Linux-Advocacy Digest #328, Volume #29 Wed, 27 Sep 00 08:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Spam from Microsoft (Chris Sherlock)
Re: CP/M: 'tis not _completely_ gone... (Christopher Browne)
Re: New Linux Install (Chris Sherlock)
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (Chris Sherlock)
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (Chris Sherlock)
Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy? (Chris Sherlock)
Re: So did they ever find out what makes windows98 freeze up all the (Chris
Sherlock)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Chris
Sherlock)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Chris
Sherlock)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Chris
Sherlock)
Re: Why I hate Windows... (Roberto Selbach Teixeira)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 20:46:00 +1000
From: Chris Sherlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Spam from Microsoft
I received this email as well, and when I replied it got bounced. Gee,
good one MS!
Although I don't quite know what this has to do with democracy :)
Chris
Duane Attaway wrote:
>
> Maybe there is someone in this world that can relate.
>
> You are about to be subject to a rant.
>
> A few moments ago I received another one of Microsoft's email entitled
> "a finflash from the freedom to innovate network" in all caps in the
> subject line and pretty much screamed in the subject body too. Lately,
> I have avoided bringing up advocacy and doubt someone would have
> 'volunteered' me for this list as a joke, so I bounced it back at the
> abuse address of the domain that connected to my sendmail server.
>
> It was Microsoft. So, maybe I was just upset, pissed off, and quite
> possibly gone mad. I haven't eaten dinner yet and wanted to kill a
> spammer. Just so happens Microsoft shows up in my mailbox. My
> fingers were itching to BFG9000 this satan from the solar system. I
> now know Scientologists were just a cockroach compared to this $100
> billion dollar gorilla that has grass roots campaigns growing out of
> its ass. Could someone please explain this:
>
> http://www.democracydata.com/
>
> Democracy. Is that what this country is all about? This scares the
> hell out of me.
>
> cat spam | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> And then I get a nice receipt for my efforts. It has a courteous
> thank you for registering my complaint and how it will be handled.
> Its soothing tone was supposed to make me feel warm and fuzzy.
> Following this paragraph is a link suggesting I explore thier online
> support options:
>
> http://support.microsoft.com/directory/default.asp
>
> Complain about spam and now they want to sell me support. By now
> I'm worn out. Defeated.
>
> So I settle down and read this thing. Since I have received this loud
> mailing several times, surely it would have raised my attention.
> Skipping through it and seeing the last line, I see the opt-out line
> that is consistent with other spam. If I click on this, will I get
> on thier preferred list?
>
> Well, having not much more to lose, I visited that link to the
> 'freedomtoinnovate' website to presented with a SUBMIT button. I was
> being forced to submit by pressing this button. Will I ever be
> released from spam hell?
>
> Does Microsoft do anything besides marketing? Is this the only thing
> they think about?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: CP/M: 'tis not _completely_ gone...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:54:27 GMT
In our last episode (Wed, 27 Sep 2000 00:37:18 -0400),
the artist formerly known as Aaron R. Kulkis said:
>Christopher Browne wrote:
>>
>> In our last episode (Tue, 26 Sep 2000 23:22:26 -0400),
>> the artist formerly known as D. Spider said:
>> >It appears that on Tue, 26 Sep 2000 21:03:46 GMT, in
>> >comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Grant Edwards) wrote:
>> >
>> >>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, D. Spider wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>>> Really? Which ones were those that came with the source code?
>> >>
>> >>[...]
>> >>
>> >>>Don't forget CPM.
>> >>
>> >>I don't remember having sources to CP/M. The versions I used
>> >>(1.4 and 2.2, IIRC), came with CBIOS sources, but not sources for
>> >>CP/M itself.
>> >
>> >It was available. You had to request an NDA, sign it, and send it
>> >back, but if you were developing for the platform that was what you
>> >did. Microsoft, among many others, did just that.
>>
>> Note that sources to ZSDOS, an advanced upwards-compatible successor
>> to CP/M, are now available under the GPL.
>>
>> If you're looking for an operating system to use with a Z-80,
>
>Ummm...err...but...why?
- Because doing multitasking on an 80386 just seems Too Easy;
- Because it's not as minimalist as programming PICs;
- Because it can demonstrate that MS-DOS was the poorer choice
when it was _first_ released :-);
- Because you want to do some new, improved Z-80 hacks.
:-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/linux.html>
Strong language gets results. "The reloader is completely broken in
242" will open a lot more eyes than "The reloader doesn't load files
with intermixed spaces, asterisks, and <'s in their names that are
bigger than 64K". You can always say the latter in a later paragraph.
-- from the Symbolics Guidelines for Sending Mail
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 21:02:31 +1000
From: Chris Sherlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: New Linux Install
Huh? What is that supposed to mean?
Chris
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 21:47:20 +1000, Chris Sherlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >From what I understand, the new LBA32 extensions in LILO will circumvent
> >this problem. I don't know much more about this as I haven't had to
> >worry about hitting the 1024 cylinder ceiling yet.
> >
> >Would someone care to comment?
>
> Paranoia doesn't incurr that much overhead.
>
> >
> >Chris
> >
> >"James M. Luongo" wrote:
> >>
> >> I plan on installing Linux Mandrake 7.1 for the first time. I need some
> >> help. How big should the partitions be? And, I heard something about
> >> LiLo not recognizing a Linux partition after a certain disk cylinder (or
> >> sector, whatever). I think it was 1023, but I'm not sure. Is this
> >> true? Help!
> >> --
> >> ------------------------
> >> James M. Luongo x1427
> >> Draper Laboratory Room 4207
> >> ------------------------
>
> --
>
> I doubt, therefore I might be.
>
> Progress was all right. Only it went on too long.
> -- James Thurber
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 21:14:58 +1000
From: Chris Sherlock <[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
I'm not sure why I can't see DC's full reply so I'll have to reply to
what I can see quoted in this one!
Mike Byrns wrote:
>
> dc wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 20:28:56 +1000, Chris Sherlock
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >dc wrote:
> > >[snip]
> > >
> > >> Then perhaps, among other things, your system admin has disabled the
> > >> normal cached profiles. Normally when the NIC can't reach the PDC,
> > >> the cached profiles will be used, the last known password that was
> > >> cached will be used, and the user can access the system with those
> > >> credentials until told otherwise.
> > >
> > >Hold on. I can see a fairly big flaw in this... what if somehow someone
> > >you didn't like got your old password. They would be able to access your
> > >old profile! Surely W2K wouldn't allow for *this* to happen, would it?
> >
> > Of course they could. If someone knew your current password, and
> > wanted to look at your profile without anyone else knowing, they'd
> > just keep that machine off the network, and they could look at the
> > profile by logging in as you. If you changed that password, as long
> > as they kept the machine off the network while logging in they could
> > still log in as you.
How would you know that you had to use the old password on that machine
then? Most people would keep trying to log on with their new one!
Chris
>
> They'll get your configurations by not your files if the machine policies
> were setup right. With UNIX couldn't even log in without a local account.
> Then you'd be screwed on or off the net.
>
> --
> Mike Byrns
> Microsoft Windows Software Engineer
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 21:15:52 +1000
From: Chris Sherlock <[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
Whoops. I assumed too much!
Chris
Jim Naylor wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chris Sherlock
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > What is the URL?
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > Jim Naylor wrote: [snip]
> >
> > > > Please note that Windows NT 4, which was released, was a
> > > > *different* product than NT 5, which was released under the name
> > > > Windows 2000 so Microsoft could have a cool-sounding product
> > > > name.
> > >
> > > Like "Windows Me," which nicely creates a new verb (a synonym to
> > > "Buggers Me") for what they've been doing to you windoids all
> > > along. For corroboration, see Walter Mossberg's (!) column on
> > > "Windos ME" in the Wall Street Journal.
>
> I don't have one--I read the article in the <ahem> local newspaper,
> reprinted from the WSJ a couple of weeks ago. Perhaps a search engine
> will be of assistance?
>
> --
> Jim Naylor
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 21:16:55 +1000
From: Chris Sherlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?
Then how does the icon get the focus?
Chris
Roberto Alsina wrote:
>
> El mar, 26 sep 2000, Chris Sherlock escribió:
> >Perhaps so you can drag it around and put it on the desktop or in a
> >folder?
>
> You don't need to select the file for that. Just drag it.
>
> >Chris
> >
> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
> >>
> >> El jue, 14 sep 2000, Darin Johnson escribió:
> >> >Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> >
> >> >> Trick question: what's the point of selecting a single file?
> >> >
> >> >So you can select a menu options that operate on that file. The Mac
> >> >has only one mouse button remember, you can't just right click on it
> >> >to get extra options.
> >>
> >> Well, then I modify it to: "what is the point of selecting a single file
> >> if you have more than one button?"
> >>
> >> Also notice that it *is* possible to select a single file in KDE, you just
> >> do it in the same, consistent way as you would select the second one ;-)
> >>
> >> --
> >> Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 21:19:08 +1000
From: Chris Sherlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So did they ever find out what makes windows98 freeze up all the
Osugi wrote:
[snip]
> Not that windows cannot go for long periods without crashing - it can,
> especially if you turn it off regularly. Just that Linux shouldn't
> crash with the frequency you claim (ie more than windows).
I don't want to quibble, and I realise that Windows 98 can run for a
long time (it will degrade though) but if you are turning it off
frequently then that really isn't going for "long periods", is it?
>
> I've has a lot more and a lot worse problems with Windows 9x than with
> linux in day to day use. Even with (in linux) all the default servers
> up and running. In windows, games especially, cause problems, but like
> I said before, win9x has crashed occasionally on boot or just trying to
> load a program from MS.
I agree! I've seen this happen a few times.
Chris
>
> --
> Osugi Sakae
>
> I will not be filed, numbered, briefed or debriefed.
> I am not a number, I am a free man. -The Prisoner
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 22:14:14 +1000
From: Chris Sherlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
[snip]
> > Agreed. But many, many more choices would be completely unreasonable
> > and even nonsensical. The shell could easily maintain a list (in a
> > user-accessible manner) of associations (though "index" has no
> > extension, so it wouldn't work) and then ask which one the user
> > wants at run-time; much like bash currently does filename completion.
> >
> > You'd type
> > $list\ of\ songs.playlist
> > and press [tab]
> > then it would fill in the line with
> > $xmms list\ of\ songs.playlist
> >
> > and if there was more than one option then it would display them all,
> > just like filename completion
>
> I suppose it would work for files that have only a few programs to
> operate on them eg graphics files:
> xv
> *toppm
> gimp
> xpaint
>
> That wouldn't be too unwieldly. The problem comes with text files,
> because there are loads of programs that operate on them, a list would
> be quite useless (just press tab a fre times at the bash prompt to get
> some idea:). But I agree, it could work for many types of file.
Not really, you would just make it so that you hit the correct key
combination (couldn't be tab, have to be something else) a few times and
do what bash already does: ask if you want a list of applications you
want to use it with.
Just bouncing ideas around... hope that what I just said makes a bit of
sense!
[snip]
> >
> > Unix counting on processes being one-off means that it's not possible
> > to shut down the computer and retrieve the processes you had (with all
> > of their state) after you reboot.
>
> Yes it is. The UltraSpracs running Solaris in my department can be
> suspended. It saves the state, shuts down and powers off. When you wake
> it up, it even seems to remember where the mouse was: all running
> processes are restored in to the state they were left in. Personally I
> like this feature and wish Linux had it.
Interesting. That sounds like a pretty cool feature to have!
[snip]
> What about those who like the status quo. Why not maintain it? If I like
> the way a system works, why should I go out of my way to make it harder
> for me, but easier for someone else? That doesn't make sense to me.
Even with the status quo, you still have to make changes. What about all
those admins who liked the status quo and never upgraded bind? Some of
them are regretting it today, others will be regretting it sometime
soon!
> > Unix maintains a sharp divide between users and programmers (so does
> > every other OS I know of but that's not the point) and one of the
> > consequences of that divide is that the GPL is pretty meaningless
> > to users. Well, I'm interested in winning this class war for the
> > users and if the other side gets hurt in the process, I don't care.
> > What's interesting to note is that programmers, as individuals,
> > hurt themselves by waging this war against users and maintaining
> > their, collective, superiority towards users. Programmers are sadled
> > with an OS that's horrible to use and program for just so they can
> > scare away users.
>
> If the programmers get hurt, there will be no programs for users to use.
> I also don't think that there is a class war, noone I know tries to
> scare away users, and i, for one like the way the OS works. I find it
> very powerful. I have never hurt myself by writing a program for me
> that I find easy to use, that the next guy doesn't like. On the whole,
> programmers have made programs easier to use, anyway (when was the last
> time you used TECO?).
> There is also another point that the more you want to do a a user, the
> more you'll have to resort to programming. Then the distinction begins
> to blur a little.
Another point about the class wars: most programmers *want* people to
use the apps that they programmed! With open source, this is often why
they coded them in the first place...
[snip]
Chris
>
> -Ed
>
> --
> BBC Computer 32K | Edward Rosten
> Acorn DFS | Engineer and Z4 advocate
> Basic | High Priest: fuji.stcatz.ox.ac.uk/cult
> >*MAIL ku.ca.xo.gne@rje98u (backwards, if you want to talk to me)
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 22:14:06 +1000
From: Chris Sherlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Richard wrote:
>
> Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
[snip]
> > What, do you suppose that someone writes software and gives it away actually
> > hates the users ? If they hate the users, then why do they give
> > the software away in the first place ? Or is the software simply a sinister
> > tool designed to make life difficult for users ?
>
> Free software usually works on the credit or peer models. Programmers
> give away software to get credit for it from users, or to help their
> fellow programmers. The computer illiterate user who just uses their
> computer to run MS Word and can't navigate through the file hierarchy
> is usually held in derision and contempt.
User need *some* understanding of fileheirachy to be able to use a
computer effectively! Yes, that's right, even in Windows and even on
Apple computers. Filesystems were *made* to make life a bit easier. Can
you imagine the chaos that would ensue with people's organisation if
they could only store their files in ONE directory?
To be able to open files a user needs to be able to navigate through the
file hierachy. While I don't hold these people in contempt, and I
certainly don't deride them!, I do not have as much respect for them as
I would other users. All it means is that they have not learned how to
use the tool that they *need* to use properly.
>
> > The reason why is that the programmers, like the users, are often lazy.
> > Writing an application that does *not* act "like an asshole" and does
> > not* force the user to jump through hoops, is hard. There's no evil
> > conspiracy. Only laziness.
>
> The key difference is that it is programmers' *jobs* to write good
> software and it *isn't* users' jobs to put up with bad software.
At the same time, however, surely it is the job of the user to:
a. learn how to use the application to at least a tolerable degree, and
b. provide feedback to help the programmer to write better code
With a. you need to learn at least the very basics of the O/S and it's
environment and with b. it is the responsibility of the coder to respond
and give the user a way to communicate over the program.
> > If you want to design and implement the perfect OS, well that's certainly
> > a reasonable thing to want to do, but it's not going to get done
> > as a result of someone saying nasty things about developers in
> > .advocacy.
>
> That's what I'm doing. Saying nasty things about programmers is
> procrastination. :-)
What are you developing?
> > Your idea regarding a command shell is certainly interesting. I can't
> > say that I'd use it, but that doesn't alter the fact that it's interesting to
> > me .
> >
> > Part of the reason it's interesting is that I haven
> > 't seen anyone come up with anything like it.
> > You might find that surprising, but though the idea seems obvious to
> > you, I haven't seen it before. ( Maybe you should go get a patent ;-)
>
> Thank you. I didn't even think of how the shell would interface with
> the user until this discussion brought it up.
Interesting idea! I wonder how easy it would be to implement... hmmmm,
maybe this will be the next feature of the bash shell!
> > FYI, GNOME and KDE have session management. Again,m this is
> > somewhat superficial compared to what you are describing. Is there
> > an OS that actually implements this kind of thing ? ( I mean at a
> > kernel level ).
>
> Grasshopper did, and quite a few OSes implement Orthogonal Persistence.
> http://www.cs.arizona.edu/people/bridges/oses.html
Interesting... when I first looked at your post I thought that this
looked like a stupid idea, now that I've dug into it a bit more I can
see this may have some merit! The only thing would be that the storing
of constantly changing data would be a bit of a performance bottleneck.
Maybe I've missed something here (if I have, don't flame me! just point
out to me what I'm missing)
> > I don't think anyone "wants to maintain the status quo". The reason that
> > compatibility tends to win over design has a lot to do with the fact that there
> > are a lot of software systems and applications that need to be rewritten
> > when you create a "new thing".
>
> People are incredibly defensive about their contributions. If you tell
> them that here is this project that, once finished, will prove just how
> worthless the last decade of programming they engaged in was, they're
> not going to like it. Nor are most Linuxers going to admit that your
> prototypical Luser has legitimate grievances with your software, even
> if he can't verbalize them.
If the user can't verbalize his grievances then I can sort of see why
the contributer wouldn't take much notice of them! If a user told me
that an application that I wrote sucked, and I asked them why, and they
said "because it just does" then I don't think that I would take much
notice of them either!
> > Personally, I have no problem with someone writing a wonderfully designed OS,
> > but I don't expect to be shouted at for not writing one -- I neither have
> > the technical skills, the time, or the interest to do so.
>
> > >Unix maintains a sharp divide between users and programmers (so does
> > >every other OS I know of but that's not the point) and one of the
> > >consequences of that divide is that the GPL is pretty meaningless
> >
> > I disagree with this. I am personally not clear on whether I am a "user" or
> > a "programmer", I mean, really I am both. I am a Qt and libstdc++ user,
> > and I'm a "dumb user" for that matter -- I am not capable of writing these
> > things I'm using myself.i
> >
> > I write code, but I also write documentation for users, and
> > since I usually write just after
> > I've learned to do it, it tends to be from a user-perspective.
> >
> > Projects like KDE and GNOME actively seek input from users and non-programmers
> > ( for example, they have artists, translators, documentation writers,
> > and simply "users" all of who contribute )
>
> I'm not sure. I would have put you in the category of programmer
> regardless of your technical knowledge. The user/programmer divide
> is technical /and/ psychological. You're a technical user but I
> don't think that your attitude is "I don't care how it works, I
> just want to get my job done." In that sense, I might be more of
> a user than you are because after I got over my "look at the shiny
> new toy" phase with Linux, I decided that I just didn't give a
> damn about what I can do with Linux, as long as I could use it to
> do what I wanted. Despite working on my own OS, I'm a (l)user even
> with regards to OSes.
GNOME does actually look for user feedback. Just look at all of their
mailing lists! Of course, I'm getting spammed from one of them (the
gnome-closed-bugs one that I unsubscribed from ages ago!)... :)
> But in any case, what I meant by my statement was purely technical.
> Everything in Unix is disconnected and non-uniform. It may make
> sense to a C programmer (naaahhhh) but it makes no sense to a user,
> and there is no way for a user to learn about it progressively
> or through exploration. You can't ls /ram and find /ram/pageable,
> /ram/non-pageable, and take a look through to learn which is which.
> You can't go to /ram/pageable/process1 and use cp to fork process1.
> You can't go to /ram/pageable/network-stack and see what's there.
> The list of things you can do is dwarfed by the list of things
> you *can't* do (and should be able to).
I find the Linux filesystem layout to be quite intuitive (OK, so the
naming conventions aren't really intuitive). For instance, all apps go
to the /usr space, every changing (I guess you could call it
"persistent") data is stored in /var, users data is stored in /home -
can't make this name much more intuitive :) - /root holds the
administrators data (an excellent idea, makes administration that much
more easy) and /etc holds configurations. OT, but why did the last
directory (/etc) get a named the way it did?
The section that you describe that fits in best with the filesystem
standard is /proc, BTW.
> > >to users. Well, I'm interested in winning this class war for the
> > >users and if the other side gets hurt in the process, I don't care.
> >
> > There are no two sides and you are charging head first at a windmill.
>
> But then, who'll be my Sancho?
Your who?
> > Well, I've done UNIX programming, and I can tell you that the
> > nastiest thing about programming UNIX is that it's saddled with a lot of
> > legacy stuff. The problem has more to do with the need for compatibilty
> > than anything else. For example, you want to write nice OO code.
> > Java isn't in a very good state yet. So you use C++. But all the
> > APIs you need to use are in C. So you need to saddle your code with these
> > messy "C-isms".
> If you want to write OO code, use an OO language like Smalltalk or Self.
> Java has all the complexity of C++ and all the speed of Smalltalk, why
> bother? (Of course, I don't know Java o/ C/C++ beyond the fact that
> they are hugely complex, don't make any sense, and I want to stay the
> hell away from them.)
I find C and C++ to be extremely elegant in the way that they do things.
Don't know much about Java, except for the fact that it's beauty lies in
the fact that it can be written once, compiled into bytecode and then
run on any platform with a bytecode interpreter. I guess that's what
makes it so slow.
> > Toolkits that don't come saddled with C-isms ( such as QT and KDE ) are
> > a pleasure to use.
> >
> > So I'd say that the need for compatibility is what makes life a pain.
> > It's not because programmers are "nasty".
>
> If your job is to help, nurture and protect someone, then merely not
> giving a damn about them is tantamount to being nasty.
I would say to this person - get a new job!
> > THis raises the compatibility vs design issues. If you don't care about
> > compatibility, "good design" is easier, but the uisers will not appreciate
> > the lack of compatibility much more than they appreciate bad design.
>
> I'm not so sure. There are lots of OS projects aimed at reliability or
> programming freedom, or "media", or all kinds of stuff that users never
> get to see. I have yet to find a single OS project aimed at enabling the
> structured exploration of the world, for lack of a better description.
> At this point in time, I honestly believe that I am doing something that
> nobody has ever attempted before. The closest thing that comes to it is
> Smalltalk, not exactly encouraging but I'll be happy if a thousand people
> use my OS in ten years time.
Are you talking about the software that you are designing? I'd be very
interested to see what you are developing!
Chris
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 22:30:52 +1000
From: Chris Sherlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Richard wrote:
>
> "Colin R. Day" wrote:
>
> > Richard wrote:
> > > Unix is a piece of crap.
> >
> > You are just completely wrong.
> >
> > > For no better reason than Inertia, it will
> > > continue to dominate for decades. Do I need a better reason?
> >
> > Do you need a better reason to what? Lie about a great operating system?
>
> I seem to remember an MS Windows person saying /exactly/ that.
Interesting that you were only stating an opinion... but I'll let this
one lie :)
>
> > > So my anger stems
> > > from the fact that I have to deal with utter assholes on a daily
> > > basis. Seem reasonable to you?
> >
> > No, your anger stems from your own cluelessness.
>
> How much do you know about Unix exactly? My guess is that you
> know nothing about how it works internally. And of course, this
> is the first count of the indictment against Unix; that users
> can't learn how it works and are reduced to mindless enthusiasm.
> The more manic you act now, the more like a chump you'll feel
> later so don't do anything too dumb.
Well, when you write your O/S, how much are most users going to know
about the internals of it? Unfortuneately, the internals of O/Ses are
unavoidably complex (although when I was looking through Coriolis's
Linux kernel code review book I saw several examples where they had
attempted to simplify the design. It seems as though the more complex
the hack, the better off a redesign would be of that subsystem!) and so
I wouldn't call his experience of Unix mindless enthusiasm.
I can't say that he added anything useful in his post though. He merely
told you you were wrong without any supporting facts. Perhaps Colin
could provide some in future?
Just because you don't agree with someone doesn't necessarily mean that
their views are useless. True argument is not about abusing the other
person or making them concede the point through lambasting them. True
and useful argument involves discussion of issues to attempt to convince
the other party of it's validity.
Chris
------------------------------
From: Roberto Selbach Teixeira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why I hate Windows...
Date: 27 Sep 2000 08:53:27 -0300
>>>>> "James" == James Stutts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
James> Sure it is. It costs quite a bit less than NT. You do get
James> what you pay for.
Oh, my god! Do you, really? I think Win98 is *way* too expensive for
what it offers, which is basically nothing. Think about it, what do
you do with a computer with only windows on it?
--
Roberto Selbach Teixeira
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
