Linux-Advocacy Digest #668, Volume #30 Tue, 5 Dec 00 15:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: .The beauty of open source ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
LXNY Meeting Tuesday 5 December 2000: Robert B. K. Dewar on how to make millions
selling free software ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 18:49:49 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis writes:
> Tim Smith wrote:
>> Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>>>>> Put a computer in front of a person from a remote village which
>>>>> has no electrical service, and let's see how "intuitive" the
>>>>> power switch is.
>>>> OK, now you are getting silly. Give those villagers electricity, and
>>>> all the usual electrical applicances other than computers, and let them
>>>> become comfortable with them, THEN give them a computer. The power switch
>>>> on the computer will be intuitive to them.
>>>>
>>>> You are confusing "intuitive" with "instinctive".
>>> http://www.asktog.com/papers/raskinintuit.html
>>>
>>> Jeff Raskin, "Intuitive Equals Familiar", Communications of the ACM,
>>> vol 37, no 9, Sept, 1994, pg 17.
>> I'm confused. I'm not sure if we are agreeing or disagreeing. I'd say
>> the power switch on the computer is intuitive, because anyone who is
>> likely to be using a computer is very likely to have experience with
>> power switches on other things.
> Translation: Anybody with a computer is likely to have previous
> experience with power switches from other electrical appliances.
Isn't that the whole idea behind intuitive design, to use something
familiar?
>> "Intuitive" is not an absolute, but
>> must be interpreted relative to the general background of the user.
>> That seems to agree with Raskin's article (although I only skimmed it).
> Intuitive implies "you know how to use it because it's function
> is obvious from the first time you encounter it"
The obvious nature of the function comes from experience or
familiarity with similar features of other products.
> However, the use of power switches are NOT obvious.
Why not?
> For example...a WAGON is intuitive...
Not to a six-month-old baby. Thus using your "primitive tribesman"
reasoning, we can conclude that a wagon is also not intuitive.
> you don't need instructions nor to witness examples of other
> people using it to quickly figure out how to use a wagon to
> transport goods.
You do need to know that a wagon is capable of movement. Take
someone unfamiliar with the concept of a wheel.
> On the other hand...the power switch on many electronic devices
> (especially stereo equipment), that it is NOT immediately obvious
> to the uninitiated what it's function is.
Stereo equipment tends to have lots of buttons, thus the need to
label one of them "Power", or similarly. Nevertheless, some
designers purposely make the power switch oversized and in the
corner to avoid that very problem and make it more intuitive.
> Especially if the label "power" or "on/off" were removed from
> the vacinity of the power switches on many pieces of high-end
> audio equipment.
You mean the ones that tend to have lots of buttons on them?
> Many of them have front panels with so many controls that even
> people with a "first-world standard of living" are bewildered
> by them.
Precisely why your analogy fails, and precisely why I chose to
use a television or a radio as a better example.
> If you were to remove all of the labels from this
> equipment, the average american would take a couple of tries
> to even determine which switch is, in fact, the power switch.
Precisely why your analogy fails, and precisely why I chose to
use a television or a radio as a better example.
> Additionally, if it were not for labels, the power switch
> and the reset switch on most computers look identical.
On what basis do you speak for "most computers"? I have several,
and some of them don't even have a separate reset switch, and of
those that do, it's recessed and accessible only to the point of
a pen, for example.
> If two IDENTICAL switches have non-identical behavior, then
> how can the function of the switch itself be "intuitive"?
You're presupposing the existence of two identical switches.
Not at all computers are designed with two identical switches.
>> (Of course I mean desktop computers...laptop designers seem to enjoy
>> trying to hide the power on mechanism).
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 18:51:24 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Wilson writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aaron R. Kulkis writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Donovan Rebbechi writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The movement keys are placed sensibly in vi (hjkl),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which is not intuitive. First-time vi users, if they try to do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Big fucking deal. NOTHING about computers is "intuitive"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Incorrect; consider the power switch.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You'd be surprised....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Never underestimate the idiot factor.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We're talking about intuition, not incompetence.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Put an electric appliance in front of somebody who has never
>>>>>>>>>>>>> used an electric appliance before, and you'll learn that there
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is absolutely NOTHING intuitive about on/off switches.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Once again, you're hypothesizing a situation that precludes
>>>>>>>>>>>> intuition.
>>>>>>>>>> Note: no response.
>>>>>>>> Note: still no response.
>>>>>> Note: still no response.
>>>> Note: still no response.
>> Note: still no response.
Note: still no response.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are merely FAMILIAR, not intuitive.
>>>>>>>>>>>> How is an electric appliance familiar to someone who has never
>>>>>>>>>>>> used an electic appliance before?
>>>>>>>>>>> PRECISELY,
>>>>>>>>>> Precisely why your analogy fails. You're going outside the relevant
>>>>>>>>>> group, namely those who use electrical appliances. Just because some
>>>>>>>>>> hypothetical "primitive tribesman" won't find a power switch intuitive
>>>>>>>>>> doesn't mean that nobody can find a power switch to be intuitive.
>>>>>>>>>> Familiarity does not have to be universal before something can be
>>>>>>>>>> intuitive to someone.
>>>>>>>> Note: no response.
>>>>>>> I've explained it 5 times already, you shit-head.
>>>>>> Your so-called "explanation" consists of invective, Aaron, not a logical
>>>>>> argument.
>>>>> Deliberately ignoring information presented
>>>> Where have I allegedly done that, Aaron? I've exposed the holes in your
>>>> so-called "proof". The remainder of your postings have consisted of
>>>> invective, not "information".
>>>>> is NOT victory,
>>>> Irrelevant, given that victory hasn't been declared, Aaron.
>> Note: no response.
Note: still no response.
>>>>> shit-for-brains.
>>>> As usual, the expected invective, and no logical argument from you.
>> Note: no response.
Note: still no response.
>>>>>>>>>>> shit-head
>>>>>>>>>> You must really be hurting for a logical argument.
>>>>>>>>> Just commenting on your inability to comprehend a logical argument.
>>>>>>>> What alleged inability? You're the one who hasn't comprehended my
>>>>>>>> logical argument, and you've not offered any counterargument, just
>>>>>>>> immature invective.
>>>>>>> PLease get a doctor to reroute your rectum away from your cranium.
>>>>>> Another one of your so-called "explanations". Practice what you preach,
>>>>>> Aaron.
>>>>> This explanation is only about why you have failed to understand
>>>>> the previous explanation.
>>>> How ironic, coming from the person who has failed to understand the
>>>> holes in the so-called "explanation" that I identified. Using your
>>>> reasoning, nothing can be intuitive.
>>> Pretending that the argument doesn't exist
>> Where have I allegedly pretended that your "primitive tribesman"
>> argument doesn't exist, Aaron? On the contrary, I acknowledged
>> its existence by explaining the flaws in your reasoning.
Note: no response.
>>> is NOT victory, doofus.
>> Irrelevant, given that victory hasn't been declared, Aaron.
Note: no response.
>>> You're still THE STUPIDEST person I've ever come across on the Internet
>>> in 12 years.
>> Incorrect; you have come across yourself, haven't you?
Note: no response.
>>> Did you go see the doctor for that cranial rectumotomy like I suggested?
>> See what I mean about how you resort to invective when you lack a
>> logical argument?
> Truth hurts, doesn't it.
You must be hurting then, Aaron.
> Deal with it,
I have, Aaron, while you have not.
> or fuck off.
Practice what you preach, Aaron.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 18:52:48 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis writes:
>>>>>>>> Tom Wilson writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aaron R. Kulkis writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Donovan Rebbechi writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The movement keys are placed sensibly in vi (hjkl),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which is not intuitive. First-time vi users, if they try to do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Big fucking deal. NOTHING about computers is "intuitive"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Incorrect; consider the power switch.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You'd be surprised....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Never underestimate the idiot factor.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The power switch is NOT "intuitive"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Proof: put a primative tribesman in a room with electric appliances
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and tell him to start the things into operation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm in agreement.
>>>>>>>>>>>> You shouldn't be. His example doesn't represent proof for a power
>>>>>>>>>>>> switch not being intuitive.
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm agreeing that my choice of "idiot" was wrong.
>>>>>>>>>> But Aaron didn't say that your choice of "idiot" was wrong.
>>>>>>>>> He did that very thing by intimating the situation to be a question of
>>>>>>>>> intuitiveness as opposed to stupidity.
>>>>>>>> He didn't even intimate that situation. He simply repeated his claim
>>>>>>>> that the power switch is not intuitive, and then tried to offer some
>>>>>>>> proof for that claim.
>>>>>>>>>>> The hypothesis, strange as it is, points it out. It's a matter of
>>>>>>>>>>> experience and environment, not intellect.
>>>>>>>>>> "Experience" is the word I used for it. Someone else chose "familiarity".
>>>>>>>>>>> I used the word idiot because I had been trouble-shooting over
>>>>>>>>>>> the phone to complete morons that evening and had a dim view of
>>>>>>>>>>> humanity as a result.
>>>>>>>>>> Someone who couldn't find the "any" key on the keyboard?
>>>>>>>>> Worse. This was an professional moron.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> An old Novell customer who consistantly forgets his Administrator password.
>>>>>>>>> He's STILL running Novell 3.12 which is good, in a way, because you can hack
>>>>>>>>> into console debug mode and trick it into believing all system passwords
>>>>>>>>> have time-expired. That way he can log on as Administrator and get prompted
>>>>>>>>> for a new one.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ever tried to talk someone, who constantly interrupts and thinks he knows
>>>>>>>>> everything, through hacking Novell from the debug console?
>>>>>>>> No; I don't know anyone who hacks through Novell debug consoles.
>>>>>>>>> I would have done it myself, but, he lives 600 miles away.
>>>>>>>> Behind a firewall?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The language I used, in hindsight, was wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>> That doesn't justify your agreement.
>>>>>>>>>>> How do you figure? I was agreeing that my wording was off track and
>>>>>>>>>>> Aaron's post had pointed that out.
>>>>>>>>>> Aaron's post wasn't pointing to your wording. He was simply repeating
>>>>>>>>>> his claim that the power switch was not intuitive.
>>>>>>>>> He was pointing to my wording's intent - That it was a question of
>>>>>>>>> intellegence.
>>>>>>>> Where did he do that?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> AK] The power switch is NOT "intuitive"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Read: Never underestimate the ignorance factor.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I used "idiot" because i'ts been one of those nights...
>>>>>>>>>>>> Go to the store. Buy a lamp. Take it home. Do you consult a manual
>>>>>>>>>>>> to find out what to do with the cord? I hope not. Yet the
>>>>>>>>>>>> hypothesized "primative tribesman" could have no idea what the cord
>>>>>>>>>>>> is for. Does that prove that the power cord is not intuitive?
>>>>>>>>>>> Oh for God's sake!
>>>>>>>>>> Which presupposes the existence of God.
>>>>>>>>> Yep, you're anal....
>>>>>>>> An illogical conclusion.
>>>>>>>>>>> His hypothesis was extreme, yes. However, it makes a valid point
>>>>>>>>>>> regarding experience.
>>>>>>>>>> On the contrary, it ignores the essential element of intuitive design,
>>>>>>>>>> which involves experience with similar items. If someone states something
>>>>>>>>>> about trees, you don't go to a desert and then proclaim the statement
>>>>>>>>>> about trees to be wrong.
>>>>>>>>> You watched a lot of Kung Fu as a kid, didn't you?
>>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>>>> You sound like a fortune cookie.
>>>>>>>> On what basis do you make that ridiculous claim?
>>>>>>>>>>> You're bordering on anal retention, i'm afraid.
>>>>>>>>>> How ironic.
>>>>>>> Tholen..you really need to see a doctor.
>>>>>> On what basis do you make that claim?
>>>>>>> Your anus needs is currently depositing waste material
>>>>>>> where your brain should be.
>>>>>> Even more invective. But of course: where's the logical argument?
>>>>> I've given it to you FIVE TIMES already, asshole.
>>>> Invective five times does not make a logical argument, Aaron.
>>> Neither does ignoring the argument presented for as many days, Dave.
>> Where did I allegedly ignore the argument presented, Aaron? I've
>> explained to you several times now that just because something isn't
>> necessarily intuitive to one person does not automatically make it
>> not intuitive to someone else.
>>> You're still THE STUPIDEST person I've ever come across on the Internet
>>> in 12 years.
>> Inoccrect; you have come across yourself, haven't you?
>>> Did you go see the doctor for that cranial rectumotomy like I suggested?
>> See what I mean about how you resort to invective when you lack a
>> logical argument?
> It's merely the truth, Dave.
How does your question represent "truth", Aaron? That's non sequitur.
> Deal with it,
You're erroneously presupposing that your question represents "truth"
that can be dealt with, Aaron.
> or fuck off.
Practice what you preach, Aaron.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 14:23:12 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Aaron R. Kulkis writes:
>
> >> Steve Mading writes:
>
> >>> Tim Smith wrote:
>
> >>>> Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>
> >>>>> I wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> Big fucking deal. NOTHING about computers is "intuitive"
>
> >>>>>> Incorrect; consider the power switch.
>
> >>>>> Only to those with previous experience with power switches.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Put a computer in front of a person from a remote village which
> >>>>> has no electrical service, and let's see how "intuitive" the
> >>>>> power switch is.
>
> >>>> OK, now you are getting silly. Give those villagers electricity, and
> >>>> all the usual electrical applicances other than computers, and let them
> >>>> become comfortable with them, THEN give them a computer. The power switch
> >>>> on the computer will be intuitive to them.
>
> >>> This demonstrates the point, actually. It's "intuative" only
> >>> because it's similar to what was already learned.
>
> >> Why do you say "only"? It's quite sufficient to justify use of the
> >> term "intuitive".
>
> >>> At some point, it *did* have to be learned because it was not
> >>> intuative *yet*.
>
> >> The whole point of designing something that is intuitive is to
> >> avoid the need to "come up the learning curve". That is, you
> >> intentionally try to use something familiar, something that has
> >> already been learned, so that you don't have to learn something
> >> new. One of the impediments to the adoption of new things is
> >> the "can't teach an old dog new tricks" syndrome.
>
> >>> If you show someone how to use vi who *hasn't* used a different
> >>> sort of editor yet, it's not as difficult to teach it to them.
>
> >> The fact that it needs to be learned is what makes something not
> >> intuitive.
>
> >>> The difficulty comes from assuming incorrectly that it should
> >>> behave exactly the same as some other company's editor.
>
> >> However, if you've used several screen editors and they all behave
> >> in such a way that the pressing of a letter key either overwrites
> >> or inserts that letter into the text, then vi's "every letter is a
> >> command" approach will not be intuitive.
>
> >>> Vi is *different*, which makes it harder to learn,
>
> >> It also makes it not intuitive.
>
> >>> but this difference is also the source of its incredible speed at
> >>> the hands of an experienced user (fingers don't lose the home-row
> >>> keys - everything complex can be done without moving your right
> >>> hand over to the 'special' keys, and this makes a gigantic
> >>> difference in typing speed.)
>
> >> Power is not the issue here. You'd get greater adoption of the
> >> editor if there wasn't a steep learning curve. If the only way
> >> you can get power is to force a steep learning curve, then the
> >> authors should be prepared to accept slow adoption.
>
> >>> There's that, and the powerful commands that only take a
> >>> few keystrokes, like ">%" to indent a squiggly-brace section, or
> >>> "d$" to delete to end-of-line, and so on. They are not
> >>> instinctive to the new user,
>
> >> As someone else pointed out, there is a difference betweeen
> >> instinct and intuition. The discussion is about the latter.
>
> >>> but they *are* internally consistent, so picking up new commands
> >>> is intuative to someone who has the basics.
>
> >> Not necessarily. Having learned that every letter key is a command
> >> won't necessarily help you identify which letter is used for which
> >> command.
>
> >>> (d-something means delete it, and '$' means end-of line,
>
> >> It also means end of file. Try :$ and see where it takes you.
>
> >>> therefore 'd$' means delete to end-of-line
>
> >> Why shouldn't someone think that it could mean delete to the end of
> >> the file?
>
> >>> - it's internally consisent,
>
> >> End of line and end of file are not that consistent. At least they
> >> both mean "end".
>
> >>> and thus very fast to build upon your knowlege once you
> >>> get over the hump of initial contact with it.)
>
> >> If you find that some new command is intuitive after having learned
> >> several other commands, then there is something about computers that
> >> is intuitive, contrary to Aaron's claim.
>
> > You don't have to specifically learn "d$" to synthesize if
> > from previous knowledge.
>
> What previous knowledge tells you the function of "d$"?
it's similar to "dw" and "dG"
>
> > Conversely, the use of an on/off switch canNOT be intuitive,
>
> Incorrect, given that I have personally witnessed first-time users
> knowing what to do with a power switch, even without consulting a
> manual.
>
Were these first-time electrical-device users?
A) yes
B) no
> > as the use of such cannot be synthesized from previous knowledge.
>
> Obviously incorrect, given that I've witnessed first-time users
> knowing what to do with a power switch, even without consulting a
> manual.
Was this the first time that they ever used an electrical appliance?
A) yes
B) no
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 14:24:56 -0500
Bill Vermillion wrote:
>
> In article <rl2X5.13214$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Steve Mading writes:
>
> >> Vi's only crime here is being unique.
>
> >Uniqueness breeds non-intuitiveness. I haven't said whether that is
> >good or bad.
>
> vi was good. Having the ability to see all the lines on the screen
> instead of one line, and being able to move onto a word to delete
> it instead of .s/old-word/new-word/ was so much better. The first
> system I used had only ed, but I got my regexs down prety good.
>
> In those days on a new system it was ed or vi [and it's friends
> view and ex]
Ever use IBM's XEDIT for S/370 and higher systems?
All the overhead of a screen editor, with NONE of the benefits.
>
> --
> Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: .The beauty of open source
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 14:26:29 -0500
Tom Wilson wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Milton wrote:
> > >
> > > http://linux.com/news/newsitem.phtml?sid=1&aid=11337
> > >
> > > "And what do we make? Software for those who grew up with
> > > computers. Software for people who hate wizards, and plug and play,
> > > and lack of control. Software for people who can see the beauty of a
> > > properly working system. We make software for people who love
> > > choice. We make software that works, even when hardware
> > > manufacturers won't pony up the documentation, even when we have
> > > to reverse engineer things that should be publicly available, we make
> > > it happen."
> > >
> > > "We wished it so hard that, one day, it just came true."
> > >
> > > That sure as hell looks like a .sig to me.
> > >
> > > Linux -> We wished it so hard that, one day, it just came true.
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > Linux -> We MADE THE EFFORT, so that one day, it came true.
>
> Good one!
I like this even better:
Linux -> We made the effort, so that NOW it IS true.
>
> --
> Tom Wilson
> Registered Linux User #194021
> http://counter.li.org
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: LXNY Meeting Tuesday 5 December 2000: Robert B. K. Dewar on how to make
millions selling free software
Date: 5 Dec 2000 14:27:01 -0500
This meeting is free and open to the public.
The meeting runs from 6:30 pm to 9:00 pm. After the meeting full and
precise instructions on how to get to our traditional place of refreshment
will be given in clear.
Thanks to support of the IBM Corporation, the meeting is at their building
at 590 Madison Avenue at East 57th Street on the Island of Manhattan.
Enter the building at the corner of Madison and 57th and ask at the desk
for the floor and room number.
Robert B. K. Dewar, Head of Ada Core Technologies, a multi-million-dollar
multi-national free software company, will talk about how to make money
with free software.
Today one of the many rhetorical attacks against free software goes "But is
free software ready for the Enterprise?". Ada Core Technologies sells
services and software built around GNAT, the Official GNU Compiler for Ada,
the Official Computer Language of the United States Military Industrial
Complex. Another rhetorical attack goes "But how can you make money
selling free software?". Ada Core Technologies makes money.
Robert B. K. Dewar is
Professor of Computer Science at the Courant Institute of Mathematical
Sciences at NYU,
an expert on programming languages,
a serious programmer who has written compilers, language libraries and
real-time OSes, on a wide range of platforms from embedded systems to
microcomputers to mainframes,
a mainstay of the robust froup comp.lang.ada,
SPITBOLer extraordinaire,
an effective advocate and amicus at large for free software and the freedom
to program,
and official maintainer of the GNU Ada Compiler GNAT.
http://www.cs.nyu.edu/cs/faculty/dewar
http://www.webcom.com/software/issues/docs-htm/brf-cs.html
http://foldoc.doc.ic.ac.uk/foldoc/foldoc.cgi?SPITBOL
http://www.gnat.com
http://www.adapower.com
http://www.adapower.com/lang/gnat-spitbol.html
http://www.research.ibm.com/people/n/ncohen/ada.html
http://www.acm.org/sigada
http://www.adahome.com
http://www.adahome.com/Tutorials/Lovelace/lovelace.html
http://www.dmoz.org/Computers/Programming/Languages/Ada
http://www.seas.gwu.edu/~mfeldman/ada-project-summary.html
http://www.archrecord.com/PROJECTS/DEC99/PEOPLE/TIMESQ.ASP
http://www.vaxxine.com/pegasoft/homes/book.html
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Lovelace.html
http://www.cs.yale.edu/homes/tap/ada-lovelace.html
http://www.fourmilab.ch/babbage
http://www.eisenhower.utexas.edu/farewell.htm
http://www.fsf.org
Michael E. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
General Manager LXNY
Jay Sulzberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Corresponding Secretary LXNY
LXNY is New York's Free Computing Organization.
http://www.lxny.org
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
