Linux-Advocacy Digest #943, Volume #32 Tue, 20 Mar 01 18:13:08 EST
Contents:
Re: Unix/Linux Professionalism ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Unix/Linux Professionalism ("Shades")
Re: Linux @ $19.95 per month ("Interconnect")
Re: uh oh, redhat is gonna do it (Roberto Alsina)
Re: uh oh, redhat is gonna do it ("Mart van de Wege")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Re: Unix/Linux Professionalism ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: What Linux MUST DO! - Comments anyone? (Scott Gardner)
Re: KDE 2.1 oopsie! ("Mart van de Wege")
Re: What is user friendly? ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux @ $19.95 per month ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Unix/Linux Professionalism (.)
Re: What is user friendly? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: What Linux MUST DO! - Comments anyone? (Chad Everett)
Re: What is user friendly? ("Craig Oshima")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix/Linux Professionalism
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 17:05:47 -0500
Shades wrote:
>
> > You know, I can't comment on the relative merits of Linux vs. NT in the
> > server department, as I use both only for workstation use (NT at work,
> > Linux at home), but when I take on that condescending tone you're using
> > towards one of our customers (I work for a bank), my supervisor will be
> > all over me, because it is *just as bad* as outright insulting someone.
> > Given your tone, and your continuous posting to stoke the flames, I can
> > only conlude that you are a troll. A very skilled one, but a troll
> > nonetheless.
>
> My apologies, I did not mean to be condecending nor insulting. I really was
> asking a question regarding perception but I realize now it was probably a
> mistake to do so.
Every time you trot your your happy horse shit, you are insulting the
intelligence of every reader who you imply will believe your goddamned
fucking lies.
now..sit down and SHUT THE FUCK UP...JACKASS.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shelala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: "Shades" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix/Linux Professionalism
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 17:09:01 -0500
> wp report.wp
>
> Wow...that's sooooooooo freaking difficult
>
Um... for someone who never touched a computer before it really was. Also
changing to that directory was difficult for a person to do too. Some
people are brought up on it but many at that time (1980) had not.
>
>
> > > > Or a CEO of a company. I
> > > > admitted it was technically possible to do it but given that apps
ran so
> > > > damned slow on an old 8086/88 why would they?
> > >
> > > They handled ALL of that just find in the late 1980's.
> > >
> > > Are you saying that a man who is smart enough to become the CEO of
> > > a fortune 500 company is too stupid to figure out stuff that
> > > junior-high kids can handle?
> > >
> >
> > No, I am saying a Fortune 500 CEO doesn't have the time nor the patience
to.
> > He has a business to run and think about. Do you think Ted Turner cares
> > about the umount or tar command?
>
>
> Hey, dipshit, Unix and Linux have had GUI's that are FAR more capable
> than Windows for ***YEARS**** now.
Yeah that is true. Sorry I thought we had been originally talking about
the real early 80's and I do not quite remember if there were any at that
time.
------------------------------
From: "Interconnect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux @ $19.95 per month
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 09:13:22 +1100
> However, if you're a corporation and want some legitimate service, you
must
> now pay. On the other hand, if you want to keep your systems up to date,
> you must hire a person to monitor the daily patches and keep the systems
> up to date, thus costing you. Either way, it's still a costly proposition.
>
Sorry just responding again. (The above comment really buggs me.)
Are you suggesting that a corporation should not pay RH for a legitimate
service?, just becuase they sell open source technology.
Look at your statments regards RH
Quote-----------------------------------------------------------------------
========
"you must hire a person to monitor the daily patches and keep the systems
up to date"
End
quote-----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
So a MS run site requires no administration? It just fixes itself with
*free* MS updates.
Who installs and configures Windows updates?
Does an MS employee come out and do it for free?
Does an MS employee perform a remote update on your network for free?
Do the staff at work install and configure MS updates for free?
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,soc.singles,comp.os.linux.redhat
Subject: Re: uh oh, redhat is gonna do it
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 19:06:51 -0300
Brian Langenberger wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Steve Chaney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> :>What this means to us is that we have to ftp our software updates when
> :>out trial RHN subscriptions end.
>
> : My point is they might try and make it so you can't get the software
> : updates via FTP.
>
> RedHat is free to do so, though there is no indication that they will.
> If RedHat decides to distribute their distro and updates only on
> Official RedHat CDs for $10,000 per copy, they're also free to do so.
>
> But once someone gets a copy, they can distribute the GPL'ed sources
> (and everything RedHat has done so far is GPL'ed or with an open
> specification) far and wide via non-RedHat channels.
Ok, Red Hat will not do what I am about to say, but they COULD do it, if
they wanted:
Modify rpm (the program) so that it only installs RH-signed packages.
Make rpm signatures depend on the machine the software would be installed
on (on-the-fly signing of RPMs based on a web form?).
That's all that's needed. Only rpms downloaded from RH would install on RH.
Of course you could hack rpm to ignore the signatures. That can be worked
around by making only RPM non-free (and RH owns RPM, right?)
Finally, RH could claim that you can't distribute all of RH on a CD, or put
all of RH on a site because of compilation copyright. How that would fly on
a court, I have no idea.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: uh oh, redhat is gonna do it
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 23:03:53 +0100
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,soc.singles,alt.os.linux.redhat,comp.os.linux.redhat,linux.redhat
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> For home users, who often can't afford to have a "test machine", this is
> a very cheap thing. Also, if I were a RedHat home user, I would just
> purchase the server for one month every 6 months.
Even better, if you read the FAQ you'll see that the upgrade management
is still free for one workstation. So for home users this is a very good
deal, and this fits with RH's business plan: integrated solutions for
businesses, and the home user immediately profits as a side effect (thus
building mindshare as well).
Mart
--
Write in C, write in C,
Write in C, yeah, write in C.
Only wimps use BASIC, Write in C.
http://www.orca.bc.ca/spamalbum/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 22:31:13 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram) writes:
>
> In my opinion they are both free software. One of the licenses focuses
> on the possibility of reuse and takes it for granted that some versions
> of the software become non-free (i.e. encumbered use), the other license
> focuses on the guaranteed unencumbered use and takes for granted that
> reuse is not allways possible. Different viewpoints of the ambigious
> term "free".
This is IMHO an eminently sensible point of view.
> I sincerely hope that I am finally getting my POV through.
It's been my experience you're fighting a lost battle.
John is not prepared to accept that one could honestly
call the GPL a free license; in his opinion, one has to
be either stupid and misguided, or malicious, dishonest
and a supporter of the Democratic party to voice this
opinion.
--
Stefaan
--
How's it supposed to get the respect of management if you've got just
one guy working on the project? It's much more impressive to have a
battery of programmers slaving away. -- Jeffrey Hobbs (comp.lang.tcl)
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix/Linux Professionalism
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 17:18:35 -0500
Shades wrote:
>
> > Professionalism is about telling the truth....and when people try
> > to counter the truth by dispensing lies, then the professional
> > is duty-bound to make it clear, in absolutely no uncertain terms,
> > EXACTLY what kind of low-life cretin the liar is.
> >
> > Is any of this getting through your thick, shit-filled head?
>
> I did tell the truth. The 386 was better suited for multitasking than the
> 8086/88.
And the 8086 and 8088 were Far better suited for multitasking than
the 6809...
And yet, I wrote a complete multi-tasking kernal for the 6809
in 4 weeks...
So, your point is?
> I never said you could not do it, I just said before that time no
> secretary would be able to use it well without a GUI and that at that time
> the only vendors I can remember were Sun and HP workstations and they were
> too expensive.
>
> Also I do think it does take quite a bit of an effort to create a REAL OS.
Not much for what was standard back then.
After you write the kernal, all you need to do is write support utilities.
At that point, you have a complete operating system distribution
to sell.
> But I didn't make that statement because I was "dispensing lies". Now
> maybe you can whip one up at home just fine. I don't do that for a living
> and thus maybe I was wrong, but not lying.
Your statement was clearly at odd with the facts.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shelala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott Gardner)
Subject: Re: What Linux MUST DO! - Comments anyone?
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 22:17:46 GMT
On 19 Mar 2001 09:42:58 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nick
Condon) wrote:
>Eugenio Mastroviti wrote:
>>Nick Condon wrote:
>>> Bringing up a Linux installation is *easier* than doing it in Windows.
>>
>>This is simply not true. Again, it is from my and your point of view (a
>>*really working* Win installation is not simply harder, it's
>>impossible...). It is not from Joe User's point of view.
>
>The only people who install operating systems are people who build their
>own PCs and corporate techies. Everyone else gets a PC with an OS already
>on it, so Joe User is irrelevant to this discussion.
<<SNIP>>
>Nick
True, but if Linux is going to gain a large foothold in the desktop
market, it's going to be these "Joe User"s that make the difference.
By this, I mean the people that already have Windows and for whatever
reason, want to switch to Linux. Either the installation and (more
importantly) configuration is going to have to be streamlined and
simplified, or they'll just have to wait until there is a wide variety
of off-the-shelf desktops from places like Dell and Gateway before
Linux will get the really large numbers in the consumer desktop field.
I installed RH 7.0, and while the installation itself went very
smoothly, a significant portion of my hardware isn't supported by RH
7.0. So while the installation was virtually idiot-proof, I'm left
with a less-than usable system, and I'm not anyone's definition of a
newbie. Sad to say, until I can get a version of Linux that
recognizes all of my hardware, I'm stuck with a dual-boot system, with
most of my serious work being done on Linux. I'm not giving up, and a
Microsoft-free computer is still my final goal, but casual users might
not have the patience with the upgrade process that I have.
Scott
------------------------------
From: "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE 2.1 oopsie!
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 23:15:11 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "mlw"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Pete Goodwin wrote:
>>
>> mlw wrote:
>>
>> >> I did what I said, and I got no errors.
>> >>
>> >> Maybe you're the one who's lying.
>> >>
>> >> If I'm lying, how come I using KDE 2.1 _right now_?
>> >
>> > Unless you explicitly removed the previous version of KDE you should
>> > not have been able to install the new version without a -U.
>> >
>> > How do you explain that?
>>
>> OK, I must have used rpm -U. My mistake.
>
> really now, just "rpm -U *.rpm"
>
> Again, that will not work without any warning messages either. You will
> get a few "xxx conflicts with...." warning messages. At least try what
> you claim to have done, before you post. Jeez.
>
Should I chime in here? I grant that I last used rpm at version 3.04, and
it is now at version 4.01 I believe, but:
1. it is quite possible to install using rpm -i over an old installation,
it is just not recommended practice.
2. rpm -Uvh *.rpm on a directory full of rpms *will* sort out the
dependencies. That really threw me when I first tried it, as I was used to
the usual 'can't install foo ; foo depends on bar' error messages.
Once again my knowledge of rpm is about 5 months out of date, so any
errors in the above are my responsibility and mine alone.
Mart
--
Write in C, write in C,
Write in C, yeah, write in C.
Only wimps use BASIC, Write in C.
http://www.orca.bc.ca/spamalbum/
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What is user friendly?
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 00:11:07 +0200
"Craig Oshima" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:wcQt6.1131$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > The most popular Unix GUI's are also EASIER to use than the Windows
GUI's.
>
> Pphhh. When you've seen users struggle to get through the things you
think
> are easy, your attitude will be informed by more than your arrogant
> opinions.
Indeed, Interface Hall of Shame is a good exaple for that, most of the time
I wouldn't notice the UI problems (even if I use them extensively) unless
they are pointed to me. And even then... it's not very disturbing. But for
normal users, it's quite different.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux @ $19.95 per month
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 00:15:26 +0200
"Interconnect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:998kbb$t59$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> So a MS run site requires no administration? It just fixes itself with
> *free* MS updates.
You can set it up to do just so, yes.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
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 22:22:31 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." wrote:
>>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > "." wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> > Shades <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >>
>> >> > 8<SNIP>8
>> >>
>> >> > First of all, Aaron R. Kulkis is considered a
>> >> > blithering idiot by both COLA and COMNA
>> >> > participants. Secondly, if you think that
>> >> > there are no irrational, childish, idiotic
>> >> > NT advocates, then you might want to lurk
>> >> > about on some of the various IRC nets.
>> >>
>> >> Actually, kulkis and chad meyers are almost exactly the same person. Substitute
>> >> "linux" for "windows" appropriately, and you absolutely cannot tell them
>> >> apart.
>>
>> > Wrong.
>>
>> You appear to be the only one who thinks so, again, just like chad.
>>
>> > I know what the fuck I'm talking about.
>>
>> With a few things yes, just like chad. But but your paranoid political philosophies
>> are IDENTICAL to chads.
>>
>> > I have the university
>> > education
>>
>> So does chad, and so do I.
>>
>> > AND the real-world experience to know what the fuck
>> > I'm talking about.
>>
>> Chad says he does too.
>>
>> > Chad, on the other hand, spews Microsoft propaganda.
>>
>> You spout the same paranoid conspiracy theorist crap.
>>
>> > I wonder how much they pay him each month to post his propaganda.
>>
>> Ah, theres that paranoia again.
>>
>> > And yes, Microsoft DOES pay people to post on this and other newsgroups.
>>
>> Alright kulkis, ive asked you before and youve patently refused, but how bout
>> some absolute evidence of this statement?
>>
> You forget the discovery of the "astroturfing" campaign so quickly?
> For those who don't get it...that was Microsoft's decision to start
> financing a campaign of paid correspondance to *LOOK LIKE* "grassroots"
> support.
> fake grass => astroturf.
Right, I remember that, but I also dont remember seeing ANY kind of evidence
that there were ever microsoft plants in COLA. I'm not saying that it hasnt
happened (or that it isnt happening), but before you swear up and down that
its the truth, it would be very helpful if you pointed out some sources containing
hard evidence.
=====.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What is user friendly?
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 17:24:10 -0500
Shades wrote:
>
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > >Hmm... too bad Sun/HP and CERTAINLY SGI doesn't have the business acumen
> to
> > >make it happen. Otherwise I would agree with you.
> >
> > Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha! And what large manufacturer of technology do *you*
> > run, Mr. "Business Accumen"?
>
> I don't but you don't need to be President of the US to know if he is doing
> a sucky job.
Must be why *ALL* important databases at Fortune 500 companies are
running on either UNIX or IBM mainframes.
Nobody smart enough to get in a position to make such decisions at
a Fortune 500 company would be so utterly STUPID as to keep their
records on a Microsoft platform....unless he's looking to not merely
get fired...but to have....an unfortunate accident.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shelala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Subject: Re: What Linux MUST DO! - Comments anyone?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 22:24:01 GMT
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001 22:17:46 GMT, Scott Gardner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 19 Mar 2001 09:42:58 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nick
>Condon) wrote:
>
>>Eugenio Mastroviti wrote:
>>>Nick Condon wrote:
>>>> Bringing up a Linux installation is *easier* than doing it in Windows.
>>>
>>>This is simply not true. Again, it is from my and your point of view (a
>>>*really working* Win installation is not simply harder, it's
>>>impossible...). It is not from Joe User's point of view.
>>
>>The only people who install operating systems are people who build their
>>own PCs and corporate techies. Everyone else gets a PC with an OS already
>>on it, so Joe User is irrelevant to this discussion.
>
><<SNIP>>
>
>>Nick
>
>True, but if Linux is going to gain a large foothold in the desktop
>market, it's going to be these "Joe User"s that make the difference.
>By this, I mean the people that already have Windows and for whatever
>reason, want to switch to Linux. Either the installation and (more
>importantly) configuration is going to have to be streamlined and
>simplified, or they'll just have to wait until there is a wide variety
>of off-the-shelf desktops from places like Dell and Gateway before
>Linux will get the really large numbers in the consumer desktop field.
> I installed RH 7.0, and while the installation itself went very
>smoothly, a significant portion of my hardware isn't supported by RH
>7.0. So while the installation was virtually idiot-proof, I'm left
Tell us the hardware that you have that's not supported by RH 7
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Craig Oshima" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Craig Oshima" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What is user friendly?
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 14:28:04 -0800
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Craig Oshima wrote:
> > "Aaron Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Yes, the x-windows based gui's that were available in 1988 were
> > > fairly primative...however, by the early 1990's, they were VERY
> > > much more sophisticated.
> > >
> > > Such as multiple desktops (still not implemented in Windows),
implemented
> > in
> > > the CDE GUI in the early 1990's, and is standard in ALL modern Unix
GUI's.
> >
> > Do you have real evidence that this is an important feature?
>
> Do you have any real evidence that convenience and productivity are
> *NOT* important features?
You're implying that multiple desktops naturally results in convenience and
productivity. That is what I'm disputing. Can multiple desktops be used in
ways that increase convenience and productivity? Sure. I don't doubt that
you make great use of them. Are multiple desktops *required* for
convenience and productivity? No. I would trade a thousand desktops for an
application developed by someone who cared enough about my needs that they
bothered to actually design for my needs, rather than simply assume that
they knew what was best for me.
> Go to ANY business which uses Unix, and tell the users that you're
> going to replace their current GUI with one that doesn't support
> multiple desktops, and see what the reaction is.
The reaction would of course be negative, and rightly so, because like any
feature, users have gotten used to it. But I'm not saying that the feature
should be removed, just that it's not critical for an effective user
interface. You implied that Windows has a bad user interface, partly because
it doesn't support multiple desktops, and that's baloney.
> Yeah, I've tried several on Windows...and they all sucked because Windows
> is so freaking SLOW.
Well, it performed well enough for me back then, and it performs just fine
for me now.
> That's because you've never used it on a system that was truly capable
> of handling it.
I find it interesting you can assert that so confidently. Okay, in the late
80s, I did not have a Sun workstation on my desk...it's true. I had a
miserable 286, which of course, was not capable of handling much. Today, my
systems are not exactly shabby...PIII 700MHz, 256MB, 60GB and a
dual-processor G4 PowerMac. I think they can handle multiple desktops, but
you know what? I still don't miss them.
> You're like the guy who doesn't understand what the big deal is about
> the wheel and axle....because the wagon he had was manufactured with
> square wheels, and didn't seem to change a thing.
Uh, okay. I'll pass on the opportunity to devolve into pointless insults.
> >
> > > Need I go on...
> >
> > Please do. And include some justification for your claim that Unix GUIs
> > have shallower learning curves than Windows or Macintosh. You throw
this
> > "fact" around like it's common knowledge, but I doubt you have any
reliable
> > data to that effect.
>
> The Unix GUIs are more internally consistant. Every time you have an
> inconsistancy, that's another "special case" that the user has to learn
> and remember. More things to learn and remember => steeper learning
curve.
>
> QED the Windows GUI is more difficult to learn than Unix GUIs.
Well, your rule is sound ("more things to learn and remember => steeper
learning curve"). Your conclusion is not, because I guarantee you that
there is a lot more to learn and remember with Unix than with Windows. I'm
not exactly sure why you claim that Unix GUIs are more self-consistent (can
you provide some examples?), but there's a lot more to usability than
consistency. (And consistency itself can be applied along several
dimensions...when it comes to usability, the most important kind of
consistency is being consistent *with user expectations*, which are often
logically inconsistent themselves.)
> I suggest attending a world-class university.
Thanks, but I finished graduate school ten years ago, and while I'd love to
go back to those fun days, my wife (a Linux engineer, BTW) would probably
not approve. Instead, I suggest you try attending this thing we call the
real world now and then. Maybe you'll learn that everyone's not, in fact,
like you, and that it's okay to not be such a jerk.
--
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
******************************
