Linux-Advocacy Digest #558, Volume #27 Mon, 10 Jul 00 02:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: [OT] intuitive (was Re: Hardware: ideal budget Linux box? (Re: I'm Ready! I'm
ready! I'm not ready.)) (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Re: Linux lags behind Windows ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Mike Stump)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Mike Stump)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Crossposted-To: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Subject: Re: [OT] intuitive (was Re: Hardware: ideal budget Linux box? (Re: I'm Ready!
I'm ready! I'm not ready.))
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 05:32:01 GMT
"jmc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would respectfully disagree with that. For example, if one has
> never used a computer or a new OS before, nothing is familiar.
And nothing is intuitive. I teach "Introduction to the Internet"
classes. Believe me, if it isn't familiar, people cannot figure
out how to use it. Maybe a few rare people can, but in general
people -- even smart, educated people -- are incapable of
figuring out how to use an unfamiliar interface, however graphical
and "intuitive" it may be, without either being taught or reading
a manual, book, or some other form of instruction. (Video,
audio, something.) Online help is entirely worthless to the
true newbie, because a true newbie is unable to determine how to
reach the help feature. Yes, the word "Help" is there on the
screen (at the right edge of what those of us who are familiar
can easily identify as a menu bar), but a true neophyte, even if
he can guess that the word "Help" on the screen is there to help
him learn, does not know how to harness that capability. He
may by experimentation determine how to move the mouse cursor
over that word, but this accomplishes nothing. Even if he can
experiment enough to determine how to click on it (and
that is NOT automatic; it's learned), he gets a list of
mostly uninformative (to the uninitiate) options. And
a true neophyte is at least as likely to try things like
typing the keys H E L P as he is to try moving the mouse.
He may wonder why the arrow keys don't move the mouse
cursor, and figure the computer is frozen. Why? Is he
stupid? No, just unfamiliar. Five minutes of instruction
can go a long way.
I think what most people mean by "intuitive" is that
five minutes of instruction covers the basics. Once
somebody deigns to explain the difference between clicking
and doubleclicking, the different kinds of cursors, the
principle of a toolbar button and a drop-down menu, and
that sort of thing, the online help will get you through
simple tasks. I prefer to call that "low initial learning
curve". Problem is, the systems with the lowest *initial*
learning curve (especially MacOS) have a very high *advanced*
learning curve, much higher than a system with a relatively
high initial learning curve. (I don't think it has
to be this way forever, and things like KDE and Gnome
are *starting* down the road toward changing it. But
they aren't there yet, because their initial learning
curve is still nontrivial. I'd comment on Mac OS X,
but I haven't seen it yet, so I don't know what to say.)
Windows has a higher advanced learning curve than Unix,
let alone DOS. Why? Mostly because there's too much trial
and error. Trial and error is a VERY inefficient way to
learn. A good set of manuals would help a lot. They
don't exist. Do most people need them? No. Do some
of us who would like to go beyond the basics urgently
desire them? Absolutely. Too bad, they don't exist.
I'm convinced that the only real ways to become a true
Windows guru are to reverse-engineer the entire system
and go blind mulling over assembly code, study from
someone who does that, or be on the development team.
To become a true Linux guru you will have to read some
source, but it'll at least be in an HLL and have some
comments, so it's humanly possible. Not that I've done
it yet; I intend to do so eventually, though, and I *can*
reach that level with Linux; I can NEVER get there with
Windows, no matter how much I desire it and no matter
how much effort I'm willing to invest.
For the masses of people who only want to figure out
how to surf the web, print (why?) their email, type up
a paper, and maybe use a database or do some simple
scripting, a system like Windows or MacOS is great. For
the kind of person who wants to be a guru, the documentation
is wholly inadequate. You can stick intuitive interface
[select anatomical region of choice] if it's impossible
to determine how to do more advanced stuff. (BTW, I
use Windows (and even like it), I just don't use it
exclusively.)
> But if a piece of
> software has an interface that is intuitive, that means, to
> me, you can figure out how to use it even if it *is* unfamiliar.
Well, there's unfamiliar, and then there's unfamiliar.
If you've used MacOS, for example, the principles of
pointing, clicking, and doubleclicking are familiar --
which makes Windows much more intuitive than it would
otherwise be, even though some other things are different.
The same works in reverse, migrating from Windows to
MacOS. Or from either of the above to KDE or Gnome.
I found KDE to be very intuitive, because I was already
familiar with the basics of Unix (having used Debian)
and with the basics of a GUI (having used Windows
rather extensively). There we go again with familiarity.
They guy who equated intuitive with familiar was not
completely out of his mind.
Migrating from DOS to Linux, you understand (mostly)
principles like directories, filenames, paths, pipes,
redirection, and switches. You need some instruction
about differences, but the underlying principles are
the same, so the learning curve is lower than if you
move, for example, from MacOS to Linux (without X).
> To me intuitive means
> "I can use this without having to read the manual".
I can use VMS (a little) without having read any VMS
manual. (I have read some Galaxy manuals, and Galaxy
runs on VMS, but these manuals say very little about
the underlying OS -- roughly the equivalent of reading
a manual for Lotus 123 and then using DOS.) There's a
HELP command, and so I was able to bootstrap myself.
Is VMS intuitive? Heck no. But I was familiar with
the concept of a command prompt, and having used DOS the
command HELP seemed like an obvious thing to try. Wow,
hey, it works. That's intuitive, right? I wouldn't
say so. I'd say just enough was familiar that I could
get by. (My boss promised to find me the VMS manuals,
but I haven't seen 'em yet. Fortunately, Galaxy is
mostly self-maintaining and I don't have to do very
much with VMS, just a little tiny bit of batch queue
management, running backups, and that sort of thing,
and I played with it a bit extra to get familiar in
case I ever need to use it for something else.)
> Familiar means that if you know how to use MSWord, you'll be able to figure
> out how to use MSExel, for example. Intuitive means that if you've never
> used a Microsoft product (I don't particularly like MS products, but they
> *are* intuitive, at leas to me) you can still figure out how to use
> MSExcel.
This only works because MS products follow some conventions
that other products you *have* used also follow. If none
of the software you'd ever used had menu bars or toolbars
or responded to single mouse clicks (and so on), MS products
would not be so intuitive. It *does* come back, at least
somewhat, to familiarity. (Hiding the more complex
functionality away under "Advanced Options" (and similar
constructs) also helps, because it reduces the amount of
complexity you have to deal with when you start out.)
> CorelDraw is an example of a non-intuitive interface, IMHO.
Dunno; haven't used it. I'd cite Word Perfect versions
prior to 6 as non-intuitive. 5.1 actually HAD a menubar,
but you had to just happen to run across it in the help
screens or manual to even know it was available, much less
how to enable it; by default it wasn't shown. How's that
for non-intuitive? The reasoning presumably was that it
would be more intuitive to existing Word Perfect users
this way, since earlier versions hadn't had the menubar
at all (not sure which version added it). Oh, and everyone
knows that in DOS apps F1 is help, right? Not in Word
Perfect, unless you changed an option, and to know how to
do that you had to find the option in the online help,
which you didn't know how to reach without the manual
(or someone telling you).
> Linux users, I'm still a newbie in that arena. I didn't use
> Linux software as examples because I'm not familiar enough yet.
KFM is more intuitive than bash. It's also less versatile.
There are a lot of things it just can't do.
Plug-and-Play is intuitive, *when it works*. Of course,
if your new hardware just happens to not work automatically
(which happens in my experience roughly 30% of the time
under Windows) you have to sacrifice a flawless female
goat that has never had relations with a male goat in
order to get it working. You can't simply look in the
index and read the right pages in the manuals and type
a couple of commands, that simply won't do. No, you have
to reboot a few hundred times, like as not in Safe Mode,
and frob random theoretically unrelated settings until
it just happens to work. (IF it ever does.) Or else
you have to give up and forget the new hardware.
- jonadab
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 05:16:16 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron Kulkis) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >so, what's your fucking point, moron?
>
> Ah the insults. Keep 'em coming. It serves to demonstrate the validity
of
> my arguments. If you don't like what you hear, yell at the poster!
Yes!
> That'll work!
>
Ha! dream on! the fact that people are sick of your misrepresentations
that you contiunue to support despite overwhelming proof to the contrary
is to be expected.
> --
> ------------
> Pete Goodwin
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 01:35:41 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting John Dyson from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Sat, 08 Jul 2000
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Quoting John Dyson from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Fri, 07 Jul 2000
>> [...]
>> >> You can keep it to yourself and that
>> >> is allowed by the GPL. It's just that *if* you distribute
>> >> the derived work, then you must GPL it. That's a big if.
>> >> And remember that "derived work" does NOT include programs
>> >> that merely used a GPL tool to help make them (for example,
>> >> gcc), as you implied here. It refers to programs that copy
>> >> some of the GPL source code of the tool into their own.
>> >>
>> >And the inconsistancy of the GPL, is that some people call the
>> >GPL 'free', and then apply constraints, rules and regulations to
>> >the redistributions... This makes GPL inconsistant with free
>> >software.
>>
>> But these are constraints on redistribution, not use.
>>
>"Redistribution" is a very good form of use.
You've mistaken my syntax. Redistribution is not a form of use.
> Such redistribution
>is necessary in many cases to make money (even if the code is
>GPLed.)
Redistribution is an opportunity to make money, but it is not use.
>Given that, by taxing or limiting redistribution, that
>limits the ways that the code is free.
Only to people who want to redistribute it, and it doesn't stop them
from doing so, OR making money on it, so I don't know what you're
complaining about.
>Please avoid 'free speech arguments'. Free speech in the constitution
>is a 'free <verb>'. Free speech is an allowed and supported <action> by
>a living and breathing being. We are talking a 'free <thing>' as in
>free use and reuse of the <thing>.
Yea, I've seen your semantic bullshit before. Who told you that "the
abridging the freedom of speech" uses the word 'speech' as a verb? Did
they explain why "or of the press" doesn't say "or of pressing"?
You can't use semantic construction to refute logical argument; its
simple intellectual dishonesty and post-modernist arm-waving. *You* are
"talking... free use" because you want to be able to deter reasonable
discussion, not because it is appropriate. Free speech is a result of
an action, not an action. It is therefore a thing, and things are
nouns. I have no need for 'free speech arguments', and I give them no
special due in terms of software debates, but if I did I would hardly be
swayed by your "request" that I avoid them.
>If "Free speech" was taken as a "free doco", then we are talking
>copyright or IP type issues. That isn't what "free speech" in the constitution
>refers to.
Actually, it is, but that isn't the issue. I didn't use the term 'free
speech" because of IP or constitutional, but simple (for me, anyway)
grammatical illustration. I could have said 'free love', and perhaps
then you'd call me a commie or a hip and say that "to love" is the only
correct mode for the word in that phrase, despite the fact that it is a
noun.
>Things are not actions. (Nouns are not verbs).
Trolls are not participants. (They disrupt, rather than participate, in
discussion.)
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
[A corporation which does not wish to be identified]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Stump)
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 05:40:35 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Redistribution" is a very good form of use. Such redistribution
>is necessary in many cases to make money (even if the code is
>GPLed.) Given that, by taxing or limiting redistribution, that
>limits the ways that the code is free.
No, it enhances it. Free also means not allowing slavery. The limit
is a limit submission to a dominating influence.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 01:45:43 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Jay Maynard from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 8 Jul 2000 15:27:16 GMT
>On Sat, 08 Jul 2000 05:32:06 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>The "free = unlimited action without bounds" thing you have in mind is
>>simply an abstract concept. There's nothing that is that "free",
>>including free speech. So why do you think it should magically apply to
>>GPL software? That isn't very consistent.
>
>Because "free speech" and other freedoms do universally obey the "free ==
>unlimited action as long as you do not harm others without their consent".
And taking someone's intellectual property (by removing their control of
it) is doing harm to others without their consent.
>In no way does incorporating GPVed code into proprietary closed-source code
>harm anyone, because the original GPVed code is and always will remain
>freely available to compete with the proprietary version.
It isn't the code you're stealing. Its the intellectual property. You
are taking it and profiteering on your combination of that otherwise
free code with your decidedly non-free proprietary closed-source code,
and then selling it. This doesn't only harm the owner of the code; it
can and does harm the other users of the open code, by restricting their
ability to benefit from certain implementations of it (your profiteer's
secret stuff).
>The better one
>will win, and those who have overriding requirements will still be able to
>choose the one they need.
This is idealistic to a fault. So the one who is using other's work as
well as their own will be "better", maybe, then the one who hasn't tried
to profiteer? Hardly an equitable situation.
>The GPV denies freedoms to developers and to the users who are denied the
>opportunity to freely choose between open source and closed source but with
>enhancements that make the tradeoff worthwhile.
The GPL license can only restrict developers who choose to use it, so
"denies freedom" is most certainly an inappropriate term. Users cannot,
be definition, "freely choose" between open and closed source software,
regardless of any added 'enhancements', if they cannot compare the
products to determine what tradeoffs they would consider worthwhile.
And obviously the closed source prevents an equitable comparison. If
the user is smart and "unencumbered" by vendor lock-in and other
anti-competitive and potentially unethical strategies, they will always
choose the open source (on the reasonable assumption that any
enhancements which are truly important to them can be developed by them
or others). If they are the victim of profiteers who have implemented
lock-in strategies, they don't have a choice; they have to stick with
the closed code if it is necessary to them.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
[A corporation which does not wish to be identified]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 01:51:20 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Austin Ziegler from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Sat, 8 Jul 2000
>On Sat, 8 Jul 2000, T. Max Devlin wrote:
[...]
>>> Each of the above items are actions performed by an animate. Software
>>> is a thing, not an action. Still can't. See my latest response to
>>> 'Jedi' and you'll understand precisely what I'm talking about.
>>> The language doesn't support the desired goal without great
>>> obfuscation.
>
>> Intellectual property, and particularly software, is not a "thing".
>
>It's a 'virtual thing'; it is not reduced in quality or availability by
>copying (in the same way that physical things might be), but it is
>still a *thing*.
The term "virtual thing" is an oxymoron. "Virtual" is superfluous;
something is a thing (having direct physical effect), or it is not. It
is a concept, it is not a thing. (Outside, of course, of the fact that
our language treats all nouns as "things".)
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
[A corporation which does not wish to be identified]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Stump)
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 05:55:57 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jay Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sat, 08 Jul 2000 05:32:06 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>The "free = unlimited action without bounds" thing you have in mind is
>>simply an abstract concept. There's nothing that is that "free",
>>including free speech. So why do you think it should magically apply to
>>GPL software? That isn't very consistent.
>
>Because "free speech" and other freedoms do universally obey the "free ==
>unlimited action as long as you do not harm others without their consent".
Is that the only limitation on them? Are you sure?
What about a judge that tells you to sit down and shut up. Do you
think you can just talk if you want? Do you think it really harms
him?
Speech isn't as unlimited as you seem to think it is.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 02:00:49 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Austin Ziegler from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Sat, 8 Jul 2000
>On Sat, 8 Jul 2000, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>> Quoting Austin Ziegler from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Thu, 6 Jul 2000
>>> On Thu, 6 Jul 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> You cannot restrict others anymore than you have been restricted.
>>> In GPL terms, this actually means 'you cannot restrict others
>>> *differently* than you have been restricted'; [...]
>> All that proves is that the GPL is the least restrictive license
>> possible, since any difference in restrictions would constitute more of
>> a restriction.
>
>This is not the case. The least restrictive licence is the BSDL. The
>MPL and the LGPL are significantly more restrictive, but the GPL is one
>of the most restrictive of the open source movement.
By "possible" I meant "possible without failing to prevent distribution
of open source software as closed source software".
>Other licences may fit along the scale differently, but I don't know of
>anything less restrictive than the BSDL without hopping of licensing
>altogether (e.g., public domain). There are more restrictive licences
>than the GPL, but they may not also properly match the open source
>licence definition.
I didn't say GPL was least restrictive, actually; I just said that is
how the response that was posted parsed out. But I still submit that
the GPL is the least restrictive open source license. You can quantify
and qualify "restrictions" how you like; AFAIK (and I'm not necessarily
studied on this, but I've read about it, and I'm pretty bright) these
other licenses have more restrictions on what whoever recieves the code
can do with it. Like "you can't produce derivative works" and such. I
can't see how anyone could call Mozilla less restrictive than GPL.
Could someone maybe give me a moderate's run-down of this issue? I'm
getting sick of the trolling on this topic, and would seriously love to
get down to some actual discussion.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
[A corporation which does not wish to be identified]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 02:06:29 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting John Dyson from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Sat, 08 Jul 2000
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> Quoting John Dyson from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Thu, 06 Jul 2000 >
>> [...]
>> >Similarly, the GPL that requires
>> >the donation of your entire work to those who receive binaries
>> >is also not free.
>>
>> I don't recall any requirement that you create derivative works in the
>> GPL. Is there something preventing you from creating your own software?
>>
>I didn't say that you are REQUIRED to create derivative works. Why do
>you bring that up?
You indicate that the GPL "requires the donation of your entire work".
But I see where I was mistaken; you were just referring to one program
when you meant your "work". In that sentence, work is a noun, not a
verb. I get it now. Sorry for the confusion.
So, now that we're clear, "No, GPL doesn't require the donation of your
entire work; it just prevents you from profiteering on someone else's."
[...]
>> >Frankly those who claim that the GPL is free AND want to encumber
>> >redistribution of work that others do ARE repugnent.
>>
>> Those who claim that GPL is not free because, although having no
>> monetary cost, does not allow profiteering are simply dishonest or
>> mistaken. The latter is unfortunate, the former repugent and dangerous.
>>
>1) You aren't defining 'profiteering'.
Feel free to check your dictionary.
[...]
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
[A corporation which does not wish to be identified]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
