Linux-Advocacy Digest #159, Volume #29 Sun, 17 Sep 00 14:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Re: Another "feature" in IE discovered. (D. Spider)
Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie! (David M.
Butler)
Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Re: GPL & freedom
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 17:31:10 GMT
On Sun, 17 Sep 2000 03:29:31 +0100, Tristan Wibberley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> On Fri, 15 Sep 2000 21:58:23 GMT, Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> >Incorrect. Unix types files into arbitrary "executable" and
>"non-executable"
[deletia]
>>> >Take a text editor for example. Conceptually, it's a type of windowed
>>> >server that takes filenames as input and generates file changes as
>output.
>>> >There is *no* reason why a different "text editor" server process needs
>>> >to be started for every single user, let alone for every single file.
>The
>>> >whole Unix paradigm is fucked up from top to bottom.
>>>
>>> No, it's not unecessarily complicated.
>>
>>For whom, the users or the coders? I do believe you're talking about the
For those that must ensure that it functions correctly.
On the other hand, such an overly complicated scheme does
NOT A DAMN THING for the end user. All it does is satisfy
a particular twits aesthetic sensibilities. Either method
is equivalent to the "mere end user".
Although your method is likely to be less robust.
Unix is successful as practice, as opposed to theory that may
have no relation to actual reality, partially because it strives
to keep individual components as simple as possible.
>>latter group. Well, boo hoo hoo, here's a free clue: I don't give a shit
>>about how hard it is for the coders.
>
>Great argument. Includes expletives and all.
His argument might have a point if there was some usability
gain to be had. However, there isn't.
>
>
>>If programmers were held to the standards of *any* engineering discipline,
>>mass executions would swiftly follow. We've all heard this umteenth times
>>but enlightenment is obviously a different thing from mere comprehension.
>
>They are held to those standards *mostly*, that is why software doesn't work
>all the time - programmers get told to stop by the users because their
>software is "good enough". Programmers are not generally held to the
>standards of any *mathematical* discipline except where it is required to
>meet the engineering constraints (like for life-support systems where
>machine code for software should be proven correct).
>
>>> You've mutated a potentially
>>> quite rediculously simple process into something that now has to
>>> deal with and be aware of security and concurrency issues.
>>
>>It only has to worry about security in a system that has none, like Unix.
>
>?! UNIX's security is excellent - you can get better, but I can't afford any
>machines which can run such an operating system, so I'll have to make do
>with UNIX.
>
>>And you have to worry about concurrency anyways, at least this way it's
>>the programmer who's worrying about it and not the helpless user being
>>shafted by some lazy SOB.
>
>True, but it's trivial - if you're editing a file, apply a mandatory lock -
>unless the user doesn't want it locked. Most of the time, the user doesn't
>give a crap, so don't bother unless they ask for it.
>
>
>>> The benefit of complicating a simple text editor in this fashion
>>> is far from obvious.
>>
>>On the contrary, making them "one-off" is what complicates processes.
>>You just don't see this because Unix makes it impossible to have
>>persistent processes, or secure processes, or multi-user processes,
>>or pretty much anything useful.
Unix is capable of all of this actually. Infact, you likely
used quite a few of these to support your little tirade. If
Unix didn't have these facilities, noone would ever hear your
inane babblings.
[deletia]
Still, nothing that would benefit an end user despite rambling
about how programmers are hostile to end users...
--
Every absurdity has a champion who will defend it.
A thing is not necessarily true because a man dies for it.
-- Oscar Wilde, "The Portrait of Mr. W.H."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (D. Spider)
Subject: Re: Another "feature" in IE discovered.
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 17:32:22 GMT
It appears that on Sun, 17 Sep 2000 08:30:06 -0400, in
comp.os.linux.advocacy "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"D. Spider" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> It appears that on Sat, 16 Sep 2000 08:31:10 -0400, in
>> comp.os.linux.advocacy "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >I'd gladly trade my movements being tracked for a browser that can:
>> >
>> >Deal with text entry forms properly. Some work, many don't. Basic
>> >functionality. Don't have it? Your browser is worst than second rate.
>>
>> What browser doesn't have it?
>
>NN for Linux..in this case red hat 5.0, 5.1, 5.2 and 6.2
>I log onto many sites that require username and password. More times than I
>can count, this is screwed up one way or another under NN with linux.
I use NN in linux and it's always worked for that. Text entry forms
used to cause a memory leak if too much text was involved or if they
stayed on screen too long, but the last upgrade fixed that. I have
never had any trouble with password protected sites. If you can reveal
what site is causing the trouble, however, I might be able to
determine the problem for you.
>> >Allow copy operations from any part of the page, and paste into any of my
>> >text editors
>> >I can't copy text off a page in NN and paste it into any of KDE's
>editors.
>> >This blows.
>>
>> *ROFL* that's funny, I can do that fine.
>
>I'm glad you find it amusing. Can you tell me HOW I'm supposed to accomplish
>this feat? Maybe there is a problem with my config, perhaps you can steer me
>in the direction to fix that. I've looked for a solution and not found one.
>I can do this from a terminal to K-editors, from anything K to anything else
>K, but not from NN.
>I've tried six ways to sunday to select - copy - past text from NN into
>either of the editors supplied with KDE, and I GET NOTHING. Please help me
>if you can.
The only thing remotely difficult here is that you have to use X
pasting instead of KDE. KDE attempts to mimic windows, but of course
it will only work with KDE (or Gnome) components. Standard X pasting
requires you to highlight the text in question, then click the middle
mouse button where you want to paste it to. If you have a two button
mouse, you need to make sure you have 3 button emulation enabled in X,
and click both buttons simultaneously to send the middle button
signal. This is a pain at first, but I found it not so bad once I got
used to it. Of course, a three button mouse is better.
>> >Fully functioning hot keys for all important operations.
>> >I'm not a mouser. NN makes me have to be one for may operations.
>>
>> Hrmm I'm a big hotkey user myself. One of many reasons Opera is the
>> best browser around IMOP. NN does as good a job at this as IE, neither
>> is really good at it.
>
>NN is NO WHERE as good as this as IE. I'm talking about under Linux with
>regards to NN.
>Half of the menu items are disabled in NN in any event.
This is simply not true in my experience. What is disabled?
>> >I.E., for all of the faults it does have, handles all of the above
>without
>> >flaw.
>>
>> No better than NN, and much worse than Opera.
>
>I used opera 3 under window NT4. It was less than thrilling.How any company
>could charge for that software was beyond me. I used it for the full trial
>period, then trashed it. It would crash or lock up on anything other than
>basic hypertext. Hot keys? Yes, it does have strength in that area. Page
>rendering? It left much to be desired.
>However, I would trade Opera for NN any day of the week. NN for Linux is a
>terrible excuse for software from a major company. It's embarrassing.
Opera 3 (particularly pre 3.6) was notorious for correct behaviour -
rendering broken pages as broken, instead of bending over backwards to
make them look good like NN and IE do. Personally I'm a bit
disappointed that the current version (4.2) has incorporated so much
code to fix broken pages that it no longer fits on a floppy, but it's
still far smaller and faster and more powerful than the others. It
does, however, render most broken pages instead of showing them as
they are. You might like that.
#####################################################
My email address is posted for purposes of private
correspondence only. Consent is expressly NOT given
to receive advertisements, or bulk mailings of any
kind.
#####################################################
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 17:35:48 GMT
On Sat, 16 Sep 2000 22:51:12 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:5TRw5.1656$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> "A transfinite number of monkeys" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > On Sat, 16 Sep 2000 05:31:06 GMT,
>> > Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > :
>> > : > And now, a long time later, a similar benchmark shows a much better
>> > : > behaviour by the Linux network stack. It still sucks a bit, though.
>> > :
>> > : Please post a URL, I haven't read about this. I've been taking your
>> > : word for it, but I would like to read the specifics.
>> >
>> > http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/res2000q2/
>> >
>> > : > And why is fixing a problem a joke?
>> > :
>> > : Because it's an inherent design problem in Linux.
>> >
>> > Oh, and can we assume you've read through all of the networking code in
>> > the Linux kernel to verify this? What credentials do you have that make
>> > you an authority on this subject? I'd be very interested in seeing
>> > those credentials. They must be pretty impressive, after all, you speak
>> > in such absolutes.
>>
>> C'MON....several tests have shown weaknesses in that area of linux...thats
>> was his damn point
>
>The Penguinistas have their head burried so far in the sand they can't
>even realize their own beloved OS' weakness.
No, we just don't see too many people using systems that would
really expose the faults of the Linux IP stack.
Outside of fantasy scenarios like those proposed by Mindcraft,
Linux has always done well compared to NT in network benchmarks.
Lately, Linux even surpassed NT by quite a wide margin.
It's the Lemmings that have their heads buried.
--
Cat, n.:
Lapwarmer with built-in buzzer.
Most rock journalism is people who can't write interviewing people who
can't talk for people who can't read.
-- Frank Zappa
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 17:41:48 GMT
On Sat, 16 Sep 2000 18:11:53 GMT, Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
>> I guess you could write an "openfile" command that does this using the
>> existing functionality. The reason why no one's written such a thing is
>> more lack of interest than anyone else.
>
>Which is quite telling. But it's not a big surprise that programmers
>wouldn't be interested in helping users, even if they are (technically,
>not mentally) users themselves.
>
>And writing an "openfile" command would not be sufficient for
>consistency. The shell would still treat "executable" and "non-
>executable" files in completely different ways for no justifiable
>reason whatsoever.
Bullshit.
There's a very GOOD reason to distinguish between the two.
Data != programs.
It never has.
>
>There is no conceptual reason between executing a program
>and opening a file. In both cases, the shell is ordered to process
Attitudes like this is why we have Microsoft Mail viruses
running rampant. NO, a program is not just another type
of generic datafile.
[deletia]
Personally, I like the fact that I can name something "runme"
rather than be restricted to "runme.exe" or "runme.tos".
--
I put aside my copy of "BOWLING WORLD" and think about GUN CONTROL
legislation...
Parents often talk about the younger generation as if they didn't have
much of anything to do with it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 17:45:06 GMT
On Sat, 16 Sep 2000 17:48:32 GMT, Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
>> Richard wrote:
>> > The question is: why the hell are Linux UIs so shitty? Are you so
>> > uncomfortable with the obvious answer that you need to change the
>> > debate ASAP?
>>
>> Why the hell are sledge hammers so shitty?
>>
>> The other day, I was trying to change my sparkplugs, and the
>> damn thing was absolutely fucking worthless for unscrewing the
>> plug out of the engine head.
>>
>> The Linux UI is quite good for what it's designed to do.
>> It's shitty at doing things it's not intended to do.
>
>I agree completely. I'd just like to point out that "things it's
>not intended to do" includes "being used by any human being".
>
Sorry, but you simply can't subsitute your inability to use more
than one interface as an excuse to bash any other particular user
shell, including KDE.
--
It is impossible to enjoy idling thoroughly unless one has plenty of
work to do.
-- Jerome Klapka Jerome
Row, row, row your bits, gently down the stream...
------------------------------
From: David M. Butler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie!
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 13:54:43 -0400
OSguy wrote:
> So, according to you, my preference for Linux suddenly makes it difficult
> for
> me to install Windows. I don't buy that at all seeing that I've always
Actually, no, that's not what I was saying at all. I was explaining that a
lot of people who are hardcore MS users will often overlook any
installation (or other) problems they've had. The same is true for a lot
of hardcore Linux users. They may have some problems with the system, but
they're overlooked. I wasn't saying that it actually became more difficult
once you decided which one you like.
-D. Butler
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 17:49:43 GMT
On Sat, 16 Sep 2000 16:57:18 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sat, 16 Sep 2000 04:04:11 GMT, Chad Myers
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >RedHat and Linus himself seemed to think it was. Somehow, the Linux
>> >slashdotters got it into their minds that the Mindcraft tests (both)
>> >were trumped up and false.
>>
>> The Mindcraft tests showed a real problem, but one that would only very
>> rarely be an issue in a production system. The test was carefully
>> designed to highlight a particular strength of NT relative to Linux.
>> It was not "rigged", in the sense that the results weren't faked, but
>> the thing that was tested was not chosen at random. The whole thing
>> was a marketing exercise, nothing more.
>
>Um... so you think that multiple-NICs are never used in a production
>system? Multiple-NIC load-balancing, etc?
We went through this at the time trying to get Lemmings
to come up with good examples of Mindcraft style machines
actually used in production work.
[deletia]
A few good examples would have worked then or now. Of course
there were none then and there will likely be none now.
--
We don't understand the software, and sometimes we don't understand the
hardware, but we can *___see* the blinking lights!
Women who want to be equal to men lack imagination.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 17:54:18 GMT
On Sat, 16 Sep 2000 18:40:25 GMT, Quantum Leaper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> "Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:8pua6q$hp6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> > : On 15 Sep 2000 03:16:33 GMT, Steve Mading
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> > :>In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> > :>: On 5 Sep 2000 22:17:14 GMT, Steve Mading
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > :>:>In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> > :>:>
>> > :>:>: Person 7 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > :>:>: news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > :>:>:> On Fri, 26 May 2000 03:16:59 GMT, in comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,
>> > :>:>:> ([EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine))
[deletia]
>> > : I shudder to think what you would have done in the 1200 bps era.
>> >
>> > The 1200 bps era? I certainly wasn't sitting around thinking, "gee,
>> > I sure wish I could download a Linux distro - too bad it's only 1990
>> > and it doesn't exist yet."
>>
>> But if the Mandrake distro (1gb) HAD existed.... it would have taken about
>> 100 days of solid downloading to get.
>> I guess thats still faster than transcribing it from a printout.
>>
>
>The problem is in 1990, I sure there were 2400 bps, and I thought 9600 bps
>modems had been out already. Either way it still way too much for a
>regular modem to handle even today, unless you a few days to spare.
>
>
You twits really don't have any clue do you. What makes you think
that just because someone has a DS3 that any particular large download
will necessarily buzz by at 160MegaBYTES a second. The real internet
doesn't necessarily work that way.
Ironically enough, right now I am downloading the two CD's of the
latest Mandrake beta at serial modem speeds. There's nothing "tedious"
about it. I just put the damn download in the background.
Even an Atari ST could manage as much.
It's not like you've got to push each bit through the wire yourself.
Just look at the progress bar very few hours or so...
--
Objects are lost only because people look where they are not rather than
where they are.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 17:58:28 GMT
On Sat, 16 Sep 2000 08:03:34 -0400, Rinaldi J. Montessi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hartmann Schaffer wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >On Fri, 15 Sep 2000 17:59:34 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (RogerB) wrote:
>> >
>> >> Crap. For years Ms has been the only produce because
>> >>the stores sell nothing else.
>> >
>> >Bull shit. There has *never* been a time when MS didn't have
>> >any competition. Claiming "they only came out on top because
>>
>> that is debatable. true enough, there always was something available,
>> but you had to know about it and be very persistent to get it.
>> practically all stores and direct sellers offered ms and nothing else,
>> didn't bother to inform potential customers that anything else was
>> available. there was a period where dr-dos had a chance. just check
>> the court documents about how ms took care of that problem
>>
>> >the stores sell nothing else" is as stupid as the crap Ray Lopez
>>
>> how many stores do you know who sold something else, or were even
>> willing to look into it when you demanded it (which most newbies
>> couldn't simply because nobody told them)
>>
>> > ...
>>
>> hs
>
>Most of the folks I know in the retail business don't know how to
>operate anything but windows. The technicians may know how, but the
>money is in working on MS boxes. It's a "volume" thing.
IOW, it's a market barrier inherent to the way in which software
works and how software interfaces (or at least the implementations
that hide) them are things that can be owned.
[deletia]
Any competitor to microsoft not only has to replicate the OS,
but all of the device drivers and all of the 3rd party apps.
They also have to ensure that all of this will be where the
consumers can get to it. At times, this last bit has just been
plain impossible due to Microsoft's racketeering activities.
--
Friendships last when each friend thinks he has a slight superiority
over the other.
-- Honore DeBalzac
Famous, adj.:
Conspicuously miserable.
-- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: GPL & freedom
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 18:07:11 GMT
On Sat, 16 Sep 2000 08:06:40 GMT, Zenin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Bob Hauck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >snip<
>:>Yes, it's bad to have infringed someone elses copyright and I should pay
>:>royalties or recall my code. I don't have those choices with GPL'd code.
>:
>: The author of the original code is always free to license it to you
>: under other terms, if he can be convinced.
>
> For all practical purposes, this is completely impossible.
No it isn't. You always have a choice of what code you are
going to assimilate. It is simply UNTRUE that you don't have
any choice when it comes to USING OTHER PEOPLE'S PROPERTY.
You basically want to have others respect your rights without
you needing to give a damn about anyone elses.
>
> Any GPL project of any significant size by its very nature has many,
> many developers...each and everyone of which needs to approve the
> alternative terms. You've got a snowball's chance in hell of just
...and all of these contributors chose in the beginning to contribute
or not. They all had the opportunity to contribute to or start
competing projects. There is seldom any network effect associated
with any particular free project such that you cannot merely swap one
for the other.
> *contacting* all the authors (dead email addresses, etc) let alone
> getting them to agree to anything.
That's entirely irrelevant.
>
> This, of course, is one of the main "features" of the GPL that RMS
> love so much; once code is GPLed it is effectively GPLed for life,
This is true of any licence. You typically can't "take it back at
will" with any sort of license. Although the MPAA an RIAA are trying.
> regardless if the original author wants to change their mind. Like
> herpes, the warts of the GPL can't be removed once you've been
> infected.
>
> After all, fuck the author; the FSF is all about the rights of
> *software*, not *people*. Which of course is pretty silly...given
> that software isn't a being and thus has no rights...
The entity refered to in terms of "FREE" is indeed people. It just
isn't the limited subset of people that see themselves as potential
robber barons.
Robber barons are a small minority. That's why things like GNU and
BSD are as successful as they are.
[deletia]
>:>2) I sell my code to a third party that uses my code with GPL'd code.
>:>Suddenly, because someone ELSE uses my code I now have to legally
>:>publish my code because it's been linked to GPL'd code.
So, you admit that you don't give a DAMN about the liberties of
others. For this is what you are whining about here. You lament
the fact that you must extend the same liberties to your users
that some "Commie" extended to you.
THAT is the whole point of Free Software. It's not there to just
be corporate welfare.
>:
>: Why? It would seem that the third party is the one that violated the GPL.
>
> Actually, unless they intend to distribute the work, they can link
> it all they like.
>
>: They would have to stop distributing their product and/or license the GPL
>: code under other terms.
>
> Yep.
Create a "derivative work" and anyone who gets that derivative
work must be granted all the rights and priveledges you recieved
in order to create that "derivative work".
There's no voodoo involved.
--
If I were to walk on water, the press would say I'm only doing it
because I can't swim.
-- Bob Stanfield
An American's a person who isn't afraid to criticize the president but is
always polite to traffic cops.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
