Linux-Advocacy Digest #242, Volume #29 Wed, 20 Sep 00 22:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: angry programmers ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (Steve Ballantyne)
Re: Computer and memory (Bob Hauck)
Re: Linux to reach NT 3.51 proportions in next 2 years (Bob Hauck)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (Mike Byrns)
Re: The Linux Experience ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (Mike Byrns)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (Osugi)
Re: Computer and memory (Mike Byrns)
Re: Computer and memory ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: angry programmers
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 01:09:40 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Do you see it as bashing? I don't.
Tell me, Richard, what is the colour of the water you're drinking?
> Oh, sure, I could've said
> "programmers are projective and lacking in empathy towards
> users" which would've been more accurate but few people
> would have understood. People understand "programmers
> hate users" just fine, and it's close enough.
>
> That most programmers
> 1) lack empathy towards users
I lack empathy towards potted plants. Doesn't mean I hate them, so your
statement that programmers hate users as being close enough is false.
> 2) are projecting their views onto users for their
> own convenience and comfort
Could be. At some point a programmer is going to have to involve
themselves in the work they do for other people, start making design
decisions, etc. You're assuming that this is inevitably taken to a
degree that they're yelling "Goddamn it, LEARN how to use command-line
arguments!" and writing their man pages is Klingon, which is absurd.
However, for the most part, a user is going to have to invest a little
bit of effort in learning a new way of doing things if they've ASKED
for a new way of doing things (hence involving the programmer in the
first place). Some of us are pretty smart, but we aren't mind-readers,
and developing a feature set that can do any number of tasks and
teaching users how to combine them is way easier, more practical, and
more cost-efficient than doing one for Bob, one for Janet, one for
Timmy, etc.
> 3) sometimes even undergo reversal with users
Not sure what this means.
> 4) resent the demands put on them by users
Some programmers thrive upon the demands they get from users. John
Carmack and other entertainment-industry programmers come to mind.
> and that,
> 5) the proper relationship between a programmer
> and user is the same (modulo scope) as between
> a parent and child, or teacher and student
Notice that people who do training (eg: corporate training) are very
often not developers, and also notice that not all developers are in a
situation where they are responsible for the entirety of the
application in question. The programmer and the user are very often on
complete opposites of a line populated by MANY middlemen. A direct
relationship between the two is far too contrived to be looked at
realistically, so the parent-child or teacher-pupil model doesn't
really apply here. I doubt many programmers in the real world look at
it this way.
In the open-source world, maybe a person-to-person relationship without
a middleman is possible, but this is what everything gets boiled down
to: If I'm writing a program and you're using it, whose responsibility
is it to learn how the other person thinks? If it IS one-to-one perhaps
it is feasible for the programmer to be equally required to try to
bridge the gap that'll come from different viewpoints, but if it's one-
to-many, you're asking too much of the programmer, in my opinion. It's
quicker if everybody else figures out how he's doing it, so that he can
actually get on with the job of pumping out the code that users would
like to do something with.
> and thus,
> 6) that what programmers engage in cannot be
> cosidered to be anything but abuse
No. More accurately, thus, you're deluded. You go from people thinking
they have parent-child relationships to people engaging in something
that can't be cosidered(sic) abuse? What about parents themselves, most
of whom happen to also think they have parent-child relationships? Are
they engaged in abuse?
> are all technical and objective facts.
Hardly.
> That you happen to
> find yourself in the class under attack (and I grant that
> you are vastly more sympathetic and helpful towards users
> than the norm) does not make this a personal attack, even
> if you perceived it as such.
In other words. I'm right that programmers are idiots, and so you,
being a programmer, are an idiot. Don't be offended, though.
Good luck making friends with that sort of rhetorical handshake.
> This is no more personal than hating bigots or psychopaths;
> I hate all antisocial people lacking in empathy.
Would that include the paranoid?
> To put this
> into perspective, you are the exceptional person in redneck
> country confronted with someone "bashing" rednecks.
> Intolerance of intolerance does not make one a bigot.
It is, if the intolerance is misdiagnosed and attributed to a larger
group. Bigotry is the unfair judgement of a person based solely upon
their membership to a larger group involving as motivation questionable
opinions about that larger group.
You qualify.
> If you want to learn what Linux is actually about, instead
> of being suckered in by the laughable propaganda, you might
> want to read Nikolai Bezkourov's paper "A Second Look
> at the Cathedral and the Bazaar" at
> http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue4_12/bezroukov/index.html
> It should disillusion you about the hacker mythos quite nicely.
Snore.
> You should note further that if I am correct about my
> allegations then it is *very much* a personal matter for
> me, and *legitimately* so. If programmers abuse users
> and I am a user then I have a right to be pissed off and
> return the hatred in kind.
But if you verbally abuse programmers and I am a programmer than I do
NOT have a right to view it as a personal attack?
> Now, if you want to legitimize
> FM's attacks on me then go right ahead; just make sure
> you share what you learn about his motivations and
> psychology (ie, his delicate emotional balance) with
> the rest of us.
It must suck that everyone's out for your head. (btw, there's a commie
sneaking up behind you with a wifflebat)
> And even if everything I accuse programmers of is bunk,
> considering the fact that Unix will endure for good or
> ill (it already has, Bezkourov's paper only goes on to
> explain why this will also be so for Linux) and that FM
> feels threatened by *me*, you can't possibly claim that
> he is operating from any rational reasons. (Think a bit
> about just what kind of "provocation" I've given him.)
What?!? This is hilarious. If I'm full of crap when I tell you my
reasons for knocking you over your head, and you get mad that I knocked
you over your head, then YOU'RE the one who's crazy?
> I have legitimate reasons to feel threatened, resentful
> and angry. He does not. The situation was *never*
> symmetric.
You're right about lack of symmetry. Your posts outnumber anybody
else's in this thread by a large number.
> At worst, beating up the morally bankrupt is futile and
> childish. It's never actually /wrong/ to beat a neo-nazi
> skinhead to a bloody pulp (a friend of mine misspent his
> youth) or to bash hackers. It *is* wrong if the positions
> are reversed.
Goodwin's law notwithstanding, the right or wrongness of bashing
hackers is irrelevant -- it won't help you understand anything any
quicker. But something I'm curious about: are you trying to find proof
of irritable programmers by locating a bunch, equating them with
psychopaths, and then waiting for a reaction?
Bizarre.
> And this doesn't even get into the difference between
> attacking the people who form the dominant faction
> of a group and attacking /all/ the people in that group.
> In particular, you do *not* belong to the dominant
> faction of the Linux or Open Source groups of pro-
> grammers. You may, for some misguided reason feel
> loyalty to that faction, but let's just say that I have the
> urge to say "Come over to the Light side of the Force"
> when I talk to you. Of course, that might condemn
> you to death by association on the NG. :-)
Well, if you're on the Light Side of the Force I shudder to think what
Mr. Skywalker is saying about you behind your back.
Now, I hope you don't mind if I instruct Boba Fett and the others to
quietly ignore you, now.
Guys, plunk this ninny.
-ws
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Steve Ballantyne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 13:24:18 +1200
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I have my HP 41CV Serial Number 2525S42272 right here in front of me,
> complete with the HP 41 Advantage Pack module. Bought it circa 1983
> and use it all the time. The original batteries finally quit LAST YEAR
> 1999!
>
> That has to be a record of some sort?
>
Lovely calculators, those HP41s. I loved mine dearly, until it wa
stolen. Too bad they stopped making them some years ago.
Wouldn't NASA be using HP48s or 49s by now?
>
> Only program I ever wrote was a simple Amortization Program.
>
Easy programmability was a major advantage of the 41 -- I used to
program while taking the bus to work. It's not really practical to
program the 48 without a desktop computer and a proper keyboard.
> It's too bad HP isn't what it used to be :(
>
Particularly in the calculator department.
--
Steve Ballantyne
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 23:04:52 GMT
On Wed, 20 Sep 2000 03:39:41 GMT, Chad Myers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>How about if a foreign telco company bought out some
>of our major infrastructure companies.
Scottish Power recently bought Pacificorp. Pacificorp provides
electricity to several western states, including California.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux to reach NT 3.51 proportions in next 2 years
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 23:04:54 GMT
On Wed, 20 Sep 2000 15:21:09 -0500, Mike Byrns
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>KDE is *not* a clone of CDE. CDE more closely resembles Windows 3.1,
CDE has programs in "drawers" that pop out of a Panel that looks a lot
like the one in KDE that has menus of programs. It also has multiple
workspaces that are selected by buttons on the panel, as in KDE. It
also offers a Motif look & feel.
>KDE window frames and button placement are virtually identical to
>Windows 95.
You can change the button placement in the KDE Control Panel. You can
also change the window frames if you have the Theme Manager installed
(on 1.1.2). Win95 doesn't offer those features IIRC. Nor does it
offer multiple workspaces or allow you to move the taskbar around.
KDE has borrowed from several places. CDE is one, Win95 is one.
>Or they may be failing to innovate, preferring rather to ride on the
>coat-tails of Windows UI success.
As Windows rode on the Mac's coat-tails?
>I'd like to navigate into folders like I walk into a room
>in Unreal Tournament.
Someone actually wrote a program that allowed you to navigate through
the Linux filesystem that way. IIRC it showed the various different
types of files as different kinds of planets in a solar system and file
sizes were denoted by the size of the planet. It was amusing to play
with but didn't seem to have any real advantages as far as day-to-day
use.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 01:52:01 GMT
Peter Ammon wrote:
> Mike Byrns wrote:
> >
> > Peter Ammon wrote:
> > >
> > > Mike Byrns wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Peter Ammon wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Mike Byrns wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You mean Jeff Goldblume? The same Jeff Goldblume that has appeared in
> > > > > > several Apple Computer television commercials? The one that's on the
> > > > > > Apple payroll? Do you know that Apple pays big bucks in hollywood to
> > > > > > get it's computers in "cool" movies like Independence Day?
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't believe you. Can you back this up?
> > > >
> > > > Sure! Here you go.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.info.apple.com/pr/press.releases/1996/q3/960628.pr.rel.fox.html
> > > >
> > > > Heh.
> > >
> > > Where's the "big bucks" evidence?
> >
> > You'll have to rely on common sense for that. This should help:
> > http://www.informedusa.com/t/independanceday.html
>
> You know, Mike, you really don't have to post the same link three times
> in the same thread.
>
> -Peter
Just making sure you didn't miss it :-) Especially the part about:
"In-theater Concession stand employees and ticket sellers will wear
Apple/"Independence Day" t-shirts while on duty. This will bring Apple's brand
message to over 25 million theater goers on July 4th weekend alone, in a place
competitors have yet to use."
If the year of collaboration with 20th Century Fox didn't cost them much I'll bet
all those T-Shirts cost something! If you could get your head out of the sand for
long enough you'd start to realize why Macs cost as much as two times more than
similarly equipped PCs -- they blow tons of money on marketing (Chiat Day alone made
$15 million on a single commercial back in 1984) and they profiteer on the hardware
because of it. They've got you all so convinced that you've got the "best thing
going" that they don't even have to produce it. If it says Apple on it some people
are going to blow a gasket telling you how revolutionary and how much "better" it is
than everything else when most of the percieved benefits are the intangibles they've
been sold.
--
Mike Byrns
Microsoft Windows Software Engineer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Linux Experience
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 01:52:21 GMT
"Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [snip]
>
> > >Yeah, but the point is RH DOES support truetype....they just don't
> document
> > >well the fact that they do.
> >
> > ...and they "really" go out of their way to hide it too. I mean,
> > just how obscure can you be? An end user would have to go so far
> > as to enter truetype on Redht's support page. Geez, talk about
> > end user abuse.
> >
> > </sarcasm>
>
> I didn't say it was especially obscure either. All I said was a casual
> search on the RedHat site (not the support site) didn't turn up anything
> obvious.
This is partly a matter of coming in late in the game. If you had RedHat
6.0, you would have easily found TT support in the "What's New" blurb.
I guess in 6.2 is just isn't new any more so they only mention the fact
that new fonts added to the directory are detected automatically at
start-up.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 01:55:48 GMT
Peter Ammon wrote:
> Timberwoof wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "samurai"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Facts don't really change anything for brainwashed Mac people. You
> > > had to go to APPLE's web site and find the information for them...
> > > and they will still go back to OSTRICH MODE. Damn capslock key (must
> > > be my cheap beige keyboard).
> > >
> > > --Samurai
> > >
> > > "Mike Byrns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Peter Ammon wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Mike Byrns wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You mean Jeff Goldblume? The same Jeff Goldblume that has
> > > > > > appeared in several Apple Computer television commercials? The
> > > > > > one that's on the Apple payroll? Do you know that Apple pays
> > > > > > big bucks in hollywood to get it's computers in "cool" movies
> > > > > > like Independence Day?
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't believe you. Can you back this up?
> > > >
> > > > Sure! Here you go.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.info.apple.com/pr/press.releases/1996/q3/960628.pr.rel.fo
> > > > x.ht ml
> > > >
> > > > Heh.
> >
> > But for the rest of us Mac people who aren't brainwashed, facts work.
> > What's the big deal about Apple paying for product placement? You know,
> > if Apple *didn't* do that, someone somewhere would be throwing a hissy
> > fit that Apple isn't following up this most obvious marketing technique.
>
> I take issue with the implication that Apple has to seek out producers
> and ask them to add their machines. On the contrary, it looks as though
> the producers are falling over themselves to get Macs into their films.
How does it "look as so"? I don't see any evidence of anything other than
good old paid product placement. How does it benefit the motion picture and
television industries to display Macintosh computers? It's easy to see how it
benefits Apple. Considering the size of the motion picture and television
industry compared to the size of Apple, I think simple economics dictate that
Apple is purchasing services from the these industries in the form of product
placement.
--
Mike Byrns
Microsoft Windows Software Engineer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Osugi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 01:46:46 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> samurai wrote:
> >
<Snip>
>
> > I see paid advertisements in movies all the
> > time for APPLE.
>
> Name one advertisement that you know is paid, and how you know.
>
> Until then, I'll consider you a liar.
>
> -Peter
>
No need to consider him / her a liar. S/he may just be wrong. It is
widely believed that companies make arrangements with hollywood studios
to get their products placed in movies. Last I heard, there were
rumours that this was the case with the cars, watches, and alcohol in
recent Bond movies. I don't know if those companies actually paid for
screen time for their products or not, but it is possible.
So, I find it quite possible that Apple arranges for their computers to
by used in movies. It is also possible that they are used (as you said)
because they look "cooler" than most non-Apple boxes. Just because
samurai hasn't provided any evidence to back up his claim, and thus
might be wrong, doesn't make him a liar.
(Here is an idea for movie studios: Make a movie featuring lots of
computer equipment and jargon. Then tell MS that every machine will be
a mac and the os mentioned will be linux. MS should be willing to pay
at least US$1,000 per word to change "linux" to "windows" and maybe
even some money to change the macs to Dells or Compaqs. With a good
script, MS might even finance the whole movie.)
--
Osugi Sakae
I will not be filed, numbered, briefed or debriefed.
I am not a number, I am a free man. -The Prisoner
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 02:00:05 GMT
Bob Hauck wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2000 03:39:41 GMT, Chad Myers
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >How about if a foreign telco company bought out some
> >of our major infrastructure companies.
>
> Scottish Power recently bought Pacificorp. Pacificorp provides
> electricity to several western states, including California.
Uh oh. I can see it now. The damn meter reader's gonna be wearing a
kilt. I guess that'll make it more fun for my dog :-)
--
Mike Byrns
Microsoft Windows Software Engineer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 22:02:29 -0400
No Name wrote:
>
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2000 06:28:34 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis said:
> >No Name wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 19 Sep 2000 17:34:29 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis said:
> >> >Chad Myers wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> "No Name" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >> news:8q7kvn$jht$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >>
> >> >> > As said in a previous message, the US restricts ownership of any
> >> >> > Telecommunications company to US citizens, so that in
> >> >> > practical terms means that an UK (or any other company
> >> >> > form any other country for that matter) company can not
> >> >> > build a transatlantic link because there would be no way they
> >> >> > could market it in the US.
> >> >>
> >> >> So? Who says they have to market it in the U.S. The whole point of
> >> >> this thread is why aren't Europeans trying to make life better for
> >> >> themselves rather than waiting for America to do it for them?
> >> >>
> >> >> I still don't see any proof as to why European companies CANNOT
> >> >> or are RESTRICTED FROM building such a link. The money they made
> >> >> from Europe alone would pay for the link.
> >> >
> >> >Europeans are mostly stuck in the " they won't let me get a bigger
> >> >slice of the pie" mentality...whereas Americans say, "Hey, I'll just
> >> >go out and bake a WHOLE new pie for myself."
> >> >
> >>
> >> Untrue and unfair: the mobile phone revolution was started in Europe,
> >
> >Because the landlines suck, and it's easier to get around your
> >overly burdensom government overhead.
>
> And in which sense does that diminsh the fact I stated before?
Maybe because European industrialists are slightly more clueful than
you.
>
> Whatever the reason, that does not make false my initial statement.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >> the digital TV was invented in Japan, unfortunately in both
> >
> >
> >Exactly when was Japan towed to Europe?
>
> Never, but I mentioned them to emphasize how new technologies
> developed outside the US have an unfair disadvantage to compete
> against US companies in the US market.
Considering that I never made such an argument, why are you
arguing against an argument never made?
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
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"
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
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
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.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
their behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
