Linux-Advocacy Digest #80, Volume #35 Sat, 9 Jun 01 14:13:09 EDT
Contents:
Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft (T. Max Devlin)
Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Ballmer tells another bald-headed lie. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Ballmer tells another bald-headed lie. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Ballmer tells another bald-headed lie. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Argh - Ballmer (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Argh - Ballmer (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Argh - Ballmer (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Argh - Ballmer (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Argh - Ballmer (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Argh - Ballmer (T. Max Devlin)
Re: UI Importance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: UI Importance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: UI Importance (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 17:34:37 GMT
Said Stuart Fox in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 8 Jun 2001 20:28:20
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> That isn't BS, either. Stac and Citrix did both get screwed by MS, just
>> like Apple. Phillip's comments get skewed because he seems to believe
>> that Apple won their suite (they lost) and that it had to do with some
>> 'embedded copyright', rather than the 'look and feel copyright' that the
>> case actually pertained to.
>>
>Citrix seem to be doing rather well for themselves, for someone who was
>screwed by MS
Well, it isn't like you can know where they would be had MS not screwed
them. They did, of course, kindly bend over and ask Bill to continue
the screwing; it turns out they like it. And, of course, their product
is pretty much just to make up for the deficiencies of the monopoly
crapware. I don't see them doing 'so well', though they are making
money as long as MS has the OS monopoly, it seems.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 17:34:38 GMT
Said Dan Pidcock in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 08 Jun 2001 10:10:16
>On Fri, 08 Jun 2001 05:55:36 GMT, T. Max Devlin
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 5 Jun 2001
>>>"Philip Neves" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>news:Hj_S6.1976$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>>>>[Snip]
>>>Finally, Visio was only purchased about a year ago, and had been a
>>>successful product for almost a decade. Most companies *WANT* to be bought
>>>out. The employees want to move on to do something else, and their business
>>>plan calls for them to be bought out by someone larger.
>>
>>*THAT* is an awesomely stupid statement.
>
>I dunno. Wouldn't you be tempted to sell out if MS came knocking on
>your door with a big suitcase full of money?
Yes, but that wasn't what he said. Although you do bring up an
important point. As I described several months ago, when I realized
just how much of a sock puppet Erik is, it seems that there are many
people who are "in the business" of selling out to Microsoft. Erik
indicated that he had gone through this routine several times. Building
up a business providing "value add" and pushing monopoly crapware, then
selling out to Microsoft and starting over again.
>You wouldn't have to
>support your old code and users & could start on a completely new
>direction. Then again this doesn't appeal to everyone; some people
>would prefer to keep developing their pet product.
>
>>>> In the eighties Apple computers sued Microsoft for taking Apples software
>>>> and passing it off as thier own. They would have got away with it if it
>>>> wasn't for the fact that Apple hadn't embeded their copywrite notice into
>>>> the software itself.
>>>
>>>This is patently untrue.
>>
>>It is slightly mistaken. It was actually a contract that Apple agreed
>>to with MS to get them to write applications for the Mac platform, not
>>any 'embedded copyright notice', that allowed MS to get away with
>>ripping off the Mac.
>
>I don't thing this was about apps: more the O/S - see below.
The suite was about OS stuff, but the license that MS had for Mac OS
software was provided because they were developing Mac applications.
>>>Please provide some kind of reference. I've never
>>>heard of it, and this is the sort of thing that would have made the rounds
>>>on newsgroups like the Stac and Citrix BS has for years.
>>
>>That isn't BS, either. Stac and Citrix did both get screwed by MS, just
>>like Apple. Phillip's comments get skewed because he seems to believe
>>that Apple won their suite (they lost) and that it had to do with some
>>'embedded copyright', rather than the 'look and feel copyright' that the
>>case actually pertained to.
>
>I think that Philip is talking about the law suit that apple brought
>against MS alleging they 'stole' the look and feel of MacOS for use in
>windows rather than for a program. They failed, and Xerox then sued
>Apple saying they had 'stolen' the look and feel of a GUI from Xerox'
>work at PARC.
That last part about Xerox is a myth. Apple did have an agreement with
Xerox concerning their use of the PARC work as a basis for their GUIfied
OSes, but that was all years before the "look and feel" suite, and
nobody got sued, AFAIK.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Ballmer tells another bald-headed lie.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 17:34:39 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 2 Jun 2001 23:09:14
>"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:n8bS6.4933$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "Ray Chason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
>> message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > http://www.suntimes.com/output/tech/cst-fin-micro01.html
>> >
>> > "The way the license is written, if you use any open-source software,
>> > you have to make the rest of your software open source....Linux is not
>> > in the public domain. Linux is a cancer that attaches itself in an
>> > intellectual property sense to everything it touches. That's the way
>> > that the license works."
>> >
>> > Classic FUD. OK, this is true if "use" means "use the source code in
>> > another product." It's not true if "use" means "run the compiled
>> > software," an act which the GPL specifically says is unrestricted.
>>
>> It's unrestricted if you get ahold of it. You have to get your hands on
>the
>> GPL'd software to be able to do it.
>>
>> The GPL only gives you rights to the software you have in your posession,
>it
>> doesn't give you rights to someone eleses software. You can't demand they
>> give you their GPL'd software. If you have the software, you can demand
>the
>> source, but that's a different argument.
>
>2)
>...
>b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or
>in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be
>*licensed as a whole* at *no charge* to *all third parties* under the terms
>of this License.
>
>Guess what? This mean that other people *can* demand that you give them your
>GPL software.
Only if you are distributing it. Why would you have a problem
fulfilling such a demand?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Ballmer tells another bald-headed lie.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 17:34:40 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 3 Jun 2001 04:35:52
>"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> You cant demsnd they _give- you code, unless you are talking about the
>> clause that states source must be freely available.
>
>Yes, I can.
>If they distribue it under the GPL, they must make it available to all third
>party (which include me, incidently) at no charge at all.
"If they distribute it, you can demand that they make it available?"
What point are you trying to make, anyway? The 'no charge at all' is,
again, stating that you cannot charge for source code.
>> And you can CHARGE for software. Go read the damn license in whole.
>
>No, you can't, at most, you can charge for transfer fees.
Which is to say, yes, you can. You cannot charge for a license; you can
charge as much as you want for the 'transfer fee'.
>...
>b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or
>in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be
>licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of
>this License.
Licensed at no charge. Not distributed at no charge. Get it?
[...]
>In other places, it says that you can charge for transfer fees, and offer
>warranity at extra charge.
>It also says that you can charge for the services of handing those free
>copies.
[...]
>This is getting silly, you know.
>
>> > I'm not talking about source code here.
>>
>> Then you are wrong.
>
>I'm talking about the product as a whole, which include the source & the
>binaries.
Then obviously you are talking about source code, are you not? Again,
it is the license which must be at no charge. Ergo, there is no clause
anywhere in the GPL that says you cannot charge for distributing GPL
software. Please stop claiming that there is.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Ballmer tells another bald-headed lie.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 17:34:41 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 3 Jun 2001 06:06:51
>"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>> > No, you can't, at most, you can charge for transfer fees.
>> >
>> Yes, you can:
>> <http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney>
>
>Okay, you are getting confused here.
>Yes, you are allowed to sell GPL software.
>But you are also forced to make the software avialable at no charge to
>anyone who ask for it.
No, you are "forced" to distribute it to any third party if you
distribute it, and you are prevented from charging for licenses.
>They didn't put that in the FAQ, but it's in the license.
They didn't put it in the FAQ because your reading of the license is in
error.
>Notice that it doesn't limit who can demand the the source & binaries.
[...]
Yes, it does. It limits it to "any third party". Which, if your intent
is to distribute the software, sounds a lot like a market profile.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 17:34:42 GMT
Said Mike in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 02 Jun 2001 05:44:05 GMT;
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:mTZR6.38033$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> http://www.suntimes.com/output/tech/cst-fin-micro01.html:
>>
>> Q: Do you view Linux and the open-source movement as a threat to
>Microsoft?
>>
>> A: Yeah. It's good competition. It will force us to be innovative. It will
>> force us to justify the prices and value that we deliver. And that's only
>> healthy. The only thing we have a problem with is when the government
>funds
>> open-source work. Government funding should be for work that is available
>> to everybody. Open source is not available to commercial companies. The
>way
>> the license is written, if you use any open-source software, you have to
>> make the rest of your software open source. If the government wants to put
>> something in the public domain, it should. Linux is not in the public
>> domain. Linux is a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property
>> sense to everything it touches. That's the way that the license works.
>>
>> (end quote)
>>
>> You couldn't say anything more ridiculous if you tried.
>>
>> The Govt. sends millions (at least) to MS every year for shrinkwrapped
>> software, funding the development of code that is proprietary MS
>> property. But that doesn't seem to bother Ballmer quite so much.
>
>I'm kind of confused here, but clearly not as much as you. Rational people
>can draw a distinction between purchasing a product and funding research. On
>the other hand, this is cola...
>
>I think Ballmer has a point. It seems evident to me that if government funds
>are used to support software research, the results of that research should
>be, in most cases, public domain. Ballmer's contention is that the GNU
>license restricts the use of software, so GNU software isn't really public
>domain.
>
>So, the question is, why shouldn't government funded software development be
>public domain?
No, the question is, what government funded software development has
been GPLd? Ballmer's bullshit is just a red herring; pure unadulterated
FUD.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 17:34:43 GMT
Said Charlie Ebert in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 08 Jun 2001
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 2 Jun 2001
>>>"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>> In article <F2%R6.16166$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike
>>>wrote:
>>>> >I think Ballmer has a point. It seems evident to me that if government
>>>funds
>>>> >are used to support software research, the results of that research
>>>should
>>>> >be, in most cases, public domain. Ballmer's contention is that the GNU
>>>> >license restricts the use of software, so GNU software isn't really
>>>public
>>>> >domain.
>>>>
>>>> Incorrect. The GPL license is the ONLY license which should be used
>>>> on all government projects. We don't pay GOD DAMN TAX DOLLARS just
>>>> so companies like MICROSOFT CAN POCKET THE DEVELOPMENT MONEY AND
>>>> COPYRIGHT IT FOR THEIR OWN PROFITS.
>>>
>>>Charlie. Grow a brain.
>>
>>Charlie Ebert - grow a brain? You aren't new around here, Erik. You
>>must know that is a silly idea.
>
>No it's not. There is no reason any software developed with
>TAX DOLLARS should be put under a copyrighted license.
The GPL is a copyrighted [sic] license, Charlie. That is why other
people think that government-funded development should not be GPLed.
>All software developed by the U.S. Government, written in house
>or funded and written by a contractor should be GPL'd.
I agree, but obviously not for precisely the same reasons as you're
imagining.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 17:34:44 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 2 Jun 2001 12:00:26
>"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Mike wrote:
>
>> >
>> > So, the question is, why shouldn't government funded software
>development be
>> > public domain?
>> >
>> > -- Mike --
>>
>> It would be nice idealistically to do this, but in reality MS would
>> incorporate the code and make a few changes and then declare it
>> proprietary.
>
>So?
>That doesn't affect the original code *at all*.
Sure it does. It affects it by affecting the market for it.
>*You* can do the same.
>You can even release it under the GPL.
>
>The point of Public Domain is that anyone can do anything to it, period.
Yes, that is the problem. Recent history has shown that the nature of
software makes it impractical and counter-productive to allow
profiteering on other people's work. Profiteering itself is just too
damn easy. It really sticks in some people's craw that MS is making
billions illegally monopolizing the PC platform, in part using BSD
source code copied verbatim.
>Why would you want to block code from use?
Two words: monopoly crapware.
>If you GPL something, you prevent
>it from being used in many places.
>And proprietary software is just one of them. X, Apache, BSD, and other
>software are all projects that you close your software from if you use the
>GPL.
Nonsense. And even if it were so, that is the intent; let them use the
ideas, but without being able to simply copy the code.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 17:34:45 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 6 Jun 2001 00:34:34
>"Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> That's just it. If the COM object in question is generic, ie it offers
>> services to more than one program, it is not inextricably tied to the one
>> program, then it falls under the "separate works" clause.
>> This is however (with my very limited knowledge of COM, ie almost none)
>
>COM is a component that contain a piece of functionality.
What precisely qualifies it as a "component"? Is there any form or
structure at all to being such a 'component'? Why, then, do you call it
a 'component'. Is it because other than that, COM is really just an
acronym with no real meaning other than "whatever MS calls COM"?
>Frex, you may get a COM object which will handle SMTP, another that will
>handle POP3, etc.
>The idea is that you get more reuse of the code this way.
>You can call the COM object from another program, from a script, etc.
Oh, you mean it is kind of like a library? Is COM a library? What is
the filename, and can I remove it without breaking anything other than
COM?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 17:34:46 GMT
Said Dan Pidcock in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 08 Jun 2001 10:10:15
>On Fri, 08 Jun 2001 06:17:04 GMT, T. Max Devlin
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 3 Jun 2001
>>>"Marc Schlensog" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> [...]
>>>> Of course they can. They can distribute modules for a certain non-GPL
>>>> proggie under the GPL license, can't they?
>>>
>>>No. A module is just a dynamically linked object file, and the GPL
>>>specifically does not allow you to get around the GPL this way.
>>
>>You are mistaken, Erik. A "module" is the object that is linked *to*.
>>You can distribute modules for non-GPL programs under the GPL, to your
>>heart's content.
>
>That's as maybe, but can you distribute modules for GPLd programs not
>under the GPL?
Probably not, no, if those modules are only supported by a GPL program.
If they are just implementing a generic API, that the GPL program
happens to support, then there would be no conflict. But 'generic APIs'
are actually more of a myth than an actuality.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 17:34:47 GMT
Said Mart van de Wege in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 08 Jun 2001
>Nothing prevents a company from developing a color correction
>plugin for the GIMP and sell it, even if they sell it binary only.
>HOWEVER, if this company decides to sell the GIMP along with this plugin,
>and advertises the color correction abilities of their version of the
>GIMP as core functionality, they must GPL their plugin.
Actually, according to the FSF, this is not strictly true. If the
plugin is exclusively functional with GIMP, a GPL program, then they
consider the software derivative of GPL'd works, and will sue for
infringement. This is the hotly debated "library infringement" issue
which is related to the "RIPEM incident".
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 17:34:48 GMT
Said Woofbert in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 07 Jun 2001 19:03:11
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> >No, vi is the only program *you* need to design web sites. The
>> >popularity of good web design tools among profesisonal web site
>> >designers is proof that GUI design tools are worth paying money for.
>>
>> Worth YOU paying money for. The relatively large proportion of master
>> web site designers who disdain GUI design tools indicates this may be a
>> question of naivete.
>
>It's a question of what crappy code early WYSIWYG HTMLtools generated.
It is a question of what crappy code any automated tool will generate,
early or late.
[...]
>Vi sucks, and many Unix programmers I've talked to agree that it sucks.
>So why not get rid of it, I asked. Becuase it's everywhere and
>everybody knows it. Even if there's no other text editor on a Unix
>system, there's always vi.
>
>This does not mean that vi is good, that people don't want to learn
>anything else, or that anything else isn't sufficiently good to replace
>vi. It simply means that vi's history and prevasiveness are what keep it
>alive.
That, and it is extremely effective and efficient for those who know how
to use it well. You are, essentially, just whining like a child because
you are not one of those people. History and pervasiveness are not an
accidental quality.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 17:34:49 GMT
Said Stuart Fox in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 8 Jun 2001 07:55:41
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> [...]
>> >Perhaps it's my ancient box at work then - PII 300 with 64MB RAM running
>> >NT4 WS. Explorer is useless until the coping finishes.
>>
>> It is a very arbitrary and random thing. For some reason, people who
>> are big fans of Microsoft claim to have never seen it. Well, now they
>> admit it was constant on WinDOS, but they claim it never happens on the
>> NT line. They use to claim that Win95 did it, but Win98 was immune.
>> Earlier, they claimed that although it happened on Win3.1, it never
>> occurred on Win95. Previous to that, we were told that this was one of
>> the things that Win3.1 "fixed" with its "superior multitasking".
>>
>Nope, it was present on all versions, except Windows 2000, when they finally
>fixed it.
BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 17:34:50 GMT
Said Woofbert in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 07 Jun 2001 19:06:16
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Said Woofbert in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 05 Jun 2001 00:48:49
>> [...]
>> >> >>If you find that difficult to do, then you should consider
>> >> >> selling your computer and taking up flower arranging.
>> >
>> >I think that the anti-GUI attitude illustrated by that snippet only
>> >damages the user community. It encourages programmers to disrespect
>> >their lay users.
>>
>> I think your position is ludicrously silly. Programming isn't a
>> priesthood, and "lay users" aren't supplicants who deserve respect.
>> You are taking the idea of a 'user community' to some hippy-dippy
>> bullshit extreme, and as a nominal member of that community, I think
>> that is silly.
>>
>> Programmers show respect by programming; non-programmer users are not
>> "lay users", they are "real" users. Neither group should have any
>> respect at all for the other, in an efficient community of developers
>> and users. The other group is 'the enemy'. An anti-moron-luser bias
>> on the part of a developer is not an "anti-GUI attitude", nor does it
>> damage the user community. On the contrary; it is a pro-CLI
>> attitude, and it strengthens both the user and the developer
>> community.
>>
>> If you can't manage to remember a few command names, you should burn
>> your computer and take up basket weaving. Certainly mastering the
>> CLI is much more than just remembering a few commands, but that isn't
>> the point.
>>
>> The point is that CLIs are more efficient, effective, expedient, and
>> productive once you learn how to use them. GUIs are a useful
>> technique, but getting hung up on them is an excuse for stupidity,
>> not a matter of efficiency.
>
>I disagree with your opinions and find parts of them self-contradictory.
Which parts? Is there some reason you cannot be more explicit?
>That is a result of how Iook at the role of computers and software
>engineers. You have different assumptions and thus it is conceivable
>that what strikes me as balderdash may even make sense to you. I htink
>it's pointless for us to continue arguing this subject.
I think you've simply utterly failed to argue the point. Since I have
no assumptions, it is possible for you to see my position as balderdash,
but it is not possible for it to be balderdash.
I don't mean to sound harsh in this response, Woofbert, but that is what
you get for backing out rather than standing your ground in the
discussion.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
