Linux-Advocacy Digest #631, Volume #29 Fri, 13 Oct 00 10:13:04 EDT
Contents:
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?) (Donal K.
Fellows)
Re: What I would like to see in an OS: (Gardiner Family)
Re: what defines a paradigm (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Donal K.
Fellows)
Re: How low can they go...? ("JS/PL")
Re: Slow E-Mail checking speed ("Santiago Sainz")
Re: Hotmail has been down for at least 12 hours on the East Coast - Hotmail Message
to Hotmail Members.htm (1/1) (2:1)
Re: David T. Johnson lies again ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Off-topic Idiots (Was Bush v. Gore on taxes) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Astroturfing (Nick Condon)
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows ("Nicholas Knight")
Re: You Linux folks Just Don't Get It.... (Nick Condon)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: 13 Oct 2000 09:03:58 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> OO means "everything's an Object" not "polymorphism and inheritance".
>> So apparently OO means less useful features then? More pain in
>
> Incorrect. OO means less *useless* features, less clutter, less junk,
> less garbage. A well-crafted tool that does exactly what you want and
> nothing more as opposed to a Rube Goldberg machine imposed on you.
No, you are wrong. I have been in discussions on and off with a few
other people in my department over the past couple of years about
exactly what constitutes OO, and our conclusion was that for a system
to be OO, you have to have a system of entities which support both
predicates and relations upon them, where predicates effectively
describe things like the type and object identity, and the relations
describe things like object properties/fields and messages/methods.
There is no requirement that all entities be objects in the usual
sense, or that objects support things like polymorphism or
inheritance[*]. The best way of thinking about it (IMHO) is that the
distinguishing feature of OO is that the objects carry round with them
the sense of what predicates they satisfy and what relations they are
members of (as opposed to both procedural and functional paradigms
where the predicates/relations are only tenuously connected to the
data.)
You would, of course, be right to say that this means in fact that it
is easy (well, not too hard) to layer OO on top of both procedural and
functional paradigms (so long as they support the notion of a variable
that refers to a procedure/function and structured aggregation.) This
has been done many times in various ways. For Smalltalk, Self, and
others to go round proclaiming themselves to be "True OO" and that the
rest are just hacks is, frankly, just Spin Doctoring and PR.
Donal.
[* These do give you quite a nice type system though, so they are
quite common; subtyping is used outside OO though, so its not an
OO-specific concept. ]
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- The small advantage of not having California being part of my country would
be overweighed by having California as a heavily-armed rabid weasel on our
borders. -- David Parsons <o r c @ p e l l . p o r t l a n d . o r . u s>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: 13 Oct 2000 09:17:23 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In Java, primitive types are NOT objects. You have objects that
> contain primitive types and you have primitive types, don't
> confuse the two.
In Java primitive types are objects, but instances of those types are
not objects. Lose one point for lack of reading comprehension.
I'm not sure of the rationale behind making primitive type instances
into non-objects, but I sort-of suspect it comes from implementation
efficiency and bootstrapping concerns. If anyone's got a URL to a
paper online that describes the rationale behind this part of the JLS
I would be very interested in reading it.
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- The small advantage of not having California being part of my country would
be overweighed by having California as a heavily-armed rabid weasel on our
borders. -- David Parsons <o r c @ p e l l . p o r t l a n d . o r . u s>
------------------------------
From: Gardiner Family <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What I would like to see in an OS:
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 22:50:52 +1300
When I was referring to Windows is easy to admin. I really mean that any one
twitt can use it, in terms of functionality, well, thats an entirely
different story.
matt
Bartek Kostrzewa wrote:
> Gardiner Family wrote:
> >
> > I am no win advocate or Linux advocate, however, if I were to design an
> > OS these are some of the features:
> >
> > 1. Linux Kernel
>
> Hmm, I'd rather have a BeOS kernel, or the next, next Linux kernel. The
> Linux kernel is great, but it could be better.
>
> > 2. Standardised GUI, either, MacOS or Windows like interface
>
> Nah! I want to chose what I like!
>
> > 3. Simplified Library structure similar to what Amiga had (ie,
> > icons.library, fonts.library, printers.library)
>
> Hmm, sounds reasonable, but why?
>
> > 4. ReiserFS as the file system
>
> Yep. Or JFS or whatever, just one of those FAST filesystems.
>
> > 5. A windows interpreter, when a program makes a call it goes through a
> > filter (like wine) and matchs the windows dll call with the UNIX
> > equivilant.
>
> That's what the new Amiga SDK is all about, precompiled microcode that
> gets executed with the correct calls for the OS it's running on.
>
> >
> > Both Windows and Linux have great attributes, Linux, opensourced and
> > very stable.
>
> Yes.
>
> Windows, easy to use and administrate.
>
> Hmm, nope. I think Windows is a pain in the ass to administrate, all
> those clicks, reboots. And it's not at all easy to use, as soon as a
> problem arises, you're arsed.
>
> By combining the
> > power of a UNIX core and the simplicity of the Windows GUI there would
> > be a balance between simplicity, functionality and flexibility. (a
> > concept very similar to the MacOS X project).
>
> Get BeOS and wait for the first apps/games written for the Amiga SDK. As
> simple as that. I'm very impressed by BeOS, I just think it needs
> multi-user (if it's to be my main OS, I want to run a server, which at
> the moment is quite open because it runs in "root" mode all the time and
> doesn't have any greater security features) functionality and more
> software.
>
> >
> > feel free to reply, no flaming please.
> >
> > matt
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Bartek Kostrzewa - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <<< http://technoage.web.lu >>>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: what defines a paradigm
Date: 13 Oct 2000 10:17:44 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The OO paradigm is concerned with updateable state and
No.
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- The small advantage of not having California being part of my country would
be overweighed by having California as a heavily-armed rabid weasel on our
borders. -- David Parsons <o r c @ p e l l . p o r t l a n d . o r . u s>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: 13 Oct 2000 10:44:11 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>> On Sat, 07 Oct 2000 00:50:15 GMT, Richard wrote:
>>> Which means that C++ classes are *not* objects.
I'd agree with that. You can graft them together, but it is a hack
that requires extra work on the part of programmers. This means that
C++ objects cannot truly know their own types, perform proper
introspection, etc.
>> They can be, but are not always. I think this is where our philosophy
>> differs. You like being forced to do things a certain way. I don't
>> really care for it that much.
>
> No. I like to be able to be able to do things the easy way. If I
> see classes then I expect them to be objects because I expect the
> easy way to create classes be the RIGHT way.
Just out of curiosity, what do you believe the easy/right way to
create classes to be?
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- The small advantage of not having California being part of my country would
be overweighed by having California as a heavily-armed rabid weasel on our
borders. -- David Parsons <o r c @ p e l l . p o r t l a n d . o r . u s>
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 07:03:53 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> No.
> >
> >Then shut up until you can provide proof.
>
> No.
Then you maintain no credibility as usual.
> I'll remind you that any reasonable person would recognize that you more
> vigorously assaulted laws to punish stalking and harassment by means of
> computer when you posted private information, and pointed out you'd
> identified where I live, then I did when I said "I want to kill
> 'JS/PL'."
I'll remind you that you continue to demonstrate "0" ability to interpret
law, even when it is written in laymans terms.
You'll have to talk to Yahoo, and newsfeeds.com, and yourself, if you don't
like your personal info posted to the internet.
Hint - don't post death threats, and people will have no need to determine
your physical location.
http://people.yahoo.com/py/psPhoneSearch.py?FirstName=&LastName=Devlin&City=
Lebanon&State=PA
------------------------------
From: "Santiago Sainz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Slow E-Mail checking speed
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 11:10:39 GMT
> Dear all,
> I setup a mail server with RH7.0 and sendmail,
> it suppost to finish the check mail process via
> POP in 1s since it is a local server, but it take
> 3-4s to finish it, anyone can give me some commend
> about it?
Using RH 7.0 ? Are you mad ? :-)
May be your problem has anything to be with PAM ?
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Hotmail has been down for at least 12 hours on the East Coast - Hotmail
Message to Hotmail Members.htm (1/1)
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 14:03:01 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> looks like it made it.
>
> Now how about an apology Drestin?
LOL!
Drestin doesn't know how to hanndle a lady, you see (except ones he's
taking photos of) :-)
I don't ever remember seeing an apopogy from Drestin about anything.
Does anyone?
-Ed
>
> claire
>
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2000 01:51:31 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--
Konrad Zuse should recognised. He built the first | Edward Rosten
binary digital computer (Z1, with floating point) the | Engineer
first general purpose computer (the Z3) and the first | u98ejr@
commercial one (Z4). | eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: David T. Johnson lies again
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 13:00:42 GMT
Marty writes:
>> Marty writes [to David T. Johnson]:
>>> Do you utilize the same (to quote Joe Malloy) "mythical and ineffective
>>> lawyer" as Tholen?
>> My lawyer is neither mythical nor ineffective, Marty, despite what Joe
>> Malloy wants you to think.
> Who is your lawyer and what has he done for you?
You and Malloy made the claim, Marty, therefore the burden of proof
falls on your shoulders.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Off-topic Idiots (Was Bush v. Gore on taxes)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 13:05:49 GMT
Marty writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> David T. Johnson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Marty wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [repetitive comments snipped]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry David, you lose.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stop being a hypocrite and grow up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Practice what you preach, Marty.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I wasn't the one preaching about off-topic posting while writing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> such postings.
>>>>>>>>>>>> You were the one preaching about "stop being a hypocrite and grow
>>>>>>>>>>>> up", Marty.
>>>>>>>>>>> Very good, Dave.
>>>>>>>>>> So why did you bring up "off-topic posting", Marty?
>>>>>>>>> Just staying on topic. Look at the thread topic.
>>>>>>>> I'm looking at what you wrote, Marty.
>>>>>>> Of what relevance is this self-evident remark?
>>>>>> It shows that you brought up "off-topic posting", Marty,
>>>>> Irrelevant, as doing so was an act of staying on topic.
>>>> Exactly how does that statement represent an act of staying on topic,
>>> See the subject line.
>> See what I was talking about, Marty, which deals directly with what
>> you were talking about.
> On what basis do you make this claim?
MA] Stop being a hypocrite and grow up.
]
DT] Practice what you preach, Marty.
>>>> when the topic was about you practicing what you were preaching with
>>>> regard to "Stop being a hypocrite and grow up", Marty?
>>> Incorrect. See the subject line.
>> See what you wrote, Marty:
>> MA] Stop being a hypocrite and grow up.
> Note the nature of the hypocrisy to which I was referring and how it deals
> with the subject line.
Note how you don't practice what you preach, Marty.
>>>>>> despite the fact that I was suggesting that you practice what you
>>>>>> preach.
>>>>> You made no such suggestion, Dave.
>>>> Incorrect:
>>>>
>>>> DT] Practice what you preach, Marty.
>>> That's not a suggestion, Dave.
>> Yes it is, Marty.
> Consult your grammar school English teacher to verify that your statement was
> an imperative.
Practice what you preach, Marty.
> Suggestions are given in a passive tone.
Not necessarily, Marty.
>>>> Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Marty?
>>> Not at all.
>> Then why don't you recognize
>>
>> DT] Practice what you preach, Marty.
>>
>> as a suggestion?
> Because I am correctly identifying it as an imperative.
You're failing to recognize it as a suggestion, Marty.
>>>>>> Context, Marty.
>>>>> Like the thread topic, for example?
>>>> Are you able to comprehend that?
>>> Obviously.
>> Then why don't you recognize
>>
>> MA] Stop being a hypocrite and grow up.
>>
>> as the topic?
> Because the topic is "Re: Off-topic Idiots (Was Bush v. Gore on taxes)".
Yet you were talking about someone being a hypocrite, Marty.
>>>> You certainly didn't comprehend that I wrote:
>>>>
>>>> DT] Practice what you preach, Marty.
>>> Incorrect. You simply failed to realize that it was not a suggestion.
>> How ironic, coming from the person who doesn't recognize it as a
>> suggestion.
> Where is the irony?
DT] coming from the person who doesn't recognize it as a suggestion.
> I have correctly identified the statement as an imperative.
You failed to recognize it as a suggestion, Marty.
------------------------------
From: Nick Condon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Astroturfing
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 14:47:08 +0100
What are the chances that a company as PR aware as Microsoft would allow
these advocacy forums to exist with astroturfing them? Pretty close to
zero I would say.
So given that there must be astroturfers here how would we spot them?
- Not having a real job to go to they make lots of posts.
- They are technically competent on MS stuff (not wizards, but
competent).
- They use the standard bullet-points and marketing buzzwords that look
a bit out of place in an informal Usenet post, so that they read like
advertising copy. (like "Advantages to the business", and "Fortune
500")
- Talks up Windows 2000 a lot (because it's the latest upgrade and MS
lives on upgrades)
- Defends MS when anyone says "anti-trust".
- Has a slightly salesman feel about them.
- Doesn't directly attack Linux, but makes sly comments like ("great for
mom-and-pop operations cutting costs")
Any others?
So who are the astroturfers? Obviously Mike Byrns, but who else?
---
Nick
------------------------------
From: "Nicholas Knight" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 13:57:06 GMT
<snip>
>Not quite. DOS has never been an operating system; it is just a program
loader
>and file system.
>Calling DOS an OS because it loads first is like calling lilo an operating
>system.
DOS does the same damn thing linux does to boot..
the BIOS loads whatever is in the MBR, and in turn the boot record on the
DOS partition is loaded, which loads the DOS kernel, which loads command.com
the DOS kernel includes support for things like hard drives and
serial/LPT/keyboard ports
the linux kernel boots the same way except it generaly consults a
configuration file to know what to do after the kernel itself has booted
if you don't want to call DOS an operating system, you can't call linux an
operating system, because they're more similar than you seem to be able to
accept
------------------------------
From: Nick Condon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: You Linux folks Just Don't Get It....
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 14:58:10 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I know that.
>
> claire
But what you don't seem to know is Usenet replies go *after* the question (like
this), not at the top of the post, like yours. Because now people don't know
what the hell you were talking about.
>
>
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 16:17:46 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >> But there is no more DOS to boot into afaik.
> >> Of course Windows runs on top of DOS, I assumed I didn't have to
> >> mention that.
> >
> >It is there is is just that MS is trying to hide it. Just because you
> >think you see it, does not mean that it isn't there.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> claire
> >>
> >> On Mon, 09 Oct 2000 15:29:13 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> >> You seem to have a fixation on Notepad?
> >> >> MSDOS is dead...
> >> >
> >> >I think you should rethink this statement in that Windows ME still boots
> >> >DOS first.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 14:00:58 GMT
You are playing with words and definitions instead of looking at the
net result.
If I run Oracle under Windows and am happy with it, like millions of
people seem to be. Then I try it under Linux and is sucks, like that
article mentioned, the net result is that the Windows version is good
and the Linux version sucks.
Port, recompile or complete re-write the end result is the same.
Why do you Linux people have such a hard time facing reality?
Next I'll be hearing, "Compaq is NOT Linux", despite the Linvocates
throwing the fact that Compaq seems to be trying to support Linux into
every argument.
When Oracle was announced for Linux the Linvocates went absolutely
wild shouting "now we have a major player on board".
Well it looks like this one, has so far turned into a dud and the
Linux community is strangely silent about it.
claire
On Fri, 13 Oct 2000 05:16:11 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Paul Colquhoun) wrote:
>On Fri, 13 Oct 2000 01:40:05 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>|They also mentioned how much Oracle sucked under Linux which backs up
>|my point that Linux versions of Windows applications are somewhat
>|lacking.
>|
>|claire
>
>
>Since when is Oracle a *Windows* application?
>
>Yes, it has been ported to windows, but the original version
>was deveolped for Unix (SunOS or Solaris IIRC).
>
>I doubt the Linux port was based on the Windows version, when
>starting with the generic Unix version would have been involved
>about 1% as much work.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
