Linux-Advocacy Digest #849, Volume #30 Wed, 13 Dec 00 15:13:04 EST
Contents:
RE:swithching to linux ("migs")
System's analysis? What does this person do ? (peter)
Re: Caifornia power shortage... (Woofbert)
Re: Caifornia power shortage... (Woofbert)
Re: Linux doesn't support P4 (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux doesn't support P4 (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux is awful (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux is awful (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Windows review (Brian V. Smith)
Re: Linux is awful (Brian V. Smith)
Re: Predicting the Future (.)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "migs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE:swithching to linux
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 02:58:43 +0800
umm i dont like to sound like this but. . . what is GPL??? and waht do you
mean by samll system??? like a 586 maybe with 16 megs ram??? please clarify
im quite the newbie in these realms, , ,
------------------------------
From: peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: System's analysis? What does this person do ?
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 14:29:49 -0800
I was looking through the paper the other day and I notice several
systems analysis jobs (for Unix, Linux, and NT)?
What exactly does this person do ?
How do you train to be a systems analysis?
Any links to any info would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
peter
------------------------------
From: Woofbert <[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: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 19:32:59 GMT
In article <91838p$1i0e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Chad Myers wrote:
>
> > As much as great nuclear facilities are, the nuclear waste problem
> > in the U.S. alone is staggering. Coal power plants are becoming
> > cleaner every year and producing more power. We should build a few
> > more around the country to hold us off until the Tokomak comes
> > online in 5-10 years and provides the entire world with enough
> > electricity for decades.
>
> Ah, the fusion thing. It has been expected that cheep fusion power
> will be available in a 10 to 20 year timeframe since at least the
> late '50s. Also, there are waste issues with fusion. I'm not saying
> that fusion power would be a bad thing, but there are serious
> problems with both putting together a useful power plant and with the
> plant becoming radioactive ...
I like fusion.
In fact, there's a fairly big and reasonably stable fusion reactor not
too far from where I live. It runs all the time; I'm fairly well
shielded from its more nasty efefcts; and all I have to do to use it is
put up some energy collectors. It's been running for about four or five
billion years and is expected to run all by itself with no maintenance
for at least another four or five billion years. Where is it? It's out
in space, about one astronomical unit away. All we have to do is orbit
some big energy collectors, and beam the energy to earth as microwaves.
We have all the required technology...
> >Trust me, I'm no environmentalist or tree hugger, but I'm practical.
> > Plutonium 239 has a half-life of 24,000 years or so. The only
> > practical disposal is into outer space
You can't use "practical" as a modifier with "into outer space" and make
any sense. There's a lot of radioactive waste and we don't have the
spare lifting capacity. Besides, what if one of these things should miss
its target and reenter our atmosphere? That would suck very badly. No,
don't do that. Just bury the crap in a salt mine.
>or embedded deep in
> > geologically stable shelf rock far below underground water run off
> > systems in a remote part of the desert.
>
> Or you could recycle it and use it to generate power ....
Well, no, that's not ecnomomical either. In fact, nobody knows how much
energy it costs to refine nuclear fuels. That's a classified secret. But
it's a *lot*. Ever see the size of the power lines running into such
places as Oak Ridge, TN?
--
Woofbert <woofbert at infernosoft dot com>, InfernoSoft Datadroid
http://www.infernosoft.com/company/techsupport.html
"Inside every Microsoft application, there are
several simple programs trying to get out."
------------------------------
From: Woofbert <[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: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 19:39:42 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> Where is the French version of TMI or Chernobyl?
>
IIRC, the French use *two* designs for their nuclear power plants ...
and one of them is a modification of the other. Their engineers are
well-trained, and those two designs are well understood. They run a
tight ship. Now the problem with the French nuclear power program is not
technical but ideological. It would never fly in the United States.
Here's why...
The United States values individual and corporate rights above all else,
including technical practicality and public safety. As a result, it is
the God-given *right* of every utility that wants to build a nuclear
power plant to build a brand-new design each time. It is a matter of
national honor that every American nuclear power plant be different from
all the rest, have different operating characteristics, and have
different safety procedures.
The French system, with its regimentation, standardization, and
constraints on experimentation, would never work in the US.
Isn't it great to live in a free country?
--
Woofbert <woofbert at infernosoft dot com>, InfernoSoft Datadroid
http://www.infernosoft.com/company/techsupport.html
"Inside every Microsoft application, there are
several simple programs trying to get out."
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux doesn't support P4
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 19:42:04 +0000
. wrote:
> So actually, linux DOES install on a P4, and you still dont know
> what youre talking about.
I didn't say anything, so what on earth are you talking about?
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux doesn't support P4
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 19:43:23 +0000
spicerun wrote:
> Pete keeps claiming he isn't a Wintroll, yet he makes these posts that
> don't tell the entire story....misinformation if you will...that favor
> unjustified discrediting of Linux systems. Despite Pete's attempt to
> imply that Linux doesn't and won't support Pentium 4, the truth is that
> there are 2 distributions of Linux that do support the Pentium 4, and
> others could be supporting it as soon as they make a small change as
> shown in the above quote and article referred to by above link. And the
> real bottom line isn't that Linux won't support Pentium 4s, it is that
> some ditributions won't install themselves because they currently don't
> recognize the Pentium 4. I'll bet Slackware will install just fine
> seeing that Slackware relies on the user to tell it what it installs on.
Stop putting words into my mouth. The title of the article is "Linux lacks
P4 support - nobody at all dead" which isn't far from "Linux doesn't
support P4".
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 19:46:17 +0000
aflinsch wrote:
> What do you do if the registry gets hosed enough so that you can't
> boot into windows (and by extension, can't run regedit)?
The very same thing you do if all the configuration files for Linux get
hosed.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 19:48:38 +0000
kiwiunixman wrote:
> Question is, why was it replaced. If it is not broken, why fix it?
I guess because VAXmail didn't handle MIME types and other features like
that.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 19:54:40 GMT
> Wrong. Getting devices to work is the responsibility of the
> device manufacturer....to provide working device drivers.
Really? If the USB layer in Linux actually WORKED, maybe companies who make
drivers multi-platform wouldn't be so dead-set against wasting their time
writing drivers for a platform that literaly CAN'T support them?
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 19:56:46 GMT
Got a point, StarOffice is NOT Microsoft office by a long shot.
KDE2 is still lacking in unifying administration features, even though the
interface is more intuitave, and it's STILL not truely integrated with the
OS.
"Swangoremovemee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 07:39:31 -0500, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> >Wrong. Getting devices to work is the responsibility of the
> >device manufacturer....to provide working device drivers.
>
> As far as Linux is concerned it doesn't really matter because from the
> consumer's point of view, if it doesn't work, it doesn't work and they
> will look elsewhere.
>
> If that person has a lot of money invested in hardware, like a
> pre-load for example, they are not going to re-purchase hardware just
> for the joy of running Linux unless they have a very specific reason
> to do so.
>
> And that, considering the dismal amount of quality desktop
> applications available for Linux, is not going to happen.
>
> ie: So how many people do YOU know running StarOffice? I'll even let
> you include the Windows version in your tally.
>
>
> Swango
> "It Don't Mean a Thang if it Ain't Got That Swang"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian V. Smith)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Windows review
Date: 13 Dec 2000 19:52:42 GMT
Please take this non-linux related drivel out of the linux newsgroups!
Please, please, please!
--
===============================================================
Brian V. Smith ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www-epb.lbl.gov/BVSmith
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
I don't speak for LBL; they don't pay me enough for that.
Check out the xfig site at http://www-epb.lbl.gov/xfig
To the optimist, the glass is half full. To the pessimist, the
glass is half empty. To the engineer, the glass is twice as big
as it needs to be.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian V. Smith)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: 13 Dec 2000 19:49:49 GMT
Can you guys take this non-linux related thread out of the linux newsgroups, please?
Pretty please?
--
===============================================================
Brian V. Smith ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www-epb.lbl.gov/BVSmith
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
I don't speak for LBL; they don't pay me enough for that.
Check out the xfig site at http://www-epb.lbl.gov/xfig
To the optimist, the glass is half full. To the pessimist, the
glass is half empty. To the engineer, the glass is twice as big
as it needs to be.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: al.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Predicting the Future
Date: 13 Dec 2000 20:04:02 GMT
Swangoremovemee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 17:22:23 GMT, "Bracy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Considering we already have at least four distributions who have reached
>>the "Version 7.0" range (Mandrake 7.2, Red Hat 7.0, Suse 7.0, Slackware
>>7.1), I predict that in about four to five years, we'll see the following
>>headlines:
>>
>>"Linux Mandrake Version 34.2 Released!"
>>"Red Hat 29.0 Now Shipping"
>>"LinuxWorld Takes a First Looks at SuSE 31.4"
> Seeing as Redhat is closing down some of it's offices I suspect you
> may have to remove one of those from your list.
Redhat!=linux
=====.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 19:43:40 GMT
Les Mikesell writes:
>>>>> Not true. What if you want to look for something ("Please find the
>>>>> word "goose" in this document")?
>>>> You don't use hjkl.
>>> You do if you want to move the screen a line one way or the other
>>> after finding the match.
>> You can do that with control-U (for up) and control-D (for down), which
>> actually have mnemonics.
> What's mnemonic about control?
Irrelevant, given that I didn't say there is anything mnemonic about
control. Try comprehending what I actually wrote.
> If something were really intuitive, you wouldn't need a mnemonic anyway.
Irrelevant, given that I didn't say they were intuitive.
> Besides, those don't do the same thing.
They let you see the surrounding text, if not already visible. Note
that your "move the screen a line one way or the other" in incorrect
for at least one direction, possibly both. The hjkl keys move the
cursor, which won't necessarily move the screen.
>>>>> Do that in traditional 'more' and you still have to scan
>>>>> the page with your eyes once it comes up.
>>>> Finding an occurrence of a string is a rather different matter from
>>>> simply viewing a document. The latter was what he brought up.
>>> No it isn't.
>> Balderdash. I suggest you review the thread.
> I read it. Giving commands to a document viewer is exactly the
> same as giving commands to an editor.
Irrelevant, given that what was brought up was the viewing of a
document, not the giving of commands to a document viewer.
>>> I almost always search for something when I view a document.
>> What you almost always do is irrelevant.
> That's pretty funny in the context of you trying to tell everyone
> else what is intuitive.
What's allegedly funny about it? And where have I tried to tell
"everyone else" what is intuitive?
>> Viewing a document is what was brought up, not searching a
>> document. By the way, you can search a document with grep.
> The features you need when viewing a document are very much
> the same as when you edit a document unless you never look
> at what you are doing.
Incorrect; when editing a document, you need to insert and remove
text, whereas you don't need those when viewing a document, thus
the features are not the same.
> That is the point and the reason it was
> brought up, and if the commands to execute those features are
> identical, then one of the programs will be intuitive to use.
They are not identical, as I just pointed out. If two programs
have identical commands and identical performance in response to
those commands, then you have identical programs, and therefore
no need for both of them.
>>> Being able to do it the same way in the viewer as in an editor
>>> makes the one you learned second intuitive.
>> Only if you know beforehand that the two operate the same way.
> That would be a good reason for chosing it, wouldn't it?
That would be a good reason for not calling it "intuitive".
>>>> To someone who hasn't used it before. Who else? Intuition
>>>> doesn't apply to something that someone already knows.
>>> Of course it does.
>> I suggest you learn the definition of intuition. Knowing how to
>> brush your teeth in the morning because you've been doing it for
>> years doesn't mean it's now intuitive.
> The common usage means 'without reasoning', but there is nothing
> about it that rules out remembering something already learned.
I suggest you consult a more complete dictionary. Or do you wish
to argue that brushing your teeth is intuitive?
>>> How can someone that doesn't know anything at all use a computer?
>> By reading the manual. That doesn't involve intuition; it involves
>> learning.
> So you agree that nothing about a computer is intuitive until you
> have learned something?
Nonsense; I never said that you need to read the manual for everything
about a computer.
>>>> You have a peculiar notion of intuition. Needing to know a bunch
>>>> of things suddenly makes something intuitive.
>>> Being able to re-use the same thing you already know in
>>> another context makes the subsequent one intuitive.
>> How many previous editors use hjkl for cursor movement like vi?
> It may have been the first - it was most likely the first screen editor
> designed to be used on a variety of terminals with no dedicated
> cursor motion keys in common, and many not having them at all.
So, does that strengthen or weaken the argument that they are not
intuitive?
>>> Vi lets you re-use almost everything you learn in many different
>>> ways.
>> I learned to use Alt-C to mark a block column; vi doesn't let me
>> re-use that. I learned to use Alt-W to write a buffer to disk;
>> vi doesn't let me re-use that. I learned to use Alt-X to exit
>> the editor; vi doesn't let me re-use that.
> Alt? What's an Alt?
It's something I learned that vi doesn't let me re-use, contrary
to your claim.
> What was an Alt in 1976?
Irrelevant, given that the issue is your claim that vi lets you
re-use almost everything you learn in different ways.
> There is a notion of time that relates to the ability to re-use
> something.
You didn't indicate any notion of time. Or do you now wish to
qualify your statement?
>> I learned to use the Home key to go to the top of the screen;
>> vi doesn't let me re-use that. Need I go on?
> Home? What terminal had a home key? What did that mean?
It means I learned something that vi doesn't let me re-use, contrary
to your claim.
>>>>> If you stick '$' in where a character or character mover could go -
>>>>> it means eoln, if you stick it where a line number could go - it
>>>>> means last line. It's 100% consistent.
>>>> You mean the $ never means the dollar sign?
>>> Not in the range/motion part of a command.
>> So in other parts, it could be inconsistent.
> No, it is consistent with the context where it is used and
> never ambiguous.
And that makes it intuitive?
>>>>> In the statement :1,$...something... the '$' is being used in the
>>>>> place of a line number.
>>>> Thus the symbol is overloaded, and not consistent.
>>> But the meanings have something in common so it is consistent.
>>> Note how our use of consistent is overloaded and not consistent.
>> Not consistent with one another. Your use could be erroneous.
> Your choice of command could be erroneous, but the meaning
> of $ is not ambiguous to the command you use.
The problem is knowing what to use. Just because someone learns
what symbol to use for "end of line" doesn't mean they will
automatically know what to use for "end of file".
>>> We do this all the time and find it easier than remembering a
>>> different symbol for every nuance of meaning.
>> But you need to remember a different meaning.
> You need to remember the meaning in any case, 1 symbol or 2, but
> with 2 symbols you also have to remember the other symbol.
Oh, then why don't we have just one symbol for everything. Then
we won't need to remember a bunch of different symbols and can
restrict our attention to remembering different meanings. Every
key on the keyboard can be labeled "$". It's just that they have
different meanings depending on where they are located. Gee, you
wouldn't even have to label the keys; to do so would be redundant.
>>>>>> Is 4dk a special case?
>>>>> It fits the generic pattern: {number}{command}{movement}
>>>> I see you missed my point.
>>> I did as well.
>> Glad you agree.
> With what?
With my statement that you missed my point.
>>> What point? It re-uses the same information you learned for
>>> every other vi command.
>> The key words here are "you learned".
> Yes, you don't have to reason or look it up. You re-use the previous
> learning, making the process intuitive.
Are you trying to suggest that learning doesn't involve any reasoning?
>>> Backslash is the 'high level' escape actually seen by application
>>> level input and a backslash preceding the end-of-line typically
>>> means the app should ignore the line end and consider the next
>>> line a continuation.
>> That there might be different levels of escape is also not intuitive.
> It was to me,
Why?
> but I guess you want to dictate what people are not
> supposed to know.
You guess wrong.
> It is irrelevant anyway - there will be one first time for every case.
The first time I plugged in a microwave oven, I didn't need to consult
the manual. The power cord was intuitive.
>>> The control-V is normally the 'lnext' character in the tty input
>>> subsystem below application level.
>> The average user isn't going to know about tty input subsystems.
> I did. It is no more obscure than knowing the name of msconfig.
Are you arguing that msconfig is intuitive?
>>> For example you can input a literal control-C or control-Z
>>> into an application through the keyboard by preceding with
>>> the control-V, even though they would normally generate
>>> a signal at the OS level.
>> The average user isn't going to know about signals at the OS level.
> Unix users do,
On what basis do you make that claim?
> because it is a practical thing to know about.
That's your basis? They know it because it's practical to know it?
Does that mean every Windows user knows everything practical there
is to know about Windows? Does that mean every Mac user knows
everything practical there is to know about Macs?
> For example using control-Z for job control to put things in the
> background and yank them back for keyboard control without needing
> extra windows is very handy.
And every UNIX user knows that? That makes it intuitive? And
control-Z won't yank them back. You need "fg" for that.
>>> Vi is actually doing raw input and is in control of this escape
>>> mechanism so it doesn't have to match the OS 'lnext' character,
>>> but since the function is exactly the same, this is yet another
>>> place vi does the intuitive thing and re-uses what you know in
>>> another context.
>> You're presupposing knowledge of tty input subsystems and OS signals.
> Or, that it will be the first time you encounter the concept and hence
> you should learn the thing that will make the next encounter intuitive.
Subsequent encounters of the same thing are not intuitive.
>>>> Do you consider yourself a UNIX novice?
>>> Why would that matter?
>> Intuition doesn't apply to people who already have experience.
> On the contrary - it applies to re-using experience without having
> to reason.
So, you *are* going to argue that brushing your teeth is intuitive,
right?
>>> A novice has less chance to re-use knowledge in intuitive ways.
>> A novice has a greater chance to rely on intuition.
> If you mean in the sense of being unscientific and probably wrong
> I might agree.
The key word here is "if".
>>>> And do you consider the mnemonic intuitive?
>>> Mnemonics are usually made up after the fact, but they are
>>> as intuitive as anything else.
>> Are you suggesting that control-U and control-D were chosen before
>> the "up" and "down" mnemonics were made up?
> Maybe,
Really? Quite a coincidence, wouldn't you say?
> but mnemonics involve reasoning and are thus not related
> to intuition by definition.
Fortunately, I never said they were.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
