Linux-Advocacy Digest #731, Volume #29 Wed, 18 Oct 00 17:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why does Linux have to be such a pain to install? - A speech
Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (FM)
Re: Why I do use Windows (Perry Pip)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: IDC Estimates Linux growth at 183% per year (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux? (The Ghost In The Machine)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Why does Linux have to be such a pain to install? - A speech
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 20:45:23 -0000
On Tue, 17 Oct 2000 19:03:33 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, JoeX1029
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
>on 17 Oct 2000 00:02:40 GMT
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>Why does everybody *inist* on trying to use Linux for the common taks of a
>>desktop. Do you take your kids to school in the Ferrari??
If I had a Ferrari, I would be not content to leave it in the garage.
I would take it grocery shopping.
>
>Heh...I would have used "Mack Truck" or "highly experimental but robust
>modified Hummer", myself -- a Hummer can go anywhere, and a Mack Truck
>can carry (almost) anything. At least, that's the idea I get.
>
>Compared to Linux, Windows 95 looks like a beat-up old Chevy Chevette.
>(98 and WinMe look like they've replaced the body with that of a
>Ferrari, but the chassis is still the Chevette. Windows NT and Win2k
>look like 1-ton pickups, with nice side artwork. :-) )
[deletia]
--
Never let your schooling interfere with your education.
I always pass on good advice. It is the only thing to do with it.
It is never any good to oneself.
-- Oscar Wilde, "An Ideal Husband"
I believe a little incompatibility is the spice of life, particularly if he
has income and she is pattable.
-- Ogden Nash
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 20:50:20 -0000
On Tue, 17 Oct 2000 15:10:04 -0700, Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:Ny3H5.1171$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> So...I can't prove it, but I'm not lying. They really did "pooh-pooh"
>those
>> "mickey-mouse interfaces". (Nice phrasing, btw.) They regarded it as
>> toy-like, not serious enough for business use.
>
>I'd actually agree with that opinion -- but for different reasons. The
>Amigas and STs that most people saw didn't have enough oomph for business
>use. No networking. No real expandability. No hard drive (well, you could
IBM's didn't really have this either and in many cases didn't
need it. The same is true of having a bare system with lots
of upgrade slots. ST's came with better graphics than what
cheap PC's did and came with sound which cheap PC's didn't
even include.
>get some as add-ons, but they were prohibitively expensive).
All harddisks were expensive in those days. Besides the
external chasis, the cost of a disk was identical between
IBM and ST's. Besides, with what you saved on an ST the
harddrive would pay for itself.
Also, an ST was fully functional with no disk of any kind.
IBM's were not. For them the fixed disk was more an element
to provide operatational parity with an ST with only one
floppy drive.
[deletia]
>> example) actually was weak in a lot of areas and that the new version
>> (Win98, for example), fixes everything and is absolutely top of the line,
>> unbeatable, worth every penny, etc.
>
>Win98SE is the best Win9X platform you can get, without question. Win2K is
...much like saying something is the best perfumed dung.
>the best workstation platform that Microsoft produce. Personally, I like it
>a lot. There's still some issues (I can get Win2k to crash by
>inserting/removing USB devices during boot), but that's about it.
[deletia]
--
What fools these mortals be.
-- Lucius Annaeus Seneca
Better late than never.
-- Titus Livius (Livy)
If all the world's economists were laid end to end, we wouldn't reach a
conclusion.
-- William Baumol
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 20:53:26 -0000
On Wed, 18 Oct 2000 13:12:38 -0700, Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Wed, 18 Oct 2000 03:09:53 GMT, Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >> ...then they have to be bailed out by some Linux user because
>the
>> >> local WinDOS user can't even hook up a SCSI chain properly.
>
>> >And here again is that famous Linux user superiority complex that is SURE
>to put off
>> >almost every computer user on the planet. The average computer user does
>not have
>> >external SCSI peripherals or internal ones for that matter. The average
>computer
>>
>> It is just so amazing how much Lemmings conform to their own
>> criticisms of others. SCSI peripherals are out there. They are
>> lying on the shelves in CompUSA. Inevitably, they will be bought
>> and installed by naieve consumers. There is simply no getting
>> around this. It's much like the problem of consumers buying
>> hardware that isn't compatible with NT5 or Linux.
>>
>> Now, the naieve don't care that I'm berating their local guru.
>>
>> They're just happy when their stuff finally works.
>
>Either way, you're making an wild statement here: Linux gurus are supposedly
>smarter than Windows/DOS gurus.
By your own FUD regarding Linux, that pretty much has to be
the case...
>
>It would have been more appropriate to claim that "People with experience in
>SCSI will have more luck than those who don't" -- mainly because it doesn't
...which leads to the inevetable parallel between people who
choose to use lesser known and used hardware standards and
people who choose to use lesser known and used operating systems.
>matter if you use Linux or Windows -- it's just whether or not you know how
>SCSI works.
>
>BTW: Most end users won't be buying SCSI peripherals anyway, unless they're
>using a Mac.
This is still irrelevant.
Most end users don't KNOW NOT to buy SCSI peripherals. The
distinctions that you take for granted simply don't occur
to them.
You are out of touch with the common man.
--
I feel like a wet parking meter on Darvon!
Don't get mad, get interest.
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
-- Bertrand Russell
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (FM)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: 18 Oct 2000 20:30:36 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In the realities of mathematics, abstractions *are* objects.
>Concepts exist only in people's minds, objects have an independent
>reality; and the number '2' has an independent reality. There is
>no "metaphor" involved either in calling the number '2' an object
>or in calling a programming language construct an object.
We have the term "concept" for a reason. The term
object is generally reserved for those with physical
referents.
>The only reason you can even ask whether messages are objects
>is because Smalltalk has a high degree of introspection. You
>seem to think that imperative languages are more "fundamental"
>for the sole reason that they avoid circular definitions and
>infinite regress by not having any introspection!!
No, it's just that your above definition leaves plenty of
holes as to what results from an action, how objects are
referred (or more implicitly, created in the first place,
etc). If you knew anything about fundamental computational
paradigms, you'd know that these are the exact questions
that distinguish one paradigm from another.
>There are axiomatic concepts in OOP. Too fucking bad. There are
>also axiomatic concepts in functional programmnig; just what the
>hell is defining a function supposed to mean in terms of functions?
Did you see my abstraction mechanism for funtional programming?
You do that by using a proper recursive definition.
>Why don't you explain how the imperative paradigm manages not
>to have axiomatic concepts, eh? Or is it the case, as I suspect,
>that you'll just end up proving that only assembly exists ???
It doesn't. Imperative paradigm is simply described in terms of
a series of modifications to the environment. It doesn't specify
how these modifications are to be abstracted.
>> an object is ALSO an action. Not specifying how and these are
>> related leave out a huge part of what is necessary to specify
>> a process. It also shows a lack of understanding on your part
>> and vagueness of your definition.
>You cretin, it's irrelevant. Users need a model of computation,
>OOP provides that. I don't give a shit about implementors.
It doesn't. There's nothing in general OO that provides a
semblance of a model of computation.
>> Hah, and you forgot to address that your so-called paradigm is
>> in fact an extension of the imperative paradigm. And shows
>> nothing about how these actions can be abstracted, which means
>> it is implicitly procedural as well.
>Atoms in functional languages are no more an abstraction over
>data in procedural languages than method calls are an abstraction
>over procedure calls in OOP. So by your imbecilic criterion,
>functional programming is merely an extension of procedural.
Here you show that you don't fundamentally understand the
difference between functional programming and procedural
programming. While modern procedural languages provide
functional abstraction for their procedures, that hasn't
bridged the gap between the two. On the other hand, nothing
about OO contradicts procedural programming.
>> Pick up that book you got all your terminologies from and
>> actually read. Even with limited understanding, you might
>> actually learn a thing or two. And then ask yourself, what
>> part of philosophy is NOT considered metaphysics?
>Well, imbecile; moral philosophy, ethics, epistemology ....
And the question that you deemed as philosophical but
not metaphysical, belongs to which of these categories?
You can simply take that insult for yourself, if you
somehow thought I had a different answer in mind before
asking that question. Now, THAT's dumb.
>> You obviously still can't. Programmers can write code in
>> OO if they are provided by the mechanisms necessary for
>> OO. And the only true mechanism beyond a decent type
>Whenever someone writes "true" it's a sure sign they're
>bullshiting. As indeed you are.
Of course not. It means actual in this context. I wanted
to highlight it, since you don't seem to able to notice
mechanisms even when they are pointed out to you.
>> system necessary for the style is runtime polymorphism.
>> You obviously didn't understand what I said. If that's
>> "low-level" design of the paradigm, it's still all that
>> matters to a language.
>Obviously not since most C++ losers never write OO code.
Obviously, you know this because of your vast amount of
experience with C++.
>By your definition of "necessary" the only thing that
>is necessary is Turing completeness and thus one could
>write OO code in assembly. Hey, you don't need runtime
>polymorphism at all since you can implement it!
Complete nonsense, of course.
Reasonable C++ code can be organized in OO style and
be explainable in OO terms.
>Do you think this isn't what I've been saying all along,
>imbecile? I've SAID previously that OOP doesn't abstract
>away from the procedural paradigm's procedures. I also
>said that functional programming doesn't abstract away
>from the procedural paradigm's data atoms. But you seem
>to think that data abstraction is irrelevant and only
>process abstraction "truly matters". You're a moron.
Again, if you think functional programming is somehow based
on, or is an advanced form of, procedural programming, you're
way way way off here. Procedural programming borrowed much
from the theoretical work on functional programming (and
therefore includes basic functional abstraction nowadays),
but that's about where their relationship ends. Also, data
abstraction doesn't differ much from one language to another,
nor does OO provide a new model for data abstraction that is
fundamentally unique.
>> >Yeah. And just what the fuck do you think "I don't know C++
>> >very well" *means*?
>> That means you aren't qualified in any of the discussions
>> regarding C++'s merits.
>Another example of your black and white thinking.
Such a beautiful phrase (from a psychologist's point of view)
with an inappropriate entry point. Need I say more?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Re: Why I do use Windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 20:50:40 GMT
Your POS newsreader for Windows can't even wrap lines properly. If you
think that's better, that's your perogative.
On Wed, 18 Oct 2000 10:35:06 GMT,
Gonzalo Pardo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I have both (and others) OS's on my machine (I mean Windows
>and Linux), and they both are configured to do what I need; that's
>what I have found :
>
> 1) Windows is by far more unstable (all of us knew that), but is
> pretty usable for home using (I switch it on and off every
> day, and there are even weeks where I do not see a blue
> screen).
>
> 2) On the other side, Linux is rock solid (we all knew this one too).
>
> 3) Windows without care is insecure to browse the web and staying
> connected a long time; I have avoided it by installing a free
>firewall
> on it (by far worse than ipchains). I share the modem connection with
> Windows 98 SE.
>
> 4) With Linux I share the connection easier and more stable and have a
> rock solid system with no services running and a good firewall
>designed
> on to it.
>
> 5) With Windows I have got plenty of media players to play every
>available
> format in the market.
>
> 6) Linux can barely play every format, and a lot of them are performed by
> beta software with a bad performance and too many bugs. One thing I
> should say, it plays TV with the AverMedia far better than Windows
>does.
>
> 7) In Windows I can use Office 2000 what I do not particularly like, but
> helps me to read office work; one thing I like a lot is launching
>Word 2000
> in one second (if second time) or three seconds (if first time).
>
> 8) Neither Staroffice 5.2 nor Gnumeric or similars can be used by me for
> the things I need. Staroffice is a pain that lasts for more than 20
>seconds
> to run ... I do not like Java at all.
>
> 9) At Windows I have a lot of games (in fact, all of them) and demos to
>play
> if I want to do it, as well as using encyclopedies, magazine English
>courses,
> and such crappy stuff that I do not really mind, but I can do it.
>
> 10) On Linux I simply can't do it. Using an emulator is not the solution
>(at least
> in my case) because it goes slowly and the things I really would like
>to be
> emulated (multimedia and games) are just the more CPU intensive ones.
>
> 11) With Windows I have Internet Explorer, Netscape, Opera, Eudora,
>Pegasus,
> Outlook and Outlook Express and all internet tools I want, even when
>they
> run slower than Linux ones.
>
> 12) At Linux I am stuck with Netscape, Opera is alpha state, there are a
>lot of mail
> clients (pine, mutt, kmail, xfmail, netscape, ...) that I use, but I
>don't like them; to
> be honest, they are bad ones for me. The news are other story, I have
>inn running
> and suck does feed it, then I read with tin and I like it, but find
>Outlook Express
> better by far.
>
> 13) To end, at Windows I have software to run, and some of it is really
>powerful, while
> other is just stupid, but it can be run.
>
> 14) Linux is wonderful, but X11 are crappy for me, and there are no
>applications around
> to be run, not to talk that the kernel 2.4 is lasting and some
>features are really needed
> now.
>
> Okay, that's it; don't look disturbing anyone, just pointing that Linux
>is a good system,
>but that saying 1000 times that it has N applications, does not turn it to
>be true since
>I do not count vi, vim, emacs, joe, jed as 5 applications, just would say
>that Linux has a
>text editor (well, so does every OS, that's not remarkable). In the end, I
>have to use
>Windows even when I would prefer Linux, just because there are no things to
>be done
>at Linux apart from configuring the system and learning to be an
>administrator. As an
>example of the millions Linux applications, let's take the GIMP, well ...
>ONE, while
>at Mac's or Windows world there are several of them apart from GIMP too :-)
>Besides
>all the work I have to do gets done faster on Windows than on Linux (even
>hanging some
>times). That's it, Microsoft is a shitty company (perhaps not as shitty as
>it is being said),
>Windows is an unstable OS (undeniable), but at the end, hell, one can really
>work with
>it (even when it seems impossible). Linux is a open source OS (perhaps not
>as good as
>it is being said), Linux is stable (undeniable, but to do what ?), but at
>the end, one can
>just configure, compile, install, and do administrator stuff on it (well,
>and some internetting,
>not browsing webs). Linux desperatly needs a web browser as good or better
>than Internet
>Explorer (and it is being proved that it is not as easy to do it), a
>multimedia/gaming library and
>a decent mail and news client to be at least some useful to home user ...
>not to talk about
>applications, yeah, I mean applications, no tools or utilities programmed by
>non professionals.
>Even at the kernel list, there have been some discussions about the method
>Linus uses to develop (without any method at all), and he can do it 'cause
>he's
>a genious, but what when he become older ? What when someone that's not
>as genious and does not know the code as well as he does have to tweak it ?
>Well, to end this long troll-falming-post, let's talk about GNOME, for me,
>there is
>just one word : hypocrite (I just have used an English dictionary ... two
>clicks and ...).
>
>
>
>
--
Show the code....or hit the road.
Perry Piplani [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 13:56:17 -0700
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Nope. It has to be Lotus -- because everyone always quotes "DOS Ain't
Done
> >Till Lotus Won't Run", and it's being used as a keystone for an argument
> >here.
>
> What a straw man. Its rather telling that you have to take a casual
> remark and pretend it is 'a keystone for an argument'.
Well, look, I said that they use brute force when necessary to get a product
out and working. You returned with "DOS ain't done till Lotus won't run" --
so was it the keystone for your argument or not?
Do you have any proof for that claim? Or are you just spreading fud?
> >Though I'll happily listen to arguments about other products. RealPlayer
G2
> >doesn't count (they futzed their installer).
>
> Oh, did they? And 'futzed' means "in a way MS could screw over when
> they wanted to promote their Media Player", I guess. How fortunate for
> Microsoft; boy, they sure do know how to compete (not).
No; it means that they didn't use the standard, fully-documented mechanisms
for registering their file types in Internet Explorer and Netscape -- IIRC,
they just added a plugin, but didn't back it up with mime-type registration.
Everyone else's worked. On independent analysis, RealPlayer had not
correctly written their installer. So how is this Microsoft's fault?
If you're trying to claim that it IS Microsoft's fault, you've got a pretty
damn weak argument.
Simon
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 13:58:00 -0700
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> example) actually was weak in a lot of areas and that the new version
> >> (Win98, for example), fixes everything and is absolutely top of the
line,
> >> unbeatable, worth every penny, etc.
> >
> >Win98SE is the best Win9X platform you can get, without question. Win2K
is
>
> ...much like saying something is the best perfumed dung.
And? I'd say calling it dung is pretty harsh -- it does its job. Certainly
isn't an operating system that I would run out of choice -- but I have to
run it on at least one of my computers for compatibility testing.
Simon
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: IDC Estimates Linux growth at 183% per year
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 21:01:44 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Nigel Feltham
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Wed, 18 Oct 2000 21:23:11 +0100
<8sl162$k2m5f$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>Linux - 50 million satisfied users worldwide
>>and growing at over 5%/month! (recalibrated 8/2/00)
>>
>
>
>Time to recalibrate that sig then Rex - 183% per year is at least double
>your 5% per month ( can't be bothered to work out exact percentage due to
>forgetting formula for compounded percentages - e.g. each month you have to
>add 5% + 5% of the previous montht percentage etc).
1.05^12 = 1.7958563259
It's not very far off. (Isn't 'bc' wonderful? :-) )
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux?
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 21:09:51 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Hartmann Schaffer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on 17 Oct 2000 22:22:17 -0400
<8sj1gp$evt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In article <8shiq2$3fc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>MH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> ...
>>Like it or not, the standard is Office. Spreading lies and FUD does not help
>>Linux's cause. If you had said simply that "SO can open many standard office
>
>this statement coming from an ms junkie must be the usenet joke of the
>year
No, he's right; the standard *is* Office. Witness:
- a number of recruiting firms apparently require Word for resumes.
- over 80% of the desktops use Microsoft Windows, which is a prime
prerequisite for Office.
- Office is very convenient, as long as one doesn't stray from the
path. (Insert Tolkien reference here :-) )
- Point, click, drag. What else could any pointy-haired type
possibly want?
This doesn't mean Office is easy to use (one beef I have is that
I can't get at the raw mail headers), but it *looks* easy to use,
and to non-engineers, that's good enough.
(To which I say, "Feh". But then, I'm not a non-engineer. :-) )
Nor is Office a declared standard -- it would be unlikely that an
RFC would ever mention Office by name, although there are a few
that are, shall we say, less than serious about the standardization
process (e.g., RFC1882). But one might make a pretty good case
that it, or its components (Excel, Word, etc.) are defacto standards.
(To which I say, "Ugh".)
[snip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random Scottish brogue here
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
