Linux-Advocacy Digest #467, Volume #29 Thu, 5 Oct 00 12:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: Linux and Free Internet? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway? (Brian Langenberger)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (Eric Remy)
Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-) (Jim Cameron)
Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway? (chrisv)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (Bob Germer)
Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway? (John Sanders)
Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-) ("Stuart Fox")
Re: [OT] Loren Petrich claims THIEVERY = LEGITIMATE WORK (Mayor Of R'lyeh)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Mike")
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (The Ghost In
The Machine)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 11:01:12 -0300
El mi�, 04 oct 2000, Richard escribi�:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> El mi�, 04 oct 2000, Richard escribi�:
>> >From what you describe, it looks like your position with respect
>> >to your corporation (no oversight whatsoever) is analogous to a
>> >tumour or other cancerous growth.
>>
>> Piling analogies doesn't make them any better.
>
>Then it's a good thing that I'm not doing that. EXTENDING the
>same analogy to encompass more and more and more only makes that
>single analogy more powerful.
No, because the analogies are incompatible. You first compared me to a cell.
Now you compare me to a tumor. Tumors are not single cells.
>Parasites and invaders come free with the 'corporation as human
>body' analogy. In fact, I'd be in trouble if there WEREN'T an
>analogue.
Tumors are not parasites nor invaders.
>> >Most corporate decisions are traceable to humans (and many are not) but
>> >they are never traceable to a SINGLE human. If no member of the corporation
>> >ever hired you, you have no oversight whatsoever and you do not follow
>> >the implicit rules and values of the corporation then you are a foreign
>> >invader and NOT part of the corporation.
>>
>> Ever heard the concept of "first employee"?
>
>Ever heard the concept of "first node connected to the network"?
>
>How about "Invisible Pink Unicorn"?
How about: I work in the corporation. I was not hired by anyone who works here,
and was not hired by anyone who has ever worked here. I know that to be a fact.
You figure out how to bring it into your little world.
>Not everything that can be named is meaningful. That is exactly why
>people need to be rigorous; so that they don't end up like you.
Well, I have reality behind me.
>> You seem to believe the values of
>> the corporation and my own disagree, while usually they don't.
>
>And you were selected on that exact basis. If they had disagreed,
>you would never have been selected. The values of the corporation
>do not come from you, they *dictate* you.
They existed in me (for whatever they are) before the corporation "met" me, so
they can not have been dicated by the corporation.
>> However, if the corporation values (whatever that may be) mandated I do
>> something I considered wrong, I would not do it. Regardless of what you may
>
>At which point you would be recognized as a foreigner and fired ASAP.
Hasn't happened yet. However, I have refused to do things in the past. Not
fired. Reality is more complex than you think.
>> believe, I don't let anyone override my own ethics.
>>
>> > If you /were/ hired but you still
>> >have no oversight then you are a tumour. If you were hired and you have
>> >no oversight and you don't conform to the corporation then you are a
>> >*malignant* tumour.
>>
>> And you claim you don't do metaphor.
>
>ANALOGY! But I *already* explained this four or five separate times!
Actually, you also claimed you don't do analogy, but abstraction.
>> >I can, and just have wrt immortal and eternal, detect inconsistencies
>> >in my position without anyone ever proving they exist and resolve those
>> >inconsistencies on my own.
>>
>> Uh? It took 3 posts for you to actually get it.
>
>And note how in none of those posts you did any significant work or
>ever even attempted to be rigorous, formal, or even rational.
That was not needed to show your own incoherence.
>> >Except the shareholders. And the shareholders are a quintessential mob.
>>
>> The shareholders oversee through the board. No shareholder can usually call the
>> CEO and tell him what to do.
>
>Except when the share price plummets. At which point he is immediately held
>responsible by the shareholders, and not by "law".
By the board, usually.
>As for that whole crap about "fiduciary duty", you obviously don't know how
>Japanese corporations work.
No, I don't live in Japan. Why should I care about that specific case? You are
making general statements, examples are not proof.
> They beat up annoying shareholders over there.
You saw Black Rain once too many.
>Of course, Japanese corporations are a hell of a lot less psychopathic than
>American corporations. It is the very essence of a shareholder to act like a
>psychopath; that's where the corporations' psychopathic values come from and
>corporations that don't have shareholders or that simply don't give a fuck
>about them are less (or not at all) psychopathic.
So, you are now saying that only some corporations are psychopaths, and that
rather, the shareholders, (which BTW, in another subthread you declared had no
corporate decision-making power) are the real psychopaths?
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux and Free Internet?
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 13:50:40 GMT
In article <8rfqpv$r59$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > In article <8rfm29$r59$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> > In article <8rdbjh$26rc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
> >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> >> > I haven't been able to spare $20 a month in several
> >> >> > years for regular Internet service, so I've had to
> >> >> > use several "Free ISP" internet service providers.
> >> >> > Unfortunately, all of the "free internet" (i.e.,
> >> >> > ad-bar) services only have software for the Windoze
> >> >> > 9Whatever OSes. So I've been in the irritating
> >> >> > position of requiring a multi-boot computer for
> >> >> > years, and booting into Windoze to get on the
> >> >> > Internet. Freewwweb.com used to exist to provide
> >> >> > non-ad-bar Internet for Linux users, but they
> >> >> > recently merged with Juno and now Juno is the only
> >> >> > company.
> >> >>
> >> >> > If you want to get Linux on the desktops and laptops
> >> >> > of the world, you need to get *any* of the Free
> >> >> > Internet companies to create a version for Linux.
> >> >> > Linux has software to replace every single Micro$oft
> >> >> > application. If you could advertise that Linux
> >> >> > essentially "comes with" free internet service,
> >> >> > Linux usage would increase. A clever licensing
> >> >> > agreement could even put the "free isp" software on
> >> >> > the distribution CD itself.
> >> >>
> >> >> Oh I see. In order for linux to 'succeed' (whatever
> >> >> that means), it has to make YOU happy.
> >>
> >> > You're right, I didn't say that right. "You" *should*,
> >> > rather than need, to get free internet for Linux. Also,
> >> > as far as success is concerned, I just think it would be
> >> > faster with free internet than without it. Right now,
> >> > Linux is proceeding at a decent pace. Add in free internet,
> >> > and Linux would get its own jet.
> >>
> >> Do you have any marketing data to back up this assertion?
>
> > Well yes: when you give something away for free, something
> > good like the Internet, you tend to have more takers than
> > when you don't give something away for free.
>
> Thats not data. Thats theory.
>
> > Right now Win9x has an advantage over Linux: you'll pay about
> > $150-$200 initially, but you'll get free internet. With Linux,
> > you pay $30-$80 for the CD, and then you'll have to shell out
> > another $240 a year for the Internet Access.
>
> I didnt have to do that. And neither do you actually,
> if you know how to run WINE.
WINE won't let you run the ad-bar software, or so my
version tells me. Besides, why should we be forced
into running a crappy emulator when an existing free ISP
could rake in advertiser dollars with a Linux version?
> > This means that within one year, the Win9x investment
> > has paid for itself and saved you another $40 extra;
> > while the Linux investment has cost you $270-$320
> > with no end in sight for the expenses.
>
> I dont pay for internet access.
Yes, but you are entirely dependent on your JOB for
Internet access. Lose your job, lose your Internet
access. I don't know what country you live in, but
downsizing and lack of job security are quite common
in the U.S.A.
> > Add in free internet for Linux, and the equation reverses
> > within the first six months: the Linux investment pays for
> > itself within 2-4 months, while you have to wait seven months
> > for the Win9x investment to pay for itself in income not
> > spent on the Internet access.
>
> None of this is data, its all theory still.
Theory? Saving $20 a month in Internet access is no
"theory", it happens with dozens of free ISPs and
millions of users of those free ISPs. Basing the
concept of paying off $199 for Windows 2000 or $30
for Linux on a saved $20 a month is no "theory".
> >> > Yes, I would benefit. Yes, Linux should
> >> > make me happy. I'm not a programmer, I'm a
> >> > user, and I'm pretty sure that non-programmer
> >> > users outnumber programmers.
> >>
> >> Find away to pay for internet access, or find
> >> a way to get *good* access for nothing and you
> >> wont have a problem.
>
> > You seem quick to throw out the idea that all
> > Linux users should have the option of reporting
> > bugfixes and requesting new features from the
> > moment they install their new Linux CD. I don't
> > find your desire to deny users the chance to
> > report bugs quickly and for free a way to "speed
> > along Linux's acceptance".
>
> What the hell are you talking about?
Easy: when everyone has free internet available through
Linux, they get the chance to send in bugfix reports
right away, instead of having to work out Internet
access into their budgets or make some extra effort
(such as get access through their school or JOB) to
get access first.
You keep insulting the idea that users should have
free access to the Internet through a free ISP. You
keep insisting that "there needs to be market data"
for something which is so DUH!
[1] Bugfixes and new feature requests are what
drives Linux to excel beyond what Windoze and
other proprietary OSes are capable of doing.
[2] Internet access lets people send in bugfixes
and feature requests much easier than any
other method of reporting "data".
[3] If Internet access comes with Linux, Linux
improves more dramatically since every single
user can report either what s/he doesn't like
or what s/he wants RIGHT AWAY.
[4] If Internet access comes with Linux, then
a user knows that this is an OS with built-in
FAST SUPPORT, regardless of which distribution
you buy.
You don't need market data to realize that making
the user happy and giving the user practically
instant access to user support (you being the
notable exception to the concept of "support" on
Linux NGs) will speed the implementation of Linux
on the desktop and increase its power and
reliability.
One could look at the Micro$oft model for
"satisfaction" market data: user satisfaction with
Micro$oft is very low for the very reasons I've
outlined above: no quick, out of the box access to
tech support, and no quick access to the people who
do bugfixes and features.
What I'm saying is that Linux should do
what Micro$oft is NOT DOING.
> > As for "good access for nothing", you seem
> > pretty sure of yourself, Mr. Big Orifice.
> > Where can one find "*good* access for nothing"?
>
> Well, I did it by getting a really good job at
> a high speed access company and claiming it as
> a perk.
I see. You have to work eight hours--more if
you're "exempt"--a day for your Internet access.
This is not "free".
When I used Windoze, I didn't have to work AT ALL
for my Internet access. I signed up for four free
ISPs and used the one which wasn't busy. There
was always a time when one ISP had an open phone
line for me.
You don't have "free" access, you have "fee for
service" access. The difference is only in the
method of payment: you pay in labor where most
people pay in money.
> How you're going to do it I have no idea.
Well, I can use YOUR method: pay for my Internet
service, in labor or in money.
I certainly can't do it, currently, for FREE.
> >> Do you know ive never payed for internet
> >> access at all?
>
> > Yes, and when you stop being a student or
> > lose your tenure, try to find "free internet
> > access for Linux" at HOME.
>
> I havent been a student in 6 years. I do not
> have tenure. I work with computers, and my
> access is part of my compensation and has been
> for a number of years.
Again, you pay for it in labor, so your access is
NOT FREE. The key word is "compensation".
Hint: when you stop paying in *labor* for your
Internet access, does it stick around? NO? Then
your Internet access is not "free".
My Internet access under Windoze and free ISPs
was not, strictly speaking, "compensation". My
"effort" was only in ignoring the ad-bar. Multiple
monitors and a handy utility stripped me from even
having to look at the ads.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway?
Date: 5 Oct 2000 14:10:34 GMT
Michael Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Evolution is definately a long way from done though... but it does have
: promise.
Charles Darwin would agree with you. :)
(sorry, I couldn't resist)
------------------------------
From: Eric Remy <[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: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 10:12:47 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Timberwoof
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Charlie Ebert
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> The ones which went into Mars at 62 degree angles were W2k equipped.
>
>I'd like to see documentation that the OS onboard that spacecraft
>wasW2k. I do not believe it.
>
>The official reason was that one processor talked in m/s while another
>processor talked in ft/s. OOps.
Think of it as a *very* expensive object lesson to engineers.
Every year I deal with large numbers of freshman, many of them
engineering majors. Every year I try to teach them chemistry. Every
year I watch them happily do calculations and write down (wrong) answers
with no units attached. And now, every year, I get to use the Mars
probe as an example of why you actually need to pay attention to these
little details.
Some of them even listen. I hope they're the ones designing the bridges
I'll drive across in the future.
--
Eric Remy. Chemistry Learning Center Director, Virginia Tech
"I don't like (quantum mechanics), | How many errors can
and I'm sorry I ever had anything | you find in my X-Face?
to do with it."- Erwin Schrodinger |
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Cameron)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-)
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 13:31:26 GMT
In article <APFC5.40550$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>At my current employer I hear the phrase, "The mail server is down again,
>it should be back up after a reboot".
That doesn't sound like a phrase that would be spoken by a competent
Linux admin. That sounds like a phrase that would be spoken by an NT
admin who doesn't really understand Linux and whose first response to
any hint of trouble is to reboot.
> The mail server, of course, being a Linux mail server.
Ah. You see Linux problems don't tend to go away spontaneously when
you reboot the machine. They go away when you FIX them and they
DON'T COME BACK.
Of course management being what it is ...
> I imagine there will be only a few more of these before
>our management complains that they are missing emails.
... Linux is bound to be blamed for what sounds like a bad case of
shotgun administration.
jim
--
http://madeira.physiol.ucl.ac.uk/people/jim/
"Revenge is an integral part of forgiving and forgetting" -The BOFH
------------------------------
From: chrisv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway?
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 14:41:09 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine) wrote:
>But I won't get throne in a loop here; I'm flush with anticipation
>as to how everything comes out. :-)
*Groan* 8)
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 12:09:28 GMT
On 10/05/2000 at 10:12 AM,
Eric Remy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >The official reason was that one processor talked in m/s while another
> >processor talked in ft/s. OOps.
> Think of it as a *very* expensive object lesson to engineers.
> Every year I deal with large numbers of freshman, many of them
> engineering majors. Every year I try to teach them chemistry. Every
> year I watch them happily do calculations and write down (wrong) answers
> with no units attached. And now, every year, I get to use the Mars
> probe as an example of why you actually need to pay attention to these
> little details.
> Some of them even listen. I hope they're the ones designing the bridges
> I'll drive across in the future.
It doesn't hurt to keep track of plus and minus signs either. As a
freshman in Civil Engineering class surveying the campus as a lab project,
I located the campus chapel somewhere in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean
because I subtracted when I should have added. Of course many of my
classmates wished I were correct since chapel attendance was mandatory
back in the 50's and really cut into the drinking time.
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 14
MR/2 Ice 2.20 Registration Number 67
Tiny Timmie the Liar Martin of Warped City claims eCOMStation is MS
software!
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
From: John Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway?
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 10:12:12 -0500
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Today, we live in a world where Windows occupied around 1.2 billion
> > computers world wide.
> > Linux occupies only 200 million or so computers world wide.
>
> 200 million? That's a stretch. Where do you get your numbers from?
>
> > Yet, despite these figures there have been a number of Wintroll idiots
> > constantly jabbing
> > away at Linux advocates as if they were trying to save their lives.
> > I ask the question, once again, WHY BOTHER!
>
> I can't speak for anyone else, but, if for nothing else, to put you
> guys in your place. Most of you (Penguinistas) are militant, ready to
> lie and to decieve and go on the attack. You constantly spread lies
> and half truths to further your cause. You constantly insult Windows
> NT and 2000 specifically when you obviously know nothing of what you
> speak.
[snip]
> -Chad
This is the real problem. "...know nothing of what you speak." How
many people here advocate Linux that have never had any experience with
Windows? What would you guess? I would say there might be only a
handfull who were NOT familiar with Windows.
On the other hand, how many people here that support Windows do you
suppose have a good knowledge of Linux/UNIX? I mean people who know the
shell well and regexps at a minimum? I bet only a handful.
Who do you think knows nothing of what they speak?
The typical Window user with Linux "experience" I would guess has sat
in front of an xterm Window in total confusion. Maybe (s)he tried a few
commands. Maybe (s)he made and attempt to read some docs. But (s)he
never stuck with it for long. This is most likely the typical
experience of a Windows user on Linux. And it shows in your uninformed
comments.
--
John W. Sanders
===============
"there" in or at a place.
"their" of or relating to them.
"they're" contraction of 'they are'.
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-)
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 16:21:03 +0100
"Jim Cameron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <APFC5.40550$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >At my current employer I hear the phrase, "The mail server is down again,
> >it should be back up after a reboot".
>
> That doesn't sound like a phrase that would be spoken by a competent
> Linux admin. That sounds like a phrase that would be spoken by an NT
> admin who doesn't really understand Linux and whose first response to
> any hint of trouble is to reboot.
This sounds like the sort of phrase a linux zealot would say, without
understanding there are good and bad NT admins, much like good and bad *nix
admins.
>
> > The mail server, of course, being a Linux mail server.
>
> Ah. You see Linux problems don't tend to go away spontaneously when
> you reboot the machine. They go away when you FIX them and they
> DON'T COME BACK.
Boy, it's the same as on NT, fancy that...
------------------------------
From: Mayor Of R'lyeh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: [OT] Loren Petrich claims THIEVERY = LEGITIMATE WORK
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 10:28:34 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 04 Oct 2000 23:12:25 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> chose to bless us with this bit of wisdom:
>STATIC66 wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 04 Oct 2000 12:34:41 GMT, Loren Petrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron R. Kulkis
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Wrong. Millions of people go to college while earning
>> >> what is considered to be "poverty level" incomes.
>> >
>> > ROTFL. Their tuition is always subsidized, however, whether by their
>> >parents or by government-backed loan guarantees. Furthermore, most
>> >college students come from middle-class or upper-class homes, meaning
>> >that they got much more in handouts from their parents than most poor
>> >kids do.
>>
>> So a parent being responsible and planning for the future of their
>> offspring rather than turning to the government with an outstretched
>> hand is somehow bad. That is not a handout its called responsibility.
>> >
>> > Also, dealing in illegal drugs is not living off of handouts.
>>
>> NO it is criminal and illegal and if it wasn't for you bleeding heart
>> liberal types, it could be met with SWIFT PUNISHMENT..
>> >
>> > Even theft is not living off of handouts; victims of theft ought to
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> >be glad that thieves are trying to provide for themselves.
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Hey, Loren-Doofus.
>
>I'm gonna go ride the BART, and then, while you're at work,
>come visit you and...since you say it's legitimate work....
>steal all of your stuff out of your apartment...
>
>and then...because then all of your stuff will be mine....but
>I really won't have an interest in actually keeping it...I
>think I'll smash every bit of it to pieces.
>
>Tell us, Loren....how do you feel about that.....
>
This is old news. Loren always tries to equate earning a legitimate
living with some kind of immoral and/or illegal activity. Is this your
first time crossing sporks with him?
>
>>
>> No they should arm themselves..
>>
>> Advocating theft as an alternative to welfare is hardly a responsible
>> arguement. But nothing much about liberalism is responsible..
"We forbid any course that says we restrict free speech!"
Dr. Kathleen Dixon, the Director of Women's Studies
Bowling Green State Unversity
------------------------------
From: "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 15:47:54 GMT
"Stephen Uitti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8rfhpr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:n0yC5.4035$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> ... I understand that many fortune 500 companies are moving to
> Linux on the desktop...
No, they aren't.
> Mac support is much lower than PC support, leading to lower
> cost of ownership. But in corporate america , the lemming effect
> rules. There have been reasonable alternatives to DOS and
> Windows since the Macs got hard disks and about 512K RAM.
> 1986?
Before we got rid of our Macs, we didn't find that this was the case.
The first Macs came in here because they could be hooked to each other and
to a shared printer, and they just worked. They were expensive, and the
printers were really expensive, but the savings in time when it came to
doing things like printing - especially graphics - and file sharing made up
for the cost. Then as now, the cost of the machines was irrelevant in the
overall scheme of things.
But the Mac OS never really improved, and it wasn't long before better
networking came along for everything else, and the old MacOS, which didn't
offer all the same things that Windows didn't offer, was straining under the
load. Long before Apple's infamous "been there, done that" campaign during
the summer of 1995 (the one where thinking people said, "Wait a minute! You
haven't done any of that!"), we had pretty much moved all the Macs out. We
may have been on the forefront, but I don't think so - the vast majority of
companies that were using Macs around that time did the same thing. Compared
to our Macs, a properly configured Win95 machine was just as stable, and
offered such advantages as better memory management and multitasking. To
further hasten the demise, when we looked forward, MS offered a plan for the
future (NT), while Apple offered... nothing. In fact, around 1996 and 1997,
Apple was beginning to have trouble convincing us that they were even going
to be in business in another year.
And, there were other, larger, problems for the Macs. The software we run
for our business, even the traditional Mac software, began to be developed
for Windows first, and for the Mac second, if ever. More and more new
software was only developed for Windows, and the quality of graphical
Windows apps rapidly approached those on the Mac. Drawing packages like
Visio, which were a perfect fit for 95% of our needs, weren't even available
on the Mac. Word replaced the word processing software we had used on the
Mac, and it ran better on the PC. The applications drove the final nail:
there were reasons to switch to the PC, and there weren't any reasons to
stay with the Mac.
Apple's competitive OS to NT and Unix has only come along in the last couple
of years, and a well deliniated plan for its deployment has only come along
in the past year - far too late to make a difference. There are few, if any,
mainstream corporate apps written for OSX. Without those, it's another OS/2,
or Be, or whatever. We kept a few Macs for the corporate publications group,
but everyone else switched to PCs. Much of the corporate publications
group's work now involves translating between PC and Mac formats. You might
not want to include that cost in your Mac/PC comparison, but in a world
dominated by PCs, it is a very real cost of Mac ownership. We now run NT on
over 90% of our desktop systems. Win95 accounts for the remaining 10%,
mostly on older laptops. The few scattered Macs aren't even on the radar.
-- Mike --
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 16:07:13 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Donal K. Fellows
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on 5 Oct 2000 12:46:16 GMT
<8rht6o$98t$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> You ain't lived till you've perfected laziness.
>
>I was going to perfect laziness, but I couldn't be bothered.
It could be worse; he could have wanted you to perfect procrastination. :-)
(I'll work on that. Really. Any day now.)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here, sometime in the future
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
