Linux-Advocacy Digest #331, Volume #29 Wed, 27 Sep 00 12:13:09 EDT
Contents:
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: programming languages and design (Richard)
Re: filename extensions are NOT a kludge (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (Bryant Brandon)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively ("Stuart Fox")
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT ("Stuart Fox")
Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy? (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy? (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Why I hate Windows... (.)
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (Mike Byrns)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Matthias
Warkus)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Donal K.
Fellows)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: Why I hate Windows... (Roberto Selbach Teixeira)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 15:08:19 GMT
Roberto Alsina wrote:
>So, because AtheOS is more UNIX than a non-UNIX, AtheOS is unix.
> You have a very poor logical process, for a designer.
I guess we can add biological evolution to the list of things you don't
seem to know about.
> >Anyone who says that corporations cannot "really" be diagnosed as
> >clinical psychopaths because they're not human is like someone saying
> >that BSD cannot "really" be Unix because it wasn't made by Bell Labs.
>
> Of course, applying human psychology to inhumans is rather stupid.
If it works then there's nothing stupid about it. And applying human
psychology to groups *of* humans makes perfect sense.
And the crucial importance of empathy would fall more into 'moral
philosophy' than psychology.
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: programming languages and design
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 15:14:01 GMT
==============EDC85870BB1906C830E04847
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Roberto Selbach Teixeira wrote:
> Why is it? C++ is a very well designed language. Unfortunately, some
> compilers make a *very* bad implementation. Even worse, those
> compilers are popular.
>
> However, I still believe C++ is a wonderful language for software
> development.
C++ is a "hybrid" language. Most people forget though that hybrids
rarely exist in nature for a very good reason and that while mules
are a seamless mix of horse and donkey, a "hybrid" language is more
like Frankenstein's monster.
But delude yourself away.
==============EDC85870BB1906C830E04847
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
<tt>Roberto Selbach Teixeira wrote:</tt>
<blockquote TYPE=CITE><tt>Why is it? C++ is a very well designed language.
Unfortunately, some</tt>
<br><tt>compilers make a *very* bad implementation. Even worse, those</tt>
<br><tt>compilers are popular.</tt><tt></tt>
<p><tt>However, I still believe C++ is a wonderful language for software</tt>
<br><tt>development.</tt></blockquote>
<tt></tt>
<p><br><tt>C++ is a "hybrid" language. Most people forget though that hybrids</tt>
<br><tt>rarely exist in nature for a very good reason and that while mules</tt>
<br><tt>are a seamless mix of horse and donkey, a "hybrid" language is
more</tt>
<br><tt>like Frankenstein's monster.</tt><tt></tt>
<p><tt>But delude yourself away.</tt></html>
==============EDC85870BB1906C830E04847==
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: filename extensions are NOT a kludge
Date: 27 Sep 2000 15:06:41 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Symmetry and Kolmogorov complexity both pop off the top of my
> head, both of which are well-defined mathematical concepts.
But these do not (solely) define whether a computer language is
useful. For example, virtually all the useful computer languages have
I/O of some form, and with good reason. The ease with which I/O can
be performed has a big impact upon the usability of many languages.
And yet these languages are all expressible in terms of each other,
and support the same basic functionality. So abstract mathematical
concepts are not all there is. Nor is shortness of program, since
while it is possible to express very powerful concepts in a small
space, doing so while obfuscating is actually less than helpful. (cf
IOCCC :^)
Very often, the real proof of a language is to see how easy it is to
write programs that have precisely the intended effect ("Make it do
what I want!") and which can be fully comprehended by someone else in
eighteen months time when it comes to the maintenance contract ("What
is it supposed to do?") Maybe this is a bit too practical a PoV for
you, but it is the one that is most helpful to everyone in the field.
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Short attention span since- ooh! Shiny thing on the floor!
-- Chad R. Orzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: Bryant Brandon <[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: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 10:21:11 -0500
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, dc
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
@> It's not a laptop. It's a desktop workstation.
@
@Again, if anything happens between the server and the desktops, the
@cached profile comes in handy.
And like I stated already, when the connection is down, we can't
login anyway.
@>@> Also, about getting the cached profile. That's dumb. If there's a
@>@>problem with the network, that'll just give me old data (in the case
@>@>that I logged in on another machine in the interim, so what's on the
@>@>server is newer than what's on the PC) and then, when I log out, if the
@>@>machine can now reach the network, it overwrites what's on the server!
@>@
@>@No, it won't overwrite what's on the server.
@>
@> Didn't you say the changes would get uploaded to the server on
@>logout? It stands to reason that the old profile would get overwritten.
@
@Not if a connection isn't established at login.
So now everything's out of synch. Ther server has one version of my
data, the machine has another. Next time I login on that machine,
assuming the connection's good, which version do I get? The server'sm
or the machine's?
@>After all, in the case I described, the profile being uploaded is newer
@>than the profile currently on the server.
@
@And you'll overwrite possibly unique or required data, as in the very
@circumstances you yourself stated.
So, if the connection is bad at login, I wind up with a version of my
data that may be out of synch with the server. How is this problem
resolved?
@>Unless, of course, windows
@>keeps around a copy of every single session of every single user until
@>the system is purged. If that's the case, it's dumb.
@
@You keep repeating that (and making other silly guesses), and I keep
@explaining why it works the way it does. From a client-server
@standpoint, it's perfectly logical.
You keep telling me contradictory things. So does it keep copies of
everything, or does it not? If it does, that's a horrendous waste of
disk space and should only be available if explicitly requested. If it
doesn't, the problem I describe above arises. Further, if there are
multiple copies, what mechanism does the user loggin in have to retrieve
an older profile?
@>@> In any event, the way out network is apparently set up, when a
@>@>machine can't reach the network, it doesn't allow login.
@>@
@>@Why do you say that? What, exactly, happens?
@>
@> It sits there, thinking, for a very long time, until it times out.
@>Then it comes back saying the user/login is invalid.
@
@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.
So, my computer is not caching profiles? What does it do, delete
them? In that case, why am I out of disk space?
And why are they saving copis of my password all over the place?
@>@> I still can't see a good reason to let old data pile up on various
@>@>machines. Sure, it can cache users' profiles so, if the server says
@>@>nobody else has touched the data, the machine doesn't have to pull it
@>@>all back over the network. But if the machine is getting full,
@>@>inactive, partially active, or small profiles should be removed since
@>@>there's a perfectly good copy sitting on the server.
@>@
@>@This is why NT SP3 (I think that's the SP) has quotas. The fact that
@>@your admins don't use that functionality is THEIR problem.
@>
@> The system you ahve described to me wouldn't seem to benefit from
@>quotas.
@
@Limiting user space or keeping it within defined limits wouldn't
@benefit or do away with full hard drives?
Not if you can keep adding users. You're telling me that a copy of
the profile of every single user that logs in on a given machine is kept
around. Indefinately. So, even if each user has a quota of one byte,
enough unique users can fill up the system.
@>@> The "let shit accumulate everywhere" system is insane.
@>@
@>@The option to do so or not do so is completely up to the admins in
@>@question - and isn't a fault of NT.
@>
@> So it can be configured to not accumulate shit on the local machine?
@
@Turn off caching profiles.
You said it's off. Is it miracuously on again?
@>Why isn't that the default?
@
@Because it's a bad idea in a multiuser, multimachine environment.
Why? This exact setup worked fine under win 95/98 with no cached
profiles. This is certainly a multiuser, multimachine environment.
@>It would make more sense. [i'm assuming
@>the "let shit accumulate" system is the default since the labs are using
@>it]
@
@Let me guess - you've never run a LAN/WAN of over, say, 5000 users,
@have you? Or a LAN of any kind?
Hmm, 5000 users. Let's see, I'm a college student......welll, NOPE!
@Do you have any administrative experience at all?
Yes.
@No? Thank you. Please stop calling established systems' methods,
@essentially, "shit".
Why? It isn't working. What we had before did. It's a big waste of
space. It's slower. It's more goddamn money UNT pissed away. Some of
that money is/was mine. I can't get any work done in class. I have to
come in at odd times to do something I should be able to do in class.
But last semester, before this "upgrade" nobody had to deal with this.
So, since it's having a direct, measurable impact on me, I am more
than qualified to call it a piece of shit.
@>@> Not if w2k is unnecessarily eating disk space. Also, let's say
@>@>everybody has a quota of 5M. The machine's C: drive has 100M free for
@>@>profiles. What happens when user #21 logs in? How does the quota
@>@>system solve this?
@>@
@>@The admins need to think about these things when setting the quota,
@>@don't they?
@>
@> Obviously they don't. Can you answer my question? I want to know
@>how quotas will fix this problem.
@
@They limit user disk usage.
On a per-user basis. Not on a multiuser level. Unless there's
something you're not telling me.
@>@Do you know the local machine's administrative password?
@>
@> I'm a university student in a general access lab. Do you think I'd
@>have an administrative password to anything?
@
@I have no idea. That's why I asked.
Well, now you know.
@>@If so, just
@>@log in remotely from another computer and clear off some disk space.
@>@It's something the local desktop support admin can do from the comfort
@>@of his office chair; I can't see why this is still a problem -
@>@literally 4 days (hasn't it been?) since you've notified us of the
@>@issue.
@>
@> 4 days since I posted, but 4 class days since it started. 4 class
@>days == 2 weeks.
@
@Tell your desktop support staff to fix it.
I have every day. I'm about to just put my fist through the screen.
The only thing stopping me is I don't have a towel handy to wrap around
my hand.
--
B.B. --I am not a goat! http://people.unt.edu/~bdb0015
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 12:26:16 -0300
El mié, 27 sep 2000, Richard escribió:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>>So, because AtheOS is more UNIX than a non-UNIX, AtheOS is unix.
>
>> You have a very poor logical process, for a designer.
>
>I guess we can add biological evolution to the list of things you don't
>seem to know about.
Apparently you seem to believe biology applies to operating systems.
You are applying magic thought. Usually people outgrow it around
age 8.
>> >Anyone who says that corporations cannot "really" be diagnosed as
>> >clinical psychopaths because they're not human is like someone saying
>> >that BSD cannot "really" be Unix because it wasn't made by Bell Labs.
>>
>> Of course, applying human psychology to inhumans is rather stupid.
>
>If it works then there's nothing stupid about it. And applying human
>psychology to groups *of* humans makes perfect sense.
Saying that "corporations are psychopaths" "works" is quite peculiar.
>And the crucial importance of empathy would fall more into 'moral
>philosophy' than psychology.
Whatever floats your boat.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 12:30:11 -0300
El mié, 27 sep 2000, Richard escribió:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>
>> El mié, 27 sep 2000, Richard escribió:
>> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> >> >exporting out the bare hardware, and they failed abysmally. Coming
>> >> >up with supposed deficits in research OSes is just a cheap and lame
>> >> >way to try to rationalize away inertia.
>> >>
>> >> And there has been no practical OS with much more abstraction than
>> >> unix.
>> >
>> >g/unix/windows
>>
>> Are you saying windows has less abstraction than unix, or that
>> unix is not practical?
>
>No, I'm saying that every lame-ass argument you've made about how
>Unix is the "perfect" OS and that every other OS is so obviously flawed
>because it didn't defeat Unix could easily be applied to MS Windows.
You must be confusing me with someone else. Unix is not perfect. All
OSs are flawed, though, but so is UNIX.
Perhaps you are projecting your attitude towards your pet OS unto my attitude
towards mine.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[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: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 15:51:41 +0100
"Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:39d2080d$0$26550$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> Plus, a lot of networks have TCPIP *and* NetBEUI flying around them. I'm
> not sure which one Windows uses if both are installed and running, but I'm
> betting that in Win95 at least it's NetBEUI.
Windows uses whichever one is selected as the default protocol first, and
then tries the other protocols if it can't open a connection with that
protocol.
------------------------------
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: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 16:29:02 +0100
"Bryant Brandon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> @>@
> @>@No, it won't overwrite what's on the server.
> @>
> @> Didn't you say the changes would get uploaded to the server on
> @>logout? It stands to reason that the old profile would get overwritten.
> @
> @Not if a connection isn't established at login.
>
> So now everything's out of synch. Ther server has one version of my
> data, the machine has another. Next time I login on that machine,
> assuming the connection's good, which version do I get? The server'sm
> or the machine's?
If the local copy is newer than the server, you get prompted as to which one
you want to use. When you log out again, the server copy gets updated from
the local copy.
>
> @>After all, in the case I described, the profile being uploaded is newer
> @>than the profile currently on the server.
> @
> @And you'll overwrite possibly unique or required data, as in the very
> @circumstances you yourself stated.
>
> So, if the connection is bad at login, I wind up with a version of my
> data that may be out of synch with the server. How is this problem
> resolved?
See above.
> You keep telling me contradictory things. So does it keep copies of
> everything, or does it not? If it does, that's a horrendous waste of
> disk space and should only be available if explicitly requested. If it
> doesn't, the problem I describe above arises. Further, if there are
> multiple copies, what mechanism does the user loggin in have to retrieve
> an older profile?
It keeps the most recent profile on the server, and the local machine has
whatever it's most recent copy is. An older profile is gone..
>
> So, my computer is not caching profiles? What does it do, delete
> them? In that case, why am I out of disk space?
> And why are they saving copis of my password all over the place?
Everyone is making assumptions here which can never be proved, as you don't
have administrative access or full knowledge of the setup of the system
you're working on.
>
> Not if you can keep adding users. You're telling me that a copy of
> the profile of every single user that logs in on a given machine is kept
> around. Indefinately. So, even if each user has a quota of one byte,
> enough unique users can fill up the system.
Indeed.
>
> Why? This exact setup worked fine under win 95/98 with no cached
> profiles. This is certainly a multiuser, multimachine environment.
>
Win95/98 do the same thing. Look under C:\windows\profiles (if they're
turned on of course)
>
> Why? It isn't working. What we had before did. It's a big waste of
> space. It's slower. It's more goddamn money UNT pissed away. Some of
> that money is/was mine. I can't get any work done in class. I have to
> come in at odd times to do something I should be able to do in class.
> But last semester, before this "upgrade" nobody had to deal with this.
> So, since it's having a direct, measurable impact on me, I am more
> than qualified to call it a piece of shit.
Maybe the implementation is. Or your admins are. If it's not fixed
quickly, it should be.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?
Date: 27 Sep 2000 15:29:25 GMT
In article <00092709205406.16019@pc03>,
Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> El mié, 27 sep 2000, Chris Sherlock escribió:
>> Then how does the icon get the focus?
>
> Why do you want an icon to have focus?
> To delete it pressing DEL? If you gonna click it, you may as well drag it to
> trash, or Ctrl-click it.
I thought Ctrl-click was (related to) the standard way of forcing a
copy of an object. Or is KDE ravingly different from the rest of the
world in this matter?
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Short attention span since- ooh! Shiny thing on the floor!
-- Chad R. Orzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 12:39:49 -0300
El mié, 27 sep 2000, Donal K. Fellows escribió:
>In article <00092709205406.16019@pc03>,
>Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> El mié, 27 sep 2000, Chris Sherlock escribió:
>>> Then how does the icon get the focus?
>>
>> Why do you want an icon to have focus?
>> To delete it pressing DEL? If you gonna click it, you may as well drag it to
>> trash, or Ctrl-click it.
>
>I thought Ctrl-click was (related to) the standard way of forcing a
>copy of an object. Or is KDE ravingly different from the rest of the
>world in this matter?
That's ctrl-drag.
Ctrl-click does the same thing on every GUI I know: selecting the icon.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Why I hate Windows...
Date: 27 Sep 2000 15:32:18 GMT
Roberto Selbach Teixeira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>> "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?
You play lots and lots of very cool games.
And run Putty to ssh into actual computers to get actual things
actually done.
=====.
------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <[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: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 10:35:19 -0500
dc wrote:
>
> On Wed, 27 Sep 2000 04:42:25 GMT, Mike Byrns
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
> >
> >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.
>
> Please describe how they'd get your config but not your files. Assume
> NT4-WS.
Permissions set so that writing can be done only in temp and your
network home. This is otherwise known as a locked down business or lab
config. See
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/q198/7/71.asp
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 23:09:04 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Tue, 26 Sep 2000 20:36:02 GMT...
...and Joe R. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> Spending cuts also "mean more" to the $35 k family of 4. BTW, that's
> > >> about
> > >> $7- a week per family member. Enough for them all to buy a Coke a day.
> > >
> > >So we shouldn't give them anything?
> >
> > I'm simply pointing out that Bush's policy does not offer them very much.
> > Sure, given a choice between a Coke a day and no Coke a day, I'd probably
> > take it. But I'd hardly act like I'd won the lottery because of it.
>
> First of all, your numbers are way off.
>
> The Bush plan basically waives income taxes for those under $35 K.
> That's an average of $1500 per year -- or $30 per week.
>
> That's a lot of money for someone in that income bracket.
>
> But what do you want him to do? How much more can they offer than
> eliminating taxes? GIVE them money?
Yes. You could, for example, grant every family $200 per child per
month.
(There is a similar, though slightly more complicated scheme in
Germany.)
mawa
--
Who'd A Thought It, Alabama | Toad Suck, Arkansas | Two Egg,
Eek, Alaska | Turkey Scratch, Arkansas | Florida
Greasy Corner, Arkansas | Zyzx Springs, California |
-- U.S. placenames
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: 27 Sep 2000 15:43:08 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chris Sherlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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?
Originally:
/bin held binaries
/lib held libraries
/usr held user stuff (I've seen home dirs under /usr on some
installations of Unix; /home is much more common now.)
/tmp held temporary files
/dev held device nodes
/var held things that tended to change a lot (logs, spools)
/etc held miscellaneous things (including system configs)
Easy when you think about it.
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Short attention span since- ooh! Shiny thing on the floor!
-- Chad R. Orzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 15:46:07 GMT
Chris Sherlock wrote:
> 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.
My aim is that users learn as much as they want to learn about the OS,
and that they do so as easily and efficiently as possible.
The thing about Unix is that it's not very modular and you can't leverage
your knowledge of one component of the system to the task of understanding
another component, let alone leveraging /using/ the system to understanding
the internals. Nor is it possible to read a document in /process that tells
you what processes are, how to make /all kinds/ of processes yourself, etc.
If you had such documents distributed across the system and a sane naming
scheme and layout then users could navigate the system at will and never
have to encounter a monolithic "This Is What You Have To Learn" document
for them to memorize.
Understanding how the system works mostly involves understanding all of the
higher level abstractions used by the system and how they interrelate, rather
than how they're implemented. In any programming project (even imperative),
it's always about the data and never the functions.
[agree completely with rest]
------------------------------
From: Roberto Selbach Teixeira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why I hate Windows...
Date: 27 Sep 2000 13:10:27 -0300
>>>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You play lots and lots of very cool games.
> And run Putty to ssh into actual computers to get actual things
> actually done.
No, you don't play games, either. A machine with *only* Windows is
useless. Of course, maybe by "very cool games" you mean Solitaire...
--
Roberto Selbach Teixeira
Curitiba, Brazil
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
