Linux-Advocacy Digest #502, Volume #29 Sat, 7 Oct 00 07:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (FM)
Re: To all you WinTrolls (Pete Goodwin)
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: 2.4! (Grega Bremec)
Re: To all you WinTrolls (Grega Bremec)
Re: To all you WinTrolls (Gardiner Family)
Re: Winvocates and Linvocates: What do you use your desktop OS for? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux Sucks (Gardiner Family)
Re: The real issue (Gardiner Family)
Re: [ CORRECTION ] Re: The real issue (Gardiner Family)
Competition (Jesper Krogh)
Re: 2.4! ("Todd")
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 04:05:14 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Mike Byrns <"mike.byrns"@technologist,.com> in
comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
>> Said Christopher Smith in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> [...]
>> >Oh, come on Erik, it's much more entertaining to get Max so exasperated by
>> >constantly requesting he prove his outlandish claims so that he killfiles
>> >you :).
>>
>> That won't get you killfiled.
>
>Because you fit the definition of insanity: doing the same thing, time after
>time, expecting a different result.
Because _I_ fit the definition of insanity, what...? My getting
exasperated with trolls demanding proof of minuscule and trivial points
of fact in order to reduce the discussion to ankle-biting and
kill-filling them (which I've done three times in ten years) makes me
insane? Boy, are you confused!
>Max, you are a sociopath. You will defend
>a losing position time after time no matter how many times you are proven
>wrong.
I'm a sociopath, because I've been able to continue to present what I
see as an accurate, consistent, and practical position for so long,
despite many trolls insisting they've 'proven me wrong' in some
miscellaneous regard? Boy, are you confused!
>You are irrational and inflamatory. The only other poster here that is
>in your league is Kulkis and perhaps Drestin.
Kulkis' posts in all-caps on a regular basis, and is a blatant John
Birch right-wing radical, Drestin Black is a fiction of an inept
entrepreneur who considers himself an expert programmer because he
cobbles together Virtual Basic scripts and you say this puts me in their
league of irrational and inflammatory participation? Boy, are you
confused!
>You folks seem to live to read
>what you have written for it's own sake. I take a few days break in here now
>and again because I realize that COMNA is just an idle passtime and the
>cathartic for me as I'm confronted with other like you that lack firm grounding
>in reality when in comes to commodity operating systems. I wonder what you,
>like they will do when Microsoft is absolved.
Find something else to explore through intellectual discussion, while
you go back to jerking off and congratulating yourself for knowing the
most trivial and unimportant parts of technology.
You actually expect anyone on these groups to consider W2K a 'commodity
operating system'? The fucking thing is being sold as NT on every new
workstation, desktop, and server that Microsoft can continue their
illegal monopoly on, up to the very day that they are prevented from
acting criminally, and costs several hundred dollars, possibly, per
license. Not to mention which, Microsoft has recently implemented even
more predatory new demands (twice in the last two years) which doubled
the price of using the software for large corporate accounts.
Boy, are you confused.
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (FM)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: 7 Oct 2000 08:16:07 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said FM in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>> Again, easily reducible to human actions.
>>
>>>Not reducible *at all*! Not anymore than evolutionary theory is
>>>reducible to physics.
>>And applying human psychology to describe corporate
>>behaviour makes as much sense as using physics to
>>explain evolutionary theory.
>Well hit. Did you just happen upon it, or have you actually been
>following this fandango?
I'm far too busy to follow the whole thing, but I do
remember Richard trying to apply human psychology
directly to corporations or other decision making
entities, and Roberto and Co. trying to counter that
with an argument that corporate behavior is reducible
to human actions. I somehow don't agree with either
point, but that corporate behavior is not reducible
to human actions is not a convincing argument that
theories (or terminologies) designed to explain human
behavior can be directly applied to describe corporate
behavior. His own analogy illustrates the point rather
well.
Dan.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To all you WinTrolls
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 09:42:01 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you need to do development work, general office work (spreadsheets,
> word processing, database, etc), e-mail, research, UNIX is the only
way.
Those are exactly the things I do on Windows 98 SE and my system does
not crash, hang or whatever.
> These applications represent "time." A crash or a hang loses work.
I learnt long before I used Windows to SAVE, SAVE and SAVE again!
Just
> yesterday a friend told me that a URL I had sent her caused here
machine
> to crash. HER MACHINE!!!! She lost 3 hours work.
Didn't save did she!
> In the UNIX world a something like that hardly ever happens, and when
it
> does the system doesn't crash, it is the X session. (A vague
distiction,
> I grant you, and the result is the same.) And when something like that
> happens on UNIX, you can bet it gets hunted down because the "a reboot
> will fix it" metality does not exist here. In UNIX, a reboot means
> critical system failure. In Windows a reboot means you've changed a
> minor configuration.
If the X Manager hangs, if you've got just one machine (i.e. you can't
telnet in from elsewhere) what then? If no combination of key presses
gets you back, what can you do?
Reboot.
> I would like to see a serious study into how much time is spent
waiting
> for Windows to reboot each day. People I know who do serious work on
> their machines reboot every morning, and have to reboot during the day
> about twice a week.
I switch my machine on every day.
> This happens along side my machine (I am the only Linux user -- so
far)
> and I only reboot if I upgrade my kernel or test software against a
> different kernel. Also, It has been over 3 years since I have lost
work
> due to a system crash.
I haven't lost any work in over six years. This with Windows 95, 98 SE,
NT 4.0.
--
---
Pete
Coming soon: Kylix!
(I do not need the destruction of Microsoft to succeed).
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (FM)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: 7 Oct 2000 09:05:15 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Richard in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>OO means "everything's an Object" not "polymorphism and inheritance".
>>The former's a philosophy, the latter's a bunch of comparatively
>>meaningless "features".
>If I might clarify on a conceptual matter touching on technical
>concerns: Object Oriented may mean "everything's an Object", but it is
>an illusion, based on well executed polymorphism and inheritance.
Well, no, except in the sense that *everything* is an
illusion. Abstractions should be considered as such and
shouldn't be confused with their implementations. After
all, these paradigmatic distinctions generally don't
survive once they pass today's heavily optimizing
compilers. Then there's all this metal and silicon thing..
Dan.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (FM)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: 7 Oct 2000 08:55:03 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>If you want to do systems programming, you'll have a hard time doing it
>in scheme, ML, Lisp and smalltalk.
ML and Lisp should be fine for systems programming, actually.
I'm not so sure about Smalltalk.
>>Do you seriously think this has nothing to do with the fact that
>>existing systems are written in a procedural style? You're the one
>Partly. But also partly because hardware doesn't "act" in an object
>oriented way. I mean, assembly language is hardly object oriented.
Well assembly language is really non-paradigmatic; it's
imperative, but it's not really even procedural. Most
assembly programmers like to program procedurally, since
that's an easy abstraction to provide on top of the Von
Neumann arch, but assembly languages in general aren't
any more procedural than the are object-oriented. They
certainly aren't functional though.
Dan.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (FM)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: 7 Oct 2000 09:09:44 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Corporations in general DO have an EXTREME tendency to be psychopathic, except
>> >under same bizarre circumstances.
>> Such as being in Japan? That's not so bizarre.
>No. Such as being JAPANESE. You have no idea how bizarre their culture is,
>do you?
Hah, open-minded Richard strikes again. Who the hell
are you to say a culture distinct from your own, that
you aren't at all familiar with, is "bizarre?"
Dan.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Grega Bremec)
Subject: Re: 2.4!
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 09:54:54 GMT
...and Todd used the keyboard:
>
>Guess who *is NOT* on the list? Linux.
>
>Guess who is #1 -> Windows 2000.
>
Ever checked TPC-H > 300GB results? TPC-R? Doesn't it strike you as
odd there were 6 W2K testbeds against only 3 other operating systems
in TPC-C? Methinks somebody's missing the point...
A benchmark that could ever even possibly be representative needs some
kind of an even test population for starters. I can also get myself 15
different boxen, install Linux on 10 of them and leave the worst five
boxen for other operating systems. Well, guess what system is going to
perform best on my "benchmark"?
Shit. You people make me sick.
--
Grega Bremec
grega.bremec-at-gbsoft.org
http://www.gbsoft.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Grega Bremec)
Subject: Re: To all you WinTrolls
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 09:59:17 GMT
...and Pete Goodwin used the keyboard:
>
>If the X Manager hangs, if you've got just one machine (i.e. you can't
>telnet in from elsewhere) what then? If no combination of key presses
>gets you back, what can you do?
>
>Reboot.
Nope, there's this magic key that works even in cases of kernel panic.
I bet you heard about it before, it's called SysRq. Granted, if a
kernel panics, there's not much one can do, but at least one can
unmount disks properly and reboot with the help of SysRq, and if X
freezes, they can also kill everything on the current VT and force a
restart thus. So there, point lost.
--
Grega Bremec
grega.bremec-at-gbsoft.org
http://www.gbsoft.org/
------------------------------
From: Gardiner Family <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To all you WinTrolls
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 10:08:03 GMT
I moved (or as some people put it, upgrade from windows) to Linux, came free with a
magazine, Redhat 5.2, what a gem. Later I moved to SuSE Linux 6.0 and very soon to
6.4. Since day one I have found Linux very stable, in some circumstances,
multi-tasking is not as great as Solaris, but, hey, upgrades a free and frequent in
the Linux world, so multi-tasking will get smoother as the kernel matures.
Windows 2000 is a great OS, however, it is very top heavy, on a clean startup on a
machine with 128MB ram, 65MB RAM is already used by Windows, if thats not excessive,
I would hate to know what is! 800MB HDD space used for standard install, compare
that to a linux installation that includes also includes third party tools such as
gzip, tar, pppd and lots of other bin's.
Matt
Michael Marion wrote:
> mlw wrote:
>
> > > I've compiled the kernel a couple times and done this and that. Linux ain't
> > > bad. I've used it now for quite a while (ever since 6.2 was released).
> >
> > That really isn't very long at all, besides, you probably still use a
> > Windows xxx box and expect Linux to be like Windows.
>
> Agreed.. for someone that's been putting down linux quite regularly for a few
> days now.. his experience with it dosen't amount to much at all. Not only has
> he not been using it for long, but it sounds like RH6.2 is the only distro
> he's even touched.
>
> As one who started out back in the 1.2.13 (I think?) kernel days about 5 or so
> years ago, originally running slackware.. I see most of his comments as
> completely without merit. I have a feeling, after seeing many of your posts,
> that you've been using it since a 0.xx kernel.
>
> I've beeing using Linux (and other unix OSes) for at least 5 years non-stop,
> as well as every windows incarnation from 3.1 on (including NT3.51, 4, 2k)...
> at least I (and many advocates like yourself) dig into the OS before making
> claims about how it works/fails.
>
> --
> Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc. - http://www.miguelito.org
> Barbie of Borg - She doesn't just Assimilate, She Accessorizes too!
> -- Stolen from a /. post.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Winvocates and Linvocates: What do you use your desktop OS for?
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 09:55:27 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Most of what I do on Windows 98 SE could be done with Linux (though I'd
probably go bananas trying to get my head round some of it): EMail, surf
the net, usenet etc.
I am a Software Engineer, and I use Delphi to create GUI applications. I
created a 3D scene editor for POVray, a public domain ray tracer. I
created it for Windows because that appeared to be (and still is) the
most popular desktop system around.
Delphi is being ported to Linux, and when that finally appears, I might
switch to Linux at home. The lack of games on Linux does inhibit this,
also the lack of 3D audio is another consideration.
At work I develop audio device drivers for Windows. So, no matter what I
do, my interest in Windows isn't going away any time soon.
--
---
Pete
Coming soon: Kylix!
(I do not need the destruction of Microsoft to succeed).
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Gardiner Family <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Sucks
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 23:24:10 +1300
Richard, (or sore dick (dick hurts (hertz)), what planet are you from?
What education background can you show me to prove your "great"
analytical skills. I have used Linux since Redhat 5.2, and yes, it is
not like windows (and I am not complaining about that!), it is stable,
reliable and built for those who like to use a UNIX like operating
system. I am sick to death of hearing uneducated, suburban white slobs
crapping on, and on, and on, and on about everything should be completely
idiot proof (aka Windows). Before you write a uncomprehensive analysis
of Linux, get some decent bloody experience (at least 4 years), then come
back and stand on your soap box.
matt
Richard, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I tried Linux and I think it stinks. While there seem to be hundreds,
> if not thousands of applications included with the basic cd, most of
> them are useless junk that seem to require an interpreter of sorts to
> figure out.
>
> My advice is to let Linux be and allow it to die the slow death it
> seems to be dying as we speak. What junk this linux is. Do people
> actually like this sort of rot?
>
> Richard Y. Hertz
------------------------------
From: Gardiner Family <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The real issue
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 23:32:16 +1300
ever removed a PCI whilst the computers running Windows 2000, the black screen
of death, a big memory dump. did the same thing on linux, didn't give a shit
that a card ware removed! and continued ticking.
matt
"Kolbjørn S. Brønnick" wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Johan Wich) wrote in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >"Kolbjørn S. Brønnick" wrote:
> >> These are not the important issues. It's obvious to me that Windows
> >> has the best desktop environment, the best applications and so-on.
> >
> >Sure. IMHO, it hasn't :-/
>
> >> The important issues are: do we want to use proprietary office suites
> >> with proprietary unpublished file-formats? Do we want to use
> >> proprietary development languages and tools? Or, do we want free
> >> exchange of information and freedom from the immoral mafia that is
> >> Microsoft?
> >
> >No, it's not. Most ppl actually prefer Linux because of the preformance
> >and/or stability benefit.
>
> Well, I think this could be a valid reason in some circumstances. However,
> I have used Windows 2000 since it was released, and it still haven't
> crashed _once_. IE5.5 also "never" goes down. Windows 2000 also has pretty
> good drivers for my GeForce, USB devices, sound card, printers and so on.
> W2K has a mature graphical UI and true-type fonts. For hassle-free desktop
> use, I don't think Linux can beat W2K as things are now. For me, Linux is
> more about politics and ethics.
>
> --
> Kolbjørn S. Brønnick
------------------------------
From: Gardiner Family <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [ CORRECTION ] Re: The real issue
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 23:36:49 +1300
sound like a person giving a smoking! if you give up all together, will you get
withdraw simptoms?
matt
"Kolbjørn S. Brønnick" wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bartek Kostrzewa) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >
> >> > The important issues are: do we want to use proprietary office
> >> > suites with proprietary unpublished file-formats? Do we want to use
> >> > proprietary development languages and tools? Or, do we want free
> >> > exchange of information and freedom from the immoral mafia that is
> >> > Microsoft?
> >>
> >
> >I don't get the last question. Did you mean that Microsoft exchanges
> >your freedom/information, or do you mean that without microsoft, you
> >have a greater freedom of speech and info sharing? If it's my first
> >idea, no, if it's the second, yes.
>
> I mean the second. We should all avoid Microsoft products whenever possible
> :-). I must use Microsoft products because of my work situation, but I'm
> working on reducing my use of Microsoft products.
>
> --
> Kolbjørn S. Brønnick
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jesper Krogh)
Subject: Competition
Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 02:28:32 +0200
I am not a wintroll. But who really think that MS don´t have people sitting and
reading the sourses for linux, apache,,,, and every over linux apps.
This is the issue that makes the differenc between MW and linux.
--
./Jesper Krogh.
The Goal is world domination, no more, no less.
This means that your PC should run linux too.
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 2.4!
Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 19:06:36 +0800
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Todd wrote:
> >
> > "Roberto Selbach Teixeira" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >>>>> "Ian" == Ian Davey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > Ian> With a beta driver (opposed to the non-beta windows
> > > Ian> driver). How come that fact keeps passing you by?
> > >
> > > IMNSHO, this whole argument is useless... yes, Linux driver is beta
> > > and thus it is not supposed to be perfect. But that does not change
> > > the fact that, as things are right now, GL is faster in Windows. Ok.
> > >
> > > Now I ask: so what? Do we *really* want to fight windows in GL? Yes,
> > > we want. But it is not nearly as important as all the other categories
> > > where Linux simply blows Windows.
> >
> > I keep hearing that 'Linux simply blows away Windows' when in fact,
every
> > benchmark shows the opposite.
> >
> > The OpenGL benchmark is just another one. Mindcraft was yet another.
> > tpc.org is another.
> >
> > > So, keeping this thread alive is simply stupid.
> >
> > How many more benchmarks do you need?
>
>
> Benchmarks are generally meaningless. In a practical situation, Linux
> does blow windoze away.
Gee, you are going to convince windows users this way. NOT.
"sure, Windows 2000 wins all of the performance benchmarks, is stable, and
has more features, applications, and driver support than Linux."
But, Linux blows Windows away. Yah. Right. You sure are convincing... but
then again, that's just how Linadvocates are.
-Todd
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 11:06:11 GMT
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> THis is almost incoherent. It sounds like you want classes to be objects
> because that's what you're used to. I don't see why it's essential that
> classes be objects, though sometimes it's useful.
There you go again, claiming that ease of use isn't an overriding
concern in any large system (eg, any modern programming language).
Classes have to be objects so that people know exactly what to
expect from them without having to memorize yet another factoid
about the system that they already have to learn too fucking
much about. Why would any sane person want to deal with BS about
how to use non-object classes when they already have to worry
about learning what the classes do themselves?
When learning a natural language, do you seriously *want* to know
about punctuation and conjugation instead of just learning what
all the words mean and how to put them together to form meaningful
sentences?
> For your definition of OO, it's not. I'd be interested if you could point
> me to a definition of OO from a non-kook that is consistent with yours.
Considering you need all the help you can get, I'll let that pass.
Object Oriented Software Construction talks a lot about information
hiding and encapsulation. IIRC it doesn't get around to polymorphism
and inheritance for a while. Of course, this was years and years ago.
And Self is a lot more OO than Smalltalk because methods and variables
are found in the exact same place in the objects (whereas in Smalltalk
they are separated and the methods are segregated in a completely
different object called a 'class').
> There's technical reasons why making binary operators member functions
> is not easy ( if you make it a member function, the first operand must
> be the object. )
IOW, it's a kludge to deal with primitive types.
> This is what friends are primarily used for -- operator overloading.
> Well, I'd take his word over yours any day.
I'll take Kay's over Stroustrup's any day.
> It can easily be done ( and often is done ) in C++. I don't really care
> for being forced to program in a certain way.
Whatever language you choose, you are forced to program a certain way.
Get over it.
> >Oh, and wanting to use classes as objects does not require reimplementing
> >every class in the system?
>
> Not unless you have a compelling reason to make every class an object.
Consistency, uniformity, sanity.
> If you want to do systems programming, you'll have a hard time doing it
> in scheme, ML, Lisp and smalltalk.
And this is because ?
> >Does the fact that you can't even be bothered to spell Smalltalk's name
> >correctly half the time indicate anything?
>
> It indicates that you're being overly pedantic.
I don't mind smalltalk but whoever called it small talk ....
> >Do you seriously think this has nothing to do with the fact that
> >existing systems are written in a procedural style? You're the one
>
> Partly. But also partly because hardware doesn't "act" in an object
> oriented way. I mean, assembly language is hardly object oriented.
Assembly language isn't anything. Besides, only a small part of
any modern OS is written in assembly.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
