Linux-Advocacy Digest #813, Volume #30 Mon, 11 Dec 00 18:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Steve Mading)
Re: Caifornia power shortage... (Craig Kelley)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Steve Mading)
Re: OS and Product Alternative Names - Idiocy in action (Pan)
Re: OS and Product Alternative Names - Idiocy in action (Keith Peterson)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Steve Mading)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Steve Mading)
Re: OS and Product Alternative Names - Idiocy in action (Keith Peterson)
Re: Linux lacks- an Agent-like newsreader. (Craig Kelley)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Craig Kelley)
Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows (Craig Kelley)
Re: Predictions (featuring Drestin Black) (JM)
Re: Linux is awful (JM)
Re: Windows review (JM)
Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows (JM)
Re: Blurry Fonts: Is there a solution? (Craig Kelley)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Steve Mading)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Steve Mading)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: 11 Dec 2000 22:05:51 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: "Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
: news:913e0l$bng$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
:> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>
:> : We are talking about programs not following the rules to the platform
: they
:> : are being written for.
:> : Give me *one* good reason to ignore those rules?
:>
:> You two are talking about totally different problems. He's talking
:> about the rules being ambiguous, so you can't tell if you are following
:> them or not (what is "user stuff" and what isn't changes according to
:> personal opinion). You are talking about the case where the rules are
:> clear, but get ignored.
: I already asked him to state some places where it isn't clear where it
: should go.
: He refused to answer.
: Normally, it's clear answer.
: And defaulting to HKCU isn't bad either.
That might be the case (I started reading this thread late into it), but
in any case it is still dishonest to attack him on a position he doesn't
actually hold. You're doing a strawman fallacy. If you don't agree with
the premise that the documentation is unclear, then attack his position
*there*. Don't make up this bullshit position to make it look like he
favors the act of ignoring the spec. Whether he's right or wrong about
the situation, THAT wasn't his stance.
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Caifornia power shortage...
Date: 11 Dec 2000 15:19:59 -0700
Jeff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Russ Lyttle wrote:
>
> > As a person who lives in one of the out-of-the-way places, I don't want
> > one built near me because :
> > a> I don't need it.
> > b) The don't want to pay me for the right to build the plant.
> > What they (being government and utilities) want to do is steal the land,
> > build the plant, not pay local taxes, sell the power to California, and
> > leave the pollution with me. I, for one, am tired of being jacked around
> > because California and New York are too stupid to simply build a nuclear
> > plant in their states.
>
> Having once lived in Lone Pine, Idaho, population 20,
> just north of the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
> where they still haven't found or even located all of
> the nuclear waste that they've buried over the years,
> sloppy record-keeping, I understand your sentiment.
In defense if the INE*E*L (www.inel.gov) -- much of the sloppy work
was from the days of zero-clue-military-folks deciding to bury entire
truckloads (often including the truck itself) of contaminated
equipment without any idea of what they were really doing. Of course,
times have changed and we have learned -- we are now attempting to use
a strain of bacteria which degrades subsurface contaminates. Testing
at EBR-1 was very succssful, and they are now employing it at Test
Area North.
I think we can all agree that nuclear science is severl orders of
magnitude better today than it was in the WW2 era.
As to the issue of low-population power plants -- I totally agree;
people who use power should have to live with the side effects that it
generates. This is a problem for California, because they don't want
any electric generators:
o no off-shore *anything*, including the newer tidal generators
o no nuclear plants of any kind
o no petroleum plants (they wouldn't be able to operate anywhere
south of Sacramento anyway, due to EPA restrictions)
Niether solar power nor wind generators have been proven to work in
california yet (although wind generators seem to be very succssful in
eastern Utah an in western Oregon -- 2 very windy places).
> Unfortunately, the plants are eventually going to end
> up being built in sparsely populated areas. We know
> that they eventually have to be built, just look at
> California's current situation, and nobody's going to
> stand for them being built near cities and towns.
>
> So folks such as yourself in out-of-the-way places are
> going to end up getting screwed. Instead of having the
> environmentalists fighting against a cause that they
> eventually have to lose, they could at least create some
> goodwill and fight for you guys to get a fair shake
> in the deal.
>
> The majority of the voting population is going to get
> seriously pissed when they start experiencing rolling
> blackouts or brownouts every year, and we've seen that
> conservation doesn't go far enough.
>
> The plants are going to get built.
Unfortunately, yes. That's why we need to charge a ton of money for
exported power, educate the ignorant about power technology, and
refuse to let local authorities grant building permits for any type of
this venture.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: 11 Dec 2000 22:18:43 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
: He's right; the distance on my keyboard between the H and the
: T-cluster left arrow is the same as the distance between ESC and the
: J key.
Why are you measuring from the wrong keys? Which is the 'home' key of
the finger that hits 'esc'? Being that it's the left pinkie, the
home key is 'A', not 'J'. Okay, sometimes I use the left ring-finger,
but that's still has its home on the 'S' key. Either way, that's
about 1/2 the distance as it is from the arrows to the homes of
the right-hand three fingers that operate them (right index, right
middle finger, and right ring finger have their homes on j,k,l.)
Again, this all assumes a standard keyboard 101 or 104 key layout.
I'd prefer an 89-key layout like they used to have on PC's before,
but I can't find that anymore. (There's the happy hacking keyboard,
but that goes a bit far in my opinion, since I still need those extra
keys to operate programs that insist on using them - and there are several
like that.)
------------------------------
From: Pan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS and Product Alternative Names - Idiocy in action
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 14:24:30 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Keith Peterson wrote:
> Expressing disdain I understand - but it seems to me that people can find a
> more mature way of doing it. It just amazes me to see people insert these tags
> and without compunction dismiss an entire line of products that,
> problematic or not, get the job done.
micros~1 expresses disdain towards a product flaw that existed in their
design for YEARS. M$ expresses disdain for their business practises.
Tell me, do specfically chosen acronyms, like W2K, which is a marketing
ploy that takes advantage of the Y2K hysteria, or WinME, which is a
marketing attempt to make the OS more personable, suffer from the same
level of "geekiness" or "mindlessness" that you are criticizing posters
of having in COLA? Or does your critique only extend to advocacy
forums? Similarly, why not take issue with "Open Sores", "LinSUX" and
other equally colorful nomenclature?
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://salvador.venice.ca.us
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Keith Peterson)
Subject: Re: OS and Product Alternative Names - Idiocy in action
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 22:28:51 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip lots of standard points>
>It is perfectly obvious, at least to me, the state of the art of
>computers would be much better off without Microsoft. The applications
>that "get the job done" as you say, would be a lot better if it were not
>for Microsoft. Admittedly, they would not have dancing paper clips, but
>they would be more stable and probably have fewer but better features.
Can be neither proved nor disproved. Maybe I contend that if it wasn't for
Microsoft Office the entire eastern seaboard of the United States would be a
smoking ruin, and anarchy would reign across the western world. Go ahead.
Prove me wrong. Can't be done - so why bring up statements like this?
Your "perfectly obvious" point is undefendable, even unsupportable. It's an
opinion, with not one single fact to point to in order to back it up.
It wasn't even the focus of my point, which had to do with silly derogatory
names that add nothing. And people DO get their work done every day with
Office and other Microsoft products. But that tiny tidbit was the smallest
part of my post, and you jumped on it like a rabid dog, choosing to make it
the focus of continuation.
>>
>> I've also noticed that the more likely a person is to use these names, the
>> less likely they are to have anything useful to say.
><FORTUNE COOKIE>
>Even the biggest fool can have something useful to say. The problem for
>the reader is to understand what is being communicated, disregard it if
>it is foolish, but not be distracted by ones own sensibilities.
></FORTUNE COOKIE>
>
Another habit I find kind of silly is people adding fake html tags to their
posts - but that's another story. :)
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: 11 Dec 2000 22:22:48 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: The Ghost In The Machine writes:
:> And then there are the laptops.... :-) Some of those can get
:> downright weird.
: Which is why Steve was being rather presumptuous.
I admit it - I was being presumptuous in assuming that if you had
some unique keyboard layout that was different, that you'd (1) be
honest enough to say so in this discussion, and (2) realize that
youi're being silly to argue the merits of key layouts for editors
based on a very unique situation that won't work for others.
I apologise for presuming you would be honest and forthcoming.
Now I know not to make that mistake again.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: 11 Dec 2000 22:24:40 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Steve Mading writes:
:> I've adjusted my statement, to, "Okay, it does require a puny amount
:> of movment of the arm to get the pinkie up to the esc key, but it's
:> so tiny and trivial that it never entered into my consious thought,
:> and it doesn't fucking matter, since it it's merely a 'stretch'
:> motion, which doesn't make you lose your place, like a 'swing' motion
:> does.
: I'll adjust my statement as well: "Okay, it does require a puny amount
: of movement of the arm to get the pinkie down to the cursor keys, but
: it's so tiny and trivial that it never entered into my conscious thought,
: and it doesn't matter, since it it's merely a 'stretch' motion, which
: doesn't make you lose your place, like a 'swing' motion does.
You enjoy this game of replacing what I say fill-in-the-blank style,
but the difference is that what I said was actually true.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Keith Peterson)
Subject: Re: OS and Product Alternative Names - Idiocy in action
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 22:34:38 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>Tell me, do specfically chosen acronyms, like W2K, which is a marketing
>ploy that takes advantage of the Y2K hysteria, or WinME, which is a
>marketing attempt to make the OS more personable, suffer from the same
>level of "geekiness" or "mindlessness" that you are criticizing posters
>of having in COLA?
No. For instance, if I refer to WinME, I'm referring to the actual name of an
actual product.
If I refer to "Winblows" I'm referring to a product called "Windows", but I'm
trying to pretend I have wit by using a silly variation.
>Or does your critique only extend to advocacy
>forums? Similarly, why not take issue with "Open Sores", "LinSUX" and
>other equally colorful nomenclature?
>
I used the MS-based ones primarily because they are more prevalent, but
someone saying "LinSUX" or "Open Sores" is being equally immature. No question
about it.
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux lacks- an Agent-like newsreader.
Date: 11 Dec 2000 15:35:18 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> On Sun, 8 Dec 3900 16:34:57, JM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Pedro Coto wrote:
> >
> > > 4) Outlook Express is my favourite news reader
> >
> > Outlook Express? Agent completely takes the piss out of Outlook
> > Express when it comes to news.
>
> I'm sure it does, but is Agent fully threaded yet, esp wrt full
> control of connections? If you want to really experience all of
> this in a seamless manner ala Agent you have ProNews/2 for OS/2
> as the newsreader to beat- in any OS. And of course Agent has yet
> to be ported to Linux, so why really, do you mention it here? If
> you have it running under Odin/Samba let us know!!
http://www.superpimp.org
Agent, only better.
(and, yes, it's fully threaded; both in NNTP and in process terms)
> Why more Linux users don't investigate OS/2 I'll never
> understand. Just to see how good the WPS is. Might take their
> obsessed focus off M$ for a bit. :)
OS/2 isn't UNIX.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: 11 Dec 2000 15:37:23 -0700
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:lFUY5.4221$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:90vtdh$2f8aa$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >> Here we go again Erik...
> > > >> _How_ many 1000's of debian bugs? and how many of them are things
> like
> > > >> Apache or sendmail, things that aren't counted on the M$ side?
> > > >
> > > >IIS and SMTP are certainly counted on the Win2k bug tracking.
> > >
> > > How can you possibly have any idea what is counted on the win2k
> > > bug tracking database unless you are one of the win2k development
> > > team?
> >
> > I don't know for sure, but one can make a reasoned guess. Are you
> > suggesting that Win2k's bug database only includes it's kernel? Win2k is
> a
> > product. That means that a bug reported against Win2k goes into the
> Win2k's
> > bug database, thus anything included with Win2k, including IIS and it's
> SMTP
> > server are included.
>
> Beside, what is the size of Win2K's kernel anyway?
> You really think that there could be so many bugs in the kernel itself?
A driver is part of the kernel; as is the GDI (at least with NT4,
perhaps they changed this? -- I wouldn't know, I've never seen Windows
2000). Just because NTOSKRNL.EXE is small doesn't mean that the
kernel is small.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: no.alt.arkiv,tw.bbs.comp.linux,alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows
Date: 11 Dec 2000 15:40:17 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Hello to all!
>
> The result is out. Linux is INFERIOR to Windows. :-)
> Ah, I know you Linux people are bursting with rage right now. Sarcasms
> and insults are evitable for me, I know.
>
> Please read this test by Mindcraft that compares Linux and Windows NT.
> After reading this, you will agree with me.
>
> http://www.mindcraft.com/whitepapers/openbench1.html
>
> Ha! Ha!
Did you hear that Windows NT 4.0 is out too? Wow!
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: JM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Predictions (featuring Drestin Black)
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 22:45:35 +0200
On Mon, 11 Dec 2000 06:42:40 -0800, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
(Pan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>FUD. Most commerce servers run *nix. Most DB servers run *nix. Anyone
Is Unix swearing or something?
------------------------------
From: JM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 22:45:35 +0200
On Mon, 11 Dec 2000 09:53:32 +0200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>IE updates to Win2k is severly limited.
>It can't replace system files, so it end up with only updating the browser.
Any reason for so many posts?
------------------------------
From: JM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Windows review
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 22:45:36 +0200
On Sun, 10 Dec 2000 23:47:54 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>"JM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> >Good God, man! When was the last time you SAW a GUI? At a guess, I'd
>say
>> >about '84. Clue-time: Try Windows. See all those menus up there?
>Notice
>>
>> Hmmmm.... It mau have escaped your attention, but I'm using Windows
>> now.
>No, you're _running_ Windows. If you were actually _using_ it, you'd have
>known better than to come up with such patently absurd statements.
So if I'm not using it, what am I doing? Do you think I sit here
watching it do nothing? And these posts must happen by magic.
>> >the underlined letters in their names? Try pressing ALT and the
>underlined
>> >letter, see what happens. Oh, my, a MIRACLE. Notice how the menu drops
>> >down? See all those lovely commands in the menu? Try pressing the
>> >underlined letter of the function you want. Or cursoring down to it.
>> However, Windows makes a complete arse out of keyboard shortcuts.
>> Typing in a quick shortcut is easier than having to navigate countless
>> menus to find what you are looking for.
>I agree. Pressing the _keyboard shortcut_ in the GUI is quicker than
>navigating menus. However, the GUI has the added benefit that if you don't
>happen to know the shortcut - or even the command - you _can_ navigate the
>menus (even without a mouse), find it, and you also get to see the typically
>3-keystroke menu activation for the function, and, if it has one, the hotkey
>for the command.
Which is more than can be said for vi. Have you ever tried using that
without any idea of how to use it? What a joke.
>> >The only time you actually _need_ to use a mouse, at least under Windows,
>> And when they have made it a fucking inconvenience to use them.
>How inconvenient is pressing ALT and a letter?
When pressing ALT and a letter does something other than what you want
it to do.
------------------------------
From: JM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: no.alt.arkiv,tw.bbs.comp.linux,alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 22:45:37 +0200
On Mon, 11 Dec 2000 03:03:22 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>Hello to all!
>
>The result is out. Linux is INFERIOR to Windows. :-)
Ah well, you win. This entire newsgroup will cease to exist thanks to
your statement above.
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Blurry Fonts: Is there a solution?
Date: 11 Dec 2000 15:42:50 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Keith Peterson) writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Bobby D. Bryant"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >At least the information is out there. You might compare this to what
> >MS is trying to pull on BugTraq right now.
>
> Yeah - shame on Microsoft! Trying to make sure that users actually reach
> timely, correct information.
>
> Damn you, Microsoft! DAMN YOU TO HELL!
>
> I think ALL bug lists should be references to current-state information.
What if microsoft.com is unavailable (down link, server, whatever)?
What if you read your e-mail offline?
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: 11 Dec 2000 22:42:14 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Steve Mading writes:
:>> And that somehow makes the use of hjkl for cursor movement intuitive?
:> It is neither intuitive nor non-intuitive, since the term is so
:> relative that you've have to spend a long time detailing all the
:> user's previous circumstances before you can make a statement
:> either way on it.
: How many users have previous editor experience where the cursor is
: controlled by the hjkl keys?
:> Simply saying, "never used vi before" isn't enough.
: Fortunately, I've said more than that.
True enough. It still isn't enough to just say, 'never used a text
editor before' either. Arguing whether something is intuitive or
not CANNOT BE DONE UNIVERSALLY. That is my point. You have to
give a *HUGE* list of pre-conditions, one little sentence like that
isn't enough to narrow it down. That's why arguing whether or not
something is "intuitive" is silly. It's too vague and slippery a term.
Unless you feel like getting pendantic enough to list zillions of
criteria, the term won't mean anything.
(This is not the same as what Aaron was saying, that nothing can be
intuitive. Things can be intuitive, but in a way that is not nearly
as universally applicable as the user interface designers trick
themselves into thinking. There is no such thing as universal
user friendliness, and there is no such thing as *universal*
intuitiveness. User interface designers make assumptions about the
users' previous experiences without realizing it.)
:> I never used it before, the first time I got my hands on
:> it, but I picked it up fast. And no, I didn't like it at first,
:> I hated the HJKL thing.
: Liking or hating it isn't the issue. The issue is whether the cursor
: movement using those keys was intuitive or not.
:> But I *did* remember it and not have to waste time looking it up,
: Remember it from what?
The first time I looked at the 'cheat sheet', saw the 'hjkl', I
immediately recognized that they must have been chosen because of
thier proximity on the keyboard, and *poof*, I never forgot what
they were. I still didn't like the modal nature of it (yet), but
I never sat around pulling out my hair going, 'Oh, damn - what was
that command again - gee if only it were more intuitive so I could
remember.'
:> so it wasn't a matter of intuitiveness that made me hate it - it
:> was that I thought modal editing took too many keystrokes,
:> constantly switching modes.
: That is one of my dislikes as well.
:> After I got really fast at it, and could compare, I was seeing that
:> the modal editing was actually faster for me, precisely becuase I
:> had less keys to have to cover with my fingers.
: It's slower for me. So what? Speed wasn't the issue either.
: Actually, I'm quite surprised at how much the discussion has
: diverged from the issue. Seems like vi fans are trying to defend
: their choice of editor, as if the comment that the use of hjkl for
: cursor movement being non-intuitive was some sort of attack against
: which a defense had to be mounted.
It's becuase you *also* lace your comments with disparaging comments
about vi, as side points. In usenet, side points like this spawn
replies all the time. It's not surprising at all.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: 11 Dec 2000 22:46:32 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Steve Mading writes:
:>>>> Fortunately, I didn't make such a blanket statement. My comment
:>>>> was restricted to the use of hjkl for cursor movement. That's a
:>>>> rather small subset of vi.
:>>> Well, then we'll just have to disagree then. I don't think
:>>> that's true for the first time user who hasn't gotten any
:>>> preconcieved notions from using other editors first. You think
:>>> it is.
:>> Are you saying that the first-time user *will* know that hjkl
:>> moves the cursor around???
:> No, I'm not.
: Then where did your "You think it is" come from?
Sorry, I assumed that when you write things, you mean them. There I
go being presumptuous again.
------------------------------
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: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 00:54:21 +0200
"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:913j3v$4re$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : "Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> : news:913e0l$bng$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> :> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> :>
> :> : We are talking about programs not following the rules to the platform
> : they
> :> : are being written for.
> :> : Give me *one* good reason to ignore those rules?
> :>
> :> You two are talking about totally different problems. He's talking
> :> about the rules being ambiguous, so you can't tell if you are following
> :> them or not (what is "user stuff" and what isn't changes according to
> :> personal opinion). You are talking about the case where the rules are
> :> clear, but get ignored.
>
> : I already asked him to state some places where it isn't clear where it
> : should go.
> : He refused to answer.
http://x61.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=702461261&CONTEXT=976574077.1839
595588&hitnum=0
> : Normally, it's clear answer.
> : And defaulting to HKCU isn't bad either.
>
> That might be the case (I started reading this thread late into it), but
> in any case it is still dishonest to attack him on a position he doesn't
> actually hold. You're doing a strawman fallacy. If you don't agree with
> the premise that the documentation is unclear, then attack his position
> *there*. Don't make up this bullshit position to make it look like he
> favors the act of ignoring the spec. Whether he's right or wrong about
> the situation, THAT wasn't his stance.
You really should read the thread (at least my & T. Max arguement, as this
thread itself is *huge*) before saying this.
http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/dnquery.xp?ST=QS&svcclass=dnyr&defaultOp=%26&;
DBS=&LNG=english&subjects=&authors=&fromdate=&todate=&showsort=score&maxhits
=25&groups=&QRY=Windoze+2000+-+just+as+shitty+as+ever&x=49&y=9
List 17,000 results.
What documentation are you talking about which isn't clear?
The registry structure is well documented, and the rule about putting
machine spesific settings in HKLM and user spesifics settings in HKCU is
five or six years old if not more.
I made passing comment about bad programs putting user spesific setting in
HKLM, and T. Max started raving how this was MS fault and how it was only
this way because there is no competative alternative.
I'm sure he would respond to this post saying something along those lines.
<Qoute: T. Max replying to my post>
>And if you do, you should get the other's user settings.
>Because that it how it should work.
Precisely; you should get the other user's settings. Which is why app
developers put them in local.machine instead of local.user. You see how
that works?
</Qoute>
<URL:
http://x61.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=700803337&CONTEXT=976574077.1839
595588&hitnum=5>
After this, what a, I supposed to think?
My initial point was that I couldn't understand why programmers put
user-spesific data in HKLM, instead of HKCU.
Putting user-spesific settings in HKCU doesn't limit the application in any
way, and it provide the programmer with an easy way to make his/her program
a true multi-user one without any hassle.
T. Max jump on this and started using this as a proof that Windows is
"crapware".
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
