Linux-Advocacy Digest #667, Volume #29 Sun, 15 Oct 00 07:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Suggestions for Linux (2:1)
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop (Tim Smith)
Re: Suggestions for Linux (2:1)
Re: Suggestions for Linux (2:1)
Re: Astroturfing (2:1)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (The Ghost In
The Machine)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Weevil")
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (The Ghost In
The Machine)
Re: Why does Linux have to be such a pain to install? - A speech ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: A classic example of unfriendly Linux ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (FM)
Re: Suggestions for Linux ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: Why does Linux have to be such a pain to install? - A speech ("Nigel Feltham")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Suggestions for Linux
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 10:45:49 +0100
unicat wrote:
>
> I hate to say this, old friend, but you'e pretty much the poster boy for
> the kind of user that is holding linux back from wider acceptance.
He's also the kind of person who contributes to linux...
> Doing away with the CLI would not kill Linux, and it wouldn't
> mean rewriting a thing. You would simply be invoking the current
> command set through icons and menus within X-windows.
I am a great CLI fan. If it leaves Linux, I leave Linux. Duplicating the
range of functionality from the command line would be next to impossible
in a GUI without the user having to type in some options as well.
Also, when you have lots of backgroung things like compiles running, why
do you want them to take up awhole extra window.
And another thing, the CLI becomes much friendlier when your desk is too
full of paper to use the mouse properly :-)
> To avoid a flame war, though, let me modify my original proposal.
> What if the CLI-oriented, vi-edited config file, mysterious,
> arcane, hard-to-configure Linux were left intact, and got distributed
> as "server" linux or "hard-head" linux.
> Then a new distro could be created that included a beefed-up gui,
> and automated config tools, called something like "friendly" linux
> or linux-"lite".
What you don't seem to realise is that Linux is becoming a combination
of the 2. There are loads of nice GUI tools, so many, in fact that you
don't really have to bother with the CLI if you don't need it. For the
rest of us, we can use the CLI from teh same distro.
> The no-life cultists who enjoy being intitiates into the secret knowledge
> of UNIX internals could still play with the "hard" version, and make snide
> comments about those too weak to use it.
You said you wanted to avoid a flame war. You are a troll.
-Ed
--
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
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Date: 15 Oct 2000 01:39:25 -0700
Reply-To: Tim Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Thu, 05 Oct 2000 17:44:31 -0400, Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> MS does write a few drivers, but the vast majority are vendor supplied. Why
>> should MS write it's own when the vendor *SHOULD* know the hardware much
>> more intimately than MS ever could.
>>
>
>But MS knows the kernel far more intimately than the hardware manufacturers
>ever could.
Yup. This is the most frustrating thing when working at the driver
level on any version of Windows. The actual system behaviour deviates
from the documentation available to driver writers in significnat ways.
I'm sure one of the main reasons no version of Windows approaches the
stability of Linux (and yes, I've used Win2K since the beta every
working day, and while it is pretty good...it rarely gets so hosed that
I have to do more than just log out and log back in...it is still not up
to Linux standards) is because if you are running any kernel code not
written by Microsoft, you are running code whose developers had to
determine some of the rules experimentally.
--Tim Smith
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Suggestions for Linux
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 10:48:28 +0100
> i am still reminded of the time when my baby sister was first learning how
> to use a fork...
> she could not quite get her peas onto it...so she picked up the peas with
> her hand and put them on the fork...
LOL!
That is a truly wonderful analogy.
-Ed
--
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
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Suggestions for Linux
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 10:51:11 +0100
> alias rm rm -i. but I don't want all that warning crap. that's one of
> the reasons I stoped using MS
Even wewith the fancy questions, I still accidently delete stuff. Why?
Because I've become conditioned to press enter whenever I see one of
those question dialog boxes.
-Ed
--
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
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 11:17:10 +0100
> > WHICH APPS ARE CRASHING ON YOU. How do you expect to be believed if you
> > don't provide even the slightest speck of information.
>
> Well, the dial up app has crashed several times, but the big problem is,
> hardly any will even open at all. It's not a bad hard drive as Win2k doesn't
> seem to have a problem using the same drive.
is that KPPP?
Bad sectors on that partition?
> http://badlinux.dynip.com/1.gif
> note - the time at the bottom right
>
> http://badlinux.dynip.com/1a.gif
> note - only the top choice of newsreaders will open at all
Are the others installed?
What errors do they give when they don't open (try the commandline)?
> http://badlinux.dynip.com/2.gif
> note - it's still "working" at opening up that directory.
OK, so the KDE fiel browser doesn't work in this case. I can't really
comment, because I never use KDE.
> I had a screenshot of HardDrake showing 66mb of memory even though 256 is
> installed, but I forgot to put it on the floppy.
That's very strange. Linux usually recognises all RAM or sometimes won't
recognice stuff above 64M. What does xsoview, xsysinfo or top say about
it?
Is seems like there is something badly wrong with your installtaion,
especially KDE
There could be a problem with the CD you installed ot from. Have you
tried a different CD or a different distro?
-Ed
--
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
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 09:51:39 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Richard
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sun, 15 Oct 2000 06:04:54 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Richard
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote
>> >> "I don't believe classes should exist in the system at all.
>> >> New objects should be created by copying prototypes." Richard.
>>
>> (I have no idea what Richard means by this.)
>
>Read up on Self (the prototypical prototype-based language) at
>http://www.sun.com/research/self/
>
>Classes break object-orientation because the behaviour of objects
>is stored in a completely different object from what's supposed to
>be the object (it's stored in a "class" object).
Well, I guess that answers my implied question. :-) Of course, I do
wonder why this is stuck on Sun's website, when Sun is pushing Java....
why aren't they pushing Self??
Bizarre.
>
>> >> Consider classes to be objects that don't belong to a class.
>> >
>> >You don't know what the hell you're talking about Roberto. For one thing,
>> >you betray an astonishing ignorance of what "object" means.
>>
>> Besides, java.lang.Class has a class instance of its own.
>> Appropriately enough, its name is "java.lang.Class". :-)
>>
>> Even int has a class...named "int". Can't find it using
>> Class.forName("int"), though; one has to use Integer.TYPE.
>> And Integer.TYPE.newInstance() throws an InstantiationException.
>
>If you can't instantiate it then what makes int an instance
>of that class ??
>
>Besides, "int" is not an object, it's a type. Individual
>ints might be considered objects if they had a class but
>they don't.
>
>> (It's a wart on an otherwise fine language.)
>
>ROTFLMAO. There are so many other warts, it makes the whole
>language ugly. And there is absolutely *nothing* in Java that
>hasn't existed in Smalltalk for years and years and years;
>sometimes even decades.
Does make one wonder. Mind you, Sun invented Java; I don't
think Sun invented Smalltalk, and that makes me wonder
even more.
(Java's still a reasonably good language, IMO; maybe
Smalltalk's a better one. I don't know; haven't used it.)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- now back to Linux vs. NT/W2k :-)
------------------------------
From: "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 04:32:33 -0500
Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> http://www.gallup.com/poll/indicators/indMicrosoft.asp
>
> Also see the related analysis links at the bottom of that page.
>
> That being read, it seems that the boss is winning points for giving
people
> their choice of operating systems at work. As it should be. They made
that
> choice at home.
People use whatever comes on their computer. They don't "choose" one
operating system over another, especially when they're not even aware of a
choice. Microsoft has for years required PC manufacturer to pay for DOS and
Windows on every PC they sell, whether they include Win/DOS on the computer
or not. It's that so-called "per-processor license" you've heard tell of.
How did they require OEMs to do this? By refusing to allow them to sell
Win/DOS at all unless they signed the contract. Now, OEMs are in a highly
competitive market. They can't afford to charge their customers twice for
an OS (once for Microsoft's per processor license and once for, say, OS/2),
because their competitor across town will just undercut their prices by
selling MS-only machines. So...the result is exactly what you'd expect:
home users have been locked in to Win/DOS for years. They didn't "make that
choice at home," as you claim.
The truth is that the average user at home thinks of Windows as part of the
machine. Everybody he knows uses Windows It was on there when he unpacked
it and plugged it in. He thinks it's part of it. It wasn't a "choice" he
made -- it was just there, like the carburetor on his car.
> Just face it folks.
> Windows is where it's at today because it's better at what people want to
do
> with their computers.
Well, no, it's not. It's where it's at today because Microsoft forces it on
people.
jwb
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 10:05:18 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Jim Richardson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sat, 14 Oct 2000 23:06:47 -0700
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 00:23:36 GMT,
> Richard, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
>>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>>> El lun, 09 oct 2000, Richard escribi�:
>>> >Steam, yes. Ice and water, no. No more than a bunch of monomers
>>> >are a plastic. The functional unit of water isn't the individual
>>> >water molecule, nor is this the case for most ice states.
>>>
>>> Water has been considered, loosely, by chemists as a polymer, but
>>> it is not strictly one. And indeed ice is cristals of H20. Just
>>> ask your friendly chemist.
>>
>>Except that "crystals of H2O" isn't H2O anymore than "a chain of monomers"
>>is a bunch of monomers.
>
>If Ice crystals aren't H2O, care to name exactly what the chemical is?
There are a number of chemical notations that aren't strictly
accurate in describing the chemical. For example,
various compounds actually incorporate molecules of H2O in
their crystals; other compounds -- ethyl alcohol, C2H5OH,
for one -- form mixtures with water in such a way as to make
distillation of 100% pure chemical impossible, without additional
work (e.g., adding a dehydrator chemical/catalyst, or using some
sort of salt precipitate method). Still others -- water-soluble
salts, in particular -- disassociate in solution, NaCl being
a classic example. In fact, even water disassociates in water;
the pH of ultrapure water is supposed to be 7, which means a
concentration of 1E-7 hydrogen ions and 1E-7 hydroxide ions
and .9999998 molecules of H2O, if memory serves.
Therefore, the formulas C2H5OH, NaCl, and H2O aren't strictly
accurate in describing their respective situations.
But then, what of it? Chemical notation is but a tool to describe
reality, anyway; the benzene ring is another example. Benzene
does strange things on occasion, suggesting the bonds shift around.
Or maybe it's because carbon's p orbital electrons do weird things
in the middle of the ring. I don't know offhand.
And I'm not sure ice reacts with anything horribly quickly anyway. :-)
>
>--
>Jim Richardson
> Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
>WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
> Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- now back to our regularly scheduled duel of
Linux versus NT/Win2k :-)
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why does Linux have to be such a pain to install? - A speech
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 05:29:17 -0500
"unicat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I'm not sure that this is the answer to your query, but when MS went from
> Win95 to Win98, they changed the spec for the PnP protocol.
>
> About 10% of machines that ran Win95 would lock up and die when Win 98
> was installed. To the point that you had to boot DOS 6 from a floppy and
> reformat the hard drive to recover.
Two things.
1) You *NEVER* have to reformat the hard drive to recover unless you're
entire file system has been mangled. You need only boot from your recover
disk (which was dos in and of itself). Installing windows doesn't do
anything mythical that you must reformat your hard drive to recover from it.
2) What you're talking about is not the PnP spec, nor was it something MS
changed. What you're talking about is ACPI. Many motherboards had faulty
ACPI bioses that claimed they were ACPI but weren't fully compliant. Since
Win95 didn't support ACPI, it never saw any problems. Win98 did support ACPI
though, and would lock up the system when it tried to use the faulty ACPI
bios.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A classic example of unfriendly Linux
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 05:41:46 -0500
"Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > I said ipchains-howto. The IP-Masquerade-HOWTO doesn't seem to exist on
any
> > distribution I have (though I haven't checked my Mandrake 7.1 CD yet).
It
> > certainly doesn't exist on the RedHat 6.1 CD
>
> By the way, I just checked. IP-Masquerade-HOWTO is available on Redhat
6.1:
>
> /usr/doc/HOWTO/other-formats/html/mini/IP-Masquerade.html
>
> /usr/doc/HOWTO/mini/IP-Masquerade
>
> You guys just don't bother checking even the most basic things. If you
are
> going to complain about Linux documentation, then at least do a little
research
> first.
Thanks for the information. I think it's a bit unintuitive to have it in
some directory called mini, which I would (and did) assume was for something
called a mini which I wasn't using. I don't claim to be a Linux expert. I
only learn enough to do what I need it to do. This is certainly no points
for ease of use. If I'm looking for a howto it should be in the howto
directory, not buried in several subdirectories.
>
> Gary
>
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 05:53:02 -0500
"Shane Phelps" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Excel was originally written for the Mac System (probably around
> System 4) and ported to Windows. I thought it might have been ported
> to Windows 1. I was definitely using it on Windows 2 in any case.
> The Win32 API was certainly an improvement on the older Windows
> APIs, and probably allowed for vastly reduced use of undocumented
> functions.
No, the real issue is that much of Excel was rewritten for Win32, which gave
them the opportunity to dump the old legacy code which had been hanging
around since Windows 2.x. Since those undocumented functions had been
officially implemented in documented API's by Windows 3, there was no need
to continue using them in the rewrite.
> You misinterpreted what I wrote, Eric. MS has always been very careful
> to make its own software run under later OS versions. Other software
> houses haven't been as well supported. It's the fact that older versions
> of MS Office apps do still work on later versions of Windows that cause
> the suspicions about the Chinese walls.
MS has always gone to great lengths to make broken software work in new
versions of Windows. Take a look at the compatibility section of the
win.ini (or was it system.ini, I forget). These are flags which re-enable
old bugs when a specific program is running in order to keep it compatible.
Not even MS, however, can test every app, especially not after service
packs.
> MS did give fair warning that undocumented functions were liable to
> change, so 3rd-party developers did know they were running a risk.
Not documenting them is warning enough.
> There are certainly non-MS applications which have broken after
> Windows upgrades (Lotus Notes is a recent example). This is
> probably not malice on MS's part.
MS did, however, issue a patched service pack to fix it within days).
> However, their behaviour towards DR-DOS has to raise doubts.
> They went to great pains to determine that the underlying DOS
> version was DR-DOS, and also to hide the code. If the code
> hadn't been hidden most programmers would regard it as a
> legitimate version checker.
It's very clear that Windows is extremely intimate with DOS, and it does so
in ways that are more than the documented int 21h interface. Whatever MS's
other reasons or wants, they do have a legitimate reason to test. They
can't guarantee safe operation on non MS-DOS. They're the ones that will
get the support call when Windows 3.1 fails because of a problem with their
competitors DOS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (FM)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: 15 Oct 2000 10:07:18 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Classes break object-orientation because the behaviour of objects
>is stored in a completely different object from what's supposed to
>be the object (it's stored in a "class" object).
But what is this "object orientation" it's breaking?
Classes might not be the ideal way but to say that they
break object orientaion simply because they don't meet
certain consistency standards you externally impose on
models that others find perfectly fine is logically
indefensible.
Self is a great language, but it doesn't need idiots
to promote it.
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Suggestions for Linux
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 11:23:37 +0100
>Doing away with the CLI would not kill Linux, and it wouldn't
>mean rewriting a thing. You would simply be invoking the current
>command set through icons and menus within X-windows.
>
What happens when you need to close the GUI to update your display driver or
if you upgrade the display card and cannot start the GUI without
reconfiguring - I have had this situation a couple of times in windows and
had to reinstall the whole operating system to get the display card working
properly - closing the GUI and running xf86setup or the graphical equivalent
quickly got linux changed to suit the new display on the same machine -
under 5 mins to reconfigure linux, over an hour to re-install windows due to
the lack of any CLI configuration tools, please don't make me have to put up
with the same crap under linux.
If you don't like the CLI then don't use it but please leave it there for
the 99% of users who will use it (even if they only use it 0.0000000001% of
the time).
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why does Linux have to be such a pain to install? - A speech
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 11:53:26 +0100
>Also - www.tigerdirect.com is selling AT form factor motherboards with
>300Mhz
>Pent II's installed for $79.99 - why in the world are you p*ssing and
>moaning
>about difficulties with a 133Mhz system when upgrading the hardware
>costs less than a box of MS Windows???
>
Plus the cost of new memory (P133's used 72pin simms, PII 300's use 168pin
simms).
Plus the optional cost of a new display card (to upgrade from PCI to AGP).
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
