Linux-Advocacy Digest #835, Volume #30 Wed, 13 Dec 00 01:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Uptimes (sfcybear)
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. (kiwiunixman)
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. (kiwiunixman)
Re: Uptimes (sfcybear)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Whistler review. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: What if Linux wasn't free? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Whistler review. (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Windows review ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windows review ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Uptimes ("Chad C. Mulligan")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 05:31:58 GMT
In article <YgBZ5.5445$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:916hbn$eiv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > And next you say that men in black helecopters have been sent to
take
> > over Redmond. Get real!
> >
> >
> > Talk to Erik Frankenbusch. He knows how it is done and he is a
> > winvocate, mabe you will believe him. He has already posted the
method
> > to the group.
> >
>
> You should thank him for providing the proof that you couldn't Matt.
> Although I understand why you wouldn't provide the data since it
proves the
> method unreliable.
Number one, I had no intention of wasting my time looking for the proof
for the likes of what I find in this group. I knew that someone would be
smart enough to figure out that Winsupporters needed to figure out how
it was done. Why? because then you would be able to figure out how to
deal with it. All I needed to and need to do is post the numbers and
they say enough! So, thanks Eric, To bad Chad isn't like you! You go out
and find proof. Chad? Well you know what they say about opinions and
assholes. At least You and I try to back up what we say. But I disagree,
The method has shown to be reliable and no one has presented anything to
prove otherwise. The method is now known, no more if this "I don't know
how it's done so it's impossible" BS from the win camp! All those posts
that made that claim are WRONG!
>
> >
> > In article <nMbZ5.1070$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "tony roth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > yes I do claim that netcrap is making the data up please prove me
> > wrong!
> > >
> > > "sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:90sdg9$qb9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > > Are you claiming that Netcraft is making up the numbers?
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com
> > http://www.deja.com/
>
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 18:40:46 +1300
A concise way of explaining why UNIX is the way it is, "If it an't
broken, don't bloody fix it", compared to Microsoft's, "If it is stable,
then it needs to be fixed" metality.
kiwiunixman
<snype>
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 05:40:36 GMT
"Santa Warlord" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > You know....even if you never intend to run Linux, it's in your
> > long-term best interest (as a consumer) to purchase only those
> > devices which ARE supported under multiple OS's.
> >
>
> I see. and how can you tell if a piece of hardware isn't supported by
> Linsux? Do penguins telepathically send you a message saying that a device
> is supported or not before you buy it?
There is this interesting thing called the internet... But if you didn't
know that, why do I have to put up with reading these messages.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 18:42:31 +1300
Kyle, grow some balls and use your real email address, or are you afraid
of being flamed.
kiwiunixman
Kyle Jacobs wrote:
> It's the fact that the mentioned tasks are nothing short of a PROCESS. Not
> a simple group of "simple" commands to be issued. They are a PROCESS, a
> full-fledged TASK that must be performed, and performed by the user who
> under other platforms has NO need to do any such activity.
>
> This model for computing was fine for 30 years ago, or 20 or 15 years ago,
> but today? WHY? Because UNIX had NO CHOICE 30 years ago doesn't mean Linux
> has to be the same way. Hell, UNIX doesn't even have to be the same way
> after all this time.
>
> I guess it doesn't matter, once someone sees past all this BS about "Linux
> CREATES innovation" and realizes that Linux is the remenants of having to
> forge the basics of computing 30 years ago, Linux will return to it's niche
> status as a geek's plaything.
>
>
> "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Because Linux lovers feel no shame in outright exclaiming from the
>>
> rooftops
>
>>> that the end to Microsoft domination is here, in penguin form. Wake me
>>
> when
>
>>> I can reliably update my Kernel, and OS level components without buying
>>
> a
>
>>> new distro, recompiling something, or editing text files till the cows
>>
> come
>
>>> home.
>>
>> And how can one do this in Windows? Oh, I forgot, failing to worship
>> whatever MS puts in your box is heresy.
>>
>> But seriously, one can download kernel updates for free, configure them in
>> xconfig (yes, this has the effect of editing text files, but the user is
>> basically
>> clicking boxes). As for recompiling, how hard is it to issue a make
>
> command?
>
>> Colin Day
>>
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 05:44:38 GMT
Ah, chad is this the best you can do little boy?
How about that msn vs aol?
http://uptime.netcraft.com/graph/?host=www.msn.com
http://uptime.netcraft.com/graph?display=&site=www.aol.com
The BEST msn can do is 82.87 days uptime with W2K.
AOL's average: 258.27 days with Solaris.
That means that AOL's AVERAGE with Solaris tops MSN BEST with W2K by
175.4 days!
Now that you know that the data collection can be done, the numbers
stand unless someone can prove them wrong.
Don't like netcraft numbers? What about www.uptimes.com? On this site if
you take ALL the uptime attributed to ALL the windows computers and
attribute them to JUST the W2K boxes, their average uptime is just over
1/2 the average of the Linux boxes!!!!
http://x76.deja.com/threadmsg_md.xp?thitnum=5&AN=702846300.1&mhitnum=6&CONTEXT=976374076.1878327313
2 different sources, 2 different methods of gathering data and BOTH
indicate the same thing! W2K is not stable!
In article <HfBZ5.5441$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:916hel$el3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <AEjZ5.1597$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > "sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:910mjj$pk4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > MS has no problem using Netcraft numbers as fact, Why do
you?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Because I'm not Microsoft.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > That's right, you are a nobody that posts only his opinion and
NO
> > > > SUPPORTING documemnt to a news group.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Microsoft is a Dominate force in the industry (unlike you), CNN
is a
> > > > dominate force in it's industry (unlike you) and both of these
> > Dominate
> > > > forces (And you are NOT a dominate force) have indorsed Netcraft
as
> > a
> > > > viable source of data. You have provided absolutely NO
documentation
> > to
> > > > prove otherwise.
> > > >
> > >
> > > At least my newsreader has a spelling checker. When are you going
to
> > RPM
> > > yours?
> >
> >
>
> So there is no open sores spell checker for tin, can or what ever you
call
> your news reader?
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > IAC, It isn't necessary for one to be a "Dominate" (Dominant
Maybe)
> > force in
> > > the industry to know when someone is presenting a line of total
> > bullshit. I
> > > have never claimed to present anything beyond my opinion, an
opinion
> > that is
> > > rather more informed than your own, obviously.
> >
> >
> > What a crock of BS!
> >
>
> Prove it.
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.netcraft.com/news.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Black Dragon
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Sign The Linux Driver Petition:
> > > > > > > > http://www.libralinux.com/petition.english.html
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > > > > > Before you buy.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > > > Before you buy.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com
> > http://www.deja.com/
>
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
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: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 07:27:04 +0200
"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > "Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > >
> > > If you allow me to add my opinion to this long thread, I believe that
> > > the basic problem is to determine what means "user specific".
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> > > If you can define it exactly, then you're right, but if you can't then
> > > it's just an arbitrary constraint.
> > > One must keep in mind that we're speaking of a general purpose desktop
> > > computer, which purportedly should fill any conceivable need.
> > > In most cases different "users" are set up just to differentiate
> > > activities of the same user, while in other cases different users are
> > > really different persons using the same computer (much less common
> > > actually). But also in that case those different persons may perform
the
> > > same job (two secretaries working on different shifts), or very
> > > different ones (students using the PC for their training, or for their
> > > thesis).
> >
> > I just setup
> >
> > > As you can see from those cases, which are very far from describing
all
> > > possible variations, you have a number of settings which should be
> > > common to all users, and some which should not, depending on the way
the
> > > system is used.
> >
> > Agreed, but defaulting to HKCU if you aren't sure about where this
setting
> > should belong is never a bad idea, IMO.
> >
>
> What I mean is that to have just two choices, either common to all
> users, and requiring admin rights to make it usable (as it appears from
> your statements), or private for each user, with settings which don't
> propagate from one user to the next appears quite rigid. If the choices
> provided are too narrow, then you can't complain that developers just do
> what they think fits best for the majority of customers, and forget
> about the rest.
I'm annoyed at developers putting things that clearly should be use spesific
in HKLM.
And I see nothing wrong with putting the defaults in HKLM during install
(when you've admin privileges) and then customizing them in HKCU.
> > Desgined for Windows Logo has quite a bit of power behind it, and it
> > requires your application to adher to some rules about programing to
> > windows, this is one of them.
> > It's annoying as hell to open the registry and discover that it left
> > window's size & locaiton in HKLM, and that is why it crush when a
non-admin
> > try to use it.
>
> You mean that keys in HKLM cannot even be READ without admin privileges?
Any user can read from the HKLM, it's writing to it that causes the problem
and crush badly written programs.
You can change that, if you want.
------------------------------
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: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 07:46:06 +0200
"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
> >
> > [snips]
> >
> > "Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > > 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".
> > >
> > > If you allow me to add my opinion to this long thread, I believe that
> > > the basic problem is to determine what means "user specific".
> > > If you can define it exactly, then you're right, but if you can't then
> > > it's just an arbitrary constraint.
> >
> > It's usually not too difficult. Just ask yourself, when designing the
app
> > in the first place, whether it makes sense for an arbitrary user to be
able
> > to override a particular setting, and if so, does it make sense to make
that
> > override persistent for that user?
> >
> > A color scheme might be user-specific. So might a custom dictionary -
the
> > accounting people may use different jargon from the developers, for
example.
> > Window positions. Most-recently-used document list.
>
> You'd be right if you didn't happen to be wrong! :-)
> I mean, you forget that in the vast majority of cases different users
> aren't different persons, but just the same user logging in with a
> different user name in order to get admin privileges or not, or to
> access different user data.
> Just to make an example, when working in different projects, it's handy
> to have different desktops, where you have shortcuts to project related
> stuff, etc.
> In those cases you want to keep the same color scheme, the same custom
> dictionary etc. While, at the same time the Most-recently-used document
> list should be different.
What is so hard with this?
You define the color scheme, save it, go to the registry, export
HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Control Panel\Appearance\Schemes and then log off as
another user, and import it, and then define it in Display properties.
That is assuming you are using a color scheme that isn't built in into
winodws, which is likely to be the case.
Okay, I'll admit that this is a bit hard for the novice user to do, but
color scheme is very user spesific, don't you think so?
About the custom dictonary, that it easy as well, you put the dictonary file
in public directroy, (accessible by all the users that you log in as) and
then define to each application that use cutom dictonary, where to look it
at.
> > In general, what you want to do is come up with a list of things such as
> > that which it makes sense for the user to override, then put _default_
> > settings in the per-machine areas. The usual lookup procedure is: "Find
the
> > user setting. If the user hasn't defined one, use the system default."
> >
>
> This is very simple and elementary, and comes from the days when
> computers used to be programmed with punched cards.
> But if the user wants to set one which is intended to become system
> wide? (just because the user happens to be all the users? Or because two
> secretaries must log in with different names for administrative reasons,
> but share the same job?)
Change the definations in HKEY_USER\.default
> > > One must keep in mind that we're speaking of a general purpose desktop
> > > computer, which purportedly should fill any conceivable need.
> > > In most cases different "users" are set up just to differentiate
> > > activities of the same user, while in other cases different users are
> > > really different persons using the same computer (much less common
> > > actually). But also in that case those different persons may perform
the
> > > same job (two secretaries working on different shifts), or very
> > > different ones (students using the PC for their training, or for their
> > > thesis).
> > > As you can see from those cases, which are very far from describing
all
> > > possible variations, you have a number of settings which should be
> > > common to all users, and some which should not, depending on the way
the
> > > system is used.
> >
> > Right - and all the users will have the _same_ set of default settings,
as a
> > rule. It's what they, individually, are allowed to customize and have
> > actually customized, that gets stored in the per-user settings.
>
> It doesn't seem to work very well. Just think to the example I gave
> before with a system wide custom dictionary. I'll only be able to add a
> system wide entry if I'm logged in as admin. The registry organization
> is simply too crude and rigid to fit most needs. No wonder that even in
> business environment win 9x is much more common than NT/2K.
You need admin rights to set a system wide settings, of course, would you
*like* it to be different?
Assuming that any user can define custom dictonaries, how would you feel if
you find out that the other user of your computer just included words that
you have a tendecy to misspell in the custom dictonary he defined, and that
the changes are system wide, and now your documents are full of typos?
If you really want any user to define system wide settings, then *give him
the rights to do so*.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 07:49:38 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:eEBZ5.43078$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Monkeyboy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Gary Connors
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > Do check again, anyone with root privileges and not enough knowledge
> > > > can
> > > > crush a *nix, or any other OS, for that matter.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Going willy-nilly in root is a far cry from Win2K hosing itself when
you
> > > install a wrong application.
> >
> >
> > You said "...regardless of the user...". That includes privileges of ALL
> > kinds.
> >
>
> No, with real computers the user is not the same as the administrator.
Who do you think set up win2k systems? Administrator-privileged users,
therefor, the point stand.
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 23:49:09 -0600
[trollish crosspost headers trimmed]
"Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
> Open source is dying. It is being hijacked by the Corporate big wigs. Sun,
> Corel, Redhat and IBM are doing everyone a favor by destroying the anarchy
> that is open source software. I just started a download of StarOffice 5.2.
> (no new development since its appropriation by Sun over a year ago) and had
> to submit a lengthy registration document and license agreement with Sun.
> Free software indeed. Now I have an additional, largely useless, office
> application, but I'll be bombarded by advertising from Sun. I'd rather pay
> and not have these intrusions into my life.
Star Office is hardly the poster child of Open Source Software.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: What if Linux wasn't free?
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 06:01:26 GMT
On Tue, 12 Dec 2000 02:03:53 GMT,
kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
><snype>
>
> From the sounds of what is happening here, there is a giant paper war
>brewing. I have a BIT (Bachelor of Information Technology) and I am on
>my last year of completing a Bachelor of Music, and I am not swinging
>from the chandeliers whilst declaring "I am the best because I have 2
>degree's". When I hear this type of debate happening, I really question
>the mentality of those who run around declaring that those with degree's
>are superior to those who don't. I completed my study because I enjoy
>both music and IT (esp. Music). Until you realise that a degree is not
>the only part of the CV a employer looks at, you are still a child,
>except in the body of an adult.
>
>kiwiunixman
>
>
One of the most respected computer professionals in the insurance
industry was a conductor of an orchestra.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 06:04:12 GMT
On Tue, 12 Dec 2000 15:00:50 -0500,
Gary Connors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>
>> Do check again, anyone with root privileges and not enough knowledge can
>> crush a *nix, or any other OS, for that matter.
>>
>
>Going willy-nilly in root is a far cry from Win2K hosing itself when you
>install a wrong application.
>
>"747's are reliable, so long as you don't take off the wings" and
>"windows is reliable so long as you don't install 'bad' applications and
>'know' what you are doing" are NOT equivant statements. (and if
>something does go wrong it is obviously YOUR FAULT) Read my ORIGIONAL
>post in this light and it point should be more clear.
>
<snipage>
This is typical of the Windows mentality.
The definition of an operating system includes the ability
to adequately recover from application failure. In short,
this means you shouldn't be able to write a program bad
enough to make an operating system go down. Thus, Windows
is not an operating system.
It has no recovery, no protection, it's purely a large
application in itself.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 07:51:39 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:6qBZ5.43069$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9158hu$dbd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > The folders aren't so much of a problem as the menus because you
> > > > > can at least type one letter of a name to jump somewhere that
might
> > > > > be close (depending...).
> > > >
> > > > Why are the menus a problem?
> > >
> > > How do you get 'close' to something in a menu, or temporarily
> > > sort it to float the thing you want to the top?
> >
> > You type the uderlined letter.
>
> The Start/Programs menu doesn't have any.
I know, and in this case, you need to type the first letter of the item you
seek.
If there are several, you'll be brought to the first of them.
If there is only one that start by this letter, you'll activate it.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 07:53:54 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:VuBZ5.43074$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9158hv$dbd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > Once you put enough things in a handy place it turns out not to be
handy
> > > any more.
> >
> > How many things are you talking about?
>
> A hundred or so are already annoying.
Then do it like this, create directories inside start>programs and arrange
your shortcuts there in them.
Games
Development Tools
Graphics
Utilities
and so on.
> > You've desktop, quick launch, assortment of bars of your choice, start
> menu,
> > programs, how long do you think it will take you to fill all of them?
>
> About a day. If I did everything through a GUI there would have to be
> thousands.
With all due respect, I find this hard to believe that you ran thousands of
programs daily, so you will need easy access to any of them.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 06:07:55 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:w%mZ5.1497$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Or they might have used ksh with the vi edit mode, or less (an enhanced
> > more that uses vi-like keystrokes to browse through files).
>
> UNIX users are in the minority.
How many MS-windows users were there in 1976 when the vi commands
were chosen?
> The ABDick was also tall and narrow (portrait mode) and displayed a
> full screen of text, but it might have been a green screen. Come to
> think of it, we may have replaced our ABDick machines with the CPT
> machines. Never did catch on.
The price of the dedicated WP machines was what killed them when
PC clones running DOS Wordperfect 4.2 came around with equivalent
functionality at less than half the price and network capability. There
was nothing intuitive about WP's keystrokes but people used it anyway.
> >> Of course, according to Aaron, nothing about a computer is intuitive.
>
> > Exactly.
>
> But do you or do you not agree with him?
I'm not sure what he meant, but there is nothing that would make any
sense without relating to some prior knowledge.
> > Many younger people have probably never seen a typewriter
> > and would be very confused by the fact that you scroll down
> > to get the page to the right position on the typing line instead of
> > moving a cursor (which they probably have seen) up to the
> > the text in question.
>
> Younger people seem to be less confused by computers than older
> people with exposure to typewriters.
Young people are often more open to new things than older people
in general - after all, if you are young enough everything is new.
However in this case I would say it has more to do with the millions
MS and Apple have spent trying to brainwash you, errr.. promote their
products.
> >> Fortunately, I don't think otherwise. Remember, my statement was
> >> that to use hjkl for cursor movement is not intuitive.
>
> > It is no more or less intuitive than any other keys might be, especially
> > given that at the time most keyboards did not have any special cursor
> > control keys.
>
> My statement wasn't applied to "at the time". I'm talking about now.
How can it apply to any time other than when the choice was made? And
anytime afterwards prior experience would make it intuitive when
encountered in ksh, more, and an assortment of other programs that
copied the scheme to some extent.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 06:09:45 GMT
"sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9171ke$rhj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <YgBZ5.5445$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
<trimmed>
>
> Number one, I had no intention of wasting my time looking for the proof
> for the likes of what I find in this group. I knew that someone would be
If you don't like the heat stay out of the kitchen.
> smart enough to figure out that Winsupporters needed to figure out how
> it was done. Why? because then you would be able to figure out how to
> deal with it. All I needed to and need to do is post the numbers and
> they say enough! So, thanks Eric, To bad Chad isn't like you! You go out
> and find proof. Chad? Well you know what they say about opinions and
> assholes. At least You and I try to back up what we say. But I disagree,
> The method has shown to be reliable and no one has presented anything to
> prove otherwise. The method is now known, no more if this "I don't know
> how it's done so it's impossible" BS from the win camp! All those posts
> that made that claim are WRONG!
>
Wrong, the method provided by Erik was at the least unreliable at the worst
deceptive.
>
> >
<trimmed>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
