Linux-Advocacy Digest #54, Volume #30 Sun, 5 Nov 00 10:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (2:1)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Ethernet efficiency (was Re: Ms employees begging for food) (Peter da Silva)
Re: Linux and Mac instead of Windows. ("James")
Re: Chad Meyers: Blatent liar ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Why Linux is great (2:1)
Re: Why Linux is great (2:1)
Re: Why Linux is great ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Chad Meyers: Blatent liar (2:1)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Les Mikesell")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 12:49:23 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft;
> [...]
> >FTP & Telnet are hard to find on a non 2000 windows machine, very easy if
> >you've them.
>
> <*Chuckle*> So I suppose this means that amongst your limited
> experience with Unix, you've often run into the problem that such
> utilities may not be in the default path?
Who is talking about unix here? I was clearly refering to windows machines
here.
> >Scripting support? Vbscript, JScript, WSH, batch files (why doesn't they
> >count?)
>
> Because batch files are batch files, not scripts. ;-)
Check out the other options.
> >Automation? Scheduled tasks, you can get that in 95 if you install IE 4.
> >In win2000 you get this as weel as AT, which is a cli tool that gives you
> >even more power.
> >The lack of command line tools is not because most people like GUI much
> >better.
>
> Well, that last remark might have been a typo, but I think it is true as
> stated. The lack of command line tools is not because most people like
> GUIs much better; it is because most people don't know how to use a
> computer without a GUI, so they're unaware of how much more efficient a
> cli is once you learn it. That some people have more trouble learning
> it than others indicates they have a primitive mind less able to grasp
> abstracts is an ingenuous theory and little more than bigotry.
No, if I can get the *same* functionablity/ease of use from a GUI as I can
get from CLI, I know what my choice would be.
There is no reason to use CLI if you can do the same as efficenty and easily
in GUI.
That being said, what do you think encompass 95% of computer users?
> [...]
> >If it's customization that you want, you can make windows look like
anything
> >that you want with a little work.
>
> The number of people to take advantage of this entirely theoretical
> capability is not because most people don't want to change how windows
> looks, but because they don't know how to, and probably subconsciously
> realize that to make any massive changes to monopoly bloatware is wasted
> effort, ultimately, without a lot of work. It only takes once or twice
> of turning something off because it might be causing a problem before
> you don't bother changing the defaults anymore.
How hard is it to turn something off/on and cause kernel panic in linux?
Something worse?
This isn't a theoretical capability, it's a real capability, the not too
many people use it indicate that perhaps people feel comfortable in windows
GUI or that they rather have consistent GUI in all the computers they have
to work on.
> >If you don't know how to change the windows colors then you really need
some
> >lessons in windows.
>
> I think the 'customization' being referred to might extend a bit beyond
> changing the window colors.
He was refering to not being able to change the gray ugly color of the
windows.
> [...]
> >Oh, really?
> >The best GUI for linux that I've found was the one that came with Corel
> >Linux 1.2, it was KDE, and felt very much like windows.
>
> Without prejudice, then, I'll suggest that you define "best GUI" as
> "closest to what I'm used to, which is Microsoft Windows".
No, best GUI, is one that doesn't need me to tweak it in order to get the
most functionablity.
I can re-write the gnome engine so it would do anything I can think of by
pressing a key, does this mean that gnome is capable of doing this?
I'm talking out of the box functionality.
No to mention that corel's GUI was the only one with no-mouse-avialable
support that was worth something.
> >As for GUI consistency, it goes against OSS principals, isn't it?
>
> <*Grin*>
>
> >KDE, Gnome, Heliz, Enlightment, AfterStep - on the top of my head, GUI
for
> >linux.
> >I can find you people that will swear in the names of either of them.
> >How do you make them choose a standard?
>
> Why would you make them choose a standard? When talking about
> computer/human interfaces, 'consistency' means it works as a consistent
> abstraction, not that it looks the same as all other examples, but that
> it acts the same at all times. In this regard, as well, the
> inconsistency of Linux is a plus; one can run multiple windows managers,
> integrated in combinations in many cases. As long as all GUIs support
> all applications, they're "consistent" in the way that is necessary. To
> say that having them not be any different is missing the point: there is
> no reason for them to be the same, unless you are of the opinion that
> all computers should work the way you want them to, no matter how anyone
> else might want. As long as all Gnome is consistent with its own GUI
> abstraction, it is necessarily and sufficiently consistent.
A> All the GUIs *don't* support all applications, there are applications
that need KDE, some that need Gnome, and so on, right?
B> All the GUI *within* a single WM *aren't* consistent, right?
> The Windows abstraction is a metaphor which is inconsistent with itself.
> Considering consistency only in terms of how much like Windows other
> GUIs are is missing the point of the matter.
Could you explain yourself?
The windows GUI is consistent, perhaps not from version to version (95 vs nt
interface) but certainly within a given version, it is consistent. For that
matter, I'd people used to work on 98 that then went to work on 2000
probably without even noticing.
MS published a set of guidelines for GUI for windows, isn't it?
Most of the programs for windows follow those guidelines, don't they?
You realize the comfort in being able to use the same familiar interface for
various of tasks, don't you?
> >When programming for windows, I can make my own GUI, which is tiresome
task
> >most often, or can use windows own GUI, giving the user familiar feel.
> >Pick up any programming book and read the part about UI, you will find
> >consistency mentioned time and time again. OSS never head about it.
>
> When programming for a real operating system, you should not be
> second-guessing how the end-user wants his GUI to work. The number of
> different GUIs that you can support from the list above is the extent of
> your market opportunity. Don't you think it would be worth your while
> to write your software so that it works with any of them?
Not if I want my application to be conveniant.
With the exception of MetaCreation software, that has their own (very good)
GUI for their programs, I don't think that there are that many software
titles that can claim to follow non standard GUI guidelines and succeed.
Consistency is much more important than being able to customize your
software.
Take cars, for example.
> It is the OSS people who understood the books you are referring to.
> Those uses of the term "consistency" in the parts about a UI is not
> accurate the way you are applying it. A UI being consistent means it is
> consistent with itself, not that it is consistent with all others. It
> also needs to be consistent with the user's expectations of how a UI
> should work. Now, when you have a criminal monopoly forcing every PC
> user to be familiar with however it has its outrageously inconsistent UI
> to work, the expectations for "consistency" which you present don't
> match up at all with the urge for consistency in those programming
> books, except by coincidence.
How does windows GUI inconsistent?
I know that this isn't exactly what those books are talking about, I was
trying to expand it.
If you realize the importance of keeping your program's GUI consistent
within itself, because it's easier for the user that way, can't you see that
it is easier to the user if most applications share the same GUI? And who is
talking about adopting the windows GUI?
I don't care what GUI you want to adopt, but choose one, and stick to it.
The inconsistent GUI is one of linux/unix problems at the desktop.
You can get away with this in the server market, where the users of the OS
are suppose to know what they are doing, and don't usually care about GUI.
But in the desktop? I don't think so.
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.linux.sucks
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 16:37:07 +0000
> > Edit source code. For that task, vi is the best. You barely have to move
> > your fingers... no need to stretch for the Alt key (just the Shift and
> Ctrl
> > keys)... no need to leave the home position to find the mouse. Quick
> > context searches, repetition of edit operations, very slick and fast.
> > No waiting for the WSIWYG to catch up, no bugs because you're using the
> > newest version of Word.
>
> For editing source code, an IDE is the best, period.
This is one thing about winvocates, you assume you know what suits
everyone best. After playing around with various IDEs and various
editors, I've found thet vi running in text mode is as good as it gets.
It doesn't have some features that some IDEs have, but overall, I like
it better.
Besides, ttys make very good integreated development environments.
Another thing: a development environment doesn't need to be tied
together with one huge app to be integrated. I'm serious whan I say
this, but the command line very neatly ties together all hte text
manipulation tools.
> But I've used Word to edit source code, it does the work.
True: you can save as plain text, but it's like using a hammer to put in
a screw: it will work, but it's a bit of a pain.
> If you use shift/ctrl, you don't need to stretch your fingers to the alt.
> And word can be fully functional without a mouse.
> Define quick context search?
> Define repetition of edit operations?
10dd
deletes 10 lines. It's very easy to do in vi.
> > Edit HTML (a special case of the above). You can do that with Word,
> > but you end up with unsatisfactory HTML.
>
> HTML editing in Word?
> Editing HTML in WYSIWYG is usually a bad thing.
I'd agree. WYSIWYG editing will give you HTML that upsets the anybrowser
campaign.
www.anybrowser.org/campaign
> You can turn off the unneccecary HTML, (I believe that you can do it in
> Word. I know that you can do it in FP2000)
> Although, if you want full control, write the HTML in word, and later copy &
> paste the code to a txt file, and save it as htm/html
The kind of people who use word to do html aren't going to edit it
afterwards. It also gives pretty poor html, you'd be better off doing it
by hand, or using something designed to make web pages.
-Ed
--
Konrad Zuse should recognised. He built the first | Edward Rosten
binary digital computer (Z1, with floating point) the | Engineer
first general purpose computer (the Z3) and the first | u98ejr@
commercial one (Z4). | eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 16:42:37 +0200
"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > "Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > runas command.
> > > > >
> > > > > Could you give some details? There's no trace of runas in NT
on-line
> > > > > doc, I tried help runas and I got sort of " no help available for
> > runas,
> > > > > try runas /?". I tried runas /? to be told that /? is neither an
> > > > > executable nor a batch file. Maybe it does a lot, but
documentation
> > > > > appears a bit concise!
> > > >
> > > > Start>Run>Help>Index
> > > > Write "runas", and it will take you to the runas CLI & GUI
explanations.
> > >
> > > That's exactly what I've done in a couple of boxes (one
> > > running NT4 sp4, the other NT4 sp5), but I didnt't get
> > > anything between "Run" and Running". The same holds true for
> > > Start>Help>Find. Then I tried "help runas" and "runas /?"
> > > and only discovered that runas was there. That's why I was
> > > asking.
> >
> > Who is talking about NT?
> > I'm talking about windows 2000.
>
> Well, windows 2000 was called NT 5 until a short time before delivery.
> So I assumed (rightly) that a CLI NT 5 app was also available for NT 4.
> I also assumed (wrongly) that help would be available.
No, I don't think that runas is avialable to NT4, the CLI for 2000 isn't the
same for NT4.
Runas might be avialable through a service pack, but I doubt that it would
be the same as in 2000.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter da Silva)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.os.netware.misc
Subject: Re: Ethernet efficiency (was Re: Ms employees begging for food)
Date: 5 Nov 2000 14:36:31 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Timothy A. Seufert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In my experience, a common cabling mistake that gets caught by this is the
> one where the cables were made assuming that the mapping between twisted
> pairs and RJ45 pins is (1,2) (3,4) (5,6) (7,8) instead of the correct
> (1,2) (3,6) (4,5) (7,8). 10M will sort of run on such cables if they're
> short enough, 100M will fall flat on its face.
I've been in facilities where they used 8-conductor satin phone cord for patch
cables. That seemed to more or less work on 10baseT also.
--
`-_-' In hoc signo hack, Peter da Silva.
'U` "Milloin halasit viimeksi suttasi?"
Disclaimer: WWFD?
------------------------------
From: "James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux and Mac instead of Windows.
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 16:52:21 +0200
mlw,
You don't even of Novel GroupWise, Visio, or SAP, yet you advocate Linux for
all occasions. Spend some time in a Corporate environment - where Win2k is
useful and Linux is not ... and then do some real advocacy.
James
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I had a conversation with a woman at a Verizon store today. To make the
> details concise, suffice to say, she had just bought a Compaq (Windows)
> and is having no end of problems.
>
> I am thinking to myself, that if she is having problems, out of the box,
> with a pre configured computer, then she will have problems using any
> sort of computer. She asked me what she should have bought. I thought
> about it, and it was obvious. She should have bought a Mac.
>
> Now, I know a lot of people that would simply not be able to deal with
> the straight jacket that a Mac represents (I am one), but, I think it is
> appropriate for some users.
>
> So, if you want the hand-holding of an "idiot-box" (Idiot, as in the
> slang name for indicator lights in a car.) then, I think Mac is the way
> to go. If you want to do serious work, where things like data integrity
> and "uptime" are important, then use Linux for FreeBSD.
>
> So, where does Windows fit in? It (in any of its incarnations) is not as
> stable as Linux, and not as easy to use as the Mac, so what's the point?
>
>
> --
> http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Chad Meyers: Blatent liar
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 14:58:33 GMT
"Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8u3p4e$u61$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:Zm8N5.13161$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8c1N5.123098$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > > >> As usual, you are a blatent liar.
> > >
> > > How about this one:
> > >
> > > It lets remote users shut down a workstation on RedHat 6.0, 6.1, and
> 6.2.
> > >
> >
> > And the current version of RedHat is????
>
> We'll keep this in mind next time someone starts bitching about issues in
> Windows 95a.
Yes, keep in mind that RedHat users can download a fully up to date
copy, new features and all. The Win95 user doesn't have that
option.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux is great
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 16:50:55 +0000
James wrote:
>
> ... and is almost entirely useless as a corporate desktop.
Not true
I've deleted the numbers I don't know anything about.
>
> I :
>
> 1. Cannot scan images from my USB scanner.
A corperation could afford a very fast SCSI scanner if it wanted to.
Besides, have you tried the backported USB suport?
> 2. Cannot print to my USB printer.
IME businesses have mainly big, fast printers connected to a network,
not USB printers connected to personal machines. I've also never seen a
USB only printer (the HPs have a parallel prot too and work fine under
Linux). Have you tried the backported USB stuff for 2.2, or 2.4?
> 4. Cannot reliably share MS Office docs (what most companies use) with my
> colleagues.
SO and WP make fairly good interpretations, as long as the format is not
too complicated. Besides, Linux can run Office97 under wine without too
much difficulty.
> 6. Cannot document/read business processes (Visio Pro).
Could you elaborate?
> 8. Etc, etc, ....
Such as?
> This is apart from the fact that almost everyone I know would prefer the
So you don't acutally know, then?
> Win2k interface to that of Linux (Gnome or KDE). In fact most users don't
> give a damn about the OS they are using - they just want to get the job
> done. That is why our company is migrating all desktops (some 25000+ to
> Win2k).
> Basically Linux is USELESS as a corporate desktop.
Not really.
-Ed
--
Konrad Zuse should recognised. He built the first | Edward Rosten
binary digital computer (Z1, with floating point) the | Engineer
first general purpose computer (the Z3) and the first | u98ejr@
commercial one (Z4). | eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux is great
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 16:53:46 +0000
> Mandrake 7.1 does not configure these devices - but I can probably get these
> working if I go on a Linux sabbatical - but then again it is just too much
> effort. :-)
Ah. So I dee that you couldn't be bothered to put in the slightest
effort. Well what do you expect. I couldn't be bothered to install the
CD-RW drivers under windows. No suprises it doesn't work then.
-Ed
--
Konrad Zuse should recognised. He built the first | Edward Rosten
binary digital computer (Z1, with floating point) the | Engineer
first general purpose computer (the Z3) and the first | u98ejr@
commercial one (Z4). | eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux is great
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 15:04:47 GMT
"Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9P8N5.20947$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > But the real issue with win97<->win95 was the backwards direction
> > where the app simply would not read the document, predictably
> > causing the user who received the document from someone who
> > got a cheap pre-loaded copy of win97 to insist on having the company
> > pay for a full price upgrade to his copy. How can people continue
> > doing business with a company that manipulates them in such insidious
> > ways?
>
> Or you could download a Win97 reader/printer for Win3.1 or Win95 for free
> from Microsoft.
>
This was not available when Win97 was released.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Chad Meyers: Blatent liar
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 17:01:37 +0000
> If it lets you break root so easily -- and I can't believe how many such
> exploits are possible on Linux -- it is a trojan.
You should brush up on your Greek mythology.
-Ed
> Now, if it propagated itself, it would be a worm.
--
Konrad Zuse should recognised. He built the first | Edward Rosten
binary digital computer (Z1, with floating point) the | Engineer
first general purpose computer (the Z3) and the first | u98ejr@
commercial one (Z4). | eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.linux.sucks
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 15:09:50 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8u3uni$6c4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >
> > > >Can you please inform me what you can do in Vi that you can't in
Word.
> > > >Or even what you can do much more easily in Vi than in Word.
> > >
> > > "anything complex" probably would fit the bill.
> > >
> > > However, I will leave the details to the vi users.
> >
> > One I use fairly often: you have a list of names in
> > Last, First form but you want First Last.
> > :%s/\(.*\), \(.*\)/\2 \1/
> > and you have it. And since regular expressions work
> > in most of the unix tools there is nothing extra to
> > learn or look up.
>
> Shouldn't be too hard to write a macro to do this.
> I don't use VBA, so I can't tell you how easy/hard it would be.
Probably, but it will likely only work in this month's flavor
of wordbasic. Regular expressions have been just as
useful for twenty years or so - well worth the effort of
learning once.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
