Linux-Advocacy Digest #945, Volume #34 Sun, 3 Jun 01 23:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: UI Importance ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: UI Importance ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: LINUX PRINTING SUCKS!!!!!!!! (somebody)
Re: The _one_ thing that pisses me off about Linux (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! (Bryan C)
Re: UI Importance ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: UI Importance ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: What does Linux need for the desktop? ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Argh - Ballmer ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Argh - Ballmer ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! ("Jan
Johanson")
Re: UI Importance (Woofbert)
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! ("Jan
Johanson")
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! ("Jan
Johanson")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Re: UI Importance (John Jensen)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 04:57:16 +0200
"drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 3 Jun 2001 18:18:20 +0200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> ("Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
> >"Nico Coetzee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >> # cp *jpg /mnt/floppy
> >
> >I'm going to translate it to Windows, if you don't mind.
> >
> >WinKey+R (load Run Dialog)
> >cmd
> >cd "my d" + tab to get my documents
> >cd "my p" + tab to get my pictures
> >copy *.jpg a:
> >
> >(It would be much longer on Win9x based systems.)
>
> Not if they're using bash under cygwin.
Cygwin on 9x sucks, period.
And I like CMD's filename completion betterthan I like bash.
> >> Total Clicks: 7 or more clicks.
>
> >Let me give you a shorthanded version of this?
> >WinKey+E (launch explorer)
> >Press up key to go to My Documents, (or F4)
>
> F4 doesn't seem to do anything. Also, it depends on where you start.
> If you start in "Desktop", you've got a long way to go...
>
> [ ]Desktop <-From here
> (-)-[ ]My computer
> | (+)[ ]3.5" Floppy (A:)
> | (-)[ ]Win98 (C:)
> | | (+)[ ]emacs
> | | (+)[ ]Epusbrv
> | | | [ ]httpd
> | | (+)[ ]jdk1.2.2
> | | (+)[ ]My Documents <-To Here
>
> Quite a lot of arrow key playing, especially to open all the recursed
> directories.
Okay, WinKey+E open explorer, and put the choice on My Computer.
On my computer (and most new one), the icon directly above my computer is My
Documents.
If F4 doesn't work, try F6 and then F4.
> >Press F6 (not needed if used F4)
> >Type "\My p" and then down arrow & enter, to get "my documents\my
pictures"
> >F3, *.jpg, , ctrl+A
> >Shift+F10, send to, Floppy.
> >You can also choose what pictures to copy based on the picture's
thumbnail,
> >too.
>
> Are we using the same operating system here?
Unlikely, I don't like 9x very much.
On my system, it takes 4 keystrokes to reach my pictures folder, frex.
> >There are two advantages to the GUI here, you don't need to remember the
> >path here.
> >Browsing the FS is much more friendly (and fast) using the GUI than the
CLI.
> >Second, you get to choose the pictures to copy based on their content,
> >rather than on their name.
>
> It should be assumed that you know what you want to copy in the first
> place though.
Ha? And what if I don't? How do I find out what I want to copy?
I've a directory with several thousands pictures, scattered in couple of
directories.
On Explorer, I can copy them based on their content, not so in the CLI.
> >> Add to that waiting period for Windows Explorer to launch and you have
> >> just taken quit a bit longer to do something in a GUI.
>
> >Explorer is very fast in loading, barely more than it takes to bring
CMD.EXE
>
> You must have a very fast machine then. Mine takes at least twice as
> long. And if you were using a CLI, you wouldn't need to bring up
> CMD.exe
Yes, I've, but I noticed the same on other, slower machine.
The arguement works both ways, you understand, if you are using GUI, you are
likely to have explorer already open.
> >> Also, in Windows
> >> the copying process must finish before you can continue work in Windows
> >> Explorer, where as in *nix you can continue work while the copying is
> >> done in the background. I personally find this the biggest irritation
> >> when I work on M$ platforms.
>
> >AFAIK, this problem attacks Win95 (and other 9x?) only.
> >I certainly have no problem doing other stuff on Win2K while writing to
> >floppy.
>
> Yes, but the average user won't be using 2K.
That depend on what he is talking about.
If he is talking about all of Windows being unusable while it write to disk,
then it's a 9x problem.
Which doesn't appear on XP.
> >> LASTLY, I think the M$ GUI problems is not bound to M$ allone - Linux,
> >> MAC and other GUI systems (or systems that can use GUI's) will have
> >> similar problems. I think it's time we rethink this whole thing. Yes,
> >> there are instances where I like a GUI, for example Graphic Design. But
> >> for many applications, the command line will remain KING.
> >
> >Yes, server applications.
> >And that is because server application doesn't *need* UI.
> >What about desktops? Can you really claim that there are many desktop
> >applications where the CLI is a vialable competitor?
>
> My machine isn't a server, but I use the CLI all the time. It's so
> much easier (when you know what you're doing. The average user will be
> stopped dead in their tracks if they try to use a CLI)
So, you admit that the CLI is not fit to be used by the average user on the
desktop.
The CLI can be very powerful, but it require much more than GUI does.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 05:11:10 +0200
"Nico Coetzee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Some good thoughts there, thanks.
>
> >
> > I'm going to translate it to Windows, if you don't mind.
> >
> > WinKey+R (load Run Dialog)
> > cmd
> > cd "my d" + tab to get my documents
> > cd "my p" + tab to get my pictures
> > copy *.jpg a:
>
> Obviously you use M$ more then I do. Nice tip though. Perhaps M$ must
> make a better effort of letting users know what all the possible
> shortcuts are for common tasks (copying files among others).
Hi, I cursed MS for about a year for having to use the mouse to do stuff to
MDI applications.
Then I found out that there is one.
Currently, the biggest I'm facing is that if I want to learn something new
about Windows, I've to bury myself in the help for several days.
Just look at the *size* of MSDN today.
And it ain't getting any smaller. They are adding (added, actually) Win64 to
the mix.
> > Browsing the FS is much more friendly (and fast) using the GUI than the
CLI.
> > Second, you get to choose the pictures to copy based on their content,
> > rather than on their name.
>
> Valid point, upto when we get to naming conventions. DOS was limited (8
> chars), but other environments are much more friendly. What I like about
> BASH or similar environments is that there are other tools to sort or
> display file info. The customization of these features are endless, and
> is not easily duplicated on a GUI - unless you want dialog boxes with
> hundreds of little tick boxed and radio buttons.
No, thanks.
Have you ever seen some of the WindowsConfigufrators, thousands upon
thousands of options, all stuff into as small real estate as possible.
Any UI designer would knife the creators.
I agree that Unix's CLI enviroments are much better than DOS, there is no
argument about this.
> > AFAIK, this problem attacks Win95 (and other 9x?) only.
> > I certainly have no problem doing other stuff on Win2K while writing to
> > floppy.
>
> Perhaps it's my ancient box at work then - PII 300 with 64MB RAM running
> NT4 WS. Explorer is useless until the coping finishes.
What is happening, exactly? Does the coputer stop working? Or does it work,
but the copying box don't allow you to use Explorer until it's done?
If the latter, than that is a sign of some of the bad UI slips of MS. They
shouldn't have used a modal box here.
It was present in 95, and fixed in 98.
Maybe installing a recent IE would solve it?
> > > LASTLY, I think the M$ GUI problems is not bound to M$ allone - Linux,
> > > MAC and other GUI systems (or systems that can use GUI's) will have
> > > similar problems. I think it's time we rethink this whole thing. Yes,
> > > there are instances where I like a GUI, for example Graphic Design.
But
> > > for many applications, the command line will remain KING.
> >
> > Yes, server applications.
> > And that is because server application doesn't *need* UI.
> > What about desktops? Can you really claim that there are many desktop
> > applications where the CLI is a vialable competitor?
>
> Programming environments (rhide), text editors (emacs, pico etc), FTP
> clients, IRC clients, Telnet, File Management (mc in Linux?), SSH,
> Office Apps (yes, I still use WordPerfect for DOS on my ancient laptop -
> and I like it),
Those are all personal choices, except fo Telnet & SSH, which is a little
like cheating, in this case, since you are openning a *CLI* session on
another computer.
> Web design (I personally hate
> designing web pages in a text editor - I saved hundreds of hours of
> design time when I switched to FrontPage, although many people will
> disagree with me. I personally think that although FrontPage is not the
> best app there is, it is in my books one of the better apps to come from
> M$).
I wouldn't say that, the VS IDEs are wonderful.
The problem I've with FP is that it sometimes stick totally strange stuff
there.
It's very powerful, though.
------------------------------
From: somebody <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: LINUX PRINTING SUCKS!!!!!!!!
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 02:19:39 GMT
kosh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> stands accused of saying:
> I prefer to pay more and get a
>nice postscript device and all of these problems go away.
...hmm, but what about all that stuff about lower TCO w/ Linux?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: The _one_ thing that pisses me off about Linux
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 02:29:19 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Terry Porter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on 03 Jun 2001 09:21:40 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Sun, 03 Jun 2001 10:31:31 +0100, Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><snip>
>> Useless nuggetlet: the 6502 processor can perfrom in both BCD and binary
>> mode. I never really found a use for BCD mode.
>
>Handy for 7 segment Led driver chips that required BCD for their inputs,
>and for humans that couldn't add in hexadecimal;-)
The 8080 also had some slightly peculiar instructions that were
apparently designed to help add two bytes in BCD. Since the 8086
was designed to be source-code compatible with the 8080, those
instructions (AAD, DAA -- if I remember correctly) may still
be in there in some form.
As for BCD usage -- about the only usage I can think of, apart from
7-segment drivers, would be in COBOL programs which don't convert
everything to binary. Some financial types are a little paranoid
about number overflows, and prefer to use multidigit arithmetic. :-)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 34d:15h:49m actually running Linux.
[select one]
This space for rent.
No electrons were harmed during this message.
This space for rent.
All hail the Invisible Pink Unicorn (pbuh)!
It's a conspiracy of one.
Linux. The choice of a GNU generation.
You were expecting something relevant down here?
Linux. When Microsoft isn't enough anymore.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bryan C)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!
Date: 3 Jun 2001 19:34:18 -0700
"JS \\ PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 23 May 2001
> > >JS \\ PL wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I have to say, Linux Mandrake 8 was looking real damn good. Support for
> all
> > >> my hardware (for once) easy set-up, even seting up networking and
> connection
> > >> sharing was painless. Good newsreader - Knode, pretty stable OS. I even
> > >> liked the fact that it stayed connected to the Internet when switching
> users
> > >
> > >this has been a fact of Unix family operating systems since they were
> > >first networked (i.e. 1970's)
> >
> > The fact is, the very idea that a network connection would be broken
> > because a user logged out (pardon me; because THE user logged out) is a
> > Windowsism to begin with.
> >
> > >> (unlike Win2K)
> > >
> > >Another admission that Mafia$oft is over 30 years behind in basic
> technology.
> >
> > More than that. Microsoft says XP will have it; nobody really knows if
> > it is ever going to actually work.
>
> Microsoft doesn't "say" they will have it. They HAVE it!
> And it seems to work pretty good for my big 5 (five) users. All five can be
> logged on, with programs open, and switching between users is very quick.
> It's not a matter of saving a list of programs to be opened when that user
> logs back in. The programs are open just as you left them. That word
> document you have open is STILL open with the cursor still blinking right
> where you left it. Half installed programs are STILL half installed when you
> return. The only thing I've found is that a half played mp3 (in Winamp) is
> closed down when a user switch takes place. But who knows, maybe Media
> Player (tm) will automatically pause in the final version. :-)
>
> I believe MS is on to something with Windows XP. Hell it even plays my OLD
> dos games perfectly. Way to go Microsoft! Still #1 into the new millenium!
A few questions...
First off, what if that word document is open and the machine crashes
or is shutdown while another user is using the system? If on reboot,
everything is fine than I suspect a list of some sort is saved.
Second, all those programs open seems like alot to ask of any MS OS on
a typical PC. I wonder what kind of hardware requirements are
necessary to successfully support this feature if nothing is being
saved to non-volatile memory as you suggest.
Third, can all five users USE the XP box simultaneously via remote
connection?
BC
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 05:15:55 +0200
"Woofbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <9fda7d$o8l$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ayende Rahien"
> <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > http://joel.editthispage.com/stories/storyReader$51
> >
> > A good article about why people think so highly about UI.
> > It's a good approach, I believe.
> >
> > Any comments?
>
> Well, yes! :-)
>
> Someone earlier suggested that I ought to join one of the Linux
> development teams and help them straighten out their UIs. I've htought
> about this, but I fearthat my suggestions would meet the same sort of
> criticism that they meet here ... which is that Windows and Linux people
> claim I want things to work just like the Mac.
>
> However... There are two ways for an UI to be wrong.
>
> Wrong Way I is to work other than the Macintosh Way. }: )
>
> Wrong Way II is to be dodgy, clunky, and downright broken. As long as
> the developers of applications for some system followed some sensible UI
> standard -- one that uses as many of the commonalities as possible
> between different UI systems, things will be okay. But if they go off
> inventing their own new arbitrary crap. entropy will only increase.
>
> So the trick is to differentiate between these two types of complaints.
Two examples of those things:
1) RH (It was on 6.0) decision to use Alt+X, Alt+C, Alt+V for copying,
cutting and pasting. Putting aside all of the UI difficulities of that
version, that was the number one irritation that I'd.
2) LinuxConf UI, which is to put everything, including the kitchen sinks and
some plumbers, into one tool, make it half wizard & half dialog based tool,
and make everything hard to find.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 05:18:42 +0200
"John Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:l9xS6.7691$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> It stikes me that developers could just invent what they like, and users
> could just choose to use what they like.
That would be nice, but this require a lot more customizibility than most
people built into their applications.
Take Office & VS UI, you can customized it to your heart's content, but
apperantly this, too, annoy users.
What you suggest is technically very difficult.
And even if it was possible, would I *really* want to use a program that I'd
to fix its UI first?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What does Linux need for the desktop?
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 05:20:00 +0200
"Marc Schlensog" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> >
> > "Teamware Linux" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Hi Claus
> > >
> > > You can take a look at Teamware Office which is a full
> > > Groupware system with Mail, Calendar, Discussion Forums
> > > and Document Management.
> > >
> > > Like Lotus Domino its not free but the pricing for Linux
> > > is very atttactive. Its $350 USD for a 25 user license
> > > pack and $1000 USD for a 100 user license pack.
> >
> > How is the UI? I hope it's not like Lotus.
> >
> >
> Naa, it's a definitiv clone of the M$-GUI. Shit, who cares? I bet there
are
> screenshots on their page somewhere, and anyway, aren't you a windows-kid?
The problem with Lotus' UI is that it sucks, period.
And the users do care.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 05:23:12 +0200
"Marc Schlensog" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> >
> > "Marc Schlensog" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > >
> > > -snip-
> > >
> > > >
> > > > What is a module in this context?
> > >
> > > What do you mean with "understanding"?
> >
> > A module can mean a lot of thing, it can mean a seperate part of the
> > program, a linux kernel module, apache's module, ISAPI DLLs, COM,
ActiveX.
> > There are a lot of stuff that you use to interupt what a module is.
> > I'm asking what a module mean in this context, so I could form a reply
> > based on the meaning of the word in the correct context.
> >
> >
>
> And still: all those definitions have one thing in common. They are a
> supplement to some given program and may be licensed as well under GPL as
> under any other given license. Just let your heart decide. I don't think
> that the exact definition matters a lot in this context.
The difference here is that some of those things would force you to GPL your
program, if they were GPLed, and some wouldn't.
That is why I'm asking.
Apperantly out-of-proccess (what about out of control? :~) COM doesn't have
to do this.
But the FSF decision seems arbitary to me.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 05:35:07 +0200
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9fdu6f$lci$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Once again. IF it's that big of a problem for them, they why don't the
> >> welfare recipients just write their OWN FUCKING CODE? Why do they HAVE
> >> to have it HANDED TO THEM ON A PLATE?
> >
> > First thing, stop using caps.
> >
> > Second, because they *already paid for this code in their taxes*! Third,
> > it doesn't block commercial software only, it block non-GPL OSS
> > developers who doesn't want to release their source under the GPL. To
> > give a new example, if a new protocol would be invented, the PHP people
> > wouldn't be able to use it.
>
> This is a very common, completely false statment. GPL applies to code, ie
> an implementation of a protocol, not the protocol itself. If someone
> implements a protocol in GPL code, then the protocol is completely open
> (you can see how it works) and anyone is free to implement any way they
> wish under any license they wish.
Actually, you could probably GPL a protocl, as well as all the
implementation.
But that wasn't what I was talking about, I was talking about using the code
that the gov. made.
All non-GPL parties would've to write their own implementation, which sucks.
> On another note, I don't believe the US government should release all code
> under the GPL (since it is a pain to other open developers), but I
> certainly don't think they should stop all work on GPLd code. After all,
> they would have to completely rewrite it to get the same functionality,
> whoich would cost a hell of a lot more. I'm sure Ballmer wouldn't want
> his taxes to go up because of that.
Ballmer want his taxes, as well as anybody's else, to go into the goverment,
which would then use it to buy as many MS products as possible.
I wouldn't put his opinion on high regard here.
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!
Date: 3 Jun 2001 21:50:09 -0500
"Charles Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Jan Johanson wrote:
> >
> > "Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > On 29 May 2001 16:11:01 -0500,
> > > Jon Johansan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > TS is included free with W2K
> > >
> > > You left the 'server' out of 'W2K server'. If all you need is a
> > > workstation plus the remote access, that's an awful lot of money
> > > for the remote access.
> >
> > True, it's server and above but I don't think it's expensive. BUT if you
> > need remote gui access to a Pro box, just use something like
> > RemotelyAnywhere.
> >
> > Then again XP home and professional and all other version include TS.
So,
> > essentially, with XP forward ALL versions of windows will include TS
free.
>
> RemotelyPossible and RemotelyAnywhere are strictly banned from many
> corporate networks I know due to security problems.
i.e., they let you have access to a machine remotely. Otherwise they are (RA
at least) as secure as any other method you might choose. RA uses a fully
encrypted session including the initial authentication.
> In fact, I know of
> one location where having them will get you escorted directly to the
> door. Someone else will clean out your desk for you. I've often wondered
> about security that takes that attitude toward one product but still
> lets Outlook run on the same machines.
Why these places don't simply patch Outlook to the current version is what I
don't understand. They can't do without Outlook cause there isn't another
app that comes close to it in functionality and integration. But to continue
to blame Outlook for stupid users mistakes is childish. ESPECIALLY when
Outlook can be patched (OL2002 comes this way) to prevent ANY executable
attachment from being received it's hard to continue to fault Outlook.
------------------------------
From: Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 02:45:57 GMT
In article <zizS6.7876$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John
Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In comp.sys.mac.advocacy Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In article <l9xS6.7691$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John
> > Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> It stikes me that developers could just invent what they like, and
> >> users could just choose to use what they like.
>
> > Where have you been? That's what people did in the Bad Old Days
> > before the Macintosh. Every program had its own UI style, and
> > nothing worked with anything else. Programmers merrily wrote their
> > own user interfaces, and learning any new application was a trial.
>
> I was here (on Mac) through the whole thing. I bought my Mac the
> first month they were out in '84, and joined the developer program
> the same year.
>
> What I think in retrospect is that we were right in thinking the Mac
> had the best UI,
Yep. :-)
> but wrong in thinking everyone else would (or should) put as high a
> value on that as we did.
Yep. :-(
--
Woofbert: Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
email <woofbert at infernosoft dot com>
web http://www.infernosoft.com/woofbert
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!
Date: 3 Jun 2001 21:52:07 -0500
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 1 Jun 2001 22:59:12 -0500, Jan Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > again - who cares? The idea is if you are using TS then you are on a
> > Windows machine, you are not on a hetrogenoous netork.
>
> You probably ought to re-think that one Jan. It doesn't say anything
> very complementary about MS.
I am not concerned with if I'm being complementary towards MS or not. Being
a NT advocate does not mean that I blindly consider everything MS does or
that NT is perfect (unlike unix worshippers who cannot see anything more
perfect than their little CLI world offers them).
however, you missed the point. When you design something to work in a
windows environment, it's of little concern that it won't run on a
playstation - see? same thing...
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!
Date: 3 Jun 2001 21:52:12 -0500
"The Queen of Cans and Jars" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Bob Hauck wrote:
> >
> > On 1 Jun 2001 22:59:12 -0500, Jan Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > again - who cares? The idea is if you are using TS then you are on a
> > > Windows machine, you are not on a hetrogenoous netork.
> >
> Geez, what a silly comment Jan. You mean that anytime anyone is on a
> Windows box, they are automatically on a homogenous Windows-only
> network? Are you sure?
No and you missed the point.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 04:00:17 +0200
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 3 Jun 2001 17:21:13 +0200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> ("Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
>>"drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>>> But I don't want to filter out certain authors, as I want to read many
>>> of their posts in other threads. My newsreader has no facility to
>>> filter out certain authors only in certain threads.
>
>>Does Agent have some rule base system?
>>
>>On OE, you can do this:
>>
>>Apply this rule after the message arrives
>>
>>Where the From line contains 'some author'
>>
>>and Where the Subject line contains 'Some thread name'
>>
>>Delete it
>>
>>Which gives you the control that you want.
>
> No such thing on Agent. You can specify author or subject. Not both.
Well as you like Linux so much use knews (nothing to do with KDE). It can
do what you want and much more and it's all done within the GUI.
--
Over 100 security bugs in Microsoft SW last year. An infamous
record. The worst offending piece of SW, by far, IIS. 2001 isn't
looking any better.
------------------------------
From: John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 02:54:30 GMT
In comp.sys.mac.advocacy Ayende Rahien <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "John Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:l9xS6.7691$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> It stikes me that developers could just invent what they like, and users
>> could just choose to use what they like.
> That would be nice, but this require a lot more customizibility than most
> people built into their applications.
> Take Office & VS UI, you can customized it to your heart's content, but
> apperantly this, too, annoy users.
You are taking this a different way than I meant. I was making a simpler
comment, that we shouldn't worry about developers developing crazy UIs.
If those crazy UIs don't server a purpose, no one will use them.
I think customizable (or 'deeply themed') interfaces are good, but as you
say they are difficult to achieve.
John
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
