Linux-Advocacy Digest #349, Volume #29 Thu, 28 Sep 00 16:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS (Daniel Berger)
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?) (T. Max Devlin)
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: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS ("Ingemar Lundin")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 19:14:39 GMT
Roberto Alsina wrote:
> El jue, 28 sep 2000, Richard escribi�:
> >I don't much care about the actual code size. I'm not running a server,
> >I'm running a powerful machine dedicated to *me* and I want that
> >machine to do what *I* want, no matter how costly.
>
> Well, you were complaining about lack of money just a few posts ago.
<rolleyes> I'm talking about a Pentium here (my old 386 being completely
incapable of running the apps I needed), not an AlphaPC!
> I can't ask more specifically than "what specifically do you believe to be so
> bad?" since I don't know what you are complaining about, really.
That the set of Unix APIs is inconsistent, inelegant, and overly
complicated is off to a good start. Adding another completely
different API under everything isn't going to make things better.
> It describes itself as "a logging or journalling filesystem". I won't claim to
> know all that much about filesystems, but if logging and journaling are not the
> same thing, someone forgot to tell the DtFS authors (and the LFS authors, and
> the guy that does the Linux Filesystem HOWTO).
Journaling is using an append-only policy for metadata. Logging is using an
append-only policy for everything.
In particular, only logging filesystems implement Logs.
<singsong> Log log log, log log log, beautiful wonderful log.
Though I can't remember how the song goes exactly.
> No, I just think saying efficiency is totally unimportant is a clear sign that
> what you are designing will never be implemented in a remotely practical form,
> at least not by you.
Considering that your opinion seems to be that only Unix is "practical",
I don't give a shit.
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 19:14:43 GMT
Roberto Alsina wrote:
> El jue, 28 sep 2000, Richard escribi�:
> >I don't much care about the actual code size. I'm not running a server,
> >I'm running a powerful machine dedicated to *me* and I want that
> >machine to do what *I* want, no matter how costly.
>
> Well, you were complaining about lack of money just a few posts ago.
<rolleyes> I'm talking about a Pentium here (my old 386 being completely
incapable of running the apps I needed), not an AlphaPC!
> I can't ask more specifically than "what specifically do you believe to be so
> bad?" since I don't know what you are complaining about, really.
That the set of Unix APIs is inconsistent, inelegant, and overly
complicated is off to a good start. Adding another completely
different API under everything isn't going to make things better.
> It describes itself as "a logging or journalling filesystem". I won't claim to
> know all that much about filesystems, but if logging and journaling are not the
> same thing, someone forgot to tell the DtFS authors (and the LFS authors, and
> the guy that does the Linux Filesystem HOWTO).
Journaling is using an append-only policy for metadata. Logging is using an
append-only policy for everything.
In particular, only logging filesystems implement Logs.
<singsong> Log log log, log log log, beautiful wonderful log.
Though I can't remember how the song goes exactly.
> No, I just think saying efficiency is totally unimportant is a clear sign that
> what you are designing will never be implemented in a remotely practical form,
> at least not by you.
Considering that your opinion seems to be that only Unix is "practical",
I don't give a shit.
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 19:16:45 GMT
Roberto Alsina wrote:
> El jue, 28 sep 2000, Richard escribi�:
> However, I must say that the reference doesn't make sense, either. After all,
> Sancho didn't charge at the windmills. It's better to only make references to
> books you have read ;-)
The reference makes perfect sense, you just haven't read what I originally
wrote.
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 19:35:36 GMT
Roberto Alsina wrote:
> Nonsense again. Psychopathy is a technical term from the branch of science
> known as psichiatry, which is a science that studies human behaviour.
>
> Now, if you want to found a behavioural science that deals with behaviour of
> non-human entities, you are welcome to do so. Just try not to overtake other
> science's terminology.
I don't need to since someone has already done it a long time ago. And there is
nothing wrong with reusing terms for trivially generalized (and more powerful)
versions of the same concept.
> >There isn't any treatment for psychopathy. There is only incarceration and
> >execution. Why does there have to be an analogue for everything that *happens*
> >to be related to psychopathy in the first place.
>
> Because you say the analogy works? In what way does it work? What does the
> analogy let you predict,?
The murderous and antihuman behaviour of corporations. That frequent contact
with corporate behaviour will be emotionally draining and induce a state of
artificial
psychopathy in normal humans. That human psychopaths will be especially attracted
to corporate environments. That corporations will promote psychopathic ideals and
qualities in humans and societies. The list is endless and most of it can be *easily*
verified to be fact (the rest not so easily).
> No he did not. He said I studied some maths. Stop making things up please.
He said that he was finishing his PhD and I got the impression that you were
further along. It seems I was mistaken.
> >Hurricanes are not beings. Just how stupid are you?
>
> Why is a corporation a being and a hurricane not?
Because a corporation *has* information-processing and
decision-making capabilities (and to deny this you have to
deny that corporations exist in the usual sense of the word)
while a hurricane only *seems* to in the minds of its victims.
Don't dismiss all abstractions as anthropomorphization.
> Are you suggesting that perhaps corporations have some sort of self
> determination, or self-concience?
LOL! Conscience?? How the hell could they be psychopaths if they
had any conscience?
"self-determination" is not well-defined even wrt humans.
------------------------------
From: Daniel Berger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 19:25:18 GMT
Ok, so I'm trolling a bit, but I'm not flaming any of these OS's. I
can say that I've tried all four of these (well, not much MacOS, but
the rest) and have found BeOS the best of all worlds (for home use).
Like the command line? Beos has a Bash shell.
Like the GUI? Beos has its own GUI, as well as Windows, Mac, Amiga and
Gnome look and feel options.
SMP support? Yup - automatic. No configuration hassles.
Can you say 64 bit OS? Ok, so *some* flavors of Unix are there, too.
Can you say pervasive multi-threading? I thought you could.
OpenGL support? Yup, and its gonna get *much* better real soon. Early
results already look *very* promising.
Stability? Your odds of crashing Beos are even less than crashing a
unix box. I've even *tried* to crash it and failed. Protected
namespace. Go figure. Don't even get me started on Windows.
Think Linux is just as stable? Then try this: start linux -- turn off
PC without init 0. Possibly repeat one or two more times. Watch linux
crash.
Shutting off the PC without an init 0 won't happen in your house? Then
you must not have power failures or small children.
Apps? Oh, all right. BeOS doesn't have a ton of Photoshop-like apps,
but there is lots of freeware and shareware already. But then if we
based an OS's quality based on apps available, Windows would win hands
down. Are you *really* sure about that?
Of course, BeOS does have the only audio app that I know of that can
play .mp3 files backwards. Haven't you ever wondered what Prince says
at the end of "Purple Rain"?
Drivers? Again, this is not the fault of the OS, but the will of
hardware manufacturers. ATI and 3dfx are now supporting Beos. Now if
we only had some more printer and scanner drivers.
Network / multi-user support? Oh, all right. I can't win here. We'll
see what happens in BeOS 6. At least I can say that BeOS
was "prepared" for such an enhancement.
Ease of use? Totally subjective. You can always go back to DOS 6.22
or a command-line only unix if you really want to. I still have my
Wordstar disks, just in case.
Regards,
DJB
--
In the immortal words of Socrates, "I drank what?"
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 16:55:02 -0300
El jue, 28 sep 2000, Richard escribi�:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>
>> El jue, 28 sep 2000, Richard escribi�:
>
>> >I don't much care about the actual code size. I'm not running a server,
>> >I'm running a powerful machine dedicated to *me* and I want that
>> >machine to do what *I* want, no matter how costly.
>>
>> Well, you were complaining about lack of money just a few posts ago.
>
><rolleyes> I'm talking about a Pentium here (my old 386 being completely
>incapable of running the apps I needed), not an AlphaPC!
Within the price range of a pentium PC is a large step from 'no matter how
costly'. How do you expect to be taken seriously if you keep saying things you
don't mean?
>> I can't ask more specifically than "what specifically do you believe to be so
>> bad?" since I don't know what you are complaining about, really.
>
>That the set of Unix APIs is inconsistent, inelegant, and overly
>complicated is off to a good start. Adding another completely
>different API under everything isn't going to make things better.
See? That is better. Putting a microkernel in the mix doesn't change the UNIX
APIs much, since the UNIX APIs are mostly kernel-independent.
>> It describes itself as "a logging or journalling filesystem". I won't claim
to >> know all that much about filesystems, but if logging and journaling are
not the >> same thing, someone forgot to tell the DtFS authors (and the LFS
authors, and >> the guy that does the Linux Filesystem HOWTO).
>
>Journaling is using an append-only policy for metadata. Logging is using an
>append-only policy for everything.
>
>In particular, only logging filesystems implement Logs.
>
><singsong> Log log log, log log log, beautiful wonderful log.
>Though I can't remember how the song goes exactly.
>
>
>> No, I just think saying efficiency is totally unimportant is a clear sign that
>> what you are designing will never be implemented in a remotely practical form,
>> at least not by you.
>
>Considering that your opinion seems to be that only Unix is "practical",
>I don't give a shit.
Yet again, you come and put words in my mouth. I have to guess that the crappy
taste is because you are pulling the words out of your ass.
Windows is pretty practical for many uses, IOS is very practical for some uses,
OS/2 was practical for many uses, DOS was practical for what it did, Mac OS
is practical for some things, and so on and so forth.
The road to debate passes through a point where you have to start arguing
against the other guy's position, instead of a position you invent and assign
to him.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 16:01:17 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>El mi�, 27 sep 2000, T. Max Devlin escribi�:
>>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>>El mi�, 27 sep 2000, Richard escribi�:
>>>>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.
>>
>>Unfortunately, I can't agree with you, there, Roberto (though I'll
>>mention that much of what you've been saying on this thread seems
>>reasonable and valid, if a bit contentiously presented.) Generally,
>>even smart people never entirely "outgrow" 'magical thinking'. Even
>>great success as an engineer does not provide any immunity.
>
>Well, yeah, just as we don't outgrow our limbic system either. It's just that
>we don't follow it everywhere without either forethought or remorse.
A good point.
[...]
>>No, it doesn't. Applying human psychology to *humans in a group* makes
>>perfect sense; applying human psychology to the actions of the group
>>itself is anthropomorphization, and is little more than a metaphor.
>
>After all, that's why some people call themselves sociologists.
Sociology would be concerned primarily with the actions of the group
itself, not the humans in the group. Is that what you meant?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 17:01:21 -0300
El jue, 28 sep 2000, Richard escribi�:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>
>> Nonsense again. Psychopathy is a technical term from the branch of science
>> known as psichiatry, which is a science that studies human behaviour.
>>
>> Now, if you want to found a behavioural science that deals with behaviour of
>> non-human entities, you are welcome to do so. Just try not to overtake other
>> science's terminology.
>
>I don't need to since someone has already done it a long time ago. And there is
>nothing wrong with reusing terms for trivially generalized (and more powerful)
>versions of the same concept.
Baloney. Indeed someone did that long ago. The science is called sociology.
Now go read a book on the subject, and tell me if you ever see the term
psycopathy applied to a non-human entity.
>> >There isn't any treatment for psychopathy. There is only incarceration and
>> >execution. Why does there have to be an analogue for everything that *happens*
>> >to be related to psychopathy in the first place.
>>
>> Because you say the analogy works? In what way does it work? What does the
>> analogy let you predict,?
>
>The murderous and antihuman behaviour of corporations.
Are armies psychopaths? Are churches psychopaths?
Is the stock market psychopath?
> That frequent contact with corporate behaviour will be emotionally draining
> and induce a state of artificial psychopathy in normal humans.
Since there is hardly a person that doesn't have almost permanent contact with
corporate behaviour, I have to doubt this. Or else, we would have way more
psychopaths than we currently have.
> That human psychopaths will be especially attracted to corporate
> environments.
Why? Psychopaths are not necessarily attracted to each other.
> That corporations will promote psychopathic ideals and
>qualities in humans and societies. The list is endless and most of it can be
> *easily* > >verified to be fact (the rest not so easily).
So far, all I see is that you just don't like corporations. A corporation
killed your puppy when you were a child?
>> No he did not. He said I studied some maths. Stop making things up please.
>
>He said that he was finishing his PhD and I got the impression that you were
>further along. It seems I was mistaken.
"Roberto has studied some, I am finishing a PhD", IIRC. Just mistaken.
>> >Hurricanes are not beings. Just how stupid are you?
>>
>> Why is a corporation a being and a hurricane not?
>
>Because a corporation *has* information-processing and
>decision-making capabilities (and to deny this you have to
>deny that corporations exist in the usual sense of the word)
>while a hurricane only *seems* to in the minds of its victims.
Here is where the quid is. I say corporations don't have decision making
capabilities, at least not any more than a car has.
>Don't dismiss all abstractions as anthropomorphization.
Don't assing the capability to the object, but to the men operating it.
>> Are you suggesting that perhaps corporations have some sort of self
>> determination, or self-concience?
>
>LOL! Conscience?? How the hell could they be psychopaths if they
>had any conscience?
Perhaps self-awareness is a better term.
>"self-determination" is not well-defined even wrt humans.
If a corporation doesn't have self-determination, it has no decision making
capabilities. If it has no decision making capabilities, it is not a being
according to your own definition. So you better define it quick.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 17:12:54 -0300
El jue, 28 sep 2000, Richard escribi�:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>
>> El jue, 28 sep 2000, Richard escribi�:
>> However, I must say that the reference doesn't make sense, either. After all,
>> Sancho didn't charge at the windmills. It's better to only make references to
>> books you have read ;-)
>
>The reference makes perfect sense, you just haven't read what I originally
>wrote.
Oh, I did:
==========
> There are no two sides and you are charging head first at a windmill.
But then, who'll be my Sancho?
==========
This assumes Sancho was at least supportive of Don Quijote's charge at the
windmills. As anyone who has read the book knows, he wasn't.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 17:14:22 -0300
El jue, 28 sep 2000, T. Max Devlin escribi�:
>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>El mi�, 27 sep 2000, T. Max Devlin escribi�:
>>>No, it doesn't. Applying human psychology to *humans in a group* makes
>>>perfect sense; applying human psychology to the actions of the group
>>>itself is anthropomorphization, and is little more than a metaphor.
>>
>>After all, that's why some people call themselves sociologists.
>
>Sociology would be concerned primarily with the actions of the group
>itself, not the humans in the group. Is that what you meant?
Sociology would try to analize and predict the behaviour of the group.
Often, they would use psychology as a tool to try to do so, by predicting the
or analyzing the behaviour of the individual members.
However, no sociologist would try to just apply psychology to the group as a
whole. That would be as silly as applying gas theory to an atom of oxygen, only
in the opposite direction.
For instance, how could a corporation develop a trauma, or a phobia, or have an
emotional attachment? It can't, just as it can not be a psychopat.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 20:11:34 GMT
"Daniel Berger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
news:8r05ul$ie6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ok, so I'm trolling a bit, but I'm not flaming any of these OS's. I
> can say that I've tried all four of these (well, not much MacOS, but
> the rest) and have found BeOS the best of all worlds (for home use).
yeah you beos guys makes the linux geeks look like ms lovers ;(
>
> Like the command line? Beos has a Bash shell.
>
> Like the GUI? Beos has its own GUI, as well as Windows, Mac, Amiga and
> Gnome look and feel options.
beos gui ? yeah well... ripped like hell from windows , mac and nextstep
>
> SMP support? Yup - automatic. No configuration hassles.
>
> Can you say 64 bit OS? Ok, so *some* flavors of Unix are there, too.
"som" unix:es (like sun solaris) has been there for close to a decade now ;)
>
> Can you say pervasive multi-threading? I thought you could.
anything new? besides from that i mean?
>
> OpenGL support? Yup, and its gonna get *much* better real soon. Early
> results already look *very* promising.
>
> Stability? Your odds of crashing Beos are even less than crashing a
> unix box. I've even *tried* to crash it and failed. Protected
> namespace. Go figure. Don't even get me started on Windows.
>
beos chrash PRETTY frequently as anyone knows that tested it for a sustained
amount of time
> Think Linux is just as stable? Then try this: start linux -- turn off
> PC without init 0. Possibly repeat one or two more times. Watch linux
> crash.
>
> Shutting off the PC without an init 0 won't happen in your house? Then
> you must not have power failures or small children.
>
meaning WHAT?
> Apps? Oh, all right. BeOS doesn't have a ton of Photoshop-like apps,
> but there is lots of freeware and shareware already. But then if we
> based an OS's quality based on apps available, Windows would win hands
> down. Are you *really* sure about that?
beos has'nt any apps beside those following base install and you know that!
>
> Of course, BeOS does have the only audio app that I know of that can
> play .mp3 files backwards. Haven't you ever wondered what Prince says
> at the end of "Purple Rain"?
>
> Drivers? Again, this is not the fault of the OS, but the will of
> hardware manufacturers. ATI and 3dfx are now supporting Beos. Now if
> we only had some more printer and scanner drivers.
>
drivers for beos? WHERE?
> Network / multi-user support? Oh, all right. I can't win here. We'll
> see what happens in BeOS 6. At least I can say that BeOS
> was "prepared" for such an enhancement.
if it survives for that long ;)
>
> Ease of use? Totally subjective. You can always go back to DOS 6.22
> or a command-line only unix if you really want to. I still have my
> Wordstar disks, just in case.
>
yeah its easy to use, but apart from that?
> Regards,
>
> DJB
>
/IL
> --
> In the immortal words of Socrates, "I drank what?"
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
