Linux-Advocacy Digest #556, Volume #29 Mon, 9 Oct 00 21:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: Open lettor to CommyLinux Commy's, and all other commy's to. ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Unix rules in Redmond ("Chad Myers")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Weevil")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (Matthias Warkus)
Re: The Power of the Future! (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: The Power of the Future! (Dolly)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 00:48:37 GMT
Steve Mading wrote:
> The problem is that I don't see using algebra and programming
> as being different mindsets. This is where it is largely a
> matter of opinion, and not the language designer's job
> to tell me what does and doesn't belong in a module. The
> decision of what to put in which module should not be
> driven by limitations of the language. Quite the opposite:
> FIRST you decide what makes sense in each module, THEN you
> decide what langauge to implement each module in. But you
> can't do that if one module ends up with some features that
> only work well in language A and some that only work well
> in language B. Deciding where it makes sense to split up
> modules is purely a subjective thing. You can slice up
> the tasks using a variety of different criteria. If you
Not if you want the code to remain understandable. Mixing
OO and functional code is a BAD idea for one thing. It may
or may not be inevitable but it's certainly undesirable.
> take into account the limitations of each language, you
> can choose to break up your modules along lines that
> coincide with the strengths of each language, but then you
> are letting the language force your design, which violates
> what you keep talking about here - design it first without
> getting into the pendantic language details until implementing
> it.
I don't consider paradigms to be pedantic language details.
Do you?
Now let's switch back to the decision to include or exclude
possible features in a language.
Let's just say that you're doing algebra. Fine, that's you.
So because *you* are doing something, everyone else has to
learn about the additional precedence levels *in case* they
need them? Where does this stop? Hom many other features do
you add to the mix?
Every feature you add to a language handles just *one* case
but the interactions between features (and thus the cost of
learning the language) is combinatorial. The only reason you
are prepared to pay this combinatorial cost to get a linear
return is because the return is going to *you* while the
cost is going to *everybody*.
It's the exact same thing with the fundamental semantics of
an OS, or indeed any large system. If you design your system
correctly then most of the things people want to do with it
will be done using those combinatorial combinations of a few
fundamental features, not through special cases. In the case
of arithmetic, use brackets! They're no harder to use than
putting a space between the + operator and its operands
(another useless "feature" C++ provides).
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.society.anarchy,talk.politics.misc,alt.christnet
Subject: Re: Open lettor to CommyLinux Commy's, and all other commy's to.
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 20:47:15 -0400
Tim Palmer wrote:
> >>>Apparently, humans colonized America long after the `monkey's were
> >>>gone. IIRC, it happened some 15000 or so years ago, when the first
> >>>people made it to Northwesteern America from Northeastern Asia.
> >> I heard it was 30,000 years ago.
> >Was the NE-Asia inhabitated by then?
> >I'm not sure, so you might pretty well be right.
>
> The eatrh didn't evan existe back tehn, moran.
>
The earth is about 4.6 billion years old, Tim.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 00:52:32 GMT
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8rt8c6$t84$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8rr995$17l2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> > "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > news:8roql5$mit$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >> Where is it again? [Windows 2000 Data Center]
> >> >>
> >> >> > It's released and in use already.
> >> >>
> >> >> Where?
> >>
> >> > <snip>
> >>
> >> > did you even read further down where you replied before you wrote
> > "Where?"
> >> > See, you KNOW it's been released but you play stupid (it's comes easily
> > I
> >> > understand)...
> >>
> >>
> >> >> > small starting point:
> >> >> >
> >> >
> > http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/guide/datacenter/studies/default.asp
> >> >>
> >> >> Ah. Nope, microsoft/compaq can still not even come close to touching
> > IBM
> >> >> in any way, shape or form.
> >> >>
> >>
> >> > Let me requote this again: "Nope, microsoft/compaq can still not even
> > come
> >> > close to touching IBM in any way, shape or form."
> >>
> >> > OK, lets go here (you said ANY way):
> >> > http://www.tpc.org/new_result/ttperf.idc
> >>
> >> > Lets see: IBM's ultimate very best attempt ever: 440,879 tpm/C for
> >> > $14,232,696.
> >>
> >> > Wait, what's ABOVE it (in 1st place): microsoft/compaq: 505,302 tpm/C
> > for
> >> > only $10,445,169.
> >>
> >> > Why, what's this? ms/compaq 15% faster and 36% less expensive.
> >>
> >> Youve missed something rather large here, which I have no intention of
> >> teaching you, but has something to do with this: The compaq machine
> > tested
> >> is the absolute top of the line piece of hardware that they make. Its
> >> compaqs flagship model. It doesnt get better than that.
> >>
> >> The IBM machine tested, on the other hand, is an ultimately upgraded
> >> representation of their intel-based webserver product.
> >>
>
> > So, does this actually make sense? IBM decides to test their NOT best
> > product against everyone elses best?
>
> > I mean, think about it. What sense does it make for IBM to not use their
> > best possible performer? Why are they holding back, if you are to be
> > believed. Why would they allow themselves to be beaten? I don't think so.
> > AND, while it is the best Compaq they have available today - no one suggests
> > it's the end of the road for thier developement. Compaq has 32 processor
> > beasties coming out that run W2K datacenter which will eat the previous best
> > scores for lunch.
>
> You're right, dresden. How could I have ever doubted you. IBM's 4096
> processor mainframe solution will never be able to hold a candle to W2K
> running on 32 processors.
>
> Yep.
Then why hasn't IBM entered this beast into the running and nuked
all the competition?
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 19:59:05 -0500
Chad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:%coE5.27950$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Rumors and FUD of "undocumented" or "secret" Win32 APIs that only
> Microsoft uses or creates are merely that... rumors and FUD.
>
You seem fairly knowledgeable about this stuff, so I can only conclude that
you're lying. I might have thought you were honestly mistaken if you hadn't
demonstrated some knowledge in past messages. And anyone who knows anything
about Windows programming, knows that there's a TON of undocumented stuff in
there.
If you've spent any time at all developing for Windows, you've run into it
yourself. Therefore, you must be lying. What I don't understand is....why?
> Besides, how come every other OS is allowed to package and include
> browser technologies in their OS, but when Microsoft does it, it's
> bad?
>
> I see almost everyone (KDE, Gnome, Apple/MacOS, Be, etc) including
> browser-style or browser-dependant technologies into their GUIs.
>
> This is a feature enhancement. I know of very few GUI-using people
> who can do without their browser-style file viewing (with the
> Back,Up,Forward,Favorites style interface). This did nothing
> to hurt competition (namely Netscape). Netscape had already
> shot themselves in the foot several times, ignored the trends
> of the market, continued to bilk their customers without giving
> them any new technology, refused to improve their browser
> (Netscape 4.x? Give me a break, that has to be among the worst
> software ever written), etc. They killed themselves, MS had
> nothing to do with it except for building a better browser.
Microsoft destroyed Netscape the same way it has destroyed all competition
it has ever faced. Through illegal, anti-competitive, underhanded, and
downright evil practices. Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer, and a whole bunch
more, ought to be in prison. And you ought to be ashamed of yourself.
> > >> >If Microsoft is a lousy, anticompetitive company, or if Win32
doesn't
> > >> >work on other platforms -- neither one of those makes the API
> > >> >unworkable.
> > >>
> > >> I didn't describe it as unworkable; that was Simon Cooke, who was,
> > >> characteristically, building a straw man. I said it was crap. And
both
> > >> of those things you mentioned are the same thing, and the reason
Win32
> > >> is crap. The evidence it is crap is the fact that WINE can't even
get
> > >> the simplest text edit functions of the API to work, though any
> > >> programmer can get it to work in their apps using any flavor or
Windows.
> > >> This indicates clearly, I think, the fact that the Microsoft's
software
> > >> is crap, and the Win32 API was designed to support anti-competitive
> > >> strategies, not good software. Its crap.
> > >
> > >How? All it indicates is that mapping the Win32 API to the X Window
> > >System API is hard.
>
> > So that would be one thing that makes it crap; its inconsistent with the
> > industry standard. ;-\
>
> Or that the WINE developers (or Open Sores(tm)) in general aren't
competent
> enough to retro fit Win32 in to the tattered X API(s)?
>
> -Chad
You really, really ought to be ashamed of yourself.
jwb
------------------------------
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
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 02:06:01 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Mon, 09 Oct 2000 16:35:19 GMT...
...and STATIC66 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Oct 2000 12:46:28 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias
> Warkus) wrote:
>
> >> > On Thu, 05 Oct 2000 04:17:07 GMT, "Chad Myers"
> >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> > Well put and all too often true. These people should be quartered and
> >> > then shot. The children placed in homes with caring responsible
> >> > guardians....
> >
> >No, thanks. This reminds me altogether too much of our past.
> >
> >Of course you don't have no steenking past, Mr American Guy. I know.
>
> No we didn't save europe from hitler or anything....
It would be interesting to see what would have happened in WW2 without
the U.S.
Do you honestly think Hitler would have won? Come on!
mawa
--
Fl�ssigseifenbenutzer!
Fristeneinhalter!
Geschenkpapierb�gler!
Auslandstanker!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Power of the Future!
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 02:11:54 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Mon, 09 Oct 2000 17:23:04 GMT...
...and Daniel Berger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Is of course Linux.
>
> Nope. The future is BeOS!
Tell me one thing that BeOS can do that Linux is conceptually
incapable of.
mawa
--
Develop an understanding of our problems, it all helps.
-- Mike Lawrie, Director, Computing Services, Rhodes University, South
Africa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 01:01:24 GMT
Roberto Alsina wrote:
> >> You said "Empathy is knowing exactly what someone is feeling". Check it
> >> for yourself at http://x73.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=675716833
> >
> >And then I qualified it. It's fucking annoying seeing you quote
> >out of context.
>
> I provide a reference for the full context. If I tried to misrepresent, I
> wouldn't would I?
Easily explained: you're an idiot.
This is what I wrote:
Empathy is knowing exactly what someone is feeling to the deepest core of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
your being because you have the exact same emotional capacity as they do.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Geez, doesn't seem to fit Vulcans, does it?
And then I go on to write:
Psychopaths can figure out what people feel from anthropological studies,
but they aren't 'connected' to any other human beings.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This entire sentence heavily modifies the previous sentence.
> Proof by blatant assertion won't fly here. I have seen biologists and
> anthropologists seriously suggest that the variation between modern man
> and neanderthal man was overestimated, and that "if a neanderthal walked today
> in NY, he wouldn't look remarkable"
<rolleyes> They're not commenting on the genetic difference between
humans and neanderthals, they're commenting on the common picture of
neanderthals among the general population as stupid brutes.
> >What part of the above did you fail to understand, idiot?
>
> The part where you pass your opinion as science?
Understand your own quotes before producing them as evidence for your
position.
> >Your idiocy had gotten old to me maybe two weeks ago.
>
> Then why do you bother?
Perversity.
> >And of course, no modern corporation has high turnover. It's
> >not like you can't require this of all new employees and expect
> >this to mean "all employees" within a few years. Nowadays,
> >"not rehired" is the same thing as fired.
>
> Well, that is different, isn't it?
No it's not.
> >Libertarians and Fascists versus Marxists, Anarcho-Syndicalists and
> >Stalinists.
>
> I'm none of those.
Which means nothing. I know extreme right-wingers who identify
neither with Libertarianism nor Fascism.
> >as you are will make me look like a fool. "The wise man doesn't argue
> >with the fool for the passerby won't be able to tell the difference."
> >Well, I'm obviously not wise enough yet.
>
> Indeed, you can look foolish without my help. And, I must say: chicken!
LOL. Well, you've just proved you're not the wise man in our argument.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 21:10:22 -0400
From: Dolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Power of the Future!
Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> Dolly wrote:
>
> > Drestin Black wrote:
> > >
> > > "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Is of course Linux.
> > > >
> > > > The power of Linux is of course the GNU/GPL.
> > > >
> > > > Does everybody agree that Linux has the best desktop? NO, HELL NO!
> > >
> > > why do I think this will be the only thing we agree on?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Is Linux still growing? YES HELL YES!
> > > You missed: Is MS still growing? YES HELL YES!
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Are large corporate interests investing in it's growth?
> > > > Only if companies like IBM and HP are large in your opinion? How about
> > > > Corel or
> > > > Borland. You can't expect Microsoft to invest in their own death.
> > > > That's the job
> > > > of the giants and the ghosts.
> > >
> > > MS invested in Corel - kept it outta bankruptcy court.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > How fast is Microsoft growing on that hill top? 1%.
> > > >
> > > > How fast is Linux growing? 5 - 7 % per year for almost 8 years.
> > >
> > > Well, lesse, 5-7% growth (better ask Rex, he'll tell you it's 20% or
> > > something) vs 1%. I think I would rather be part of 1% growth of $19 billion
> > > than 5-7% (or even 20%) of $0. And if yer counting installed seats: 1% of
> > > 100,000,000 is still kicking ass over 5-7-20% of a couple hundred thousand
> > > eh? It's got a long way to go and 8 more years won't be enough. It'll be so
> > > fragmented by then it'll just be another *nix variation.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Has Linux encroachment on the commercial Unix market finally stopped.
> > > > Well, Caldera bought SCO. Rumor is Redhat is buing Novel or a chunk of
> > > > Novel?
> > > > So you have the mainframe companies and Sun left. And there still here
> > > > as they
> > > > made hardware to sell.
> > >
> > > Who cares...
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Does Microsoft make hardware? Hardly, NO. That Microsoft mouse or
> > > > keyboard
> > > > is subcontracted out. They don't make anything but software.
> > > X-box ... but, who cares...
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Does Linux like to eat software companies? Why yes. That is the Linux
> > > > monsters
> > > > red meat!
> > > I can't think of any software company "eaten" by linux so this is weird
> > > statement...
> > > >
> > > > What software companies is left for us to eat? Microsoft.
> > > the fly dreams of eating the elephant eh?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Does the Linux monster realize Bill Gates knows this and has been
> > > > mouthing
> > > > off in the press about it? Why yes! That's just like Gravey on your
> > > > Potatoes?
> > > > In fact, I'm developing an extra row of teeth which will be out by
> > > > December,
> > > > maybe first quater next year which are my Microsoft grinding molers and
> > > > fangs!!!!!
> > >
> > > umm... there are drugs that can help you, you know...
> > > >
> > > > Won't Microsoft take notice of this and attempt to stop you from eating
> > > > them?
> > > > Microsoft has been pooping on my head since I was a young monster. I
> > > > think
> > > > they will continue to poop until we are eye to eye. Then I think my
> > > > controlled
> > > > growth hormones which have been set at 5 - 7% per year will go wild.
> > >
> > > they poop ON your head and you think eventually you'll .. and then... umm,
> > > yer "controlled growht hormones" wil- um... no, stop db, don't even try to
> > > understand this...
> > > >
> > > > It's funny, it takes a human being 20 years to get fully grown and it
> > > > seems
> > > > Linux will be 20 before it's fully grown as an OS in terms of Market
> > > > use.
> > >
> > > I give up... yer nutz
> >
> > Only problem is, according to IDC, Windows numbers
> > are slipping backward... ie: -3%, -15%, -10% (9X/ME,
> > IIShit, NT/2K) or perhaps the second one was -13%
> > on iDC and -15% on some web server monitoring
> > and stats page... and declining.
> >
> > Dolly
>
> Okay for web servers.
>
> What about some IDC data on Workstations?
>
> Thanks
>
> Charlie
Good question... maybe I will look into a
membership after all... there have been plenty
of predictions of it's decline. And with all
IBM really has planned for the next 7 years
of OS/2 Warp Server AND client... with Odin
near working and IBM already having 9X support
complete and on the shelf... and Linux improving
steadily... well, we'll see. Those predictions
if not already there, may make their way to
IDC as well.
Dolly
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
