Linux-Advocacy Digest #446, Volume #25 Tue, 29 Feb 00 19:13:08 EST
Contents:
Re: Bundling inherently unfair to consumers - R people in here stupid?? (Brian
Langenberger)
Re: Microsoft's New Motto ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (5X3)
Re: 63000 bugs in W2K > # of bugs in Debian ("Colin R. Day")
Re: prepare Income Tax under Linux? (Donn Miller)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience (5X3)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience (5X3)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (5X3)
Re: Windows 2000: flat sales ("Christopher Smith")
Re: 63000 bugs in W2K > # of bugs in Debian (Bill)
Re: 3 out of 4 PCs do not need browsers ("Keith T. Williams")
Re: Bundling inherently unfair to consumers - R people in here stupid?? ("Chad
Myers")
Re: 3 out of 4 PCs do not need browsers ("Chad Myers")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Bundling inherently unfair to consumers - R people in here stupid??
Date: 29 Feb 2000 22:57:53 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> Eh? Doesn't usability benefit the author? He's the one who has
:> to *use* it, after all.
: But the customers will use it more intensively, and in many more
: differnt ways than intended.
It seems unlikely that an end user will use a product more
intensively than someone motivated enough to actually write
the product to solve his problem. The user may use it in
more ways than originally intended, but that's how bugs are found
(and ultimately fixed).
: That's why you have to have extensive QA, Testing, focus groups,
: usability samplings, everything. It's not something you just sit
: at your home computer and whip up. This is another reason that
: Linux's usability sucks. I'm not bashing on Linux, it has the
: potential. What I'm saying is, more attention is focused on
: the limited functionality as deemed important by the developer,
: who has a limited view on what the functionality of FOO should
: be.
: Usability suffers because the needs of the few are considered,
: as opposed to the needs of the many.
Usability has been poorly served by everybody, retail and OSS
alike. The R&D required for a revolutionary UI isn't likely
to return much financially (think cloning) and will undoubtedly
require plenty of failed attempts to find out what really works.
Nearly all modern software retains a very utilitarian way of
getting the job done at the expense of user-friendliness.
The difference between Windows, X and Mac UI is miniscule
compared to where we should, or could, be. We're fighting
over who's gotten a few feet from the starting gate, but the
finish line is miles away.
<snip>
: What Linux/OSS needs is a QA/Testing/Focus study deparment,
: of some sorts. A group of volunteers, a company, someone, anyone
: that polls corporations, home users, and everyone else for their
: needs.
: They need to have testing labs where they test existing ideas
: and obtain new ideas from the people using it.
: They (Linux/OSS) need to get more feedback from the average joe.
I think that's quite reasonable.
:> And for the problems that don't directly
:> benefit him, there are others who would benefit. So, they're
:> free to solve those individual problems so the author doesn't
:> have to.
: But not everyone is capable of solving (i.e. coding in new features)
: their particular problem. They rely on the developers. They use
: their dollars to let the developers know what they want.
I was thinking along the lines of internationization (i18n).
A common case is an end user from another country finding a
program and submitting patches to localize it to his language.
One of the problems, especially in UI, is that it's very difficult
to decide the "best" solution for all users. The end result is
extreme customizability which shifts the burden from an author
who likely doesn't know the best solution to everyone's
problem, to others who can come up with many solutions than an
end user can choose from.
The retail solution is often to try and take on a
"one size fits all" way of solving the problem. Sometimes
it works, sometimes it doesn't. But traditionally the best
applications have been the ones that provide a strong
framework for other developers to extend from. Photoshop
provides plug-in support, Quake/Unreal have massive
modification support, (X)Emacs has a powerful Lisp
environment, etc.
Consumers speak with their dollars, but they buy the
stuff that's supported best to meet their needs.
In some cases, what meets their needs best is prepackaged
OSS software.
:> Why shouldn't the author solve the problem the best way he knows how?
: Because he doesn't always know the best way to solve a particular
: problem. Also, he only knows a small fraction of the problems that need
: to be solved.
Ah, but not all developers are created equal. A wide range of
expertise can help considerably in ensuring that an end user's
needs are met. Many developers may have been end users at some
point.
: Many people are not being served if all code is only written to serve
: developers.
But don't forget that developers are also end users!
These folks are trying their darnedest to ensure the best
in usability, because they have to use what they write.
:> It's his problem to begin with, there's no time constraint or
:> deadline, and he's the one that benefits by all the improvements.
: What about everyone else? That's kind of exclusionary, isn't it?
Somebody's bound to be excluded, but a single developer can't
be expected to please everybody. People may be unique, but their
problems rarely are. The idea is that if he's having a problem,
there's a good chance others are having the same problem.
So if he really wants to get his Foo Drive working and knows
enough about it to get drivers written, his little piece of
effort will ultimately benefit a lot of people
(who, in turn, can help him with testing/debugging). The Bar Drive
people may not be helped, but hopefully someone will take
the effort to work on that also.
:> And by distributing the problem solution freely, he gets the
:> benefits of distributed bug-fixes and improvement suggestions to boot.
: Again, it's only for developers. The largest part of the user based
: is just being passed on by.
Users are free to give improvement suggestions. I've seen more
cases than I can count of a user requesting "could someone add
a feature to do X" and, lo and behold, it winds up in the next
version - courtesy of the author or someone of similar skill.
OSS developers thrive on such feedback.
: It's a catch 22, really. Most people don't use Linux because it
: doesn't have enough (or the right) features for them, so they
: don't give any feedback.
: And because they don't get feedback, the developers can't improve
: the software to meet their needs, which is why the developers
: (or a group on behalf of the developers) needs to proactively
: seek out these user groups and get their feedback.
This isn't necessarily true. Users can and do get into the
"feedback loop" on mailing lists or through direct correspondence
and their voices are being heard. The result is gradual
evolutionary improvements that I see all the time. The problem
is the real revolutionary stuff is beyond the grasp of both
user and developer, since neither really knows where the next
step is until they stumble over it.
:> He wouldn't have bothered developing if the results didn't matter to
:> him personally.
: Exactly! There are many results that the individual developer doesn't
: need, or perhaps any of the developers, but the average user needs
: desperately. This is usually a consistent, intuitive interface,
: which many Linux applications lack.
: I'm not being argumentative, I'm not trying to bash, I'm merely
: offering constructive criticism. Usability is a big thing, and it's
: being overlooked in a big way.
I think a consistent, intuitive interface *within an application*
is very important by easing confusion. But often times consistancy
should take a backseat to usability and accomplishing the intended
goal. The UI shouldn't be an end unto itself, it should be a means
to accomplishing some end. Linux certainly has its shortcomings
in the UI department, but that makes it little different than all
other OSes, unfortunately.
<snip>
: Companies would pay big money to have something that works.
: In most cases, Windows works for them. There are some quirks in
: old Windows, but in general, it works for them.
In actuality, people pay for the support of software.
For example, people use Windows because lots of other people
use Windows - and they can get support for that OS in terms
of software and help. It gets the job done in some cases, but
may not be the best solution.
: Linux may have a few good points, but it doesn't serve their needs
: in any area.
Linux certainly meets a lot of people's needs already.
As it gains more and more support, it will become a more and
more viable choice for a wider variety of problem domains.
It's here to stay, that much is certain.
: They would rather pay for something that works, than get something
: that doesn't work (or doesn't work well) for free.
Everyone wants something that works. In some cases, that something
happens to be free.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft's New Motto
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 09:01:51 +1000
"Josiah Fizer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Christopher Smith wrote:
>
> > "void" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 22:45:53 -0500, Drestin Black
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > nospam> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >Lies? Pooky? Lies? You and MiG are the only liars around - how about
> > helping
> > > >MiG in proclaiming that NT is not a multiuser OS (he doesn't even
know
> > the
> > > >definition) or are you at least smart enough to fail in that claim
too.
> > >
> > > NT is a multiuser OS in the same sense that DOS is an OS at all.
> > > Technically it's multiuser, but single-user assumptions are buried
> > > throughout the code, and they have caused problems in multiuser
> > > environments and they will continue to do so.
> >
> > Which of these single-user assumptions can you list ?
>
> A common System and System 32 folder? So that even if the user who logged
in
> hasn't installed MS Office they still need to have the freakin DLLs.
How is that any different from a common /lib directory ?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft's New Motto
Date: 29 Feb 2000 23:11:07 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "void" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 22:39:14 -0500, Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> nospam> wrote:
>> >
>> >You fool - don't you realize what you yourself admit. The REASON Intel
> CAN
>> >make their release dates dependent on release dates of AMDs is because
> the
>> >chips are done and ready they just wait for AMD to come out with
> something
>> >and then they just trump them.
>>
>> Balls. Intel has been concentrating too much on 64-bit processors, AMD
>> is really giving them a run for their money.
>>
> A run? Well, lets say competition is good for everyone. But, I don't see
> Intel very afraid of AMD at this point. I like the AMD chips, don't get me
> wrong, but let's not just bang the drums for AMD just because they are the
> underdog.
Lets bang the drums instead for AMD because theyre better chips than pentiums:
AMDK7--->bogomips=2*mhz
pentiumIII--->bogomips=1*mhz
An AMD K7 850 would then rate 1700 bogomips while a PIII 850 would be 850 bogomips.
While "bogomips" is not a very useful benchmark for nearly any kind of
real world application, a chip architecture which offers double that of its
competitor obviously has alot going for it.
p0ok
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 63000 bugs in W2K > # of bugs in Debian
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 23:14:11 +0000
George Richard Russell wrote:
> >> Or the keybindings to open and
> >> navigate the bindings in the GUI (X|GNU(emacs)) versions, either.
> >>
> >> Menus should not be mouse accessible only,
> >
> >Why not?
>
> Ye gods, because its a stupid limitation, easily fixable, yet left in since
> those that wrote Emacs want menus (check box | ticked) but don't use them, and
> hence, don't realise (care) how poorly done they are in emacs.
>
Actually, X requires a mouse. So any GUI version of emacs (for Linux at least)
may as well require it.
>
> Its just bad design practice for GUI apps to force the use of the mouse.
>
Then blame X
>
> >> nor nested 10+ deep. The UI is a
> >> shambles.
> >>
> >
> >No, it isn't.
>
> really? 10 deep nested menus is an example of GUI design par execellence, then?
> At least some GUI's have heard of dialogs, tabbed widgets, and moved on slightly
> from sticking to menu and pointer only.
>
Emacs needs the depth for its functionality. 10+, hmm, I'd like some evidence
>
> George Russell
> --
> One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them.
> Lord of the Rings, J.R.R.Tolkien
> Hey you, what do you see? Something beautiful, something free?
> The Beautiful People, Marilyn Manson
Colin Day
--
Shhh! Be vewy quiet. We're hunting penguins. -- Elmer FUD
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 18:18:52 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: prepare Income Tax under Linux?
Jon Claerbout wrote:
> How can I prepare my income taxes with nothing but Linux and Netscape?
[snip!]
> Or are we back to Win95 again this year :-(
I think the key is making Wine work as well as possible. Myself, I
have nothing but FreeBSD installed -- I booted Windows 98 off of my
machine (the ONLY way to boot Windows, IMO!) It's kind of
frustrating, because Wine has issues with relocatable data segments,
or something to that effect. A lot of setup.exe type of programs have
those. Also, Wine doesn't support VxD calls yet, AFAIK.
Wine doesn't work too well without a Windows installation, and that's
the quandry I'm in. I dunno -- I guess I'll have to snag some system
DLLs off of a Windows machine.
- Donn
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: 29 Feb 2000 23:20:57 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> But the bug is also in Windows 2000 because it allowed a
>> buggy application to crash the OS. If pcAnywhere modifies
>> system files, installs device drivers etc then Windows 2000
>> should not even have allowed pcAnywhere to install. At least
>> that's what Microsoft lead me to believe "System File
>> Protection" does for me.
> Hey, moron, it doesn't modify system files. It installs itself
> as a driver. It's not modifying system files, and therefore
> there's no system files to protect.
Then how in the world does it crash such an advanced operating
system?
p0ok
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: 29 Feb 2000 23:22:44 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> SFP has NOTHING to do with the problem . NO system files are overwritten or
> corrupted. There is no DLL hell. SFP does NOT apply. What DOES apply is that
> Symantec, in version 8 had code in their video takeover that performed big
> no-nos in the new W2K driver model (that and some more goofs in their
> symevnt libraries (yes, again)). Again, all Symantec's fault. AND, they did
> patch 8 and version 9 does not have these problems.
A stable operating system does not allow a *driver* to break it utterly.
See openbsd, openstep, VMS, MVS, and inferno/purgatory for details.
p0ok
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: 29 Feb 2000 23:24:11 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > --
>> > Have you recompiled your kernel today?
>>
>> No, but I could do it, which YOU can't do.
> I don't NEED to. I don't have the daily root-compromising security
> patches to apply.
Neither do I, running linux.
Again, it is quite obvious that if you ever ran linux, you had no
idea what you were doing.
p0ok
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: flat sales
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 09:22:35 +1000
"Mike Marion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > Newer versions of windows require more memory. If you upgrade your
memory
> > at the same time as installing the new OS, then you will notice a speed
> > difference. Additionally, Win98 was signifcantly faster than Win95 with
> > IE4.
>
> That's basically part of my argument. If the OS itself is faster, then it
> should be easy to see this on the same hardware. If you have to upgrade
_any_
> of the hardware at the same time to see this "faster" ability, then you've
just
> invalidated the comparison. Of course, if I add more RAM (faster CPU,
mobo,
> disk, etc) when I upgrade the OS, it's going to seem faster. That's sort
of a
> no brainer..
But then you need to go back and compare the "new" system running the "old"
OS.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill)
Subject: Re: 63000 bugs in W2K > # of bugs in Debian
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 23:25:28 GMT
In <88cchm$m3v$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Davorin Mestric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
>
>5X3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message:
>> Com objects?
>>
>> Show me a programmer who undersands com objects and ill show you a soul
>sold
>> to the devil for cash money.
>
>
>take a look at 3 million VB programmers, and you will see programers that
>create COM object every time they create an object.
>
<point>. . . <click>. . ."Look mommy! I made an object!"
Bill Henry.
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
=======================================
"All logical arguments can be defeated by
the simple refusal to reason logically"
-Steven Weinberg
------------------------------
From: "Keith T. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.conspiracy.microsoft
Subject: Re: 3 out of 4 PCs do not need browsers
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 18:29:01 -0500
And that would be fine if you could limit it to Intranet activities.
Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:89f1ep$13a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Keith T. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:WxDu4.425$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > But elaborate client side activities are exactly where the security
problems
> > show up... because they include screwing with your hard drive.
>
> I wholeheartedly agree. However, in an intranet-type environment, where
> security can be more easily controlled, client-side activities are
> very helpful, if not vital to a functioning intranet application.
>
> -Chad
>
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Bundling inherently unfair to consumers - R people in here stupid??
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 17:22:26 -0600
"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 29 Feb 2000 15:27:42 -0600, Chad Myers wrote:
>
> >They (Linux/OSS) need to get more feedback from the average joe.
>
> This is already done somewhat informally through mailing lists. KDE and
> GNOME have mailing lists where end users can talk about their concerns.
You're not getting it. The people that need the most help are not
going to be on mailing lists or newsgroups or anywhere but in person
or over the phone. These people are intimidated by computers and
only use them for their job requirements.
A data entry cleark comes in, fires up Windows, logs on, word autoruns,
she starts typing. She saves, she prints, she shuts down, she goes home.
She doesn't use mailing lists. How is this person being served by
the linux/oss community?
> The idea of involving users this much is relatively new. The FSF had a
> somewhat more aloof approach. To sum it up, it is changing, and this
> seems to reflect in the improvements that KDE and GNOME have made over
> traditional UNIX desktops and applications.
Relatively new to the OSS approach. Companies like IBM, Microsoft,
and other companies interested in serving customers have focus groups,
hands-on testing labs and other face-to-face type elements.
This is not new.
> >But not everyone is capable of solving (i.e. coding in new features)
> >their particular problem. They rely on the developers. They use
> >their dollars to let the developers know what they want.
>
> I think this is why there is a pace for proprietary software. The users
> should always have the option of purchasing payware. I don't know if you've
> been following a somewhat heated copyright debate, but I've been arguing
> the case for copyright law in a fairly long thread...
Unfortunately, I haven't. Which NG is it in? COLA? I don't hang out there
much.
>
> >Many people are not being served if all code is only written to serve
> >developers.
>
> The KDE and GNOME projects are not just written to serve developers.
They're a giant leap in usability over other Linux-type applications,
but, if they're not written for the developers, then who are they
written for? They're not written for the average end user.
KDE and GNOME seem more geared toward the mildly computer literate
wanting to make a leap from Windows to Linux, but is too scared of
the command line.
It serves this demographic quite well, actually.
However, the computer illiterate is not served well at all by these interface.
> >It's a catch 22, really. Most people don't use Linux because it
> >doesn't have enough (or the right) features for them, so they
> >don't give any feedback.
>
> There's a problem with this reasoning. It's not so black and white. There
> are people using Linux, despite the fact that it doesn't have every feature
> they need. So they get onto these user mailing lists and start griping.
> Pretty soon, the developer works out that the users want (X) and they
> add (X) into the application.
But you're still dealing with a limited demographic. These people that
are on mailing lists are still pretty computer literate, and therefore
aren't demanding the same things that an average joe user would require.
Trust me, companies like Novell, Microsoft, IBM, Apple (especially),
have dumped billions into usability, fesability, accessibility, and
intuitiveness.
I'm not sure how Linux/OSS is going to catch up in this respect,
as it has a long way to go to gain the knowledge and understanding
that these companies have obtained over many years.
Perhaps a usability Guru from one of these companies will defect
and join The Cause. That would be a boon, but save for that,
it's a long road ahead. It's very important though, and is a key
to acheiving market dominance in today's world.
Unfortunately, the majority of "users" just demand a simple, intuitive,
working interface and applications. They don't need the customizations
and just want it to work. Windows serves this quite well. Linux is the
opposite, it allows maximum customization, but it doesn't work so well
right out of the box, and it's difficult to acheive the simplicity
that the Windows interface brings.
Keep in mind, I'm not bashing Linux. I realize that it's not a function
of the OS, it's more a mindset of the developers. It's easily fixed,
it's just going to take some concerted effort.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.conspiracy.microsoft
Subject: Re: 3 out of 4 PCs do not need browsers
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 17:28:04 -0600
Well, in an Intranet situation, where you are the administrator,
you could deploy IE with the IE Administrators Kit and fully
customize it. You can set it up so that it will only run
ActiveX controls and run scripting from "Trusted domains".
You can specify IP addresses or hostnames, or a whole
"*.intranet.mycompany.com"
When they visit a site with unauthorized scripting or
ActiveX controls, it will alert the end user that they
are not permitted to download that script/control.
--
Chad Myers
"Keith T. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:yyYu4.943$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> And that would be fine if you could limit it to Intranet activities.
>
> Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:89f1ep$13a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Keith T. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:WxDu4.425$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > But elaborate client side activities are exactly where the security
> problems
> > > show up... because they include screwing with your hard drive.
> >
> > I wholeheartedly agree. However, in an intranet-type environment, where
> > security can be more easily controlled, client-side activities are
> > very helpful, if not vital to a functioning intranet application.
> >
> > -Chad
> >
>
>
>
------------------------------
** 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 (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
******************************
