Linux-Advocacy Digest #7, Volume #35 Wed, 6 Jun 01 09:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. ("Rob Dijkshoorn")
Re: Best Distribution? (Terry Porter)
Re: UI Importance (Nick Condon)
Re: Linux is shit (Terry Porter)
Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux starts ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. (Terry Porter)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("Stephen Howe")
Re: Windows XP Ushers in New Era of Communications ("fmc")
Re: Chicken and egg problem (Gerald Meazell)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Terry Porter)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Rob Dijkshoorn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 14:19:37 +0200
"Terry Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in bericht
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 06 Jun 2001 02:09:05 -0700, GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Christopher L. Estep" wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> XP includes a slick little applet called *Remote Assistance* that lets
the
> >> user allow anyone (from Microsoft to the smart techie next door
neighbor) to
> >> help troubleshoot their PC.
> >>
> >> I do tech support for a living (level 1 CAE/TSR for Comcast Online) and
RA
> >> alone is going to make my job tons easier.
>
> Amazing, simply stupendous!
>
> Microsoft finally has the equivalent of telneting into a Windows box,
> something Linux has had since 1993, and now all the Windows users who have
> consistently rubished it, are now raving about this 'wonderful feature'!
>
>
And an amazingly insecure, horribly designed one at that.
It's not even a multi-user environment. As soon as you log on, the other
user gets kicked. MS reasons if several people can be logged on at the same
time, you have a server, and that requires client access licenses. (MS just
isn't rich enough yet....)
Rob
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Best Distribution?
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 06 Jun 2001 12:11:57 GMT
On Wed, 06 Jun 2001 13:44:20 +0100, Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> %!PS-Adobe-2.0
> %
> % Send this entire post to the printer
> %INCLUDING the bracketed text
>
> % Without the text on the stack, it doesn't have enough stuff to roll
>
> % You can leave these comments in.
>
>
> % -Ed
>
>
>
> (You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
>
> /d{def}def/f{/Times-Roman findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5 -1
> r 230 350 moveto 0 1 179{2 1 r dup show 2 1 r 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}for/s 15
> d f pop 240 420 moveto 0 1 3 {4 2 1 r sub -1 r show}for showpage
WOW, that's a very cool page Ed, the
"You can't go wrong with psycho-rats" spirals
out around your email address in the centre!
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
Free Micro burner: http://jsno.downunder.net.au/terry/
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nick Condon)
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: 6 Jun 2001 12:26:52 GMT
Robert Morelli wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Nick Condon"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> Robert Morelli wrote:
>>
>>>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?
>>>>
>>>Wouldn't it be great if people from the Linux/UNIX world had the kind of
>>>common sense and competence that Windows programmers like the author of
>>>this article has.
>> What any of them? Just one? How about this one: A Tribute to KDE
>> http://www.csh.rit.edu/~benjamin/log/e_kde.shtml
>
>This is just a short tribute to the KDE project with no specific content
>about UI design.
Correct.
>It's not even comparable to the 9 chapter article this
>thread is about.
You don't think it shows any "common sense and competence"? You said
>>>Wouldn't it be great if people from the Linux/UNIX world had the kind of
>>>common sense and competence that Windows programmers like the author of
>>>this article has.
You didn't say: "Anyone know where there is a good 9 chapter article about
UI design?".
>>>I actually have strong feelings about this issue because I think the
>>>neglect of UI is a serious bottleneck in the progress of Linux.
>> If you're going to have strong feelings about it, you ought to try to
>> keep up with current events, don't you think? Your post is straight out
>> of 1995. Besides KDE, there's also Gnome. The desktop is major focus of
>> open-source development (neither one of them is bound to just Linux)
>> here in 2001.
>
>I have nothing but praise for the Gnome and KDE efforts. The problem
>is that they are struggling to catch up to where Microsoft, the dunces
>of software world, were in 1995. Unfortunately, it's 2001.
Microsoft, the dunces of the software world, started their desktop many
years ahead Gnome and KDE. Its a game of catch-up by definition. As they
stand they are both full-functional, stable, usable desktops - every bit as
good as MS. There is a shortage of quality desktop applications, in
particular the various office suites aren't quite ready yet, but that's a
seperate issue.
>>>Unfortunately, a lot of Linux/UNIX people are still trying to
>>>understand the GUI revolution that took place 20 years ago. It's really
>>>a terrible shame because the payoffs could be so tremendous. Think of
>>>where we'd be today if Linux had the technology to be a decent end user
>>>OS.
>> Here you are confusing "important" with "important to you". As a result
>> you overrate the importance of the GUI, it only means anything on the
>> desktop. I work on high-end Sun clusters for living, and they don't even
>> have graphics cards installed in them. All my work is accomplished on
>> the command line. I do lots of scripting :-)
>
>This statement is absurd. UI is important to everyone. UI has two
>parts: 1) person talks to computer, 2) computer talks to person.
>Without 1), the computer does nothing, so the computer is useless.
>Without 2), the computer might do something but we never know
>what, so the computer is useless. If a tree falls in the forest, and
>no one's there to hear it, does it make a sound? You can have all the
>clusters in the world, but if nobody ever 1) tells them what to do, and
>2) hears what they have to say, they are useless.
Complete and utter garbage. Linux - as we hear so often on this group - is
just the kernel, and what interactions does the user have with kernel?
None. Anyone with even a passing knowledge of operating systems knows the
kernel is enclosed in a shell, which assumes all the duties of user
interaction. Only the shell deals with the user, and that's as true on
Windows as in is in Unix. (including your favourite desktop, which of
course is a shell).
>I said UI because I meant UI. It happens that the GUI revolution of
>1980's is the most important event in the history of the UI, and one
>of the most important in software engineering in general, but in fact
>I meant UI in a broad sense.
Computer scientists divide UIs into three classes, the CLI, the GUI and the
parametric interface (i.e. form-based). Your choice of UI is a trade off of
flexibility versus learning-curve. The parameteric interface is the least
flexible and the easiest to learn, the CLI is most flexible and the hardest
to learn. The GUI falls somewhere between.
You haven't mentioned CLIs and you haven't mentioned parameterics. All
you're talking about is GUIs.
You said:
>>>I think the
>>>neglect of UI is a serious bottleneck in the progress of Linux.
If you mean GUI, what you're saying is merely inaccurate (though
historically true). If you really meant Linux people have neglected the UI
(i.e. parametric, GUI and CLI) *that* is nothing less than ridiculous. The
various command-line type shells are fantastic, in range and quality. Unix
and Linux programs have consistently worked within the paradigm (input data
on STDIN, output on STDOUT; all data is text; everything is file; etc) that
makes it so easy link processes up and execute complex intructions from
simple tools. The Linux CLI is a textbook example of the right to do it, it
is absolutely flawless.
>> I disagree. The available desktop technology is excellent. However, it
>> is not enough. Nobody ever beat Microsoft through superior technology.
>
>This is a cop out, and it's a kind of cowardice.
>
>Let's get some things straight here:
>
>1. It's only true that no *commercial* competitor every beat Microsoft
>through superior technology.
>
>2. OSS is mostly immune to Microsoft's usual thuggery.
>
>3. Microsoft would love for us to fear them, but we have no reason to
>fear them. They have reason to fear us.
>
>4. Microsoft is losing millions of dollars a year because of Linux. If
>we make the right moves, in a few years, they'll be losing billions a
>year.
>
>5. If we do the right things, the day will come when we'll be picking
>Microsoft's bones out of the dirt.
Linux is already a superior technology to Windows, and OSS is a superior
way of developing operating systems software. Even MS realises this.
Linux will eventually bury Windows because it has a superior economic
model. Besides being free, Linux and OSS generally, already has a
widespread reputation for being secure and robust, with publications like
the Economist and the NY Times routinely saying so.
Don't get complacent, there is plenty of reason to fear MS still. They want
to hijack our Internet; they want top-to-bottom control of computing
everywhere; they are determined to have it all, and that's why we can't
afford to ignore them.
>>>Expect Linux programmers to strive for the same quality that Windows
>>>programmers produce.
>> EEK! What a terrifying thought!
>
>This is typical UNIX arrogance. The day has long since passed when
>UNIX could look down its technological nose at Windows. On the whole,
>UNIX software is nowhere near the quality of Windows software, and
>hasn't been for many years.
I disagree. Microsoft, the dunces of the software world, sell shoddy
products and rely on sugar-coating and a big marketing budget to steal
market share. There is a reason why nobody's buying Win2K for their data
centre - the people who run them are less impressed by glossy GUIs and
advertising.
--
Nick
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux is shit
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 06 Jun 2001 12:22:38 GMT
On Wed, 06 Jun 2001 13:48:44 +0100, Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> But I keep the HP500 around for when I'm too lazy to move. At least the
>>> ink is quite cheap :-)
>>
>> Eeks I didnt realise you have to use an old HP thermal inkjet!
>>
>> Btw, I used to refill those ink carts with "Quink ink", afterall the
>> head is replaced when the ink runs out. It took longer to dry but looked
>> as good, and one $3 bottle did 3 refills (the heads last about 7 refils,
>> before they blow a heating element)
>
> Cool!
>
> How do you get the ink in?
>
> A hypodermic syringe?
Yep, just place sticky tape over the cartridge nozzels, then insert needle
into cartridge breather hole, fill up 1/2 way first time to test.
Dont forget to remove sticky tape, remember the new carts come with
a sticky seal over the nozzels too, and this is removed before use.
The nozzels are normally blocked bu a rubber stopper when the cartridge
is in its "park" position in the printer, and depending on the ink, if
the head isnt parked or printing, it could drip some ink.
Other variations are red or blue ink, or even DrSquare's blood ;-)
Actually I dislike ink-jets immensely, especially the piezo types, which
attempt to use the piezo section for the life of the printer, DO NOT
attempt to refill with cheaper ink, its not worth it long term, when
the seals in the piezo fail due to the ink, and your $1180 Epson
Stylus is just a pile of junk :(
However the HP500 and its ilk, are a safe use for cheap ink, as the
head is replaced every time the ink is replaced.
Moreover, the mechanical design of the HP500 is *solid*, just look at
the lightweight designs of modern inkjets or lasers!
Chorus: Cheap and nasty, cheap and nasty ....
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
Free Micro burner: http://jsno.downunder.net.au/terry/
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux starts
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 08:34:09 -0400
Stephen Edwards wrote:
>
> Seven rabid koala bears with eucalyptus spittle dribbling from their mouths
> told me that [EMAIL PROTECTED] (pip) wrote in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >Chad Myers wrote:
> >> I'm sure the brits will have some concocted story about how
> >> they REALLY invented the Internet first and Europe had had
> >> the WWW years before the FTP rfc was even submitted.
> >
> >This is a really pathetic thread but FYI the brits helped with the
> >crucial TCP bit of the IP layer. It was actually a joint effort. And as
> >I am sure you already know the nationality of the person who invented
> >the Web. But like the rest of this thread : IT DOES NOT MATTER. What
> >matters is good ideas and the WHOLE world is full of them.
> >
> >The nationality of those who made past achievements is only interesting
> >in a social studies class. Here we should talk about the world. After
> >all, if the Internet has proved one thing is that the world can be a
> >small place, and ideas can flow. Thanks EVERYONE for the Internet.
>
> Still, one cannot deny that most of the best things
> in life were created right here in the good ol' U.S.
>
> Atomic Bomb
> Stealth Fighter
F-117A A is a BOMBER, not a fighter.
> Microsoft Windows
>
> Ph34R! :-)
> </HUMOR>
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
L: This seems to have reduced my spam. Maybe if everyone does it we
can defeat the email search bots. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shalala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan,
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] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 06 Jun 2001 12:36:03 GMT
On Wed, 6 Jun 2001 14:19:37 +0200,
Rob Dijkshoorn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Terry Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in bericht
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Wed, 06 Jun 2001 02:09:05 -0700, GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > "Christopher L. Estep" wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> XP includes a slick little applet called *Remote Assistance* that lets
> the
>> >> user allow anyone (from Microsoft to the smart techie next door
> neighbor) to
>> >> help troubleshoot their PC.
>> >>
>> >> I do tech support for a living (level 1 CAE/TSR for Comcast Online) and
> RA
>> >> alone is going to make my job tons easier.
>>
>> Amazing, simply stupendous!
>>
>> Microsoft finally has the equivalent of telneting into a Windows box,
>> something Linux has had since 1993, and now all the Windows users who have
>> consistently rubished it, are now raving about this 'wonderful feature'!
>>
>>
>
> And an amazingly insecure, horribly designed one at that.
> It's not even a multi-user environment. As soon as you log on, the other
> user gets kicked.
HAHAHAHAHHAH Gack,spit,turn_blue,vomit,gasp ...... God I needed that!
I have had some great laughs on COLA but this revelation had me in stitches!
> MS reasons if several people can be logged on at the same
> time, you have a server, and that requires client access licenses. (MS just
> isn't rich enough yet....)
Oh my G... O... D... !!!!
Am I dreaming, I submit that "White Goods Software" is a better name
for this junk ???
Next years Windows might have the optional egg timer, or
roast chicken basting brush!
>
> Rob
>
>
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
Free Micro burner: http://jsno.downunder.net.au/terry/
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Stephen Howe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Stephen Howe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 13:48:07 +0100
Jim Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9fk5j4$7ae$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> difference is, when I kill -9 something, the SOB dies, when you
> ctrl-alt-del and "kill" a task in Windows, you have no idea if it is
> actually going to die or not. It's been my experience with W9X, that about
> 50% of the time, the process will not die, and will hose the system,
> forcing a reboot. With linux, the worst case scenario, is that the process
> is a zombie, in which case, doing kill -HUP on it's owning process will
> take care of it.
I have never used Linux before but I can testify the truth of what you are
saying with Windows 9x.
Killing processes under Windows 9x is fraught with danger as you do not know
if it will kill the OS as well.
Generally I have found that NT 4.0 is more crashproof and 2000 better still
but still not foolproof.
I am looking forward to setting up Linux.
I take it for granted that it is 100% crashproof, right?
No bugs, at all, right? <drooling at the thought>
Stephen Howe
------------------------------
From: "fmc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Windows XP Ushers in New Era of Communications
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 12:49:01 GMT
Thr telephone was invented over 100 years ago, so it seems a bit late to
raise the spectre of technology-induced alienation. However, if you want to
go that route, what does that say about the AOL/Instant Messenger clones
that are available for Linux?
fm
"Sean" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> The ugliest part of the CNET article is that it implies that
> the coolest way to communicate with "friends, family and colleagues"
> is using a computer. What happened to seeing your family <gasp!>
> face to face! What happened to <gasp!> walking to your colleague's
> cube and <horror!> actually talking to them. The stated benefit
> of the XP communication tools is that they are "real-time"....as
> though face-to-face communication was not "real time".
>
> This piece of astroturf takes alienation to a whole new level,
> and you need to pay Gates money for the privilege at the same
> time. Perhaps it's true, then, that Gates is not really human!
>
> Sean
> ====
>
> LShaping wrote:
> >
> >
http://investor.cnet.com/investor/news/newsitem/0-9900-1028-6177688-0.html?t
ag=ltnc
> > <snip>
> > LShaping
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gerald Meazell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Chicken and egg problem
Date: 6 Jun 2001 05:59:54 -0700
"Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:<9fji5h$hb1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> Because it's sort of *implied*?
> The article wasn't about how to get people to move to a new platform, it was
> about making it *easier* to move to a new platform.
Now we've come full circle yet again. The article asserts that
providing good backward compatibility is how you get users on your
system. The evidence does not support that. The fact remains: the
article's premise is flawed.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 06 Jun 2001 12:59:06 GMT
On Wed, 6 Jun 2001 13:48:07 +0100,
Stephen Howe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jim Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9fk5j4$7ae$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> difference is, when I kill -9 something, the SOB dies, when you
>> ctrl-alt-del and "kill" a task in Windows, you have no idea if it is
>> actually going to die or not. It's been my experience with W9X, that about
>> 50% of the time, the process will not die, and will hose the system,
>> forcing a reboot. With linux, the worst case scenario, is that the process
>> is a zombie, in which case, doing kill -HUP on it's owning process will
>> take care of it.
>
> I have never used Linux before but I can testify the truth of what you are
> saying with Windows 9x.
> Killing processes under Windows 9x is fraught with danger as you do not know
> if it will kill the OS as well.
> Generally I have found that NT 4.0 is more crashproof and 2000 better still
> but still not foolproof.
>
> I am looking forward to setting up Linux.
> I take it for granted that it is 100% crashproof, right?
Nothing is 100% crash proof.
> No bugs, at all, right? <drooling at the thought>
Don't be rediculous, everything has bugs except perhaps
LaTeX ;-)
Gnu/Linux is FREE, thats the only guarantee you get!
However it will change your ideas about *bugs* as Linux
software is relatively bug free, as its a labour of love
in all NON-COMMERCIAL instances.
>
> Stephen Howe
>
>
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
Free Micro burner: http://jsno.downunder.net.au/terry/
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
