On Wednesday 30 March 2005 12:35, Dave Nebinger wrote:
> Most folks, where work is concerned, expect to have the computer 'just
> work'. Your boss wants you to show up at 8 am and be productive for 8
> hours, not spend time figuring out the innards (unless that, of course, is
> what you're paid to
Hi markknecht,
you know you have posted the
SAME POST
43
TIMES
do you?
F.
On Thu, 2005-03-31 at 07:00 +0100, Mark Knecht wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:57:10 -0500 (EST), A. Khattri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Dave Nebinger wrote:
> >
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, Stroller wrote:
> No wonder changes to the registry are so often needed on
> Windows machines in order to configure advanced behaviour.
I think the registry is just pure evil - a great place for
virii/worms/spyware to hide stuff...
> If you can imagine the dialogs necessary
> > No wonder changes to the registry are so often needed on
> > Windows machines in order to configure advanced behaviour.
>
> I think the registry is just pure evil - a great place for
> virii/worms/spyware to hide stuff...
I always get a kick out of this kind of thing: bashing the Windows
regi
On Mar 30, 2005, at 2:20 pm, Dave Nebinger wrote:
2. Totally configurable via gui - no low-level file editing. As power
users this is something that we want/need, but the windows user
expects to
pull up a dialog for the program and click checkboxes to turn things
on and
off. I can just imagine
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:57:10 -0500 (EST), A. Khattri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Dave Nebinger wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately, Holly, I don't think linux will be ready for the desktop for
> > quite awhile (yes, that does make me sad).
>
> Novell disagrees:
> http://business.news
(I'm going to assume a medium to large business here, which actually seems to
be where the business end of this argument has been focusing)
On Wednesday 30 March 2005 12:35, Dave Nebinger wrote:
> Most folks, where work is concerned, expect to have the computer 'just
> work'. Your boss wants you
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:57:10 -0500 (EST), A. Khattri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Dave Nebinger wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately, Holly, I don't think linux will be ready for the desktop for
> > quite awhile (yes, that does make me sad).
>
> Novell disagrees:
> http://business.news
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:57:10 -0500 (EST), A. Khattri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Dave Nebinger wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately, Holly, I don't think linux will be ready for the desktop for
> > quite awhile (yes, that does make me sad).
>
> Novell disagrees:
> http://business.news
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:57:10 -0500 (EST), A. Khattri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Dave Nebinger wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately, Holly, I don't think linux will be ready for the desktop for
> > quite awhile (yes, that does make me sad).
>
> Novell disagrees:
> http://business.news
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:57:10 -0500 (EST), A. Khattri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Dave Nebinger wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately, Holly, I don't think linux will be ready for the desktop for
> > quite awhile (yes, that does make me sad).
>
> Novell disagrees:
> http://business.news
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:57:10 -0500 (EST), A. Khattri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Dave Nebinger wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately, Holly, I don't think linux will be ready for the desktop for
> > quite awhile (yes, that does make me sad).
>
> Novell disagrees:
> http://business.news
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:57:10 -0500 (EST), A. Khattri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Dave Nebinger wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately, Holly, I don't think linux will be ready for the desktop for
> > quite awhile (yes, that does make me sad).
>
> Novell disagrees:
> http://business.news
> Make that 8 copies now...
You're not the only one -- I've received a copy every fifteen minutes
for the last few hours - and it wasn't just his...
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:57:10 -0500 (EST), A. Khattri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Dave Nebinger wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately, Holly, I don't think linux will be ready for the desktop for
> > quite awhile (yes, that does make me sad).
>
> Novell disagrees:
> http://business.news
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:57:10 -0500 (EST), A. Khattri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Dave Nebinger wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately, Holly, I don't think linux will be ready for the desktop for
> > quite awhile (yes, that does make me sad).
>
> Novell disagrees:
> http://business.news
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:57:10 -0500 (EST), A. Khattri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Dave Nebinger wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately, Holly, I don't think linux will be ready for the desktop for
> > quite awhile (yes, that does make me sad).
>
> Novell disagrees:
> http://business.news
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:57:10 -0500 (EST), A. Khattri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Dave Nebinger wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately, Holly, I don't think linux will be ready for the desktop for
> > quite awhile (yes, that does make me sad).
>
> Novell disagrees:
> http://business.news
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:57:10 -0500 (EST), A. Khattri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Dave Nebinger wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately, Holly, I don't think linux will be ready for the desktop for
> > quite awhile (yes, that does make me sad).
>
> Novell disagrees:
> http://business.news
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:57:10 -0500 (EST), A. Khattri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Dave Nebinger wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately, Holly, I don't think linux will be ready for the desktop for
> > quite awhile (yes, that does make me sad).
>
> Novell disagrees:
> http://business.news
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:57:10 -0500 (EST), A. Khattri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Dave Nebinger wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately, Holly, I don't think linux will be ready for the desktop for
> > quite awhile (yes, that does make me sad).
>
> Novell disagrees:
> http://business.news
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:57:10 -0500 (EST), A. Khattri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Dave Nebinger wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately, Holly, I don't think linux will be ready for the desktop for
> > quite awhile (yes, that does make me sad).
>
> Novell disagrees:
> http://business.news
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:57:10 -0500 (EST), A. Khattri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Dave Nebinger wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately, Holly, I don't think linux will be ready for the desktop for
> > quite awhile (yes, that does make me sad).
>
> Novell disagrees:
> http://business.news
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:57:10 -0500 (EST), A. Khattri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Dave Nebinger wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately, Holly, I don't think linux will be ready for the desktop for
> > quite awhile (yes, that does make me sad).
>
> Novell disagrees:
> http://business.news
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:57:10 -0500 (EST), A. Khattri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Dave Nebinger wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately, Holly, I don't think linux will be ready for the desktop for
> > quite awhile (yes, that does make me sad).
>
> Novell disagrees:
> http://business.news
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:57:10 -0500 (EST), A. Khattri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Dave Nebinger wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately, Holly, I don't think linux will be ready for the desktop for
> > quite awhile (yes, that does make me sad).
>
> Novell disagrees:
> http://business.news
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:57:10 -0500 (EST), A. Khattri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Dave Nebinger wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately, Holly, I don't think linux will be ready for the desktop for
> > quite awhile (yes, that does make me sad).
>
> Novell disagrees:
> http://business.news
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:57:10 -0500 (EST), A. Khattri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Dave Nebinger wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately, Holly, I don't think linux will be ready for the desktop for
> > quite awhile (yes, that does make me sad).
>
> Novell disagrees:
> http://business.news
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:57:10 -0500 (EST), A. Khattri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Dave Nebinger wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately, Holly, I don't think linux will be ready for the desktop for
> > quite awhile (yes, that does make me sad).
>
> Novell disagrees:
> http://business.news
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:57:10 -0500 (EST), A. Khattri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Dave Nebinger wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately, Holly, I don't think linux will be ready for the desktop for
> > quite awhile (yes, that does make me sad).
>
> Novell disagrees:
> http://business.news
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:57:10 -0500 (EST), A. Khattri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Dave Nebinger wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately, Holly, I don't think linux will be ready for the desktop for
> > quite awhile (yes, that does make me sad).
>
> Novell disagrees:
> http://business.news
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:57:10 -0500 (EST), A. Khattri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Dave Nebinger wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately, Holly, I don't think linux will be ready for the desktop for
> > quite awhile (yes, that does make me sad).
>
> Novell disagrees:
> http://business.news
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:57:10 -0500 (EST), A. Khattri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Dave Nebinger wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately, Holly, I don't think linux will be ready for the desktop for
> > quite awhile (yes, that does make me sad).
>
> Novell disagrees:
> http://business.news
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:57:10 -0500 (EST), A. Khattri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Dave Nebinger wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately, Holly, I don't think linux will be ready for the desktop for
> > quite awhile (yes, that does make me sad).
>
> Novell disagrees:
> http://business.news
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:57:10 -0500 (EST), A. Khattri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Dave Nebinger wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately, Holly, I don't think linux will be ready for the desktop for
> > quite awhile (yes, that does make me sad).
>
> Novell disagrees:
> http://business.news
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:57:10 -0500 (EST), A. Khattri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Dave Nebinger wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately, Holly, I don't think linux will be ready for the desktop for
> > quite awhile (yes, that does make me sad).
>
> Novell disagrees:
> http://business.news
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:57:10 -0500 (EST), A. Khattri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Dave Nebinger wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately, Holly, I don't think linux will be ready for the desktop for
> > quite awhile (yes, that does make me sad).
>
> Novell disagrees:
> http://business.news
On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 05:35:33PM -0500, James Hiscock wrote:
> I'd just like to point out that text is _also_ a sign.
It is a sign, but not a analogy (unless you write in ancient egypt).
Otherwise people would not have takes offense by Apple Macintoshs practice
of ejecting a floppy when you put
> > We are beings
> > designed to work naturally from symbols, signs, and icons; not terse textual
> > messages.
> This is
> why symbols and analogies are not good and dangerous in this case. Most
> errors of inexperienced users can be explained by this. And if you
> really understood the concept
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Dave Nebinger wrote:
> Only if you can't see the hype and hidden agendas of those folks. Novell
> wants you to buy into it to build a consumer base for their own flavor
> (which, on the surface, looks and acts a lot like windows).
Err, its SuSE actually.
Also, they are open
On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 03:35:39PM -0500, Dave Nebinger wrote:
> Is an icon simpler than terse text? Yes.
Is it better? No.
> And it is seen across more
> industries than just the computer industry. Sewing machines now come with
> buttons with images representing the type of stitch rather than
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Mark Knecht wrote:
> Where Linux won't happen on the desktop in any big way is in the home.
> Configuration is too difficult. Until all configuration for a standard
> home machine can be handled in gui apps somewhere it won't work since
> Grandma and her 7 year old grand daugh
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:57:10 -0500 (EST), A. Khattri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Dave Nebinger wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately, Holly, I don't think linux will be ready for the desktop for
> > quite awhile (yes, that does make me sad).
>
> Novell disagrees:
> http://business.news
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:57:10 -0500 (EST), A. Khattri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Dave Nebinger wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately, Holly, I don't think linux will be ready for the desktop for
> > quite awhile (yes, that does make me sad).
>
> Novell disagrees:
> http://business.news
W4oAT0L30UqIl7DSAs73iei1/2cm3haaTQRb1jT0Nb
z4N18nLaf50c16fmF1XXU6s28Widv7+96XG7KK7PdPkNw8UtuKvPYjfXBOM70qa1cNQLuduHrsmq
XexC6QNUXHHIDhzXaEeqc=
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 21:31:03 +0100
From: "Mark Knecht" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Use
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:57:10 -0500 (EST), A. Khattri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Dave Nebinger wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately, Holly, I don't think linux will be ready for the desktop for
> > quite awhile (yes, that does make me sad).
>
> Novell disagrees:
> http://business.news
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:57:10 -0500 (EST), A. Khattri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Dave Nebinger wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately, Holly, I don't think linux will be ready for the desktop for
> > quite awhile (yes, that does make me sad).
>
> Novell disagrees:
> http://business.news
] Users and errors (was: help "line 6: B:
> command not found" FIXED, user error in config file...)
[snip]
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
> > > Why does something have to act/look like Windows to be ready for the
> > > desktop. If that's what you need/want just use Windows already!
> >
> > It's not that the next OS has to act/look like windows to supplant
> windows,
> > it's a question of usability...
> >
> > There's a lot of resear
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:57:10 -0500 (EST), A. Khattri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Dave Nebinger wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately, Holly, I don't think linux will be ready for the desktop for
> > quite awhile (yes, that does make me sad).
>
> Novell disagrees:
> http://business.news
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:57:10 -0500 (EST), A. Khattri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Dave Nebinger wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately, Holly, I don't think linux will be ready for the desktop for
> > quite awhile (yes, that does make me sad).
>
> Novell disagrees:
> http://business.news
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:57:10 -0500 (EST), A. Khattri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Dave Nebinger wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately, Holly, I don't think linux will be ready for the desktop for
> > quite awhile (yes, that does make me sad).
>
> Novell disagrees:
> http://business.news
quoth the Dave Nebinger:
> > Why does something have to act/look like Windows to be ready for the
> > desktop. If that's what you need/want just use Windows already!
>
> It's not that the next OS has to act/look like windows to supplant windows,
> it's a question of usability...
>
> There's a lot
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:57:10 -0500 (EST), A. Khattri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Dave Nebinger wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately, Holly, I don't think linux will be ready for the desktop for
> > quite awhile (yes, that does make me sad).
>
> Novell disagrees:
> http://business.news
> My biggest worry now is Internet predators. I wish there was a real
> solution for that sort of stuff under Linux, like Net-nanny etc. under
> Windows. That's what scares me as a parent.
Heard of squid? It's only the standard proxy for linux-based systems and
kicks the crap out of net nanny...
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:57:10 -0500 (EST), A. Khattri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Dave Nebinger wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately, Holly, I don't think linux will be ready for the desktop for
> > quite awhile (yes, that does make me sad).
>
> Novell disagrees:
> http://business.news
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:57:10 -0500 (EST), A. Khattri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Dave Nebinger wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately, Holly, I don't think linux will be ready for the desktop for
> > quite awhile (yes, that does make me sad).
>
> Novell disagrees:
> http://business.news
> > Unfortunately, Holly, I don't think linux will be ready for the desktop
> for
> > quite awhile (yes, that does make me sad).
>
> Novell disagrees: [snip]
>
> AT&T disagrees: [snip]
>
> Various governments disagree: [double-snip for an nytimes link]
>
> The tide is turning.
Only if you can'
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:57:10 -0500 (EST), A. Khattri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Dave Nebinger wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately, Holly, I don't think linux will be ready for the desktop for
> > quite awhile (yes, that does make me sad).
>
> Novell disagrees:
> http://business.news
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Dave Nebinger wrote:
> Unfortunately, Holly, I don't think linux will be ready for the desktop for
> quite awhile (yes, that does make me sad).
Novell disagrees:
http://business.newsforge.com/business/05/03/23/1755222.shtml?tid=152&tid=2&tid=37&tid=18
http://www.cbronline.com
> Why does something have to act/look like Windows to be ready for the
> desktop. If that's what you need/want just use Windows already!
It's not that the next OS has to act/look like windows to supplant windows,
it's a question of usability...
There's a lot of research that has been done and is
quoth the Dave Nebinger:
> > We can't make Linux "better" and "ready for the desktop"-- which does
> > *not* mean we have to do everything via a GUI, dagnabit; people can
> > certainly use the command-line comfortably *if they know how*-- unless
> > we identify where people are falling over it and
Much of this is already possible actually. There is certainly nothing that
can't be automated or configured in gentoo with effort. However, distros like
Mandrake already hide startup output via splash screen and allow configuration
of just about everything through KDE and their own tools. I'm pr
*sigh* I guess I just have to get over the fact that such a simple oversight
has marked me a typical windows user, but seeing as how no one wants to leave
my name out of this, I might as well try to respond constructively.
As has been said, some people, like myself, are just a little newer to ge
> We can't make Linux "better" and "ready for the desktop"-- which does
> *not* mean we have to do everything via a GUI, dagnabit; people can
> certainly use the command-line comfortably *if they know how*-- unless
> we identify where people are falling over it and how to remove the
> obstacles to
Nicolas Bailey wrote:
I think you are being a little unfair in your judgement. Thinking to
look in /etc/init.d, etc. relies on at least some knowledge that not
every Gentoo user will have (esp. the newer variety). The same is
true in the case above. Either you didn't know or didn't immediately
t
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, Dave Nebinger wrote:
> Hmm, I take issue with the inference that the message was understandable.
As Holly said earlier - not really talking about you specifically.
> The error message itself pointed to the depcache file, yet the error was in
> a script in /etc/init.d. Yes,
> OK, now that the problem has been solved, I'd like to ask a question
> about why this was a problem in the first place. Not getting on you,
> Dave, I'm just curious about a "user psychology issue".
I think what you are seeing is that people will see and respond to
different errors differently.
> > In any case, Dave still had to search for the typo one way or another
> > even with the advice; this was unavoidable. But the error message
> > already contained the information on where to start the search (and in
> > fact what was wrong, by indicating that there was a typo somewhere). So
> >
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, Holly Bostick wrote:
> In any case, Dave still had to search for the typo one way or another
> even with the advice; this was unavoidable. But the error message
> already contained the information on where to start the search (and in
> fact what was wrong, by indicating that t
Wow, that was a long read.
Let me first say that I'm a little bit insulted at having my post compared to a
typical Windows user :P.
With that out of the way, it really wasn't a very clear message. I knew that
the two lines
/var/lib/init.d/depcache: line 6: B: command not found
/sbin/rc: line
71 matches
Mail list logo
