XP could sink Microsoft
Donn Miller
major $$$ to develop this thing. Customers are wary of this whole
product activation thingie. Also, MS is more concerned about their
revenue streams than they are about the consumer. What about all the
customers who have faithfully invested time and $$$ in
buying/using/learning to use Microsoft software? Is this how MS treats
them?
This is a great opportunity for alternative operating systems to
intercept the ball, and run it back for a touchdown.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Matthew Gardiner
"Donn Miller" <dmmi...@cvzoom.net> wrote in message
news:3BD92323...@cvzoom.net...
> Just think, consumers are not sold on XP, and Microsoft shelled out some
> major $$$ to develop this thing. Customers are wary of this whole
> product activation thingie. Also, MS is more concerned about their
> revenue streams than they are about the consumer. What about all the
> customers who have faithfully invested time and $$$ in
> buying/using/learning to use Microsoft software? Is this how MS treats
> them?
>
> This is a great opportunity for alternative operating systems to
> intercept the ball, and run it back for a touchdown.
Thats what I have been saying for 5 years. Consumers are tired, they want
something new and more exciting. Selling the same type of product with
slight re-iterations is not a long term stratergy. Could you imagine
televisions that stayed the same size/features, and each release, faults
were fixed. Yes, people would get board rather quickly.
Matthew Gardiner
Matthew Gardiner
steve@nospam
I think it is the activation license who will sink MS.
This is my real exp. of that happened to me.
I install VISIO 2000 on drive C:\
Was running out of disk space, so I move the application to another
drive, to D:\.
guess what, when I tried to start VISIO again, it somehow found it was moved,
and asked that I reactive the software and will not run up again.
Lucky for me, I was able to find the CD somewhere between my mess after
30 minutes looking around.
Imagine if I was on a trip or business meeting and this happened.
From now on, if you plan to use MS software, make sure everywhere
you go, you carry all the original CD's with you, all 100's of them for
all your MS software, in the train, airport, taxi, trips, everywhere.
This is what will bring MS down. You buy the software, but you can only
install it and use it once. Any changes you make, you need the original
CD with you all the time. You can't even install the program on another
PC without reactivation.
thanks GOD for GNU/Linux, at least the world have an alternative. Even
MAC OSX looks good now compared to this.
Sundial Services
(a) Buy the teams.
(b) Buy the stadium.
(c) Have a "conference" with the players.
(d) Inform all the fans they cannot leave the stadium.
(e) Educate the fans: "no, you actually LOVE this."
(f) If they don't go for it, turn out the lights.
Things get ugly when you never pay dividends (so you have billions in
cash .. payola) and you [think you] have no competitors left.
[quote]
"What? The fans? Oh, what ABOUT the fans?" ...
[/quote]
chrisv
>Just think, consumers are not sold on XP, and Microsoft shelled out some
>major $$$ to develop this thing. Customers are wary of this whole
>product activation thingie. Also, MS is more concerned about their
>revenue streams than they are about the consumer. What about all the
>customers who have faithfully invested time and $$$ in
>buying/using/learning to use Microsoft software? Is this how MS treats
>them?
>
>This is a great opportunity for alternative operating systems to
>intercept the ball, and run it back for a touchdown.
Unlikely. EVERY pre-built PC will come with XP, like it or not. That
alone is a fair number of sales, you know....
Joe The Aroma
Well, I think the flaw in your thinking (and the Linux community) is
your belief that people will find learning a new OS "exciting". Only us
nutcases find learning a new OS "exciting", people learn an OS only
because they need to operate the computer. Show me an OS or Linux distro
that's easier to learn than Windows and I'll show you a fallen star
(MS's profits to be more precise).
Sundial Services
be.
A good operating system should be unobtrusive: it sits there and it
does its job well and nobody pays attention to it. Microsoft did an
excellent job of that, and justly deserves credit for that. So did
Apple, who IMHO did an even better job.
Right now, computer manufacturers sign contracts to pre-load "anything
Microsoft wants to sell today" on their machines BECAUSE THEY DO NOT YET
HAVE AN EFFECTIVE ALTERNATIVE.
Programmers, sharpen up your pencils. Try to write programs that make
yourselves obsolete. Go ahead and figure on selling and licensing your
solutions for money just like other people do... but make sure they
really are solutions to this vexing problem. Remember, money is not the
issue, it does not have to be "free." What is most important is that it
is not a "kit."
Right now, I think Red Hat is on to something. I think they in
particular are doing a lot of things right.
If we want to advocate Linux we're all going to have to do more than
advocate. We're gonna have to build tools.
And although it may sound like heresy, we ought to look closely at what
Microsoft has done. And it might be good to assume that they're
somewhere in their back rooms, doing it too. Remember, they had and
still have Xenix.
Joe The Aroma wrote:
Donn Miller
> I think you hit the nail, Joe. Linux is not there yet. But it could
> be.
It helps, also, if the user has some prior unix experience. Myself, I
have many years of experience using unix, mostly FreeBSD. I started out
with SunOS and DEC Ultrix back in '93. Back in '93, I took great joy in
sitting in front of a DECStation and SPARCstation IPX. (Those were
the models that were fairly recent back then.) There was something
about the simplicity and and awesomeness of the unix tools that really
turned me on to those types of machines. Back then, I was a newbie to
the 'nix world, much as many of you are in here.
Sundial Services
going to have to give ourselves the simple, easy-to-use tools that we
did not have back then. Furthermore, we're going to have present a
limited number of choices and present them so that a frazzled new user
can't miss them.
The goal is to render the Linux "nerd" obsolete. Of course that will
never happen and that's not the point. It's merely an easy way to
articulate the goal.
Donn Miller
> Yes, ditto. Now, if we are to get universal acceptance of Linux, we're
> going to have to give ourselves the simple, easy-to-use tools that we
> did not have back then. Furthermore, we're going to have present a
> limited number of choices and present them so that a frazzled new user
> can't miss them.
Well, at least Linux has flexibility that Windoze doesn't have. For
example, you're pretty much stuck with Explorer as the desktop in
Windoze, whereas in Linux, you can use whatever window manager and/or
desktop you please. It's really nice to be able to customize your box
to your tastes. It's a lot less user friendly, but more flexible.
rom@-
>
>
>The goal is to render the Linux "nerd" obsolete. Of course that will
>never happen and that's not the point. It's merely an easy way to
>articulate the goal.
as well for the newbie who want the most simply system to use.
You can have a system both powerfull, and very simple at the same time.
The Unix user can always go to bash and do what they want, the others can
use KDE or GNOME and use the point and click.
With Linux you can have the choice of either mode. With windows you have
no such choice.
Donn Miller
> You can have a system both powerfull, and very simple at the same time.
> The Unix user can always go to bash and do what they want, the others can
> use KDE or GNOME and use the point and click.
>
> With Linux you can have the choice of either mode. With windows you have
> no such choice.
Or, you can use bash inside a konsole window. Remember, underneath it's
still a command-line system. It's great for all users.
Mark Kent
Now what makes you think that windows is easy to learn? (I don't include
Microsoft's own spin as reasonable evidence here).
--
Mark Kent
Take out the ham to mail me.
Joe The Aroma
I didn't say it was easier to use, just easier to learn. I should
rectify what I said... it's harder to learn if you do not have a
sysadmin you can run to at home. Windows is easier perhaps because it's
use is so widespread.
Joe The Aroma
>
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2001 07:23:18 -0700, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> (Sundial Services <info...@sundialservices.com>) wrote:
>
> >I think you hit the nail, Joe. Linux is not there yet. But it could
> >be.
> >
> >A good operating system should be unobtrusive: it sits there and it
> >does its job well and nobody pays attention to it.
>
> sit in the background.
>
> >Microsoft did an
> >excellent job of that,
>
> obstructive OS I've ever had the displeasure to use. You can't work for 5
> seconds without some dialogue box popping up, or some error message or some
> crash. And as for installing software, could they make it any more tedious?
> How many "next" boxes is it necessary to click? With Linux, you just type
> the command and off it goes.
>
> Windows seems to want you to be doing anything but what you want to be
> doing.
>
> >Right now, computer manufacturers sign contracts to pre-load "anything
> >Microsoft wants to sell today" on their machines BECAUSE THEY DO NOT YET
> >HAVE AN EFFECTIVE ALTERNATIVE.
>
>
> >Programmers, sharpen up your pencils. Try to write programs that make
> >yourselves obsolete.
>
> all the time.
>
> >And although it may sound like heresy, we ought to look closely at what
> >Microsoft has done.
>
> be extremely difficult to migrate?
I thought you loved Windows?
Mark Kent
>Sundial Services wrote:
>
>> Yes, ditto. Now, if we are to get universal acceptance of Linux, we're
>> going to have to give ourselves the simple, easy-to-use tools that we
>> did not have back then. Furthermore, we're going to have present a
>> limited number of choices and present them so that a frazzled new user
>> can't miss them.
>
>Well, at least Linux has flexibility that Windoze doesn't have. For
>example, you're pretty much stuck with Explorer as the desktop in
>Windoze, whereas in Linux, you can use whatever window manager and/or
>desktop you please. It's really nice to be able to customize your box
>to your tastes. It's a lot less user friendly, but more flexible.
>
How is it less user friendly?
Mark Kent
>Yes, ditto. Now, if we are to get universal acceptance of Linux, we're
>going to have to give ourselves the simple, easy-to-use tools that we
>did not have back then. Furthermore, we're going to have present a
>limited number of choices and present them so that a frazzled new user
>can't miss them.
Here we go again... a limited number of choices is *not* the right
thing to give to a new user. The right thing to give to a new user
is the full set of choices, and appropriate training, guidance and
information such as is required. Presenting a newbie with a crippled
install of some kind is no way to treat anyone!
Donn Miller
It's a matter of perspective. People who've used Windoze for any length
of time are conditioned to all the desktop clutter, such as taskbars,
lack of a CL, etc. So, in that sense, it is less user-friendly. There
is a saying that unix in general, and not just Linux, /is/
user-friendly, but it's just picky as to who its friends are.
Joe User
Joe The Aroma <schiz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3BD969F7...@yahoo.com...
> Well, I think the flaw in your thinking (and the Linux community) is
> your belief that people will find learning a new OS "exciting". Only us
> nutcases find learning a new OS "exciting", people learn an OS only
> because they need to operate the computer. Show me an OS or Linux distro
> that's easier to learn than Windows and I'll show you a fallen star
> (MS's profits to be more precise).
Well, I think the flaw in YOUR thinking is your assumption that the normal
laws of supply and demand are at work here. They're not. Macintosh OSes
have *always* been easier and more robust than Windows, yet MS's profits
have never resembled a falling star.
"Supply and Demand" doesn't work in a monopolized market. Linux is already
far easier to install than any version of Windows, but that doesn't matter
because nobody installs Windows on a blank system -- Microsoft (through
their partners, the OEMs) installs it for them. A well-tuned Linux system
with good hardware and all the proper drivers is as easy for a newcomer to
learn as Windows is, and Linux has the added benefits of being more reliable
and more secure. But that doesn't matter, either, largely because Windows
comes pre-installed on all new machines, but to get that well-tuned Linux
machine you have to do it yourself, and that's not always easy.
The monopoly has advantages which are unbeatable if the monopoly is ruthless
enough. And of course, every monopoly has always been ruthless enough. I
think the only thing that can rectify matters is law enforcement, but I'd
love for Linux to somehow prove me wrong about that.
--
Joe User
Matthew Gardiner
No, each Linux release gets better with new ideas, or old ideas, but
implemented better, aka, online updates.
JTA, you are slowly running out of excuses. Resistance is futile, you will
be assimilated.
Matthew Gardiner
--
Windows goes down quicker than a $2 whore in the Whitehouse.
Edward Rosten
> rectify what I said... it's harder to learn if you do not have a
> sysadmin you can run to at home. Windows is easier perhaps because it's
> use is so widespread.
If you believe windows is easy to learn, you've not tried to teach a real
newbie.
I remember teaching my mym how to use BBC to get some work done years
and years ago.
I also remember teaching her how to use windows a couple of years ago
when she got a PC at home.
Teaching about the BBC required a lot less work. I don't know if
keyboards are more intuivive than mice or icons, but everyone can figure
out how to use them (everyone of that generation has seen and used a
typewriter). It's also more obvious what can be pressed or not, though :-)
OTHO, trying to teach someone who is completely unfamiliar with GUIs in
general the principles of a GUI is actually not trivial.
I think most people never really learn how to use windows. They kind of
struggle through since they are able to start word and print letters.
Hell, I think that most people never bother with directories. Oh, yeah
and calling them folders never made it any easier.
Also as for `easy to learn', why do so many systems that require little
training to use (shop terminals, etc) around here use either dumb
terminals or windows running telnet?
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
/d{def}def/f{/Times findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5/m
{moveto}d -1 r 230 350 m 0 1 179{1 index show 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}
for /s 15 d f pop 240 420 m 0 1 3 { 4 2 1 r sub -1 r show } for showpage
Spicerun
> Linux is not there yet. But it could be.
You know, this rant of yours is getting really old!!! So when is Linux
there yet? When it emulates Windows? If you believe that, then you're
not any better than the Wintrolls on this group.....I don't know why you
can't grasp that MS is irrelevant to Linux (I've read that Linus himself
has said many times in various interviews). I think you'll find myself
and many people run Linux because we don't want to run Windows...AND
happen to like that Linux doesn't act at all like Windows. I think you
need to reevaluate that maybe it is Windows that isn't there yet.
Not ready indeed. I've been using Linux on my desktop for over 2 years
and it has worked so much better than Windows...I, quite frankly, don't
miss the old Windows behaviors...NOR do I want Windows behavior in my
Linux desktop.
By the way, the best test I've found for Linux's readiness is that I have
to kick my wife and daughter off my Linux machine to do my work...they
only use their Windows ME machine when they have to...(And, yes, soon I
will be replacing WindowsME with the latest version of Linux). Interesting
how they don't seem to have any problems with the way Linux works isn't
it. BTW, they sure don't miss the Windows lockups and reboots.
AND I will quit bashing M$ when they quit bashing everything not
controlled by B. Gates.
> A good operating system should be unobtrusive: it sits there and it
> does its job well and nobody pays attention to it. Microsoft did an
> excellent job of that, and justly deserves credit for that.
Here you are wrong....Microsoft's system is very obtrusive. Don't believe
me? Just copy an entire program directory to another directory, then go
away for coffee. Guess what? You'll come back and find it didn't copy
because Windows noticed you are copying an *.exe file and just had to ask
if you really meant it! That is NOT being unobtrusive. Linux, OTOH, will
copy that directory without problems, or any excuse to hold up.
Try to install some Windows programs and you get asked no less than 3
times (after you endure the installation program installing itself) if you
really meant to get started. Nothing unobtrusive about that <Sarcasm>!
=====
I have had enough of your Operating 101 ramblings and how Linux should
emulate Windows. After reading rehashed postings over and over, I just
can't take you seriously anymore. Why don't you come back when you learn
about OS behaviors other than Windows?
You are BOZOied! *Plonk*
D. C. Sessions
> I think most people never really learn how to use windows. They kind of
> struggle through since they are able to start word and print letters.
> Hell, I think that most people never bother with directories. Oh, yeah
> and calling them folders never made it any easier.
Spend a day looking over the shoulder of a typical Windows user
and you'll have this proven to you. My AA, a bright woman without
whom I might even consider leaving the Company, has memorized
a handful of routines for getting things done. I once showed her
a shortcut that saved four steps out of a six-step process, and she
was amazed. Yet the shortcut was just a matter of using a menu
entry that was there all along.
We're proving Clarke's Law every day: people are back to ritual
incantations.
--
| I'm old enough that I don't have to pretend to be grown up.|
+----------- D. C. Sessions <d...@lumbercartel.com> ----------+
Jem Berkes
> major $$$ to develop this thing. Customers are wary of this whole
> product activation thingie. Also, MS is more concerned about their
> revenue streams than they are about the consumer. What about all the
> customers who have faithfully invested time and $$$ in
> buying/using/learning to use Microsoft software? Is this how MS treats
> them?
>
I agree in part. I think that Windows XP, plus .NET (dot Net) together are
going to hurt Microsoft.
I think it comes down to: Microsoft has overstepped their bounds. They are
becoming very controlling, with XP's licensing issues plus the bizarre
software deployment techniques in .NET.
I currently develop Windows software too, but now I am seriously rethinking
this all.
--
http://www.pc-tools.net/
DOS, Win32, Linux software
Roy Culley
Donn Miller <dmmi...@cvzoom.net> writes:
>
>
> Mark Kent wrote:
>>
>> In article <3BD9A461...@cvzoom.net>, Donn Miller wrote:
>> >Sundial Services wrote:
>> >
>> >> Yes, ditto. Now, if we are to get universal acceptance of Linux, we're
>> >> going to have to give ourselves the simple, easy-to-use tools that we
>> >> did not have back then. Furthermore, we're going to have present a
>> >> limited number of choices and present them so that a frazzled new user
>> >> can't miss them.
>> >
>> >Well, at least Linux has flexibility that Windoze doesn't have. For
>> >example, you're pretty much stuck with Explorer as the desktop in
>> >Windoze, whereas in Linux, you can use whatever window manager and/or
>> >desktop you please. It's really nice to be able to customize your box
>> >to your tastes. It's a lot less user friendly, but more flexible.
>> >
>>
>> How is it less user friendly?
>
> It's a matter of perspective. People who've used Windoze for any length
> of time are conditioned to all the desktop clutter, such as taskbars,
> lack of a CL, etc. So, in that sense, it is less user-friendly. There
> is a saying that unix in general, and not just Linux, /is/
> user-friendly, but it's just picky as to who its friends are.
I always enjoy reading that quote. As for user friendliness in general,
I know you can configure a Linux desktop such that people used to
Windows find it easy. My kids get to use Windows at school. I will
have no MS SW in my house so only Linux here. I gave them the choice of
kde or gnome. They chose kde. They mainly use staroffice and konquerer.
They have no problems using Linux. They don't need the CLI and never
see it.
--
Erik Funkenbusch, Microsoft apologist and proven liar wrote:
RMS threatened to deny TT use of GPL software if they didn't honor the
GPL license that KDE group put on their software.
Mark Kent
Free software is all about freedom, of course, one of those freedoms
is certainly choice.
GreyCloud
Exactly! That's why I prefer to use CDE so my desktop is as far away
from the M$ look as possible.
GreyCloud
That is the conclusion I came to when I heard of M$ thinking about
license fees. It's only going to get worse and more costly.
Joe The Aroma
>I don't know why you
> can't grasp that MS is irrelevant to Linux (I've read that Linus himself
> has said many times in various interviews). I think you'll find myself
> and many people run Linux because we don't want to run Windows...AND
> happen to like that Linux doesn't act at all like Windows.
<blah blah blah>
If MS & Windows is so unimportant to Linux, why are 1/2 the articles in
this NG about Windows and don't even mention Linux?
Ed Allen
D. C. Sessions <d...@lumbercartel.com> wrote:
>In <9redqa$8es$1...@s1.uklinux.net> Edward Rosten posted:
>
>> I think most people never really learn how to use windows. They kind of
>> struggle through since they are able to start word and print letters.
>> Hell, I think that most people never bother with directories. Oh, yeah
>> and calling them folders never made it any easier.
>
>Spend a day looking over the shoulder of a typical Windows user
>and you'll have this proven to you. My AA, a bright woman without
>whom I might even consider leaving the Company, has memorized
>a handful of routines for getting things done. I once showed her
>a shortcut that saved four steps out of a six-step process, and she
>was amazed. Yet the shortcut was just a matter of using a menu
>entry that was there all along.
>
>We're proving Clarke's Law every day: people are back to ritual
>incantations.
>
able to work in this release.
Recipes come and go over time.
Learning in Linux is about cooking and how to create new recipes
to fit your needs.
Actually doing the task is about as hard either way. Learning the
principles in Linux takes a little longer but will stay with you
forever.
So the payback for learning in Linux is much greater.
Charlie Ebert
Because the other 1/2 of the articles are from paid MS coorespondents
who trash out Linux.
We find the typical user can just install Linux and advocate himself
into the system for FREE.
You can't say the same of Windows.
You can't just grab Windows down off the net.
--
Charlie
Bill
"Charlie Ebert" <kd...@charlie.ebertlan.org> wrote in message
news:slrn9tmpn3...@charlie.ebertlan.org...
> On Sat, 27 Oct 2001 19:53:11 GMT, Joe The Aroma <schiz...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> >Spicerun wrote:
> >>I don't know why you
> >> can't grasp that MS is irrelevant to Linux (I've read that Linus
himself
> >> has said many times in various interviews). I think you'll find myself
> >> and many people run Linux because we don't want to run Windows...AND
> >> happen to like that Linux doesn't act at all like Windows.
> >
> ><blah blah blah>
> >
> >If MS & Windows is so unimportant to Linux, why are 1/2 the articles in
> >this NG about Windows and don't even mention Linux?
>
> Because the other 1/2 of the articles are from paid MS coorespondents
> who trash out Linux.
hahaha, another conspiracy nut!
They are coming to take me away, away, unhuh! :)
B
Bill
"Ed Allen" <eal...@allenhome.kc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:nr2fr9...@allenhome.kc.rr.com...
That's pure bullshit! We are talking about computer OS's here not anything
important.
B
>
Joe the Aroma
> I think you hit the nail, Joe. Linux is not there yet. But it could
> be.
> A good operating system should be unobtrusive: it sits there and it
> does its job well and nobody pays attention to it. Microsoft did an
> excellent job of that, and justly deserves credit for that. So did
> Apple, who IMHO did an even better job.
> Right now, computer manufacturers sign contracts to pre-load "anything
> Microsoft wants to sell today" on their machines BECAUSE THEY DO NOT YET
> HAVE AN EFFECTIVE ALTERNATIVE.
> Programmers, sharpen up your pencils. Try to write programs that make
> yourselves obsolete. Go ahead and figure on selling and licensing your
> solutions for money just like other people do... but make sure they
> really are solutions to this vexing problem. Remember, money is not the
> issue, it does not have to be "free." What is most important is that it
> is not a "kit."
> Right now, I think Red Hat is on to something. I think they in
> particular are doing a lot of things right.
> If we want to advocate Linux we're all going to have to do more than
> advocate. We're gonna have to build tools.
> And although it may sound like heresy, we ought to look closely at what
> Microsoft has done. And it might be good to assume that they're
> somewhere in their back rooms, doing it too. Remember, they had and
> still have Xenix.
They still have Xenix?? I thought they sold it to SCO (who then built their com-
any on it) back in the 80's?
T. Max Devlin
>D. C. Sessions <d...@lumbercartel.com> wrote:
>>In <9redqa$8es$1...@s1.uklinux.net> Edward Rosten posted:
>>
>>> I think most people never really learn how to use windows. They kind of
>>> struggle through since they are able to start word and print letters.
>>> Hell, I think that most people never bother with directories. Oh, yeah
>>> and calling them folders never made it any easier.
>>
>>Spend a day looking over the shoulder of a typical Windows user
>>and you'll have this proven to you. My AA, a bright woman without
>>whom I might even consider leaving the Company, has memorized
>>a handful of routines for getting things done. I once showed her
>>a shortcut that saved four steps out of a six-step process, and she
>>was amazed. Yet the shortcut was just a matter of using a menu
>>entry that was there all along.
>>
>>We're proving Clarke's Law every day: people are back to ritual
>>incantations.
I call it Clarke's Conjecture, and what it means is that the observation
of memorization does not indicate 'people are back to ritual', but
rather that the science is not sufficiently advanced. ;-)
> Learning in Windows is about learning the recipes which are
> able to work in this release.
>
> Recipes come and go over time.
>
> Learning in Linux is about cooking and how to create new recipes
> to fit your needs.
>
> Actually doing the task is about as hard either way. Learning the
> principles in Linux takes a little longer but will stay with you
> forever.
>
> So the payback for learning in Linux is much greater.
Why?
Which is to say that by that question I hope to spark a long involved
discussion based on your analogy, because I think your conclusion is
flawed, but I'm not going to tell you why until you explain why you
think it is valid. Let me make sure you know something about my
approach to the metaphor: I'm too lazy to even use a recipe, and would
prefer automagical per-portion presentation at will. I can understand
the value of learning to cook over simply following recipes, but you
see, cooking is not only cooking if you 'create new recipes', and
considering I have no interest in cooking, figuring out new ways to cook
is right out.
Still, I like your analogy, and would use it. But your conclusion, I
will insist, has got to go. So... Why?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Terry Porter
>On Fri, 26 Oct 2001 09:23:18 -0500, Sundial Services wrote:
>
>> Linux is not there yet. But it could be.
>I have had enough of your Operating 101 ramblings and how Linux should
>emulate Windows. After reading rehashed postings over and over, I just
>can't take you seriously anymore. Why don't you come back when you learn
>about OS behaviors other than Windows?
>
>You are BOZOied! *Plonk*
You're not alone Spicerun, I too have been having second thoughts about
the movivation behind the posts of "Sundial Services".
--
Kind Regards from Terry
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
Free Micro Burner http://w3w.arafuraconnect.com.au/~tp/burn.html
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
Donn Miller
> I agree in part. I think that Windows XP, plus .NET (dot Net) together are
> going to hurt Microsoft.
>
> I think it comes down to: Microsoft has overstepped their bounds. They are
> becoming very controlling, with XP's licensing issues plus the bizarre
> software deployment techniques in .NET.
>
> I currently develop Windows software too, but now I am seriously rethinking
> this all.
We need some sort of scientific study. Let's take some typical Windows
users, put them in front of a set of Linux boxes that have several
different configurations. Take a note of each configuration, followed
by the users' reactions. You can, of course, mix different elements to
make up your own desktop. For example, put a customized Window Maker
configuration on one, and have a stock KDE on WS #2, a /customized/ KDE
desktop on WS #3, etc. Use the ratings to tailor-make a desktop system
that can appeal to the masses. The Linux community can make use of
typical studies to determine which apps can be utilized by the masses.
Donn Miller
> On Sat, 27 Oct 2001 18:40:19 +0100,
> ma...@NOHAM.otford.kent.btinternet.co.uk (Mark Kent) wrote:
>>Free software is all about freedom, of course, one of those freedoms
>>is certainly choice.
>>
>
> I have no problem with that.
Actually, you seem to have a problem with that, as you always seem to
chose unsupported hardware just to complain that Linux doesn't work with
your HW.
Ed Allen
T. Max Devlin <tm...@commercelinks.net> wrote:
>Said Ed Allen in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 27 Oct 2001 20:01:11
>>In article <thmer9...@news.lumbercartel.com>,
>>D. C. Sessions <d...@lumbercartel.com> wrote:
>>>In <9redqa$8es$1...@s1.uklinux.net> Edward Rosten posted:
>>>
>>>> I think most people never really learn how to use windows. They kind of
>>>> struggle through since they are able to start word and print letters.
>>>> Hell, I think that most people never bother with directories. Oh, yeah
>>>> and calling them folders never made it any easier.
>>>
>>>Spend a day looking over the shoulder of a typical Windows user
>>>and you'll have this proven to you. My AA, a bright woman without
>>>whom I might even consider leaving the Company, has memorized
>>>a handful of routines for getting things done. I once showed her
>>>a shortcut that saved four steps out of a six-step process, and she
>>>was amazed. Yet the shortcut was just a matter of using a menu
>>>entry that was there all along.
>>>
>>>We're proving Clarke's Law every day: people are back to ritual
>>>incantations.
>
>I call it Clarke's Conjecture, and what it means is that the observation
>of memorization does not indicate 'people are back to ritual', but
>rather that the science is not sufficiently advanced. ;-)
>
monopolist to make sure that Redmond is the only trusted channel to
"those computer thingies".
That is why they deliberately redefine words and choose acronyms to
conflict with the ones used by people with experience in the
relevant industries.
Not just computing, they do the same thing with accounting and, I
assume, the travel and journalism spinoffs they control.
>> Learning in Windows is about learning the recipes which are
>> able to work in this release.
>>
>> Recipes come and go over time.
>>
>> Learning in Linux is about cooking and how to create new recipes
>> to fit your needs.
>>
>> Actually doing the task is about as hard either way. Learning the
>> principles in Linux takes a little longer but will stay with you
>> forever.
>>
>> So the payback for learning in Linux is much greater.
>
>Why?
>
>Which is to say that by that question I hope to spark a long involved
>discussion based on your analogy, because I think your conclusion is
>flawed, but I'm not going to tell you why until you explain why you
>think it is valid. Let me make sure you know something about my
>approach to the metaphor: I'm too lazy to even use a recipe, and would
>prefer automagical per-portion presentation at will. I can understand
>the value of learning to cook over simply following recipes, but you
>see, cooking is not only cooking if you 'create new recipes', and
>considering I have no interest in cooking, figuring out new ways to cook
>is right out.
>
>Still, I like your analogy, and would use it. But your conclusion, I
>will insist, has got to go. So... Why?
>
Everybody should remain as ignorant of everything that they can
get by with is never going to fly with me. Ignorance is not a sin
but intentional ignorance is stupid and can be fatal.
Windows is all 'ritual incantations' which are only valid for a
particular version.
The Unix/Linux learning which I am speaking of is mostly about the
way the pieces fit together into a coherent whole. How to analyse
a problem and map it to the realm of machines.
The science Clarke spoke of above refers to structured information
about how things operate and interact.
Not everyone needs to design cars but knowing a bit about the
principles which they use enables you to know what limits they
generally must operate within and how far they can be pushed in
an emergency.
Not all of us need to be mathematicians but understanding a bit
about the subject might help us figure out the height of that tree
in our yard.
Broad knowledge of the way things fit or don't fit together can lead
to reasonable behavior even in situation nobody has ever encountered
before.
The Linux learning I am speaking of is like science in that it teaches
not just the formulas and rules of thumb, the 'ritual incantations',
but the principles and philosophy of how this computer, network,
and Internet behave and affect each other which can lead to being
able to deal with situations beyond our personal experience.
Like handling all the routing through local interfaces and then
relying on a 'default route' to handle the ones you know nothing
about.
That reappears in 'sendmail' as the 'smart host' which is supposed
to either deliver it for you or pass it on to its own 'smart host'
to eventually find one which can route it on its way.
The post you made trying to convince Erik that remote connections
are always asynchronous made me realize again that not all of this
fits the experiences of everybody.
The Windows people and to some degree the Mac people have had the
reasoning for 'the way things are' hidden from them in the interest
of limiting their view of computing to what a single vendor thinks is
'good for them'.
I am aware that not every problem can efficiently and easily map to
the 'stream of bytes' philosophy but many, most I think, can.
What Erik sees as a 'failure of X' because it defaults to
connections which are network transparent I see as one of its
greatest conveniences.
Back when ethernet only came via thick cables, using automounting,
some custom scripts, and .rhost files I transformed a collection of
about thirty workstations and thirty two X terminals to appear as if
they were all parts of a single machine. I even distributed compile
jobs across several machines at once to speed the development cycle.
Before actually implementing that system I had only read about
the concepts. I reasoned out the pieces required as I went along.
I am aware that Unix/Linux also distorts and limits the view it
presents but I have not beat my head against the walls like I do
with Windows.
Enough rambling for now. Your point ?
--
The difference between GPL and BSD is the difference between "share"
and "give away". Sharing benefits both parties; giving away benefits
the receiver only.
Mark Kent
I'd be very surprised if it really were 1/2 - can you prove that assertion?
I doubt it. Wintrolls continuously raise the subject of windows and MS,
just as you did here, that's why it occurs here a lot. Couple that with
MS's monopoly, where if anyone wants to make a comparison with another
OS, it'll probably be the one in widest usage, which would be Win95/98/Me.
Mark Kent
I share your views on this... I like to call the linux is not user-friendly
quote, because it invariably becomes 'people are used to windows', which
is something that is easily handled through training. As you say, it's
possible to configure linux so it looks and handles amazingly like windows,
thus reducing levels of unfamiliarity, or to put it back into the form
of the original quote 'making it more user friendly'.
Edward Rosten
>> struggle through since they are able to start word and print letters.
>> Hell, I think that most people never bother with directories. Oh, yeah
>> and calling them folders never made it any easier.
>
> Spend a day looking over the shoulder of a typical Windows user
> and you'll have this proven to you. My AA, a bright woman without
> whom I might even consider leaving the Company, has memorized
> a handful of routines for getting things done. I once showed her
> a shortcut that saved four steps out of a six-step process, and she
> was amazed. Yet the shortcut was just a matter of using a menu
> entry that was there all along.
Yep. I do speak from experience of helping poeple with computer problems.
As soom as something even _slightly_ out of the ordinary occurs, people
have no idea wkat to do this shows...
> We're proving Clarke's Law every day: people are back to ritual
> incantations.
... . If you are mindlessly plugging away, if something odd happend, you
can't do anything about it.
Edward Rosten
>
> That's pure bullshit! We are talking about computer OS's here not anything
> important.
?
The computer is only as good as the OS.
T. Max Devlin
-0400, I heard Donn Miller say to
>Just think, consumers are not sold on XP, and Microsoft shelled out some
>major $$$ to develop this thing. Customers are wary of this whole
>product activation thingie. Also, MS is more concerned about their
>revenue streams than they are about the consumer. What about all the
>customers who have faithfully invested time and $$$ in
>buying/using/learning to use Microsoft software? Is this how MS treats
>them?
>
>intercept the ball, and run it back for a touchdown.
Yea, well, that would be true, if there were no reason to have outlawed
monopolization to begin with.
Let's put this into perspective. We all know how much of a 'todo'
occurred when 95 was launched, back when we were all a lot more naive
then we are now. 98's launch might have seemed more successful, and W2K
even, than XPs, but those mediocre results don't seem to have prevented
these being the de facto standard for all new PCs manufactured.
It doesn't matter if the customers are 'wary'. MS spent snot money on
developing the thing. It is thinging the developers that is where there
expenses are, and that isn't going to show up when the boxes hit the
shelves. It is going to be in six months or a year, when, like today,
you can only get new versions of software that require XP. But don't
worry, nobody will notice. Because they will already have XP, if they
bought a new PC.
Meanwhile, the industry grinds to a complete halt, because XP doesn't
just fail to sell itself. It fails to sell the products of thousands of
developers. And it fails to sell the hardware it is bolted to, as well.
There never has been a 'fiscal revolution' that just somehow overthrew a
monopoly. They've all been physical ones. So chances are the gov't
will act before any competitor can do more than struggle along until the
law is enforced. The problem is not that they are 'concerned about
their revenue stream'; that's what all businesses are supposed to do.
It is only the criminal ones for which it is incompatible with 'about
the consumer'.
T. Max Devlin
GMT, I heard Matthew Gardiner say to
>> major $$$ to develop this thing. Customers are wary of this whole
>> product activation thingie. Also, MS is more concerned about their
>> revenue streams than they are about the consumer. What about all the
>> customers who have faithfully invested time and $$$ in
>> buying/using/learning to use Microsoft software? Is this how MS treats
>> them?
>>
>> This is a great opportunity for alternative operating systems to
>> intercept the ball, and run it back for a touchdown.
>
>something new and more exciting. Selling the same type of product with
>slight re-iterations is not a long term stratergy. Could you imagine
>televisions that stayed the same size/features, and each release, faults
>were fixed. Yes, people would get board rather quickly.
You might want to reconsider your analogy, dude. ;-)
T. Max Devlin
GMT, I heard Joe The Aroma say to
>Matthew Gardiner wrote:
>> "Donn Miller" <dmmi...@cvzoom.net> wrote in message
>> news:3BD92323...@cvzoom.net...
>> > Just think, consumers are not sold on XP, and Microsoft shelled out some
>> > major $$$ to develop this thing. Customers are wary of this whole
>> > product activation thingie. Also, MS is more concerned about their
>> > revenue streams than they are about the consumer. What about all the
>> > customers who have faithfully invested time and $$$ in
>> > buying/using/learning to use Microsoft software? Is this how MS treats
>> > them?
>> >
>> > This is a great opportunity for alternative operating systems to
>> > intercept the ball, and run it back for a touchdown.
>>
>> Thats what I have been saying for 5 years. Consumers are tired, they want
>> something new and more exciting. Selling the same type of product with
>> slight re-iterations is not a long term stratergy. Could you imagine
>> televisions that stayed the same size/features, and each release, faults
>> were fixed. Yes, people would get board rather quickly.
>
>your belief that people will find learning a new OS "exciting".
Well, the flaw in your thinking is that it /is/ exciting. Not that you
could tell from experience with Windows. Nobody finds learning Windows
exciting, because it is never consistent enough that you can find the
gestalt.
>Only us
>nutcases find learning a new OS "exciting", people learn an OS only
>because they need to operate the computer.
No, they only learn applications for that reason. They learn an OS
because it makes the applications much easier to use and is more
convenient than learning hardware.
>Show me an OS or Linux distro
>that's easier to learn than Windows and I'll show you a fallen star
>(MS's profits to be more precise).
How about we go for sales, rather than profits? They are, after all, a
monopoly. Let's check XP retail figures. But then, I guess MS hasn't
released any yet, seeing as how big a flop it is. Meanwhile, Mandrake
is pretty popular as a Windows clone. You see, you don't have to learn
all that arcane underneath stuff, unless you want to, because the system
is stable and consistent regardless. No surprises but pleasant ones,
usually. This is what learning an OS is like, the first time. Unless
your first OS is Windows. There is some validity to the theory that
long term use of Windows may very well permanently impair your ability
to understand computers.
T. Max Devlin
-0700, I heard Sundial Services say to
>I think you hit the nail, Joe. Linux is not there yet. But it could
>be.
Will be, about twelve days after the Final Order, I'm willing to bet.
T. Max Devlin
-0700, I heard Sundial Services say to
>going to have to give ourselves the simple, easy-to-use tools that we
>did not have back then.
They will not be either simple or easy to use unless you give them away
to others, rather than give them to yourself. IOW, save that malarkey
for after it is feasible to make money selling something that ain't
Windows.
>Furthermore, we're going to have present a
>limited number of choices and present them so that a frazzled new user
>can't miss them.
Certainly, an unlimited number of choices is called for. You appear to
think that the entire Linux community should act like a single OEM. Fat
chance.
>The goal is to render the Linux "nerd" obsolete.
Nerds have been obsolete for years. Gurus are not optional, however,
whether you call them penguins or MSCEs.
>Of course that will
>never happen and that's not the point. It's merely an easy way to
>articulate the goal.
Perhaps, but it indicates that your goal is in error. Best not to
proceed until you know what you're doing.
T. Max Devlin
GMT, I heard Joe The Aroma say to
Because Linux is not unimportant to MS and Windows, that's why.
T. Max Devlin
GMT, I heard Joe The Aroma say to
>>
>> In article <3BD969F7...@yahoo.com>, Joe The Aroma wrote:
>> >Matthew Gardiner wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "Donn Miller" <dmmi...@cvzoom.net> wrote in message
>> >> news:3BD92323...@cvzoom.net...
>> >> > Just think, consumers are not sold on XP, and Microsoft shelled out some
>> >> > major $$$ to develop this thing. Customers are wary of this whole
>> >> > product activation thingie. Also, MS is more concerned about their
>> >> > revenue streams than they are about the consumer. What about all the
>> >> > customers who have faithfully invested time and $$$ in
>> >> > buying/using/learning to use Microsoft software? Is this how MS treats
>> >> > them?
>> >> >
>> >> > This is a great opportunity for alternative operating systems to
>> >> > intercept the ball, and run it back for a touchdown.
>> >>
>> >> Thats what I have been saying for 5 years. Consumers are tired, they want
>> >> something new and more exciting. Selling the same type of product with
>> >> slight re-iterations is not a long term stratergy. Could you imagine
>> >> televisions that stayed the same size/features, and each release, faults
>> >> were fixed. Yes, people would get board rather quickly.
>> >
>> >Well, I think the flaw in your thinking (and the Linux community) is
>> >nutcases find learning a new OS "exciting", people learn an OS only
>> >that's easier to learn than Windows and I'll show you a fallen star
>> >(MS's profits to be more precise).
>>
>> Microsoft's own spin as reasonable evidence here).
>
>I didn't say it was easier to use, just easier to learn. I should
>rectify what I said... it's harder to learn if you do not have a
>sysadmin you can run to at home. Windows is easier perhaps because it's
>use is so widespread.
Perhaps? Yea, that must be it. Because it has been learned many times,
it is easier to learn. Uh-huh...
T. Max Devlin
GMT, I heard Bill say to [...]
>> Actually doing the task is about as hard either way. Learning the
>> principles in Linux takes a little longer but will stay with you
>> forever.
>>
>> So the payback for learning in Linux is much greater.
>
>That's pure bullshit! We are talking about computer OS's here not anything
>important.
...he says, while relying on said item.
T. Max Devlin
GMT, I heard GreyCloud say to
I am just so torn whether to even bother pointing out that you guys are
/way/ behind the curve on this. I mean, just look at your rhetoric.
"Thinking about license fees"? Hate to tell you this, but MS has been
making billions on license fees for years and years. I know you meant
'recurring fees', as in subscription licenses, but believe me, that's
been around for years and years, as well. Always something that might
happen soon, and is thought will happen eventually, though it never has
yet.
T. Max Devlin
GMT, I heard Jem Berkes say to
>> Just think, consumers are not sold on XP, and Microsoft shelled out some
>> major $$$ to develop this thing. Customers are wary of this whole
>> product activation thingie. Also, MS is more concerned about their
>> revenue streams than they are about the consumer. What about all the
>> customers who have faithfully invested time and $$$ in
>> buying/using/learning to use Microsoft software? Is this how MS treats
>> them?
>
>I agree in part. I think that Windows XP, plus .NET (dot Net) together are
>going to hurt Microsoft.
Ah, youth. So innocent. So pure and unspoiled. Jem, if you loved me,
you would go from here and post no more. I hate to corrupt such a sweet
gentle mind with the horrors which you will soon learn of.
>I think it comes down to: Microsoft has overstepped their bounds. They are
>becoming very controlling, with XP's licensing issues plus the bizarre
>software deployment techniques in .NET.
>
>I currently develop Windows software too, but now I am seriously rethinking
>this all.
Do not rethink anything; it is not your concern. It isn't your fault,
Jem, just remember that. Don't blame yourself. You couldn't possibly
have known. It isn't your fault. Now go from here, and please, please,
I beg you, never return.
But if you're not going to take that seriously, I would very much like
to hear of these 'bizarre software deployment techniques'. I know
little of software deployment. What is bizarre about Microsoft's
techniques in .NET?
Roy Culley
GreyCloud <mi...@cumulus.com> writes:
> Spicerun wrote:
>
> Exactly! That's why I prefer to use CDE so my desktop is as far away
> from the M$ look as possible.
Grief don't use that CDE bloat. Run xfce. Looks like cde but does a
lot more than CDE and doesn't use up all your resources. Have you ever
run ps while ruuning CDE and looked at all the processes it has
started and how much memory they use? Try xfce. It is developed by a
French guy Olivier Fourdan and is an amazing example of what a single
person can do. http://www.xfce.org
--
Erik Funkenbusch, Microsoft apologist and proven liar wrote:
RMS threatened to deny TT use of GPL software if they didn't honor the
GPL license that KDE group put on their software.
Ed Allen
in order.
T. Max Devlin
GMT, I heard Ed Allen say to
They are an icon of post-modernism, in so many ways.
>>> Learning in Windows is about learning the recipes which are
>>> able to work in this release.
>>>
>>> Recipes come and go over time.
>>>
>>> Learning in Linux is about cooking and how to create new recipes
>>> to fit your needs.
>>>
>>> Actually doing the task is about as hard either way. Learning the
>>> principles in Linux takes a little longer but will stay with you
>>> forever.
>>>
>>> So the payback for learning in Linux is much greater.
>>
>>Why?
[...]
>>Still, I like your analogy, and would use it. But your conclusion, I
>>will insist, has got to go. So... Why?
>>
> Everybody should remain as ignorant of everything that they can
> get by with is never going to fly with me.
Yes, but what about everyone should remain as ignorant as they want to.
I'm not suggesting it as an ethic, I'm just saying, it is certainly more
comprehensible than your claim, don't you think?
> Ignorance is not a sin
> but intentional ignorance is stupid and can be fatal.
It can also be Socratic, and can lead to knowledge beyond anything you
can possibly imagine.
> Windows is all 'ritual incantations' which are only valid for a
> particular version.
>
> The Unix/Linux learning which I am speaking of is mostly about the
> way the pieces fit together into a coherent whole. How to analyse
> a problem and map it to the realm of machines.
>
> The science Clarke spoke of above refers to structured information
> about how things operate and interact.
Indeed. This is where I think you're diverging from the proper slope in
your analysis. Windows is /not/ ritual incantations. True, procedures
are inconsistent in every version. But they're inconsistent /within/
versions, too! They're just plain inconsistent. Clarke's Conjecture, I
say, therefore disqualifies them as magic because they are not
ill-understood science. They are randomness. So maybe it is just the
'Windows is recipes' side of your analogy that bugs me. Still, I think
there are bigger problems with 'Linux is cooking'. Windows is cooking,
for instance, but the heating element has only three unmarked settings,
and you have to hold the food higher or lower until it is done the way
you like. ;-)
> Not everyone needs to design cars but knowing a bit about the
> principles which they use enables you to know what limits they
> generally must operate within and how far they can be pushed in
> an emergency.
Gak! Let's just not, okay?
> Not all of us need to be mathematicians but understanding a bit
> about the subject might help us figure out the height of that tree
> in our yard.
Ah, but the question is, why do you want to figure it out, and why not
just ask a mathematician? It isn't ignorance if you know where the
information is but don't have it; it is just wisdom.
> Broad knowledge of the way things fit or don't fit together can lead
> to reasonable behavior even in situation nobody has ever encountered
> before.
Actually, I think it is just /valid/ knowledge. Tougher to come by than
it might seem, even outside monopoly and post-modernism. The point is
that it is more important that it be true than that it be comprehensive.
> The Linux learning I am speaking of is like science in that it teaches
> not just the formulas and rules of thumb, the 'ritual incantations',
> but the principles and philosophy of how this computer, network,
> and Internet behave and affect each other which can lead to being
> able to deal with situations beyond our personal experience.
Look, I entirely agree it benefits the operator, and in fact is
mandatory, to understand how a computer works. I understand how cooking
works, and that is why I want others to do it for me. I am not very
good at it, it is inconvenient, and the results are not worth the
effort. Still, I cannot afford to hire a cook, or even to eat out all
the time. So what happens? I eat pre-packaged stuff and canned tuna.
Works fine, I have no complaints, but I would certainly love it if
someone invented a magical machine that could cook for me.
> Like handling all the routing through local interfaces and then
> relying on a 'default route' to handle the ones you know nothing
> about.
Aye, explaining that wondrous gestalt of packet routing is one of the
great pleasures in my life. Still, I'd prefer to never have to deal
with such details, and to be honest the only time they are ever
important is when someone /else/ has already screwed something up, and
you are left trying to figure out what happened. Troubleshooting with
the /least/ possible amount of information is the only valid
troubleshooting. Trying to amass all possible information to make your
guess perfect just makes it more of a guess, and more likely you will
make a clueless error rather than a borderline error, and end up with
your head up your ass.
> That reappears in 'sendmail' as the 'smart host' which is supposed
> to either deliver it for you or pass it on to its own 'smart host'
> to eventually find one which can route it on its way.
Connectionless methodologies are universally important in modern
technology. If it weren't for Microsoft's monopoly, we would already
realize that anything connection-oriented is broken by design to begin
with. Still, your explanation makes it appear that the router and the
MTA are related, and I know you know it is not the case.
> The post you made trying to convince Erik that remote connections
> are always asynchronous made me realize again that not all of this
> fits the experiences of everybody.
>
> The Windows people and to some degree the Mac people have had the
> reasoning for 'the way things are' hidden from them in the interest
> of limiting their view of computing to what a single vendor thinks is
> 'good for them'.
>
> I am aware that not every problem can efficiently and easily map to
> the 'stream of bytes' philosophy but many, most I think, can.
Yes, we are surely uncovering many hidden issues in your reasoning. All
good, but I need to point them out. 'Stream of bytes' is precisely the
/opposite/ of the philosophy you are referencing. It is 'datagrams'
that is the philosophy. Streams are the old, broken method that MS
continues to try to maintain. Now, they aren't alone. After the
world's networks were revolutionized by going connectionless, ALL the
vendors IMMEDIATELY started 'virtualizing' these connectionless links,
so that they could build 'virtual circuits', and retain or retrieve all
the nice simple math they used to use for provisioning and monitoring.
All gone, and they were left even more clueless, because the words are
broken everywhere, not just at Microsoft.
> What Erik sees as a 'failure of X' because it defaults to
> connections which are network transparent I see as one of its
> greatest conveniences.
Indeed, I tried to explain to him that his logic was backwards.
> Back when ethernet only came via thick cables, using automounting,
> some custom scripts, and .rhost files I transformed a collection of
> about thirty workstations and thirty two X terminals to appear as if
> they were all parts of a single machine. I even distributed compile
> jobs across several machines at once to speed the development cycle.
>
> Before actually implementing that system I had only read about
> the concepts. I reasoned out the pieces required as I went along.
Networking is just SO bloody simple, if you don't confuse yourself. It
becomes even more simple using my handy-dandy Connectivity Model, but I
won't bore you with that now.
> I am aware that Unix/Linux also distorts and limits the view it
> presents but I have not beat my head against the walls like I do
> with Windows.
>
> Enough rambling for now. Your point ?
That it is lack of information, not obfuscation of it, which is the
issue. I agree that obfuscating it is bad. I do not agree that lack of
it is bad. Granted, lack of information requires lack of need for
information (since information which is needed will be invented ad hoc
if it doesn't already exist), but that is my desire. Not the
transcendence of knowledge, though that is good to. I've had enough
epiphanies in my life, though. Now I seek the ignorance of wisdom. I
won't be using Linux until someone else agrees with me, but doesn't
assume that means I like Windows, because I hate the fucking thing.
T. Max Devlin
+0000, I heard Edward Rosten say to
>>> I think most people never really learn how to use windows. They kind of
>>> struggle through since they are able to start word and print letters.
>>> Hell, I think that most people never bother with directories. Oh, yeah
>>> and calling them folders never made it any easier.
>>
>> Spend a day looking over the shoulder of a typical Windows user
>> and you'll have this proven to you. My AA, a bright woman without
>> whom I might even consider leaving the Company, has memorized
>> a handful of routines for getting things done. I once showed her
>> a shortcut that saved four steps out of a six-step process, and she
>> was amazed. Yet the shortcut was just a matter of using a menu
>> entry that was there all along.
>
>Yep. I do speak from experience of helping poeple with computer problems.
>As soom as something even _slightly_ out of the ordinary occurs, people
>have no idea wkat to do this shows...
Alternatively, of course, if they have the /slightest/ understanding of
what is going on, they will keep going no matter what happens. You get
the 'I don't know what it said, I didn't read it' syndrome.
>> We're proving Clarke's Law every day: people are back to ritual
>> incantations.
>
>... . If you are mindlessly plugging away, if something odd happend, you
>can't do anything about it.
Yes, well, allow me to remind you all that when something odd happens,
it is the computers fault, and since it shouldn't have happened the user
should be able to ignore it, if they want, and the computer should
continue to allow them to mindlessly plug away, because that is what it
is for.
T. Max Devlin
-0400, I heard Donn Miller say to
>
>
>> I agree in part. I think that Windows XP, plus .NET (dot Net) together are
>> going to hurt Microsoft.
>>
>> I think it comes down to: Microsoft has overstepped their bounds. They are
>> becoming very controlling, with XP's licensing issues plus the bizarre
>> software deployment techniques in .NET.
>>
>> I currently develop Windows software too, but now I am seriously rethinking
>> this all.
>
>We need some sort of scientific study. Let's take some typical Windows
>users, put them in front of a set of Linux boxes that have several
>different configurations. Take a note of each configuration, followed
>by the users' reactions. You can, of course, mix different elements to
>make up your own desktop. For example, put a customized Window Maker
>configuration on one, and have a stock KDE on WS #2, a /customized/ KDE
>desktop on WS #3, etc. Use the ratings to tailor-make a desktop system
>that can appeal to the masses. The Linux community can make use of
>typical studies to determine which apps can be utilized by the masses.
Now, if the world were a normal place, all of this would have already
been done by some compsci geek with a research grant. So why hasn't it?
GreyCloud
>
> In article <3BDB0C52...@cumulus.com>,
> GreyCloud <mi...@cumulus.com> writes:
> > Spicerun wrote:
> >
> > Exactly! That's why I prefer to use CDE so my desktop is as far away
> > from the M$ look as possible.
>
> Grief don't use that CDE bloat. Run xfce. Looks like cde but does a
> lot more than CDE and doesn't use up all your resources. Have you ever
> run ps while ruuning CDE and looked at all the processes it has
> started and how much memory they use? Try xfce. It is developed by a
> French guy Olivier Fourdan and is an amazing example of what a single
> person can do. http://www.xfce.org
>
When I was running Solaris 8 x86 I did a ps ... yes, there are tons of
processes that are CDE related. Currently I'm using Gnome with a CDE
look. I'll have to give xfce a go then.
GreyCloud
Ah, I was thinking along the lines that the old DEC used to charge
annual license fees. This is where M$ is heading. Already on the
internet there are some sites that request you pay a fee for a month
just to access their services, like abc news for example.
Greed is really starting to kick in at M$... really bad and just going
to get worse. Businesses over in comp.os.vms are starting to see this
and are urging other businesses to bail out of all M$ junk while they
still have their shirts to wear.
Ed Allen
Donn Miller <dmmi...@cvzoom.net> wrote:
>Jem Berkes wrote:
>
>
>> I agree in part. I think that Windows XP, plus .NET (dot Net) together are
>> going to hurt Microsoft.
>>
>> I think it comes down to: Microsoft has overstepped their bounds. They are
>> becoming very controlling, with XP's licensing issues plus the bizarre
>> software deployment techniques in .NET.
>>
>> I currently develop Windows software too, but now I am seriously rethinking
>> this all.
>
>We need some sort of scientific study. Let's take some typical Windows
>users, put them in front of a set of Linux boxes that have several
>different configurations. Take a note of each configuration, followed
>by the users' reactions. You can, of course, mix different elements to
>make up your own desktop. For example, put a customized Window Maker
>configuration on one, and have a stock KDE on WS #2, a /customized/ KDE
>desktop on WS #3, etc. Use the ratings to tailor-make a desktop system
>that can appeal to the masses. The Linux community can make use of
>typical studies to determine which apps can be utilized by the masses.
>
bull guarding them in the valley below.
"Come on, Dad, lets run down and get ourselves one of those cows!"
said the younger.
"No, Son. Lets WALK down and get them all!" replied the wiser.
==========
Why attempt multiple configurations to find the single one which
appeals to the largest percentage when all of them in parallel is
a larger number and you have already done the work of creating the
particular combinations ?
Concentrate on customizing the machine to the preferences of each
specific customer at the point of delivery.
Gives computer store dweebs something of "value to the customer"
to justify his existence and possibly a repeat customer who now
wants her system to look "Like the one Ally McBeal was using last
week."
========
God, I hate how a generation of monopolization has crippled their minds!!!
Burn the Microsoft Charter and public flogging for all executives
VP and above is what I would like but I will settle for a genuine
remedy instead.
Matthew Gardiner
"T. Max Devlin" <tm...@commercelinks.net> wrote in message
news:9bcntt0g5c4sqlhdq...@4ax.com...
Why? 20 years ago, I had a shitty 20" screen, only 4 channels, poor colour.
Today, 21" screen, trinatron, flat screen etc etc. Compare that to Windows,
from 95 to XP, they all look pretty much the same, thus, inspiring no people
to really have a look into other than the uber Microsoft geeks.
Matthew Gardiner
Charlie Ebert
That's what I kept hearing out of the Wintroll crowds elsewhere,,,
WHY, WHY, WHY???
What's in it for me??
And I answered! Authentication and a chance to get sued and/or jailed.
--
Charlie
Matthew Gardiner
"Charlie Ebert" <kd...@charlie.ebertlan.org> wrote in message
news:slrn9tov1p...@charlie.ebertlan.org...
There is nothing in it for you, apart from headaches, a light wallet and
getting some dip-shit on the end of the phone who doesn't understand
english!
Yes, I did activate MY copy of Windows XP, and guess what? Microsoft
promised it wouldn't, but it did, I got some southern drawl gitt on the end
of the phone who couldn't understand me! shit, how the fuck can someone not
understand a New Zealander with a English accent? Hence the reason when I
bought Caldera I rang the UK for support. 1. Convienence, 2. People
understood what I said.
Matthew Gardiner
Jem Berkes
> But if you're not going to take that seriously, I would very much like
> to hear of these 'bizarre software deployment techniques'. I know
> little of software deployment. What is bizarre about Microsoft's
> techniques in .NET?
.NET (and for that matter, Windows XP and say C#) are not about advancing
technology, but rather for establishing control and increasing their power
in the software industry. These new Microsoft technologies keep rolling out
at a fast pace... but users are happy to stick with things that work. People
and companies do not want these new things, they are FORCED into them.
And now we're not even going to have normal software installed on our
computers, but rather have to continually get licenses and temporary usage
rights? How on earth is that an improvement over what we now have?
It's not about progress. It's about control. They're a company. They're here
to make money. See the big picture?
Jim Richardson
> Spicerun wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 26 Oct 2001 09:23:18 -0500, Sundial Services wrote:
>>
>> > Linux is not there yet. But it could be.
>>
>> there yet? When it emulates Windows? If you believe that, then you're
>> not any better than the Wintrolls on this group.....I don't know why you
>> can't grasp that MS is irrelevant to Linux (I've read that Linus himself
>> has said many times in various interviews). I think you'll find myself
>> and many people run Linux because we don't want to run Windows...AND
>> need to reevaluate that maybe it is Windows that isn't there yet.
>>
>> Not ready indeed. I've been using Linux on my desktop for over 2 years
>> and it has worked so much better than Windows...I, quite frankly, don't
>> miss the old Windows behaviors...NOR do I want Windows behavior in my
>> Linux desktop.
>>
>> By the way, the best test I've found for Linux's readiness is that I have
>> to kick my wife and daughter off my Linux machine to do my work...they
>> only use their Windows ME machine when they have to...(And, yes, soon I
>> will be replacing WindowsME with the latest version of Linux). Interesting
>> how they don't seem to have any problems with the way Linux works isn't
>> it. BTW, they sure don't miss the Windows lockups and reboots.
>>
>> AND I will quit bashing M$ when they quit bashing everything not
>> controlled by B. Gates.
>>
>> > A good operating system should be unobtrusive: it sits there and it
>> > does its job well and nobody pays attention to it. Microsoft did an
>> > excellent job of that, and justly deserves credit for that.
>>
>> Here you are wrong....Microsoft's system is very obtrusive. Don't believe
>> me? Just copy an entire program directory to another directory, then go
>> away for coffee. Guess what? You'll come back and find it didn't copy
>> because Windows noticed you are copying an *.exe file and just had to ask
>> if you really meant it! That is NOT being unobtrusive. Linux, OTOH, will
>> copy that directory without problems, or any excuse to hold up.
>>
>> Try to install some Windows programs and you get asked no less than 3
>> times (after you endure the installation program installing itself) if you
>> really meant to get started. Nothing unobtrusive about that <Sarcasm>!
>>
>
> Exactly! That's why I prefer to use CDE so my desktop is as far away
> from the M$ look as possible.
I like Windowmaker, in part, for the same reason.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
Jim Richardson
> In article <3BDB0C52...@cumulus.com>,
> GreyCloud <mi...@cumulus.com> writes:
>> Spicerun wrote:
>>
>> Exactly! That's why I prefer to use CDE so my desktop is as far away
>> from the M$ look as possible.
>
> Grief don't use that CDE bloat. Run xfce. Looks like cde but does a
> lot more than CDE and doesn't use up all your resources. Have you ever
> run ps while ruuning CDE and looked at all the processes it has
> started and how much memory they use? Try xfce. It is developed by a
> French guy Olivier Fourdan and is an amazing example of what a single
> person can do. http://www.xfce.org
>
Here's a nice plug for debian.
I read this paragraph and thought "Gee, maybe I should try this xfce
thing, I remember hearing about it from time to time."
Now, I have a cable modem, which routinely gets 400KBytes/s, so off I
go to a root xterm.
bash:> apt-get install xfce
Reading Package Lists... Done
Building Dependency Tree... Done
The following NEW packages will be installed:
xfce
0 packages upgraded, 1 newly installed, 0 to remove and 11 not
upgraded.
Need to get 3224kB of archives. After unpacking 7448kB will be used.
Get:1 http://http.us.debian.org unstable/main xfce 3.8.6-3 [3224kB]
Fetched 3224kB in 14s (221kB/s)
Selecting previously deselected package xfce.
(Reading database ... 60252 files and directories currently
installed.)
Unpacking xfce (from .../archives/xfce_3.8.6-3_i386.deb) ...
Setting up xfce (3.8.6-3) ...
and "voila" xfce is installed, and presumeably configured. So how to
test it w/o killing my current X session? easy, ctrl-alt-f3, log in
again, and (after a brief search of xfce docs) startxfce -- :1, bingo,
xfce started on another display. Looks nice, not sure I will keep it
around, I have windowmaker pretty well configured the way I like it, and
don't see much in xfce that I like better than windowmaker, but I will
give it a whirl for a while, and if I decide to get rid of it, it's only
one line apt-get remove xfce and it's done.
Hey Erik, wonder what it would take to try out a new desktop in windows?
could I do so without ending my current graphical session?
didn't think so...
Jim Richardson
>
> "Ed Allen" <eal...@allenhome.kc.rr.com> wrote in message
>> In article <thmer9...@news.lumbercartel.com>,
>> D. C. Sessions <d...@lumbercartel.com> wrote:
>> >In <9redqa$8es$1...@s1.uklinux.net> Edward Rosten posted:
>> >
>> >> struggle through since they are able to start word and print letters.
>> >> Hell, I think that most people never bother with directories. Oh, yeah
>> >> and calling them folders never made it any easier.
>> >
>> >Spend a day looking over the shoulder of a typical Windows user
>> >and you'll have this proven to you. My AA, a bright woman without
>> >whom I might even consider leaving the Company, has memorized
>> >a handful of routines for getting things done. I once showed her
>> >a shortcut that saved four steps out of a six-step process, and she
>> >was amazed. Yet the shortcut was just a matter of using a menu
>> >entry that was there all along.
>> >
>> >incantations.
>> >
>> able to work in this release.
>>
>> Recipes come and go over time.
>>
>> Learning in Linux is about cooking and how to create new recipes
>> to fit your needs.
>>
>> Actually doing the task is about as hard either way. Learning the
>> principles in Linux takes a little longer but will stay with you
>> forever.
>>
>> So the payback for learning in Linux is much greater.
>
> important.
>
The importance (or unimportance) of an OS would have little bearing on
the validity of the post you were questioning.
T. Max Devlin
Microsoft heads towards higher prices; it is a monopoly, they do that,
and it cannot be stopped (so long as the monopoly continues), nor does
it matter if you can tell it is happening, or what method they use or
price structure they implement. So it really doesn't matter, is my
point, though I understand that it is a 'red flag' to very many people.
I just think it is naive, since it doesn't matter what the model is, the
only thing that matters is what the price is. If MS wanted to charge $2
a year for Windows subscription, who would complain?
>Already on the
>internet there are some sites that request you pay a fee for a month
>just to access their services, like abc news for example.
Sometimes it is the most efficient trade model, that's all there is too
it. Being afraid of the model itself is naive and silly.
>Greed is really starting to kick in at M$...
See, now this is the kind of statement that makes me want to ridicule
you, Greycloud. What the HELL do you mean, "starting to kick in"? Are
you REALLY that stupid?
>really bad and just going
>to get worse.
Congratulations, Mr. Smith. Maybe someday someone will actually
_believe_ your theories!
>Businesses over in comp.os.vms are starting to see this
>and are urging other businesses to bail out of all M$ junk while they
>still have their shirts to wear.
Businesses over in comp.os.vms are as far behind the curve as most
everyone else, it seems. I guess it is time to start passing out the
coffee again, now that people are finally willing to understand that
Microsoft is doing something WRONG, rather than merely 'not nice'.
Charlie Ebert
The picture is the termination of thousands of executives who took their
companies down those paths.
.NET is a dead end alley of death for corporate executives.
--
Charlie
D. C. Sessions
>>It's not about progress. It's about control. They're a company. They're here
>>to make money. See the big picture?
>
>
> The picture is the termination of thousands of executives who took their
> companies down those paths.
>
> .NET is a dead end alley of death for corporate executives.
A successful parasite doesn't kill the host quickly.
Since the median turnover in CIO spots is three to five years,
all that MS has to do is avoid killing off its victims any quicker
than that. If they give the CIOs long enough to jump to another
host before the damage is too obvious, the carrier can appear
to be a success and attach itself to another host.
--
| Microsoft: "A reputation for releasing inferior software will make |
| it more difficult for a software vendor to induce customers to pay |
| for new products or new versions of existing products." |
+----------- D. C. & M. V. Sessions <d...@lumbercartel.com> ----------+
Charlie Ebert
Now. The trouble with this entire philosophy is the $10,000 entrance
fee with an added $1,500 a pop for each application you write.
Then there's Eric Fuckingbush's admission that there will be a client
fee for using this application.
I have full faith in American business and because of this action,
I believe that MS will loose 50% of it's corporate userbase to
Linux easily within the next 2 years.
And that's developers I'm speaking of now. Not users.
E-business is a virgin business which is struggling to make it day
to day. It's been this way since it started.
There is absolutely *NO WAY* they will ever make a sucess of any of
this.
On the client side, since all business's are currently served via
other means, I don't see good reason to use a .NET application
as it's more costly than what they are using now.
Microsoft made the headway it did into the corporate sector because
of cost issues.
And Microsoft will be leaving the corporate sector using the same
door it entered.
No business survives very long by increasing it's costs whilst
providing the same service.
--
Charlie
Jim Richardson
>
>>>It's not about progress. It's about control. They're a company. They're here
>>>to make money. See the big picture?
>>
>>
>> The picture is the termination of thousands of executives who took their
>> companies down those paths.
>>
>> .NET is a dead end alley of death for corporate executives.
>
> A successful parasite doesn't kill the host quickly.
> Since the median turnover in CIO spots is three to five years,
> all that MS has to do is avoid killing off its victims any quicker
> than that. If they give the CIOs long enough to jump to another
> host before the damage is too obvious, the carrier can appear
> to be a success and attach itself to another host.
>
This was almost enough to earn the coveted "Dr Pepper through the nose
onto the monitor" award!
Of course, the end result would be the gradual decline of some herd
members (companies) and the eventual rise of the smarter and fitter
ones, (the ones not using .net :)
Terry Porter
It seems Xfce is not yet available on Debian "stable" as my search
returns:-
gronk:/usr/local/app/tcltexed-2.7# apt-cache search xfce
lg-issue43 - Issue 43 of the Linux Gazette.
gronk:/usr/local/app/tcltexed-2.7#
Not that it matters, the tarball comes with a /debian file and
compiles nicely.
>and "voila" xfce is installed, and presumeably configured. So how to
>test it w/o killing my current X session? easy, ctrl-alt-f3, log in
>again, and (after a brief search of xfce docs) startxfce -- :1, bingo,
>xfce started on another display. Looks nice, not sure I will keep it
>around, I have windowmaker pretty well configured the way I like it, and
>don't see much in xfce that I like better than windowmaker, but I will
>give it a whirl for a while, and if I decide to get rid of it, it's only
>one line apt-get remove xfce and it's done.
Why remove it ? Xfce is quite small and one can have *lots* of Wm's
installed with no problems.
Mathias Warkus (Mawa) used to have 22 wm's on his system, and at
one time I had about 9, which proved handy when showing friends
the many faces of Linux.
>Hey Erik, wonder what it would take to try out a new desktop in windows?
>could I do so without ending my current graphical session?
>
>didn't think so...
>
--
.......... (Sig based on an original work by Jim Richardson) ...........
Windows box
*click*
"Thank you for installing annoying email trojan, have a nice day"
Linux box
*click*
"Hey, please chmod me, and then run me, ok?"
"c'mon, s'important"
"Hey! I am talking to you pal!"
"what! don't look at my code !!!!!!!"
........................................................................
Jim Richardson
sorry, I thought I mentioned I track unstable, (which has been anything
but)
>>and "voila" xfce is installed, and presumeably configured. So how to
>>test it w/o killing my current X session? easy, ctrl-alt-f3, log in
>>again, and (after a brief search of xfce docs) startxfce -- :1, bingo,
>>xfce started on another display. Looks nice, not sure I will keep it
>>around, I have windowmaker pretty well configured the way I like it, and
>>don't see much in xfce that I like better than windowmaker, but I will
>>give it a whirl for a while, and if I decide to get rid of it, it's only
>>one line apt-get remove xfce and it's done.
>
> Why remove it ? Xfce is quite small and one can have *lots* of Wm's
> installed with no problems.
Keeps the cruft down. I only have myself and occaisionally my wife, log
into this machine, if I don't need it, I usually remove it. I have
plenty of disk space (20GB woohoo) but it's the principle of the matter
really. If I think I will use or need something, I install it, but if
not, I drop it. I have emacs and gvim installed on this box, I
occaisionally poke around with emacs before going back to (g)vim :) If I
had to make a choice, (I have on other less well endowed sytems) I drop
emacs.
XFCE seemed nice, it certainly doesn't look like windows. :)
>
> Mathias Warkus (Mawa) used to have 22 wm's on his system, and at
> one time I had about 9, which proved handy when showing friends
> the many faces of Linux.
that's a good reason to keep it around, maybe I'll do that, and install
every single wm on the unstable tree :)
>
>>Hey Erik, wonder what it would take to try out a new desktop in windows?
>>could I do so without ending my current graphical session?
>>
>>didn't think so...
>>
>
> --
> .......... (Sig based on an original work by Jim Richardson) ...........
> Windows box
> *click*
> "Thank you for installing annoying email trojan, have a nice day"
>
> Linux box
> *click*
> "Hey, please chmod me, and then run me, ok?"
> "c'mon, s'important"
> "Hey! I am talking to you pal!"
> "what! don't look at my code !!!!!!!"
> ........................................................................
I even got attribution! cool
(slips on the shades and waits for the call from h-wood...)
Ed Allen
Bill <Bi...@home.com> wrote:
>
>"Ed Allen" <eal...@allenhome.kc.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:nr2fr9...@allenhome.kc.rr.com...
>> In article <thmer9...@news.lumbercartel.com>,
Are you personally insulted that I say learning about doing things
the Linux way can help you structure systems to be able to
understand and diagnose problems too complex for the "Do this, then
this, then click on this..." approach can ?
Are you of the opinion that structured organization does not aid
problem solving ?
Are you unaware that practice solving one kind of problem often
makes you better at solving other kinds as well ?
Are you denying that the Internet and the Web are built along these
same lines ? Learning how the pieces fit together not seem valuable
to you ?
Terry Porter
>I even got attribution! cool
Of course, Linux advocates don't *steal* :)
>
> (slips on the shades and waits for the call from h-wood...)
Men in GPL ?
D. C. Sessions
> On Sun, 28 Oct 2001 18:17:00 -0700, D. C. Sessions <d...@lumbercartel.com> wrote:
>> A successful parasite doesn't kill the host quickly.
>> Since the median turnover in CIO spots is three to five years,
>> all that MS has to do is avoid killing off its victims any quicker
>> than that. If they give the CIOs long enough to jump to another
>> host before the damage is too obvious, the carrier can appear
>> to be a success and attach itself to another host.
>
> This was almost enough to earn the coveted "Dr Pepper through the nose
> onto the monitor" award!
Rats. I'll have to work on my delivery.
GreyCloud
Its a start of a new trend max. Some web sites are offering their
services for free while others are having a hard time, so they start
charging a fee. Eventually, you will see a consolidation of this
service much like cable tv companies are doing and also the newspapers
have been doing for years. I already pay to get on the internet, why
should I pay more to surf?
> >Greed is really starting to kick in at M$...
>
> See, now this is the kind of statement that makes me want to ridicule
> you, Greycloud. What the HELL do you mean, "starting to kick in"? Are
> you REALLY that stupid?
>
No Max. Maybe you just don't understand my real concerns here. It's
worse than I could possibly explain in detail. M$ monopoly is being
ignored by our government. M$ knows this and is now turning the screws
as hard as they can. That's what I meant by their greed kicking in.
Billy Butt Crust Gates has only started to test the waters of licensing
fees and I worry that the crazy bastard will seep into every facet of
the internet squeezing money out of everybody on everything.
> >really bad and just going
> >to get worse.
>
> Congratulations, Mr. Smith. Maybe someday someone will actually
> _believe_ your theories!
>
> >Businesses over in comp.os.vms are starting to see this
> >and are urging other businesses to bail out of all M$ junk while they
> >still have their shirts to wear.
>
> Businesses over in comp.os.vms are as far behind the curve as most
> everyone else, it seems. I guess it is time to start passing out the
> coffee again, now that people are finally willing to understand that
> Microsoft is doing something WRONG, rather than merely 'not nice'.
>
Not too far behind the curve, just starting to smell a rat in redmond
and noticing Bill's hand in the wallets.
Ed Allen
T. Max Devlin <tm...@commercelinks.net> wrote:
>Strolling through comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 28 Oct 2001 07:00:44
>GMT, I heard Ed Allen say to
>> get by with is never going to fly with me.
>
>Yes, but what about everyone should remain as ignorant as they want to.
>I'm not suggesting it as an ethic, I'm just saying, it is certainly more
>comprehensible than your claim, don't you think?
>
it.
You can lead a horse...
But knowing that you need to seek ways to find water in your current
environment seems wiser to me than seeking not to know.
>> Ignorance is not a sin
>> but intentional ignorance is stupid and can be fatal.
>
>It can also be Socratic, and can lead to knowledge beyond anything you
>can possibly imagine.
>
You must excuse me till I see evidence of that.
[...]
>> The science Clarke spoke of above refers to structured information
>> about how things operate and interact.
>
>Indeed. This is where I think you're diverging from the proper slope in
>your analysis. Windows is /not/ ritual incantations. True, procedures
>are inconsistent in every version. But they're inconsistent /within/
>versions, too! They're just plain inconsistent. Clarke's Conjecture, I
>say, therefore disqualifies them as magic because they are not
>ill-understood science. They are randomness.
Magic is entirely about trying to control randomness.
When you understand more about the proper groupings of the results
you have begun to start organizing into a science.
> So maybe it is just the
>'Windows is recipes' side of your analogy that bugs me. Still, I think
>there are bigger problems with 'Linux is cooking'. Windows is cooking,
>for instance, but the heating element has only three unmarked settings,
>and you have to hold the food higher or lower until it is done the way
>you like. ;-)
>
MS deliberately hides the changing burner setting and lies to you
about how high the pot is as well.
But anything discovered by accident in Windows which could lead to a
start at cooking is bound to be changed in the next release. MS
needs helpless victims to keep their bleatings against being fleeced
too low to attract notice of how many are so unsatisfied.
>> Not everyone needs to design cars but knowing a bit about the
>> principles which they use enables you to know what limits they
>> generally must operate within and how far they can be pushed in
>> an emergency.
>
>Gak! Let's just not, okay?
>
I thought that would get a rise out of you.
>> Not all of us need to be mathematicians but understanding a bit
>> about the subject might help us figure out the height of that tree
>> in our yard.
>
>Ah, but the question is, why do you want to figure it out, and why not
>just ask a mathematician? It isn't ignorance if you know where the
>information is but don't have it; it is just wisdom.
>
Knowing where to obtain answers is being a librarian. No wisdom
required.
Asking is fine if an expert is available, sometimes they are not and
knowing which neighbor to ask about fractions and being able to
recognize a wrong answer are appropriate in different situations.
Wisdom is being able to deal with both with minimal effort.
>> Broad knowledge of the way things fit or don't fit together can lead
>> to reasonable behavior even in situation nobody has ever encountered
>> before.
>
>Actually, I think it is just /valid/ knowledge. Tougher to come by than
>it might seem, even outside monopoly and post-modernism. The point is
>that it is more important that it be true than that it be comprehensive.
>
Definition problem, comprehensive implies completeness to me.
Broad, as I used it above, meant "wide ranging" not necessarily deep
and certainly not complete.
I totally agree with the importance of truth over completeness.
But comprehensive could also imply "understandable". That I have
doubts about. Truth without understanding is just parroting words.
It quickly devolves into "ritual incantations" and the chaos of
randomness.
>> The Linux learning I am speaking of is like science in that it teaches
>> not just the formulas and rules of thumb, the 'ritual incantations',
>> but the principles and philosophy of how this computer, network,
>> and Internet behave and affect each other which can lead to being
>> able to deal with situations beyond our personal experience.
>
>Look, I entirely agree it benefits the operator, and in fact is
>mandatory, to understand how a computer works. I understand how cooking
>works, and that is why I want others to do it for me. I am not very
>good at it, it is inconvenient, and the results are not worth the
>effort. Still, I cannot afford to hire a cook, or even to eat out all
>the time. So what happens? I eat pre-packaged stuff and canned tuna.
>Works fine, I have no complaints, but I would certainly love it if
>someone invented a magical machine that could cook for me.
>
So you desire the fulfillment of the promises MS has made about
their computing nirvana.
Nothing real is ever that easy I am afraid. Still we can hope for
"someday".
We all need dreams. I will not be waiting.
[...]
>> That reappears in 'sendmail' as the 'smart host' which is supposed
>> to either deliver it for you or pass it on to its own 'smart host'
>> to eventually find one which can route it on its way.
>
>Connectionless methodologies are universally important in modern
>technology. If it weren't for Microsoft's monopoly, we would already
>realize that anything connection-oriented is broken by design to begin
>with. Still, your explanation makes it appear that the router and the
>MTA are related, and I know you know it is not the case.
>
But the principle for efficiently handling situations or circumstances
which you did not know about beforehand is common to both.
That is why I felt justified in calling MS programmers refusing to
deliver content to "browsers we have not tested yet", or whatever
whine they are trying to pass off, as being confirmation that they
are incompetent.
Their arrogance leads them to the false belief that only MS can
have good solutions. That leads to failure to learn and use what
has worked before.
That is incompetence manifest.
[...]
>>
>> I am aware that not every problem can efficiently and easily map to
>> the 'stream of bytes' philosophy but many, most I think, can.
>
>Yes, we are surely uncovering many hidden issues in your reasoning. All
>good, but I need to point them out. 'Stream of bytes' is precisely the
>/opposite/ of the philosophy you are referencing.
I was thinking of pipes so connections are definitely implied but
you are getting me to consider a "pipe" as a string of 'datagrams,
one per line'.
Sounds like it could be useful in machines like Beowulf clusters.
I will cogitate offline and perhaps we can talk of it again.
Back to dealing with the present...
> It is 'datagrams'
>that is the philosophy. Streams are the old, broken method that MS
>continues to try to maintain. Now, they aren't alone. After the
>world's networks were revolutionized by going connectionless, ALL the
>vendors IMMEDIATELY started 'virtualizing' these connectionless links,
>so that they could build 'virtual circuits', and retain or retrieve all
>the nice simple math they used to use for provisioning and monitoring.
>All gone, and they were left even more clueless, because the words are
>broken everywhere, not just at Microsoft.
>
They are trying to retain control by containing traffic to known and
approved circuits only.
The Local Phone companies are going to have the same trouble with
IPphones.
The ones who realize that the business which can make them lots of
money is "charging a recurring fee for access to the 'cloud'" will
survive and the ones who want to be in the "circuit providing and
billing business" will not.
>> What Erik sees as a 'failure of X' because it defaults to
>> connections which are network transparent I see as one of its
>> greatest conveniences.
>
>Indeed, I tried to explain to him that his logic was backwards.
>
>> Back when ethernet only came via thick cables, using automounting,
>> some custom scripts, and .rhost files I transformed a collection of
>> about thirty workstations and thirty two X terminals to appear as if
>> they were all parts of a single machine. I even distributed compile
>> jobs across several machines at once to speed the development cycle.
>>
>> Before actually implementing that system I had only read about
>> the concepts. I reasoned out the pieces required as I went along.
>
>Networking is just SO bloody simple, if you don't confuse yourself. It
>becomes even more simple using my handy-dandy Connectivity Model, but I
>won't bore you with that now.
>
I look forward to it.
>> I am aware that Unix/Linux also distorts and limits the view it
>> presents but I have not beat my head against the walls like I do
>> with Windows.
>>
>> Enough rambling for now. Your point ?
>
>That it is lack of information, not obfuscation of it, which is the
>issue. I agree that obfuscating it is bad. I do not agree that lack of
>it is bad.
Agreed if we include denying access with 'obfuscation'.
> Granted, lack of information requires lack of need for
>information (since information which is needed will be invented ad hoc
>if it doesn't already exist), but that is my desire. Not the
>transcendence of knowledge, though that is good to. I've had enough
>epiphanies in my life, though. Now I seek the ignorance of wisdom. I
I balk at wisdom and ignorance being intertwined.
Wisdom is "knowing what you need to know" not not knowing.
>won't be using Linux until someone else agrees with me, but doesn't
>assume that means I like Windows, because I hate the fucking thing.
>
All idols who develop clay feet are vilified.
You really were betrayed by their repeated failures to deliver on
their promises.
We will never get you completely at ease but I think we can
eventually find something you will not actively hate.
Mart van de Wege
> On Sun, 28 Oct 2001 15:03:41 +0100, Roy Culley <r...@swissonline.ch> wrote:
<snip Debian advocacy>
> and "voila" xfce is installed, and presumeably configured. So how to test it
> w/o killing my current X session? easy, ctrl-alt-f3, log in again, and (after
> a brief search of xfce docs) startxfce -- :1, bingo, xfce started on another
> display. Looks nice, not sure I will keep it around, I have windowmaker pretty
> well configured the way I like it, and don't see much in xfce that I like
> better than windowmaker, but I will give it a whirl for a while, and if I
> decide to get rid of it, it's only one line apt-get remove xfce and it's done.
> Hey Erik, wonder what it would take to try out a new desktop in windows? could
> I do so without ending my current graphical session?
>
> didn't think so...
>
It gets even better when you are running the Gnome Display Manager. gdm Has
support for the Xnest server, which means that you can start up multiple X
sessions in a normal window. A very cool way to test new Window managers. If
you want I can provide a screenshot.
Mart
--
A dirty mind is a joy forever
Its sleaziness will never cease
D. C. Sessions
> "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> Businesses over in comp.os.vms are as far behind the curve as most
>> everyone else, it seems. I guess it is time to start passing out the
>> coffee again, now that people are finally willing to understand that
>> Microsoft is doing something WRONG, rather than merely 'not nice'.
>
> Not too far behind the curve, just starting to smell a rat in redmond
> and noticing Bill's hand in the wallets.
More like "hand in the pants." They've known for quite a while that
MS had a firm fist on the corporate nads, but so far the squeeze
hasn't been all that painful, and getting loose looks even worse.
The key question is whether (a) someone can slip a bit of oil down
the shorts or (b) MS miscalculates and makes staying with them look
intolerable.
T. Max Devlin
GMT, I heard Matthew Gardiner say to
>
>"T. Max Devlin" <tm...@commercelinks.net> wrote in message
>news:9bcntt0g5c4sqlhdq...@4ax.com...
>> Strolling through comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 26 Oct 2001 09:47:12
>> GMT, I heard Matthew Gardiner say to
>> >"Donn Miller" <dmmi...@cvzoom.net> wrote in message
>> >news:3BD92323...@cvzoom.net...
>> >> Just think, consumers are not sold on XP, and Microsoft shelled out
>some
>> >> major $$$ to develop this thing. Customers are wary of this whole
>> >> product activation thingie. Also, MS is more concerned about their
>> >> revenue streams than they are about the consumer. What about all the
>> >> customers who have faithfully invested time and $$$ in
>> >> buying/using/learning to use Microsoft software? Is this how MS treats
>> >> them?
>> >>
>> >> This is a great opportunity for alternative operating systems to
>> >> intercept the ball, and run it back for a touchdown.
>> >
>> >Thats what I have been saying for 5 years. Consumers are tired, they want
>> >something new and more exciting. Selling the same type of product with
>> >slight re-iterations is not a long term stratergy. Could you imagine
>> >televisions that stayed the same size/features, and each release, faults
>> >were fixed. Yes, people would get board rather quickly.
>>
>> You might want to reconsider your analogy, dude. ;-)
>
>
>Why? 20 years ago, I had a shitty 20" screen, only 4 channels, poor colour.
Because you immediately ruin your analogy by talking about the TV
service as well as the TV equipment. Truth is, TVs haven't changed a
whole lot in twenty years /at all/.
>Today, 21" screen, trinatron, flat screen etc etc.
Trinatron is more than twenty years old, I believe. Flat screens are
for the elite. TVs haven't changed a bit.
>Compare that to Windows,
>from 95 to XP, they all look pretty much the same, thus, inspiring no people
>to really have a look into other than the uber Microsoft geeks.
In most ways, obviously, Windows hasn't changed any more than TVs. In
others, it is unrecognizably different. There is not a single one of
these ways which is not trivial or broken, however, so it is merely a
matter of churn, not development.
I'm not looking to get into a huge argument. I just thought it worth
pointing out that your TV analogy was pretty silly.
T. Max Devlin
GMT, I heard Jem Berkes say to
>T. Max Devlin <tm...@commercelinks.net> wrote in
>news:jndntt8pinf4j0msq...@4ax.com:
>
>> But if you're not going to take that seriously, I would very much like
>> to hear of these 'bizarre software deployment techniques'. I know
>> little of software deployment. What is bizarre about Microsoft's
>> techniques in .NET?
>
>.NET (and for that matter, Windows XP and say C#) are not about advancing
>technology, but rather for establishing control and increasing their power
>in the software industry. These new Microsoft technologies keep rolling out
>at a fast pace... but users are happy to stick with things that work. People
>and companies do not want these new things, they are FORCED into them.
I was hoping for some description rather than commentary. I'm well
aware of the effects and mechanisms of Microsoft predation. I wanted
details of bizarre techniques.
>And now we're not even going to have normal software installed on our
>computers, but rather have to continually get licenses and temporary usage
>rights? How on earth is that an improvement over what we now have?
Well, theoretically, it allows greater flexibility and lower costs,
divorced from predatory intent. The action itself is not what is
predatory, and so judging the action as the bad thing is mistaken; it is
the intent that is the bad thing, and you shouldn't let that sour you on
software subscription as a concept.
Not that it is a good idea, mind you. Just that it isn't because
Microsoft thought of it that makes it a bad idea.
>It's not about progress. It's about control. They're a company. They're here
>to make money. See the big picture?
Larger than you are aware, it seems. They are a _monopoly_. Companies
(which is to say any other businesses that don't monopolize) don't work
the way Microsoft does, even though companies are also 'here to make
money'. See the problem? You are complaining, but you don't know why,
and so you are blaming the wrong thing. It has nothing to do with
software installation techniques, it is an issue of anti-trust law.
Jim Richardson
This sounds cool too ! I don't know xnest though, what is it? (I know I
can just nip off to the debian docs and find it, but maybe there are
others who would like the info too?)
I usually boot into console, and startx from there, for a machine with
one user, I don't see much need to use an xdm clone. Although like I
said, this does sound interesting.
GreyCloud
>
> In <3BDCFC28...@cumulus.com> GreyCloud posted:
> > "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> >> Businesses over in comp.os.vms are as far behind the curve as most
> >> everyone else, it seems. I guess it is time to start passing out the
> >> coffee again, now that people are finally willing to understand that
> >> Microsoft is doing something WRONG, rather than merely 'not nice'.
> >
> > Not too far behind the curve, just starting to smell a rat in redmond
> > and noticing Bill's hand in the wallets.
>
> More like "hand in the pants." They've known for quite a while that
> MS had a firm fist on the corporate nads, but so far the squeeze
> hasn't been all that painful, and getting loose looks even worse.
> The key question is whether (a) someone can slip a bit of oil down
> the shorts or (b) MS miscalculates and makes staying with them look
> intolerable.
>
Pretty much what I've read over in comp.os.vms. A lot of businesses are
redoing their cost analysis of staying with M$ vs. moving over to a
different vendor. Also in the formula is the cost of data loss due to
o/s crashes. Now the license fees that M$ is eyeing for the annual
sticking is also causing them great concern. That's why,if you'll look
at Suns website, you'll see that Sun is striking while the iron is hot
with the rollout of new servers that address this very issue. On your
point (b),.. yes I think M$ already miscalculated... IBM only has one
particular machine oriented toward XP. The rest are now being sold with
Win2k. Knowing IBMs penchant for conservativeness, I think that IBM
knows something is wrong with XP that hasn't been addressed by M$ yet.
Mart van de Wege
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2001 09:12:45 GMT, Mart van de Wege
> <mvdwege...@drebbelstraat20.dyndns.org> wrote:
<snip>
>> It gets even better when you are running the Gnome Display Manager. gdm Has
>> support for the Xnest server, which means that you can start up multiple X
>> sessions in a normal window. A very cool way to test new Window managers. If
>> you want I can provide a screenshot.
>>
>> Mart
>>
>>
> This sounds cool too ! I don't know xnest though, what is it? (I know I can
> just nip off to the debian docs and find it, but maybe there are others who
> would like the info too?)
> I usually boot into console, and startx from there, for a machine with
> one user, I don't see much need to use an xdm clone. Although like I said,
> this does sound interesting.
>
Xnest is the X nested window server. Basically it opens a window on your main X
display and treats it as just another X display. It has been in X since release
4.0, but there is not much software that uses it. Which is too bad, as gdm
really shows what it can do.
Here are two screenshots showing first the gdm login screen in an Xnest window,
and second a KDE session running in Xnest. The session runs on my Gnome
desktop, as you can see by the panels and the Gimp toolbox. Quality is not too
good, as I had to pick a very strong compression to keep the file size down (my
desktop runs 1280x1024).
http://drebbelstraat20.dyndns.org/~mvdwege/xnestlogin.jpg (60k)
http://drebbelstraat20.dyndns.org/~mvdwege/xnestkde.jpg (75k)
Go easy on my server please? And oh yeah, never mind the bad photograph <g>.
Jim Richardson
Cool. Gonna try that....
"hi ho, hi ho, it's off to apt-get I go..."
Jem Berkes
> Not that it is a good idea, mind you. Just that it isn't because
> Microsoft thought of it that makes it a bad idea.
Well this isn't entirely true. If another large company did it, it might not
impact me. However, since Microsoft software is just about everywhere,
preloaded onto computers, and "standard"... this makes it more forceful. It
no longer becomes a choice that we can opt out of.
> Larger than you are aware, it seems. They are a _monopoly_. Companies
> (which is to say any other businesses that don't monopolize) don't work
> the way Microsoft does, even though companies are also 'here to make
> money'. See the problem? You are complaining, but you don't know why,
> and so you are blaming the wrong thing. It has nothing to do with
> software installation techniques, it is an issue of anti-trust law.
Interesting. You make me think hard. You truly are the king of kings.
GreyCloud
Elvis had left the building.
T. Max Devlin
GMT, I heard Ed Allen say to
>In article <tufottoctj244rp16...@4ax.com>,
>T. Max Devlin <tm...@commercelinks.net> wrote:
>>Strolling through comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 28 Oct 2001 07:00:44
>>GMT, I heard Ed Allen say to
>>> Everybody should remain as ignorant of everything that they can
>>> get by with is never going to fly with me.
>>
>>Yes, but what about everyone should remain as ignorant as they want to.
>>I'm not suggesting it as an ethic, I'm just saying, it is certainly more
>>comprehensible than your claim, don't you think?
>>
> I feel no compulsion to bestow knowledge on those who do not seek
> it.
>
> You can lead a horse...
I am insulted by your assertion that you know what water is better than
they do, you ass. ;-)
> But knowing that you need to seek ways to find water in your current
> environment seems wiser to me than seeking not to know.
I know, I know, I know. I'm trying to get you to think beyond the
moment. Forget Microsoft and their depredations. The issue is how
humans and computers /really/ work.
>>> Ignorance is not a sin
>>> but intentional ignorance is stupid and can be fatal.
>>
>>It can also be Socratic, and can lead to knowledge beyond anything you
>>can possibly imagine.
>>
> You must excuse me till I see evidence of that.
An argument from ignorance, from Ed Allen? Couldn't be! ;-)
Please, compare and contrast to the point you were responding to, and
then let me know how far your imagination is capable of extending.
> [...]
>>> The science Clarke spoke of above refers to structured information
>>> about how things operate and interact.
>>
>>Indeed. This is where I think you're diverging from the proper slope in
>>your analysis. Windows is /not/ ritual incantations. True, procedures
>>are inconsistent in every version. But they're inconsistent /within/
>>versions, too! They're just plain inconsistent. Clarke's Conjecture, I
>>say, therefore disqualifies them as magic because they are not
>>ill-understood science. They are randomness.
>
> Magic is entirely about trying to control randomness.
Pshaw; that is just science. Magic is about wanting to /use/
randomness! To /understand/ it. To /revel in it/! Control is for the
weak and feint of heart. Let the meek inherit the earth, while we move
beyond to the universe! ;-)
> When you understand more about the proper groupings of the results
> you have begun to start organizing into a science.
Library science, perhaps. Science is discovery, not classification.
They only do that categorization stuff to make discovery easier, once so
many things have been discovered it becomes impossible to know what is
left to find. We are not dealing with molecules, atoms, particles, or
strings, here, but simply *ideas*. Science is not organizing, it is
refusing to accept the current organization. Go ask Popper; he'll tell
you.
>> So maybe it is just the
>>'Windows is recipes' side of your analogy that bugs me. Still, I think
>>there are bigger problems with 'Linux is cooking'. Windows is cooking,
>>for instance, but the heating element has only three unmarked settings,
>>and you have to hold the food higher or lower until it is done the way
>>you like. ;-)
>>
> MS deliberately hides the changing burner setting and lies to you
> about how high the pot is as well.
So you grasp the metaphor, good.
> But anything discovered by accident in Windows which could lead to a
> start at cooking is bound to be changed in the next release. MS
> needs helpless victims to keep their bleatings against being fleeced
> too low to attract notice of how many are so unsatisfied.
No, that won't work. People aren't stupid. They learn to use tongs to
keep their distance, and guess pretty well how high to hold the pot. So
now, it is a /successful system/, you see, that works. So why change
it?
>>> Not everyone needs to design cars but knowing a bit about the
>>> principles which they use enables you to know what limits they
>>> generally must operate within and how far they can be pushed in
>>> an emergency.
>>
>>Gak! Let's just not, okay?
>>
> I thought that would get a rise out of you.
<*Chuckle*> Sure did.
>>> Not all of us need to be mathematicians but understanding a bit
>>> about the subject might help us figure out the height of that tree
>>> in our yard.
>>
>>Ah, but the question is, why do you want to figure it out, and why not
>>just ask a mathematician? It isn't ignorance if you know where the
>>information is but don't have it; it is just wisdom.
>>
> Knowing where to obtain answers is being a librarian. No wisdom
> required.
You underestimate librarians. Knowing where to obtain answers is
knowing a good librarian. ;-
> Asking is fine if an expert is available, sometimes they are not and
> knowing which neighbor to ask about fractions and being able to
> recognize a wrong answer are appropriate in different situations.
Ultimately, there are no experts, and you have to guess. Now what do
you do?
> Wisdom is being able to deal with both with minimal effort.
'Effort'? A term I refuse to relate to wisdom. Try something else.
>>> Broad knowledge of the way things fit or don't fit together can lead
>>> to reasonable behavior even in situation nobody has ever encountered
>>> before.
>>
>>Actually, I think it is just /valid/ knowledge. Tougher to come by than
>>it might seem, even outside monopoly and post-modernism. The point is
>>that it is more important that it be true than that it be comprehensive.
>>
> Definition problem, comprehensive implies completeness to me.
Quite a problem, yes. To define the terms for my theories, I had to
consider the necessity of 'comprehensive' being in opposition to
'completeness', each making the other impossible. You see what I mean?
Which answer to "what is one divided by three?" is *comprehensive*, and
which *complete*, considering that none can be either, let alone both?
> Broad, as I used it above, meant "wide ranging" not necessarily deep
> and certainly not complete.
Forgive me for continuing the deconstruction regression digressively.
We can agree by consensus on the validity of the term 'broad'. ;-)
> I totally agree with the importance of truth over completeness.
Don't be so quick. You know I'll just flip on you and say "well, what
about the necessity of expediency necessary in, say, a court case?" Or
have I become too pedantic, and lost the context?
> But comprehensive could also imply "understandable".
I think there is a word, 'comprehensible', so I believe we'd have to get
into whether that is the same as 'comprehensive', and we both know that
wouldn't be productive.
> That I have
> doubts about. Truth without understanding is just parroting words.
Yet, it must remain truth or truth is not what we think it is, eh?
> It quickly devolves into "ritual incantations" and the chaos of
> randomness.
The formless void, and an unexplored object comprised of a shell and
substance and appearing as "I Am." ;-)
>>> The Linux learning I am speaking of is like science in that it teaches
>>> not just the formulas and rules of thumb, the 'ritual incantations',
>>> but the principles and philosophy of how this computer, network,
>>> and Internet behave and affect each other which can lead to being
>>> able to deal with situations beyond our personal experience.
>>
>>Look, I entirely agree it benefits the operator, and in fact is
>>mandatory, to understand how a computer works. I understand how cooking
>>works, and that is why I want others to do it for me. I am not very
>>good at it, it is inconvenient, and the results are not worth the
>>effort. Still, I cannot afford to hire a cook, or even to eat out all
>>the time. So what happens? I eat pre-packaged stuff and canned tuna.
>>Works fine, I have no complaints, but I would certainly love it if
>>someone invented a magical machine that could cook for me.
>>
> So you desire the fulfillment of the promises MS has made about
> their computing nirvana.
No, I desire the real promise which caused them to mouth those empty and
mistaken predictions and prognostications. It was a star that Bill
latched his singularity onto, or it wouldn't have made in the richest
man in the world, would it? It isn't just 'commodity hardware', no.
> Nothing real is ever that easy I am afraid. Still we can hope for
> "someday".
>
> We all need dreams. I will not be waiting.
Well, you already are, but that's just sophistry.
> [...]
>>> That reappears in 'sendmail' as the 'smart host' which is supposed
>>> to either deliver it for you or pass it on to its own 'smart host'
>>> to eventually find one which can route it on its way.
>>
>>Connectionless methodologies are universally important in modern
>>technology. If it weren't for Microsoft's monopoly, we would already
>>realize that anything connection-oriented is broken by design to begin
>>with. Still, your explanation makes it appear that the router and the
>>MTA are related, and I know you know it is not the case.
>>
> But the principle for efficiently handling situations or circumstances
> which you did not know about beforehand is common to both.
Only if you can distinguish before hand which is which, and since it is
indeed possible that despite my protestations they are the same piece of
physical equipment, you cannot presume that you can. You have to just
assume they are different things on different levels of abstraction that
couldn't possibly have a single thing to do with each other. Then you
can start to troubleshoot, regardless of their true relationship.
> That is why I felt justified in calling MS programmers refusing to
> deliver content to "browsers we have not tested yet", or whatever
> whine they are trying to pass off, as being confirmation that they
> are incompetent.
It is instead proof that they are predatory, but that is too long a
point to even try to make with Erik, I realize.
> Their arrogance leads them to the false belief that only MS can
> have good solutions. That leads to failure to learn and use what
> has worked before.
Corporations do not feel arrogance, and the arrogance of the humans
working for corporations cannot be transmitted in software code. It is
their recognition that MS does not have good solutions which leads them
to take the exclusionary action you noticed, because they have the
market power to do so and if they do not do so they will lose the market
power to do so, so they do so. It is a chemical reaction, not a
volitional act.
> That is incompetence manifest.
Indeed, that it is. It is called 'monopolization'.
> [...]
>>>
>>> I am aware that not every problem can efficiently and easily map to
>>> the 'stream of bytes' philosophy but many, most I think, can.
>>
>>Yes, we are surely uncovering many hidden issues in your reasoning. All
>>good, but I need to point them out. 'Stream of bytes' is precisely the
>>/opposite/ of the philosophy you are referencing.
>
> I was thinking of pipes so connections are definitely implied but
> you are getting me to consider a "pipe" as a string of 'datagrams,
> one per line'.
How is that different from connection?
> Sounds like it could be useful in machines like Beowulf clusters.
No, no, no. Quite the opposite. Clustering is the harnessing of
/datagrams/, not streams, to coordinate computing. With streams, all
the tasks are 'tightly coupled'. Synchronous, if you will. The
intricacy of something like clustering is to conceive of how everything
can get done at the /wrong/ time, and still work, and relying on the
speed of the chips to average out to super-computer status.
[...]
> They are trying to retain control by containing traffic to known and
> approved circuits only.
Personally, I don't like the way you are abstraction the term
'circuits'. Why didn't you use the more obvious 'channels'? Either
way, it isn't a matter of 'containing', but simply excluding. Face it,
Ed, you are a niche, even if you do run half the worlds web servers.
> The Local Phone companies are going to have the same trouble with
> IPphones.
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha!. "Are going to". Yea, well, I guess most people
don't realize how they already have been for the last three years, since
all of their attempts have bombed so routinely. It is not my theories
about networking that lead be me to believe that IP phone will fail; it
is my experience with the failure of IP phone which leads to my theories
about networking.
The fact of the matter is, voice doesn't work that way, and it just
can't be done. Maybe a decade or two after the monopoly is dead (and
you know how fast I think things will move after that) that 'any to any
voice application' stuff will be feasible. We need a good couple years
/diverging/ data and voice so that we can figure out how they really
work, first. There are only efficiencies the way they're being sold now
because Microsoft has a monopoly in one end of the industry, and a
stranglehold in the middle because of it.
> The ones who realize that the business which can make them lots of
> money is "charging a recurring fee for access to the 'cloud'" will
> survive and the ones who want to be in the "circuit providing and
> billing business" will not.
So you agree with me that virtualization is a great evil that must be
stamped out? ;-)
You've nailed it, you have. The 'circuit providing and billing
business' is what it is all about now, and the 'access to the cloud'
will be what it is all about then. And we can't quite do that now or
even really imagine it because it is so inconceivable that paying for
access to the cloud is capable of efficiently financing the creation of
the cloud, since it only exists as defined by the access providers.
Coompetition, I've called it, and it is the way the Internet was always
supposed to work. Once it does, then phone lines will just be the links
used, and voice traffic can be given the guaranteed bandwidth (via
_circuits_, not 'virtual circuits', between isp/carriers) that it
requires to be palatable to human ears with the convenience that humans
demand.
[...]
> I look forward to it.
As do I.
(A rhetorical joke, sorry. As for my network connectivity model, it is
on google. Check for "Connectivity Model"/T. Max...)
>>> I am aware that Unix/Linux also distorts and limits the view it
>>> presents but I have not beat my head against the walls like I do
>>> with Windows.
>>>
>>> Enough rambling for now. Your point ?
>>
>>That it is lack of information, not obfuscation of it, which is the
>>issue. I agree that obfuscating it is bad. I do not agree that lack of
>>it is bad.
>
> Agreed if we include denying access with 'obfuscation'.
Actually, I can't agree that 'deny' is a valid operator for the object
'information', in this context. Not providing information can't be bad,
unless the information is requested, but you can't be sure what
information to request, so unless you fault someone for not supplying
/all/ information (which frankly you don't want them to do, you want
them to limit it to 'the right' information) you can't say that 'denying
access' is a bad thing. Which is a good thing, because if you did say
it was a bad thing, then all they'd have to do is obfuscate so you
didn't know to ask, and then they wouldn't be denying access.
Which leads us back full circle, and I'll accept 'deny', but now we have
trouble with 'access'. ;-)
>> Granted, lack of information requires lack of need for
>>information (since information which is needed will be invented ad hoc
>>if it doesn't already exist), but that is my desire. Not the
>>transcendence of knowledge, though that is good to. I've had enough
>>epiphanies in my life, though. Now I seek the ignorance of wisdom. I
>
> I balk at wisdom and ignorance being intertwined.
I can imagine. Still, that's just the way it works. Knowledge may be
incompatible with ignorance, but wisdom cannot be.
> Wisdom is "knowing what you need to know" not not knowing.
And thus it is technically satisfied by not needing to know very much.
Get the idea? Did I study PC hardware to learn how to use Windows? Do
you agree that most people only learn much about hardware in order to
troubleshoot Windows?
>>won't be using Linux until someone else agrees with me, but doesn't
>>assume that means I like Windows, because I hate the fucking thing.
>>
> All idols who develop clay feet are vilified.
All idols are vilified. Let's cut out the middle man. ;-)
> You really were betrayed by their repeated failures to deliver on
> their promises.
I was not betrayed, because I knew they were empty promises, but still I
hoped. I was betrayed by my own hopes. But they survive, and soon the
PC industry will begin again.
> We will never get you completely at ease but I think we can
> eventually find something you will not actively hate.
All you have to do is the last, and in six months the first comes
automatically. I am not some old dog that cannot learn new tricks. You
just need to show me the treats first, cause I don't sit up and beg, no
sir.
T. Max Devlin
-0700, I heard D. C. Sessions say to
>In <3BDCFC28...@cumulus.com> GreyCloud posted:
>> "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
>>> Businesses over in comp.os.vms are as far behind the curve as most
>>> everyone else, it seems. I guess it is time to start passing out the
>>> coffee again, now that people are finally willing to understand that
>>> Microsoft is doing something WRONG, rather than merely 'not nice'.
>>
>> Not too far behind the curve, just starting to smell a rat in redmond
>> and noticing Bill's hand in the wallets.
>
>More like "hand in the pants." They've known for quite a while that
>MS had a firm fist on the corporate nads, but so far the squeeze
>hasn't been all that painful, and getting loose looks even worse.
>The key question is whether (a) someone can slip a bit of oil down
>the shorts or (b) MS miscalculates and makes staying with them look
>intolerable.
Your second suggestion is naive, and so I don't see much need to your
fanciful metaphor. No, I meant hand in wallets. Nads have nothing to
do with it.
T. Max Devlin
GMT, I heard GreyCloud say to
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> >Ah, I was thinking along the lines that the old DEC used to charge
>> >annual license fees. This is where M$ is heading.
>>
>> Microsoft heads towards higher prices; it is a monopoly, they do that,
>> and it cannot be stopped (so long as the monopoly continues), nor does
>> it matter if you can tell it is happening, or what method they use or
>> price structure they implement. So it really doesn't matter, is my
>> point, though I understand that it is a 'red flag' to very many people.
>> I just think it is naive, since it doesn't matter what the model is, the
>> only thing that matters is what the price is. If MS wanted to charge $2
>> a year for Windows subscription, who would complain?
>>
>> >Already on the
>> >internet there are some sites that request you pay a fee for a month
>> >just to access their services, like abc news for example.
>>
>> Sometimes it is the most efficient trade model, that's all there is too
>> it. Being afraid of the model itself is naive and silly.
>
>Its a start of a new trend max.
I'm sorry, Greycloud, but you are mistaken in thinking it is new, and it
seems odd that you would say it was considering your experience with DEC
annual licensing. Perhaps you meant it was a new trend for MS, but it
is not that either, because you haven't been tracking OEM licenses,
which have always worked that way (though I realize it is a mind-bender
to think it analogous). Maybe a new thing for consumers, but it isn't
being presented to consumers. And ignoring all of that, Gates explained
his intentions to use such a mechanism well more than a decade ago, and
has repeated it routinely.
>Some web sites are offering their
>services for free while others are having a hard time, so they start
>charging a fee.
This is somehow new? You didn't know it was always going to work this
way? Another way to put it, by the way, is that some find their
services so popular they start charging a fee.
Now, the question is, do you think there is a difference? Do you think
you can tell the difference? Do you think it makes a difference? If
you answered 'yes' to any of these questions, you are naive and do not
understand the realities of free market capitalism. You don't even want
to have to bother, and you do not, and you are only looking and trying
because something tells you that something is wrong, and that just goes
to show how detrimental a monopoly can be after twenty years, even in a
niche market.
>Eventually, you will see a consolidation of this
>service much like cable tv companies are doing and also the newspapers
>have been doing for years. I already pay to get on the internet, why
>should I pay more to surf?
Because it will be worth it to you, and for no other reason. The thing
is, there should already be several thousand /different/ people out
there trying to figure out what 'worth it' means _to you_ (or enough
other people like you to make it profitable at their available
production volume) to make a living. Where are they? All wishing they
had one ten millionth of Microsoft's billions, and waiting for the
government, without even knowing it.
>> >Greed is really starting to kick in at M$...
>>
>> See, now this is the kind of statement that makes me want to ridicule
>> you, Greycloud. What the HELL do you mean, "starting to kick in"? Are
>> you REALLY that stupid?
>
>No Max.
Sorry for the insult.
>Maybe you just don't understand my real concerns here. It's
>worse than I could possibly explain in detail. M$ monopoly is being
>ignored by our government.
If I hadn't spent the last five years tracking cases through the courts
as the government and everyone else tried desperately to do something
about this 'worse than I could possibly explain' problem, I might
believe you. But it turns out I have an explanation. It might seem to
trivialize it to say 'monopoly', and that's all, but it really is both
concise and comprehensive. This is simply what happens to markets when
monopolization is allowed to continue. Gates should have been shut down
in the mid-80s. He wasn't. You're preaching to the converted. Believe
me, I am not underestimating the detail. It is just that you are only
now coming to grips with something that I came to grips with years ago.
>M$ knows this and is now turning the screws
>as hard as they can.
See, when you say 'is now', you show once again that you're missing it.
No, they always have been. For twenty years. You are only not
noticing.
>That's what I meant by their greed kicking in.
And that is what I meant by my correction. Forgive my pedantry.
>Billy Butt Crust Gates has only started to test the waters of licensing
>fees
No, he started several decades ago. When will you learn?
>and I worry that the crazy bastard will seep into every facet of
>the internet squeezing money out of everybody on everything.
Whoops! A bit behind the curve again, I'm afraid. It is a shame it
sounds like ridicule for me to point it out, but I do realize there are
other (millions upon millions...) people who are also just 'waking up
and smelling the coffee', as we say. And this, too, has been going on
for years, and each 'generation' has a large percentage that convince
themselves it hasn't really always been going on, but only now has
become a problem, and another group that decide it is the way things
ought to be anyway because there is nothing you can do about it without
infringing on metaphysical property rights.
It _is_ getting kind of tiresome, _yes_. But (and it fills me with fury
to know how often I've gone through this exercise as well) it looks like
the government might finally be close to ready to do something about it.
Somebody fucking shoot me. That'll help.
T. Max Devlin
Strolling through comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 29 Oct 2001 20:49:52
GMT, I heard GreyCloud say to
>"D. C. Sessions" wrote:
>>
>> In <3BDCFC28...@cumulus.com> GreyCloud posted:
>> > "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> >> Businesses over in comp.os.vms are as far behind the curve as most
>> >> everyone else, it seems. I guess it is time to start passing out the
>> >> coffee again, now that people are finally willing to understand that
>> >> Microsoft is doing something WRONG, rather than merely 'not nice'.
>> >
>> > Not too far behind the curve, just starting to smell a rat in redmond
>> > and noticing Bill's hand in the wallets.
>>
>> More like "hand in the pants." They've known for quite a while that
>> MS had a firm fist on the corporate nads, but so far the squeeze
>> hasn't been all that painful, and getting loose looks even worse.
>> The key question is whether (a) someone can slip a bit of oil down
>> the shorts or (b) MS miscalculates and makes staying with them look
>> intolerable.
>>
>
>Pretty much what I've read over in comp.os.vms. A lot of businesses are
>redoing their cost analysis of staying with M$ vs. moving over to a
>different vendor. Also in the formula is the cost of data loss due to
>o/s crashes. Now the license fees that M$ is eyeing for the annual
>sticking is also causing them great concern. That's why,if you'll look
>at Suns website, you'll see that Sun is striking while the iron is hot
>with the rollout of new servers that address this very issue. [...]
Were there not anti-competitive forces preventing open competition, Sun
would be able to charge much more for these servers (sun must build real
system to compete with empty promises). As it is, the monopoly
depresses the price, which causes Sun to build inferior equipment, which
ultimately causes their own market capital to decline. This monopoly
shit is not for the feint of heart.
T. Max Devlin
GMT, I heard Charlie Ebert say to
[...]
>I have full faith in American business and because of this action,
>I believe that MS will loose 50% of it's corporate userbase to
>Linux easily within the next 2 years.
Is that with or without an effective Final Order that prevents Microsoft
from enjoying monopoly power?
GreyCloud
It certainly is complicated. Linux is also a large threat to Suns'
revenues.
T. Max Devlin
GMT, I heard Jem Berkes say to
>
>> Not that it is a good idea, mind you. Just that it isn't because
>> Microsoft thought of it that makes it a bad idea.
>
>Well this isn't entirely true. If another large company did it, it might not
>impact me. However, since Microsoft software is just about everywhere,
>preloaded onto computers, and "standard"... this makes it more forceful. It
>no longer becomes a choice that we can opt out of.
Again, it is obvious, then, that it is Microsoft, and not software
subscription, that is bad, since if another large company did it, it
would not impact you. It is not because MS's software is everywhere
that allows them to do this. It is that they can do this that causes
their software to be everywhere. What I am trying to say is that any
OTHER 'new idea' that MS came up with would seem just as predatory to
you, as well it should because it is MS coming up with it. So it kind
of puts you on thin ice to complain about software subscription at all.
People on thin ice shouldn't drop rocks, and basing your argument on how
predatory the move is destroys your argument, because it isn't the move
that is predatory, but the cause of the move.
>> Larger than you are aware, it seems. They are a _monopoly_. Companies
>> (which is to say any other businesses that don't monopolize) don't work
>> the way Microsoft does, even though companies are also 'here to make
>> money'. See the problem? You are complaining, but you don't know why,
>> and so you are blaming the wrong thing. It has nothing to do with
>> software installation techniques, it is an issue of anti-trust law.
>
>Interesting. You make me think hard. You truly are the king of kings.
Give me a break, already. I don't need to hear things like that; all I
did is say something that made sense. I would hope it weren't so rare
these days that it makes me a 'king of kings'. I am happy to hear that
I managed to say something that made sense, though. ;-)
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
Just in case you want to feel your head explode again (it is a neat
feeling, isn't it?), here's the next step: ultimately, the only
question that makes any sense, if you work through all the rest, is "why
the hell is the government not enforcing anti-trust law a lot more?"
That won't blow your brains, but finding the answer is sure to do so,
sooner or later.
T. Max Devlin
GMT, I heard GreyCloud say to
Because I seem to be making too much sense lately, I'll respond,
Greycloud, that you've entirely inverted the metaphor, and must
therefore have misinterpreted the teleology because you are flopping.
;-)
GreyCloud
Let me say that I saw this comming about 5 or more years ago when the
internet was starting to draw a large crowd. I was always wondering
when the other shoe was going to fall, namely hook em and then skin em.
After all, there were a lot of freebies being handed out and I saw this
as just bait for the trap.
Yes. That's what has been bothering me watching Gates get away with this
ploy of his for so long. But I've also wondered why Proctor & Gamble
were not prosecuted for the same reasons.
> Gates should have been shut down
> in the mid-80s. He wasn't. You're preaching to the converted. Believe
> me, I am not underestimating the detail. It is just that you are only
> now coming to grips with something that I came to grips with years ago.
>
I already knew you had. Which is why I've been reading all that you
have been posting. Quite a while ago I asked if you were a lawyer, but
it seems that you have a great interest in the legal system.
> >M$ knows this and is now turning the screws
> >as hard as they can.
>
> See, when you say 'is now', you show once again that you're missing it.
> No, they always have been. For twenty years. You are only not
> noticing.
>
Only just now... but true.
> >That's what I meant by their greed kicking in.
>
> And that is what I meant by my correction. Forgive my pedantry.
>
> >Billy Butt Crust Gates has only started to test the waters of licensing
> >fees
>
> No, he started several decades ago. When will you learn?
>
When has he started licensing to the end consumer, like me for example??
Only the one time fee, but no annual fees. Its when you buy their o/s
and then have to pay an annual license fee is what I'm looking at that
is different from the past.
> >and I worry that the crazy bastard will seep into every facet of
> >the internet squeezing money out of everybody on everything.
>
> Whoops! A bit behind the curve again, I'm afraid. It is a shame it
> sounds like ridicule for me to point it out, but I do realize there are
> other (millions upon millions...) people who are also just 'waking up
> and smelling the coffee', as we say. And this, too, has been going on
> for years, and each 'generation' has a large percentage that convince
> themselves it hasn't really always been going on, but only now has
> become a problem, and another group that decide it is the way things
> ought to be anyway because there is nothing you can do about it without
> infringing on metaphysical property rights.
>
> It _is_ getting kind of tiresome, _yes_. But (and it fills me with fury
> to know how often I've gone through this exercise as well) it looks like
> the government might finally be close to ready to do something about it.
>
> Somebody fucking shoot me. That'll help.
>
Well, I do want to see an end to M$ predatory practices. The only
noticable part for me was when other 'M$ business partners' started to
complain about how M$ screwed them. SGI comes to mind. I notice that
M$ has SGIs' header files incorporated into VC++. Also the GLUT.DLL file
as well. M$ sure didn't invent OpenGL.
D. C. Sessions
> Strolling through comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 29 Oct 2001 09:21:01
> -0700, I heard D. C. Sessions say to
>>In <3BDCFC28...@cumulus.com> GreyCloud posted:
>>> Not too far behind the curve, just starting to smell a rat in redmond
>>> and noticing Bill's hand in the wallets.
>>
>>More like "hand in the pants." They've known for quite a while that
>>MS had a firm fist on the corporate nads, but so far the squeeze
>>hasn't been all that painful, and getting loose looks even worse.
>>The key question is whether (a) someone can slip a bit of oil down
>>the shorts or (b) MS miscalculates and makes staying with them look
>>intolerable.
>
> Your second suggestion is naive, and so I don't see much need to your
> fanciful metaphor. No, I meant hand in wallets. Nads have nothing to
> do with it.
Microsoft has always based its corporate strategy on power rather
than raw income. It's worked for them, no doubt, and it's hard to
argue with a net $1Bn/month positive cash accrual. Still, when it
comes to a choice between revenue and maintaining power over
its customers and users (two distinct groups) Microsoft has never
hesitated to choose power.
As for the odds of Microsoft miscalculating, I am far from the only
person who suspects that they either have already or will soon.
The cult-of-personality corporate culture there is almost perfectly
designed to insulate the senior management from early warnings
of this kind of mistake.