Linux-Advocacy Digest #244, Volume #27 Wed, 21 Jun 00 23:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day ("Christopher
Smith")
Re: Stupid idiots that think KDE is a Window Manager (Gary Hallock)
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (Charles Philip Chan)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (Charles Philip Chan)
Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Windows98 (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Peter Ammon)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Re: High School is out...here come the trolls...who can't accept the future.
Re: Stupid idiots that think KDE is a Window Manager (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Processing data is bad!
Re: What UNIX is good for. ("Colin R. Day")
Re: I've got reiserfs. Drestin, now bash Linux. ("Ferdinand V. Mendoza")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 12:02:32 +1000
"Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8ihpv9$fj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Not to mention the fact that they can be combined into one interface,
> with
> > > elements of both types present, as with Windows and its keyboard
> > shortcuts.
> > > It's only vague because you refuse to take it apart and identify each
> > > component as belonging to one class or the other. Instead you are
> calling
> > a
> > > "primarily" graphical interface a GUI and everything that goes along
> with
> > > it.
> >
> > It's vague because it's interdependant. If you take it apart and
describe
> > the parts then your description is not applicable to the whole.
>
> Of course it is. It is still a GUI even in the absence of keyboard
> shortcuts.
And is just as much a GUI with them, or in the absence of a mouse.
[chomp]
> > > It's only HALF a GUI: the output is GUI the input is CLI, because you
> have
> > > to know the shortcuts, or commands, to access the graphical elements.
> >
> > Which is somehow different to knowing you have to move and click the
mouse
> > *how*, exactly ?
>
> By moving the mouse and clicking buttons it immediately becomes evident
what
> the functions do. Trying to empirically discover the keyboard commands by
> hitting keys at random, especially in combination, is much more difficult.
> In this instance, help or knowledge is required.
But you don't need to. Keyboard commands are highlighted within the GUI by
underlined letters on controls and keyboard shortcuts listed in menues.
No more knowledge is needed than that which was needed to figure out hwo to
use a mouse in the first place.
> > What's the big different between the input device with 2 buttons, and
the
> > one with 102 ?
>
> one works with graphical feedback; the other does not. Clicking the mouse
> to obtain the proper result depends on WHERE the mouse pointer is located
on
> the screen.
And hitting the keys require hitting the right ones, the difference ?
You have to know where to click and you have to know what buttons to press.
> > > So how would you "tell" the machine where to focus?
> >
> > Well in the case of a dialog it would probably be focussed
automatically.
> > To switch focus you'd probably say something like the title of the
window.
> > I can't say I've put much thought into it - current technology is *way*
> too
> > immature to develop a usable voice control system.
>
> If you did, you'd realize that voice control is more conducive to
generating
> commands than visual cues, and that something like a retinal scanner would
> be a more appropriate input device for a GUI.
All interfaces use commands. With a voice controlled GUI you'd need a
system with enough programming smarts to be able to determine the context of
the command.
> > You certainly wouldn't be doing something like maneuvering a mouse
cursor
> > around with voice commands, that's just plain dumb - it'd be like using
a
> > mouse to pick out letters to enter commands into a CLI.
>
> My point exactly. :o)
But that's not how you'd use voice control in a GUI - *my* point exactly.
> > > To me, it is more
> > > natural to command the machine via voice commands, "Open file FOO in
> > folder
> > > BAR." or "Email file FOO to John Doe."
> >
> > There's no reason why you couldn't do that with a GUI.
>
> But _how_ exactly?
By giving the commands. The *computer* is smart enough to figure out what
the file FOO is, who John Doe is and what the email program is.
> Once you actually begin to think about it, it becomes
> unwieldy to manipulate a graphical interface with voice commands.
Only if you make it that way.
> > > While reading text may indeed be visual, speaking to a computer is
not.
> > > Words translate more readily into commands than they do to the "n"th
> item
> > in
> > > a list or a button in a specific place on the screen.
> >
> > That would be a really poor way to implement voice control. There's no
> > reason to do it like that even with the limits of today's technology.
>
> So you might say, "Menu....File.....open......documents
> folder.....proposals....foo.doc"?
>
> Or would you say "Open folder documents, subfolder proposals, file
FOO.doc"?
>
> Which one is more like a command?
They're *all* like commands, that's my point.
> > > Actually, all digital logic consists of a zero state (off) a one state
> > (on)
> > > and the gray area in between where the output is unpredictable.
> >
> > That output isn't unpredictable, it's ignored. Ergo the end product is
> one
> > of two things - a 1 or 0.
>
> No, it's not ignored. If you have a gate output that can be either a high
or
> a low, and your input is in the gray area, the output MUST by definition
be
> a high or a low. Dependent on variables such as ambient temperature,
supply
> voltage fluctuations, and manufacturing tolerances in the chip, a given
> input level in the gray area can cause a high level output or a low level
> output, and it is impossible to predict which it will be. Thus the output
is
> unpredictable.
No, it's perfectly predictable - it'll be either a 1 or a 0, nothing else.
It won't be 0.5, it won't be 1.2.
> > > IMHO, the CLI would be easier to implement and easier to use.
> >
> > Easier to implement, certainly.
> > Easier to use, entirely dependent on implementation.
>
> Aren't products that are simple implementations inherently simpler to use?
No. Compare edlin to something like EDIT.
> > Easier to *learn*, highly doubtful.
>
> I think an implementation that is a straightforward translation of one
> concept into a similar one is easier to learn than one that is translated
> from one class of mental activity (aural processing) to another one
> (visualization.)
But it wouldn't be done like that. You'd be issuing the same commands to
the GUI, just through a different medium.
> > Be careful about the distinction between easy to learn and easy to use,
> they
> > are very different things.
>
> I think I understand the difference. ;o)
I'm unsure you do.
> > Oh I doubt that. That might have been true 5 years ago, but modern
> machines
> > are quite fast enough to display GUIs.
>
> Yes, but manipulating a graphic display DOES take more processor overhead,
> even with a dedicated hardware video processor. So "faster" may not be
> perceptible to the operator, but there would be more processing time to do
> other things.
In an interface, perceptible to the operator is all that really matters.
If someone's reaction time is only 0.15s, what does it matter if the
operation completes in 0.5s or 0.7s ? They're not going to know the
difference.
Yes, in the former example the CPU might have a few million cycles spare,
but what is it going to do with them except twiddle its thumbs ?
> > > No, it's a graphical presentation. How would you "interface" to it?
> >
> > Any way you want. DOesn't change the fact it's graphical.
>
> But it's only half of the interface.
It's the only half that concerns us. "Graphical" is only referring to the
presentation.
> If I defined commands to manipulate the
> display, I could do so with no visual feedback. i could type "rotate 90"
or
> "zoom 200" and predict what the result would be. But If I used mouse
> commands, I would have to have visual feedback, i.e., know the position of
> the pointer, before I could select the zoom command or the rotate command.
> Thus the mouse is a graphical input device, while the keyboard is a
command
> input device.
They're *both* command input devices.
Using the mouse to, for example, rotate an image by dragging it is no
different to using the keyboard arrows to rotate it.
> > > Not if you're waiting for the next level of dialog box to appear
(which
> > > happens frequently to users with slow systems.)
> >
> > No, I don't have to wait - that's my point. The system is fast enough
to
> > display whatever the next thing is before I can decide what to do with
it.
>
> Of course. You couldn't possibly decide what to do until you SEE your
> choices. It's sequential processing, unlike the command line, where you
give
> the computer ALL your input at once.
Most all interactive use is sequential processing, so that's really fairly
irrelevant.
> > There's nothing I can think of that I do on my system I can't do that
with
> > in a GUI. Since 99% of all my use is interactive, the dialogs you refer
> to
> > are essential to actually using the thing.
> >
> > Indeed, there's no inherent reason a GUI would exhibit the behaviour you
> > have described.
>
> Oh, so you've never gotten up from your computer after starting a lengthy
> operation, only to come back 5 minutes later and find the computer had not
> started the task yet because you neglected to answer a confirmation
dialog?
Only when that confirmation dialog was relaying important information, eg
overwriting an existing file.
> Happens to me in Windows ALL the time.
>
> >
> > > > Sure, you can plonk NT4+IE4 on a 486/16 with 12MB of RAM and it'll
> just
> > > > about run backwards, but that's not inherently the *GUI's* fault.
> > >
> > > In a way, it is, because the GUI is taking resources that are not
> > abundant,
> > > thus adding to the lethargy.
> >
> > That doesn't hold. By that logic a CLI is bad because it's slow on an
XT.
>
> It would be if there were something faster to run on the XT, but there
> isn't.
Sure there is. A purpose written program to do whatever it is you want to
do.
> The interface should interfere with the execution of the task as
> little as possible. This is where Microsoft (and Apple to a lesser extent)
> fall on their faces: The OS is NOT the end, it is only the means.
The interface doesn't interfere with the task, it provides feedback.
> > > That's why Linux with a CLI runs so well on
> > > said 486/16 with 12 meg of RAM.
> >
> > Well, it runs. I wouldn't call it "well" if you're actually _using_ the
> > thing.
>
> The response time of the interface is negligible in human terms, so I
would
> call it running "well." (And I _have_ said 486 running said Linux, so I
> speak from experience.)
I have one too, and there's not much you'd be doing on it interactively that
I could describe as "runs well".
[chomp]
> > > Now, if
> > > the menu interface were a *touch screen,* I would agree that that was
a
> > GUI.
> >
> > Personally I can't see how it would make a difference. A touch screen
is
> > just like having a mouse, without the mouse.
>
> Exactly. Successful use of the interface depends on visual cues, i.e.,
your
> finger's position relative to the "buttons" you want to press. This is
just
> like the mouse, where clicking the button successfully depends on the
visual
> cue of whether the pointer is over the button you want.
>
> >
> > How about a touch screen with a keyboard on, say, the bottom half of it
?
> > Where does that fit in ?
>
> It's a GUI, because the "keys" are dependent on graphical display output.
If
> the display moved or the key orientation changed, as a result of program
> output, your actions relative to those keys would change. What you do in a
> GUI is totally dependent on visual feedback.
This is different to a keyboard on your desk _how_, exactly ?
What about two screens, one for display and one for the keyboard ?
> > > Not necessarily. There are CLIs where you can simply type "copy" and
hit
> > > Enter and the interface will come back with "From:" at which point you
> > type
> > > "foo.txt" and hit Enter and the interface comes back with "To:" Type
> your
> > > destination and hit Enter. You don't always have to know the entire
> > command
> > > syntax up front to use the interface.
> >
> > But you still have to know eg. what the files are.
>
> So you do with a GUI. To find a file, you have to know which folder to
> click. To copy a file, you have to know the file name, or at least a part
of
> it, to select it.
But the files are already there, you just have to pick them. That's
different from having to know what they are _first_.
> > > The CLI we developed for the security guards (mentioned in a parallel
> > thread
> > > I think) allowed initiation of a conversation by simply typing the
> command
> > > string (3 letters) and the system would prompt the user with lists of
> > > options for each parameter. Alternately, the entire string could be
> typed
> > on
> > > one line, if the user knew what the options (s)he wanted.
> >
> > This is where you move into the fuzzy area. In one way it's a CLI and
in
> > another, a GUI.
>
> It's not fuzzy if you have 20/20 eyesight ;o) There is no visual feedback
in
> terms of highlights of the default choice; you can't visually pick your
> options; you have to type the command fragment (from the displayed list.)
It
> is a prompted CLI, NOT a GUI.
You are picking your options. _How_ you pick them is not relevant.
> I think you would call any interface that is intuitive and easy to use a
> GUI, and any interface that is obscure and unhelpful a CLI. This is
> prejudicial in my view.
No, I wouldn't. I'd hardly vi intuitive and helpful, but it's a lot more of
a GUI than edlin is.
I think you'd call any more efficient method of using a GUI except the mouse
a CLI, because you have some inherent need to believe that a CLI is more
efficient than a GUI. That, to me, is very prejudiced.
However, I don't really see how amateur psychology is relevant.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 22:12:53 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Stupid idiots that think KDE is a Window Manager
Jeff Szarka wrote:
>
>
> Right... instead of the "Start" menu you have a "KDE" menu in the same
> exact location. Instead of the system tray you have a... KDE Tray? In
> the same exact location. Instead of a "Quick Launch" you have a place
> to quickly launch your programs... I'm not sure what KDE calls it.
>
> Instead of using a web browser style interface to browse local
> locations you use... uh... well... a web browser style interface to
> browse local locations.
>
> Instead of having a task bar you have a.... bar of... tasks in the
> same place.
>
> KDE deviates from the Windows UI about the same amount that Microsoft
> deviates themselves with various versions of Windows since 95. KDE is
> a pathetic clone.
Many many years ago I started using Unix running mwm and X. It had a
root menu with the same function that the Windows Start menu now has.
Only you could access it from anywhere in the root window. By the way,
KDE 2 has finally brought the root menu back. And that task bar. It
had an icon box. Same function, but I could drag and drop the icon box
anywhere on the screen. And I could minimize the icon box itself.
Sounds to me that Windows is a clone of mwm and a poor one at that.
That's why I laughed when all those commercials aired when Windows 95
came out with the "Start me up" slogan. I'd already be using a start
menu for years.
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 02:25:43 GMT
Ed Reppert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > 10. It's been ported to 16,000 different hardware plattforms that
> > > alreaddy shipped with UNIX
> > > to beagen with.
> >
> > I have no idea what you are talking about.
> Don't worry about it. Neither does he. :-)
Ya gotta love this stuff.
--
Eric 'Alibut | Translations marked with a percent sign
at | refer to the prospective attendee as a
Esmond, R.I., USA | man because of gender imparities in the
www.ruptured-duck.com | language in question. This is not
| intended to suggest that female Linux
| users are discouraged from attending;
| they should lobby their vendors to get
------------------------------
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
From: Charles Philip Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 21 Jun 2000 21:48:38 +0500
>>>>> "Tim" == Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 19 Jun 2000 10:24:39 -0500, Leslie Mikesell
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tim Palmer
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> Sorry, install shield doesn't come close to RPM in terms of
>>>> its functionality.
>>>>
>>>> Nice try.
>>> Its' easy to use, unnlike RMP.
>> You mean easy to overwrite system dlls without regard to other
>> programs that still need the existing version? Yes
>> installshield does make that easier than RPM.
> It upgraids your DLLs for you instead of printing "dependensy
> error".
And then you are in DLL hell because some other program needs the old
version. Great system!
Charles
------------------------------
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
From: Charles Philip Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 21 Jun 2000 21:52:03 +0500
>>>>> "JEDIDIAH" == JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ...and then fork over $$$ for it.
> Or alternately: not find it there at all.
Or alternately: you find it, installed it, and then find out that it
is not what you want and can't return it.
Charles
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server
Date: 21 Jun 2000 21:41:49 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> You know what I consider slow? When I scroll in Netscape and I see the
>>> page fliker.
>>
>>I don't see it flicker on mine.
>
>Take the scroall bar and move across the page realy fast.
No problem here. Did you set up a stock VGA driver on purpose
to make it look bad?
>>> For
>>> whatever reason, it's slow and ugly.
>>
>>Ugly?
>>
>
>Yes. UGLY.
Try one of the zillion or so themes from http://www.themes.org.
There is no accounting for taste, but maybe someone will match
yours. There is always the near MS-windows theme for the
really warped, and you can run the blue-screen screen saver...
>slow is good. criptic is good. commands are good. Lye to yorself all you want.
Spend the money you save on Win2k and Office on RAM and a good video
card and come out faster.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Windows98
Date: 21 Jun 2000 21:45:23 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Did you ever consider some people don't like spending HOURS trying to
>get simple things in Linux to work the way they want them too? I've
>never had to reinstall Win2k. NT is the future of consumer Windows.
Why do you sound suprised at not having to reinstall Win2k in the
few months it has been out?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 19:51:31 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Joe Ragosta wrote:
>
>
> And I'd expect that anyone who knows even basic evolutionary theory
> would know that it applies to biological organisms -- not commercial
> software.
Joe, you're being unfair. I think there may be some merit to Mr.
Stevens' analogy.
Evolution produces wasteful, awkward, and inefficient characteristics
that impede normal functioning, like the peacock's tail feathers.
Likewise, Windows is wasteful, awkward, inefficient, and impedes normal functioning.
Evolution produces bloated, useless chunks of flesh, like the appendix,
that paradoxically cannot be naturally removed (a smaller appendix is
more prone to infection, so is selected against). Likewise, Windows has
bloated, useless chunks of code that cannot be removed.
Evolution gave rise to thousands of viruses. Windows did the same.
Evolution is responsible for a tremendous number of bugs. Windows is
the same.
Finally, evolution only produces new species after thousands of years.
It takes about that long for Microsoft to get out a new version of Windows.
10 points for any good Darwin jokes!
-Peter
--
"Dance, MSN boy, dance!" -Microsoft's Self-Parodic Commercial
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 02:56:26 GMT
On 21 Jun 2000 21:52:03 +0500, Charles Philip Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>> "JEDIDIAH" == JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > ...and then fork over $$$ for it.
>
> > Or alternately: not find it there at all.
>
>Or alternately: you find it, installed it, and then find out that it
>is not what you want and can't return it.
Oh, I forgot about that aspect of "Accountability-ware"... '-)
--
If you know what you want done, it is quite often more useful to
tell the machine what you want it to do rather than merely having
the machine tell you what you are allowed to do.
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: High School is out...here come the trolls...who can't accept the future.
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 02:57:04 GMT
On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 01:39:28 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On 22 Jun 2000 00:51:27 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk) wrote:
>
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 16:57:01 -0400, PowerUser
>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>
>>>>LINUX IS HERE TO STAY, AND AT THE RATE THAT IT IS GROWING/DEVELOPING,
>>>>IT WILL BE THE MAJOR OS OF THE FUTURE.
>>>
>>>As long as .3 percent of total market share is what you are looking
>>>for, I would say you are right on track.
>>
>>In the business world, Linux market share is probably 30% --
>>one hundred times the .3% figure repeatedly posted by our
>>resident liar, Steve/Mike/Simon (for which he never gives
>>a reference).
>
>30 PERCENT!!!! ???
>
>What kind of drugs are you on? You'd be hard pressed to find a single
>secratary in NYC that is running Linux on her desktop.
He was refering to servers of course.
[deletia]
--
If you know what you want done, it is quite often more useful to
tell the machine what you want it to do rather than merely having
the machine tell you what you are allowed to do.
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Stupid idiots that think KDE is a Window Manager
Date: 21 Jun 2000 21:50:36 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Right... instead of the "Start" menu you have a "KDE" menu in the same
>exact location. Instead of the system tray you have a... KDE Tray? In
>the same exact location. Instead of a "Quick Launch" you have a place
>to quickly launch your programs... I'm not sure what KDE calls it.
Those are all window manager elments that were around before win95
copied them. But try dragging a folder from the desktop to
the bottom panel. I like what kwm does with it much better.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Processing data is bad!
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 02:59:57 GMT
On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 01:41:13 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 20:58:32 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 21:14:34 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Yea but Windows GUI looks and works well.
>>> >
>>> >You've obviously never used X11
>>>
>>> Sure have and it looks like shit and is slow as shit.
>>>
>>> This applies to both Intel platforms and RS 6000 platforms.
>>
>>
>>RS 6000 is shit.
>>>
>>> it makes my eyes tear.....
>>
>>Obviously you're running on lousy graphics hardware.
>
>
>Matrox G400 isn't lousy..
>
>X11 is lousy....
No it isn't. There are a sufficient quantity of fonts available
such that you shouldn't need to see a jaggie anywhere unless you
are doing sufficiently sophisticated work such that onscreen
jaggies would be a triffle concern.
>
>Linux gui looks like crap....
No, this is simply part of your FUD mantra.
[deletia]
--
If you know what you want done, it is quite often more useful to
tell the machine what you want it to do rather than merely having
the machine tell you what you are allowed to do.
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: What UNIX is good for.
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 23:03:02 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Because you are a geek.....
>
> And I can produce 100 secrateries that can produce fantastic
> presentations, embedded video/audio and so forth with Powerpoint while
> you are still figuring out how to get latex to work with the overhead
> projector.
I suspect that a touch typist who knows TeX would produce TeX
documents in less time than Powerpoint presentations.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Ferdinand V. Mendoza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I've got reiserfs. Drestin, now bash Linux.
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 07:08:34 +0400
Bwaaa-haa-haa-haaaaa...
In the Unix world YES!. To produce a quality journaling
filesystem with limited resources and out of voluntary efforts
for approxiamately three years is just marvelous.
You just can't equate it with those M$! quickie software you
can release in a weekend.
BTW, how many years it took M$ to develop and ship their own
journaling filesystem?
Ferdinand
Christopher Browne wrote:
>
>
> "so short period of time"????
>
> When do you think ReiserFS development started? Last week? My
> Linux/FileSystems folder has messages on early releases of ReiserFS
> dating back to _1997_.
>
> It is well and good to suggest that ReiserFS is a good thing; it has
> not developed into such over a weekend.
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/>
> Rules of the Evil Overlord #67. "No matter how many shorts we have in
> the system, my guards will be instructed to treat every surveillance
> camera malfunction as a full-scale emergency."
> <http://www.eviloverlord.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
******************************
