Linux-Advocacy Digest #302, Volume #29 Mon, 25 Sep 00 13:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT ("Stuart Fox")
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: The Linux Experience
Re: The Linux Experience
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: What is with all the mudslinging?
Re: [OT] Tholen & Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools) (Nathaniel Jay
Lee)
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Re: The Linux Experience (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Unix rules in Redmond ("Drestin Black")
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie! (OSguy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 16:31:31 +0100
"Bryant Brandon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8qg3om$9mh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Stuart Fox"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> @"Bryant Brandon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> @news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> @> In article
> @> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, dc
> @> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> @>
> @>
> @> Obviously, except that the C: drive is hidden. We can only save
> @> files to a couple of network volumes, storing the physical data on a
> @> server, or we can save to a floppy. The only thing that can touch the
> @> C: drive is W2K, which seems to have a habit of slowly chewing up the
> @> disk.
> @
> @With what exactly? Presumably if it's filling up the drive you can find
> @out
> @what it is?
>
> Nope, W2K hides it. I cna't get to it at all. I just get a disk
> full error message when i try to log in.
You mention they are Novell clients as well - is it possible that the Novell
client is upset about something?
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 13:40:31 -0300
El dom, 24 sep 2000, Richard escribió:
>Bob Hauck wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Sep 2000 04:45:36 GMT, Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >To do good design, you have to abstact over /all possible/
>> >implementations of your design.
>>
>> People who say things like that tend to not have ever had to implement
>> their designs.
>
>Or they're researchers. Come to think of it, most research OSes
>are based on /exactly/ that kind of thinking.
Which is why no implementation of a research OS is useful.
At lest not until a whole lot of abstraction is thrown away.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: The Linux Experience
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 16:39:30 -0000
On 25 Sep 2000 14:59:08 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, 20 Sep 2000 18:20:55 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>On Wed, 20 Sep 2000 17:17:24 GMT, Jake Taense <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The fact that I fell for your baiting tactics, does not invalidate
>> my point of view.
>
>The fact that that doesn't invalidate it doesn't mean your point of view
>is valid either.
I didn't imply otherwise.
>
>> Also, I don't think that it is at all intuitive for a novice end
>> user (of any sort of device) to think that they should go to the
>> equivalent of a component vendor rather than to the integrator.
>
>I agree. The docs should have been included with Redhat.
For most end users, especially the sort under discusion, I'm
not sure that sort of thing really matters. If something
requires even looking into so much as a Windows style *hlp file,
that documentation (or feature) won't get utilized.
>>
>> Besides, xfs isn't a part of Xfree to begin with.
>
>Nonsense. The xfs code is part of XFree. The default 3.x distribution
It's a separate utility. Like other similar utilitites it is
built and configured more or less independently of the Xserver.
It depends on the X server for compliance to common standards.
However, short of one line in the Xfree config file it is a
separate server.
>doesn't compile it into a standalone program, but the fact remains that
>XFree86 can't serve fonts without font servering functionality.
>
>The TT support OTOH is an add-on.
>
>--
>Donovan
--
Confirmed bachelor:
A man who goes through life without a hitch.
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a cash advance.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: The Linux Experience
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 16:40:25 -0000
On 25 Sep 2000 15:04:05 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 18 Sep 2000 21:28:51 GMT, A transfinite number of monkeys wrote:
>>On Mon, 18 Sep 2000 18:16:21 GMT, Jake Taense <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>: "What was I supposed to do?" she asked.
>>
>>Um, read the documentation? You yourself said that she was using RH 6.2.
>>The xfs that comes with RH 6.2 supports TrueType fonts out of the box.
>>Where did I need to go to find this out? /usr/doc/XFree86-xfs-3.3.6.
>
>Well, there's another problem already. The problem is that documentation
>is scattered willy-nilly. There's manpages, info pages, and /usr/doc.
/usr/doc is not "willy-nilly".
[deletia]
--
If happiness is in your destiny, you need not be in a hurry.
-- Chinese proverb
Q: What's tan and black and looks great on a lawyer?
A: A doberman.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 13:46:51 -0300
El sáb, 23 sep 2000, Richard escribió:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> If you know so much, why don't you do it?
>
>I am; it's just going to take me 5 to 10 years,
>so I'm taking out my frustrations in the meantime.
Hey, it's not our fault is you are slow! ;-)
>> That doesn't explain the men doing it, does it? Yet there's an
>> tribe up the mazon who does it.
>
>You're right, that doesn't make much sense.
>
>> >Keey in mind that people in earlier times were into pedophilia
>> >in a big way.
>>
>> If you died at 28, marrying at 14 starts looking like a good
>> idea.
>
>And if you don't start puberty until 16 (*) then marrying at 14
>still counts as pedophilia.
Come on, you are saying that anything that's observed will fit.
Wide hips-> because there is some golden standard
Narrow hips-> pedophilia
So, no matter what hips are actually preferred, your theory fits.
That makes the theory useless.
[snip]
>> Or perhaps, just perhaps, the beauty standards do change.
>
>Sure. Now, does that mean that there are no underlying principles
>of beauty?
Pretty much. An underlying aesthetic principle that changes is called
fashion.
>And keep in mind that a lot of things meant to enhance sexual
>attractiveness aren't meant to enhance beauty; scarring and
>tattooing are symbols of courage for example.
Tattos are meant to look pretty. Scarring in occasions is, too.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: What is with all the mudslinging?
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 16:42:13 -0000
On Sun, 24 Sep 2000 20:28:54 -0700, Lee Reynolds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The operating system stands on its own merits. So does NT and the MacOS
>and BeOS and so on. Yes when I come here I see endless snide comments
>being thrown back and forth about how Linux sucks or Linux rules or NT
>sucks or so and so is a communist.
>
>So my question is? What difference does it make if some yahoo does or
>does not like Linux? If someone has a genuine complaint about some
There is a BIG difference between a statement of personal
preference and negative propaganda or just plain lies.
[deletia]
--
Future looks spotty. You will spill soup in late evening.
Hey dol! merry dol! ring a dong dillo!
Ring a dong! hop along! fal lal the willow!
Tom Bom, jolly Tom, Tom Bombadillo!
-- J. R. R. Tolkien
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Tholen & Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools)
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 16:44:21 -0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MOUL est <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
>On Fri, 22 Sep 2000 15:50:17 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathaniel Jay
>Lee) in comp.sys.mac.advocacy wrote:
>
>>Joe Malloy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
>>>Tholen tholes, unfortunately for everyone save him:
>>>
>>>> > My second point: show some goddamned originality.
>>>>
>>>> Why should I waste originality on someone like Mark Kelley?
>>>
>>>Nathaniel, you have to realize, Tholen *can't* be original, he *must* employ
>>>his stock phrases because that's all he has. If ever he were to enter into
>>>the spirit of a debate, he'd be lost...which, come to think of it, isn't
>>>that bad of an idea...
>>>--
>>>
>>>"USB, idiot, stands for Universal Serial Bus. There is no power on the
>>>output socket of any USB port I have ever seen" - Bob Germer
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Yeah, sometimes I'm thick headed enough to actually think
>>that people are basically interested in stimulating and
>>intelligent conversation. Sometimes it takes me a while
>>to realize that there are those people that just are so
>>totally enthralled with their own stupidity that even when
>>given the oportunity to learn something, they refuse on
>>the grounds that 'learning is the key to losing my soul'.
>>
>>Tholen and hard-core Christian activists probably have a
>>lot in common. Rational thought flees them like flies
>>flee a fly swatter. And the few rational thoughts that
>>don't escape, well, they probably end up in the same shape
>>that the flies that don't escape do.
>
>Hard-core Christian activists (zealots) would impale tholen on a
>sharpened stake to punish his perversions.
True enough. But hardcore (zealotous) Christians would
simply be lashing out at another hard core religious
entity, namely tholen's obsession with stupidity. Until
seeing tholen's posts, I didn't realize that stupidity
could be a religion. Obviously, it is to some.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 16:44:25 -0000
On Mon, 25 Sep 2000 12:42:02 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"K" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> "Boris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:avRe5.37215$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> .....
>> .....
>> > Because SOAP is W3 standard, it's not os/vendor specific. However, new
>> run-time for VB,
>> > C++, etc. and other elements of development framework (MS Developer's
>> Studio .Net edition)
>> > will be supplied for Windows only by MS.
>> >
>> > Boris
>>
>> What Microsoft is attempting to do here is extend their control to all or
>> much of the internet just like they control millions of users of PC with
>> Windows. It might not be vendor but Microsoft will make the standards and
>> change them at it's whim.
>
>Black helicopters....
>
>Give me a break...
Kerberos.
--
Mount St. Helens should have used earth control.
manic-depressive, adj.:
Easy glum, easy glow.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: The Linux Experience
Date: 25 Sep 2000 16:48:39 GMT
On Mon, 25 Sep 2000 16:40:25 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On 25 Sep 2000 15:04:05 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Well, there's another problem already. The problem is that documentation
>>is scattered willy-nilly. There's manpages, info pages, and /usr/doc.
>
> /usr/doc is not "willy-nilly".
(a) Not all of the documentation is in /usr/doc.
(b) /usr/doc is not willy nilly, it's a subset of willy-nilly.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: 25 Sep 2000 11:51:05 -0500
when? every year since 1990... you?
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <39c7db5d$0$261$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Drestin Black wrote:
> >Great - a totally unsubstantiated rumor spread by Cringley - and people
> >actually replied?
> >
> >ANYONE who has been to the Redmond campus KNOWS that 99% of this is
entirely
>
> So what were you doing there, then? So close that you could determine
what
> types of server were in use across the whole network?
>
> Or are you just a Microsoft astroturfer?
>
> <cut>
>
> >>
> >> Excerpts:
> >>
> >> Unix in Redmond
> >>
> >> I was going to avoid writing about Microsoft this week, but how could I
> >> resist sharing these tidbits from ex-Microsofties? These former
Microsoft
> >> employees have written in to set the record straight about what's
really
> >> going on behind the scenes at a few of the software giant's
subsidiaries.
> >>
> >> When Microsoft acquired Linkexchange (now bCentral), company officials
> >> tried to get rid of Oracle databases in favor of the company's own SQL
> >> Server.
> >>
> >> "Some of the best folks from Redmond came down to make the change, but
> >> after two or three months they gave up and switched back to Oracle on
> >> Solaris, where it remains today," this reader wrote.
> >>
> >> Another former bCentral employee says Microsoft mentions Linux in its
> >> help-wanted ads for bCentral just to lure unsuspecting enthusiasts to
> >> come work there. The OSes in place were primarily FreeBSD, BSD/OS, and
> >> Solaris. That is, until Microsoft tried to migrate more of the systems
> >> to Windows NT and 2000.
> >>
> >> According to this source, Microsoft had to quadruple the number of
> >> servers when it moved to its own operating systems.
> >>
> >> For the most part, according to our ex-Microsoftie, the company's
money-
> >> making Web properties are all based around Unix, with Hotmail 99 being
> >> 99 percent FreeBSD, MSN using some Apache on Solaris, bCentral ad
servers
> >> on 100 percent FreeBSD, and WebTV pretty much entirely Solaris.
> >>
> >> "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.
> >>
> >> So much for mature software written by professionals. It seems that,
> >> internally, Microsoft prefers the stuff "written by college kids in
their
> >> basements."
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Mark - remove any ham to reply.
> (Killed (sigserv (This sig is reserved by another user)))
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 13:59:54 -0300
El lun, 25 sep 2000, T. Max Devlin escribió:
>Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>On Fri, 22 Sep 2000 20:18:42 GMT, Richard wrote:
>>
>>>> You are asking unpaid programmers to follow management without
>>>> questioning? You are insane.
>>>
>>>No, I'm asking that they stop writing code without doing explicit
>>>architectural design first. And if they can't do such design then
>>>let someone else do it.
>>
>>Why should they ? In fact, why should any hobbyist be forced to pursue
>>their hobby according to your guidelines ?
>
>An interesting, if inane, discussion. The short answer to your
>question, I think, would be "interoperability and compatibility."
The short answer to that is, of course, that if the programmers don't care
enough about it, you ain't gonna convince them, and if they care, they don't
need you to give them guidelines.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: OSguy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie!
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 11:06:43 -0500
As you seem to be sensible, I'll respond this one time in this thread to you. First
of all, this thread should be dead given the amount of time since my original post.
Chris Sherlock wrote:
> It might be an idea to purchase a magazine that covers MS products if
> you are going to install an MS product. Surely it is a good idea to get
> as much knowledge on something like this before you install it?
About buying those Windows magazines, I'm tired of buying junk. It has been my
experience that Windows magazines are 99 percent advertisements and articles of what
new Windows/Windows compatible product I can BUY, and very little about how to
program anything in Windows. I've noticed that even the high dollar newsletter you
can get for developing under Visual C++ or MS Java, etc. (you know the Visual
Developer newsletter series) contain very little actual inside articles on Windows
proper, but contain a lot of information on how to get the proprietary Windows tools
to do something....or worse, how to get into the guts of the Windows tools one
uses. This could be a whole new discussion in another thread.
I wouldn't be interested in picking up a Windows magazine as you are
suggesting....simply because I don't believe that relevant information would be in
those magazines about WinME to let me install it. I would rather get the
information straight from the actual Windows manual to install Windows ME,
especially if I buy the full version. Up until now, the full version of Windows
installation manual have usually had an at least an appendix that says what the
differences are between the last version of the OS and this version that I am
installing. In Windows ME full version installation manual, there is nothing there
to indicate that WinME doesn't support legacy drivers, or, as I found in my case,
that it doesn't suport more than 2 ide ports which gave me the problems in
installing.
And Yes, I'm angry that, once again as with most MS products I've gotten, I had to
figure out the problem with this MS'es product installation on my own (You wouldn't
honestly believe that MS support or ms newsgroups would get me a solution in less
than 3 days do you?)
> A "few years ago"? More like a decade ago! Besides, I've looked into
> this quote (hey, I like trivia) and I can't find the original source of
> it. Much as I dislike Bill Gates, I think that he never actually said
> this.
He did, and I remember when the quote came out....(Shows how long I've been using
computers). I don't remember exactly where the quote came out either. I seem to
recall it was a response to a question for one of his DOSes when released.
> Is there some sort of MS HCL for Windows ME? I don't know (and frankly
> don't really care) but if you are going to install Windows ME this is
> probably where you should look for your hardware before installing.
My hardware worked fine under Windows 98, and Windows ME was said to be an upgraded
Win98, even to the point that Reviews that I did see were not recommending people to
upgrade if they didn't have to. (I had to).
Again, the HCL, which should have been in the MS full version installation manual
was not there. To give you a contrast, a lot of the compatible devices are listed
in the Redhat Installation Manuals (complete with settings). Again, it turns out
the only incompatible hardware I had was the external IDE card.
> Before you go calling ME a "Windoze Luser" you should know that I have
> installed a dialup gateway that gets me onto the Internet on Linux. Not
> only that but I have implemented IP-Masquerading on the gateway to give
> my other computers Internet connectivity. Recently I got sick and tired
> of setting IP addresses on Windows that I installed a DHCP server on the
> gateway as well.
Guess what? I have that same thing with my dialup computer also using Apache (It
will be my gateway computer when I get DSL someday) and implementing IP-Masquerading
with my WinME machine, Linux SMP, and Linux laptop machines. I'm fixing to switch
my Linux machines from Redhat distros to Debian distros in the very near future.
> I say: just do what any sensible Linux user does: check what hardware is
> required.
Good common sense. I DID THAT and had no reason to believe that I had incompatible
hardware. Nothing I read told me that WinME doesn't support more than 2 ide ports
(or external ide port cards).
And don't you think it is very confusing to have the installation disk support the
card when the main system doesn't? This is the message I'm trying to convey. I
don't care if the driver or DOS or windows.....Why have the installation support
more hardware than the main system? Especially when the documentation doesn't tell
you that the main system doesn't support the device. It cost me a lot of time and
It pissed me off. That is why I've been complaining about it!!!
Also, after all the BS discussion about Legacy drivers, or other thing I can try to
do with the WinME system, It didn't apply to my situation (Especially since I had
the system fully running before I even posted). Yet, at least one of the Wintrolls
was determined to bombard this thread with everything possible other than to admit
that MS did something idiotic.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
