Linux-Advocacy Digest #622, Volume #25 Tue, 14 Mar 00 04:13:08 EST
Contents:
Re: What might really help Linux (a developer's perspective) (Bob Hauck)
Linux On-Line Training (Nico Coetzee)
Re: Humor: Beer? ("Rich Cloutier")
Re: US politics (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: which OS is best? (ATG)
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re: (Kar-Han Tan)
Re: LINUX = COMUNISM more... (Truckasaurus)
Re: Copying linux to a larger drive ? (Marada C. Shradrakaii)
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re: Darwin or Linux
(JEDIDIAH)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: What might really help Linux (a developer's perspective)
Date: 14 Mar 2000 05:54:33 GMT
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
On Mon, 13 Mar 2000 11:59:01 -0500, Robert Morelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Well, let's go from there. I still need some manner of converting
>keystrokes into text files. What UNIX application that is capable of
>drag and drop do you suggest I use?
Hell, I don't even use DnD under Windows. Maybe that's because I don't
like to keep all my documents right on the desktop...too much clutter.
So if I have to go drilling down, it is immaterial whether I do it inside
a file open dialog or in explorer.
Anyway, as far as Emacs not having it, I rather suspect it is because the
Emacs userbase doesn't give a damn whether it has DnD.
IOW, I think you've probably picked a feature here that even most Windows
users don't use much. One of those things that makes another feature
check in the reviews that hardly anybody actually uses.
>New UI ideas require new programming paradigms. If you want to be able
>to embed a worksheet in a wordprocessing document, you need some kind of
>desktop component object model, like ActiveX.
Here, I think the problem is that the marketing is way out in front of the
technical reality on the ground. While it may be fun and cool to embed
documents this way, and it is easy to think of good uses for it, there are
lots and lots of problems with it that simply haven't been solved. Users
who try this tend to get bitten early and often and soon quit.
The problems are severe enough, IMO, that this paradigm is pretty useless
for serious work, particularly if you start allowing linkages between
desktops and don't have adequate tools to manage the links, find out what
links exist, back them up, and keep track of revisions. Yet NONE of the
purveyors of this technology seem to think such tools are important, or
else it is a hard problem that none of them have solved. Either way,
relying on this technology for anything important is foolish in my view.
Even using embedded links on the _same_ machine can become an exercise in
frustration when you refer to that document six months later and half the
links are broken because you have updated or removed the referenced
documents. Ask anybody who has had to maintain a large web site how easy
it is without automated tools. At least there _are_ tools for that.
>You know what? I agee and I don't usually use those IDEs. I actually
>prefer using Emacs together with command line tools! The integrated
>editors don't usually match Emacs in flexibility, etc., and on the whole
>Emacs is preferable. But that's me and that's partly because I've been
>using Emacs for 20 years. It's perfectly legitimate for a serious
>developer to demand the features present in a full IDE.
What makes you think you are unique? The thing you are missing is that
serious developers as a group in fact have not demanded a "full IDE" as it
is sold today. I think by and large they would prefer that the vendor fix
bugs first before they add features. Once that's done they want features
like version control, diagramming tools, clear and accurate documentation,
and decent libraries rather than wizards to paste over the holes in bad
libraries and "help" that looks nice but can't ever admit to any bugs or
limitations.
Two things have got us on the IDE road we're on. One is the exponential
increase in complexity of the Windows API. You pretty much have to have
wizards and such because nobody can keep all of the API's straight in
their head. MS is compensating for lousy API design with wizards and IDE
features.
The other thing driving IDE design is marketing. The compiler vendors
want to expand their market by selling to new programmers. They also need
to appeal to those who sign purchase orders, who are usually not the
programmers. Marketing thus requires more "features" with every release
even to the extent that bugs don't get fixed. The features that do get
added tend to be the ones that marketing thinks will help less-skilled
programmers use fancy features of the platform.
I'm not saying IDE's are bad. I used to be a big booster of them until
they got so monstrous that I started feeling like I was driving the Death
Star by using a long, skinny, stick to poke at buttons I couldn't see (at
which point I switched to command-line compilers and Emacs). My point
being that the features IDE's currently have aren't what most of the
experienced developers I know would have put in.
The IDE's are marketed to newbies and have newbie-friendly features
because they are the growth market. Non-newbies continue to buy them
because there is no other choice.
I guess what I'm getting at here is that I personally question the value
of many of these features that you think are so important. They are often
barely functional experiments but you are speaking as if the world is lost
unless Unix adopts them instantly. If Unix does that, it will have all of
the brokenness of Windows soon enough. There are some good ideas in
there, sure, but lots more thought and experimentation is needed before
the stuff is complete and reliable enough for "real work". In my opinion,
many features of Windows apps fall into this category. They sound cool,
but aren't really usable for their intended purpose because of the mad
rush to get them to market.
Ironically, DnD is a technology that basically works and doesn't fall into
the above category. All that needs to be done is standardize the
protocol. KDE and Gnome are doing that. Motif tried, but has become
irrelevant in the Open Source world for licensing reasons.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.bobh.org/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 07:56:01 +0200
From: Nico Coetzee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Linux On-Line Training
I was especially interested in all the negative comments about Linux in
this ng, and found that one problem was that Windows users find it
difficult to make the switch from Windows to Linux.
I developed a site dedicated to End User orientation of the KDE system
on Linux. I feel that KDE might be the best alternative to make ex
Windows users feel at home. The project is not completely finished, bu
you are welcome to make a turn and have a look around.
If you feel it is worth it, please suggest the site to a Windows user...
Site adr: http://nicc777.tripod.com/luc/index.htm
Cheers
Nico
------------------------------
From: "Rich Cloutier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Humor: Beer?
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 01:04:27 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8aj7r1$2mc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <38cc7fca@news>,
> "Rich Cloutier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Linux Beer:
> <snip>
>
> You forgot "less filling".
>
> -andrew
I'm not too sure about that. By the time i tried Gnome porter, KDE stout,
and all the development and runtime ales to support every toy I thought I
might like to try, I was much fuller than I ever was drinking Windows 9x
beer. Although, beer for beer, yes it is less filling, but they were so good
I drank more, got more filled up, and got a much nicer buzz!
--
Rich C.
"Have you supported a new Linux user today?"
To reply by email, remove the "abc_" from my address.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: US politics
Date: 14 Mar 2000 06:27:34 GMT
On 14 Mar 2000 04:15:11 GMT, Steve Mading wrote:
>I doubt that the number is fixed per nationality (although I admit that
>I don't know what the policy actually is). If the number were fixed
I believe you already followed up and wrote about this.
Suffice it to say, my girlfriend's immigration lawyer disagrees with you
>per nationality then places with tiny populations like Luxembourg
>would have many unused visas
You are not understanding my point. The quota is a ceiling. You are right
that many countries do not hit this ceiling. That doesn't mean that it's
easy for these people to get in because they still need to meet a lot of
strict criteria. It just means that they won't be shut out because there
"wasn't enough room".
The only countries that do have an excess are India, China and Mexico IIRC.
>Mexico has over three times the population of Canada, so there *should*
>be more visas from there, proportionally.
In practice, there are, because the Canadians fall under the max.
I think the point is that the US wants to take in a balanced group of
immigrants. They don't want to have 80% of the immigrants coming from
any one country.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: ATG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 22:22:16 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
My list is even shorter;
2nd Best OS - WinXX
1st Best OS - ANY OTHER OS!
Bob Lyday wrote:
> My list (PC only):
>
> 1. Amiga!
> 2. OS/2!
> 3. BeOS!
> 4. NextStep!
> 5. Linux!
> 6. Mac OS 9!
> (all are great)
>
> Since all LoseDoze sucks, none of it gets listed!
>
> Anybody else got a list?
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: Kar-Han Tan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re:
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 01:39:14 -0600
On Mon, 13 Mar 2000, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
> It's good engineering practice. It keeps functionally
> orthogonal bits of the 'device' from interfering with
> each other as much as possible. It makes the design
> more debuggable, more maintainable and more extensible.
>
> I would actually be somewhat surprised if their code
> weren't already nearly sufficiently abstracted anways.
>
> If they can't just yank away the computational bulk from
> their system then they've been indulging in some rather
> sloppy engineering.
so.. why should they bother ? :-) their customers buy the software
anyway, sloppy or not, and that about justifies anything for them, I
imagine.
> >but that's how Apple is creating demand for Quicktime (and since they own
> >Quicktime, create demand for their services and products). Wonder why the
> >Episode I trailer is only available in Quicktime ?
>
> This is akin to having a chapter from the latest King novel
> in Word format. It really doesn't add much to the experience
> of consuming the media but, it does help create artificial
> demand for their viewers and media generation products.
Is it any better to have it in StarOffice format ?
> >so, yeah, you can create your own digital media architecture and movie
> >player, but in the mean time if you want to view the cool trailers, you
> >need to get Quicktime, and for that you need Apple.
>
> This is a completely artificial constraint.
'Artificial' seems to be a subjective matter here, but the effect is real
- its making lots of people want some form of Quicktime. Before free
alternatives become available, people actually would have to get it from
Apple.
> >are you saying they are deliberately restricting Quicktime to mac and
> >windows, so the free unixen look like server-only or command-line-only
> >operating systems?
>
> They are certainly deliberatly restricting it.
>
> That much is indisputable. Whether or not it's a matter of
> intent or simply neglect doesn't matter. Either condition
> demonstrates why locking yourselves into 'owned' data
> interchange facilities a really BAD idea.
while I'm not sure how someone can 'deliberately' do something without the
'intent', I think the logic is plain and simple: Apple wants to profit
from what they have, and they have to focus their resources where it is
most clearly profitable, and right now that is in MacOS X (and new
hardware). Before a MacOS X version of Quicktime stabilizes, they are
simply not in a position to 'contribute' Quicktime to other platforms.
> >when and where did they claim to have written all the code they are
> >opening ?
>
> When they claimed they were 'opening' Darwin and when they
> slapped their own copyright on it and a licence that makes
> all derivative works propery of Apple and allows Apple to
> revoke end user licences.
well, they are allowing access to Darwin, which they claim is the core of
MacOS X, so that's 'opening'. As for the licence, its perhaps not in the
'free software' spirit, but they never claimed to be 'freeing' the
software, did they?
------------------------------
From: Truckasaurus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers
Subject: Re: LINUX = COMUNISM more...
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 07:52:27 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Mar 2000 08:52:43 GMT, Truckasaurus wrote:
>
> >> Where ? A dictionary isn't sufficient.
> >
> >Fill the gaps left open by dictionaries with brainpower.
>
> Are you implying that the definition you give is sufficient or not ?
Yes ;-)
Since the original poster didn't bother to mention what def of communism
he was referring to (because he probably was a troll anyway), a reader
of this posting and thread is welcome to fill in this vacuum with a
definition that seems appropriate.
My def is sufficient for this discussion.
If you pull out a definition that says:
"Communism is an order of society, where everything (not just means
of production) is publically available (not publically owned), like
in the case of the Linux community", then of course your obscure def
of communism would apply to the Linux community.
But it wouldn't apply to the general behaviour of communism, since I
(as an individual) still can _own_ an instance of Linux.
available
> >If all property is publically owned, then why are people paid? Money
is
>
> One could equally ask "why do you pay to use a public hospital" or
> "why do you pay fees to go to a state University".
Because it's publically _available_. The treatment that I receive cannot
be owned by everybody in my society - it is applied to me only. If
I get cancer treatment, do you think it would make any sense that a
bunch of people ran around telling that the proces of radiating my body
last wednesday belongs to them? No! What belongs to the public is
*the means of producing* that particular radiation.
Quit this 'everything is publically owned'; it doesn't make sense, and
cannot be checked/controlled. It's public ownersh�p of *means of
production*.
Anyway, I've never paid for hospital services, or for going to
university... Public in DK <> public in US(?).
> >So 'all property is publically owned' and 'each person is paid' are
> >mutual exclusive in this context. The definition you bring up doesn't
> >work...
>
> It is perfectly consistent.
No it isn't. In a society where everything belongs to you, you don't
need money! " Hello, I would like to buy my own hamburger... Here is
a 10 dollar bill, which was actually yours too to begin with.
Therefore you can keep the change. I'll just take that guys wallet,
because it's also mine anyway." Continue ad nausea.
How do you figure this is consistent?
> from the communist manifesto:
>
> "In this sense, the theory of the Communists may he summed up in the
single
> sentence: Abolition of private property. "
Lousy way of telling what you mean; that my hamburger belongs to
5,000,000 other persons the second before I eat it, does not make sence.
I guess that 'private property' implicitly means private ownership of
the means of production - if you can produce, you can make money, if
everybody can produce, everybody can make money. And if everybody can
make money, everybody can buy their own hamburgers, and there is no need
to declare that the hamburger I'm going to eat belongs to 5,000,000
people, which is impossible to administer anyway.
If a hungry man came and asked me if he could have a bite of my
hamburger, I would be a bad communist if I told him no. But it is
still my hamburger.
The clever way: Joint ownership of means of production.
--
"It's the best $50 bucks I ever spent. I would have paid five
times that for what your new you packet allowed me to do!!!"
-- K. Waterbury, CA
Martin A. Boegelund.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marada C. Shradrakaii)
Subject: Re: Copying linux to a larger drive ?
Date: 14 Mar 2000 08:06:25 GMT
>Howdy, since this tends to be one of the most active Linux groups I thought
>I'd ask here.
>What's the best way to copy Linux from one hard drive (4GB) to another (8GB)
Assuming you have the discs for your distribution, I'd lean towards just doing
a fresh install on the new drive (also an excellent opportunity to cut back
unused packages), then mounting the old drive somewhere, and copying your
personal stuff (/etc, /home) over. But this is just my attitude, based my
always having a Cheapbytes disc handy and usually doing a fresh install when a
new (preferred distro of the week) comes out.
--
Marada Coeurfuege Shra'drakaii
members.xoom.com/marada Colony name not needed in address.
DC2.Dw Gm L280c W+ T90k Sks,wl Cma-,wbk Bsu#/fl A+++ Fr++ Nu M/ O H++ $+ Fo++
R++ Ac+ J-- S-- U? I++ V+ Q++[thoughtspeech] Tc++
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re: Darwin or
Linux
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 08:02:27 GMT
On Tue, 14 Mar 2000 01:39:14 -0600, Kar-Han Tan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>On Mon, 13 Mar 2000, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>
>> It's good engineering practice. It keeps functionally
>> orthogonal bits of the 'device' from interfering with
>> each other as much as possible. It makes the design
>> more debuggable, more maintainable and more extensible.
>>
>> I would actually be somewhat surprised if their code
>> weren't already nearly sufficiently abstracted anways.
>>
>> If they can't just yank away the computational bulk from
>> their system then they've been indulging in some rather
>> sloppy engineering.
>
>so.. why should they bother ? :-) their customers buy the software
>anyway, sloppy or not, and that about justifies anything for them, I
>imagine.
They could ride the 'hype wave' by releasing qtlib with
minimal effort and cover all their bases at the same time.
>
>> >but that's how Apple is creating demand for Quicktime (and since they own
>> >Quicktime, create demand for their services and products). Wonder why the
>> >Episode I trailer is only available in Quicktime ?
>>
>> This is akin to having a chapter from the latest King novel
>> in Word format. It really doesn't add much to the experience
>> of consuming the media but, it does help create artificial
>> demand for their viewers and media generation products.
>
>Is it any better to have it in StarOffice format ?
No. I never implied that it was.
>
>> >so, yeah, you can create your own digital media architecture and movie
>> >player, but in the mean time if you want to view the cool trailers, you
>> >need to get Quicktime, and for that you need Apple.
>>
>> This is a completely artificial constraint.
>
>'Artificial' seems to be a subjective matter here, but the effect is real
>- its making lots of people want some form of Quicktime. Before free
Free alternatives are available. They just don't have nice
marketing and sales departments to back them up. The success
of Quicktime very likely parallels the success of NT within
the ranks of non-tech management.
[deletia]
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
