Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

[News] Sister OS to Linux, OS-X Has Better TCO than Microsoft Windows

0 views
Skip to first unread message

High Plains Thumper

unread,
Mar 4, 2008, 7:36:58 PM3/4/08
to
Following illustrates why Microsoft Vista Windows is losing to a
more superior OS:

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Home/660E746C-F388-4AC7-98F5-6CB951501472.html

or http://tinyurl.com/fwnxt

Windows 5x More Expensive than Mac OS X

[quote]
A Mac user since 2000, upgrading to each new version of Mac OS X:

1. •$300 in operating system updates, or nearly $400 if
purchased at full retail.
2. •Three major new releases that significantly improved
performance of the same hardware and introduced new apps.
3. •Thirty one regular minor updates with bug fixes and new
features, in addition to many security updates.
4. •No antivirus needed
5. •No spyware cleaning needed
6. •Total cost of maintaining Mac OS X software: about $50 a
year, or around $350 since 2000. (Reports of “$750” were a mix of
Truthiness and bad math.)

A Professional Windows user since 2000, upgrading at the one
opportunity available:

1. •$200 upgrade to XP Professional, or $300 for a new retail
version.
2. •One major new release that improved reliability but not
the performance of old hardware.
3. •Two minor service pack updates focused on bugs and
security features, and around fifty security patches since SP2.
4. •Seven years of AntiVirus 2000 $50, plus $30 for six
annual updates = $230
5. •Spyware and security cleaning by Geek Squad: a $200
annual servicing over seven years = $1400
6. •Total cost of maintaining Windows software: over $250 a
year, or more than $1800 since 2000.

The much lower cost of Mac OS X and Apple’s far more frequent
releases of free updates will be a major selling point next year
for users comparing the purchase of a new Mac with Leopard over a
new PC with Vista.

Additionally, while Leopard will likely continue to run on the
same Macs as Tiger (anything modern enough to have built in
Firewire), Vista will require a new PC to run, likely something
from the last year and a half.

For home users, Vista won’t even include the new Vista Aero look
unless they upgrade beyond the Home Basic version to buy Home
Premium. There are six versions of Vista in all, differentiated
by artificial product limitations. They ship on the same DVD, and
users will be able to pay directly from Windows to unlock the
features of more premium versions.

Will users see the value in paying over three times as much for
Vista over Leopard? With the average price of consumer PCs
dropping this year to $744, will users be excited to pay around
half the cost of a new PC to buy Vista Ultimate Edition software?
[/quote]

--
HPT

[H]omer

unread,
Mar 5, 2008, 5:49:22 AM3/5/08
to
High Plains Thumper wrote:

[Mac]


> 1. •$300 in operating system updates, or nearly $400 if purchased at
> full retail.
> 2. •Three major new releases that significantly improved performance
> of the same hardware and introduced new apps.
> 3. •Thirty one regular minor updates with bug fixes and new features,
> in addition to many security updates.
> 4. •No antivirus needed
> 5. •No spyware cleaning needed
> 6. •Total cost of maintaining Mac OS X software: about $50 a year, or
> around $350 since 2000. (Reports of “$750” were a mix of
> Truthiness and bad math.)

[Windows]


> 1. •$200 upgrade to XP Professional, or $300 for a new retail
> version.
> 2. •One major new release that improved reliability but not the
> performance of old hardware.
> 3. •Two minor service pack updates focused on bugs and security
> features, and around fifty security patches since SP2.
> 4. •Seven years of AntiVirus 2000 $50, plus $30 for six annual
> updates = $230
> 5. •Spyware and security cleaning by Geek Squad: a $200 annual
> servicing over seven years = $1400
> 6. •Total cost of maintaining Windows software: over $250 a year, or
> more than $1800 since 2000.

[Linux]
1. Installing Red Hat 5.1 £0.00
2. Upgrading to Red Hat 6.0 £0.00
3. Upgrading to Red Hat 6.1 £0.00
4. Upgrading to Red Hat 6.2 £0.00
5. Upgrading to Red Hat 7.0 £0.00
6. Upgrading to Red Hat 7.1 £0.00
7. Upgrading to Red Hat 7.2 £0.00
8. Upgrading to Red Hat 7.3 £0.00
9. Upgrading to Fedora Core 1 £0.00
10. Upgrading to Fedora Core 2 £0.00
11. Upgrading to Fedora Core 3 £0.00
12. Upgrading to Fedora Core 4 £0.00
13. Upgrading to Fedora Core 5 £0.00
14. Upgrading to Fedora Core 6 £0.00
15. Upgrading to Fedora 7 £0.00
16. Upgrading to Fedora 8 £0.00
17. Anti-virus (none) £0.00
18. Anti-spyware (none) £0.00
19. System repair software (none) £0.00
20. Firewall (iptables: Free) £0.00
Ten-year Total £0.00
Freedom Priceless

--
K.
http://slated.org

.----
| 'When it comes to knowledge, "ownership" just doesn't make sense'
| ~ Cory Doctorow, The Guardian. http://tinyurl.com/22bgx8
`----

Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
10:48:43 up 75 days, 8:24, 4 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00

Linonut

unread,
Mar 5, 2008, 9:53:54 AM3/5/08
to
* [H]omer peremptorily fired off this memo:

> [Linux]
> 1. Installing Red Hat 5.1 £0.00
> 2. Upgrading to Red Hat 6.0 £0.00
> 3. Upgrading to Red Hat 6.1 £0.00
> 4. Upgrading to Red Hat 6.2 £0.00
> 5. Upgrading to Red Hat 7.0 £0.00
> 6. Upgrading to Red Hat 7.1 £0.00
> 7. Upgrading to Red Hat 7.2 £0.00
> 8. Upgrading to Red Hat 7.3 £0.00
> 9. Upgrading to Fedora Core 1 £0.00
> 10. Upgrading to Fedora Core 2 £0.00
> 11. Upgrading to Fedora Core 3 £0.00
> 12. Upgrading to Fedora Core 4 £0.00
> 13. Upgrading to Fedora Core 5 £0.00
> 14. Upgrading to Fedora Core 6 £0.00
> 15. Upgrading to Fedora 7 £0.00
> 16. Upgrading to Fedora 8 £0.00
> 17. Anti-virus (none) £0.00
> 18. Anti-spyware (none) £0.00
> 19. System repair software (none) £0.00
> 20. Firewall (iptables: Free) £0.00
> Ten-year Total £0.00
> Freedom Priceless

You left out your time. Linux is free only if your time is free.

You see, Microsoft would have you count as money the time you spent
installing Linux, when you could instead have been jacking off.

--
I laid out memory so the bottom 640K was general purpose RAM and the upper
384 I reserved for video and ROM, and things like that. That is why they
talk about the 640K limit. It is actually a limit, not of the software, in
any way, shape, or form, it is the limit of the microprocessor. That thing
generates addresses, 20-bits addresses, that only can address a megabyte of
memory. And, therefore, all the applications are tied to that limit. It was
ten times what we had before. But to my surprise, we ran out of that address
base for applications within... oh five or six years people were
complaining.
-- Bill Gates, Smithsonian Institution interview (1993)

The Ghost In The Machine

unread,
Mar 5, 2008, 12:24:22 PM3/5/08
to
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Linonut
<lin...@bollsouth.nut>
wrote
on Wed, 5 Mar 2008 09:53:54 -0500
<5uyzj.114546$K27....@bignews6.bellsouth.net>:

Indeed. And since every installation takes an hour, the 16
installations above would cost $3200 total (at $200/hour)
-- which would have been more than enough for a nice copy
of Microsoft Office, plus a number of lattes at the local
coffee shop.

Even if one assumes half that amount, $1600 could still buy
a nice retail copy of Microsoft Office.

Of course turnabout is fair play, if harder to measure;
how does one measure Windows' frustrations and malware
intrusion issues? Best I can do is use

http://www.computereconomics.com/article.cfm?id=1090

which suggests that his malware costs would be on the
order of $20 in 2005, if one assumes 700M computer units
installed worldwide, which is probably an underestimate.

Admittedly, the possibility exists that malware costs are
absorbed in other costs; the simplest way of dealing with
a massive infection is to buy a new unit, for example.
Nor does this URL take into consideration initial acquisition
costs for detection/disinfection software.

Absent those, $6.67 per user per year isn't all that bad --
but how do I know I'm computing it properly?

--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
"640K ought to be enough for anybody."
- allegedly said by Bill Gates, 1981, but somebody had to make this up!

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[H]omer

unread,
Mar 5, 2008, 7:13:20 PM3/5/08
to
Linonut wrote:

> You left out your time. Linux is free only if your time is free.

Well the install process may take between 5 and 40 minutes, depending on
the hardware and package choices, but most of that time is non
-interactive, which means I'm not spending time on the install per se.
I can (and do) go off and do other things.

Also, the "time" argument is equally applicable to Windows, only more so
given it's extraordinarily high unreliability; utter lack of any package
management; and obfuscated workings that require what amounts to hacking
in order to maintain the system when it all inevitably goes wrong. Where
hacking proves too difficult or unsuccessful (e.g. because of Malware),
then third-party tools need to be purchased and installed, further
adding to the wasted time and money.

Of course that isn't to say that Linux is entirely trouble-free, but in
the grand scheme of things, the Windows XPerience is much more time
consuming; expensive; and generally painful:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=5MVfOTtD6B0

The choice of Free Software is not only a political one, but obviously
one made for practical reasons too, as the above video demonstrates.

> You see, Microsoft would have you count as money the time you spent
> installing Linux, when you could instead have been jacking off.

They seem to have grossly underestimated the value of Freedom, not to
mention my free time.

--
K.
http://slated.org

.----
| 'When it comes to knowledge, "ownership" just doesn't make sense'
| ~ Cory Doctorow, The Guardian. http://tinyurl.com/22bgx8
`----

Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8

00:12:59 up 75 days, 21:48, 4 users, load average: 0.03, 0.07, 0.02

nes...@wigner.berkeley.edu

unread,
Mar 5, 2008, 8:08:24 PM3/5/08
to
On Mar 5, 9:24 am, The Ghost In The Machine
<ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Linonut
> <lino...@bollsouth.nut>

> wrote
> on Wed, 5 Mar 2008 09:53:54 -0500
> <5uyzj.114546$K27.29...@bignews6.bellsouth.net>:

Well it looks like Homer is going back at least 10 years. According
to Ray Lopez 0.999, it costs $75/year for antivirus software on
Windows. There's $750 right there. Now of course Ray doesn't always
get things right...But my point is that over the last 10 years,
maintaining a typical Windows installation is going to cost you.
Hardware upgrades, for one thing, Linux can keep using that old
hardware longer than Windows can, unless you still run Win 98 that
is. And we know what the "Vista ready" certification is worth. Also,
how many times do you have to have your Windows machine dewormed over
10 years? The average customer has certainly spent some time=money on
that. In fact, a lot of people just throw the old machine out when it
"starts to run sluggishly" or gets an infection so far in the registry
that their local computer guru can't get it out. Yep, a lot of costs
there, when you start to count a person's time...


High Plains Thumper

unread,
Mar 6, 2008, 7:28:30 AM3/6/08
to
[H]omer wrote:
> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>
> [Mac]
>> 6. •Total cost of maintaining Mac OS X software: about $50 a
>> year, or around $350 since 2000. (Reports of “$750” were a
>> mix of Truthiness and bad math.)
> [Windows]
>> 6. •Total cost of maintaining Windows software: over $250 a
>> year, or more than $1800 since 2000.
> [Linux] Ten-year Total £0.00 Freedom Priceless

Are you sure you didn't spend a fiver on the first distro? :-)

--
HPT

[H]omer

unread,
Mar 6, 2008, 11:20:47 AM3/6/08
to

In call charges, maybe. ;)

Back then, I used to download the bootdisk images, and install over ftp.

However, the unsupported distro was free, irrespective of peripheral
costs. Non-enterprise RHN subs were also free.

I did buy an Amiga port of 5.1 from Schatztruhe (an Amiga software
retailer in Germany), but IIRC it was material costs only. I've still
got that disc, and one machine (A4000T) running Linux.

--
K.
http://slated.org

.----
| 'When it comes to knowledge, "ownership" just doesn't make sense'
| ~ Cory Doctorow, The Guardian. http://tinyurl.com/22bgx8
`----

Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8

16:20:28 up 76 days, 13:56, 4 users, load average: 0.05, 0.03, 0.03

High Plains Thumper

unread,
Mar 7, 2008, 5:42:14 AM3/7/08
to
[H]omer wrote:
> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>> [H]omer wrote:
>>> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>>>
>>> [Mac]
>>>> 6. •Total cost of maintaining Mac OS X software: about
>>>> $50 a year, or around $350 since 2000. (Reports of
>>>> “$750” were a mix of Truthiness and bad math.)
>>> [Windows]
>>>> 6. •Total cost of maintaining Windows software: over
>>>> $250 a year, or more than $1800 since 2000.
>>> [Linux] Ten-year Total £0.00 Freedom Priceless
>>
>> Are you sure you didn't spend a fiver on the first distro?
>> :-)
>
> In call charges, maybe. ;)
>
> Back then, I used to download the bootdisk images, and install
> over ftp.
>
> However, the unsupported distro was free, irrespective of
> peripheral costs. Non-enterprise RHN subs were also free.
>
> I did buy an Amiga port of 5.1 from Schatztruhe (an Amiga
> software retailer in Germany), but IIRC it was material costs
> only. I've still got that disc, and one machine (A4000T)
> running Linux.

Amazing, I did not know there was a Linux version for Amiga! I
downloaded a Corel Linux 1.0 version CD ISO image some 9 years
ago. It took four nights to download on a 34.6 kb modem connection.

Corel did a nice job of implementing Linux. KDE 1.0 was vastly
superior to Windows 98, with its multiple desktops, scalable
icons, screen savers, etc. If one hovered the mouse over the
"Start" button, pop-up description said, "Where do you want to go
tomorrow?" They also did a nice job of implementing Samba. It
was way ahead of its time, IMHO.

--
HPT

William Poaster

unread,
Mar 7, 2008, 6:14:45 AM3/7/08
to
High Plains Thumper wrote:

I don't recall trying Corel Linux, however I did run Caldera OpenLinux for a
short time in '97. IMO that was very good too.It came with WordPerfect &
CorelDRAW as well as StarOffice. It also shipped with PartitionMagic, IIRC.

> KDE 1.0 was vastly superior to Windows 98, with its multiple desktops,
> scalable icons, screen savers, etc.

Coming from using Win95 & then Win98SE, KDE 1.0 was quite an eye opener! Very
impressive.

> If one hovered the mouse over the
> "Start" button, pop-up description said, "Where do you want to go
> tomorrow?" They also did a nice job of implementing Samba. It
> was way ahead of its time, IMHO.

IMO compared to Win98SE, it was. Didn't crash either!

--
Free-BSD 7.0, PC-BSD 1.4
Linux systems: PCLOS 2007,Fedora 8, Kubuntu 7.10.
Testing: Mandrake One 2008.1 RC1
-- On 64bit systems --

Mark Kent

unread,
Mar 7, 2008, 4:51:19 PM3/7/08
to
High Plains Thumper <highplai...@invalid.invalid> espoused:

> [H]omer wrote:
>> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>>> [H]omer wrote:
>>>> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [Mac]
>>>>> 6. ?Total cost of maintaining Mac OS X software: about

>>>>> $50 a year, or around $350 since 2000. (Reports of
>>>>> ?$750? were a mix of Truthiness and bad math.)
>>>> [Windows]
>>>>> 6. ?Total cost of maintaining Windows software: over

>>>>> $250 a year, or more than $1800 since 2000.
>>>> [Linux] Ten-year Total £0.00 Freedom Priceless
>>>
>>> Are you sure you didn't spend a fiver on the first distro?
>>> :-)
>>
>> In call charges, maybe. ;)
>>
>> Back then, I used to download the bootdisk images, and install
>> over ftp.
>>
>> However, the unsupported distro was free, irrespective of
>> peripheral costs. Non-enterprise RHN subs were also free.
>>
>> I did buy an Amiga port of 5.1 from Schatztruhe (an Amiga
>> software retailer in Germany), but IIRC it was material costs
>> only. I've still got that disc, and one machine (A4000T)
>> running Linux.
>
> Amazing, I did not know there was a Linux version for Amiga! I
> downloaded a Corel Linux 1.0 version CD ISO image some 9 years
> ago. It took four nights to download on a 34.6 kb modem connection.
>
> Corel did a nice job of implementing Linux. KDE 1.0 was vastly
> superior to Windows 98, with its multiple desktops, scalable
> icons, screen savers, etc. If one hovered the mouse over the
> "Start" button, pop-up description said, "Where do you want to go
> tomorrow?" They also did a nice job of implementing Samba. It
> was way ahead of its time, IMHO.
>

I'm pretty sure that there were Debian ports for Amiga.

--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |

[H]omer

unread,
Mar 7, 2008, 6:07:17 PM3/7/08
to
Mark Kent wrote:

> I'm pretty sure that there were Debian ports for Amiga.

There still is:

http://www.debian.org/ports/m68k/

--
K.
http://slated.org

.----
| 'When it comes to knowledge, "ownership" just doesn't make sense'
| ~ Cory Doctorow, The Guardian. http://tinyurl.com/22bgx8
`----

Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8

23:06:36 up 77 days, 20:42, 5 users, load average: 0.05, 0.13, 0.06

[H]omer

unread,
Mar 7, 2008, 6:11:07 PM3/7/08
to
High Plains Thumper wrote:
> [H]omer wrote:

>> I did buy an Amiga port of 5.1 from Schatztruhe (an Amiga software
>> retailer in Germany), but IIRC it was material costs only. I've
>> still got that disc, and one machine (A4000T) running Linux.
>
> Amazing, I did not know there was a Linux version for Amiga!

Yes indeed, and here it is:

http://media.slated.org/albums/userpics/rh51-amiga-1.png
http://media.slated.org/albums/userpics/rh51-amiga-2.png
http://media.slated.org/albums/userpics/rh51-amiga-3.png
http://media.slated.org/albums/userpics/rh51-amiga-4.png

--
K.
http://slated.org

.----
| 'When it comes to knowledge, "ownership" just doesn't make sense'
| ~ Cory Doctorow, The Guardian. http://tinyurl.com/22bgx8
`----

Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8

23:10:47 up 77 days, 20:46, 5 users, load average: 0.14, 0.11, 0.06

High Plains Thumper

unread,
Mar 8, 2008, 5:44:08 AM3/8/08
to
[H]omer wrote:
> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>> [H]omer wrote:
>
>>> I did buy an Amiga port of 5.1 from Schatztruhe (an Amiga
>>> software retailer in Germany), but IIRC it was material
>>> costs only. I've still got that disc, and one machine
>>> (A4000T) running Linux.
>>
>> Amazing, I did not know there was a Linux version for Amiga!
>
> Yes indeed, and here it is:
>
> http://media.slated.org/albums/userpics/rh51-amiga-1.png
> http://media.slated.org/albums/userpics/rh51-amiga-2.png
> http://media.slated.org/albums/userpics/rh51-amiga-3.png
> http://media.slated.org/albums/userpics/rh51-amiga-4.png

Very interesting. I bet it is a good runner, too. I've got an
older Pentium Slot-1 333 MHz that I reassembled from parts. That
I'm targeting for a Linux home firewall and file server. Just
need to get a good sized hard disk for it at a reasonable price.

My son was telling me that his employer installs more Linux
servers than Microsoft, because their customers want them.

--
HPT

High Plains Thumper

unread,
Mar 8, 2008, 10:53:41 AM3/8/08
to

I and my son really enjoyed Linux. We had dual boot as SuSE 6.4 and
Windows 98. Guess where we spent much of our time? On SuSE 6.4,
naturally. Browsing the net using Netscape provided us with a smooth,
crashless experience on the net. Also, playing Heroes of Might and Magic
III and Myth II provided enervating experiences in Linux. Because it
didn't crash, one could play it for hours on end, forgetting that there
were other things to do as well (like eating and sleeping :-).

There was less inherent inertia with Linux on the net, too. Web pages
served quicker, game tournament play was smoother, everything was better.
Plus, SuSE (then its own entity) served us security patches regularly
through its YaST.

Life was good with Linux, even back then.

--
HPT

--
HPT
Riding since 1979. Current stable:
1987 Suzuki LS650 Savage
1971 Honda CB100

Hadron

unread,
Mar 8, 2008, 1:15:44 PM3/8/08
to

This is not natural.

> Windows 98. Guess where we spent much of our time? On SuSE 6.4,
> naturally. Browsing the net using Netscape provided us with a smooth,
> crashless experience on the net. Also, playing Heroes of Might and
> Magic

Rubbish.

> III and Myth II provided enervating experiences in Linux. Because it
> didn't crash, one could play it for hours on end, forgetting that there
> were other things to do as well (like eating and sleeping :-).

Huh?

>
> There was less inherent inertia with Linux on the net, too. Web pages
> served quicker, game tournament play was smoother, everything was
> better.

Not they didnt and no it wasn't.

> Plus, SuSE (then its own entity) served us security patches regularly
> through its YaST.

Security patches? Huh?

>
> Life was good with Linux, even back then.
>
> --
> HPT

You're weird.

--
Murphy was an optimist.

[H]omer

unread,
Mar 8, 2008, 3:01:21 PM3/8/08
to
High Plains Thumper wrote:
> [H]omer wrote:

>> http://media.slated.org/albums/userpics/rh51-amiga-2.png
[...]


> Very interesting. I bet it is a good runner, too.

Not too shabby at all, considering it's running on a 60MHz MC68060.

--
K.
http://slated.org

.----
| 'When it comes to knowledge, "ownership" just doesn't make sense'
| ~ Cory Doctorow, The Guardian. http://tinyurl.com/22bgx8
`----

Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8

20:01:03 up 78 days, 17:36, 4 users, load average: 0.03, 0.03, 0.00

William Poaster

unread,
Mar 8, 2008, 6:29:33 PM3/8/08
to
High Plains Thumper wrote:

I liked YaST, wasn't too keen on YaST2 but it worked alright. Maybe it was my
imagination, but running YaST in a console (dropping to level 3) seemed faster
than using the YaST2 GUI. However, at some point (I forget just when) they
dropped YaST & you had to use YaST2.

> Life was good with Linux, even back then.
>

Yes, it was. :-)

High Plains Thumper

unread,
Mar 8, 2008, 9:35:37 PM3/8/08
to

It was in Version 8, that they went to YaST2. I think they
should have retained YaST. I liked it, even though it was text
base. It was menu based and still very user friendly. YaST2 was
organised strangely and was harder to use, even though GUI based.

I dumped all my Version 8.0 CD's and books. Kept Version 5.3 and
6.4. Now that I am Ubuntu and Debian based, have decided to
stick with that direction. It is consistent and easier to stick
with one version. One gets used to using those tools and it
makes life a whole lot easier. Synaptic is very user friendly,
so is Applications "Add/Remove" in Ubuntu's Gnome easy to use.

>> Life was good with Linux, even back then.
>>
> Yes, it was. :-)

--
HPT

High Plains Thumper

unread,
Mar 8, 2008, 9:41:55 PM3/8/08
to
[H]omer wrote:
> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>> [H]omer wrote:
>
>>> http://media.slated.org/albums/userpics/rh51-amiga-2.png
> [...]
>> Very interesting. I bet it is a good runner, too.
>
> Not too shabby at all, considering it's running on a 60MHz
> MC68060.

The external clock rate is deceiving. It is the amount of clock
cycles it takes to execute instructions is more important.

I really liked the Motorola processors. My first introduction
was through the RadioShack Colour Computer II, running at 0.9
MHz. Although an 8 bit processor, it had a couple 16 bit
instructions. It was faster in some respects than the 4 MHz Z80
processor. I still have one, might one of these days dust if off.

Motorola had a contiguous address space, not paged like with the
earlier Intel 16 bit processor. I was disappointed to see
Motorola drop off the radar.

--
HPT

RonB

unread,
Mar 8, 2008, 9:48:08 PM3/8/08
to
High Plains Thumper wrote:

SuSE still installs a text-based YaST in its default setup -- as well as the
YaST2 GUI. I'm not sure if it's the same YaST as in version 8, but a
text-based YaST of some kind still exists. I've been learning about zypper,
however, and I think I'll like it better. It reminds me more of CentOS's
(Red Hat, Fedora's) yum (which I like quite a lot). I've got ubuntu on the
kid's and wife's computers -- thanks to Wubi -- and I think Synaptic is a
bit faster than YaST2 -- but that might have more to do with the respective
repositories than with the software itself.

Strangely enough it was all pretty intuitive, despite what Snit might claim.

--
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"

Hadron

unread,
Mar 8, 2008, 9:53:03 PM3/8/08
to
RonB <ronb02...@gmail.com> writes:

What are you talking about? Why do you tell lies so much? Or are you
really thicker than HPT?

The issue is whether consistency is good or bad. And all the experts
say its "good": Whereas you and your moron zealots say "but its still
easy to use with out it". You seem incapable of rational thought.

RonB

unread,
Mar 8, 2008, 9:53:19 PM3/8/08
to
Hadron wrote:

> What are you talking about? Why do you tell lies so much? Or are you
> really thicker than HPT?
>
> The issue is whether consistency is good or bad. And all the experts
> say its "good": Whereas you and your moron zealots say "but its still
> easy to use with out it". You seem incapable of rational thought.

If consistency is so important to you, Hadron, consistently use ubuntu, or
Debian, or whatever it is you like.

Non-existent problem solved.

Snit

unread,
Mar 8, 2008, 10:16:05 PM3/8/08
to
"RonB" <ronb02...@gmail.com> stated in post
EgIAj.295$8H4...@newsfe07.lga on 3/8/08 7:48 PM:

>>>> Life was good with Linux, even back then.
>>>>
>>> Yes, it was. :-)
>
> SuSE still installs a text-based YaST in its default setup -- as well as the
> YaST2 GUI. I'm not sure if it's the same YaST as in version 8, but a
> text-based YaST of some kind still exists. I've been learning about zypper,
> however, and I think I'll like it better. It reminds me more of CentOS's
> (Red Hat, Fedora's) yum (which I like quite a lot). I've got ubuntu on the
> kid's and wife's computers -- thanks to Wubi -- and I think Synaptic is a
> bit faster than YaST2 -- but that might have more to do with the respective
> repositories than with the software itself.
>
> Strangely enough it was all pretty intuitive, despite what Snit might claim.

You can say what you wish about my claims, but here is yet someone else who
is, at least in general, clearly agreeing with me:

Common Principles: A Usable Interface Design Primer
<http://www.usabilityprofessionals.org/upa_publications/upa_voice/volumes/4/
issue_3/common_principles.htm>
-----
By Rick Oppedisano, published in Usabilities Professionals Association

The following are some basic guidelines for minimizing user
cognitive processing and maximizing interface efficiency.

Consistency of Elements and Style

Effective UIs are unified by a common style (layout, fonts,
and design or brand elements). Consistency is one of the most
important aspects of a repeatable user experience. If users
know what to expect, it will be easier for them to build a
conceptual map of what should happen next. If the UI meets
these expectations, the user becomes comfortable, and the
more comfortable a user is with the interface, the shorter
the learning curve of the application.
...
People have a limited amount of attention. Building a
transparent interface through efficient and usable design is
the catalyst for focusing this attention on completing the
designated task.
-----

Another expert who shows general agreement with what I have been saying. Do
*any* disagree?


--
Picture of a tuna milkshake: http://snipurl.com/f34z
Feel free to ask for the recipe.

El Tux

unread,
Mar 8, 2008, 10:17:52 PM3/8/08
to
On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 03:53:03 +0100, Hadron wrote:

> The issue is whether consistency is good or bad.

Consistency killed the dinosaurs!

Snit

unread,
Mar 8, 2008, 10:21:29 PM3/8/08
to
"Hadron" <hadro...@googlemail.com> stated in post
fqvjeh$70v$2...@registered.motzarella.org on 3/8/08 7:53 PM:

>> SuSE still installs a text-based YaST in its default setup -- as well as the
>> YaST2 GUI. I'm not sure if it's the same YaST as in version 8, but a
>> text-based YaST of some kind still exists. I've been learning about zypper,
>> however, and I think I'll like it better. It reminds me more of CentOS's
>> (Red Hat, Fedora's) yum (which I like quite a lot). I've got ubuntu on the
>> kid's and wife's computers -- thanks to Wubi -- and I think Synaptic is a
>> bit faster than YaST2 -- but that might have more to do with the respective
>> repositories than with the software itself.
>>
>> Strangely enough it was all pretty intuitive, despite what Snit might
>> claim.
>
> What are you talking about? Why do you tell lies so much? Or are you
> really thicker than HPT?
>
> The issue is whether consistency is good or bad. And all the experts
> say its "good": Whereas you and your moron zealots say "but its still
> easy to use with out it". You seem incapable of rational thought.

I am actually enjoying this... the two sides seem pretty clear:

Snit RonB
Hadron Rick
KDE docs Peter K.
Gnome docs JEDIDIAH
Bloggers El Tux
Firefox docs vs.
Screen shots
Videos
Tim Berners-Lee
UI Experts [1]
Common sense

[1] Including, but not limited to:
Richard Chimera of the Human-Computer Interaction
Laboratory at the University of Maryland and ASU, etc.
<http://sci.asu.edu/directory/page.php?profile=575>

Jakob Nielsen: <http://www.useit.com/>



Rick Oppedisano, published in Usabilities Professionals Association

http://snipurl.com/oppedisano

The argument from those on the right column seems to be that in order to
"understand" Linux and the OSS model you have to disagree with those people
and groups in the left hand column.

--
Picture of a tuna soda: http://snipurl.com/f351

RonB

unread,
Mar 8, 2008, 10:29:45 PM3/8/08
to
Snit wrote:

> Another expert

And by "expert" you mean someone who agrees with you. Sorry, Snit the lying
troll, but you've already proved you don't have a clue and are totally
incapable of judging who is or isn't an expert in the field. But you don't
really care, your goal is FUD and you lie and troll to archive your
objective, lying troll.

"Come listen to the story of Snit the lying troll
Couldn't speak a word, if lying weren't his goal
Then on COLA, while spewing out some FUD
Out from his gob oozed some bubblin' crud.
Bullshit, that is
Micro$haft tea..."

Snit

unread,
Mar 8, 2008, 10:35:24 PM3/8/08
to
"El Tux" <no...@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
13t6ln0...@news.supernews.com on 3/8/08 8:17 PM:

> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 03:53:03 +0100, Hadron wrote:
>
>> The issue is whether consistency is good or bad.
>
> Consistency killed the dinosaurs!

User interfaces are _usually_ better in commercial software. I'm not saying
that this is always true, but in many cases the user interface to a program
is the most important part for a commercial company...


--
One who makes no mistakes, never makes anything.

Snit

unread,
Mar 8, 2008, 10:38:46 PM3/8/08
to
"RonB" <ronb02...@gmail.com> stated in post
ETIAj.371$EX6...@newsfe06.lga on 3/8/08 8:29 PM:

> Snit wrote:
>
>> Another expert
>
> And by "expert" you mean someone who agrees with you.

Can you find *anyone* outside of COLA who does not? Anyone?

> Sorry, Snit the lying troll, but you've already proved you don't have a clue
> and are totally incapable of judging who is or isn't an expert in the field.

Ah, so explain why UsabilityProfessional.org published material from Rick
Oppedisano, someone who you do not think is an expert.

> But you don't really care, your goal is FUD and you lie and troll to archive
> your objective, lying troll.

I hope you do not mind that I laugh as you panic at your BS claims failing
to be supported even a little. :)

--
Picture of a tuna soda: http://snipurl.com/f351

RonB

unread,
Mar 8, 2008, 10:38:50 PM3/8/08
to
Snit wrote:

> User interfaces are usually better in commercial software. I'm not saying


> that this is always true, but in many cases the user interface to a
> program is the most important part for a commercial company...

And yet, Windows M$ Office is one of the least intuitive piles of shit ever
foisted on mankind -- yet it is by far the best selling. So much for your
theory, Snit the lying troll.

"Come listen to the story of Snit the lying troll
Couldn't speak a word, if lying weren't his goal
Then on COLA, while spewing out some FUD
Out from his gob oozed some bubblin' crud.
Bullshit, that is
Micro$haft tea..."

--

Snit

unread,
Mar 8, 2008, 10:42:46 PM3/8/08
to
"RonB" <ronb02...@gmail.com> stated in post
ulIAj.297$8H4...@newsfe07.lga on 3/8/08 7:53 PM:

Except neither of the distros you list have a consistent UI - both are
fractured (though Ubuntu less so).


--
Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and
conscientious stupidity. -- Martin Luther King, Jr.

Snit

unread,
Mar 8, 2008, 10:43:26 PM3/8/08
to
"RonB" <ronb02...@gmail.com> stated in post 90JAj.377$EX6...@newsfe06.lga
on 3/8/08 8:38 PM:

> Snit wrote:
>
>> User interfaces are usually better in commercial software. I'm not saying
>> that this is always true, but in many cases the user interface to a
>> program is the most important part for a commercial company...
>
> And yet, Windows M$ Office is one of the least intuitive piles of shit ever
> foisted on mankind -- yet it is by far the best selling. So much for your
> theory, Snit the lying troll.

So you think that opinion shows evidence of being an anti-Linux lying troll?

--
"If you have integrity, nothing else matters." - Alan Simpson

RonB

unread,
Mar 8, 2008, 10:41:56 PM3/8/08
to
Snit wrote:

> Ah, so explain why UsabilityProfessional.org published material from Rick
> Oppedisano, someone who you do not think is an expert.

Whether whichamacallit is an "expert" or not is beside the point. His
opinion about Linux is *merely* an opinion. He's welcome to it. I don't
give a shit what he, what you or what Hadron thinks. I *know* that Linux is
better for me (as is) than Windows.

Have I, perhaps been unclear, Snit the lying troll?

Snit

unread,
Mar 8, 2008, 10:50:47 PM3/8/08
to
"RonB" <ronb02...@gmail.com> stated in post 33JAj.379$EX6...@newsfe06.lga
on 3/8/08 8:41 PM:

> Snit wrote:
>
>> Ah, so explain why UsabilityProfessional.org published material from Rick
>> Oppedisano, someone who you do not think is an expert.
>
> Whether whichamacallit is an "expert" or not is beside the point. His
> opinion about Linux is *merely* an opinion. He's welcome to it. I don't
> give a shit what he, what you or what Hadron thinks. I *know* that Linux is
> better for me (as is) than Windows.

Has anyone said Linux is not better for you - or anyone - than Windows is?

Anyone?

Not I!


--
"If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
- Anatole France

RonB

unread,
Mar 8, 2008, 10:54:30 PM3/8/08
to
Snit wrote:

> Except neither of the distros you list have a consistent UI - both are
> fractured (though Ubuntu less so).

Talk to Hadron about what Hadron likes. Maybe you can start trying to tell
him what to do, too. Meanwhile, when *IS* Anal Retentive Linux coming out,
anyhow. You can be as consistent as you want with your own distribution.
See, choice *is* good. Even lying trolls can have what they claim they
want.

"Come listen to the story of Snit the lying troll
Couldn't speak a word, if lying weren't his goal
Then on COLA, while spewing out some FUD
Out from his gob oozed some bubblin' crud.
Bullshit, that is
Micro$haft tea..."

Notice how consistent I've now made your little song?

RonB

unread,
Mar 8, 2008, 10:55:30 PM3/8/08
to
Snit wrote:

> So you think that opinion shows evidence of being an anti-Linux lying
> troll?

Could you repeat that, in English, Snit the lying troll?

RonB

unread,
Mar 8, 2008, 10:59:46 PM3/8/08
to
Snit wrote:

> Anyone?

No, not one soul. Absolutely everybody already knows that your a lying
troll. Sorry, Snit the lying troll. Them's just the facts, ma'am.

Snit

unread,
Mar 8, 2008, 11:04:19 PM3/8/08
to
"RonB" <ronb02...@gmail.com> stated in post ReJAj.83$tI4...@newsfe05.lga
on 3/8/08 8:54 PM:

> Snit wrote:
>
>> Except neither of the distros you list have a consistent UI - both are
>> fractured (though Ubuntu less so).
>
> Talk to Hadron about what Hadron likes.

The topic is not Hadron nor his preferences.

> Maybe you can start trying to tell him what to do, too.

I am not telling anyone what to do.

> Meanwhile, when *IS* Anal Retentive Linux coming out, anyhow. You can be as
> consistent as you want with your own distribution. See, choice *is* good. Even
> lying trolls can have what they claim they want.

Sadly with the current state of Linux one cannot make a non-fractured UI
(even a mostly non-fractured one... the closest I have seen is Ubuntu).
This situation will improve over time... and then you and your cohorts will
"get it". Until then you will not.

Snit RonB
Hadron Rick
KDE docs Peter K.
Gnome docs JEDIDIAH
Bloggers El Tux
Firefox docs vs.
Screen shots
Videos
Tim Berners-Lee
UI Experts [1]
Common sense

[1] Including, but not limited to:
Richard Chimera of the Human-Computer Interaction
Laboratory at the University of Maryland and ASU, etc.
<http://sci.asu.edu/directory/page.php?profile=575>

Jakob Nielsen: <http://www.useit.com/>

Rick Oppedisano, published in Usabilities Professionals Association
http://snipurl.com/oppedisano

--

RonB

unread,
Mar 8, 2008, 11:03:06 PM3/8/08
to
Snit wrote:

> The topic is not Hadron nor his preferences.

Yeah, actually it was. But that's alright, you can *chose* to be confused if
you want, Snit the lying troll. Ain't freedom grand?

"Come listen to the story of Snit the lying troll
Couldn't speak a word, if lying weren't his goal
Then on COLA, while spewing out some FUD
Out from his gob oozed some bubblin' crud.
Bullshit, that is
Micro$haft tea..."

--

Snit

unread,
Mar 8, 2008, 11:06:13 PM3/8/08
to
"RonB" <ronb02...@gmail.com> stated in post NfJAj.85$tI4...@newsfe05.lga
on 3/8/08 8:55 PM:

>>>> User interfaces are usually better in commercial software. I'm not saying
>>>> that this is always true, but in many cases the user interface to a
>>>> program is the most important part for a commercial company...
>>>
>>> And yet, Windows M$ Office is one of the least intuitive piles of shit ever
>>> foisted on mankind -- yet it is by far the best selling. So much for your
>>> theory, Snit the lying troll.
>>

>> So you think that opinion shows evidence of being an anti-Linux lying troll?
>
> Could you repeat that, in English, Snit the lying troll?

Do you think the opinion in question shows evidence of the author being an
ant-Linux lying troll? The statement, again:

In the end, user interfaces are usually better in commercial


software. I'm not saying that this is always true, but in
many cases the user interface to a program is the most
important part for a commercial company.

Come on - not even on that can you give a clear opinion!


--
"The music is not inside the piano." - Alan Kay

RonB

unread,
Mar 8, 2008, 11:03:59 PM3/8/08
to
Snit wrote:

> Come on

Sing it one more time?

All-righty then!

El Tux

unread,
Mar 8, 2008, 11:11:43 PM3/8/08
to
On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 20:35:24 -0700, Snit wrote:

> "El Tux" <no...@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
> 13t6ln0...@news.supernews.com on 3/8/08 8:17 PM:
>
>> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 03:53:03 +0100, Hadron wrote:
>>
>>> The issue is whether consistency is good or bad.
>>
>> Consistency killed the dinosaurs!
>
> User interfaces are _usually_ better in commercial software. I'm not
> saying that this is always true, but in many cases the user interface to
> a program is the most important part for a commercial company...

If commercial software were better, I'd still be using it.

RonB

unread,
Mar 8, 2008, 11:13:12 PM3/8/08
to
El Tux wrote:

> If commercial software were better, I'd still be using it.

It's better at selling other commercial software. Like anti-virus programs,
anti-spyware programs, disk recovery programs... the list goes on and on.

Snit

unread,
Mar 8, 2008, 11:18:35 PM3/8/08
to
"El Tux" <no...@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
13t6orv...@news.supernews.com on 3/8/08 9:11 PM:

Nothing in the above says commercial software is better *overall*... it
merely says the *user interfaces are _usually_ better.


--
Satan lives for my sins... now *that* is dedication!

Snit

unread,
Mar 8, 2008, 11:20:31 PM3/8/08
to
"El Tux" <no...@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post

> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 20:35:24 -0700, Snit wrote:

RonB claimed to even think such a thing as is stated above was a travesty
that shows someone is an anti-Linux lying troll. What do you think?


--
Never stand between a dog and the hydrant. - John Peers

El Tux

unread,
Mar 8, 2008, 11:28:39 PM3/8/08
to
On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 21:18:35 -0700, Snit wrote:

> "El Tux" <no...@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
> 13t6orv...@news.supernews.com on 3/8/08 9:11 PM:
>
>> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 20:35:24 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>
>>> "El Tux" <no...@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
>>> 13t6ln0...@news.supernews.com on 3/8/08 8:17 PM:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 03:53:03 +0100, Hadron wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The issue is whether consistency is good or bad.
>>>>
>>>> Consistency killed the dinosaurs!
>>>
>>> User interfaces are _usually_ better in commercial software. I'm not
>>> saying that this is always true, but in many cases the user interface
>>> to a program is the most important part for a commercial company...
>>
>> If commercial software were better, I'd still be using it.
>
> Nothing in the above says commercial software is better *overall*... it
> merely says the *user interfaces are _usually_ better.

The UI's are part of the software so they're covered by my statement,
too.

High Plains Thumper

unread,
Mar 8, 2008, 11:29:15 PM3/8/08
to
RonB wrote:
> Hadron wrote:
>
>> What are you talking about? Why do you tell lies so much? Or
>> are you really thicker than HPT?
>>
>> The issue is whether consistency is good or bad. And all the
>> experts say its "good": Whereas you and your moron zealots
>> say "but its still easy to use with out it". You seem
>> incapable of rational thought.

There we have it folks from Hadron Quark, "Usenet etiquette
provocateur", "true Linux advocate", "Debian distro governor",
"kernel hacker", "emacs user", "swapfile expert", "X specialist",
"CUPS guru", "USB-disk server admin", "defragger professional",
"newsreader magician", "hardware maven", "time coordinator",
"email sage" and "OSS culling committee chairman" Hadron Quark,
aka Hans Schneider, aka Richard, aka Damian O'Leary.

> If consistency is so important to you, Hadron, consistently
> use ubuntu, or Debian, or whatever it is you like.
>
> Non-existent problem solved.

If consistency were important to Hadron, he would use stable
versions of Debian, which would make his problems non-existent.
Totally clueless, he has yet to figure out that Debian Unstable
should not be used for production work.

--
HPT

Snit

unread,
Mar 8, 2008, 11:31:35 PM3/8/08
to
"El Tux" <no...@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
13t6prn...@news.supernews.com on 3/8/08 9:28 PM:

The UI can be better but the software overall can be worse.

I do wonder how much you agree with RonB... do you think such a statement
indicates an anti-Linux bias ... and trolling and lying?


--
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
--Aldous Huxley

El Tux

unread,
Mar 9, 2008, 12:03:25 AM3/9/08
to
On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 21:31:35 -0700, Snit wrote:

> "El Tux" <no...@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
> 13t6prn...@news.supernews.com on 3/8/08 9:28 PM:
>
>> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 21:18:35 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>
>>> "El Tux" <no...@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
>>> 13t6orv...@news.supernews.com on 3/8/08 9:11 PM:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 20:35:24 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "El Tux" <no...@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
>>>>> 13t6ln0...@news.supernews.com on 3/8/08 8:17 PM:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 03:53:03 +0100, Hadron wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The issue is whether consistency is good or bad.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Consistency killed the dinosaurs!
>>>>>
>>>>> User interfaces are _usually_ better in commercial software. I'm not
>>>>> saying that this is always true, but in many cases the user
>>>>> interface to a program is the most important part for a commercial
>>>>> company...
>>>>
>>>> If commercial software were better, I'd still be using it.
>>>
>>> Nothing in the above says commercial software is better *overall*...
>>> it merely says the *user interfaces are _usually_ better.
>>
>> The UI's are part of the software so they're covered by my statement,
>> too.
>
> The UI can be better but the software overall can be worse.

IMO closed-source UI's will never be better than open-source UI's, if
for no other reason than that I can't modify them or the attached
programs to suit my needs or preferences.



> I do wonder how much you agree with RonB... do you think such a
> statement indicates an anti-Linux bias ... and trolling and lying?

As part of your overall trolling pattern, yes.

Snit

unread,
Mar 9, 2008, 12:42:37 AM3/9/08
to
"El Tux" <no...@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
13t6rst...@news.supernews.com on 3/8/08 10:03 PM:

As part of a patter? What?

I am just curious what you think of that quote... but you cannot give a
clear answer. OK.

As far as your accusation of trolling, well, you have yet to offer a shred
of evidence against anything I have said.


--
Computers are incredibly fast, accurate, and stupid: humans are incredibly
slow, inaccurate and brilliant; together they are powerful beyond
imagination. - attributed to Albert Einstein, likely apocryphal

Hadron

unread,
Mar 9, 2008, 12:48:05 AM3/9/08
to
El Tux <no...@spamsucks.invalid> writes:

What OSS do you use that does not have a better closed source solution?

I can name one : emacs. Firefox maybe. I struggle to think of anything
else.

Snit

unread,
Mar 9, 2008, 12:52:38 AM3/9/08
to
"Hadron" <hadro...@googlemail.com> stated in post
fqvtmo$n7o$1...@registered.motzarella.org on 3/8/08 10:48 PM:

The fact is that Rick, El Tux, RonB, Peter K, and JEDIDIAH - all in basic
agreement it does seem (on at least some issues) - are willing to make a
clear statement about what that comment means... they will just hint that
those comments show some anti-Linux bias and then never defend their views.

All very, very easy to predict.

Snit RonB
Hadron Rick
KDE docs Peter K.
Gnome docs JEDIDIAH
Bloggers El Tux
Firefox docs vs.
Screen shots
Videos
Tim Berners-Lee
UI Experts [1]
Common sense

[1] Including, but not limited to:
Richard Chimera of the Human-Computer Interaction
Laboratory at the University of Maryland and ASU, etc.
<http://sci.asu.edu/directory/page.php?profile=575>

Jakob Nielsen: <http://www.useit.com/>

Rick Oppedisano, published in Usabilities Professionals Association
http://snipurl.com/oppedisano

--

RonB

unread,
Mar 9, 2008, 12:54:00 AM3/9/08
to
Snit wrote:

>> As part of your overall trolling pattern, yes.
>
> As part of a patter?  What?

"Patter" is actually a better word when applied to you. Congrats.

Patter:

4. The language or oratory of a street peddler, conjurer, or
the like, hence, glib talk; a voluble harangue; mere talk;
chatter;

As for "what?" You're a lying troll, that's what.

"Come listen to the story of Snit the lying troll
Couldn't speak a word, if lying weren't his goal
Then on COLA, while spewing out some FUD
Out from his gob oozed some bubblin' crud.
Bullshit, that is
Micro$haft tea..."

--

RonB

unread,
Mar 9, 2008, 12:54:36 AM3/9/08
to
Hadron wrote:

> What OSS do you use that does not have a better closed source solution?

SuSE.

Snit

unread,
Mar 9, 2008, 1:02:14 AM3/9/08
to
"RonB" <ronb02...@gmail.com> stated in post
T_KAj.383$EX6...@newsfe06.lga on 3/8/08 10:54 PM:

Your lack of support is noted... as is your running.


--
The answer to the water shortage is to dilute it.

Snit

unread,
Mar 9, 2008, 1:02:40 AM3/9/08
to
"RonB" <ronb02...@gmail.com> stated in post
r%KAj.384$EX6...@newsfe06.lga on 3/8/08 10:54 PM:

> Hadron wrote:
>
>> What OSS do you use that does not have a better closed source solution?
>
> SuSE.

User interfaces are _usually_ better in commercial software. I'm not saying


that this is always true, but in many cases the user interface to a program
is the most important part for a commercial company...

Snit

unread,
Mar 9, 2008, 1:10:26 AM3/9/08
to
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> stated in post
C3F8C936.AD0AD%use...@gallopinginsanity.com on 3/8/08 10:52 PM:

> "Hadron" <hadro...@googlemail.com> stated in post
> fqvtmo$n7o$1...@registered.motzarella.org on 3/8/08 10:48 PM:
>
>> El Tux <no...@spamsucks.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 20:35:24 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>>
>>>> "El Tux" <no...@spamsucks.invalid> stated in post
>>>> 13t6ln0...@news.supernews.com on 3/8/08 8:17 PM:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 03:53:03 +0100, Hadron wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The issue is whether consistency is good or bad.
>>>>>
>>>>> Consistency killed the dinosaurs!
>>>>
>>>> User interfaces are _usually_ better in commercial software. I'm not
>>>> saying that this is always true, but in many cases the user interface to
>>>> a program is the most important part for a commercial company...
>>>
>>> If commercial software were better, I'd still be using it.
>>
>> What OSS do you use that does not have a better closed source solution?
>>
>> I can name one : emacs. Firefox maybe. I struggle to think of anything
>> else.
>
> The fact is that Rick, El Tux, RonB, Peter K, and JEDIDIAH - all in basic

not
v


> agreement it does seem (on at least some issues) - are willing to make a
> clear statement about what that comment means... they will just hint that
> those comments show some anti-Linux bias and then never defend their views.
>
> All very, very easy to predict.
>
> Snit RonB
> Hadron Rick
> KDE docs Peter K.
> Gnome docs JEDIDIAH
> Bloggers El Tux
> Firefox docs vs.
> Screen shots
> Videos
> Tim Berners-Lee
> UI Experts [1]
> Common sense
>
> [1] Including, but not limited to:
> Richard Chimera of the Human-Computer Interaction
> Laboratory at the University of Maryland and ASU, etc.
> <http://sci.asu.edu/directory/page.php?profile=575>
>
> Jakob Nielsen: <http://www.useit.com/>
>
> Rick Oppedisano, published in Usabilities Professionals Association
> http://snipurl.com/oppedisano
>
>

--

RonB

unread,
Mar 9, 2008, 1:07:30 AM3/9/08
to
Snit wrote:

tolerance for lying trolls
> Your lack of ^ is noted

Thank you.

"Come listen to the story of Snit the lying troll
Couldn't speak a word, if lying weren't his goal
Then on COLA, while spewing out some FUD
Out from his gob oozed some bubblin' crud.
Bullshit, that is
Micro$haft tea..."

--

RonB

unread,
Mar 9, 2008, 1:08:20 AM3/9/08
to
Snit wrote:

> User interfaces are usually better in commercial software.

Prove it.

Yeah, right, Snit the lying troll.

"Come listen to the story of Snit the lying troll
Couldn't speak a word, if lying weren't his goal
Then on COLA, while spewing out some FUD
Out from his gob oozed some bubblin' crud.
Bullshit, that is
Micro$haft tea..."

--

Snit

unread,
Mar 9, 2008, 1:13:00 AM3/9/08
to
"RonB" <ronb02...@gmail.com> stated in post jcLAj.390$EX6...@newsfe06.lga
on 3/8/08 11:08 PM:

> Snit wrote:
>
>> User interfaces are usually better in commercial software.
>
> Prove it.

User interfaces are _usually_ better in commercial software. I'm not saying


that this is always true, but in many cases the user interface to a program
is the most important part for a commercial company...


--
What do you call people who are afraid of Santa Claus? Claustrophobic.

RonB

unread,
Mar 9, 2008, 1:11:21 AM3/9/08
to
Snit wrote:

> User interfaces are usually better in commercial software.

Mere opinion. Prove your statement, Snit the lying troll.

Snit

unread,
Mar 9, 2008, 1:15:01 AM3/9/08
to
"RonB" <ronb02...@gmail.com> stated in post
8fLAj.391$EX6...@newsfe06.lga on 3/8/08 11:11 PM:

> Snit wrote:
>
>> User interfaces are usually better in commercial software.
>
> Mere opinion. Prove your statement, Snit the lying troll.

User interfaces are _usually_ better in commercial software. I'm not saying


that this is always true, but in many cases the user interface to a program
is the most important part for a commercial company...


--
Picture of a tuna milkshake: http://snipurl.com/f34z

RonB

unread,
Mar 9, 2008, 1:24:38 AM3/9/08
to
Snit wrote:

> User interfaces are usually better in commercial software.

Prove it. Again, mere opinion.

In my *opinion* the best UI ever created was the WordStar keystroke set. Was
it intuitive? No. Was it pretty? No. Was it fast and efficient? You bet
your sweet ass. I still use jstar in Linux. Wonderful stuff.

But, I must point out, since you think opinion is automatically elevated to
fact, that this is merely my *opinion.* Like you have an opinion that
commercial software "usually" has a better user interface than OSS
software. To elevate such an opinion to fact you first have to decide by
what criteria you judge what's a better user interface. Is an easily
learned, intuitive user interface better than one that takes some effort to
learn, but is far more efficient in the long run?

So, by what criteria do *you* judge what is a "better user interface?"
You'll find that your opinion will be about as worthless here, as your
opinion stated above. It's all opinion, and an absolute waste of time.

Now, *prove* that commercial user interfaces are "usually" better than OSS
user interfaces.

Uh, huh.

Snit

unread,
Mar 9, 2008, 1:29:47 AM3/9/08
to
"RonB" <ronb02...@gmail.com> stated in post BrLAj.457$tQ....@newsfe02.lga
on 3/8/08 11:24 PM:

> Snit wrote:
>
>> User interfaces are usually better in commercial software.
>
> Prove it. Again, mere opinion.
>
> In my *opinion* the best UI ever created was the WordStar keystroke set. Was
> it intuitive? No. Was it pretty? No. Was it fast and efficient? You bet
> your sweet ass. I still use jstar in Linux. Wonderful stuff.
>
> But, I must point out, since you think opinion is automatically elevated to
> fact

I most certainly do not. You are lying.

> , that this is merely my *opinion.* Like you have an opinion that commercial
> software "usually" has a better user interface than OSS software. To elevate
> such an opinion to fact you first have to decide by what criteria you judge
> what's a better user interface. Is an easily learned, intuitive user interface
> better than one that takes some effort to learn, but is far more efficient in
> the long run?
>
> So, by what criteria do *you* judge what is a "better user interface?" You'll
> find that your opinion will be about as worthless here, as your opinion stated
> above. It's all opinion, and an absolute waste of time.
>
> Now, *prove* that commercial user interfaces are "usually" better than OSS
> user interfaces.
>
> Uh, huh.

User interfaces are _usually_ better in commercial software. I'm not saying


that this is always true, but in many cases the user interface to a program
is the most important part for a commercial company...

--
I am one of only .3% of people who have avoided becoming a statistic.


RonB

unread,
Mar 9, 2008, 1:29:53 AM3/9/08
to
Snit wrote:

> User interfaces are usually better in commercial software.

Prove this statement. Or show evidence for it. Or tell me why, in your
*opinion* it is true. Merely restating your *opinion* does not make it
fact.

Since this is 24/7 obsession, you must have some kind of supporting to back
up your *opinion.*

You do, don't you? Don't be shy. Show us.

Snit

unread,
Mar 9, 2008, 1:43:27 AM3/9/08
to
"RonB" <ronb02...@gmail.com> stated in post wwLAj.458$tQ....@newsfe02.lga

on 3/8/08 11:29 PM:

> Snit wrote:


>
>> User interfaces are usually better in commercial software.
>
> Prove this statement. Or show evidence for it. Or tell me why, in your
> *opinion* it is true. Merely restating your *opinion* does not make it
> fact.
>
> Since this is 24/7 obsession, you must have some kind of supporting to back
> up your *opinion.*
>
> You do, don't you? Don't be shy. Show us.

User interfaces are _usually_ better in commercial software.


I'm not saying that this is always true, but in many cases
the user interface to a program is the most important part
for a commercial company...

First I am curious if you think the quite is, somehow, anti-Linux or shows
an anti-Linux bias. Just curious.

RonB

unread,
Mar 9, 2008, 1:44:15 AM3/9/08
to
Snit wrote:

> User interfaces are usually better in commercial software.

> I'm not saying that this is always true, but in many cases
> the user interface to a program is the most important part
> for a commercial company...
>
> First I am curious if you think the quite is, somehow, anti-Linux or shows
> an anti-Linux bias.  Just curious.

Quit stalling. By what criteria do you opine which is the "better" UI?

RonB

unread,
Mar 9, 2008, 1:46:32 AM3/9/08
to
Snit wrote:

> User interfaces are usually better in commercial software.

> I'm not saying that this is always true, but in many cases
> the user interface to a program is the most important part
> for a commercial company...
>
> First I am curious if you think the quite is, somehow, anti-Linux or shows
> an anti-Linux bias.  Just curious.

At this point it has nothing to do with Linux, BTW. Since you mad the above
statement several times, you must have some evidence, some reason for your
*opinion.* Where is that evidence, what is that reason? What criteria are
you using?

Snit

unread,
Mar 9, 2008, 1:55:22 AM3/9/08
to
"RonB" <ronb02...@gmail.com> stated in post 7MLAj.464$tQ....@newsfe02.lga
on 3/8/08 11:46 PM:

Actually I was just curious how people would respond to the words of Linus.
:)


--
"For example, user interfaces are _usually_ better in commercial software.


I'm not saying that this is always true, but in many cases the user
interface to a program is the most important part for a commercial

company..." Linus Torvalds <http://www.tlug.jp/docs/linus.html>

Snit

unread,
Mar 9, 2008, 1:55:56 AM3/9/08
to
"RonB" <ronb02...@gmail.com> stated in post _JLAj.463$tQ....@newsfe02.lga
on 3/8/08 11:44 PM:

I was actually just looking to see how people would react to the words of
Linus.


--
"For example, user interfaces are _usually_ better in commercial software.


I'm not saying that this is always true, but in many cases the user
interface to a program is the most important part for a commercial

company..." Linus Torvalds <http://www.tlug.jp/docs/linus.html>

RonB

unread,
Mar 9, 2008, 3:04:40 AM3/9/08
to
Snit wrote:

> Actually I was just curious how people would respond to the words of
> Linus.

Thanks, troll. Here's the whole quote -- Note, Linus said this 11 years ago,
in 1997. Like that's really relevant to modern Linux.

"For example, user interfaces are usually better in commercial software. I'm


not saying that this is always true, but in many cases the user interface

to a program is the most important part for a commercial company: whether
the programs works correctly or not seems to be secondary (as shown by the
many buggy Microsoft programs -- not that MS is nearly the only offender)."

http://www.ddj.com/architect/184412902

So much for your honesty, lying troll.

Now back to my question. By what criteria do *you* opine which is a better
UI?

RonB

unread,
Mar 9, 2008, 3:06:07 AM3/9/08
to
Snit wrote:

> I was actually just looking to see how people would react to the words of
> Linus.

And you were "actually" half-quoting Linus and failing to mention that he
said this 11 years ago, when Linux GUIs were quite a bit different than
they are now.

Stock and trade of the lying troll.

Snit

unread,
Mar 9, 2008, 3:13:21 AM3/9/08
to
"RonB" <ronb02...@gmail.com> stated in post 71MAj.467$tQ....@newsfe02.lga
on 3/9/08 12:04 AM:

> Snit wrote:
>
>> Actually I was just curious how people would respond to the words of
>> Linus.
>

> Thanks, ...

You're welcome.

> Here's the whole quote -- Note, Linus said this 11 years ago,
> in 1997. Like that's really relevant to modern Linux.
>
> "For example, user interfaces are usually better in commercial software. I'm
> not saying that this is always true, but in many cases the user interface
> to a program is the most important part for a commercial company: whether
> the programs works correctly or not seems to be secondary (as shown by the
> many buggy Microsoft programs -- not that MS is nearly the only offender)."
>
> http://www.ddj.com/architect/184412902
>

> So much for your honesty...

I made it very clear that a better UI did not mean overall better software.


>
> Now back to my question. By what criteria do *you* opine which is a better
> UI?

Do you agree to not snip and run and to at least *try* to raise your level
of discourse to an adult level?

If you can do that then I am happy to change the topic and answer your
question. If not, well, I will just enjoy watching you freak out when I
point out the weakness of a fractured UI in desktop Linux.

--
Satan lives for my sins... now *that* is dedication!

RonB

unread,
Mar 9, 2008, 3:12:14 AM3/9/08
to
Snit wrote:

> I made it very clear that a better UI did not mean overall better
> software.

I don't care. I'm asking by what criteria do you use to come to your
*opinion* about what makes the better UI? Didn't even mention the
underlying program.

You're not going to answer this, are you?

RonB

unread,
Mar 9, 2008, 3:13:24 AM3/9/08
to
Snit wrote:

> Do you agree to not snip and run and to at least try to raise your level


> of discourse to an adult level?

Raise the level? You mean allow myself to be trolled by a word twisting,
half-quoting troll like you?

No I don't think so.

"Come listen to the story of Snit the lying troll
Couldn't speak a word, if lying weren't his goal
Then on COLA, while spewing out some FUD
Out from his gob oozed some bubblin' crud.
Bullshit, that is
Micro$haft tea..."

--

Snit

unread,
Mar 9, 2008, 3:19:39 AM3/9/08
to
"RonB" <ronb02...@gmail.com> stated in post
j9MAj.321$8H4...@newsfe07.lga on 3/9/08 12:13 AM:

> Snit wrote:
>
>> Do you agree to not snip and run and to at least try to raise your level
>> of discourse to an adult level?
>
> Raise the level?

Yes. Stop your BS snipping and running and dodging and lying.

> You mean allow myself to be trolled by a word twisting,
> half-quoting troll like you?
>
> No I don't think so.
>
> "Come listen to the story of Snit the lying troll
> Couldn't speak a word, if lying weren't his goal
> Then on COLA, while spewing out some FUD
> Out from his gob oozed some bubblin' crud.
> Bullshit, that is
> Micro$haft tea..."

Such as your above BS.

Sadly you cannot act like an adult.

--
"In order to discover who you are, first learn who everybody else is. You're
what's left." - Skip Hansen

Hadron

unread,
Mar 9, 2008, 3:21:56 AM3/9/08
to
RonB <ronb02...@gmail.com> writes:

You disagree with this assertion?

You are clearly clueless about market forces and system design.

Closed source generally has a better, more consistent UI because if it
doesn't then, as Rick has agreed, it is not as good for the user. If its
not so good for the user then it gets poorly reviewed and no one buys
it.

What appears to the difficulty here? Please note this would apply to
commercial SW available for Linux too.

I am at a loss to understand your apparent inability to recognise how a
more consistent UI can only improve peoples perceptions of a SW
product. It's like you see this as an attack on Linux/OSS.

Which of course it is, in a way since most OSS does NOT have a good
consistent UI since people are free to ignore the standards if they
wish. And applying standards is not "sexy" for the average home brew SW
developer.

QED

RonB

unread,
Mar 9, 2008, 3:19:51 AM3/9/08
to
Snit wrote:

> Sadly you cannot act like an adult.

Sadly you can not stop acting like a lying troll.

So, by what criteria should we use to determine, in our opinion, what is the
better UI? Since you're the "expert" on UIs, you should have put a little
thought into this?

Or are you going to continue to dodge the question?

RonB

unread,
Mar 9, 2008, 3:20:51 AM3/9/08
to
Hadron wrote:

> Closed source generally has a better, more consistent UI

Prove it.

RonB

unread,
Mar 9, 2008, 3:24:41 AM3/9/08
to
Hadron wrote:

> I am at a loss to understand your apparent inability to recognise how a
> more consistent UI can only improve peoples perceptions of a SW
> product. It's like you see this as an attack on Linux/OSS.

Going out on a limb here and assuming you're serious, how would you dictate
the "consistent" UI in Linux? And why should someone do so? And, please
provide some examples of these supposed inconsistencies and how they
supposedly inhibit a Linux user.

Snit

unread,
Mar 9, 2008, 3:47:03 AM3/9/08
to
"RonB" <ronb02...@gmail.com> stated in post d8MAj.320$8H4...@newsfe07.lga
on 3/9/08 12:12 AM:

> Snit wrote:
>
>> I made it very clear that a better UI did not mean overall better
>> software.
>
> I don't care. I'm asking by what criteria do you use to come to your
> *opinion* about what makes the better UI? Didn't even mention the
> underlying program.
>
> You're not going to answer this, are you?

I already have - I have told you I will enter into such an off topic
discussion with you if you agree to raise the level of your posts and agree
to stop snipping, running, spewing unsupported accusations, and otherwise
making a complete fool of yourself.

Will you agree to do that... if so then your question might lead to an
interesting conversation. If not, well, what is the point in explaining
anything to you?

Ah, what the hell: in brief and off the top of my head - what makes a good
UI for a *system*:

* Consistency: this is a very important aspect
- menus: those items which are shared between programs
should be in the same place with the same look and
have the same short cut keys... and be in the same
order. Items other than the "norms" should, of
course, be included where appropriate.
- dialogs: similar dialogs (such as Save and Print).
Again, where there are application specific needs
there should be a place for them. Consistency
should not (generally) limit functionality.
- windows: windows of a given typle should have the
same widgets, same scrolling, etc. Again, there
are exceptions and there are times it is
appropriate to have different types of windows.
One exception is having different colors / shapes
to indicate different areas. This can reduce
errors.

* Avoid having buttons etc. be cut off, etc. Use good
contrast, fonts, etc. to aid readability

* Keep plenty of white space / avoid clutter... when
reasonable. Sometimes you cannot do this well.

* Users should be kept informed - buttons should not
perform functions in the background without giving
any user interaction... otherwise users are likely
to repeatedly press the same button. Status info
should be accurate and up to date. If there will
be a pause let a user know with a "wait" pointer
or, for longer pauses, a progress bar.

* Keep it clear where a user "is" in the system -
make paths clear... and, when possible, shallow.

* Grouping of similar functions: in menus, toolbars,
etc.

* Follow Fitts' law - keep buttons close and large...
and keep important ones on edges and corners of
the screen.

* Warn before doing something damaging... this allows
users to explore. When possible allow an "undo"
feature with multiple levels of undo.

* Design with the idea that color blind people, blind
people, etc. will likely use the system.

* Focus on what the user is doing - not the system.

* Having a learning path when possible - and have
the learning tools be something that can be turned
off easily or, better yet, also serve the more
experienced user.

I am sure I am leaving things out... and it is important to understand that
with any UI there should be usability testing. Even if you are an expert in
UI matters the real test is how users use the system. I am also all for
having *different* systems (read: distros) having different UIs and giving
the user a choice. I most certainly do not want to *take* any choice
away... nor prevent a user from using an application that does not fit into
the UI of the system (though programs should be designed so such needs are
rare).

--
God made me an atheist - who are you to question his authority?

Snit

unread,
Mar 9, 2008, 3:50:55 AM3/9/08
to
"Hadron" <hadro...@googlemail.com> stated in post
fr036n$1j9$1...@registered.motzarella.org on 3/9/08 12:21 AM:

> RonB <ronb02...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Snit wrote:
>>
>>> User interfaces are usually better in commercial software.
>>> I'm not saying that this is always true, but in many cases
>>> the user interface to a program is the most important part
>>> for a commercial company...
>>>
>>> First I am curious if you think the quite is, somehow, anti-Linux or shows
>>> an anti-Linux bias.  Just curious.
>>
>> At this point it has nothing to do with Linux, BTW. Since you mad the above
>> statement several times, you must have some evidence, some reason for your
>> *opinion.* Where is that evidence, what is that reason? What criteria are
>> you using?
>
> You disagree with this assertion?

For the record: the comment is from Linus:

"For example, user interfaces are _usually_ better in commercial software.


I'm not saying that this is always true, but in many cases the user
interface to a program is the most important part for a commercial

company..." Linus Torvalds <http://www.tlug.jp/docs/linus.html>

I wanted to see how Linux folks would react to it. :)

> You are clearly clueless about market forces and system design.
>
> Closed source generally has a better, more consistent UI because if it
> doesn't then, as Rick has agreed, it is not as good for the user. If its
> not so good for the user then it gets poorly reviewed and no one buys
> it.

To some extent - sadly many reviewers are ignorant about UI issues.

> What appears to the difficulty here? Please note this would apply to
> commercial SW available for Linux too.
>
> I am at a loss to understand your apparent inability to recognise how a
> more consistent UI can only improve peoples perceptions of a SW
> product. It's like you see this as an attack on Linux/OSS.
>
> Which of course it is, in a way since most OSS does NOT have a good
> consistent UI since people are free to ignore the standards if they
> wish. And applying standards is not "sexy" for the average home brew SW
> developer.

And *no* desktop Linux disto is anything but a mish-mash of KDE/Gnome and
others all plopped together to create a very fragmented system. This is
simply not something which is a benefit to *any* user... and it is a
detriment to darn near everyone who uses a desktop Linux distro.

--
"For example, user interfaces are _usually_ better in commercial software.


I'm not saying that this is always true, but in many cases the user
interface to a program is the most important part for a commercial

company..." Linus Torvalds <http://www.tlug.jp/docs/linus.html>

Snit

unread,
Mar 9, 2008, 3:56:46 AM3/9/08
to
"RonB" <ronb02...@gmail.com> stated in post
UjMAj.325$8H4...@newsfe07.lga on 3/9/08 12:24 AM:

> Hadron wrote:
>
>> I am at a loss to understand your apparent inability to recognise how a
>> more consistent UI can only improve peoples perceptions of a SW
>> product. It's like you see this as an attack on Linux/OSS.
>
> Going out on a limb here and assuming you're serious, how would you dictate
> the "consistent" UI in Linux?

Dictate? As Linux/OSS matures it is heading this way already - look at how
many programs conform to KDE or Gnome standards... and look at how distros
such as Ubuntu are trying to build a non-fragmented system (granted, with
limited success right now). Look at how Firefox is being made to better fit
into the different systems it runs on.

> And why should someone do so? And, please provide some examples of these
> supposed inconsistencies and how they supposedly inhibit a Linux user.

I have provided a *lot* of examples of the inconsistencies - in terms of
menus (item names, order, short cut keys, icons, etc.), dialogs (Save As and
Print), functionality (cut and paste), etc.

How it effects users is, frankly, quite obvious: it increases the risk of
lost work (misusing a Save As dialog, losing copied text, etc.), it reduces
productivity (less use of short cut keys, longer times in menus, etc.), it
reduces the feeling of comfort a user has with a system (as discussed in the
peer-reviewed studies I have provided info on), etc.

--
The answer to the water shortage is to dilute it.

Hadron

unread,
Mar 9, 2008, 3:58:06 AM3/9/08
to
RonB <ronb02...@gmail.com> writes:

> Snit wrote:
>
>> I made it very clear that a better UI did not mean overall better
>> software.
>
> I don't care. I'm asking by what criteria do you use to come to your
> *opinion* about what makes the better UI? Didn't even mention the
> underlying program.

There are thousands of articles on this. While some may vary a little I
have NEVER seen an article which seems to support your view that a
fragmented, variable UI is "as good" or is "easy enough to learn".

What is wrong with you?

>
> You're not going to answer this, are you?

I suspect he will, but why you need an answer I'm not sure. It should be
blatantly obvious to the warts on a hippos arse, never mind a sentient
human being who would have us believe that they understand computers.

Hadron

unread,
Mar 9, 2008, 4:00:48 AM3/9/08
to
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:

> "Hadron" <hadro...@googlemail.com> stated in post
> fr036n$1j9$1...@registered.motzarella.org on 3/9/08 12:21 AM:
>
>> RonB <ronb02...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Snit wrote:
>>>
>>>> User interfaces are usually better in commercial software.
>>>> I'm not saying that this is always true, but in many cases
>>>> the user interface to a program is the most important part
>>>> for a commercial company...
>>>>
>>>> First I am curious if you think the quite is, somehow, anti-Linux or shows
>>>> an anti-Linux bias.  Just curious.
>>>
>>> At this point it has nothing to do with Linux, BTW. Since you mad the above
>>> statement several times, you must have some evidence, some reason for your
>>> *opinion.* Where is that evidence, what is that reason? What criteria are
>>> you using?
>>
>> You disagree with this assertion?
>
> For the record: the comment is from Linus:
>
> "For example, user interfaces are _usually_ better in commercial software.
> I'm not saying that this is always true, but in many cases the user
> interface to a program is the most important part for a commercial
> company..." Linus Torvalds <http://www.tlug.jp/docs/linus.html>
>
> I wanted to see how Linux folks would react to it. :)

I could have told you. And sure to form, WronG comes blundering in , all
red faced, huffing and puffing and full of indignation. Only Gordon or
HPT seem as clueless about computers, sw and general design standards.

>
>> You are clearly clueless about market forces and system design.
>>
>> Closed source generally has a better, more consistent UI because if it
>> doesn't then, as Rick has agreed, it is not as good for the user. If its
>> not so good for the user then it gets poorly reviewed and no one buys
>> it.
>
> To some extent - sadly many reviewers are ignorant about UI issues.

Rarely reviewers of commercial business SW IMO.

>
>> What appears to the difficulty here? Please note this would apply to
>> commercial SW available for Linux too.
>>
>> I am at a loss to understand your apparent inability to recognise how a
>> more consistent UI can only improve peoples perceptions of a SW
>> product. It's like you see this as an attack on Linux/OSS.
>>
>> Which of course it is, in a way since most OSS does NOT have a good
>> consistent UI since people are free to ignore the standards if they
>> wish. And applying standards is not "sexy" for the average home brew SW
>> developer.
>
> And *no* desktop Linux disto is anything but a mish-mash of KDE/Gnome and
> others all plopped together to create a very fragmented system. This is
> simply not something which is a benefit to *any* user... and it is a
> detriment to darn near everyone who uses a desktop Linux distro.

I agree. And so does Linus. Well, who wouldn't? It is ludicrous to
suggest anything else.

Snit

unread,
Mar 9, 2008, 4:02:58 AM3/9/08
to
"Hadron" <hadro...@googlemail.com> stated in post
fr05af$5qp$1...@registered.motzarella.org on 3/9/08 12:58 AM:

> RonB <ronb02...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Snit wrote:
>>
>>> I made it very clear that a better UI did not mean overall better
>>> software.
>>
>> I don't care. I'm asking by what criteria do you use to come to your
>> *opinion* about what makes the better UI? Didn't even mention the
>> underlying program.
>
> There are thousands of articles on this. While some may vary a little I
> have NEVER seen an article which seems to support your view that a
> fragmented, variable UI is "as good" or is "easy enough to learn".

Exactly.. it is not as though a *lot* of research has not been done on
this... and it is not like the research does not support the view that a
fractured UI has bad consequences for the user.

The fact so many in COLA cannot accept this about the UI of Linux desktops
is a sign of their inability to face reality in terms of Linux.



> What is wrong with you?

Do you want the alphabetical or chronological list? :)



>> You're not going to answer this, are you?
>
> I suspect he will, but why you need an answer I'm not sure. It should be
> blatantly obvious to the warts on a hippos arse, never mind a sentient
> human being who would have us believe that they understand computers.

I gave him a pretty lengthy list from the top of my head as to what makes a
good UI.

I suspect he will show no understanding of it.

--
Try not to become a man of success, but rather try to become a man of value.
--Albert Einstein

Hadron

unread,
Mar 9, 2008, 4:05:30 AM3/9/08
to
RonB <ronb02...@gmail.com> writes:

> Hadron wrote:
>
>> I am at a loss to understand your apparent inability to recognise how a
>> more consistent UI can only improve peoples perceptions of a SW
>> product. It's like you see this as an attack on Linux/OSS.
>
> Going out on a limb here and assuming you're serious, how would you dictate
> the "consistent" UI in Linux?

Dictate? What are you talking about? It is up to the programmers to be
serious enough about their work to adhere to the published
standards. And there ARE published standards. They tend to be a bit
looser in OSS but they are there.

> And why should someone do so?

Err, to provide a better UI that is more consistent with the general
look and feel of the desktop? I thought that should be
obvious. Commercial companies spend a LOT of time and effort doing this
for a reason. People like it. For what should be OBVIOUS reasons.

> And, please
> provide some examples of these supposed inconsistencies and how they
> supposedly inhibit a Linux user.

No. You're being a dickhead again.

If you need examples, you clearly do not believe there IS a fragmented
UI. Others disagree. Linus is one of them. And so are most other people
who are not blind fanatical zealots who think that any suggestion to
improve the Linux experience is somehow an attack on Linux and OSS.

You really do Linux no favours with your unabashed love of everything
OSS regardless of quality or usefulness.

Snit

unread,
Mar 9, 2008, 4:35:14 AM3/9/08
to
"Hadron" <hadro...@googlemail.com> stated in post
fr05ob$5qp$3...@registered.motzarella.org on 3/9/08 1:05 AM:

> RonB <ronb02...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Hadron wrote:
>>
>>> I am at a loss to understand your apparent inability to recognise how a
>>> more consistent UI can only improve peoples perceptions of a SW
>>> product. It's like you see this as an attack on Linux/OSS.
>>
>> Going out on a limb here and assuming you're serious, how would you dictate
>> the "consistent" UI in Linux?
>
> Dictate? What are you talking about? It is up to the programmers to be
> serious enough about their work to adhere to the published
> standards. And there ARE published standards. They tend to be a bit
> looser in OSS but they are there.

One problem is that there are multiple UI standards - the two biggies being
from the KDE and Gnome teams - so developers have to decide if they will
support one, both, or neither. Few support both... and many support
neither.

And that is what leads to the fractured experience on desktop Linux.

>> And why should someone do so?
>
> Err, to provide a better UI that is more consistent with the general
> look and feel of the desktop? I thought that should be
> obvious. Commercial companies spend a LOT of time and effort doing this
> for a reason. People like it. For what should be OBVIOUS reasons.

It is not just a matter of liking it - people *value* their work and do not
want a fractured UI to add to their risk of lost work and reduce their
productivity.

>> And, please
>> provide some examples of these supposed inconsistencies and how they
>> supposedly inhibit a Linux user.
>
> No. You're being a dickhead again.

And ignoring my repeatedly posted screen shots and movies... from PCLOS:

Poorly done menus
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/PCLOS-menu.pdf>

Poorly done dialogs:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/PCLOS.pdf>

Poorly done and Inconsistent dialogs:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/PCLOS2.pdf>

Mouse pointers that do not do as they say:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/PCLOS.mov>

Even Ubuntu has its share of quirks - though it is clearly done much better:

<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/ubuntu-menu.pdf>

And the more recent one showing copy and paste oddities and weird text
behavior on selection:

<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/copy-paste.mov>

It is not like such examples are hard to find - or are not obvious. How
could anyone who has used Linux and either Windows or OS X not have such
things be apparent to them - especially someone who considers themselves
knowledgeable about computers?

> If you need examples, you clearly do not believe there IS a fragmented
> UI. Others disagree. Linus is one of them. And so are most other people
> who are not blind fanatical zealots who think that any suggestion to
> improve the Linux experience is somehow an attack on Linux and OSS.
>
> You really do Linux no favours with your unabashed love of everything
> OSS regardless of quality or usefulness.

Exactly.


--
When thinking changes your mind, that's philosophy.
When God changes your mind, that's faith.
When facts change your mind, that's science.

RonB

unread,
Mar 9, 2008, 4:39:24 AM3/9/08
to
Snit wrote:

>> You really do Linux no favours with your unabashed love of everything
>> OSS regardless of quality or usefulness.
>
> Exactly.

You two lying trolls FUDing together again. Get a room.

"Me too, Snit"
"Oh, me too, Hadron."
"You're so brilliant, Snit."
"So are you, Hadron, so are you."
"We're so reasonable, aren't we Snit."
"Kissy, kissy, Hadron."

Good grief.

So, why is it that I use Linux and find it to be a of high quality and
useful, and you two lovebirds can only FUD about it?

Could it be that you're both lying trolls, perhaps?

"Come listen to the story of Snit the lying troll
Couldn't speak a word, if lying weren't his goal

Then with Hadron, while spewing out some FUD


Out from his gob oozed some bubblin' crud.
Bullshit, that is
Micro$haft tea..."

--

High Plains Thumper

unread,
Mar 9, 2008, 4:43:10 AM3/9/08
to

Hadron has an apparent inability to recognise how more consistent
usage of Debian Stable will only help his usage of the product,
preferring unstable versions of Debian; if not for the only
reason as an opportunity to attack Linux/OSS.

Also, he has an apparent preference toward lack of choice, being
the Windows shill that he is. Users do not have a problem
transitioning between different Linux GUI interfaces. It
typically takes 10 minutes for a school student to get
acquainted. Even my 7 YO daughter had no problems with KDE on
SuSE 6.4 almost a decade ago. Thus his so-called consistencies
are inconsistent.

You are better off just kill filtering the POS. As you see, he
is someone who will only chew up your time with his nonsensical
replies. Ditto for Snit.

--
HPT

Snit

unread,
Mar 9, 2008, 4:47:35 AM3/9/08
to
"RonB" <ronb02...@gmail.com> stated in post XpNAj.112$tI4...@newsfe05.lga
on 3/9/08 1:39 AM:

> Snit wrote:
>
>>> You really do Linux no favours with your unabashed love of everything
>>> OSS regardless of quality or usefulness.
>>
>> Exactly.
>
> You two lying trolls FUDing together again. Get a room.
>
> "Me too, Snit"
> "Oh, me too, Hadron."
> "You're so brilliant, Snit."
> "So are you, Hadron, so are you."
> "We're so reasonable, aren't we Snit."
> "Kissy, kissy, Hadron."

I do wish you could post in a more mature way.

> Good grief.
>
> So, why is it that I use Linux and find it to be a of high quality and
> useful, and you two lovebirds can only FUD about it?

Who said Linux was not high quality and useful? I have noted a pretty big
hole in what it offers the desktop user... but that is certainly not the
same as saying it is not high quality (and let me say - at least some
programs are).

> Could it be that you're both lying trolls, perhaps?

If you think I have lied then quote me doing so and support your accusation.

--
Picture of a tuna soda: http://snipurl.com/f351
Feel free to ask for the recipe.

RonB

unread,
Mar 9, 2008, 4:45:39 AM3/9/08
to
High Plains Thumper wrote:

> You are better off just kill filtering the POS.  As you see, he
> is someone who will only chew up your time with his nonsensical
> replies.  Ditto for Snit.

Yep. Good point. I had them killfiled before, but moved from my 15 Gig test
hard drive to a new 160 Gig one when I decided SuSE was the direction I was
going.

I'll take care of the troll problem this morning. Thanks.

Hadron

unread,
Mar 9, 2008, 4:50:07 AM3/9/08
to
High Plains Thumper <highplai...@invalid.invalid> writes:

> RonB wrote:
>> Hadron wrote:
>>
>>> I am at a loss to understand your apparent inability to
>>> recognise how a more consistent UI can only improve peoples
>>> perceptions of a SW product. It's like you see this as an
>>> attack on Linux/OSS.
>>
>> Going out on a limb here and assuming you're serious, how
>> would you dictate the "consistent" UI in Linux? And why should
>> someone do so? And, please provide some examples of these
>> supposed inconsistencies and how they supposedly inhibit a
>> Linux user.
>
> Hadron has an apparent inability to recognise how more consistent
> usage of Debian Stable will only help his usage of the product,
> preferring unstable versions of Debian; if not for the only reason as
> an opportunity to attack Linux/OSS.

Once more for the hard of brain power : I use testing. Not unstable. And
I use it for a reason - Debian Stable is simply too buggy and backward
and I cant be arsed to manage pinning or selectively monitoring
backports. In addition I feed bug reports back into the system. Do you?

>
> Also, he has an apparent preference toward lack of choice, being the

Advocating a common look and feel on ones desktop of choice is not anti
choice. Oh! You STILL do not understand what we are talking about! Silly
me. I forgot what a dumb arse you are.

Or do you think broken, inconsistent UI standards between different
applications on the same desktop is "choice"? Are you mad?

> Windows shill that he is. Users do not have a problem transitioning
> between different Linux GUI interfaces. It typically takes 10 minutes

Yes they do you ignoramous. We are talking real users - not some basement
hacker like you. Real users swap between apps a lot on the same
desktop. If they have a fractured UI then it impedes efficiency. I do
not expect you to understand. My pet parrot is even laughing at you
now. And he squawks less than you.

> for a school student to get acquainted. Even my 7 YO daughter had no
> problems with KDE on SuSE 6.4 almost a decade ago. Thus his so-called
> consistencies are inconsistent.

You're an idiot. really. We're not talking solely about "KDE" you
fuckwit. We are talking about the different applications which run on
KDE or Gnome. I am intrigued to discover just what is so hard for your
pea brain to understand?

>
> You are better off just kill filtering the POS. As you see, he is
> someone who will only chew up your time with his nonsensical replies.
> Ditto for Snit.

You are a fool.

Hadron

unread,
Mar 9, 2008, 4:52:39 AM3/9/08
to
RonB <ronb02...@gmail.com> writes:

> Snit wrote:
>
>>> You really do Linux no favours with your unabashed love of everything
>>> OSS regardless of quality or usefulness.
>>
>> Exactly.
>
> You two lying trolls FUDing together again. Get a room.
>

Pathetic. Is that all you have got?

> "Me too, Snit"
> "Oh, me too, Hadron."
> "You're so brilliant, Snit."
> "So are you, Hadron, so are you."
> "We're so reasonable, aren't we Snit."
> "Kissy, kissy, Hadron."
>
> Good grief.
>
> So, why is it that I use Linux and find it to be a of high quality and
> useful, and you two lovebirds can only FUD about it?

What has this got to do with undoubted issues with different
applications having non standard UIs which impede efficiency? Surely
you're not so blind as to deny this? Even Rick agreed. As does
Linux. And every expert under the sun.


>
> Could it be that you're both lying trolls, perhaps?

Lying about what? What are you talking about? You ARE HPT aren't you?
Wow. if not you must have been separated at birth but the brain was left
behind.

>
> "Come listen to the story of Snit the lying troll
> Couldn't speak a word, if lying weren't his goal
> Then with Hadron, while spewing out some FUD
> Out from his gob oozed some bubblin' crud.
> Bullshit, that is
> Micro$haft tea..."

How old are you?

Snit

unread,
Mar 9, 2008, 4:54:28 AM3/9/08
to
"High Plains Thumper" <highplai...@invalid.invalid> stated in post
47d3a320$0$580$6e1e...@read.cnntp.org on 3/9/08 1:43 AM:

> Also, he has an apparent preference toward lack of choice, being
> the Windows shill that he is. Users do not have a problem
> transitioning between different Linux GUI interfaces. It
> typically takes 10 minutes for a school student to get
> acquainted. Even my 7 YO daughter had no problems with KDE on
> SuSE 6.4 almost a decade ago. Thus his so-called consistencies
> are inconsistent.
>
> You are better off just kill filtering the POS. As you see, he
> is someone who will only chew up your time with his nonsensical
> replies. Ditto for Snit.

* I do not have an "apparent preference toward lack of choice".
You lied about me.

* I am not a "Windows shill"
You lied about me.

* The topic is not about using just KDE - it is about using
the fractured UI that is the only "choice" available for
desktop Linux... leaving the reasonable choice of general
consistency out of the reasonable possibilities on Linux.
You showed no understanding of this.

Peter Köhlmann

unread,
Mar 9, 2008, 5:41:15 AM3/9/08
to
Hadron wrote:

As usual, Hadron Quark supports the dishonest swine Snot

Did you actually take a look, you cretin, when Linus Torvalds made that
statement?

"last update: September 30, 1997"

It is 10 1/2 *years* ago.

Snot is in full troll / dishonesty mode again

And Hadron Quark, the "true linux advocate", naturally supports that swine

< snip more pure drivel >
--
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice which can be equally well
explained by stupidity

William Poaster

unread,
Mar 9, 2008, 7:17:08 AM3/9/08
to
High Plains Thumper wrote:

> RonB wrote:
>> Hadron wrote:
>>
>>> What are you talking about? Why do you tell lies so much? Or
>>> are you really thicker than HPT?
>>>
>>> The issue is whether consistency is good or bad. And all the
>>> experts say its "good": Whereas you and your moron zealots
>>> say "but its still easy to use with out it". You seem
>>> incapable of rational thought.
>
> There we have it folks from Hadron Quark, "Usenet etiquette
> provocateur", "true Linux advocate", "Debian distro governor",
> "kernel hacker", "emacs user", "swapfile expert", "X specialist",
> "CUPS guru", "USB-disk server admin", "defragger professional",
> "newsreader magician", "hardware maven", "time coordinator",
> "email sage" and "OSS culling committee chairman" Hadron Quark,
> aka Hans Schneider, aka Richard, aka Damian O'Leary.
>
>> If consistency is so important to you, Hadron, consistently
>> use ubuntu, or Debian, or whatever it is you like.
>>
>> Non-existent problem solved.
>
> If consistency were important to Hadron, he would use stable
> versions of Debian, which would make his problems non-existent.
> Totally clueless, he has yet to figure out that Debian Unstable
> should not be used for production work.

It clearly states, on Debian's website, that:

The "stable" distribution contains the latest officially released distribution
of Debian. This is the production release of Debian, the one which we primarily
recommend using.

Now that's not hard to understand, is it....or perhaps it is to a clueless
idiot. Key words are: "officially released", "production release", & "the one
which we primarily recommend using."

However Quack said he was using "Testing", & that states (also from Debian's
website):

<quote>
Packages are installed into the `testing' directory after they have undergone
some degree of testing in unstable.
They must be in sync on all architectures where they have been built and mustn't
have dependencies that make them uninstallable; they also have to have fewer
release-critical bugs than the versions currently in testing. This way, we hope
that `testing' is always close to being a release candidate.

Once that bug count lowers to maximum acceptable values, the frozen "testing"
distribution is declared "stable" and released with a version number.
<unquote>

Again, that's not too hard to understand....except to a clueless idiot, of
course.


--
Free-BSD 7.0, PC-BSD 1.4
Linux systems: PCLOS 2007,Fedora 8, Kubuntu 7.10.
Testing: Mandrake One 2008.1 RC1
-- On 64bit systems --

Rick

unread,
Mar 9, 2008, 8:46:56 AM3/9/08
to
On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 08:21:56 +0100, Hadron wrote:

> RonB <ronb02...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Snit wrote:
>>
>>> User interfaces are usually better in commercial software. I'm not
>>> saying that this is always true, but in many cases the user interface
>>> to a program is the most important part for a commercial company...
>>>
>>> First I am curious if you think the quite is, somehow, anti-Linux or
>>> shows an anti-Linux bias.  Just curious.
>>
>> At this point it has nothing to do with Linux, BTW. Since you mad the
>> above statement several times, you must have some evidence, some reason
>> for your *opinion.* Where is that evidence, what is that reason? What
>> criteria are you using?
>
> You disagree with this assertion?
>
> You are clearly clueless about market forces and system design.
>
> Closed source generally has a better, more consistent UI because if it
> doesn't then, as Rick has agreed, it is not as good for the user. If its
> not so good for the user then it gets poorly reviewed and no one buys
> it.

Why are you and Snit continually using me as a reference, saying I have
agreed to something, and doing it without context. The context was that
the slight UI inconsistencies with mixing apps from different window
environments are inconsequential in relation to Linux distro adoption,
especially when compared to other issues.

>
> What appears to the difficulty here? Please note this would apply to
> commercial SW available for Linux too.
>
> I am at a loss to understand your apparent inability to recognise how a
> more consistent UI can only improve peoples perceptions of a SW product.
> It's like you see this as an attack on Linux/OSS.
>
> Which of course it is, in a way since most OSS does NOT have a good
> consistent UI since people are free to ignore the standards if they
> wish. And applying standards is not "sexy" for the average home brew SW
> developer.
>
> QED

Actually, these days, most of the OSS being used in Linux distributions
DOES have a consistent UI. KDE apps are consistent. Gnome apps are
consistent. When you mix them, then there a SLIGHT inconsistencies, and
things like drag and drop -may- not work. However, you can stick to one
WE, and that WE's apps and all will be consistent.

And if all of that is so important, why you get Snit to help you make a
distro based entirely on either KDE or Gnome?

--
Rick

Rick

unread,
Mar 9, 2008, 8:48:04 AM3/9/08
to
On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 09:05:30 +0100, Hadron wrote:

> RonB <ronb02...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Hadron wrote:
>>
>>> I am at a loss to understand your apparent inability to recognise how
>>> a more consistent UI can only improve peoples perceptions of a SW
>>> product. It's like you see this as an attack on Linux/OSS.
>>
>> Going out on a limb here and assuming you're serious, how would you
>> dictate the "consistent" UI in Linux?
>
> Dictate? What are you talking about? It is up to the programmers to be
> serious enough about their work to adhere to the published standards.
> And there ARE published standards. They tend to be a bit looser in OSS
> but they are there.
>

Who gets to dictate which windowing environment is installed?

--
Rick

Moshe Goldfarb

unread,
Mar 9, 2008, 9:46:45 AM3/9/08
to
On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 09:52:39 +0100, Hadron wrote:

> RonB <ronb02...@gmail.com> writes:

>> Could it be that you're both lying trolls, perhaps?
>
> Lying about what? What are you talking about? You ARE HPT aren't you?
> Wow. if not you must have been separated at birth but the brain was left
> behind.

They are the same person.


--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

It is loading more messages.
0 new messages