Linux-Advocacy Digest #660, Volume #31 Mon, 22 Jan 01 21:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: NT is Most Vulnerable Server Software ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windows curses fast computers ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Crappy CDROM? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Games? Who cares about games? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (Charlie Ebert)
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Re: Kernel space? Who gives a @#$% ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Loki has trouble playiong their own games under Linux!!!!! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows (Russ Lyttle)
Re: Multiple standards don't constitute choice (T. Max Devlin)
Re: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows (Russ Lyttle)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: NT is Most Vulnerable Server Software
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 01:43:32 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <94i3pb$d6l$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 22 Jan
>>>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>>> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 21 Jan
>>>>>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>>>>> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a convention, not a rule of routing or the IP protocol.
>>>>
>>>>It is not a convention. Look up the appropriate RFC's. The private IP
>>>>address ranges should never appear on the Internet.
>>>
>>> That's what we call a convention. Notice the "should". Where as,
>>> 0.0.0.0, and 127.0.0.1 *cannot* appear on the Internet. Get it?
>
>> I 'should' have said must. Now tell me why '0.0.0.0, and 127.0.0.1
>> *cannot* appear on the Internet'? It just takes a misconfigured router.
>> There is nothing magical about these addresses. You really are clueless.
>
> Actually, there is. They are not routable, no router in the world, no matter
> how misconfigured, will throw them out, unbridged to any other network, case
> closed.
>
> Sounds to me like youre the clueless one. You should be careful about what
> you call people.
Sounds like you need a decent IDS.
>> Again you just don't know what you are talking about. NAT is essential
>> if you are using private addresses on your Intranet. For sure NAT is an
>> overhead and you scale your firewall performance appropriately.
>
> Ummm...how exactly is NAT an overhead? How exactly do you scale your firewall
> performance appropriately?
Do I really have to explain this? With NAT, whether it is one to one NAT or
hide NAT the firewal has to keep a table of which internal addresses belong
to which connection. This takes cpu cycles believe it or not. The speed of
the line is not the only criteria for deciding how powerful a system you
need. Number of rules, NAT, routing table size all affect perfomance.
>>> Oops. You caught me. I certainly don't know what *you* are talking
>>> about. Forgive me if I point out that, this little bluff aside, I *do*
>>> know what *I'm* talking about. Which is to say I will figure out what
>>> you're talking about, eventually, though I'm not at all sure the reverse
>>> is true.
>
>> Max it is quite clear you do not know what you are talking about.
>> At what level in the OSI stack would you place ethernet, IP, TCP, ftp
>> for example? I'm sure you cannot answer this. Proxies work at the
>> application layer (7) to give you a little help.
>
> Maybe you need to read "TCP/IP Networking" again.
Your worse than Max. Please don't argue about something in which you are
out of your depth.
>>> Again, I'm still not sure what you're saying by "provides NAT
>>> facilities". Are you saying you used them? Or they were a feature on
>>> the box? If you have indeed used them on "every firewall" (or even if
>>> you say they all have them), then apparently it is your experience, not
>>> mine, which is limited, as this proves you can't have ever touched a
>>> firewall before 1998.
>
>> Listen I administer several checkpoint fw-1's,
>
> The second worst firewall this world has ever seen. (can you say UDP
> denial?)
All firewalls are vulnerable to DoS attacks. If the originator has enough
bandwidth there is not much you can do except pull the plug. Checkpoints
support is the worst I know but their firewall is far superior to most. If
I were to install a single firewall to protect an Intranet it wouldn't be
fw-1 (it would be my second choice though).
>> Sun's sunscreens
>
> The absolute worst.
This statement can only be made out of total ignorance. The EFS3.x in stealth
mode is the most secure firewall I know. With the introduction of the 3.x
series it has all the funtionality of fw-1. I have never heard of a single
security problem related to any sunscreen firewall from the spf100 to the
EFS3.x. In stealth mode it doesn't even use any of the IP/TCP stack from
Solaris and hence is not vulnerable to bugs in them. Another advantage of sunscreen
is that you can configure it from the command line (the hotjava gui for EFS3.x is
crap though - from a performance point of view. It is so slow).
>> and
>> a couple of tuxscreens
>
> Unmentionable.
Unmentionable because you don't know what it is. It is a custom stealth mode
firewall based on Linux with a couple of patches for bridging software and
to enable ipchains to work with the bridging software. Stop pretending to
know what you are talking about.
>> (don't know what that is do you?). I have
>> administered firewalls for 4 years and been a Unix system administrator
>> for over 12 years.
>
> Tell me, exactly why do you use firewalls instead of packet filtering at the
> router?
Again the fact that you ask this question just shows your ignorance.
>> Be so kind to tell us what experience you have in
>> this area. Do you understand what NAT is? From what you have said I
>> don't think so.
>
> By your experience, you should have known full well that the "internet" will
> not believe a node advertising itself as 0.0.0.0
>
> But you didnt. Something is amiss.
What the fsck has it to do with the Internet? Have you ever used nmap?
>>>>> Yes, MAC addresses are used to *transmit* the *frame*, containing the
>>>>> packet, to the receiver. Note that whether the receiver is "the next
>>>>> hop on its route" is one of those rules that you should fuck around with
>>>>> lightly. The rule is, "you don't know, you can't know, and it doesn't
>>>>> matter." Because routing doesn't have anything to do with
>>>>> transmissions. So MAC addresses don't have anything to do with packets.
>>>>
>>>>You really don't have a clue. The above paragragh is gibberish. Please
>>>>read the book you say you have and build a test network to see how it
>>>>really works.
>>>
>>> Listen, lamer. I'm trying to keep my peace and keep my temper, here,
>>> but you're starting to get on my nerves. Don't make me flame you to
>>> crispy critters, butter-cakes. I've been explaining this stuff
>>> professionally for about seven years now, solid. If you didn't quite
>>> get it the first time, don't blame me.
>
>> I just don't believe a word of this. You are sounding more and more
>> like the wintrolls on this list. It is clear you have little or no
>> knowledge / experience with regard to IP networking and firewalls in
>> particular.
>
> Actually, it sounds like you know even less, mr 12 years of unix experience.
No, it is clear you do not know what you are talking about. You are even more
ignorant than Max.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows curses fast computers
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 20:10:46 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >>
> >> Of course the OS has to be patched to wait longer, since the OS must deal
> >> with whatever quirks the hardware presents, but the true fault is with both
> >> the ATAPI spec for not providing a command, and IBM for not providing enough
> >> reserve capacitance to allow the drive to flush and park.
> >
> > Then how do the have a patch for NT 4.0? Shouldn't they have been
> > checking this in QA as a known problem? Obviously any idiot should have
> > known if they had a problem, they should be checking for it.
>
> Erik is really quite pathetic. Everytime faster processors come out the Microsoft
> OS's must be patched so that they shut down cleanly. Why doesn't this affect
> Linux, Solaris BeOS, etc? It is crap software. We now know that even Microsoft
> accepts that their OS's are unreliable but they can't even shut down cleanly. The
> sad thing is that the typical Microsoft user never hears about these serious
> problems. They just accept BSOD after BSOD as normal.
Mafiasoft:
Situation
Normal --
ALL
FUCKED
UP
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
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] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Crappy CDROM?
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 01:12:30 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, mlw wrote:
>Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Here's one for you:
>> >
>> > I have a dual processor system, and a Promise IDE66 card. I have a CDROM
>> > and a CDWR on one channel, and a hard disk on the other. The IDE ports
>> > on the MOBO are also filled.
>> >
>> > If I do this:
>> >
>> > cat /dev/cdrom > file.iso
>> >
>> > cat /dev/cdrom | cmp file.iso
>> >
>> > (With the file on a MOBO controlled disk) It runs until end of file,
>> > with no errors.
>> >
>> >
>> > If, while I am doing that, I copy a big file from one drive to the drive
>> > on the promise card, I get compare errors.
>>
>> Thanks for backing up my point that IDE CD-R's are unreliable.
>>
>> Yes, IDE is a very poor technology. The only reason it sells so much is
>> that it's cheap. SCSI requires onboard processors for the drive, and makes
>> them more expensive.
>
>Poor Erik.
>
>IDE drives and SCSI drives are almost identical. Both require processors
>embedded in the drive. In fact, IDE stands for "Integrated Drive
>Electronics."
>
Oh! Don't tell Erik that. That moron still thinks ATAPI and SCSI
have nothing in common!
>Back in the days of MFM drives, a small CPU (often a Z80) was on the MFM
>controller board, and the winchester drives were raw peripherals
>(ST-251, ST-220). IDE drives moved the MFM controllers to the hard
>disks. The IDE interface was merely a set of IO ports and an interrupt.
>Over the last 10 years, IDE became EIDE, ATA, etc. The specification has
>become quite elaborate, with DMA, PIO, caching, etc.
>
>It is not the controller that makes a difference, it is the electrical
>characteristics of the interface. SCSI is terminated at both ends. This
>forces a high current source/drain for data and control signals, making
>the back plane pretty noise free. IDE on the otherhand, is unterminated
>5v logic (yuck).
>
>The reason why SCSI sells for more is that most SCSI applications are at
>a higher end. SCSI drives typically have a higher spindle RPM, better
>seek times, and longer MTBF. However, some OEMs make IDE and SCSI
>versions of the same drive and they are almost identical except for the
>bus interface section. Sometimes, the controller board is the same
>print, with different interface components installed.
>
>
>--
>http://www.mohawksoft.com
Ahh. That did it. You broke his heart.
Now we have to hear HIS version of the world again.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Games? Who cares about games?
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 01:14:33 GMT
In article <94gqv9$29c$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Pete Goodwin wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I don't know anyone that really plays games on their computers. is
>that out of
>> the ordinary? When people mention games as an issue, I often wonder why.
>>
>> I have a Nintendo for games, why would I waste a computer on games?
>
>I play games on my computer. I always have. I've never owned a console,
>I think a PC does better graphics than a console.
>
When X isn't up, they call that black screen in front of you with the
prompt a console.
Hope that helps.
Charlie
PS. We knew you played games on your computer.
Like Newgroups and installing Mandrake for just 2.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 01:19:16 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Sun, 21 Jan 2001 21:24:59 GMT, J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>Linux has great for me - if you prefer windows, good for you,
>>I wish you a good life, and don't let the door hit you in the ass
>>on the way out!
>
>I had to use the emergency exit because the front door was all backed
>up with the exodus from the latest Linux demo.
>
>
>
>>I find netscape communicator does a passable job.
>
>Key word being passable.
>My bicycle will get me to the store, but considering it is about 25
>degrees out I think I'll take the car.
>
>
>>Sorry to shock you with the facts old chap, but it nearly always
>>goes the other way - people try Linux, then get into it, and finally
>>reformat their windows drive for mp3 storage or something of a
>>similar nature.
>
>Maybe in some college dorm full of CS students but not in real life.
>People hate Linux when they try it. I have seen it many, many times
>over and over again.
>There is nobody that would rather see Linux become viable on the
>desktop more than musicians doing digital audio production. The cost
>of the applications is generally well over the typical musicians
>budget.
>These guys are end users for the most part and not techies and every
>single one of them that I have met that has tried Linux has absolutely
>hated it.
>Not because it doesn't have audio programs of pro quality, but because
>of all the BS they have to do just to perform the simple tasks that
>are no brainers on their Windows or Mac PC's.
>
>These guys are a hell of a lot closer to Joe Sixpack than some pimple
>faced kid playing with Linux because he can't afford Windows.
>
>I have Mandrake running on a PC in my studio with Enlightenment up and
>these guys love the eye candy. They ask for a CD, I give them one,
>next time I see them I ask "so how was Linux" and wait for the :
>
>"Man that Linux really sux" comments.
>
>Happens every time.
>
>Sorry but that's reality.
>
>
>
>
>Flatfish
>Why do they call it a flatfish?
>Remove the ++++ to reply.
Ahh humm..
I suppose our campaign slogan should be "If your a dumbass don't try Linux!"
However the "Joe Sixpack" some Musicians feelings and comments enthrall me.
Thanks for this wonderful input.
Now, go into your closet and get your handgun out and put it to the roof
of your mouth and end your life for us.
Thanks
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 01:20:15 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 04:49:24 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>
>>Your argument is having been weaned on Windows; that's a story as old as
>>Bill Gate's monopoly. Yes, its all about the application barrier;
>>haven't you read the conviction?
>>
>>http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm
>>http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f4400/4469.htm
>
>Personally I could care less one way or the other.
>
>I use a product because it works for me, not because of some mission.
>
>
>Flatfish
>Why do they call it a flatfish?
>Remove the ++++ to reply.
This is but another example of a typical Window users day.
Hope this helps.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 01:21:56 -0000
On 22 Jan 2001 18:53:18 -0600, Jan Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>While little MiG tries to impress with some brochure sites...
>
>MediaWave is deploying over 3,100 windows 2000 advanced servers all over
>europe to handle multimillions of simultaneous audio and video streams.
>
>Talk about demanding! Is there even a streaming server available for linux?
You mean besides RealVideo and Quicktime?
[deletia]
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Kernel space? Who gives a @#$%
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 20:23:55 -0500
Jan Johanson wrote:
>
> "Tim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:h9mh6tk6jajl34me0arbgqpk395ouacolu@news...
> > On 14 Jan 2001 21:04:13 -0600, "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > Notice the troll drops a big steamy one and then is nowhere to be
> > heard when people follow-up to his article.
> >
>
> Unlike linux geeks - I have a social life and a paying job - hence, I do not
I have a VERY high paying job and an INTERNATIONAL social life.
And guess what...I prefer Unix and Linux over Mafia$oft LoseDOS any day.
> spend my entire being living for newsgroup posts - or worse, living
> vicariously through other people's posts...
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
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] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Loki has trouble playiong their own games under Linux!!!!!
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 01:26:06 GMT
In article <94g2vs$bmb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 Jan 2001 21:09:35 GMT, Jim Broughton
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>> Why are you here?
>
>> To counter the ridiculous propaganda that masquerades as fact around
>> here concerning Linux as a viable desktop solution.
>
>Yet it continues to be a viable desktop solution for me and many,
>many others.
>
It's not only viable but in the Marketplace it's kicking Windows
ass everywhere. This accounts for the extremely slow sales of
W2k.
>Your problem claire, is that youre very, very stupid. You mistakenly
>thought that since alot of people enjoy linux and find it useful, you
>somehow would be able to grow half a brain and understand it.
>
According to the flatbrain, he's invested in Microsoft heavily and
doesn't want to see his retirement go down the tubes.
>When you found that you couldnt understand the way linux works at all,
>instead of simply saying (correctly) "I'm an idiot, this operating
>system for intelligent people simply isnt for me", you had to come
>in here with a full frontal attack.
>
No. He's correctly determined that Linux is a serious threat to
his retirement plan so he's decided to attack Linux and attempt
to defame it so that he can preserve his retirement income.
This is kind of like those commercials where dad gives his 12 year
old son a copy of the Classifieds and announces to his son that
it's time he goes to work as his mom and him are about to retire.
>Accept your idiocy, claire. You'll be much happier in the long run.
>
It's difficult to accept being sent to a soup kitchen but, hey,,,
there are winners and loosers everyday and Flatbrain is definitely
a looser. He's a winmodem of a person.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Russ Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 01:28:53 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 05:22:04 GMT, Russ Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >I recently opened an new account with earthlink. After placing the
> >order, I waited for an hour, edited a kppp script, logged in and was up
> >and running within 1 minute. Today I got the package earthlink sends out
> >to all new users. It includes a CD and "Quick Start" guide. The last
> >line of the instructions for 95/98/Me is to reboot the computer.
> >
> >So much for MS operating systems being easier to use than Linux.
>
> If you were a Windows user you could drop the CD in the drive and it
> would do everything for you and allow you to use features that their
> software provides that you can't use.
>
> I hope you at least got your free Digital Camera :)
>
> Flatfish
> Why do they call it a flatfish?
> Remove the ++++ to reply.
It took 4 days for the CD to show up. I had already been up and running
for *FOUR* days with Linux.
The first instruction in the Quick Start guide was " 1. Insert the CD
into your computer's CD-ROM drive. The **** installer should begin
running immediately." Guess what. My system isn't configured for autorun
on the CD. What do you do if that is true of your system? Nary a hint. A
naive user would be stuck at that point.
Note that this only gets me logged into my "personalized start page".
Nothing else. I can imagine that the isp isn't too happy with people
running Linux. They don't visit the "personalized start page" and
therefore don't accumulate hits for the advertisers and are slightly
more trouble to track as they surf.
No free Digital Camera yet.
--
Russ
<http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
Not powered by ActiveX
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Multiple standards don't constitute choice
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 01:33:40 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 22 Jan 2001 21:23:58
>Bob Hauck wrote:
>
>> Fine, I'll accept that. But it is still a small thing. You easily
>> figured out how to use each of the various dialog styles. My argument
>> is that other users are just as smart as you in this respect and you are
>> blowing this issue out of proportion. Yes, it might be nice if the
>> various toolkits were more consistent. No, I don't see this as a huge
>> problem.
>>
>> It is far more important to have toolkits will modern features than it
>> is to have only one such toolkit, IMO.
>
>OK fair enough I'll have to hope the modern desktops will all start to
>converge on a commen set of features, and that things get rewritten to use
>these new styles.
Meanwhile, more "new styles" are going to be developed, most starting
out as "innovations" that make one method slightly different the others.
Facing the chaos of a real market, your knees buckle and you wish, just
for a moment, for the assured security of One Microsoft Way. Take a
deep breath, and repeat after me, "Free markets work. Free markets
work. Free markets work." They really do.
Will some people be confused by something when using computers? Does
that question even need to be answered? That doesn't make one single
way of doing things (as if that ever really described the hopeless pile
of crudware known as "Windows") better, or even less confusing.
>> No, I am not. It is a bad analogy. Even _if_ there are differences in
>> user productivity between toolkit A and toolkit B, they are not very
>> great. A user can easily figure out what's going on in literally seconds.
>>
>> This is not at all the same as cars being matched to their type of gas.
>
>It seemed like it to me, but I won't labour the point any further.
I think the difference in the analogies is the presumption that with
color-coded gasoline, the consumer is automatically and necessarily
aware of the difference. The operative problem that people generally
consider when talking about two different common dialogs is that the
immediate visual impression, that of a common dialog, is *not* enough to
automatically recognize the actual distinctions, involving often
'intuitive' and subtle differences in mechanics. I know that having
separate text widgets for the directory/filter and the file
specification is very confusing in Unix, and having to constantly
ascertain whether the dialog that just popped up is "one of these" or
"one of those" is a general concern.
But only for people producing software, as they desperately want their
customers to not have difficulty using their product. So one way or the
other, the situation will probably be resolved. If its resolved
correctly, it will be in a way that allows the 'problem' of multiple
ways of doing things to continue while the confusion is minimized.
>> >Take a good look at the different styles of file open/save dialog between
>> >MOTIF, Gtk and Qt. They are very different, they work in different ways.
>>
>> So? Does this hinder anyone's productivity? Is it really a _problem_
>> or is it more of a _preference_?
>
>Well, I find it annoying. So maybe it is a preference on my part. I'll
>leave it at that.
A little bit of both, I would think. Still, far less of a quibble than
what people are, frankly, used to on Windows, though they don't notice
it hardly at all. Or maybe they just trivialize it, just as Linux folks
are want to do.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: Russ Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 01:34:46 GMT
Jan Johanson wrote:
>
> It took you a full minute?
>
> takes half that long with windows and no reboot is required for W2K (you
> xposted to a NT advocacy forum, not win9x)
>
> "Russ Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > I recently opened an new account with earthlink. After placing the
> > order, I waited for an hour, edited a kppp script, logged in and was up
> > and running within 1 minute. Today I got the package earthlink sends out
> > to all new users. It includes a CD and "Quick Start" guide. The last
> > line of the instructions for 95/98/Me is to reboot the computer.
> >
> > So much for MS operating systems being easier to use than Linux.
> > --
> > Russ
> > <http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
> > Not powered by ActiveX
Real kicker, that I forgot to mention, is that NT and W2K aren't even
supported. If you call them they have a help option for NT, but not W2k.
It gets lumped into "other Operating systems, estimated time of wait is
63 minutes". I only had to hold for 21 minutes for NT.
--
Russ
<http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
Not powered by ActiveX
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
