Linux-Advocacy Digest #213, Volume #29 Tue, 19 Sep 00 17:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: So did they ever find out what makes windows98 freeze up all the time? ("Steve
Burgess")
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools ("Sam Morris")
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools ("Sam Morris")
Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools) ("Sam Morris")
Re: filename extensions are NOT a kludge (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: filename extensions are NOT a kludge (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools) ("Sam Morris")
Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools) ("Sam Morris")
Re: GPL & freedom
Re: filename extensions are NOT a kludge (Brian Langenberger)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Steve Burgess" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.windows98
Subject: Re: So did they ever find out what makes windows98 freeze up all the time?
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 17:34:18 -0300
"Jason N" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:QdLx5.1913$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> It's simply software bugs and poor design. Enough said. The next version
of
> windows is supposesd to fix all this.
>
> -Jason
LOL
Where have we heard this before? hehehe
:-)
--
C'ya
Steve aka ZaGhost
remove #'s to reply by mail
Musician Page -> http://www.onlinerock.com/musicians/zaghost/
UT Crosshairs -> http://www.accesswave.ca/~seburges/
ICQ 3839381
Running Intel Free
------------------------------
From: "Sam Morris" <[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: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 21:14:42 +0100
> > > > Except of course that the issue is correlation between gun ownership
> > > > and
> > > > gun-related deaths.
> >
> > You don't have an answer for that, do you?
>
> There is no correlation between gun ownership and murder rates.
That original quote again, folks:
"Except of course that the issue is correlation between gun ownership and
gun-related deaths."
Spot the difference?
BTW - how many usenet posts would you say you make every week, Aaron?
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> ICQ # 3056642
--
Cheers,
Sam
------------------------------
From: "Sam Morris" <[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: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 21:20:27 +0100
> Explain the readings that say otherwise. I bet DuPont fucked with
> everybody's equipment.
DuPont was part of an EVIL COMMUNIST PLOT involving, but not limited to, the
NEA, the American government and (fishes for random scapegoat) YES! THE
FRENCH!
Making people BEHAVE RESPONSIBLY towards the environment encourages FEELINGS
OF COMMUNITY which, as all followers of Aaron know, foster COMMUNIST IDEALS
with the intent of making the American people RIPE for INVASION and
ENSLAVEMENT by an EVIL FOREIGN POWER!
--
Cheers,
Sam
------------------------------
From: "Sam Morris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools)
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 21:40:28 +0100
> Clue for the fucking clueless idiot:
>
> Ever hear of DESALINIZATION!?!?!?!
If I remember correctly:
Building Area occupied Cost Water pumped
=====================================================
Water Pump 1 acre $100 1 unit
Water Pump
(near
freshwater) 1 acre $100 3 units
Desalinisation
Plant 9 acres $1000 6 units
So I could spend $900 dollars on ten water pumps and pump 9 units of water
(27 if near a river), or I could spend $1000 and use the same area on a
Desalinisation Plant and only pump 2/3 or 2/9 of the amount of water.
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> ICQ # 3056642
>
> H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
> premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
> you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
> you are lazy, stupid people"
Quite.
>
> I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
> challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
> between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
> Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
Or perhaps you are a BIGGOTTED ***hole.
> A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
Sometimes. Often the fool is mocked by wise men, the wise man is mocked by
other wise men, or the fool is mocked by more fools.
> B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
> method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
> direction that she doesn't like.
>
> C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
>
> D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> ...despite (D) above.
>
> E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
> their behavior improves.
That's nice, why do we care? It appears he has stopped, so why don't you
remove parts A to D of your stupid .sig?
> F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
Prove it, if you think you can.
> G: Knackos...you're a retard.
How ironic.
--
Cheers,
Sam
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Subject: Re: filename extensions are NOT a kludge
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 20:40:30 -0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
>Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
>
>> I hate to jump into this, but I think you've missed
>> something if you really think it is impossible. BeOS
>> happens to use a non-extension based system of mime-types.
>> If you take an MP3 file and rename it 'music.txt' it will
>> still pull up the MP3 player. As to the user being in
>> control: You pull up a context menu and you can change the
>> mime type just by scrolling through a list. At file
>> creation (in apps that can create more than one type of
>> file) the same list is available. It isn't as impossible
>> as you imply. And it isn't a power-trip on the
>> programmers part.
>
>That's the same thing as a filename extension, except
>that it's a kludge because you create a separate function
>to access the type information for no good reason. Well,
>the 'reason' is that you want to complicate/obfuscate the
>system so that users don't change type information by
>accident. It's the equivalent of adding warnings and/or
>confirmations to other common operations like rm. And
>unlike rm, renaming a file is /not/ a destructive operation
>so there is no reason to put hurdles in users' way (in this
>case, it's legitimate to say that users will learn from their
>mistakes).
>
>What I said was impossible was determining type from
>binary file information automagically. And from what
>you describe, that's not what BeOS does.
>
>
>> Personally, I feel this is one of the things that BeOS
>> does right. There are a lot of clueless users that will
>> rename files and forget to keep the proper extension on
>> the file. In this case, a system like what BeOS employs
>> works wonderfully. And with a click of the mouse you can
>> change the actual type of the file. No loss of power, no
>> ridiculous kludges to keep files of the correct type.
>
>From a purely functional point of view, putting types
>in the links might work (from a conceptual point of
>view, it doesn't) if manipuling type info (and creating
>a new object counts) is /extremely/ rare for users. Even
>in that case, having useful names for extensions (eg,
>"playlist" and not "m3u") would impress the meaning
>and importance of extensions upon users. The idea that
>users do not need to know type information is patently
>absurd, it's just that in GUIs type information is shown
>by using different icons. Do users of a CLI have any less
>need to know type information? So from the user's pov,
>not having easily accessible types is a losing proposition.
>
>And this all breaks down (including your assertion that
>it isn't a power trip for programmers) because programmers
>need to manipulate types too and filename extensions are
>1) extremely easy and convenient, 2) don't complicate the
>API. If programmers think that secreting type information
>away from users is sufficient reason to pay this penalty, of
>harming themselves, then it's because they want to control
>("clueless") users.
>
>
[snip]
Most of what you are saying is based on the assumption
that users 'want' to be educated on how to use a computer.
While that would be an admirable goal, it isn't a
realistic one.
You are assuming that the user doesn't want to have his
hand held. But at the same time that two or three people
like you are saying, "Stop holding my hand" you will see a
thousand people saying, "Please, hold my hand. Don't make
me think. Don't make me learn how to do it properly."
My personal feeling on the entire issue is, there are
always going to be a few that want to know how to use the
system (no matter how 'easy' or 'kludge-free' it is) and
there will always be far more people that don't want to
know how to use the system, they just 'want' the system.
Filename extensions is no less a kludge than any of the
other methods being discussed. Yes, it's easily
recognizable to someone that is familiar with computers
already, but for a relative novice, especially if that
novice wants to no nothing about the computer he is
'using', that little difference means exactly nothing.
It's always going to boil down to education of the user.
And until we have the 'walk up and talk to it' type of
system (maybe even then), education of the user is always
going to be a factor.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: filename extensions are NOT a kludge
Date: 19 Sep 2000 20:43:55 GMT
On Tue, 19 Sep 2000 19:28:06 GMT, Richard wrote:
>That's the same thing as a filename extension, except
No, it's not. One way dictates the filenames to the user, the
other one does not.
>that it's a kludge because you create a separate function
>to access the type information for no good reason. Well,
Actually, I don't see any good reason for such a strong
coupling between file names and file types. Either way, you
need a "function" to determine file types.
>the 'reason' is that you want to complicate/obfuscate the
I don't see how it's "complicating" or "obfuscating" anything.
In fact quite the opposite, this way clarifies things.
The way you want to do it ( by having the user changing extensions )
has the undesirable effect of creating unnecessary side effects.
Changing the name of a file needn't have anything to do with changing
the file type. Yet, it's possible that the user could change the type
as a side effect of changing the name.
In programming, code with side effects is considered "bad" because the
code is difficult to read. I would say that a similar principle applies
to interface design -- actions that have side effects make a system
confusing.
>accident. It's the equivalent of adding warnings and/or
>confirmations to other common operations like rm. And
No, it's not adding any "warnings" or "confirmations". It's removing
side effects from the operation of renaming files.
>unlike rm, renaming a file is /not/ a destructive operation
>so there is no reason to put hurdles in users' way
There's no reason to put hurdles in front of renaming files. What is
necessary is to remove side effects from the operation of renaming a
file.
A request from the user to "Change file type" should change a files type.
A request from the user to "rename file" should rename the file. It shouldn't
reboot the computer. It shouldn't change the default font. It shouldn't
print the file. And it shouldn't change the file type.
> (in this
>case, it's legitimate to say that users will learn from their
>mistakes).
Well, that's really not good enough. Why design a system with side effects
in the first place ?
>in that case, having useful names for extensions (eg,
>"playlist" and not "m3u") would impress the meaning
>and importance of extensions upon users.
One could contest the "importance" of extensions. They are only
"important" within the limited context of existing paradigms.
> The idea that
>users do not need to know type information is patently
>absurd, it's just that in GUIs type information is shown
>by using different icons.
I agree with this. Users certainly should know type information.
> Do users of a CLI have any less
>need to know type information?
Of course CLI users need to know type information. But there's no
compelling reason to build it into the filenames.
>And this all breaks down (including your assertion that
>it isn't a power trip for programmers)
Your assertion that the "programmers" are on a "power trip" is what is
breaks down under any scrutiny.
Your gross over generalisations succeed at doing little more than
convincing the readers here that you are a small minded bigot.
>need to manipulate types too and filename extensions are
>1) extremely easy and convenient,
No, they are not. What is convenient is an API that tells the programmer
what the file type is and allows them to manipulate/modify the type.
Given the existence of such an API, it really doesn't matter *how*
the types are manipulated.
What makes life inconvenient for programmers and users alike is the
existence of operations that have side effects. Renaming a file should
rename the file. It shouldn't do anything else.
> 2) don't complicate the
>API.
I don't see how any other method would make the API more "complicated" to
use.
> If programmers think that secreting type information
>away from users
I don't think that type info should be "hidden" from users. But I certainly
believe that having operations with side effects is a lousy idea.
> is sufficient reason to pay this penalty, of
>harming themselves, then it's because they want to control
>("clueless") users.
Nonsense.
>It's simple actually;
>if you are using a CLI then you need to have easy and routine
>access to type information. How are you gonna do that? The
You have the file listing display type information ( is it really that
hard ) ?
In fact top make it more "intuitive", you can color code ( like color ls )
>simplest way is for 'ls' to display it when you do a listing of
>files, in much the same way that it displays permissions, time-
>stamps and other things. Ok, now suppose that you have a
>separate command for renaming files and their extensions
>(this is equivalent to what you describe in BeOS) just like
>you have separate commands for manipulating permissions
>and timestamps. The question is: what does this get you?
This gets you a system which does not have unnecessary side effects.
Systems with side effects are confusing because commands
"do stuff behind the users back"
The fact that you are used to a certain set of side effects does not
make those side effects "intuitive".
>The answer is "Jack" because there is no distinction between
>the set of people who should use rename and the people who
>should use changeType.
If "rename" allows you to change the "extension", then this is bad,
and there is no distinction as you say.
If "rename" does not let you change the "extension", then there's an
obvious distinction.
>accessors? Of course. Is it a good *enough* reason to pay
>the penalty of complicating the interface?
What do you mean by "complicating" ?
>There are ways to reduce the number of accidental type
>changes without hobbling the users. And forcing users to
>use separate accessor functions is not one of them. The
Let me reiterate -- side effects are bad.
>problem with this is that it requires a bit of thought to
>solve and that's something programmers are loathe to
>devote for the users' sake.
Again, there you go again ranting like an obnoxious bigot.
No one's going to take you seriously while you continue to post
these bigoted, spiteful and downright ignorant comments. Programmers
are not terribly nasty people. They are certainly considerably less
bitter than you seem to be.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "Sam Morris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools)
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 21:49:03 +0100
"Sam Morris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:V9Qx5.1477$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Clue for the fucking clueless idiot:
> >
> > Ever hear of DESALINIZATION!?!?!?!
>
> If I remember correctly:
>
> Building Area occupied Cost Water pumped
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Water Pump 1 acre $100 1 unit
>
> Water Pump
> (near
> freshwater) 1 acre $100 3 units
>
> Desalinisation
> Plant 9 acres $1000 6 units
>
> So I could spend $900 dollars on ten water pumps and pump 9 units of water
Ooh, that's what I get for not reading what I write. A prediction:
< You can't even count, you communist ***hole! I have degrees in maths
< and am a spy, so SIT DOWN AND SHUT THE FUCK UP!
--
Cheers,
Sam
------------------------------
From: "Sam Morris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools)
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 21:55:11 +0100
> > > According to the Encylopedia Brittanica that fast current glaciers
> > > advance at as much as 25 metres a day. That's 9.125 kilometres a year.
> > > To advance over half of Canada (say conservatively, 1800 kilometres)
> > > glaciers would have to advance at roughly 200 times that fast or 5
> > > kilometres a day. I just find that a little hard to believe.
> >
> > Of course it is. Jason Bowen is a liar at best. If he is a product of or
a
> > student at Colorado University from whence he posts, it is a very bad
> > reflection on that institution.
>
> And you're a bad reflection on the state of New Jersey, luckily I'm
> smart enough not to damn all of them for your existence.
The first post in this thread that actually made me laugh! Congrats, Jason!
:)
--
Cheers,
Sam
------------------------------
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: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 20:58:06 -0000
On 19 Sep 2000 20:06:54 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> On 19 Sep 2000 18:16:42 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Nobody is forcing people to use GPL.
>>>
>>>> Actually, the GPL does force others to use the GPL. The description of the
>>>> GPL even talks about this force. Basically it encourages employees of
>>>> companies to use GPL'd code, and then when the company goes to release the
>>>> code it should be "explained" to them that they can't do so without
>>>> releasing the source. GNU then says "The majority of them will go ahead and
>>>> release the source rather than not make the tool available".
>>>
>>>This sounds very much like a very old and well worn market strategy called
>>>'culling'. The point is to trap your market into your product and make it
>>>extremely difficult to change brands---while at the same time distributing
>>>your product for you with every move.
>>>
>>>The interesting about all of this is that 'culling' is exactly what microsoft
>>>has been doing all this time (not that theres anything particularly wrong with
>>>it, or that its more unethical than any other type of marketing strategy).
>
>> This all hinges on a Lemming style of argumentation similar to
>> when the "ease" or "ubiquity" of Win9x is mangled with the
>> "robustness" of NT in the same comparison with an alternative.
>> It ignores the common reality of things and the fact that the
>> real robber barons are busy making money with Free Software
>> while you wannabes are whining.
>
>I of course did not comment on 'common reality' of any kind, since it seems
>to be consistently subjective. The argument stands, draw your own conclusions.
There's nothing subjective about the results of chaos.
There's nothing subjective about the fact that copyleft
seldom is "too viral" for the particular shared facility
in question.
There's nothing subjective about the fact that corporations,
and even proprietary software developers are successfully
explioting free software to their own profit.
Exploitation doesn't necessarily require being in the position
of Robber Baron either in terms of some essential facility or
in terms of corporate welfare.
--
All I ask is a chance to prove that money can't make me happy.
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: filename extensions are NOT a kludge
Date: 19 Sep 2000 21:00:50 GMT
If one ignores all the current file naming conventions, there are
two problems at need to be solved:
1) The system needs to know what programs can act upon a given file.
2) The user would like to organize his files in a logical way.
My assertion is that adding extensions to the names of files is
not the best solution to either problem, though it is the simplest
and will likely remain in use for some time.
In the case of the first problem - what a file actually contains -
the system has little need for an extra tag to tell it what it can
already figure out quite easily. By simply examining the actual
file contents it can tell what sort of file it is and what can
open it. That makes the tag redundant and obsolete for file typing.
In the case of the second problem - keeping our files organized -
a mere tag doesn't go as far as it could. For example, if I have
a bunch of vacation pictures I'm not really interested as to
whether they're saved as PNGs or JPEGs; I just want to be able
to sort out my files by "vacation" and "picture" and get the
list of them. The conventional method is to stick them in
directories. But if I also have movies, do I use:
.../vacation/pictures/...
.../vacation/movies/...
or:
.../pictures/vacation/...
.../movies/vacation/...
or do I append -photo and -movie tags to the ends of my files
and stow them in a single directory?
What I'd like is some many-to-many metadata on my files to
sort them better and make organizing them easier. A list
of the files and tags might look like:
beach1 [JPEG] picture,vacation
sunset1 [PNG] picture,vacation
party1 [MPEG] movie,vacation
So that with the metadata in place, I might only have to:
% tar cvfz #vacation# | uuencode | mail
in order to send them out.
Anyway, the point of all this is that there are better ways
to store file information than merely appending letters
to the ends of them. We should look for better solutions
to these sorts of problems. But in truth, I doubt we'll see
the file extensions vanishing anytime soon.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
