Linux-Advocacy Digest #258, Volume #29 Fri, 22 Sep 00 09:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
(=?Windows-1252?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?=)
Re: Unix more secure, huh? (A transfinite number of monkeys)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Donovan
Rebbechi)
Re: filename extensions are NOT a kludge (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: angry programmers (Donovan Rebbechi)
Implications ("paul snow")
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: Linux to reach NT 3.51 proportions in next 2 years (Roberto Alsina)
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows (Roberto Alsina)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 09:35:17 GMT
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Sep 2000 02:48:43 GMT, Richard 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.
Probably because the actual contributors are too busy to mess
with USENET. I do wonder where this attitude comes from if it
doesn't come from the programmers. Either way, they don't seem
too worried about defusing it (more like worried about how to
exploit it for their own prestige and power).
> Limitations are usually not "put there", that implies that the
> programmer deliberately sabotages their own software which would
> be extremely dumb.
And by no means unprecedented. People frequently do this for the
sake of expediency or politics.
> Limitations exist, because there's only so much that a given piece
> of software can do.
Limitations exist because nobody seems to think about the higher
level architectural issues that *dictate* the limitations.
Limitations are certainly put there by programmers, if they're
unaware that's what they're doing then that's not a very positive
thing to say about programmers either.
> >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".
Hmmm, good point. Somehow, I got the impression that the sysadmin
was a coder. I should research this mythos sometime.
> 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.
>From what people described, it looks a lot like versioning but if
anything, I'd like the previous versions to be /less/ visible. You
don't need to know about them at all until you actually want to
recover changes.
> 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.
That's one reason I don't like them.
> 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.
That's another reason why I don't like the VMS solution.
> 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, ?
With Smalltalk? You have *got* to be kidding me. The app will work
wherever the VM has been ported, which can be to LOTS of places.
As for access to C/C++ toolkits, there are ... ways. (There are
also ways to fuck a goat so ....)
> 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 ?
Depending on the dialect, it's either free (Squeak) or there is support
for splicing the VM into your app (VisualWorks).
> 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 )
<wince> [Generics] You don't need to abstract over declarations if you
don't have declarations, and you only have utterly trivial declarations
if you have weak typing. If I want to do declarative programming, I'll
pick Prolog; or maybe even ML or Eiffel (I'm just too lazy to bother
with even polytypes, let alone constraints). ML has polytypes so it's
not like it /needs/ generics.
The major tradeoff with Smalltalk is size + speed versus everything else.
And different dialects will help with the size or the speed or even both
a great deal.
> 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 )
Of course, backups are not very useful. It's not like they tend to be
mounted on the system (and thus accessible to users).
> 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.
Hey! What's your definition of "obscure"?
Personally, I'm intrigued by AOP from Xerox PARC. I'm especially betting
that their ideas on marshalling just might prove useful to me.
------------------------------
From: =?Windows-1252?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 12:38:35 +0200
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
uxBy5.24336$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
> I always heard it was "SKywalker Group".
>
> -Chad
Actually it's Spielberg, Katzenberg and Geffen.
Paul 'Z' Ewande
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (A transfinite number of monkeys)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix more secure, huh?
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 11:23:06 GMT
On Fri, 22 Sep 2000 02:05:50 GMT, Otto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: IP address please... :)
Nice strawman. Besides, if you were truly resourceful, you'd already
know it, and wouldn't have to ask.
So, the truth is out.... You cannot substantiate your claims. You want to
claim that SYN floods somehow make it possible for a second computer to
exec a buffer overflow, but can't back up your claim.
--
Jason Costomiris <>< | Technologist, geek, human.
jcostom {at} jasons {dot} org | http://www.jasons.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: 22 Sep 2000 11:29:39 GMT
On Fri, 22 Sep 2000 09:35:17 GMT, Richard wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>Probably because the actual contributors are too busy to mess
>with USENET.
True.
> I do wonder where this attitude comes from if it
>doesn't come from the programmers.
from very anti social people. Usenet tends to attract them.
> Either way, they don't seem
>too worried about defusing it
Some of them do. See the "Linux advocacy howto" for example. And some
of the documents it references.
> (more like worried about how to
>exploit it for their own prestige and power).
Nonsense.
>> Limitations exist, because there's only so much that a given piece
>> of software can do.
>
>Limitations exist because nobody seems to think about the higher
>level architectural issues that *dictate* the limitations.
Good programmers know how to design software by definition.
It's not true that "all programmers are bad programmers" or even that
"most programmers are bad programmers". ( again, the best 50% are "good" )
>Limitations are certainly put there by programmers, if they're
Nonsense. Limitations are inevitable. My text editor can't make me coffee.
If it could make me coffee, I could find something else it can't do.
>> You've got the myth wrong. It's the "sys admin" vs the "luser".
>
>Hmmm, good point. Somehow, I got the impression that the sysadmin
>was a coder. I should research this mythos sometime.
Not necessarily. A lot of sys admins are mediocre or lousy coders. The
two skill sets tend to be almost orthogonal.
>> 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, ?
>
>With Smalltalk? You have *got* to be kidding me. The app will work
>wherever the VM has been ported, which can be to LOTS of places.
For example, there's no smalltalk VM on the system at my school, so
I can't run smalltalk apps there.
>As for access to C/C++ toolkits, there are ... ways. (There are
>also ways to fuck a goat so ....)
Unfortunately, it's difficult to gain access to a decent set of APIs
without "fucking a goat". You can write your toy algorithm programs
in any language, but once you want the program to actually do something,
you need APIs.
>> 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 ?
>
>Depending on the dialect, it's either free (Squeak) or there is support
>for splicing the VM into your app (VisualWorks).
Which makes your app bigger, right ?
><wince> [Generics] You don't need to abstract over declarations if you
>don't have declarations, and you only have utterly trivial declarations
>if you have weak typing.
That makes the language less safe. For example, inserting a string
into a list of integers is probably an error. C++ catches it at
compile time. Smalltalk, perl, and java choke at run time. The
benefits of catching errors at compile time are substantial.
The benefit of C++ is that you get a lot of compile time checking ( which
means that you don't have an "exceptions-are-the-norm" situation ala java )
and you still get dynamic behaviour.
> If I want to do declarative programming, I'll
>pick Prolog; or maybe even ML or Eiffel (I'm just too lazy to bother
>with even polytypes, let alone constraints). ML has polytypes so it's
>not like it /needs/ generics.
Again, there are some cool languages out there, but we're back to
compatibility. I want my program to be able to use existing APIs.
>> 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.
>
>Hey! What's your definition of "obscure"?
Eiffel, Modula2, and a bunch of others that I probably haven't heard of.
Eiffel looks the most promising of the "obscure" languages I've seen.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: filename extensions are NOT a kludge
Date: 22 Sep 2000 11:32:53 GMT
On Fri, 22 Sep 2000 08:44:43 GMT, Richard wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>That is so fucking hilarious. I don't even believe it's possible
>to be OO in C++ because you'll always end up making mistakes (if
What do you mean ?
>if you have to waste brain power making your code OO then you will
>have that much less to spend on high-level architectural issues.
You don't "spend brain power on making your code OO". You do your
"high level design" and "architecture", and then if your design
requires the use of OO, you go and code it.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: angry programmers
Date: 22 Sep 2000 11:37:23 GMT
On Fri, 22 Sep 2000 06:55:18 GMT, Richard wrote:
>I don't have access to a research lab where I could study programmers'
>personalities, nor to their diaries, or anything else like that. The
>only analysis I can do is sociological, on the fantasies promoted by
>the group. That these fantasies correspond to the unconscious beliefs
>and values of individuals in that group is a fundamental principle of
>such analysis and makes perfect sense after you get past the psych
>lingo. And two pieces of evidence that immediately leap to mind are;
> 1) the Bastard Operator From Hell mythos, and
> 2) the Hacker/Luser dichotomy
(1) is about a systems administrator. (2) is incorrect. It's the sys
admin / luser thing. Sys admins often resent users, because they have
users constantly nagging them.
Your whole rhetoric about "programmers" is misdirected IMO. The people
you are complaining about are really "antisocial geeks". SOme of them
are hobby programmers. Sopme of them are sys admins. A few of them are
programmers. BUt the common thread is that they're computer-literate
anti-social geeks, who may or may not be programmers.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "paul snow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.software.config-mgmt,comp.software-eng
Subject: Implications
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 12:12:43 GMT
Implications
========
So suppose that you are required to come up with a model that explains not
only what your software does (which various OO technologies do with varying
success), but also where your software comes from. This requirement would
force you past the von Neumann model, where the program store P defines the
execution environment E:
P --> E
Non-trivial computer systems are constructed from a collection of software,
installed in some order. So in non-trivial computer systems, there always
exists some independent definition of P. Call this definition X.
X --> P --> E
Furthermore, X is not generally a single source. If X is a disk image
applied to the hard drive (the P of a computer system), then X may in fact
be a single source. But usually it isn't.
So X is made up of a set of components representing the number of installs n
required to build up P in a given computer system.
X = {X(1), X(2), X(3),...,X(n)}
Our current software architectures do not model X. In fact, they doesn't
tend to model installation and integration at all. IT spends 75 percent of
their money in this area, but it doesn't seem to be important enough to
study.
With open software, modeling X is even more important, since the various
components of X come from different sources, and in many different releases
and versions. Understanding and modeling how this is done will lead to
better solutions and mechanisms for software development and distribution.
Fun Implications
===========
This math may remind some (those with a biological background) of DNA. It
should. I would claim that all process based systems are forced into this
model, by definition. X forms the DNA for a computer system. Genes are the
components of DNA, much like some X(i) is a component of X.
Thus there is a very literal genetic component to computer systems because
both a living cell and a computer system are process based systems.
The genetic nature of computer systems can not be circumvented.
Really Fun Implications
===============
So software is defined by the "genes" of a computer system, the installation
medium. That means that a software package, like what I might buy at a
computer store, represents genetic material.
The biological term for the exchange of genetic material is... sex.
Adding software to my software library is a literal form of computer sex.
So all along, our computers have been using us to spread their genetic
material, like bees.
We are also their agents for developing new genetic material, and we are the
environmental agents that supply the developmental pressures that drive some
genetic material to extinction, while other material (like Linux perhaps?)
flourishes.
And most of the alternatives to Linux require people pay for their
software...
Paul Snow
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 09:43:19 -0300
El jue, 21 sep 2000, Richard escribió:
>2:1 wrote:
>> The programmers, especially OSS ones, *are* the users. They have the
>> emmotional attachment to the software. Why should they bend over
>> backwards to change something that they created and they like,
>> considering that noone is paying them to do it.
>
>Because it's better if they change it? Because the system would be
>simpler, more elegant, more beautiful *and* more powerful?
Says who? And if he knows so much, why doesn't he do it?
>"I like it" isn't a rational argument for anything. You've just implicitly
>asked "Why should programmers be rational?"
You are asking unpaid programmers to follow management without
questioning? You are insane.
>> > That's right, there are universal principles of beauty. Christopher
>> > Alexander writes about these principles in On The Nature Of Order.
>>
>> Well, that's just damn wrong. Beauty is subjective. Take the example of
>
>Well that's just damn wrong. And there's a pile of research siding with
>me. For example, it is known that a certain waist to hip ratio is
>considered
>most appealing across all cultures. Different cultures rationalize it in
>very
>different ways (some say it's sexy, others say those are "good childbearing
>hips") but that doesn't matter.
I'm sure you can explain Gwynneth Paltrow and Calista Flockhart being
considered sexy, too.
>> that group of (black) people, where the women stretch their bottom lips
>> until they are very big (I forget the name of those people). I,
>> personally find that deeply unattractive, but those peopls seem to
>> really like it. If that isn't a difference of opinion anout beauty,
>> then what is? Even *birds* display different taste when it comes to
>> artistic appreciation.
>
>There are two components to beauty;
> the hardwired biological component
> the socialized /exaggeration/ of an already existing beauty trait
>
>That tribe is only able to do this because it's already hard-wired into
>humans that long necks are beautiful.
What's the connection between long necks and lower lips? You
are mixing up the tribes.
BTW: a XVIth century spanish poem (yes, it WAS serious):
Two things must the woman have red, the lips and the ears
Two things must have white, the cheeks and the hands
Two things must have big, the head and the shoulders
Two things must have small, the nose and the breast
I'm sure it applies 100% to Spain today ;-)
Sorry, but I found no way to make the translation rhyme!
>It's noteworthy that I've never heard of a culture that considers
>warts to be beautiful. The thing about the 'beauty myth' is it's not
>a myth!
Not warts, but moles are indeed considered beautiful in some
cultures.
[snip about 350 lines of blah that's not even about women!]
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux to reach NT 3.51 proportions in next 2 years
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 09:56:43 -0300
El jue, 21 sep 2000, Bob Hauck escribió:
>On Thu, 21 Sep 2000 02:13:24 GMT, Mike Byrns
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Bob Hauck wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 20 Sep 2000 15:21:09 -0500, Mike Byrns
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> >KDE is *not* a clone of CDE. CDE more closely resembles Windows 3.1,
>>>
>>> CDE has programs in "drawers" that pop out of a Panel that looks a lot
>>> like the one in KDE that has menus of programs.
>>
>>Those just looked like extra start menus to me :-)
>
>Well, I suppose now that MS has added the "unfurling" feature to their
>menus there is a bit of a resemblance. There's some innovation, yes
>sir!
KDE can have more than one "start menu", and has had that for about 1.5
years. Also, KDE's menu can be moved, I don't know if windows does that
or when.
>>> It also has multiple
>>> workspaces that are selected by buttons on the panel, as in KDE.
>
>>That functionality is the realm of video drivers and shareware on Windows.
>
>Yes, I know, I use multidesk. So that feature of KDE didn't sure come
>from Windows. Neither did the option to double-click on the titlebar
>to "roll up" a window (that came from the Mac).
Or one of the NeXT clones like window maker.
[snip a bit]
>>> KDE has borrowed from several places. CDE is one, Win95 is one.
>>
>>Right, no real innovation.
>
>KDE had shaded titlebars before Windows did. Is that the sort of
>"innovation" you are talking about, or are you talking about the kind
>where new ways of doing things are invented? Windows has a lot of the
>former, maybe more than KDE, but not much of the latter. Really nobody
>has had all that much of the latter of late.
KDE was the first one to have switchable global mac-like menubar, at least ;-)
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 10:09:05 -0300
El vie, 22 sep 2000, D. Spider escribió:
>It appears that on Thu, 21 Sep 2000 18:19:51 -0300, in
>comp.os.linux.advocacy Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>>El jue, 21 sep 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>
>>>> For most early-era operating systems, there was not much of a
>>>> difference between binary and source code.
>>>
>>>Have you ever written anything in machine language. The difference
>>>between machine language and even a primitive assembler is HUGE.
>>
>>Z80 machine language inserted in a REM statement in a Sinclair 1000
>>(ZX81 clone) counts?
>
>Hahah you too? I did the same thing, well, not on the 1000, but on the
>related Timex/Sinclairs, the 2068 in particular.
You rich guys with 16 colors and over 16KB of RAM ;-)
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
