Linux-Advocacy Digest #160, Volume #29 Sun, 17 Sep 00 15:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie! (OSguy)
Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?
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: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Re: Linux leading indicator ("Mike")
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: GPL & freedom
Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux (Gary Hallock)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 18:09:27 GMT
On Sat, 16 Sep 2000 16:59:20 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"A transfinite number of monkeys" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>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?
>
>I don't need to. The numbers, RedHat, and Linus have already demonstrated
>this.
...and fixed it.
[deletia]
The webserver that stomps all over NT5 was written at Redhat.
--
Hedonist for hire... no job too easy!
The one day you'd sell your soul for something, souls are a glut.
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 18:14:04 GMT
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Sep 2000 13:00:04 +0100, Nigel Feltham wrote:
> >Perhaps someone here could write a suitable filesytem, preferably as an
> >addon
> >to the standard e2fs filesystem (maybe corel could do this as their distro
> >is the one
> >most aimed at inexperienced users)?
>
> In fact one could do something even simpler and write a version of "rm"
> that "moves files into the trash" or something like that. This has already
> been done.
Except that this is a *horrible* kludge. Trash is a failure of #1, it makes
users feel stupid (because it deliberately blunts new user's capabilities).
And in any case, the Trash doesn't work if you overwrite files, so it
doesn't provide versioning, nor does it provide any kind of structure
(it isn't a file and directory tree like normal, just a flat space). Overall,
it's an ulgy, useless, stupid kludge and a perfect example of the divide
between programmers and users imposed by Unix.
> Oh, and Corel is a POS. Just thought I'd say it (-;
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 18:13:34 GMT
On Sat, 16 Sep 2000 04:04:11 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:00091601082201.05150@pc03...
>> El sáb, 16 sep 2000, Chad Myers escribió:
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> On Sat, 16 Sep 2000 00:09:29 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >> >Maybe it's because you were using Linux? Everyone knows Linux's
>> >> >networking stack is horrid has proven in the Linus-endorsed Mindcraft
>> >> >tests.
>> >>
>> >> ...and later refuted with tests of Tux running on Dells.
>> >
>> >Hmm, so you deny that there are major flaws (or that it's one
>> >giant one) in the networking stack of Linux? Linus, RedHat and many
>> >others have admitted this and are working on it.
>>
>> If the mindcraft tests prove linux's networking stack sucks, the Tux
>> benchmarks would prove it doesn't.
>>
>> My personal position is that it does suck (a bit) but that mindcraft
>> was not proof ;-)
>
>RedHat and Linus himself seemed to think it was. Somehow, the Linux
was being the operative word here...
[deletia]
--
Emotions are alien to me. I'm a scientist.
-- Spock, "This Side of Paradise", stardate 3417.3
Burnt Sienna. That's the best thing that ever happened to Crayolas.
-- Ken Weaver
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 18:15:32 GMT
On 15 Sep 2000 21:59:04 -0600, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> On 15 Sep 2000 14:19:53 -0700, petilon
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Internally when Windows 2000 was announced, people were told not to
>> >even think about using it for production because it was too unstable,"
>> >says this ex-Microsoftie.
>>
>> Win2k Beta 3 was running microsoft.com.
>>
>> I love Linux FUD though, keep it coming.
>
>A handful of machines in a cluster of dozens hardlly qualifies as
>running something.
...especially when it's the Vendor's own product.
[deletia]
...especially when it is something so loosely parallelizable
that you could likely achieve the same thing with a cluster
of Colecovision Adams if you could network the Adams and get
enough of them.
--
She was good at playing abstract confusion in the same way a midget is
good at being short.
-- Clive James, on Marilyn Monroe
"Linux: the operating system with a CLUE...
Command Line User Environment".
(seen in a posting in comp.software.testing)
------------------------------
From: OSguy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie!
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 13:18:40 -0500
"David M. Butler" wrote:
> 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
OK, I can buy that. What got me so riled up about my latest Win install is
that after installing Linux distros and having what seemed like fewer problems
with those distros, Installing WinME just brought back all those bad feelings
about those problems that I knew were there, but had been overlooking before.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 18:21:32 GMT
On Sat, 16 Sep 2000 01:46:54 GMT, Darin Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] () writes:
>
>> This process is no different on Unix. Perhaps you are
>> saying that Unix is better than DOS at supporting legacy
>> apps. This would be quite a mouthful.
>
>No, but when I use UNIX, many of the applications I use are
>old ones (with newer releases), and which aren't tied to
...predating any reasonable version of Windows, or
perhaps predating Windows of any kind.
>KDE or Gnome or even Motif. (ie, I use xterm/rxvt in
>preference to newer things, xemacs/vi, xfig, etc)
Then use gtk or qt equivalents. There is a gtk
port of xemacs, likely a gtk port of vi and quite
likely a drawing program to replace xfig in GNOME
or KDE.
>
>I note with a bit of amusement that when I used HPUX, I liked
>the window system (CDE like) but rarely used any of the apps
>for it. I noticed that new users to UNIX tended to use these
>apps a lot more, even using the file manager (IMHO, such things
>don't work as well with typical UNIX file layouts as they do
>with Macs, NeXT's, Windows, etc).
>
>> There just weren't that many Motif apps litering Linux
>> to begin with. The upfront cost of a copy of the Motif
>> libraries rather ensured that.
>
>However, I used (as recently as 6mos) a lot of Motif apps on
>Linux. They just weren't Linux apps, they were remotely used
>from servers. Ie, Framemaker, SAP (crap), etc.
...not very relevant to the bulk of end users that
would actually care wether or not they are using 4
different types of desktop application.
>
>Sure, a consistent app feel in a Linux-only world is great, but
>a broader X Windows wide consistency would be nicer (is Netscape
>going to use Qtk for its Solaris port too?)
Mozilla has been based on gtk for quite a while now actually.
Furthermore, Mozilla is sufficiently well modularized at this
point that you could attach any frontend that you want to it.
An OpenStep frontend can't be too far away.
>
>> Anything that can have an X attribute can be specified in the
>> global X attributes file.
>
>But if every application uses their own names for the attributes,
>then they don't get a consistent look and feel. And that was the
>problem, there was no standard for this stuff. (yes I know all this
>stuff, I used X back before twm)
>
>> So? There is really very little you can specify in this
>> regard for Windows anyways. So any customization facilties
>> in X end up being a superset of what Windows provides.
>
>I don't understand why there's an argument here. X has a drawback
If the comparison is being made between X and Windows then
it is relevant that there is quite a bit of stuff that
Windows simply won't let you control anyways. As long as a
particular X app doesn't do anything funky with it's appdefaults,
consistency shouldn't be an issue for the more esoteric things
that you can tweak in X or athena or motif.
>that Windows didn't have as much of. I'm not saying either is better
>than the other. Microsoft had the resources to get people to quickly
>switch over to new 32-bit apps (due to marketting, planned
>obscolescence, peer pressure, or just plain crappiness of win3.1
>apps). The same mass switchover to new apps isn't going to happen on
>UNIX.
Consistency versus necessitated obsolescence...
[deletia]
Is HP a part of the GNOME Foundation?
--
Pascal Users:
The Pascal system will be replaced next Tuesday by Cobol.
Please modify your programs accordingly.
Ever notice that the word "therapist" breaks down into "the rapist"?
Simple coincidence?
Maybe...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 18:22:58 GMT
On Sat, 16 Sep 2000 03:51:29 GMT, Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[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"
>> >categories. This is much worse than Windows associating only a single process
>> >with each type; Unix only ever associates one process for *any* file.
>>
>> At the level of the kernel, that's all that's really required.
>
>And we all know that "the level of the kernel" is all that matters,
For the filesystem, yes.
[deletia]
However, there are more layers to the onion.
--
Guillotine, n.:
A French chopping center.
I think the world is run by C students.
-- Al McGuire
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 18:23:45 GMT
On Sat, 16 Sep 2000 04:54:33 GMT, Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Nigel Feltham wrote:
>> Not only this but with kernel 2.4 you can associate different types of file
>> with the same extension to different applications - E.g one program for
>
>> Both of the above are achieved by using the new 'misc binaries' settings and
>> telling
>> the kernel what bit-pattern (with optional bit-masking) to apply to files to
>
>And sacrificing a rooster at the peak of the blue moon.
>
>
>What's wrong with ASKING a user what apps she wants associated
>with an application and which particular one from the list to
>use at run-time?? Oh, wait, that's right; that would move power
They don't know.
>and control from the hands of programmers and into the hands
>of users. And we can't have THAT, can we?
--
Canada Bill Jones's Motto:
It's morally wrong to allow suckers to keep their money.
Canada Bill Jones's Supplement:
A Smith and Wesson beats four aces.
There is a fly on your nose.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 18:25:50 GMT
On Sat, 16 Sep 2000 02:11:10 GMT, Joe R. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 15 Sep 2000 21:15:59 +0100, Sam Morris
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> >>
>> >> Name one. Please provide concree, unassailable evidence that
>> >> can prove (beyond any doubt or controversy) that without human
>> >> activity, the climatic change would have happened more slowly.
>> >>
>> >> Name ..just...one.
>> >
>> >My god, that sounds just like something Edwin would have said.
>>
>> Considering that there is no faith amongst society in general
>> that the weather can be predicted, how can we take seriously
>> any claims regarding after the fact analysis of why a particular
>> weather event has occured?
>
>Who cares what "society in general" thinks? Most of them have got the
>scientific education of a smart 6 year old.
>
>Besides, you're wrong anyway. Weather can be predicted reasonably
>accurately. Pick any month of the year and a given location and I'll
>tell you the average temperature within a few degrees.
IOW, the margin of error is roughly equal to the magnitude of the
prediction. That certainly improves my outlook.
>
>Granted, it's difficult to predict precise weather changes over a short
>time period, but predicting weather over longer time frames isn't as
>difficult.
--
ONE LIFE TO LIVE for ALL MY CHILDREN in ANOTHER WORLD all THE DAYS OF OUR LIVES.
If God is dead, who will save the Queen?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 18:27:08 GMT
On Sat, 16 Sep 2000 02:18:48 GMT, Jack Troughton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Fri, 15 Sep 2000 21:34:50, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 15 Sep 2000 21:15:59 +0100, Sam Morris
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> > > > >I wonder how the eco-paranoids can explain the ice ages and
>>>tropical
>>>> > > > >fossils well north of 40 degrees North latitude which occurred many
>>>> > > > >millions of years before the rise of man.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > > Plate Tectonics. Look it up.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > I know that. I was wondering how the eco-nuts would explain it since
>>>they
>>>> > > claim that man is responsible for climatic changes, etc. --
>>>> >
>>>> > They are not exclusive. Just because there are non-human processes
>>>> > that lead to climatic changes, doesn't necessarily mean that human
>>>> > processes can't also lead to climatic change.
>>>> >
>>>> > The big problem with human-induced climatic change is the time scale
>>>> > involved. If human processes accelerate climatic change, causing a
>>>> > change that would normally take hundreds or thousands of years to
>>>> > occur happen in years or decades, the amount of time available to
>>>> > adjust and survive becomes reduced, making it harder for us to adapt
>>>> > to it.
>>>>
>>>> Name one. Please provide concree, unassailable evidence that
>>>> can prove (beyond any doubt or controversy) that without human
>>>> activity, the climatic change would have happened more slowly.
>>>>
>>>> Name ..just...one.
>>>
>>>My god, that sounds just like something Edwin would have said.
>>
>> Considering that there is no faith amongst society in general
>> that the weather can be predicted, how can we take seriously
>> any claims regarding after the fact analysis of why a particular
>> weather event has occured?
>
>Weather cannot be predicted. I can say that it's going to rain
>tomorrow, but I can't say if it will rain in three days.
>
>OTOH, I can say that it's going to be damned cold come February in
>Montreal. That's a prediction, and I'm >99.999% likely to be right. I
>can even say why it will occur; precession of the earth as it orbits
>the sun.
"damned cold" isn't nearly well enough specified.
[deletia]
--
You have a deep appreciation of the arts and music.
Rules for Academic Deans:
(1) HIDE!!!!
(2) If they find you, LIE!!!!
-- Father Damian C. Fandal
------------------------------
From: "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux leading indicator
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 18:41:00 GMT
"James Yegerlehner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In the Oracle analyst's conference call on Thursay, Larry Ellison was
asked
> about the mix of Linux in their products. His answer:
>
> Larry Ellison [ my paraphrase, but this is pretty much his wording]:
> -------------
> In July there were 4 times as many linux downloads as win NT downloads
> amongst developers. This compares to July of the prior year where there
were
> fewer Linux downloads than Windows downloads. It is a leading indicator.
It
> is staggering. It is a significant erosion for Microsoft in the
development
> community.
Larry doesn't have much credibility in his comments regarding Microsoft.
Regardless of what _you_ believe, you can't believe Larry.
(If you could, we'd all be sitting on the beach downloading microscopic Java
applets that run - inside a browser, no less - as fast as super-optimized
compiled code, paying pennies per use, on a $199 internet appliance).
-- Mike --
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 18:43:47 GMT
Nigel Feltham wrote:
> How many new or inexperience users actually know that this command
> actually exists - a more likely occurence nowadays would probably be
> to highlight all directories in root and hit delete (from within kfm as new
> users would only know about the window manager their distro installed
> as default and most use kde). Doing this should display a warning (at least
> with default settings) which will put users off continuing the delete
> process.
"puts them off" is right. The only thing warning boxes do is tell users
"you're a moron". And eventually, users learn to confirm warning
boxes automatically, so they 1) cease to have any utility, 2) *still* make
users feel stupid, and 3) you're only *hoping* that the users will have
learned all the pitfalls of the system (ie, got into the programmer
mindset) by the time this happens.
Here's an article on the (lack of) usefulness of error messages,
http://www.cooper.com/articles/vbpj_ban_the_bomb.html
Trash is an intolerable "solution" for many reasons. And every time
I use rm -rf for any reason, my anxiety levels shoot up. You may think
this is "good" but how the hell can it be good for software to cause fear??
Trash and confirmation boxes don't fix the problem, they just fuck
up the user so the problem *may* be avoided. Exactly like the qwerty
keymap fucked up typists. And as a result, qwerty has been with us
for more than a hundred years. Please think twice before you propose
another kludge, I don't want to have to endure kludges until the day
I die.
> >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,
> Perhaps someone here could write a suitable filesytem, preferably as an
> addon
> to the standard e2fs filesystem (maybe corel could do this as their distro
> is the one
> most aimed at inexperienced users)?
<rolleyes> This is a perfect example of the contempt programmers
have for users. At least you have the decency to euphemize "luser" as
"inexperienced user".
A logging filesystem to replace ext2fs would be useful for *everyone*.
Good solutions are useful to everyone, and not especially made for
"inexperienced" users. Good solutions are not training wheels that
hamper users, they're high-tech wheels that will make everyone go
20% faster.
And Christian Czezatke is already working on a Linux LFS.
http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/czezatke/lfs.html
My only question is why hasn't the Linux community ever regarded
it as an important project?
------------------------------
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 19:07:51 GMT
On Sat, 16 Sep 2000 05:01:03 GMT, Zenin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>D'Arcy Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >snip<
>: BSD - do what you like... including taking away other people freedom to
>: view and modify the code.
>
> That's just it; The BSD license does not take away any such freedoms
> whatsoever. If you think it does, prove it by making it impossible
It also doesn't seek to secure them for subsequent users either.
> for me to get a copy of 4.4BSD Lite in source form easily and modify
> it. If you can't, you have no argument here.
>
> This is the bread and butter of your argument against the BSD
> license; surely if it holds water at all you should be able to
> fulfill this request trivially.
I severely doubt he's arguing against the BSDl at all. Typically
it is wannabe robber barons and BSD zealots that generate any
sort of conflict between the BSDl and the L/GPL. Even RMS himself
doesn't pick on the BSDl as a licence.
>
>: GPL - do waht you like as long as everyone else is free to view and modify
>: the code.
>:
>: You are misinterpreting what is meant by "free".
>
> Probably because we use a real English definition of "free" and not
> the warped and twisted definition of RMS.
"free" != the anarchy that allows petty warlords to set up kingdoms.
[deletia]
--
A king's castle is his home.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 15:09:02 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.admin
Subject: Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> 5) The native OS for the S/390 still handles the bulk of the
> work in keeping such real "big iron" running and running well.
> Linux just serves as an efficient compatibility layer. It
> doesn't in any way interfere with any inherent niftiness that
> might motivate someone to by an S/390.
>
> It's a complete win-win situation.
>
Definitely. You can run OS/390 in one LPAR and Linux in another. Or you can
run them both as guests under VM. And with the recent introduction of the Virtual
Image Facility ( http://www.ibmlink.ibm.com/usalets&parms=H_200-261 ) you can run
thousands of copies of Linux on an LPAR without the expense or administration cost
of full VM/ESA. Linux provides the front end with OS/390 handling, for example,
data base functions.
Gary
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
