>> won't suck, at least in your opinion. If you opinion is so unique and
>> unrelated to what makes an OS useful that nobody else would find benefit
>> in your system, it will suck. If it doesn't suck, other people will
>> want to use it.
>
>Which doesn't mean that 1) they will be aware of the existence of my OS
>(how many OSes do you know about? Is it around two or three dozen?) nor
>that 2) people will actually install my OS.
So you're designing your own OS, and once its programmed, you're the
only one who's going to use it? Wow, you must really be brilliant.
When's it going to be done?
[...]
>And this is the *easiest* "feature" to explain to people who don't
>know high-level design. How exactly would I explain Security (which
>I've touched on), extensibility, uniformity, reflection, distribution
>(Unix doesn't have it, Plan 9 only partially has it), connectedness,
>object-orientation (a la Alternate Reality) or exokernel? How do I
>explain the Quality Without A Name (geez, why *do* you think it has
>no name?) to people who stubbornly refuse to see the ugliness of Unix?
Well, that's where the abstract nature of language comes in, Richard.
Judging from the rapid degeneration of your posts with Roberto, and our
earlier exchanges, I'm not all that terribly interested in hearing you
try to explain them, anymore. Thanks anyway. Please go away.
>> As I mentioned recently, I've heard of other computer scientists which
>> believe that this would be the correct way to design an operating
>> system. But when the subject comes up, and the inevitable debate
>> starts, you don't provide an ongoing rant presenting the lengths to
>> which you've thought the issue through, and relate other benefits which
>> result from or contribute to this feature, and discuss why such a model,
>> outside of the preconceptions of people who have become familiar with
>> the Unix model. Instead you say something like "you've proven you're a
>> clueless moron, blah blah blah" and go on about the most esoteric
>> existentialist philosophy/mathematics/cognitive science crud that you
>> can find.
>
>Hehe. Well, that's one way of putting it. The problem is that teaching
>is *hard work* even if you have all the material already well-formulated.
>Teaching Calculus is hard work despite the fact that calculus has been
>taught for decades by tens of thousands of profs. How much harder do you
>think it is with material that isn't already neatly packaged together?
>
>> Still, it might be even more entertaining, if slightly less of a
>> spectacle, to discuss alternative OS models and why Unix is not ideal in
>> all circumstances.
>
>Unix is not ideal in /any/ circumstance except that you want an OS that
>has "features" which is compatible with the crap that's already out there
>and which has tons of applications for it. Pretty much like Windows.
Sounds like you just like to bitch. Bye.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== 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: David M. Butler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway?
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 00:29:24 -0400
Bob Hauck wrote:
> How _do_ you turn off DMA on an IDE disk in NT? Probably a registry
> key that's documented someplace in the bowels of MSDN. Where granma
> won't ever find it.
Actually, that's a bad one to use as an NT flaw. I'm not sure if it
automatically sets it during installation, but it's a matter of looking in
the device list and clicking on one of the drives. There's a checkbox for
DMA. It does lack most of the other config options you have with hdparm,
tho.
D. Butler
------------------------------
From: dc <[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: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 23:21:44 -0500
On Tue, 03 Oct 2000 20:46:30 -0500, Bryant Brandon
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, dc
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>@On Mon, 02 Oct 2000 23:57:07 -0500, Bryant Brandon
>@<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>@
>@>In article
>@><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, dc
>@><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>@>
>@>@On Mon, 02 Oct 2000 00:24:05 -0500, Bryant Brandon
>@>@<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>@>@
>@>@>In article
>@>@><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, dc
>@>@><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>@>@>
>@>@>@>@> Seems to be rather important if it can render the machine
>@>@>@>@> unusable.
>@>@>@>@
>@>@>@>@Do you have any proof that it can do that?
>@>@>@>
>@>@>@> Machine #21, AUDB room #307c, UNT campus, Texas. IOW, the very
>@>@>@>machine we've been discussing this entire thread.
>@>@>@
>@>@>@The *ONLY* thing we know about the machines in question is that you're
>@>@>@getting a disk error @ login. Aside from that, *EVERYTHING* else
>@>@>@mentioned in this thread is pure conjecture.
>@>@>
>@>@> You asked for "any" proof. Is this not "any" enough for you?
>@>@
>@>@No, because it isn't proof. You have no proof that the -profile- (and
>@>@limiting it via quotas) is the issue here in any way, shape, or form.
>@>
>@> So, now you want quotas too?
>@
>@I want you to fix this problem by finding someone to help you, rather
>@than simply giving up.
>@
>@>Before I run around trying to prove
>@>things for you, would you mind telling me what all I need to prove
>@>before I begin? You have a nasty habit of applying "bully rules" to
>@>your conversations. ie, changing the rules midway when you start losing.
>@
>@You have a nasty habit (you've done it here in this PC discussion of
>@your lab's issues) of blaming a lot of things without having a shred
>@of proof. I'm merely pointing out to you that you don't have that
>@proof, so you really don't have any idea what's wrong or whether
>@quotas/profiles are at fault (or would help).
>
> You don't want me to prove it. OK.
I don't? I didn't say that. Learn to read. I said you can't because
you don't have proof. You aren't capable of doing so. You may want
to do it, but it probably isn't going to happen.
>@>@>@I haven't given contradictory information. I've given information
>@>@>@that could apply in a variety of different scenarios, and you got
>@>@>@confused.
>@>@>
>@>@> Yes, you gave a variety of scenarios. However, when you presented
>@>@>them, you gave _no_ indication that they were different.
>@>@
>@>@Your lack of technical understanding clouds the issues.
>@>
>@> By "technical knowledge," do you mean "familiarity with windows," or
>@>do you mean "ability to read my mind"? Perhaps there is another
>@>definition I did not consider. Please, elaborate.
>@
>@Familiarity with Windows, NT/2k in this instance.
>
> So, it's not really a lack of technical knowledge, as you stated, but
>a lack of familiarity with windows. Calling me nontechnical implies
>that I am incapable of understanding, whereas I merely lack knowledge.
>That was rather dishonest of you. Now, we've established that I don't
>really lack technical understanding, merely a lack of information, how,
>exactly, would that explain how I got confused, without assuming that
>you're a poor writer?
Spin...spin. Joe Ragosta would be so proud! (But he's off slinking,
after we handed his guts to him on a platter for his incredibly
numerous debacles and screwups.)
>@>@>@>@>@>@>@>@Do you have any administrative experience at all?
>@>@>@>@>@>@>@>
>@>@>@>@>@>@>@> Yes.
>@>@>@>@>@>@>@
>@>@>@>@>@>@>@At what, exactly?
>@>@>@>@>@>@>
>@>@>@>@>@>@> My stuff. Net BSD on my IIci talking to my Quadra. Two
>@>@>@>@>@>@> machines.
>@>@>@>@>@>@>
>@>@>@>@>@>@>Two users: root, and me.
>@>@>@>@>@>@> Therefore, I have administrative experience.
>@>@>@>@>@>@
>@>@>@>@>@>@Not even close. You've set up a single BSD machine, something
>@>@>@>@>@>@that
>@>@>@>@>@>@typically takes about 30 minutes to a few hours and requires no
>@>@>@>@>@>@or
>@>@>@>@>@>@a
>@>@>@>@>@>@very light technical skillset; administrative experience would
>@>@>@>@>@>@be
>@>@>@>@>@>@doing that for a job (say, during summertime) 40 hours a week,
>@>@>@>@>@>@setting
>@>@>@>@>@>@up 20 or 30 users a day and doing permissions, NFS, CIFS, YP,
>@>@>@>@>@>@and
>@>@>@>@>@>@other 'stuff' day in and day out.
>@>@>@>@>@>@
>@>@>@>@>@>@By that logic, one can be an administrator because he's set up
>@>@>@>@>@>@OS
>@>@>@>@>@>@X
>@>@>@>@>@>@beta. That's silly.
>@>@>@>@>@>
>@>@>@>@>@> You asked: "Do you have any administrative experience at all?"
>@>@>@>@>@>
>@>@>@>@>@> I
>@>@>@>@>@>said, "Yes." Did I lie? Nope, you just asked a bad question.
>@>@>@>@>@>How
>@>@>@>@>@>am
>@>@>@>@>@>I
>@>@>@>@>@>supposed to know you meant, "Do you have any administrative
>@>@>@>@>@>experience
>@>@>@>@>@>that I would consider impressive?"
>@>@>@>@>@
>@>@>@>@>@Don't be silly. By that logic anyone running Windows 95 is an
>@>@>@>@>@account
>@>@>@>@>@operator / administrator (because hey, you can have a "multi-user"
>@>@>@>@>@(heh) Win95, too!)
>@>@>@>@>
>@>@>@>@> Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer....
>@>@>@>@
>@>@>@>@You were being stupid. The question was perfectly valid.
>@>@>@>
>@>@>@> The question: "Do you have any administrative experience at all?"
>@>@>@> The answer: "Yes."
>@>@>@> You didn't qualify it, but you meant to. Hence, it's a stupid
>@>@>@>question.
>@>@>@
>@>@>@You were being stupid, juvenile, and a smartass. "Administrative
>@>@>@experience" means administering systems, not setting up a single OS on
>@>@>@an old machine with "Root and me" as two users.
>@>@>
>@>@> I stated quite clearly that it was talking to my quadra, ie.
>@>@> network.
>@>@>You should be more careful when you toss around "any." If anyone's
>@>@>being stupid, it's the one who asked a very open-ended question, and
>@>@>then got miffed with an answer. It's like asking for a car, and then
>@>@>bitching that you got a pinto instead of a porche. Besides, if you're
>@>@>going to play it that way, no matter what kind of experience I detail
>@>@>to
>@>@>you, you can just ask for more/refine you definition retroactively.
>@>@>It's a trick alt.f/lamers like to pull. I actually have perfectly good
>@>@>experience above and beyond what I stated, but I know it won't "measure
>@>@>up" to your ever-changing definition of real experience. So, rather
>@>@>than pring that up, and defend it, I'll stick with my two
>@>@>machines/users
>@>@>tale, and let you sit on it.
>@>@
>@>@Sorry; installing a single machine isn't administrative experience, no
>@>@matter how you try to spin it.
>@>
>@> Reread the above. Try not to be (so) stupid.
>@
>@Spin...spin...spin.....
>
> To think I wasted so much rational reasoning on you when I could have
>just called you a dumbass in the first place. Such a shame.
Spin...spin.... by your logic, driving a car gives you serious racing
experience.
>@>@>@> You make far too many assumptions. I've been bugging the support
>@>@>@>staff for the entire semester. Unfamiliar with windows' methods !=
>@>@>@>lack
>@>@>@>of technical knowledge. The issue long ago turned from broke machine
>@>@>@>to
>@>@>@>bugging you about your continual contradictions. Then, even when by
>@>@>@>all
>@>@>@>common sense, what windows is doing is stupid, you accuse me of not
>@>@>@>understanding, yet you don't explain why, you accuse my support staff
>@>@>@>of
>@>@>@>being incompetent, then you turn around completely and accuse me of
>@>@>@>assigning blame willy-nilly?
>@>@>@> I don't mean to be rude, but you sure do seem to be an asshole.
>@>@>@
>@>@>@...because:
>@>@>@A) You can't be bothered to try to go to someone to fix the problem
>@>@>@(like, say, the dean of com-sci departments, for example)?
>@>@>@or because
>@>@>
>@>@> Dean of CSCI has NOTHING to do with this, and has about as much
>@>@> clout
>@>@>as I do in this matter. Do you know how a university operates? The
>@>@>university is divided into several schools, each of which is divided
>@>@>into departments. The division of schools is a little fuzzy, but the
>@>@>division of departments is clear. People in one department have
>@>@>absolutely no power in another department--even in the same school.
>@>@>Also, jumping straight to a dean, when my beef is with a lab, is a very
>@>@>good way to get myself blackballed.
>@>@> The first logical choice for me is to find who in the English
>@>@>Department is in charge of the writing labs, then talk to her. If that
>@>@>doesn't work, talk to the counselor for undergraduate english. Then
>@>@>the
>@>@>chair of the english department. Then the dean of the Arts/Sciences
>@>@>school or the dean of the School of education. Then the Chairman of
>@>@>the
>@>@>university.
>@>@> Along the way I'd mostly be talking to secretaries/paperwork/
>@>@>complaint boxes/schedules. On the rare occasion I get to talk to an
>@>@>actual person, they'll likely blow me off since I'm a) one student, b)
>@>@>not a greek or athlete, c) already on-file with the english department.
>@>@> As if that isn't enough, I have stated countless times that I have
>@>@>complained repeatedly of my problem. Can't you read?
>@>@
>@>@Can't you help yourself? "Pathetic" is the term that comes to mind
>@>@when presented with a person that just gives up, and then vents in
>@>@here all of his frustrations.
>@>
>@> I have not. I'm going through the proper channels. The fact that
>@>you are too dumb to realize this even after multiple explanations is not
>@>my problem. Tell me, are you unable to read, or do you simply refuse?
>@
>@You're a whiner.
>
> And you're a moron. Cope.
How am I a moron? *YOU* are the one with the problem. *YOU* are the
one that can't get it fixed. *YOU* are the one wasting time in here
complaining. Sounds like you're the moron to me.
>@>@I'm tired of telling you what's wrong;
>@>@go find someone who works in the labs and tell him to help you. If
>@>@you can't, tough cookies; that's not Microsoft's fault - it's yours,
>@>@for giving up rather than getting help. If you want to attack me for
>@>@suggesting you see the dean, more power to you, but you aren't any
>@>@closer to solving the problem. Get off your ass and fix the problem.
>@>
>@> Your suggesting that I see the dean is one of your dumber comments in
>@>this forum.
>@
>@Fine; see someone else who can help you. Obviously you've been
>@powerless up to this point; you really ought to figure out how to do
>@-something-.
>
> Are you familiar with the practice of "stonewalling"? Basically, an
>individual or group decides not to let someone do something, and it
>(stonewalling) happens. UNT (or this portion of it) has decided not to
>fix the problem or listen to me. Now, UNT is an institution with
>milions of dollars and thousands of employees. I'm a student living
>from paycheck to paycheck. Just what the fuck should I do? I've
>explained why the dean is not an option.
Fine - see someone else who can help you, rather than simply giving
up.
>@>@>@B) Everything we've said here is a guess based on the slim
>@>@>@information you've been able to provide?
>@>@>
>@>@> If my information is so slim, why do you feel justified in using it
>@>@>to accuse damn near everything of being incompetent just to defend
>@>@>Windows, a stupid piece of software? Doesn't make much sense to me.
>@>@
>@>@If their lab doesn't work, the people responsible for it have
>@>@problems. But then, every step of the way YOU have been the one to
>@>@attack your administrators, so I'll let you defend that.
>@>
>@> No, I have merely agreed with you. I do not attack the lab people in
>@>person because I know they are not responsible for the problem, and are
>@>about as powerless as I am. Also, attacking them would only serve to
>@>slow things down.
>@
>@They aren't responsible for the problems, and are as powerless as you?
>@Pathetic. They're not as powerless as you. They can FIX the problem.
>@You can't. Hence, they're considerably more useful than you in
>@solving the problem.
>
> Dumbass, they can't fix the problem. They can look up MY password,
>they can fetch documents, and print. They don't have administrative
>access. Therefore, they are as powerless as I am, unless I want to
>fetch a printout.
Suggestion, 'dumbass' - go higher up the food chain and assume some
responsibility for your own progress, rather than limp-wristing it to
someone else.
>@> YOU have attacked them, reread the thread if you disagree.
>@
>@Please, Bryant. Those of us actually following the thread know the
>@truth:
>@
>@On Sat, 30 Sep 2000 09:53:44 -0500, Bryant Brandon
>@<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>@>@>@Call your desktop support staff.
>@>@>
>@>@> ...a bunch of monkies.
>@__________
>@
>@I suggested you call them on the phone. You called them a bunch of
>@'monkies' (sic). You are attacking them, not me.
>
> Oh goody! The quote game!
>
>--------
>Message-ID:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 11:10:53 -0500
>
>@No, you're more than qualified to call your desktop support staff
>@'shit'.
>---------
And you agreed with me in your very next post. Obviously, you've got
some issues with your DT support team.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 00:31:37 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Richard in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> Said Richard in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >But not at the time that the decision is actually made. Or are you
>> >claiming that he's there "in spirit"?
>>
>> No, he's there at the time the decision is actually being made: when he
>> programs what result the decision will have, and how the decision will
>> be made, and whether there is a decision.
>
>So the programmer was there when the program decided "since ABC share
>price is going down, sell that stock"?
No, he was there when he wrote a program that sold stock when shares are
going down; there was no 'decision' involved in the case of ABC shares
at the time of the transaction. That's an abstraction; a metaphor, if
you will. The programmer 'decided' that the stock would be sold when he
programmed the computer that later executed the instructions. The
program itself merely caused the computer to send out electrical
signals.
>Not that it matters since the programmer isn't responsible for the kind
>of decisions the automated trading system will make. If he wrote "sell
>good stock, buy shitty stock" then he'd be fired and the machine junked.
>The existence of the automated stock trading machine is dependent on the
>good will of the corporation and its making the kind of decisions that
>the corporation wants using the economic model that the corporation wants
>and the value system that the corporation wants. The machine is not an
>extension of the programmer's will in any way, shape, or formo insofar
>as it is behaving correctly (ie, not crashing, not having code that is
>difficult to maintain or extend, et cetera).
OK, then it was whoever configured the software. I forgot who I was
talking to.
>> >If I read a book and follow its advice, just who is performing decisions?
>>
>> Me.
>
>So if I read "shoot people" and I go out and kill rich sons of bitches,
>then that's /your/ decision, right? I just want to clarify this so I
>know what to expect from the jury ....
I didn't say what decisions I was performing; I merely meant to
indicate, in a humorous way, that I don't think you are capable of
making decisions. The decision I am now making is to stop pretending
you aren't an annoying clod. You're boring me.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== 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: David M. Butler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The real issue
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 00:39:59 -0400
Nigel Feltham wrote:
> Quite true - try accessing www.msn.co.uk with any browser except IE (or
> netscape) and it just displays
> an asp runtime error message ( strangely, the us equivalent at www.msn.com
> seems to work with all
> browsers so it is the UK devision of microsoft not acknowledging the
> existance of other broswers).
Hrmnm... works fine in Konqueror and Lynx... sure it wasn't just a
temporary error? ASP runtime errors are usually the fault of something on
the server end.
D. Butler
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Migration --> NT costing please :-)
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 17:41:18 +1300
Hi all,
I've just set up two dual-processor Redhat GNU/Linux 7 computers both
booting with RAID1 for high reliability. I am also making use of the newly
GPLed MySQL on both computers.
One computer provides NAT and IPChains firewalling services. Both also
provide an Apache/PHP development environment.
To set this all up has cost $0 for the software. Knowing that Microsoft
provides a lower total cost of ownership ;-) I'd be interested to know what it
would cost to move these computers to a full Microsoft solution.
It appears I would need this software:
1) 2xNT4 or Window 2000 Server licenses to provide RAID1 on both computers.
2) 4xCPU licences for MS-SQL.
3) 1xMS Proxy Server(?)
4) 1xOffice 2000 Premium for Mail client, Frontpage, etc.
Now there will be advantages/disadvantages to both configurations. But is
the software cost differential and loss of freedom really worth it?
Who really believes MS provides a lower TCO?
Or more importantly, who really believes MS can sustain a lower TCO if a
MS solution is indeed more attractive at this point in time? Open source
software just keeps getting better and better, and the development rate
appears much faster.
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
