Linux-Advocacy Digest #916, Volume #32 Tue, 20 Mar 01 03:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux @ $19.95 per month (Perry Pip)
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (Dave Martel)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Mindless suicide! Rediculous Dumbasses! (TW)
Red Hat (Gnome) is faster then Mandrake (KDE) ?!?! (peter)
Re: Unix/Linux Professionalism (Perry Pip)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Les Mikesell")
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (.)
Re: Selling to the masses (.)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (.)
Re: IBM adapting entire disk storage line to work with Linux (Chad Everett)
Re: User Friendly?? ("Kato")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux @ $19.95 per month
Date: 20 Mar 2001 06:10:15 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You really are a sorry ass troll.
On 19 Mar 2001 10:21:05 -0600,
Jon Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>http://www.redhat.com/products/network/service_changes.html
>
>I guess this is where it'll be going... can't afford to keep leaking money
>out of every oriface forever...
>
>So, this is like paying $19.95 per month to use Windows Update - MS updates
>have been, are and will always be free.
>
>Wonder what trojan's can be hacked onto the back of their subscription
>agent... time will tell...
>
>
------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 22:05:15 -0700
On 19 Mar 2001 19:24:13 -0600, "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>PROVE IT.
>Prove any one.
>prove ANY one.
>
How about Microsoft's own backdoor, RPCSS.EXE? You can prove that one
with any search engine.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 06:17:15 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 19 Mar 2001 06:56:10
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> >The GPL simply doesn't guarantee the goal as stated by your last
> >> >sentence.
> >> >>
> >> >> Indeed, it does; that's why you have a problem with it.
> >> >
> >> >Please quote the part that you think says that anything must be
shared.
> >>
> >> The whole thing. C'mon, Les; I know you're not that stupid. You
aren't
> >> actually confusing the effect with the text, are you?
> >
> >There is no part that says or even suggests that you must redistribute
> >anything at all, only restrictions on how you may do it if you choose.
> >Whatever effect you are talking about must have only been in your
> >mind.
>
> The effect is apparently evident to other minds as well, considering the
> success of Linux.
There is no reason to associate the success of Linux with anything
in the GPL, particularly since Linus has made it clear that the
kernel can be extended through the module interface without
creating a derived work on the other side of the interface. That
makes the kernel very un-GPL-like. Equally to the point, every
Linux distribution these days comes with X, Netscape, perl and
dozens of other things under free but non-GPL terms. These are
equally or more 'successful' since many are available on more
than Linux distributions and contradict any claim of need for the GPL.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: TW <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Mindless suicide! Rediculous Dumbasses!
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 06:27:21 +0100
I'm new here, just looked in from germany at a glance.
But, jackie 'anakin' tokeman, for you we have a name in germany: windoof clicky boy
(doof
meaning silly in german), so you are little ahead my 7 years old daugther, regarding
behaviour and knowledge. Of course, she is not as skilled as you as a windoof clicky
girl, but she sure will be in a few years. You compete with childs, and childs have
better memory than you. You will be dead (litterally speaking) in a few years.
O.K., you may have some years to expose yourself. But do you think you can fool the
asians, especially the chinese?
All your arguments about windoof mix things up. End users can be comfortable with linux
desktop. Corporate using is up to managment decicions. That has nothing to do with the
advantages or disadvantages of windoof or linux or somewhat, it is pure corporate
politics. When policy changes you will be jobless. If it changes, we'll see. I watch MS
at the stock exchange. If it ever may fall under $30, I know, we won.
Anonymous wrote:
> aaron wrote:
> > Anonymous wrote:
> > >
> > > T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Said Anonymous in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 15 Mar 2001 01:10:08
> > > > -0700;
> > > > >"Masha Ku' Inanna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >> You know, the really scary thing about Charlie's enthusiasm is that it feels
> > > > >> so much like the "You GOTTA be saved, Jesus LOVES you!.." enthusiasm of some
> > > > >> religious sects.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Or is "Linus loves you," more accurate?
> > > > >
> > > > >windows is a pretty cool system. easy to install and easy to use. i like
> > > > >it just fine.
> > > > > jackie 'anakin' tokeman
> > > > >
> > > > >men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth - more than ruin,
> > > > >more even than death
> > > > >- bertrand russell
> > > >
> > > > When I recently changed my .sig, I received several lame comments about
> > > > how I wasn't following my own advice, using such a sig while flaming
> > > > trollers rather callously. But that's nothing compared to "Jackie"
> > > > here; one must presume he hasn't even managed to read his own sig, let
> > > > alone understand what it says and its applicability to his own comments.
> > >
> > > what part of my comment do you dispute?
> > > that i think windows is cool?
> > > if so, how can this be considered evidence of fear of thought when it
> > > expresses nothing more than a subjective response - ie 'that's pretty
> > > cool'
> > > or do you have a dispute that windows is easy to use and easy to install?
> > > if you do i suspect you define 'easy' in an idiosyncratic way which makes
> > > the byzantine world of unix look good - such as 'it won't crash'
> > > ignoring the fact that a system which doesn't crash but which requires
> > > more investment in time and effort than most people are willing to make
> > > just to get started with is, for most people, effectively useless.
> > > or perhaps you think liking windows is itself evidence that i fear thought?
> > > well, that may have an element of truth if you define 'thought' strictly
> > > as human cpu cycles. my observations indictate that learning to use unix
> > > well requires an immense amount of what is for most people (myself
> > > included) tedious and unpleasant mental work. this is the underlying
> > > reason for the high value placed on unix savvy people by the market in
> > > that it tends to restrict the supply. (the other side of this is, of
> > > course, increased demand)
> > > now it may be that you, like a lot of people on usenet, love working with
> > > computers. but you should not let this blind you to the fact that for most
> > > people working with computers has only been made just barely tolerable by
> > > things like windows.
> > > and until this is fully understood by the linux evangelists bill gates
> > > needn't lose any sleep fretting over microsoft losing thier total desktop
> > > enduser market domination.
> > > jackie 'anakin' tokeman
> > >
> > > men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth - more than ruin,
> > > more even than death
> > > - bertrand russell
> >
> > .....which explains why you have such a fear of using Linux.
>
> do you speak japanese?
> if not, why not?
> do you fear thought?
> also, why didn't you ever get your degree?
> do you fear thought?
> for that matter why don't you have a ph.d.?
> do you fear thought?
> jackie 'anakin' tokeman
>
> jes axin
>
> men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth - more than ruin,
> more even than death
> - bertrand russell
------------------------------
From: peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Red Hat (Gnome) is faster then Mandrake (KDE) ?!?!
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 06:07:10 GMT
Right now I've got two linux systems running, one running Mandrake 7.1
and the other running RH 6.1 .
The Mandrake X-windows runs KDE and the RH uses Gnome (I think), but
the RH is much faster (32 megs of memory in each, for now). I'm
probably going to try and find 32 megs of 72 pin simms for the
mandrake machine, but this may that a while.
The CPU's are the same, but the mandrake uses a S3 trio 64 (2 megs)
and the RH uses a trident ProVidia (4 meg), I don't think the video
matters, it must be the Desktop.
Now, what are the big differences between KDE and Gnome, which is
faster, better, etc ? Are there any other options ? I would love to
run 128 megs, but that's not going to happen, unless someone sends me
some or I built a new computer system (Dimms are cheaper than, simms
right now).
I thought both KDE and Gnome would be memory hogs and 32 megs would
not be enough, but it seems that Gnome doesn't do too bad with 32
megs, the only problem is that I like mandrake more than RH, I'd
rather use mandrake, is there anyway to switch from KDE to Gnome,
without a new install ( the install took 80 minutes!!! ) ?
Thanks for your help,
Peter
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix/Linux Professionalism
Date: 20 Mar 2001 06:20:11 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 19 Mar 2001 21:05:51 -0500,
Shades <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[snip]
>If I go to any of the MS groups it isn't this way.
That's becuase all of the trolls like you are hanging out here.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 06:39:29 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 19 Mar 2001 06:50:14
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >> >You must have some imaginary version of the GPL. The real one
> >> >says nothing about having to share or redistribute in any way. It
> >> >says much about conditions that prohibit any form of sharing.
> >>
> >> Yea. That's what I said. Are you *sure* you're smart enough to be a
> >> programmer? Are you *really* too dumb to understand the difference
> >> between literal text and the effect of a licenses literal text?
> >
> >It in no way resembles what you said.
>
> You do not recognize the resemblance. I get it.
That is correct. I do not recognize the resemblance because it
exists only in your mind.
> >> >You can't combine components with any existing restrictions that
> >> >differ from the GPL's with anything with the GPL restrictions
> >> >and redistribute it.
> >>
> >> IOW: where you don't share, you don't share.
> >
> >Yes, the result of the GPL is that you cannot share combinations
> >of things where all other parts are freely sharable.
>
> You use the term "freely" incorrectly in a context with "GPL". You
> cannot "share combinations of things where all other parts are open
> source, but do not demand they be freely sharable."
I use the term 'freely' with its standard, non-deceptive meaning,
and fail to see how it relates to any demands.
> >> >> Sorry; the rule is you have to share.
> >> >
> >> >No, the rule is that only under certain conditions are you allowed
> >> >to share.
> >>
> >> Yes, and the ONE and ONLY "certain condition" is, you HAVE TO SHARE.
> >> You're really don't get this, do you?
> >
> >No, because that has nothing to do with what the license says.
>
> Of course not. It has to do with what the license *does*. What the
> result of the license is; its impact and effects on the behavior of
> those using GPL software, for whatever definition of "using" you wish to
> use. Its ramifications, intent; its meaning.
You are really confused. People share software because they want
to, not because they are forced to. The GPL cannot force people
to share. All it does is restrict what can be shared and how it
may be done.
> What is *says* is just the beginning. And where it goes you don't want
> to go (for reasons I'm not entirely sure of); those who like the GPL,
> however, do like where it goes, for reasons I am entirely aware of and
> agree with.
Where it goes it to make demands of what other people do with their
own work, or to attempt to control other existing works. I don't want
to go there because I consider that a very uncivilized thing to do, and
clearly unnecessary in terms of encouraging additionaly sharing.
> >Yes, it is a shame that the GPL prevented the free distribution of code
> >that the original author (as I recall, GNUtar evolved from something
> >called pdtar, where pd=public domain) wanted to be freely available.
>
> It is freely available. It remains freely available, as it would
> regardless of whether you successfully managed to profiteer on its
> availability by incorporating it in a non-free (if open source) product.
What are you talking about? I wanted to give the code away to
anyone who wanted it. I said that before and don't understand
why you keep ignoring it. I had no interest in profit - I just needed
the networked backup myself and would have been happy to
share the finished product. However, bandwidth was expensive
in those days and the requirement to distribute source as well
as binaries made it impractical to even email the modifications
to GNUtar alone to people who only wanted the executable,
and the GPL restrictions prevented distribution of the network
and scsi additions along with it, even though those libraries
were already freely available.
> >> >I am talking about separate components of freely available software
> >> >being integrated into something with new capabilities, and the one
> >> >with the most outrageous claims about being free is the one that
> >> >prohibits redistribution.
> >>
> >> That's why its the only one that makes a serious claim about being
free.
> >> The others are just zero cost. Free beer, not free speech; you know
how
> >> it goes....
> >
> >And that's why it is a lie any way you look at it. The restrictions
prevent
> >freedom under any of the definitions.
>
> The restrictions ensure freedom under any of the definitions, by
> preventing your use of someone else's code unless the results are free
> software (in the GPL sense).
That isn't free software. It is isolated software at best; no software
at worst.
> I guess you figured we'd just have a revolution where nobody got hurt,
> huh? Well, just be glad there's only virtual blood being spilled. In
> prior ages of history, that wouldn't have been the case.
Yes, that happens whenever someone makes unreasonable demands
about other people's property or work, as the GPL does.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Date: 20 Mar 2001 07:07:35 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Jan Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:993k9c$gv1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > "Charles Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > "CR Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> > > > The real truth is that Germany is still pissed that MS included
>> >> > Diskeeper
>> >> > > > technology whos CEO is a scientologist.
>> >> > > Already forgotten the "NSAKEY" backdoor? That was the "backup" key
>> > that
>> >> > > MS put in the OS in case they (they being MS) "forgot" the primary
> key
>> >> > > and needed to update your software.
>> >> >
>> >> > That would be the backdoor that one of the top cryptologists in the
>> > world
>> >> > says he doesn't believe exists.
>> >> >
>> >> > Bruce Schneier, author of Applied Cryptography and considered a
>> > formemost
>> >> > expert in cryptogrophy chimed in on the entire NSAKEY incident saying
>> > that
>> >> > the paranoia mongers arguments simply didn't make sense.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >
> http://www.counterpane.com/crypto-gram-9909.html#NSAKeyinMicrosoftCryptoAPI
>> >> >
>> >> > "But it's not an NSA key so they can secretly inflict weak
> cryptography
>> > on
>> >> > the unsuspecting masses. There are just too many smarter things they
> can
>> > do
>> >> > to the unsuspecting masses."
>> >>
>> >> Erick has tried to change the subject. Note that we are talking about
>> >> two different things : one is the existance of backdoors. The other is
>> >> the existance of NSA specific backdoors. Also note that Schneier
> doesn't
>> >> say that backdoors don't exist.
>>
>> > I'm not changing the subject. I didn't bring up the NSAKEY issue, you
> did.
>>
>> >> Schneier makes the point that the NSA doesn't need a key for its
>> >> specific backdoor. That doesn't mean that backdoors don't exist. The
>> >> NSAKEY did exist and it was a backdoor deliberately put in by MS.
>> >> Whether it had anything to do with No Such Agency or not is another
>> >> matter. According to MS, it was just a spare in case they forgot their
>> >> original key, according to NSA ""
>>
>> > It's not a back door in any traditional sense. All it does is allow MS
> to
>> > replace crypto modules if the primary key becomes lost or corrupted.
>> > replacing the module doesn't cause you to suddenly be able to decrypt
> stuff
>> > that was encrypted with the earlier module, it just changes the
> algorithm.
>>
>> > It doesn't give you access to run programs or download data or whatever.
>>
>> Correct. Thats why god invented back orifice.
> which is an utterly useless piece of shit which crashes more often than not
Weird. Its actually never crashed for me. You're apparantly doing something
incorrect.
=====.
--
"ambition makes you look pretty ugly;
kicking and squealing, gucci little piggy"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Selling to the masses
Date: 20 Mar 2001 07:09:12 GMT
Michael Vester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have noticed a definite shift from a technical argument to potty talk.
"potty talk"
Thats a hell of a vocabulary youve got there, tex.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.linux.sux,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Date: 20 Mar 2001 07:12:26 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Jan Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Rex Ballard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> >
>> > Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 28 Feb 2001
>> > >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > >> Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 26 Feb 2001
>> > >> [...]
>> > >> >Every source that claims that MS tried multiple conversions of
> Hotmail to NT
>> > >> >all reference the same *SINGLE* story published on less than
> credible news
>> > >> >site with "unnamed" sources.
>>
>> Actually Erik, there were several separate reports from Drestin Black,
>> each with
>> great enthusiasm for Microsoft, that claimed that Microsoft was going to
>> convert
>> hotmail.
> He NEVER claimed a change to NT4 and rebuked you on it several times.
>>Each attempt was identified - Drestin cited the use of NT
>> servers on
>> the site.
> Bullshit.
>> The NT 4.0 attempt failes, as did NT 5.0 and the up-times on
>> Windows 2000
>> aren't looking that great.
> BULLSHIT IN THE EXTREME!! NT4 was NEVER attempted. Period. NT5=W2K so you
> are obvious confused. Finally, from someone who's worked there and continues
> to work there; W2K performance has deliver 100% uptime so far. Not a single
> crashed W2K server.
I was involved with attempting to use a W2K based dhcp server to spray addresses
and such at over 10K nodes.
It ended up not being used, because it crashed too much.
You are lying, flat out. You must work for microsoft. I'll leave you alone
though; you're probably trying to figure out how to add a lense flare to an
XP screenshot to make it look a little less like aqua.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM adapting entire disk storage line to work with Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 07:18:02 GMT
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001 04:01:02 GMT, Ed Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <rBnt6.88480$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>So? Stringing together hundreds of boxes isn't something to really
>>be proud of, necessarily. And even so, they're just competeing with
>>Unix, for the most part. For the rest of the world, there's Windows.
>>
> They are the most powerful computers in the world. None of the
> top thirty run NT.
>
> That does not mean that Windows is powerful, scalable, or fast.
Actually the fastest computers in the world are currently:
IBM RS/6000 SP ASCI White at Livermore
(http://www.llnl.gov/asci/news/white_news.html)
ASCI Blue Mountain at Los Alamos
Intel TeraOPS (ASCI Red) at Sandia National Labs
But the Linux clusters (not Beowulf) are catching up.
You are correct about Windows not even coming close to being in the
top thirty.
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Kato" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Kato" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: User Friendly??
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 23:15:09 -0800
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think so, because when (user == I), (user is an instance of
> "hacker"). Remember, "user friendly" is not well-defined without
> defining who the "user" is. So, when most or typical users are
I think Lee Sau Dan points out something very important with respect to the
meaning of "user friendly": it depends on who the intended user is. You
cannot simply say one thing is more "user-friendly" without also specifiying
the user.
IMHO, one of the biggest challenges that must be overcome before Linux
dominates the typical user's desktop comes not from Microsoft, but from many
Linux advocates themselves. The average Linux user is a different kind of
person than the average Windows or Macintosh user...they are more
technology-oriented, more likely to be professional coders, hackers, or at
least dabblers in programming. Their abilities and their interests put them
in a demographic that is different from 90% of the other people on Earth.
It's this difference that makes people in this group great at abstract
mental activities like mathematics, algorithms, and coding.
Linux is an OS that was written by hackers for hackers. It's a great
movement that I have great hopes for. But an OS written for hackers is not
going to be an overwhelming success with most of that other 90%. Supporting
normal people is not a major problem, but it does require that Linux
advocates recognize and acknowledge that they must understand and respect
their users. It's very common to hear such disparaging comments as
"joe-stupidass-user" or "idiot users", and as long as that kind of attitude
persists, I don't hold much hope for Linux being a success on the client at
the scale that Windows is.
I should add that I've been designing software for ten years or more, and
I've seen plenty of field studies and usability tests where users had
trouble with something that seemed obvious to me...I can't count the number
of times I've thought "oh, that dumb user!", but the fact is that if your
users can't use the design you think is so great, you'd better bite your
tongue and do a new design. You can *think* users are dumb all you want,
but you need to smile and respect their needs if you want your software to
be user friendly. And it's actually rather rewarding to see a user smiling
and saying "Oh this is fun!" while successfully using your software.
Especially if the first couple times got confused stares and frowns or
frustrated responses and failure.
> >> I think user friendly is: The ability to change everything
> >> about the OS to fit your needs, with out multiple reboots.
>
> I think so, because when (user == I), (user is an instance of
> "hacker"). Remember, "user friendly" is not well-defined without
> defining who the "user" is. So, when most or typical users are
> "idiot", that means "idiot-friendly", which is more or less the same
> thing as "idiot-proof".
As far as the meaning of "user friendly", I'll suggest that it means "being
useful for the intended users, and being easy to for them to learn and to
use". It is too general a concept to simply mean one feature or another,
and I disagree that it means "idiot-proof", for reasons rambled on about
earlier. (On the other hand, a key principle in user interface design is
"forgiveness", as in "let the user go back a step, let them undo whatever
stupid thing they just did." I guess this could be considered
idiot-proofing, but I'd like to meet the hacker that has never used Undo, or
wished it was there when it wasn't...hackers are human too, and we *all*
make mistakes).
> any keystroke to any operations. That what I *expect*. So, I find
> Emacs and fvwm user-friendly, because I can edit config files to
By now, you all think I'm some wierdo from another planet, but to try and
save some face, I'll confess that in my Unix days, I was the guy to see if
you had vi questions.
> I don't agree with him. I hate UI programming because it is
> laborious. No creativity. It's not difficult to write a small
> program UI that works, but it is hard to write a large-scale one that
> works (i.e. relatively bug free) and maintainable. That's a quality
> issue. I hate laborious tasks that create low quality products. The
> time spent on the UI programmer would better go to improving the
> performance and functionalities of the real program. Eventually, the
> laborious and boring task would go to cheap labours in developing
> countries.
This is an excellent example of how different people (even in that small
10%) have different opinions. I spent some years as a C/C++ coder writing
Macintosh and Windows applications, and I love UI programming. I loved
delving into difficult graphics and palette issues that perplexed other
developers. I loved factoring code to create reusable controls that other
programmers could use with little effort and that exposed great user
interfaces. I loved visiting end users to understand their needs, and
implementing solutions that really solved their problems. Don't tell me
that there's no creativity in UI programming, or that it's laborious and
leads to low quality, because none of those of those were true for me. Of
course, there are many things I find dull and boring, such as database APIs,
generating complex algorithms, and writing network code. You, in turn, may
like those things...which is why different opinions are important.
Peace,
--
Craig Oshima
[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 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
******************************
