Hi all,
On Monday, November 01, 1999, 12:12:57 PM (-5 GMT), Steve scribbled:
>> The Desktop environments KDE and Gnome are significantly driven by this open
>> market. This is where most of the funding is coming from isn't it?
> What funding? Both projects were started and are heavily developed for
> nothing. Let me put it this way, If all the corporations in the world dropped
> support for Linux this instant, development would continue as it is now. I
> know this because Linux, while the media's current Open Source baby, had
> development before the attention. Other projects outside the big two (Linux
> and Apache) still get development. FreeBSD, OpenBSD, BSDi (for OSs), mutt,
> slang, slrn, joe, vim, emacs, etc, etc, etc... All of those were developed
> before the media and market attention and will be developed if such attention
> were dropped. I don't see "funding" anywhere in there at all.
Well, there have been OSS skeptics who state that OSS will not become
dominant because programmers need to put food on the table and
therefore wish monetary rewards for their efforts. Many OSS
programmers chimed in at that point to say that they get paid to
develop OSS. That's the funding I'm speaking about. If this type of
funding doesn't in anyway apply to GNOME and KDE development, then I
stand corrected.
>> I think they already know that. This is why when they see the popup
>> box in win98 that says, "this program has performed an illegal action
>> ...blah blah", they jump back wondering what they were doing wrong. :)
> Well, that is Windows, isn't it. Go ahead, guess how many times I see
> that with Linux. ;)
Exactly. It's windows. It's therefore not the users fault when that
frustrating crash occurs. :)
> As I said, ever notice how the "easier" they get, the more training they
> require? Quotes around the easier denote mockery or ironic intent in case
> you're not familiar with that bit of online notation.
Yes, I know what you meant and I agree.
> It is not hard.
I didn't mean very hard in the sense you interpreted. I meant it from
the point of view that you have to actively seek these apps out. You
won't see banner adds about them in your computer store at the nearest
corner or see them shrink-wrapped on shelves. This is what I meant.
There are in fact a whole lot of specialized apps for windows if you
look.
> Just don't look on that particular OS. Also means people
> need to learn instead of just floating along. I posted my list of software in
> reply to someone else's list. The fun part with my list is that most of them
> are free (beer, mostly speech) programs which work quite well.
I always try the free apps first, but I only use a few for windows. I
always tend to find a shareware app, similarly specialized that I
prefer, either in terms of superior functionality or just better
polish.
>> This is why the secretary has her hands full learning Word and
>> PowerPoint much less having Bash imposed on her as well.
> I'd wager that if they weren't imposed with Word and PowerPoint that the
> grand total with Bash would be less. :P
They still need to do their wordprocessing and make slides for their
boss's next presentation after learning Bash. :)
>> Incorrect. But I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. They just
>> don't expect to have to learn what *you* expect them to.
> *snort* Uhm, no. The statements that followed that one bore out the
> truth.
>>> Just look at the number of computer stores that boast that you
>>> can take their computer home, plug it in and turn it on. Viola', it
>>> works!
>> But it does just that doesn't it?
> Apparently not. You just spend 4-5 paragraphs complaining on how
> computers don't work.
I never complain that they don't work. A computer that doesn't work,
to me, is totally non-functional. I, however, do claim that computers
often don't work as expected, especially since we interact with our
computers with an OS, that is written by imperfect humans and hence is
prone to unexpected errors. This is what bugs are about.
Take for example, I decided to send one of my e-mail messages as a fax
today from The Bat!. When I printed to Fax, nothing happened. I hadn't
sent a fax in a long time but the last time I did, it had worked
flawlessly. I looked around and my fax program claimed that I didn't
have a modem configured. Hmmm <shrug> I then reconfigured it which was
problematic as well, but I did it with not much pain and sent the fax.
I lost about 15 minutes there. Was I to blame for that mishap. Was I
inept?
>> Well, a lot buy them to take them home to have fun from the very
>> start. That's the misconception.
> As I said, they want to use it with no training. They pick up the hammer,
> swing it, and when they clock themselves in the head, blame the hammer.
Funny, in my limited experience, since I did not professionally do
tech support, I have helped many who ask for help because something
will not work and they always ask what is it that they're doing wrong.
Admittedly, I do hang around and have friends who are well educated so
my impressions may be different. It may be a cultural thing as someone
else suggested here earlier.
--
Regards,
-=Ali=-
>>> IBM: In Being Mended <<<
*---------------------------------------------------------------*
Running The Bat! v1.36 in Windows NT 4.0 (Service Pack 5)
*---------------------------------------------------------------*
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team click here:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, click below and send the generated message.
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--------------------------------------------------------------
