Linux-Advocacy Digest #151, Volume #29 Sun, 17 Sep 00 02:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Donovan
Rebbechi)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 00:48:42 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Mike Byrns in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>Windows NT 3.1 was the first commercially available. They released it
>with that version to have version parity between it and the DOS-based
>Windows of the time.
"Version parity"? Is that what they call it? LOL.
[...]
>Sorry, I guess I'm a bit trigger happy -- people tend to get that way
>in advocacy groups.
Microsoft idiots get that way in any group.
>> to make a point, i do have several NT servers that have been
>> running
>> and running for years without a hitch.
>
>UNIX folks will tell you that's impossible. UNIX folks? Comments?
No Unix folks I know of would say that's impossible. Improbable, maybe,
but not impossible. You just can't do much with it; if it works now,
and you don't touch it at all, it *might* continue to work without a
hitch. We all have NT boxes that don't go down. You're assumption that
we're biased is as bogus as anything else you post.
>> > As for anecdotal evidence -- your guru was not much of a guru.
>> well, he is a certified thingo MSCE, so officialy he knows.
>
>Officially he passed a test. I passed alot of tests in Spanish and I
>can barely function well enough to locate food and a restroom.
Careful; Microsoft might not like you pointing out their MSCE program is
entirely and completely bogus.
[...]
>> It isn't the point though. you idea that we format NT boxes too quickly,
>> and don't do that X's being due to X's being a pain to install is
>> why i brought up my experience and the anecdote for...
>
>What keeps you from having to dick with text configuration files and all
>that? What flavor of UNIX are you using?
It doesn't matter. They're text configuration files. You a) only have
to do it once, or b) can automate it, or c) can troubleshoot it without
having to rely on bullshit from MSDN.
>> > Ghost is
>> > pretty damn fast and it will allow the workstations to image in
>> > parallel. Figure about 10 min for all the workstations and a few more
>> > minutes for the server.
>>
>> haven't tried ghost yet, so i'll take your word for it...
Don't do it.
>Windows 2000 is kinda cool too. If we need to bring a workstation
>online we don't even have to be there. The PC tech make sure the net
>port is live and that the hardware is all there, sets it up and turns it
>on. Remote boot starts the Windows 2000 install procedure unattended.
>The first time it comes up Intellimirror sees that the right apps are
>not pushed to that desktop and installs them too. So far we've had one
>instance of that not working -- the tech hadn't fully seated the RJ-45.
>From what I hear, you have to pay another couple hundred bucks for a
license every time you do this. Is that true? ;-)
>> as too the notebookk with broken tcp/ip we think we now know why...
>> but only theorticaly as we can't verify it after formatting.
>> turns out there was an IE with 128 bit encryption installed, which
>> doesn't
>> match the service-packs!
>
>Shouldn't make any difference really.
Shouldn't, but does. That's the point. Proprietary monopoly crapware
is like that. Then you get a bunch of MCSEs and other morons wanting to
'troubleshoot' it for you, only all they have is lots of 'it shouldn't
do that' bullshit, in the end.
>As long as you make sure to
>reinstall the latest service pack after software installations you
>should be fine. That way if the installer overwrote a newer file it
>will get restored. I know that's a pain but I'm having to do it less
>and less as we get more and more machines up to 2000.
That's because you haven't run any real applications on them yet, I'll
bet.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 00:55:55 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Mike Byrns in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>I can get a different set of widgets just like Windows can switch from
>Motif.
Windows uses Motif?
>Microsoft doesn't make the widgets anymore than the different widgets
>are part of linux.
Well, that's a load of crap.
>Replacing default NC_PAINT behavior is performs the same
>function as replacing the window manager in X.
Except you can use a commonly available alternative window manager with
X, and there is no such thing with monopoly crapware.
>When you say that Windows cannot
>support
>this behavior as well as unix you should note that "unix" doesn't really
>support
>it either as it runs on an X Window server and is a function of the
>Window
>Manager and the widget set.
And you should note that such things are available on Unix, and are not
on Windows. You should also note that your newsreader sucks, as it
can't handle line-wrap even as well as real newsreaders.
[...]
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: 17 Sep 2000 04:58:17 GMT
On Sun, 17 Sep 2000 02:48:43 GMT, Richard wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>There is an attitude common among programmers that users are
>supposed to make the effort to learn the system. So if a user
I think you'd find that a lot of the people displaying this kind
of attitude on the newsgroups are not contributors to projects
of any merit. I doubt this attitude would be very common among
say prominent KDE developers.
>/etc even when they never asked for it. Programmers accept the
>limitations of software, forgetting that any such limitations
>exist only because they put them there.
Limitations are usually not "put there", that implies that the
programmer deliberately sabotages their own software which would
be extremely dumb.
Limitations exist, because there's only so much that a given piece
of software can do.
> And when users fail to
>make the effort to learn all of these arbitrary limitations
>(and why should they?), many programmers start bashing them
>as lazy or stupid.
I disagree. If I write a piece of software and post it on the internet,
I have no idea whether users are "making the effort to learn it"
or not. The user usually does the bashing first. The programmer doesn't
walk around on the streets asking people if they're using his software
or not. I don't care if someone "learns to use" my program or not, as
long as they don't bash me for giving away free code. ( btw, I haven't
had anyone trash my work and I get a lot of thank you mail. )
>> It's worth mentioning that a lot of these obnoxious types are not
>> the same people who are contributing actual code to any project.
>
>Point well taken. Though, I find it hard to believe that the
>pervasive mythos of the Hacker versus the Luser isn't widely
>present among contributors.
You've got the myth wrong. It's the "sys admin" vs the "luser".
>Usually it starts because I'm seriously pissed at Linux for
>doing something completely stupid. So I'll plead a bad day
>as well. :-)
Fair enough. I'm still "human" enough to experience my share of
frustrations. My latest was trying to get DPMS working on XFree86 4.
>> Personally, I work closely with users to develop software which solves their
>> problem. The software I write is written to the users specifications.
>> If the user wants something I can't do, I say "sorry, I don't know how
>> to do that".
>
>This assumes they will admit their needs to you.
I'm working closely enough that this is pretty clear. I mean for example,
a user wants to do a certain type of analysis on a data set. So I typically
do two things -- I write a program that does it, and I implement as much
of the program as possible as a shared library so that I can "derive"
other programs from the same code.
>When a user can wipe out everything with rm -rf, this is a failure of #2.
>When they can't delete anything without a stupid confirmation box, this
>is a failure of #1. The only acceptable solution is to have a logging FS
>that allows users to easily undo any operation (move, delete, overwrite,
>anything). And you're not going to find this in any spec, because creating
>such a specification would require more self-knowledge and self-worth than
>most people possess.
I believe VMS has some kind of file versioning system ( so if you overwrite
a file, it keeps the old one. If you accidently hose something, you
can "roll back" ). But I don't know very much about it.
THere are versions of "rm" available that are reversible -- for those
who are interested in such a thing.
This is a well known problem. Confirm dialogs can help, but they are not
a cure all. Don't know about you, but I've clicked through one of those
things and shot myself in the foot. More than once.
The file system solution will only work if you prevent users from
stomping on their backups. In the UNIX world, tape backups are used,
and they are imperfect, but they are much better than nothing.
>Not to be trite, but I believe there is always a way to resolve such
>conflicts if you think <swallowing distaste> outside of the box. In
>the case of Smalltalk, I know there are ways to speed it up so you
>get the best of both worlds: advanced compilers, native compilers,
>(probably automatable) techniques to systematically fuse objects and
>destroy boundaries, et cetera.
I'd argue that smalltalk is a good example of design at the expense
of compatiblity. So you want to write a smalltalk application. Can
you use all the toolkits that are written in C and/or C++ ? Will
the application run on any platform, ? Will the user have to download
and install special software to run your application ? And is the software
they have to download free and available for all target platforms ?
Personally, I find myself going for python, or C++. Both are good
design/compatibility compromises. C++ puts more emphasis on compatibility,
but also has some very nice features ( support for both generic and OO
programming )
> They don't seem to work very hard at
>thinking up ways to avoid both of these intolerable situations, and
>that's probably the biggest reasons why I believe that programmers
>despise users.
Well like I said, there are reversible delete commands available. And
of course, there's always backups ( the backups are applicable for end
users on multi user systems )
>I don't know that compatibility has had any serious competition yet.
>Plan 9 doesn't give the end user any compelling reason for adoption,
In the OS world, maybe not. In programming languages ? Certainly. There
are several wonderful and obscure programming languages. It's nice that
C++ supports a certain amount of OO, and generic programming, but there
are languages that also support generics, and OO and more that have not
caught on.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 00:59:34 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >And it doesn't change the fact that you are ironically supporting Windows
>> >with each post in which you are attempting to bash windows.
>>
>> We only pay for software licenses when we acquire the software, JS/PL.
>> I'm not 'supporting Windows' in any way by continuing to use the OS that
>> came on the Dell laptop I use
>
>I hate to break it to you but - you are supporting Windows. You are
>unnecessarily relying on the very company you are bashing, which only
>mirrors you ingnorance to the world.
So now "supporting" becomes "relying on"? Why the hell do you think
they were convicted of federal crimes, you moron? If it were
'unnecessary', believe me, I wouldn't even be seen in the general area
of such crapware.
>>and which is mandated by my employer. Get
>> a life, man.
>
>Good one, that lie kind of fits together if someone were stupid enough to
>believe that you don't own a computer and have no access to a non-windows
>machine, but merely use the one provided by your employer, who by the way
>has specifically mandated that it shall not contain any free Linux software.
What the fuck are you talking about? It is less expensive, less
*commercially feasible*, for me to use monopoly crapware than to
implement a decent OS with applications that aren't crap. Again, thus
the federal conviction.
>But who does allow it to be used to send death threats, and whole manner of
>non work related newsgroup postings which bash the very company that they
>support and currently do business with.
>Riiiggghhhtttt.
Back to the death threats, are we? :-)
[...]
>> But just in case (and because it will be entertaining): Please expound
>> on your knowledge of patent law, so far I see none.
>
>Retainer?
Yea, right. Prove to me you're not full of shit, first.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 01:20:27 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >Interesting that Sun has resisted all efforts to standardize Java,
>despite
>> >making promises to do so.
>>
>> Only according to Microsoft press releases.
>
>No, according to fact. Sun pulled out of ISO standardization, then said
>they would seek standardization under the ECMA, then they pulled out of
>that. There were several very critical emails sent by duped ECMA members
>that invested lots of time and effort into the standardization process, only
>to be blown off when Sun pulled out.
Which ECMA members, specifically? Sun has been the most active member
of the ECMA behind 4 of the last 5 standards from that body. They
pulled out of the ISO standardization process because the ISO recently
(at, according to Sun, Microsoft's behest) changed their rules, and they
pulled Java out of the ECMA standardization process for the same
reasons. Just as they have always done, Sun insists on maintaining
control of their specifications until there is sufficient industry
support behind it to ensure that nobody can 're-proprietize' (or, what
Microsoft has more recently dubbed 'de-commoditize') the standard.
>> >Not true. GPL specifically denies me the freedom to sell a closed source
>> >program. It restricts my freedom to use *MY OWN COPYRIGHTED CODE* in any
>> >way I see fit.
>>
>> Oh, jeez. Not the 'GPL denies freedom' bullshit, again. How does it
>> restrict your freedom to use your code in any way you see fit, when
>> you're the one who has to place it under GPL? If you want to sell *YOUR
>> OWN COPYRIGHTED CODE* as closed source, I'd suggest not putting it under
>> GPL. Of course, the fact that YOUR freedom is entirely NOT the issue,
>> but rather the freedom of those who are USING your code, entirely
>> escapes you.
>
>That's like saying "You're free to do anything you want, as long as you
>don't do any of it here".
No, it *is* saying "you're free to do anything you want, as long as it
doesn't prevent me from being free to do anything I want."
>Not if your code is linked to a GPL'd library it's not. I'm forced to
>release the code as GPL. Force is not Freedom.
So don't link it. Choice is not a lack of freedom.
>> >Uhh... a broader, but smaller audience. When 90+% of the internet
>> >population is using either IE or Netscape, "broader" is a bit of a
>fallacy.
>>
>> Not when 'broader' is 100%.
>>
>> >Most Standard HTML 4 simply won't work with Netscape and has a much
>better
>> >chance of working with IE. CSS for instance.
>>
>> Sounds like HTML 4 wouldn't be very 'standard' then, doesn't it?
>
>HTML 4 is a W3C standard.
No, it is a W3C specification. It doesn't become standard because
someone *else* says it is. That's not the way interoperability works.
[...]
>> SGML isn't anything more than "hey, if you embed tags in a text stream,
>> you can, like, *do* stuff with it." It doesn't have any problems
>> because it doesn't provide any solutions, by itself.
>
>No, Max. SGML is *NOT* this. That's XML. SGML is a markup language for
>professional publishing. It was around before HTML and is very extensive.
>Know what you're talking about before you comment on it.
I do, and you don't. SGML is the super-set on which HTML is based, and
is not directly implemented *anywhere*. Other publishing mechanisms,
many non-standardized, are based on SGML, since it is little more than a
basic idea of a 'markup language' (using embedded tags) by itself. You
are, as many newbies do, confusing the idea of XML with the
specification for SGML. Have you ever read the SGML standard itself? I
have. Using '<>' to embed tags inside of text is hardly a new idea;
standardizing it was important, but not very noteworthy. Most of the
discussion of SGML is related to the more recent (c. 1992) definition of
XML.
Its worth noting that its 2000, now, and we still have little to see of
useful applications of XML. Why is that, do you think?
>> You're getting to be quite the little troll, Erik. I'd suggest you back
>> away, slowly, or I'm going to have to spank you. This ankle-biting is
>> for kindergarten; you're supposed to present reasoned arguments of your
>> opinion in your posts, not just empty contentions and meaningless
>> protestations and ignorance in defense of criminal behavior.
>
>You're getting to be quite an ignorant idiot Max. There is a comment by
>(IIRC) Abraham Lincoln. "It's better to be thought a fool, than to open
>ones mouth and remove all doubt".
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
====== 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:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 01:21:49 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:nXOv5.1370$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> There is a comment by
>> (IIRC) Abraham Lincoln. "It's better to be thought a fool, than to open
>> ones mouth and remove all doubt".
>
>It is better to remain silent and to be thought a fool, than to open ones
>mouth and remove all doubt.
Check out the new sig, which Erik prompted me to realize I had not
started using in COLA, yet.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
====== 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:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 01:23:30 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >Not true. GPL specifically denies me the freedom to sell a closed source
>> >program. It restricts my freedom to use *MY OWN COPYRIGHTED CODE* in any
>> >way I see fit.
>>
>> *bzzt� bulshit. The GPL restricts what you may do with other peoples
>> copyrighted code, not yours.
>
>No. The GPL legally forces you to release your own copyrighted code if you
>have linked or included any GPL'd code in your app.
So don't. How it this 'legally requiring you' to link or include GPL
code in your app?
>If the GPL did what you
>suggest, then it would be ok to simply distribute the GPL'd code with your
>application without your own code.
IOW, to use someone else's code for your own profit.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
====== 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:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 01:29:42 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Jonathan Revusky in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Said Se�n � Donnchadha in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >Jonathan Revusky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [...]
>> >Good day to you too, Jonathan!
>>
>> So, Jerry, why is it you post using 'Se�n � Donnchadha', instead of as
>> Jerry Shekhel, which Jonathan Revusky says is your real name?
>
>Hi Max.
>
>I thought Jerry Shekhel should have the opportunity to answer you. Not
>surprisingly, your question was met by the deafening roar of silence.
>Now, my response to Shekhel contains a lot of... inside humor... and I
>thought you and the other linux advocacy participants deserve to know
>what it was about. Besides, linux advocates and java advocates are
>natural allies, if only on the pragmatic principle that your enemy's
>enemy is your friend. Greetings, friends!
>
>First of all, I should say that if you are accessing this thread via
>.linux.advocacy and don't normally read .java.advoacy, then you don't
>know what you're missing! Over the past year and a bit, we on clja have
>been having oodles of fun with some of these anonymous FUDster assholes.
>More fun than -- dare I use the expression -- a barrel of monkeys! :-)
>
>The fun with this particular Jerry Shekhel character began when yours
>truly realized the stylistic similarities between the writing of Se�n �
>Donnchadha and one Jerry Coffey, who had been around some months before,
>spreading very similar kinds of anti-Java FUD. I posted some devastating
>evidence that the two were in fact 2 fake identities used by the same
>anonymous FUDster. Somebody else, Grant Fischer, did some other archive
>searches that showed that the real name of said FUDster was Jerry
>Shekhel.
>
>When things got uncovered, Shekhel tried to lie his way out of the
>situation in the most comical ways. He went on record as claiming that
>Se�n � Donnnchadha was his real name, that Jerry Coffey was a personal
>friend of his with whom he lost contact, because "Jerry Coffey went out
>west". He claimed that he had never hear the name "Jerry Shekhel"
>before, though as it later turned out, Jerry Shekhel turned out to be
>the man's real name!
>
>Shekhel did not exactly "go quietly". Things came to a denouement
>finally, earlier this year, when in an attempt to counterattack, Jerry
>Shekhel initiated a thread entitled "Explain your continued lies,
>Revusky". The whole thing is really amusing. It all ended up with Jerry
>Shekhel having to fess up, since he saw the clear danger that this was
>going to impact his "real" life.
>
>The beginning of that thread is conveniently linked for you here below.
>I think you'll find it all very amusing. Though this is only a small
>taste of the kind of surreal shit that has been happening around here.
>
>http://x57.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=584185595&search=thread&CONTEXT=968879741.242876432&HIT_CONTEXT=968879642.242417671&HIT_NUM=4&hitnum=0
>
>Cheers,
>
>Jonathan Revusky
Thanks. Its worth pointing out that he's never bothered to comment on,
let alone deny, that he is actually Jerry Shekhel, AFAIK, on COLA.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
====== 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
******************************
