Linux-Advocacy Digest #374, Volume #29 Sun, 1 Oct 00 00:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop (Tobyn Baugher)
Re: Why I hate Windows... ("James Stutts")
Re: SE is simply unstable!!! ("Hello")
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop ("James Stutts")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes ("Joe R.")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes ("Joe R.")
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) ("Colin R.
Day")
Re: Why I hate Windows... ("Todd")
Re: Why I hate Windows... ("Todd")
Re: Why I hate Windows... ("Todd")
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Jim
Richardson)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Jim
Richardson)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Jim
Richardson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tobyn Baugher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Date: 1 Oct 2000 02:27:52 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> There is a lot of hype about Linux. I use it to learn a bit about Unix
> at home. But as a desktop, Win2k is really years ahead and has
> numerous high quality apps. It is also very stable.
Honestly, I had an opinion somewhere along those same lines, and I still
can definitely understand where you're coming from. I, unlike so many,
don't think Bill should be burned at the stake and utterance of the word
Microsoft should be added to the law books as a capital offense. I'll
probably never think that way, either :).
> I would really like to know why anyone would prefer Linux as a
> desktop? Reasons such as "Win2k is made by the Evil Empire are not
> really valid".
For me it was a simple realization. I sat around writing code on notepad
forever, then I progressed to UltraEdit, then I got my hands on NTemacs.
>From then on I was doing everything in Emacs. Same thing happened and I
ended up using NcFTP's DOS port for most things. Then I found myself
SSH'ing to my Linux box to check my mail using my new best friend mutt
and to GaTech's server to read my news using Tin. Finally I looked at
myself in the mirror, realized I was using three boxes to do what I
could easily do with one (more efficiently, at least to me), and missing
out on a nifty, and actually powerful command line in the process.
> Linux is a promising product, and I suppose it needs its supporters.
> But for the rest of us, we just want to be productive.
I guess different people have different methods of achieving their
optimal level of productivity. Certainly no harm in that. In fact, I'd
consider the uniqueness a blessing. Enjoy Win2k, it's pretty neat from
what I've seen.
Toby
--
Tobyn Baugher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (unlewp@aim, 14281524@icq, trb@efnet)
http://www.cartoonviolence.net/~trb/
------------------------------
From: "James Stutts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why I hate Windows...
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 21:49:26 -0500
"D. Spider" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> It appears that on Sat, 30 Sep 2000 15:49:23 -0500, in
> comp.os.linux.advocacy "James Stutts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Chris Sherlock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >>
> >> James Stutts wrote:
> >> >
> >> > "D. Spider" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >> > > And the DOS (renamed "Win9x" then renamed "WinME") line is less
> >> > > commercial than the NT line?
> >> >
> >> > Sure it is. It costs quite a bit less than NT. You do get what you
pay
> >> > for.
> >>
> >> I pay hardly anything for Linux and I have an *extremely* stable O/S! I
> >> guess that *I* got what I paid for.
> >
> >If the application support you need is available for Linux, then great
for
> >you. If I need a stable
> >OS to run a commercial engineering package on, the cost-effective choice
is
>
> "Commercial Engineering" - we are talking AutoCAD or something
> similar?
AutoCAD, Master Series and the like.
>
> There are a number of good reasons why good Free applications like
> that lag the more commonly needed ones, you are probably aware of
> them. However, there is no good reason why commercial programs can't
Free applications isn't what I'm talking about and actually there is a good
reason.
Market share and perception. That is changing, slowly. MSC/NASTRAN
is now available on Linux.
> run on Free Operating Systems. AutoCAD started on Unix as I
> understand, and first ported to DOS, then abandoned the original
Actually, I don't think it started with Unix. Neither did it start with
DOS,
although it has been awhile since I read Walker's "AutoDesk papers".
> platforms, in response to the shifting market. They may well switch
> back if the OSS platforms continue to grow as a market share. From a
Porting AutoCAD at this stage would be a major effort.
> technical point of view there are big advantages. There are some
> programs like that available for OSS platforms already, depending on
> what your needs are, of course. There is LinuxCAD for instance, and I
> have heard very good things about it. If Autodesk doesn't produce a
You must not have read the reviews in LJ on the subject of "LinuxCAD".
> good port soon, they may find they have lost their market.
I seriously doubt that.
>
>
> >NT (currently). OS
> >prices are FAR lower than application prices, at least in my industry.
> >When the applications
> >that I need move to Linux (or far better: FreeBSD) I'll switch. It's all
> >about the applications.
> >
> >If you think NT is somehow expensive, I suggest you look at commercial
Unix
> >prices.
>
> *nods* NTs initial purchase price is cheap compared to the likes of
Not just initial purchase price. Support (even the minimal stuff expected
when
you purchase from the likes of Dell) is still VERY high.
> Solaris, AIX or HP-UX, in more ways than one. However, OSS systems
> (like Linux and *BSD) lack very little in comparison these days, and
> commercial unix vendors are rapidly moving to them. As they do, one
Really? SGI sells Linux platforms, but IRIX isn't going away.
> can only expect that the high end commercial apps for Unix will be
> moving with them - a bright prospect for people in your position.
As long as we wouldn't still have to pay the traditional "unix tax".
JCS
------------------------------
From: "Hello" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.windows98
Subject: Re: SE is simply unstable!!!
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 02:51:52 GMT
I have had less trouble with SE than plain ol' 98.
Although, if you're really having trouble, try downloading 98 lite from
98lite.net
You can use the older GUIs of windows if you really think that's the case...
i doubt it though.
A great memory management application is "Cacheman", and I've only seen
improvements. You can download it from hotfiles.com
Another issue is that when you installed SE it probably has active desktop
on. that can really slow you down...so turn it off! PS - 98lite can get rid
of IE... but you'll see that it's not IE that's really giving you the
grief...
just some tips--
hello
"George" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:nIpB5.4060$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I don't know about Linux, I have never tried it.
> I'm a very small business and really don't need anything other than
> something that will run my simple Quick Books business program, an Email
> program, and a web browser. W98 did a fairly good job, but had problems.
SE
> crashes 5 times more than 98 did. When I use Netscape rather than IE, I
have
> considerably less crashes unless I crank up an MS application such as MS
> Word .
>
> The bottom line is that SE is simply unstable. I don't care what anyone
says
> in it's defense. When you can't run a simple home based business program
on
> a OS without it constantly crashing, there is something wrong.
>
> When I first purchased my new Dell Inspiration 7500 series lap top, the
only
> software it had other than Norton AntiVirus, which I immediately removed
> without even once using it, was MS software. Even before I installed
> QuickBooks 6, the system locked up while I was using IE5.
>
> If Linux or someone else had an affordable OS for the general public and
> "could market it," I'm sure that I'm not the only one who's business they
> would have.
>
> I agree totally that if an OS can't run well written software
"particularly
> it's own," it isn't a very good OS...
> --
> George
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> "Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Blacknight) wrote in
> > <lq1B5.3924$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > >Yes you are correct. Windows 98 doesn't NEED TSR's any more but alot of
> > >computers have then loaded regardless.b Maybe the term I was looking
for
> > >was backgroup applications. Anyway the more programs you have running
on
> > >start up increases the probably of a crash. Anyway what I was getting
at
> > >is that people need to realize that the majority of time there is a
> > >crash it doesn't have anything to do with the OS.
> >
> > What you're saying then is that you shouldn't run too many applications
on
> > Windows 98 SE in case they crash it? Isn't that the whole point of using
a
> > computer?!?
> >
> > Our Linux Advocate friends here would say that Windows 98 SE can't be a
> > very good operating system if it can't hack it running a few
applications
> > in the background (something Linux does very well).
> >
> > --
> > Pete Goodwin
> > ---
> > Coming soon, Kylix, Delphi on Linux.
> > My success does not require the destruction of Microsoft.
> >
>
>
------------------------------
From: "James Stutts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 21:54:00 -0500
"Osugi Sakae" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8r63s8$bri$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
<snip>
> BTW, the fact that you view Linux as a "product" and not as an operating
> system says quite a bit about you.
Actually, Linux isn't an operating system. Just a kernel.
JCS
------------------------------
From: "Joe R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 02:56:41 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Donovan Rebbechi) wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Sep 2000 11:04:42 GMT, Bob Hauck wrote:
>
> >No, but unlike other investments, you get use value out of the house
> >while you live in it.
> > That needs to be considered in the win-lose
> >equation.
>
> What it really comes down to is whether your costs as a home owner are
> more expensive than paying rent. And that depends on how much rent you're
> paying and how fast you pay off the loan. My rent is about 4K / year,
> the interest payments on a decent house in my area would be somewhat more.
That's very location specific.
We're renting right now while our house is being built. When we move in
next week, our monthly payment (after adjusting for tax benefits) will
be lower than the rent on a house 2/3 the size.
--
Regards,
Joe R.
------------------------------
From: "Joe R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 02:59:00 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Sat, 30 Sep 2000 11:04:42 GMT, Bob Hauck wrote:
> >
> > >No, but unlike other investments, you get use value out of the house
> > >while you live in it.
> > > That needs to be considered in the win-lose
> > >equation.
> >
> > What it really comes down to is whether your costs as a home owner are
> > more expensive than paying rent. And that depends on how much rent
> > you're
> > paying and how fast you pay off the loan. My rent is about 4K / year,
> > the interest payments on a decent house in my area would be somewhat
> > more.
>
> When you rent 100% of your money goes out the window. There's no
> comparison
> between renting and owning.
> Factor in appreciation, tax deductions and there's alot of places in the
> U.S. where ownership is profitable. Where I live, each monthly house
> payment
> is less than my return in appreciation and deductions. I'm getting paid
> to
> live in my house.
That's nice.
But don't assume it's the same everywhere.
We lived in our last house 7 years and sold it for exactly what we paid
-- even after $20 K in capital improvements. So, appreciation was
negative. Our payments were about 90% interest (which doesn't get us
anything, but a tax deduction) and 10% payment on principal. The rent in
that area would have been considerably less than we paid in mortgage and
taxes, so we'd have been just as well off renting.
Our current location is exactly the opposite. Rents are so high, we're
easily better off buying.
--
Regards,
Joe R.
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 23:02:27 -0400
Richard wrote:
> "Colin R. Day" wrote:
> > Richard wrote:
> > > My aim is that users learn as much as they want to learn about the OS,
> > > and that they do so as easily and efficiently as possible.
> >
> > And what OS allows this?
>
> None. And of course, that's the entire point.
>
> > > are, how to make /all kinds/ of processes yourself, etc.
> >
> > And what OS does this?
>
> > And what OS does this better than UNIX/Linux/BSD?
>
> I'm not going to bother getting in the way of your worship, defense,
> and apologetics of Unix beyond saying that you sound exactly like a
> Windows zealot.
Ok, you post here with a complaint of an alleged defect in UNIX/Linux.
By your own admission, no other OS lacks this defect. Nevertheless,
you post to a Linux newsgroup complaining about it. I smell troll.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why I hate Windows...
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 10:57:49 +0800
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8qj4rv$ric$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, James Stutts wrote:
> >
> >"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >> Spoken like a true astroturfer, not a user. Because win98se is so
> >unstable,
> >> it is necessary to save files every minute or two (particularly for
those
> >
> >Actually, the better approach is to not use a home operating system
(Win98)
> >in
> >a corporate environment. NT was designed for this. While not perfect,
it
> >is
> >far more stable than Win98.
> >
>
> Very true. We've now got a web front-end for the exchange server so that
> I don't have to use Outlook any more.
Ugh... I hate web front ends to email... such as hotmail. Makes everything
so difficult to use and slow.
Outlook 2000 is an awesome mail client... hell, I even like the new
assistants (the kitty cat comes to mind). I know it sounds trivial, but I
actually am growing attached to it. :)
Anyway, I guess if using Linux is more important that having a decent email
package...
> Whilst I'd be happy with Imap, this
> does mean that I can do 90% of my 'day work' on linux, with maybe only 10%
> requiring the Win98 machine - the joy of a stable platform.
Well, I guess if you are comparing Linux to 98, Linux would be very stable
:) Personally, I don't know how you can even stand 98. I am using Windows
2000 and it is about a bazillion times more stable than 98 or ME. I
completely erased 98 and ME once I got Windows 2000. All of my hardware is
supported on 2000 (why does it support more hardware than ME?? ), and even
games run on it in some cases better than the 'ol 9x platform.
> I can see that
> if you were really stuck with Outlook then NT ought to be a better bet.
Nah, 2000 is a lot better than NT.
> It's interesting how my 'work' requirements are now starting to go through
> what my 'home' requirements went through a couple of years ago. I dumped
> the windows partition off my home machine at that time because I hadn't
> booted it for about 4 months and wanted the space (I had originally and
> very foolishly assigned 1G to windows and 600M to linux the previous year.
> I was a newbie - I didn't know :)
Wow... you are worried about disk space? I just bought two IBM deskstar
46.1 MB drives... no more space worries. They are so cheap, fast and
reliable. Amazing how drive space technology is surpassing MS' ability to
give us more software :)
> I think the interesting measure will be how long it takes for me to come
> to the point where I no longer need to boot Windows for work, either.
> There seems to be a kind of race between viable linux based desktops and
> the 'network appliances' offering alternative approaches (such as web-
> based front-ends to served apps).
Hmmm... I haven't found any 'network' appliances that make my email easier
yet or anything else I do on the computer for that matter. Most of my work
is development (SQL server + ASP pages + a little C++ when you need fast COM
objects), and of course Office 2000 and blah blah blah. I am however,
looking forward to the HP Journada 720 -- check out the stats. on that
PDA... 2D hardware resolution on a palmtop! hehe... it *would* be cool to
get a linux port on that if possible :)
-Todd
> --
> Mark - remove any ham to reply.
> (Killed (sigserv (This sig is reserved by another user)))
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why I hate Windows...
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 11:05:48 +0800
"Roberto Selbach Teixeira" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>>>> "James" == James Stutts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> James> Sure it is. It costs quite a bit less than NT. You do get
> James> what you pay for.
>
>
> Oh, my god! Do you, really? I think Win98 is *way* too expensive for
> what it offers, which is basically nothing.
One of the most expensive parts of 98 is that it needs to run on a myriad of
hardware systems... and install flawlessly with plug and play ability.
If you didn't have to worry about this (the hardware was known), then the
price would be far lower.
Linux is a good example of this. The base OS may be OK, but it has lousy
hardware support, horrible installation and setup, it is non-intuitive in
almost every step of the installation process, and very user-unfriendly.
Now I'm not saying that Linux sucks, but merely that it is very hard to get
it set up and working. 98 is vastly superior in this regard.
So, you may not think that is anything special, but it costs a hell of a lot
of money in development costs and coordination to make sure 98 is flawless
in this regard. It is perhaps more important to MS than stability -- if the
common consumer can't install it, then stability means nothing at all.
> Think about it, what do
> you do with a computer with only windows on it?
1) Do my development work on the best dev. tools available (InterDev and
Visual)
2) Do my office work on the best productivity platform (Office 2000)
3) Play the best games available (MS Allegiance, Diablo 2, AOK, StarLancer,
and soon Tribes2 !! -- yah)
4) Surf the internet with the best browser out their (IE 5.5)
What would I do with Linux?
Watch my uptime counter? No thanks. I have 'uptime' in Windows 2000 and I
never have crashed with Win2K yet. If it let's me down, I'd probably look
at OSX or BeOS. Linux is a little bit unrefined at this point. However,
Linux is fun to play around with.
-Todd
>
> --
> Roberto Selbach Teixeira
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why I hate Windows...
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 11:13:58 +0800
"Chris Sherlock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> James Stutts wrote:
> >
> > "D. Spider" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [snip]
>
> > > And the DOS (renamed "Win9x" then renamed "WinME") line is less
> > > commercial than the NT line?
> >
> > Sure it is. It costs quite a bit less than NT. You do get what you pay
> > for.
>
> I pay hardly anything for Linux and I have an *extremely* stable O/S! I
> guess that *I* got what I paid for.
I used to think that way too until I realized that 'time really is money'.
At my age, 31, time goes by way to fast, and I don't want to muck around
with an OS for hours to try to get it do a simple task. Windows 2000 solves
this for me.
Paying $300 for an OS is nothing to me if it saves me time and frustration.
After all, I only have so much hair I can lose to stress.
When I was younger, I played around with OS/2 a lot (*very frustrating*),
but it was fun. I enjoyed trying to make the OS what *I* wanted it to be.
And I argued on .advocacy for OS/2 against WinNT 3.1 at the time.
At one point, I actually installed NT so that I could find its weak points
against OS/2 -- I would be a much smarter and more convincing advocate.
What I found out is what the NT guys were saying was mostly true -- NT was
very stable.
Today, I have installed RedHat 6.2 and I am not very impressed to say the
least. Windows 2000 is far more functional and polished than Linux and is
very stable.
I guess I just don't have a reason to use Linux... hmmmm...
-Todd
>
> [snip]
>
> Chris
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 10:50:23 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 16:40:48 GMT,
Richard, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> El lun, 25 sep 2000, Richard escribió:
>> >Gee, if *I* need financial support that tends to imply
>> >that I'm not in a position to give it, does it not?
>>
>> Ever heard of venture capital?
>
>I'd rather slit my own wrists.
>
>Ever heard of the immorality of rents on software?
What do the two statements have to do with each other?
>
>> >I didn't ask for help and I never expected any. Moral support
>> >would've been nice and I got some. Mostly, I came to confirm
>> >my knowledge of Linuxers as infantile and for a while there
>> >I was pleasantly surprised.
>>
>> If you don't need the help, don't whine about not having help.
>
>I didn't say I didn't nead it you stupid fuck, I said that I
>never expected it from this newsgroup.
oh, namecalling is sooo mature...
>> >As for acting "like an even remotely nice guy", I suppose
>> >I should do this because COLA is so widely renowned for
>> >being a pleasant and friendly group, especially to advocates
>> >of OSes not Unix, right?
>>
>> No, you should do it because it's the right thing to do.
>> If you don't think it's the right thing to do, don't whine if others are not
>> nice.
>
>I have no moral duty to be "nice" to others. And for the reasons
>that I explained above, I certainly don't have any ethical duty
>to do so.
And noone has the obligation to be nice to you, to shut up when they
say something you don't like, or not to call you a petulant child.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 13:30:25 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 25 Sep 2000 21:07:13 +0200,
Matthias Warkus, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>It was the Sun, 24 Sep 2000 18:00:48 -0400...
>....and Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Matthias Warkus wrote:
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Property is not some kind of God-given right. Like all your other
>> > rights, it is a limited right granted to you by the constitution of
>> > the state.
>> >
>>
>> In what sense are rights given to one by the government? In the sense
>> that government can refrain from siezing it?
>
>Next time pay attention. The constitution is not the government.
>
I can't comment on the German constitution, but here in the US, the
constitution grants no rights, it merely affirms some that exist,
indpendant of the document.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 10:39:31 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 00:38:48 GMT,
Richard, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>
>> El lun, 25 sep 2000, Richard escribió:
>
>> >What I do have is a bunch of ignorant people acting like
>
>> >petulant toddlers and saying things like "I doubt you'll
>> >ever implement anything",
>>
>> Well, why can't they doubt?
>
>Who cares whether they doubt? The question is whether they
>have anything to gain from "expressing" doubt. They don't.
>They do have something that they can potentially gain if they
>just shut the hell up. This is of course if you look only at people's
>rational interests and not "I'll feel like an idiot for having used
>Unix for all these years." The only rational explanation is that
>they have a vested interest in the status quo and are deliberately
>seeeking to destroy anything that would be a danger to it. But
>since I'm not any kind of a serious threat to Unix dominance,
>I think they're just being infantile.
>
>What possible reason would someone have for saying "Good
>luck with your project" and "you're a kook" in the very same
>post?
>
>Note that most people /do/ realize that they have nothing
>to gain from expressing doubt and they *do* just shut up.
note that you have nothing to gain from antagonizing people,
yet you continue to do so. Petulence?
>
>
>> > "It's useless anyways",
>>
>> Sounds like honest opinion.
>
>Wrong. It's just arrogance, ignorance and self-rationalization.
>People who have bought something will rationalize away features
>of competing products which they only find out about after the
>fact as useless in order to avoid feeling like chumps.
>
>What *possible* basis in fact do they have for judging anything?
>About the only thing anyone on the NG can solidly conclude about
>my design is that it's OO, Orthogonally Persistent, not C++ and
>is based on multiple types of bidirectional links. That's it.
>
Perhaps it means that
a) You have done a much poorer job of describing the ideas than you think.
b) You have done an excellent job of describing the ideas, but others
think that the ideas stink for one reason or another.
>
>> Then why do you care? If you don't want to talk about your project,
>> don't mention it.
>
>The subject of design was brought up. What particular design project
>do you think I am most familiar with? Come on, take a wild guess ....
>
>
>> >Do people with brain damage count? Because beating an infant before
>> >three years of age causes visible scarring and neurological damage.
>
>> And that has to do with aesthetic principles?
>
>*DO* people with brain damage count? Yes or no?
>Simle question that requires only a simple answer.
>If you say no then we can move on. If you say yes
>then I clarify my original statement by prepending
>"After you factor out ..." and we can move on.
>Now, answer the question or drop the subject.
>
>
>> >Do I seriously need to prepend "After you factor out all psychological
>> >damage caused during early development" to "there exists universal
>> >aesthetic principles underlying human perception of beauty"?
>>
>> If you say that a majority of people have brain damage, and present
>> their disagreement with your own perception of beauty as proof,
>> you /are/ a kook.
>
>A majority of people have psychological damage. In the advanced nations
>at least, a majority of people no longer have brain damage. But at certain
>points in history, newborn infants were brutally beaten and it is reasonable
>to expect brain damage to result, that much is an independently verifiable
>fact. Now, that a majority of people still suffer from psychological damage
>is also a provable fact but if you don't even accept brain damage then I'm
>not getting into psychological damage with you.
So you know what beauty is, 'cause you're pure and undamaged, obviously anyone
who disagrees with your idea of beauty is a psycho... Neat, what's that phrase
again? ah yes, circular argument. Thanks for the example.
>And since you're being deliberately obtuse on the connection between
>child abuse, brain damage and aesthetics, I seriously doubt that this part
>of the discussion can ever progress in any useful manner.
>
>
>> >Tattoos will never be considered as beautiful as unbroken skin.
>>
>> I like a nice tattoo. It's like a highight. Like permanent makeup.
>
>Does "nice" imply "small" so that it's practically invisible and
>does *not* in fact break the skin on a large scale?
>
>
>> >The fact that humans cannot routinely separate out all the
>> >aspects of physical attraction into separate components means
>> >nothing.
>>
>> Blah. It means everything. If the components can not be perceived,
>> the components make no difference.
>
>Great. Now tell that to a quantum physicist!
>
You found more than three that agree? :)
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
