Bill Gates, self made man, NOT!
Shane Steven Sturrock
well Bill Gates has done for himself considering he started out in a
garage somewhere. Well, I looked out this URL because it is very informative
and well worth a read. Gates is a man who had a huge head start on the
rest of us and used that start to trample his way up the ladder by stepping
on each and everyone. Not a man anyone should respect.
Here is the URL
--
Dr. Shane Sturrock - http://nova.bru.ed.ac.uk/~sss
Linux, a better WinNT than WinNT
Bill Frisbee
Shane Steven Sturrock <s...@bivalve.wsn.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:slrn7dvs...@bivalve.wsn.ed.ac.uk...
> The other night I was talking to an MS fan and he was going on about how
> well Bill Gates has done for himself considering he started out in a
> garage somewhere. Well, I looked out this URL because it is very
informative
> and well worth a read. Gates is a man who had a huge head start on the
> rest of us and used that start to trample his way up the ladder by
stepping
> on each and everyone. Not a man anyone should respect.
>
> Here is the URL
>
> http://photo.net/bg/
And you point? Go back to your Linux hole trollboy.
Bill F.
Jeff Szarka
Steven Sturrock) wrote:
:The other night I was talking to an MS fan and he was going on about how
:well Bill Gates has done for himself considering he started out in a
:garage somewhere. Well, I looked out this URL because it is very informative
:and well worth a read. Gates is a man who had a huge head start on the
:rest of us and used that start to trample his way up the ladder by stepping
:on each and everyone. Not a man anyone should respect.
:
:Here is the URL
:
:http://photo.net/bg/
The fact that Bill Gates was smart enough to make himself the richest
person in the world makes me respect him.
I mean really, do you honestly think bill gates gives a fuck that
windows 9x is total crap? That's what makes this whole anti-Ms thing
so sad. Bill Gates doesn't care, most people at MS probably don't
care. The only people who do sound like nuts because they blame every
possible problem on "M$" or "windoze" or "winblows". I mean come on,
how retarded does that make you guys seem?
"our os is better then yours heeheheheheh snort snort heehehehe"
One size doesn't always fit all.
jedi
>On Fri, 5 Mar 1999 15:08:22 +0000, s...@bivalve.wsn.ed.ac.uk (Shane
>Steven Sturrock) wrote:
>
>:The other night I was talking to an MS fan and he was going on about how
>:well Bill Gates has done for himself considering he started out in a
>:garage somewhere. Well, I looked out this URL because it is very informative
>:and well worth a read. Gates is a man who had a huge head start on the
>:rest of us and used that start to trample his way up the ladder by stepping
>:on each and everyone. Not a man anyone should respect.
>:
>:Here is the URL
>:
>:http://photo.net/bg/
>
>
>The fact that Bill Gates was smart enough to make himself the richest
>person in the world makes me respect him.
>
>I mean really, do you honestly think bill gates gives a fuck that
>windows 9x is total crap? That's what makes this whole anti-Ms thing
>so sad. Bill Gates doesn't care, most people at MS probably don't
>care. The only people who do sound like nuts because they blame every
>possible problem on "M$" or "windoze" or "winblows". I mean come on,
When I have to spend time dealing with when the OS goes
poo-poo all over itself, that is indeed a problem of the
OS and whoever produced it.
>how retarded does that make you guys seem?
In a working free market, it wouldn't be an issue.
We could just buy our 'volvos' or 'F150's or 'benzes'
and get on with our lives with no relative utility
issues due to the fact that OUR SIZE isn't the market leader.
>
>
>"our os is better then yours heeheheheheh snort snort heehehehe"
>
>One size doesn't always fit all.
--
Herding Humans ~ Herding Cats
Neither will do a thing unless they really want to, or |||
is coerced to the point where it will scratch your eyes out / | \
as soon as your grip slips.
In search of sane PPP docs? Try http://penguin.lvcm.com
jik-
>
> On Fri, 5 Mar 1999 15:08:22 +0000, s...@bivalve.wsn.ed.ac.uk (Shane
> Steven Sturrock) wrote:
>
> :The other night I was talking to an MS fan and he was going on about how
> :well Bill Gates has done for himself considering he started out in a
> :garage somewhere. Well, I looked out this URL because it is very informative
> :and well worth a read. Gates is a man who had a huge head start on the
> :rest of us and used that start to trample his way up the ladder by stepping
> :on each and everyone. Not a man anyone should respect.
> :
> :Here is the URL
> :
> :http://photo.net/bg/
>
> The fact that Bill Gates was smart enough to make himself the richest
> person in the world makes me respect him.
>
> I mean really, do you honestly think bill gates gives a fuck that
> windows 9x is total crap? That's what makes this whole anti-Ms thing
> so sad. Bill Gates doesn't care, most people at MS probably don't
> care. The only people who do sound like nuts because they blame every
> possible problem on "M$" or "windoze" or "winblows". I mean come on,
You just argue that BG doesn't give a fuck if windows is crap, that
noone in MS gives a fuck about anyone,...yet your willing to put these
people in a much higer incom bracket then you by continuing to purchace
they're we don't care, we know its crap, software???
It boggles the mind, it really does. You must have a very low self
esteem.
jedi
>The fact that I have to use this newsgroup makes me question Linux as an
>operating system.
Nothing about Linux requires one to use this particular
newsgroup. Nothing about linux requires really any of
the other linux newsgroups as the real information is
bundled with the OS to begin with.
Furthermore, the need to consult such 'support sources'
is not merely limited to Linux as the existence of the
*win* variants of these groups shows.
>
>jedi wrote in message ...
>>On 5 Mar 1999 20:22:05 -0600, Jeff Szarka <Trad...@concentric.net> wrote:
>>>On Fri, 5 Mar 1999 15:08:22 +0000, s...@bivalve.wsn.ed.ac.uk (Shane
>>>Steven Sturrock) wrote:
>>>
>>>:The other night I was talking to an MS fan and he was going on about how
>>>:well Bill Gates has done for himself considering he started out in a
>>>:garage somewhere. Well, I looked out this URL because it is very
>informative
>>>:and well worth a read. Gates is a man who had a huge head start on the
>>>:rest of us and used that start to trample his way up the ladder by
>stepping
>>>:on each and everyone. Not a man anyone should respect.
>>>:
>>>:Here is the URL
>>>:
>>>:http://photo.net/bg/
>>>
>>>
>>>The fact that Bill Gates was smart enough to make himself the richest
>>>person in the world makes me respect him.
>>>
>>>I mean really, do you honestly think bill gates gives a fuck that
>>>windows 9x is total crap? That's what makes this whole anti-Ms thing
>>>so sad. Bill Gates doesn't care, most people at MS probably don't
>>>care. The only people who do sound like nuts because they blame every
>>>possible problem on "M$" or "windoze" or "winblows". I mean come on,
>>
>> When I have to spend time dealing with when the OS goes
>> poo-poo all over itself, that is indeed a problem of the
>> OS and whoever produced it.
>>
>>>how retarded does that make you guys seem?
>>
>> In a working free market, it wouldn't be an issue.
>> We could just buy our 'volvos' or 'F150's or 'benzes'
>> and get on with our lives with no relative utility
>> issues due to the fact that OUR SIZE isn't the market leader.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"our os is better then yours heeheheheheh snort snort heehehehe"
>>>
>>>One size doesn't always fit all.
>>
>>
dev...@ics.com
Christopher B. Browne
>The fact that Bill Gates was smart enough to make himself the richest
>person in the world makes me respect him.
.. And the fact that Winston Churchill succeeded at helping Britain
survive against German onslaughts in WWII until further assistance
from North America helped them push back makes me respect him, with
some degree of admiration.
In contrast, Certain Other Leaders In That Conflict may have succeeded
at getting lots of people killed, and lined assorted pockets with
wealth while it lasted, and if placed in the same room, I'd have to
treat such folks "with respect" (for fear of my LIFE), but that
doesn't mean that they are considered other than reprehensible
villains.
Bill Gates is no Adolf Hitler, but he's no Albert Schweitzer either.
More like an Ivan Boesky...
--
Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
-- Henry Spencer <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
cbbr...@hex.net - "What have you contributed to free software today?..."
mlw
>
> On Fri, 5 Mar 1999 15:08:22 +0000, s...@bivalve.wsn.ed.ac.uk (Shane
> Steven Sturrock) wrote:
>
> :The other night I was talking to an MS fan and he was going on about how
> :well Bill Gates has done for himself considering he started out in a
> :garage somewhere. Well, I looked out this URL because it is very informative
> :and well worth a read. Gates is a man who had a huge head start on the
> :rest of us and used that start to trample his way up the ladder by stepping
> :on each and everyone. Not a man anyone should respect.
> :
> :Here is the URL
> :
> :http://photo.net/bg/
>
> person in the world makes me respect him.
Is 'smart' the same as ruthless? I have *NO* respect for Bill. Respect
is an important word and feeling, you have this for Bill Gates? That can
be very telling about your character.
>
> I mean really, do you honestly think bill gates gives a fuck that
> windows 9x is total crap? That's what makes this whole anti-Ms thing
> so sad. Bill Gates doesn't care, most people at MS probably don't
> care. The only people who do sound like nuts because they blame every
> possible problem on "M$" or "windoze" or "winblows". I mean come on,
> how retarded does that make you guys seem?
Windows, as an operating system, (and I am assigning this title lightly)
is a disaster. Microsoft's position was obtained dishonestly and must be
corrected. Hopefully the DOJ will have some effect.
>
> "our os is better then yours heeheheheheh snort snort heehehehe"
I really is, mock as much as you wish. We chuckle overtime we see a
Windows system hang or crash.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 95, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit the Mohawk Software website: www.mohawksoft.com
Ben Preston
products has been relatively painless. Linux, though someday I may get it
installed such that it is a better OS than Windows, has been much more
difficult.
jedi wrote in message ...
>On Sat, 06 Mar 1999 06:03:01 GMT, Ben Preston <rrpr...@flash.net> wrote:
>>The fact that I have to use this newsgroup makes me question Linux as an
>>operating system.
>
> Nothing about Linux requires one to use this particular
> newsgroup. Nothing about linux requires really any of
> the other linux newsgroups as the real information is
> bundled with the OS to begin with.
>
> Furthermore, the need to consult such 'support sources'
> is not merely limited to Linux as the existence of the
> *win* variants of these groups shows.
>
>>
>>jedi wrote in message ...
>>>>On Fri, 5 Mar 1999 15:08:22 +0000, s...@bivalve.wsn.ed.ac.uk (Shane
>>>>Steven Sturrock) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>:The other night I was talking to an MS fan and he was going on about
how
>>>>:well Bill Gates has done for himself considering he started out in a
>>>>:garage somewhere. Well, I looked out this URL because it is very
>>informative
>>>>:and well worth a read. Gates is a man who had a huge head start on the
>>>>:rest of us and used that start to trample his way up the ladder by
>>stepping
>>>>:on each and everyone. Not a man anyone should respect.
>>>>:
>>>>:Here is the URL
>>>>:
>>>>:http://photo.net/bg/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The fact that Bill Gates was smart enough to make himself the richest
>>>>person in the world makes me respect him.
>>>>
>>>>windows 9x is total crap? That's what makes this whole anti-Ms thing
>>>>so sad. Bill Gates doesn't care, most people at MS probably don't
>>>>care. The only people who do sound like nuts because they blame every
>>>>possible problem on "M$" or "windoze" or "winblows". I mean come on,
>>>
>>> poo-poo all over itself, that is indeed a problem of the
>>> OS and whoever produced it.
>>>
>>>
>>> We could just buy our 'volvos' or 'F150's or 'benzes'
>>> and get on with our lives with no relative utility
>>> issues due to the fact that OUR SIZE isn't the market leader.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
mlw
>
> On Sat, 06 Mar 1999 04:38:23 +0000, mlw <ma...@mohawksoft.com> wrote:
>
> :> The fact that Bill Gates was smart enough to make himself the richest
> :> person in the world makes me respect him.
> :Is 'smart' the same as ruthless? I have *NO* respect for Bill. Respect
> :is an important word and feeling, you have this for Bill Gates? That can
> :be very telling about your character.
>
> Well my character has nothing to do with it but the simple fact is the
> strong survive. If IBM had played a little dirtier then os/2 would
> probably still be a serious contender for the desktop market. I have a
> respect for Bill Gates along the lines of the respect I have for a
> dictator who has a whole country blindly follow him. How many of us
> could do what Bill Gates has done? You don't have to like his tactics
> but can't you see where I'm coming from? He built himself an empire by
> being ruthless, by using his wealth and power to pressure the market
> into following him.
First of all, you give Bill Gates way too much credit for where he is.
He was the right guy, in the right place, at the right time. His
contribution much less than fates. He was ruthless enough to take
advantage of it.
I have read a few Biographies and have known people that have worked
with him. Bill Himself is very insecure about where he is and has a
strange need to prove to himself that it wasn't luck. He drives his
employees 70 hours a week, strong arms OEMS, etc. Sorry, I can't respect
the guy. I think he is scum.
>
> Think back to the os/2 Vs. win3.1/95 days, developers stuck to
> win3.1/75. Sure some did os/2 stuff but more often then not they
> didn't give os/2 the attention it deserved. I thin more blame goes to
> the developers who ignored os/2, they let Ms get such a lead in the os
> war that even now it's hard for anyone to make a serious threat. I
> respect Bill Gates because he was the puppet master pulling the
> strings, the pathetic ones are the people who played right into it.
Were you working in the industry at the time? I was. Most developers (I
know, including myself) wanted to put a lot of effort into OS/2. The
SDK's were over a $1000 and no marketing presence was felt. It is hard
to professionally work on an OS when know one knows about it and
management plays "wait and see." By the time people did know about it
there were no apps and management said, "see!" Duh!
This is why getting the word out about Linux is important, this is why
writing applications is important.
> Rome wasn't built in a day, and it wasn't built by one person. Blaming
> MS alone is like (to use a common reference when dealing with Bill
> Gates) like blaming Hitler and letting off the hook all his henchmen.
I usually stop responding when ever someone uses a hitler metaphor,
however, I will give you the benefit of the doubt for now. M$ has a lot
to do with why there are not more operating system choices, that's what
the DOJ trial is all about.
Digital Research has always had a better DOS, why wasn't it used?
Because OEM couldn't offer choice of a new comer without risking access
to a standard. This is monopoly practices.
"DOS ain't done, until Lotus don't run?" It has been rumored (reliably)
that Micrsoft intentionally broke DOS programs that competed with
Microsoft ones.
Windows 2.x had an explicit API for Microsoft Word (Then a DOS program).
Concurrent DOS was way better than anything M$ was working on, yet
failed because it could not get OEM support (see above)
Essentially, business guys suck. They have no back bone and no vision.
When an Engineer comes up with an idea, the business mans response is
"Why isn't every one else doing it?" (Meaning he doesn't think it is
viable) A business man is not going to use what isn't seen as safe.
Microsoft's posturing and strong arm tactics make it almost impossible
to get commercial development resources allocated to new operating
systems/paradigms.
Why ISN'T Microsoft to blame?
>
> :>
> :> "our os is better then yours heeheheheheh snort snort heehehehe"
> :
> :I really is, mock as much as you wish. We chuckle overtime we see a
> :Windows system hang or crash.
>
> Well I get a good laugh out of seeing it too. In no way to I think win
> 9x is a good operating system(if you can even call it that). I just
> don't think linux is very good either. I really don't think a
> non-commercial Os will ever take down windows.
I take issue here, you don't think Linux is very good. Why? Also, Linux
can be very commercial, Caldera and RedHat are making very good money
being commercial sellers of Linux. The fact that the kernel is GNU
should make companies happy because they can go to multiple places to
fix the OS if is broken. With Microsoft you must wait for a service
pack, and then only if Microsoft wants to fix it.
>
> I've talked to many would be linux users in the last 3 months (since
> the media hype started) that bought redhat thinking it was going to
> blow away windows and do everything windows did only 100 times better
> and almost all of them are back to using 9x.
They probably expected it to run Windows programs. This is a regrettable
misunderstanding. My mom was talking to a coworker about computers. The
coworker had a floppy that could not be read by someone else's computer.
My mom was confused, "Why was that?" I then explained about Macintosh,
Windows, Linux, and UNIX how these are either "hardware" and/or
operating system differences and how that relates to what is on the
floppy, etc. She said, "that sounds so complicated, why can't they all
just read one type of floppy?" People don't get it.
> I can safely say most people who have used a GUI for almost all their
> computer using life can not handle a command prompt, they can't handle
> un-friendly error messages, and they don't want to see anything on
> their screen except a pretty little desktop with bright icons.
And why is this against Linux? Linux is at least as GUI based as Windows
9x. Linux is just as GUI based as NT. It is only because Microsoft tries
to hide the underlying OS that one would think differently.
Windows 9x boots to a character prompt, then boots a GUI (win.com)
Linux boots to a character prompt, then can boot a GUI (xdm)
What's the difference? Except that Windows is less stable, uses more CPU
resources, can't multitask worth a damn.
Robert Scott Quinn
Gates is a man who had a huge head start on the
>rest of us and used that start to trample his way up the ladder by stepping
>on each and everyone. Not a man anyone should respect.
People who do not like Windows, Pentia, Office Apps, Microsoft Games, etc.
should just not buy them. If you like difficult and sometimes dangerous,
lengthy command line filled installations with no guarantee of friendly
tech-support, poor device driver support, and a simple lack of numerous
user-friendly conveniences in the user-interface, then choose some kind of
Unix.
True, Unix platforms are more stable, but I'll take a bi-weekly crash with
Windows rather than the inconvience-laden Unix system anyday.
Hopefully you will never be too successful - so that other people like you
will not hate you - the way you hate Gates. Given your attitude toward
success, I don't think that will ever be a problem.
Rob Quinn
jedi
>
>Gates is a man who had a huge head start on the
>>rest of us and used that start to trample his way up the ladder by stepping
>>on each and everyone. Not a man anyone should respect.
>
>
>People who do not like Windows, Pentia, Office Apps, Microsoft Games, etc.
>should just not buy them. If you like difficult and sometimes dangerous,
>lengthy command line filled installations with no guarantee of friendly
>tech-support, poor device driver support, and a simple lack of numerous
>user-friendly conveniences in the user-interface, then choose some kind of
>Unix.
This is pretty much a work of fiction beyond that same
old tired 'its not DOS' argument which just happens to
have gotten thrown at everything !DOS for the last 10
years to torpedo anything !DOS.
'friendly' tech support is not relevant. However, competent
tech support is. Using Win32 will gaurantee neither. The user
friendly support number might even be some 1-900 number.
While some vendors tend more towards character cell vs. bitmaped
eye candy, Unix installers are no more prone to subjecting one
to a 'dangerous' command line than is Windows.
Graphical conveniences have been in Unix longer than they have
been in Windows.
Device support is a hit or miss proposition either way in any
OS that puts itself on top of a collection of random spare parts.
>
>True, Unix platforms are more stable, but I'll take a bi-weekly crash with
>Windows rather than the inconvience-laden Unix system anyday.
>
>Hopefully you will never be too successful - so that other people like you
>will not hate you - the way you hate Gates. Given your attitude toward
>success, I don't think that will ever be a problem.
Success isn't the problem, fraud is. Some of us wish all
the other (actual) competitors all the best. It's only
the DOS-drones that work against free choice in practice.
Mark Metson
>
> Jeff Szarka wrote:
> >
> > Well my character has nothing to do with it but the simple fact is the
> > strong survive. If IBM had played a little dirtier then os/2 would
> > probably still be a serious contender for the desktop market. I have a
> > respect for Bill Gates along the lines of the respect I have for a
> > dictator who has a whole country blindly follow him. How many of us
> > could do what Bill Gates has done? You don't have to like his tactics
> > but can't you see where I'm coming from? He built himself an empire by
> > being ruthless, by using his wealth and power to pressure the market
> > into following him.
Any pocket-sized Napoleon can do that. ;-)
The real difficulty in point of fact is in AVOIDING it!
> First of all, you give Bill Gates way too much credit for where he is.
> He was the right guy, in the right place, at the right time. His
> contribution much less than fates. He was ruthless enough to take
> advantage of it.
Exactly. Ruthlessness to ake advantage of stupid
children who refuse to grow up.
In the software-for-wetware field, which has been
working on this problem for literally thousands of
years, even the most scrupulous attention to the
important details such as avoiding ruthlessness
nonetheless has a revealing history of resulting
in bugs and weaknesses extremely susceptible to
exploitation by the ruthless.
It is NOT hard to brainwash the masses.
It IS hard to do the converse.
If it is possible at all. Research continues.
The Infernal One
>If 90% of the world uses Ms's OS then Bill
>Gates has won. I respect him for being a vicious business man, he's
>always found a way to succeed and make money. That's his goal and
>that's what he has done.
You can say the exact same thing about a serial killer
who has succeeded in killing 30 people. That's his goal
and that's what he has done. That tells nothing about
the (+/-) contribution he has made to the society.
The Infernal One
>The fact that Bill Gates was smart enough to make himself the richest
>person in the world makes me respect him.
So does your respect also go to Hitler, Stalin, etc? After
all they were smart enough to achieve something that normal
people can only dream of. Plus Bill Gates' success was much
more about luck than that of Hitler and Stalin, who were
disadvantaged from their background. My respect goes not
to those with achievements, but those with maturity.
>I mean really, do you honestly think bill gates gives a fuck that
>windows 9x is total crap?
Which tells how undeserving Bill Gates is of his money.
>That's what makes this whole anti-Ms thing
>so sad. Bill Gates doesn't care, most people at MS probably don't
>care. The only people who do sound like nuts because they blame every
>possible problem on "M$" or "windoze" or "winblows".
If MS people don't care about the quality of their own
products, consumers have the right to blame problems upon
them and bitch about it. Actually, the fact that they are
dominating the market despite their lack of concern about
the product quality is a problem of serious nature.
>I mean come on,
>how retarded does that make you guys seem?
So a company has a monopoly and doesn't give a damn about
its consumers. And it's retarded to complain about the
situation?
The Infernal One
>Well my character has nothing to do with it but the simple fact is the
>strong survive. If IBM had played a little dirtier then os/2 would
>probably still be a serious contender for the desktop market.
Hm, so much for your character. Do whatever it takes to win,
however dirty it might be.
>I have a
>respect for Bill Gates along the lines of the respect I have for a
>dictator who has a whole country blindly follow him.
Again, that tells so much about your character. You respect
those who exploit others to benefit oneself.
>How many of us
>could do what Bill Gates has done?
Actually many, if given the background and luck Bill Gates
has been given.
>I can safely say most people who have used a GUI for almost all their
>computer using life can not handle a command prompt, they can't handle
>un-friendly error messages, and they don't want to see anything on
>their screen except a pretty little desktop with bright icons.
Windows 95 doesn't even provide GUI-exclusive environment..
Windows 95 error messages are nothing but friendly. The
difference is that you got so many of these in Windows 95
that you get friendly with them.
Jeff Szarka
<uls...@email.no.way> wrote:
:
:
:
Who am I to say what's good or bad for society? All I know is Bill
Gates set out to make loads of money and dominate the software
industry. He's done both and for that I respect him. I respect Linus
for the same reason, he set out with certain reasons to make linux and
he has succeeded in them.
Jeff Szarka
<uls...@email.no.way> wrote:
:Jeff Szarka wrote:
:
:>Well my character has nothing to do with it but the simple fact is the
:>strong survive. If IBM had played a little dirtier then os/2 would
:>probably still be a serious contender for the desktop market.
:
:Hm, so much for your character. Do whatever it takes to win,
:however dirty it might be.
:
:>I have a
:>respect for Bill Gates along the lines of the respect I have for a
:>dictator who has a whole country blindly follow him.
:
:Again, that tells so much about your character. You respect
:those who exploit others to benefit oneself.
I'm out for myself, I don't give a fuck about trying to promote some
great cause or whatever. Linux users are so full of themselves
sometimes, like they are fighting for what's good and right and
standing up against the evil empire. It's stupid operating system,
nothing more and nothing less. Your not saving the world, your using a
computer.
:
:>How many of us
:>could do what Bill Gates has done?
:
:Actually many, if given the background and luck Bill Gates
:has been given.
:
No one can say for sure but I would tend to doubt most people could
get where Bill Gates did. Luck or otherwise, look where he is, lets
see you(or anyone else) do that.
>I can safely say most people who have used a GUI for almost all their
:>computer using life can not handle a command prompt, they can't handle
:>un-friendly error messages, and they don't want to see anything on
:>their screen except a pretty little desktop with bright icons.
:
:Windows 95 doesn't even provide GUI-exclusive environment..
:Windows 95 error messages are nothing but friendly. The
:difference is that you got so many of these in Windows 95
:that you get friendly with them.
:
:
Friendly in the sense that the environment offers a lot of hand
holding. A standard help system makes finding stuff out very easy, and
a standard interface makes giving detailed instructions for setting up
something much easier. The error messages could be more friendly I
guess but really isn't 'error reading drive a" better then a cryptic
mount error message ?
jedi
>On Sat, 6 Mar 1999 20:03:07 -0800, "The Infernal One"
><uls...@email.no.way> wrote:
>
>:Jeff Szarka wrote:
>:
>:>Well my character has nothing to do with it but the simple fact is the
>:>strong survive. If IBM had played a little dirtier then os/2 would
>:>probably still be a serious contender for the desktop market.
>:
>:Hm, so much for your character. Do whatever it takes to win,
>:however dirty it might be.
>:
>:>I have a
>:>respect for Bill Gates along the lines of the respect I have for a
>:>dictator who has a whole country blindly follow him.
>:
>:Again, that tells so much about your character. You respect
>:those who exploit others to benefit oneself.
>
>I'm out for myself, I don't give a fuck about trying to promote some
>great cause or whatever. Linux users are so full of themselves
>sometimes, like they are fighting for what's good and right and
>standing up against the evil empire. It's stupid operating system,
>nothing more and nothing less. Your not saving the world, your using a
>computer.
However, it's not merely an operating system. It's the
core of the information appliance that more and more
this society is becoming dependent on. This whole Y2K
mess demonstrates quite strongly why consumer protection
issues are not at all a trivial matter with computers.
People, corporations, governments, superpowers, entrust
their information, that information which is the key to
their survival and prosperity, to those 'trivial' devices.
>:
>:>How many of us
>:>could do what Bill Gates has done?
>:
>:Actually many, if given the background and luck Bill Gates
>:has been given.
>:
>No one can say for sure but I would tend to doubt most people could
>get where Bill Gates did. Luck or otherwise, look where he is, lets
>see you(or anyone else) do that.
He was at the right place at the right time, being someone
with half a fin, absolutely no moral constraints, and rich
parents amongst a whole herd of naieve idealistic geeks.
>
>>I can safely say most people who have used a GUI for almost all their
>:>computer using life can not handle a command prompt, they can't handle
>:>un-friendly error messages, and they don't want to see anything on
>:>their screen except a pretty little desktop with bright icons.
>:
>:Windows 95 doesn't even provide GUI-exclusive environment..
>:Windows 95 error messages are nothing but friendly. The
>:difference is that you got so many of these in Windows 95
>:that you get friendly with them.
>:
>:
>Friendly in the sense that the environment offers a lot of hand
>holding. A standard help system makes finding stuff out very easy, and
...even on VMS.
>a standard interface makes giving detailed instructions for setting up
>something much easier. The error messages could be more friendly I
No it doesn't. It actually makes it quite a bit harder as
well as quite difficult to describe.
>guess but really isn't 'error reading drive a" better then a cryptic
>mount error message ?
NO. Someone is going to have to deal with the problem
sooner or later whether or not that is some
'professional manual reader' on a consumer helpdesk or
the local 'amateur techsupport consultant'.
Mind you, that's a BAD example you pull up. "error reading
drive a" in that situation is about as misleading as you
could get.
If that's the Windows diagnostic standard, no wonder it's
such a PITA to deal with.
jik-
> Gates set out to make loads of money and dominate the software
> industry. He's done both and for that I respect him. I respect Linus
> for the same reason, he set out with certain reasons to make linux and
> he has succeeded in them.
So, if I set out to become a billionare,...I went to some central
american country, enslaved a few 100 people (well, I pay them 10c a
day...) and then take all the profit you will respect me? Hitler set
out to conquer the world and kill every Jew...He got almost 1/2 way on
both counts...you respect him too?
Your idea of respect is pretty far gone man....You respect a man for
setting out to become a billionare who stole from and stabbed all his
friends in the back, and stoped out everyone who might be against
him....just to make himself richer...you respect this person for that.
How can you possibly respect a person like that, let alone for those
reasons???? Tell you what, don't go respecting me ok? I don't think I
want respect from a person who respects that kind of behavior.
mlw
> Device support is a hit or miss proposition either way in any
> OS that puts itself on top of a collection of random spare parts.
Ahhh, so true, so true. I love the wording, nothing hits home about the
'PC' market more than "collection of random spare parts." We must come
up with a designation CORSP!
Robert Scott Quinn
> tech support is. Using Win32 will gaurantee neither. The user
> friendly support number might even be some 1-900 number.
> While some vendors tend more towards character cell vs. bitmaped
> eye candy, Unix installers are no more prone to subjecting one
> to a 'dangerous' command line than is Windows.
I have only had to resort to the command line two times in my Windows
installations: both times because my CD-ROM drive needed a line in the
autoexec.bat file to work prior to installation of Windows.
A very friendly and competent person provided me with the tech support to do
this - for free.
> Graphical conveniences have been in Unix longer than they have
> been in Windows.
Now I'm not saying that Linux doesn't have its own strengths - It does! The
stability is great and open source code is very interesting.
However, for non-tinkerers like me, consider that Linux doesn't even have a
GUI - though freeware GUI's of varying effectiveness are available. But
administration and OS operations are all handled at the command line - which
I am not remotely interested in learning about.
Also, Windows 98 has support for DirectX 5/6, Firewire, AGP, and fully
integrates DVD and USB. Linux has a vibrant grass routes driver development
effort, but it's limited, with backwards compatibility with older devices
often discarded.
> Success isn't the problem, fraud is. Some of us wish all
> the other (actual) competitors all the best. It's only
> the DOS-drones that work against free choice in practice.
I only wish I knew a few more WINDOWS advocates. I just found this list so
maybe I'll meet some; however, all I ever hear excitement about at my
University is Unix/Linux.
Richard Steiner
spake unto us, saying:
>Well my character has nothing to do with it but the simple fact is the
>strong survive. If IBM had played a little dirtier then os/2 would
>probably still be a serious contender for the desktop market.
In the early and mid-1990's, IBM was still under the constraints of a
federal Consent Decree which prevented them from doing a number of more
effective things regarding the marketing of OS/2.
They weren't free to act with impunity like Microsoft has been.
Kind of ironic given the current DOJ investigation -- the DOJ's past
actions may have tied IBM's hands enough to give MS their dominant
position in the first place. :-)
--
-Rich Steiner >>>---> rste...@visi.com >>>---> Bloomington, MN
OS/2 + Linux (Slackware+RedHat+SuSE) + FreeBSD + Solaris + BeOS +
WinNT4 + Win95 + PC/GEOS + MacOS + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven!
Just another Internet pilot dodging electrons...
jedi
>> 'friendly' tech support is not relevant. However, competent
>> tech support is. Using Win32 will gaurantee neither. The user
>> friendly support number might even be some 1-900 number.
>
>
>> While some vendors tend more towards character cell vs. bitmaped
>> eye candy, Unix installers are no more prone to subjecting one
>> to a 'dangerous' command line than is Windows.
>
>I have only had to resort to the command line two times in my Windows
>installations: both times because my CD-ROM drive needed a line in the
>autoexec.bat file to work prior to installation of Windows.
>
>A very friendly and competent person provided me with the tech support to do
>this - for free.
>
>> Graphical conveniences have been in Unix longer than they have
>> been in Windows.
>
>
>Now I'm not saying that Linux doesn't have its own strengths - It does! The
>stability is great and open source code is very interesting.
>
>However, for non-tinkerers like me, consider that Linux doesn't even have a
>GUI - though freeware GUI's of varying effectiveness are available. But
>administration and OS operations are all handled at the command line - which
>I am not remotely interested in learning about.
Ease of use admin tools of various kinds have been
available for Unix in general for quite some time now.
>
>Also, Windows 98 has support for DirectX 5/6, Firewire, AGP, and fully
>integrates DVD and USB. Linux has a vibrant grass routes driver development
>effort, but it's limited, with backwards compatibility with older devices
>often discarded.
Actually, it was the difficulty with this alleged
backwards compatiblity that drove me away from
Windows. However, when the USB and Firewire drivers
become roughly production quality, I will be able to
use them immediately and not have to worry about dealing
with some artificial major version upgrade just to take
advantage of them.
>
>> Success isn't the problem, fraud is. Some of us wish all
>> the other (actual) competitors all the best. It's only
>> the DOS-drones that work against free choice in practice.
>
>
>I only wish I knew a few more WINDOWS advocates. I just found this list so
>maybe I'll meet some; however, all I ever hear excitement about at my
>University is Unix/Linux.
maestro
Robert Scott Quinn wrote:
> if you want [ snipped ] no guarantee of friendly
> tech-support, poor device driver support, and a simple lack of numerous
> user-friendly conveniences in the user-interface, then choose some kind of
> Unix.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
And you claim Windows and Microsoft has
got this?!?!? Hahahahahahahahahahahahah-
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah-
hahahahahahahahahahahah etc, etc, etc.
for another two thousand lines .. hahaha-
hahaha ....
Alex
Net Man
guys of its own size, like the MacOS or OS/2. Everybody knows UNIX/LINUX is
better than Windows. UNIX/LINUX offers real multitasking, multithreading,
crashproof, openess, realiable TCP/IP, and file system. It's just a matter
that Windows is the OS for the masses, like a nice sedan is and not a
Formula 1.
Donovan Rebbechi
linux, they are entirely different beasts , and comparing them head to
head is rediculous. Linux is a full featured multi user OS. Win9x is
an OS used for home computers. A more interesting comparison is one
between linnux and NT.
On Sun, 7 Mar 1999 00:07:56 -0600, Robert Scott Quinn wrote:
>However, for non-tinkerers like me, consider that Linux doesn't even have a
>GUI -
bzzzzzzzt. Wrong. See http://www.kde.org ...
>though freeware
Please don't use this word ( it's commonly used to mean "free beer" )
as opposed to "free speech".
Better: "Free software" or better still "Open source software"
> GUI's of varying effectiveness are available. But
??? you appear to be contradicting yourself.
>administration and OS operations are all handled at the command line - which
bzzzzzzzzt. Wrong again. Try this ...
"all administration and OS operations CAN be handled at the command
line"
But there are also GUI tools . ( Redhat's config tools,
KDE's utilities, linuxconf, YAST , ... )
>Also, Windows 98 has support for DirectX 5/6,
that's hardly surprising ( directx is effectively part of windows. More
so than MSIE is anyway ... )
> Linux has a vibrant grass routes driver development
>effort, but it's limited, with backwards compatibility with older devices
>often discarded.
This is news to me. Name an older device that doesn't work on linux.
>I only wish I knew a few more WINDOWS advocates.
Advocating windows is kind of like cheerleading for the school bully.
The problem is, no one really likes Microsoft ( even though some of
their products have some good points ... )
Even people who like windows tend not to be terribly passionate about
it.
> I just found this list so
>maybe I'll meet some; however, all I ever hear excitement about at my
>University is Unix/Linux.
People have come to expect a lot from windows. While it has its good
points, it never lives up to its hype making it a fairly unexciting
thing.
--
Donovan Rebbechi <elf...@pegasus.rutgers.edu>
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
http://www.independence.seul.org/
bme...@bruce.cs.monash.edu.au
>Also, Windows 98 has support for DirectX 5/6, Firewire, AGP, and fully
>integrates DVD and USB. Linux has a vibrant grass routes driver development
>effort, but it's limited, with backwards compatibility with older devices
>often discarded.
Huh?
How come the standard linux kernel contains a driver for CD-ROMs with
the proprietary Soundblaster CD-ROM interface, while Windows 9x has never
heard of them? Linux even supports DAE on them....
How come the standard XFree86 Monochrome Server includes support for a
Sigma Laserview Card/Monitor Combo, while Windows 9x has never heard of
them?
How come the standard linux kernel has support for QIC-02 tape drives,
while Windows 9x has never heard of them?
How come the very same (user level!) driver I have been using for my
first TV card since 1993 still works perfectly on my 1999 linux system,
while I wouldn't even want to think about trying to get it to work at
all in Win9x?
Have you ever tried getting any version of Windows to produce a reasonable
refresh rate on something like a Trident T8900 based card?
Of the two systems, one certainly has a problem with support for older
hardware. But it sure ain't linux....
Bernie
--
============================================================================
"It's a magical world, Hobbes ol' buddy...
...let's go exploring"
Calvin's final words, on December 31st, 1995
Todd Bandrowsky
>I have only had to resort to the command line two times in my Windows
>installations: both times because my CD-ROM drive needed a line in the
>autoexec.bat file to work prior to installation of Windows.
Well, I would not say that the command line versus the GUI is apt to
actually make things easier. A good GUI makes things more discoverable, but
not necessarily easier. The tradeoff is that doing things within a command
line is often quicker to do, because people can generally type faster than
they can click all over the screen on a mouse. The intent of the GUI is to
provide graphic metaphors for tasks, but they are so complicated to program
that right now all they do at best is provide basic list manipulation
services.
Even MS acknowledges this in a weird sort of way. Visual Basic, Visual
Foxpro, Visual C++ are all built around using the GUI to select which piece
of textual code you want to work with, but within that code you can do
things that are obtuse enough to make even a Unix command line veteran
shiver with fear. While the surface of Windows is seems easier than its
Unix equivilent, the guts of it are just as complicated, if not more so,
because Windows simply has more stuff inside it.
No matter what operating system you choose, you are going to have to learn
how to type.
Chris Costello
Not all Unixen (read: Unix and workalikes thereof) are open.
BSD/OS isn't exactly open. I don't think Solaris is, either.
-Chris
--
Powered by FreeBSD 4.0-CURRENT. "The Power to Serve!"
Emacs is a nice operating system, but I prefer UNIX. - Tom Christiansen
brian moore
Jeff Szarka <Trad...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
> I'm out for myself, I don't give a fuck about trying to promote some
> great cause or whatever. Linux users are so full of themselves
> sometimes, like they are fighting for what's good and right and
> standing up against the evil empire. It's stupid operating system,
> nothing more and nothing less. Your not saving the world, your using a
> computer.
Not entirely true.
There is a reason that Linux is very succesful in countries like India
and Mexico where poverty is far more rampant than the US: because it
can run on much more modest hardware and because it can be installed on
an unlimited number of systems for the cost of a single CD.
With the growth of the Internet, I have no problems in seeing Linux as a
critical part of ensuring basic human rights to countries with less
wealth than us.
Think of the tens of thousands of Linux computers that will be
installed in the Mexico public school system. Think they could afford
Windows? Think that purchasing all those licenses for Windows would be
a good use of their resources?
(Hell, I wish US educators would take a clue from the Mexican government
and instead of buying a couple PII systems with NT, buy a classroom of
P166's and Linux. It would do wonders for our educational system.)
--
Brian Moore | "The Zen nature of a spammer resembles
Sysadmin, C/Perl Hacker | a cockroach, except that the cockroach
Usenet Vandal | is higher up on the evolutionary chain."
Netscum, Bane of Elves. Peter Olson, Delphi Postmaster
The Infernal One
>Friendly in the sense that the environment offers a lot of hand
>holding.
You mentioned that error messages are not friendly. Why
do you suddenly change the subject?
>A standard help system makes finding stuff out very easy, and
>a standard interface makes giving detailed instructions for setting up
>something much easier.
Again this has nothing to do with error messages.
>The error messages could be more friendly I
>guess but really isn't 'error reading drive a" better then a cryptic
>mount error message ?
This is your personal bias. A newcomer isn't supposed to know
what "drive a" means. Besides, "Program X has caused an invalid
page error blah blah blah."
David L. Johnson
"Robert Scott Quinn" <rqu...@comp.uark.edu> writes:
> Also, Windows 98 has support for DirectX 5/6, Firewire, AGP, and fully
> integrates DVD and USB. Linux has a vibrant grass routes driver development
> effort, but it's limited, with backwards compatibility with older devices
> often discarded.
Most of the driver support comes from the realization by hardware vendors
that they _have_ to provide drivers for Windows. Once linux gets, if it
does, enough of an installed base to show up on their radar screens, "real"
(that is, from the hardware designers) driver support will follow. But to
denigrate linux because they don't get the service from hardware people
isn't really linux's fault. It's to the community's credit that for most
hardware, linux drivers arrive in short order.
Also, I beg to differ with the statement that linux drops support for older
hardware. The last kernel I compiled still had support for machines
without co-processors, like my ancient 486sx notebook. Care to guess how
Win98 would run on that?
--
David L. Johnson david....@lehigh.edu
Department of Mathematics http://www.lehigh.edu/~dlj0/dlj0.html
Lehigh University
14 E. Packer Avenue (610) 758-3759
Bethlehem, PA 18015-3174
Become MicroSoft-free forever. Ask me how.
Jeff Szarka
:> Who am I to say what's good or bad for society? All I know is Bill
You just don't get it. Liking someone and respecting them are two
different things. I respect people who can do things I can't. I could
not even come close to being a billionaire or having my software
running on 90% of the computer's in the world.
If i respect someone it doesn't mean I even like what they've done, it
just means I respect what they have been able to accomplish. I
respect many people, some for things you might consider good and some
for things you might consider bad. I don't respect behavior, I
respect someone who sets out to do something and gets it done. Like I
said in another thread, I don't respect the people who latched onto
windows in the early days. It was total crap and yet all these people
wrote stuff for it. At least Bill Gates just said: "look here is this
piece of crap, and you're all so dumb you'll just be lining up to
write software for it"
And boy he was right too.
Jeff Szarka
:
:>guess but really isn't 'error reading drive a" better then a cryptic
:>mount error message ?
:
: NO. Someone is going to have to deal with the problem
: sooner or later whether or not that is some
: 'professional manual reader' on a consumer helpdesk or
: the local 'amateur techsupport consultant'.
:
: Mind you, that's a BAD example you pull up. "error reading
: drive a" in that situation is about as misleading as you
: could get.
:
: If that's the Windows diagnostic standard, no wonder it's
: such a PITA to deal with.
Well In most cases people get "error reading drive a:" because the
disk is not in. If you get a mount error you could just be using a
wrong switch or making a typo.
Jeff Szarka
<uls...@email.no.way> wrote:
:Jeff Szarka wrote:
:
:>Friendly in the sense that the environment offers a lot of hand
:>holding.
:
:You mentioned that error messages are not friendly. Why
:do you suddenly change the subject?
:
:>A standard help system makes finding stuff out very easy, and
:>a standard interface makes giving detailed instructions for setting up
:>something much easier.
:
:Again this has nothing to do with error messages.
:
:>The error messages could be more friendly I
:>guess but really isn't 'error reading drive a" better then a cryptic
:>mount error message ?
:
:This is your personal bias. A newcomer isn't supposed to know
:what "drive a" means. Besides, "Program X has caused an invalid
:page error blah blah blah."
:
:
Are they spose to know what /dev/fdd01 is? or what to type to mount a
new disk? or how to use vi to edit config files in order to get a
program working?
Jeff Szarka
:On 6 Mar 1999 23:02:06 -0600,
: Jeff Szarka <Trad...@concentric.net> wrote:
:>
:> I'm out for myself, I don't give a fuck about trying to promote some
:> great cause or whatever. Linux users are so full of themselves
:> sometimes, like they are fighting for what's good and right and
:> standing up against the evil empire. It's stupid operating system,
:> nothing more and nothing less. Your not saving the world, your using a
:> computer.
:
:Not entirely true.
:
:There is a reason that Linux is very succesful in countries like India
:and Mexico where poverty is far more rampant than the US: because it
:can run on much more modest hardware and because it can be installed on
:an unlimited number of systems for the cost of a single CD.
:
:With the growth of the Internet, I have no problems in seeing Linux as a
:critical part of ensuring basic human rights to countries with less
:wealth than us.
:
:Think of the tens of thousands of Linux computers that will be
:installed in the Mexico public school system. Think they could afford
:Windows? Think that purchasing all those licenses for Windows would be
:a good use of their resources?
:
:(Hell, I wish US educators would take a clue from the Mexican government
:and instead of buying a couple PII systems with NT, buy a classroom of
:P166's and Linux. It would do wonders for our educational system.)
Sure it's a good thing to get as many computers into schools as we can
but... What good would it be to install linux when there is hardly any
educational software? (is there even any at all?) What good does it do
to teach kids the linux command prompt just to have them go out into
the real world and have to deal with dos? What good does it really do
to teach them how linux mounts drives if they use windows just to see
a:, c:, d: ?
I know computers in the classroom are more for getting kids
comfortable with technically but still... I think you're better off
teaching kids about something they will use. I use a p133 for my main
system at home and it gets me by just fine. Most schools make the
mistake of buying p166's with 16MB of memory. If they just upgraded
the memory they'd be fine.
Jeff Szarka
Steiner) wrote:
:Here in comp.os.linux.x, Trad...@concentric.net (Jeff Szarka)
:spake unto us, saying:
:
:>Well my character has nothing to do with it but the simple fact is the
:>strong survive. If IBM had played a little dirtier then os/2 would
:>probably still be a serious contender for the desktop market.
:
:In the early and mid-1990's, IBM was still under the constraints of a
:federal Consent Decree which prevented them from doing a number of more
:effective things regarding the marketing of OS/2.
:
:They weren't free to act with impunity like Microsoft has been.
:
:Kind of ironic given the current DOJ investigation -- the DOJ's past
:actions may have tied IBM's hands enough to give MS their dominant
:position in the first place. :-)
That's why I'm so against the government doing this kind of stuff.
who knows if they are doing more bad then good.
Jeff Szarka
:On Sat, 6 Mar 1999 19:14:04 -0600, Robert Scott Quinn <rqu...@comp.uark.edu> wrote:
:>
:>Gates is a man who had a huge head start on the
:>>rest of us and used that start to trample his way up the ladder by stepping
:>>on each and everyone. Not a man anyone should respect.
:>
:>
:>People who do not like Windows, Pentia, Office Apps, Microsoft Games, etc.
:>should just not buy them. If you like difficult and sometimes dangerous,
:>lengthy command line filled installations with no guarantee of friendly
:>tech-support, poor device driver support, and a simple lack of numerous
:>user-friendly conveniences in the user-interface, then choose some kind of
:>Unix.
:
: This is pretty much a work of fiction beyond that same
: old tired 'its not DOS' argument which just happens to
: have gotten thrown at everything !DOS for the last 10
: years to torpedo anything !DOS.
:
: 'friendly' tech support is not relevant. However, competent
: tech support is. Using Win32 will gaurantee neither. The user
: friendly support number might even be some 1-900 number.
:
: While some vendors tend more towards character cell vs. bitmaped
: eye candy, Unix installers are no more prone to subjecting one
: to a 'dangerous' command line than is Windows.
:
: Graphical conveniences have been in Unix longer than they have
: been in Windows.
:
: Device support is a hit or miss proposition either way in any
: OS that puts itself on top of a collection of random spare parts.
:
:>
:>True, Unix platforms are more stable, but I'll take a bi-weekly crash with
:>Windows rather than the inconvience-laden Unix system anyday.
:>
:>Hopefully you will never be too successful - so that other people like you
:>will not hate you - the way you hate Gates. Given your attitude toward
:>success, I don't think that will ever be a problem.
:
: Success isn't the problem, fraud is. Some of us wish all
: the other (actual) competitors all the best. It's only
: the DOS-drones that work against free choice in practice.
I use windows nt myself. Even on older hardware (a p133) it runs
pretty damn well. They're problems now and again but I can live with
that. Linux just doesn't feel like quality software. Since it's in a
constant state of work everything seems to be .9 versions. Most of the
friendly windows managers people talk about crash just as often as
explorer. Really there is a LOT of work to be done before I will start
suggesting people use linux as a desktop OS.
If you read any of my old posts you'll probably notice I don't ever
talk about linux vs. nt for servers because it's such a one sided
battle. You'd be an idiot to setup a big network with nt but as we've
seen with the internet, it doesn't matter to the user what the server
is running. The desktop is the place where linux will either win or
loose and right now it's just not living up to what the advocates
suggest it is.
jedi
They'll have a more low level understanding of how and
OS works. Toss in a few old apples for the sake of
variety and they won't be so handicapped when moving
to another operating enviroment.
Nevermind that Unix can be made to react like either
Windows or DOS.
>
>I know computers in the classroom are more for getting kids
>comfortable with technically but still... I think you're better off
>teaching kids about something they will use. I use a p133 for my main
>system at home and it gets me by just fine. Most schools make the
>mistake of buying p166's with 16MB of memory. If they just upgraded
>the memory they'd be fine.
No, kids need to actually learn how to think for themselves
including how to adapt to new computing interfaces as it
is nearly certain that they will have to make such transitions
in the future even if one assumes a Microsoft Monopoly.
jedi
>On Sat, 6 Mar 1999 21:45:56 -0800, je...@dementia.mishnet (jedi) wrote:
>
>:
>:>mount error message ?
>:
>: sooner or later whether or not that is some
>: 'professional manual reader' on a consumer helpdesk or
>: the local 'amateur techsupport consultant'.
>:
>: Mind you, that's a BAD example you pull up. "error reading
>: drive a" in that situation is about as misleading as you
>: could get.
>:
>: If that's the Windows diagnostic standard, no wonder it's
>: such a PITA to deal with.
>
>Well In most cases people get "error reading drive a:" because the
>disk is not in. If you get a mount error you could just be using a
>wrong switch or making a typo.
Mount will give sufficient feedback to the user such that
one that knows what they are doing can tell the difference
between a typo in the device name or mount point or file
system type or if pure gibberish was typed. The scsi CD
driver is even nice enough to tell you when there is no
media in the drive, instead of just generically panicing.
jedi
>On Sun, 7 Mar 1999 09:03:34 -0800, "The Infernal One"
><uls...@email.no.way> wrote:
>
>:Jeff Szarka wrote:
>:
>:>Friendly in the sense that the environment offers a lot of hand
>:>holding.
>:
>:You mentioned that error messages are not friendly. Why
>:do you suddenly change the subject?
>:
>:>A standard help system makes finding stuff out very easy, and
>:>a standard interface makes giving detailed instructions for setting up
>:>something much easier.
>:
>:Again this has nothing to do with error messages.
>:
>:>The error messages could be more friendly I
>:>mount error message ?
>:
>:what "drive a" means. Besides, "Program X has caused an invalid
>:page error blah blah blah."
>:
>:
>
>
>Are they spose to know what /dev/fdd01 is? or what to type to mount a
At least there is a meaningful form of hungarian notation
in device names that are not there at all in DOS drive
letters.
>new disk? or how to use vi to edit config files in order to get a
>program working?
One does not need to edit config files to get programs
working. That is a misrepresentation. One sometimes needs
to edit config files to customize programs.
Matthias Warkus
..and Robert Scott Quinn <rqu...@comp.uark.edu> wrote:
> However, for non-tinkerers like me, consider that Linux doesn't even have a
Please don't rehash this old argument, it's all about semantics. Silly
people like to claim that Linux hasn't got a GUI because the GUI isn't
in the kernel. I hope you aren't silly. Every distro of Linux I have
seen so far ships with a complete GUI.
mawa
--
He who tells the truth should have one foot in the stirrup.
-- Armenian proverb
jedi
>On Sat, 6 Mar 1999 18:12:09 -0800, je...@dementia.mishnet (jedi) wrote:
>
>:On Sat, 6 Mar 1999 19:14:04 -0600, Robert Scott Quinn <rqu...@comp.uark.edu> wrote:
[deletia]
>:>
>:>True, Unix platforms are more stable, but I'll take a bi-weekly crash with
>:>Windows rather than the inconvience-laden Unix system anyday.
>:>
>:>Hopefully you will never be too successful - so that other people like you
>:>will not hate you - the way you hate Gates. Given your attitude toward
>:>success, I don't think that will ever be a problem.
>:
>: Success isn't the problem, fraud is. Some of us wish all
>: the other (actual) competitors all the best. It's only
>: the DOS-drones that work against free choice in practice.
>
>
>I use windows nt myself. Even on older hardware (a p133) it runs
>pretty damn well. They're problems now and again but I can live with
No it doesn't. I was using 3.51 when explorer came out for
it. Suddenly NT wasn't quite as perky as it used to be.
Although even that doesn't represent the bulk of what gets
pushed on people. If people were getting stuck with NT then
the situation would be considerably less greivous.
>that. Linux just doesn't feel like quality software. Since it's in a
It certainly runs around the SCSI3 P6/200 at work and locks
ups, pauses or has it's shell just plain crash less.
>constant state of work everything seems to be .9 versions. Most of the
>friendly windows managers people talk about crash just as often as
>explorer. Really there is a LOT of work to be done before I will start
Hardly. This is just a flat out lie.
>suggesting people use linux as a desktop OS.
The desktop ISN'T the problem as early incarnations of both
consumer grade windows and NT shows. The lack of wider vendor
support, and the perception that if somehow your platform is
not the market leader it's doomed, is the real problem.
>
>If you read any of my old posts you'll probably notice I don't ever
>talk about linux vs. nt for servers because it's such a one sided
>battle. You'd be an idiot to setup a big network with nt but as we've
>seen with the internet, it doesn't matter to the user what the server
>is running. The desktop is the place where linux will either win or
>loose and right now it's just not living up to what the advocates
>suggest it is.
It doesn't need to really unless the criteria is to clone
windows. As Windows itself has always been a clone of
itself, this is an entirely bogus arguement. Quite a few
users don't have a clue what to do with most of Windows.
The power user syndrome is as much an issue on the desktop
as it is on the command line. Just as most people don't
need the majority of what Linux delivers beyond robustness,
most people don't need a great deal of the bloat that makes
up the current predominant desktop or bloatware suites either.
Where Linux really fails is cross-vendor interoperability
in applications. Since even less Windows style users are
into that sort of thing, it is not quite the issue it
otherwise might be. M$'s tactic in order to kill off the
other office app vendors makes it a lot easier for alternate
OS replacements as they set the pace for NOT interoperating
in practice across multiple vendors' products.
It's not a matter of how many bullet points you can put in
the brocure but whether or it can get needed things done.
In this respect, a port or clone of Quicken is much more
important than either KDE or GNOME, or even WM or E.
Jeff Szarka
:>Are they spose to know what /dev/fdd01 is? or what to type to mount a
:
: At least there is a meaningful form of hungarian notation
: in device names that are not there at all in DOS drive
: letters.
:
I think a drive letter system is easier for most home users, although
I kind of like the unix way of doing things
:>new disk? or how to use vi to edit config files in order to get a
:>program working?
:
: One does not need to edit config files to get programs
: working. That is a misrepresentation. One sometimes needs
: to edit config files to customize programs.
Hmmm....Wine wouldn't work until I edited the file in /etc (wine.conf
I think) and bitchx needed to have it's config files changed in order
to change some pretty basic things. Also dosemu wouldn't work without
some editing. x11amp and netscape seemed to work out of the "box'
though. I don't use linux enough to say for sure but from my
experience it's a 50/50 deal at best.
Jeff Szarka
:>I use windows nt myself. Even on older hardware (a p133) it runs
:>pretty damn well. They're problems now and again but I can live with
:
: No it doesn't. I was using 3.51 when explorer came out for
: it. Suddenly NT wasn't quite as perky as it used to be.
:
: Although even that doesn't represent the bulk of what gets
: pushed on people. If people were getting stuck with NT then
: the situation would be considerably less greivous.
Acutally.......It does. Honestly, as I type this I have outlook 98,
ie4, netscape, and a mp3 playing and things are smooth. No skips, I
can alt-tab to another window with hardly any delay. I even ran
netscape with out a single skip on my mp3, with x11amp it skipped
horribly when running netscape.
:>that. Linux just doesn't feel like quality software. Since it's in a
:
: It certainly runs around the SCSI3 P6/200 at work and locks
: ups, pauses or has it's shell just plain crash less.
:
When I said quality I mean it doesn't feel like a finished product. By
it's very nature the people who write a lot of the software for linux
don't care if it is user friendly, they would rather have it just work
well.(not that it's such a bad thing) It's just a lot of users really
want to have a polished, ready for prime-time piece of software.(A lot
of the kde stuff seems that way)
:>constant state of work everything seems to be .9 versions. Most of the
:>friendly windows managers people talk about crash just as often as
:>explorer. Really there is a LOT of work to be done before I will start
:
: Hardly. This is just a flat out lie.
Maybe I had a config problem but kde just would not stay running. It
seemed to be worse when I was running netscape and/or x11amp.
Afterstep seemed better but still not that great.
:>suggesting people use linux as a desktop OS.
:
: The desktop ISN'T the problem as early incarnations of both
: consumer grade windows and NT shows. The lack of wider vendor
: support, and the perception that if somehow your platform is
: not the market leader it's doomed, is the real problem.
That's why I always talk about things as they are *now* not what they
might be in a year. Linux has a lot of potential but until some of
it's problems are addressed it's just not ready for a home user. We
all know if linux gets up above 10% of the market (which some claim is
the cause of the sudden linux explosion) that vendors will support it
and write drivers for it and so on.
:>If you read any of my old posts you'll probably notice I don't ever
That's why I think the average home user would be better off with some
kind of set top box. They don't even user the power of windows but
feel it's negative points on a daily basis. With linux it's the same
thing, they won't use the power but will feel the negative effects of
lack of software, drivers, and support.
A port of quicken would be great, but people's old habits don't die
quickly. If you talk to someone that's been using the 9x interface
since 1995 they really would have a hard time switching to kde or
gnome or any other WM. I consider myself a power user and it took me
maybe 5 minutes to get used to kde. It took very little effort to
learn how to do things, but we can't forget about all those other
users who just would be lost if there wasn't a clearly marked "start"
menu and couldn't easily drag short cuts to their desktop.
Hartmann Schaffer
In article <36e8e527...@news1.newscene.com>,
Trad...@concentric.net (Jeff Szarka) writes:
> ...
>:(Hell, I wish US educators would take a clue from the Mexican government
>:and instead of buying a couple PII systems with NT, buy a classroom of
>:P166's and Linux. It would do wonders for our educational system.)
>
>
> Sure it's a good thing to get as many computers into schools as we can
> but... What good would it be to install linux when there is hardly any
> educational software? (is there even any at all?) What good does it do
With enough systems in the classroom, the educational software would follow
very fast.
> to teach kids the linux command prompt just to have them go out into
> the real world and have to deal with dos? What good does it really do
> to teach them how linux mounts drives if they use windows just to see
> a:, c:, d: ?
The dos commands (would any of the kids really have to deal with them
anymore?) are a subset of Unix commands, usually with a different name.
How difficult is it to lear one after you learnt the other? Or are you
afraid that those kids would mutinee in real life because they want the
real thing rather than a crippled subset?
> I know computers in the classroom are more for getting kids
> comfortable with technically but still... I think you're better off
> teaching kids about something they will use. I use a p133 for my main
I think the kids would be much better off if they learnt the concepts
behind what they will use. Or do you think it is enough to teach them how
to use a calculator without understanding arithmetic?
Hartmann Schaffer
> should just not buy them. If you like difficult and sometimes dangerous,
Easier said than done (seems that in most cases you have to pay for it
regardless of whether you want it or not.
> lengthy command line filled installations with no guarantee of friendly
> tech-support, poor device driver support, and a simple lack of numerous
Are you telling us that long waits on 1-900- that end with the statement
"the problem MIGHT go away when you buy the next release that will come out
within the next 3 years" is user friendly tech support?
> user-friendly conveniences in the user-interface, then choose some kind of
> Unix.
When was the last time you used Unix (if ever)?
> True, Unix platforms are more stable, but I'll take a bi-weekly crash with
> Windows rather than the inconvience-laden Unix system anyday.
>
> Hopefully you will never be too successful - so that other people like you
> will not hate you - the way you hate Gates. Given your attitude toward
> success, I don't think that will ever be a problem.
>
> Rob Quinn
>
>
Hartmann Schaffer
Mark Metson
> Acutally.......It does. Honestly, as I type this I have outlook 98,
> ie4, netscape, and a mp3 playing and things are smooth. No skips, I
> can alt-tab to another window with hardly any delay. I even ran
Alt-tab? This is an example of how NT is not
cryptic like Unix is? Oh how intuitive,
alt-tab.
jik-
Yes I do get it, your idea of respect is,...well I don't know what, but
nothing I would hold to be true.
Liking someone and respecting them are two
> different things. I respect people who can do things I can't.
Depends on wether or not you can't or won't...see, you probably could do
what Bill Gates did, but I won't. Course, all he did was make money and
become the richest man in the world...and he did it in ways which I
cannot respect. I respect people who have done things I would admire,
not just because they have made a name for themselves somehow. Shit, I
may find the person to be a total asshole, but I can respect an asshole.
Assassins can sneak into an area, take a person out from miles away, and
not bat an eye about it. Sure they have great abilities, but do I
respect them,...FUCK NO! Most of them don't even look thier victim eye
to eye before they snuff thier life away....they deserve no respect.
They set out to do a job and it gets done, if some inocent gets in the
way well too fucking bad...I am more important then you, your life ain't
shit compared to my time in prison, you were just in the wrong place at
the wrong time which is just too bad for you.
Course Bill Gates has never assasinated someone afaik, nor has he
actually hired anyone to do so, afaik.... But he has done other things
which deserve no respect. If he knowingly is selling software he knows
to be less then good, and snuffing out any competition which might
release something which actually is good,...he is nothing but a thief,
liar, and a bully...why does such a person deserve respect?? No idea
over here. And you are actually saying you respect him FOR those
qualities simply because they made him rich.
There are a thousand ways to be a rich man,...but only a good man
deserves my respect as anything more then the normal respect as a human
being. I actually have some disdain for people who crawl thier way to
the top, using bodies as stepladders. People who will make thier money
off of stealing money from other people,...that kind of shit makes me
sick, they are weak. Takes a stronger person to do the right thing when
doing one wrong thing can make you millions.
I could
> not even come close to being a billionaire or having my software
> running on 90% of the computer's in the world.
Its not like he made any of that software...because he didn't... He
stole most of it from his friends, and now he hires people to make it
for him. What is so hard about that? Why does he deserve my respect
again?
>
> If i respect someone it doesn't mean I even like what they've done, it
> just means I respect what they have been able to accomplish.
Bill Gates has acomplished exactly squat in my mind. Sure, he is the
head of a company that for the moment rules the software world, but has
he given anything of real value...maybe, maybe not. How much of the
windows code do you think he writes? If he wrote 1/3 of it, maybe I
would respect him as a coder,...except the programs are crap..they don't
even work right, and I think that is on perpouse.
I
> respect many people, some for things you might consider good and some
> for things you might consider bad. I don't respect behavior, I
> respect someone who sets out to do something and gets it done.
So, in other words,...if I set out to use everyone I can and make
billions of dallors off of it,...you will respect me? You know,...I
respect someone who has done absolutely nothing, but has hurt noone,..I
don't respect someone who does anything while hurting people in the
process. An accident is something I understand,...to perposly set out
to do harm to others simply to get more for yourself is selfish and
disgusting.
Like I
> said in another thread, I don't respect the people who latched onto
> windows in the early days. It was total crap and yet all these people
> wrote stuff for it. At least Bill Gates just said: "look here is this
> piece of crap, and you're all so dumb you'll just be lining up to
> write software for it"
>
> And boy he was right too.
It is pretty hard for me to respect a person who respects that shit....I
am sorry but it is true. You might be a nice enough guy, but if you can
respect someone who has lied, thieved, and bullied his way to the top
(as you say he did, even if he didn't your respecting him OFR this) then
something is wrong with you. Your pretty much saying, "Sure, he is a
tyrant, but you gotta respect him for it."
Respecting him as a human being is different though,...he is human, with
all the weaknesses and stregnths of any other....at least he isn't out
killing people. Do I respect him because he set out to be a billionare
no matter what the cost and achived that feat? Not even.
Mark Metson
> It is pretty hard for me to respect a person who respects that shit....I
> am sorry but it is true. You might be a nice enough guy, but if you can
> respect someone who has lied, thieved, and bullied his way to the top
> (as you say he did, even if he didn't your respecting him OFR this) then
> something is wrong with you. Your pretty much saying, "Sure, he is a
> tyrant, but you gotta respect him for it."
Well if someone is in a Role Playing Game and
playing The Dark Lord - or in a movie or play
playing same - you gotta respect their roleplaying
or acting skills if they manage to be suitably
despicable, no?
What about respecting one's opponent's playing
ability? Just because he points out loopholes
in the rules or places where the system could
do with some work (or total rewrite) need not
make him an unworthy opponent. In a classic
good-guy / bad-guy situation, a Worthy Opponent
for a good-guy still has to be a bad-guy somehow.
Heck the didn't even get blood on his gloves,
did he? All he did was win all the stupid
monopoloy money, pointing out rightly that
having people's real life needs depend on
stupid monopoly money is insane inhumane
and just asking for someone REALLY bad to
come along and do what he just demonstrated
they could do.
Heck, thanks to him we might fix the stupid
wetware O/S that led to it happening. Without
him we may have had to wait for Cain or Attilla
or someone less squeamish about bloody gloves
to reincarnate.
> Respecting him as a human being is different though,...he is human, with
> all the weaknesses and stregnths of any other....at least he isn't out
> killing people. Do I respect him because he set out to be a billionare
> no matter what the cost and achived that feat? Not even.
Respecting someone as a human being is different
from respecting their gameplaying in a gametheory
sense.
Not that it took much gametheory to do what he did
but THAT IS THE POINT! Any asshole could have done
it, and it could have BEEN a psychopathic asshole
instead of a harmless computer-nerd if some harmless
computer-nerd had not pointed out to us, DRAMATICALLY,
the flaw in the wetware O/S.
Jeff Szarka
Schaffer) wrote:
:[Posted and mailed]
:
:In article <36e8e527...@news1.newscene.com>,
: Trad...@concentric.net (Jeff Szarka) writes:
:> ...
:>:(Hell, I wish US educators would take a clue from the Mexican government
:>:and instead of buying a couple PII systems with NT, buy a classroom of
:>:P166's and Linux. It would do wonders for our educational system.)
:>
:>
:> Sure it's a good thing to get as many computers into schools as we can
:> but... What good would it be to install linux when there is hardly any
:> educational software? (is there even any at all?) What good does it do
:
:With enough systems in the classroom, the educational software would follow
:very fast.
Maybe...maybe not. Linux has what? 5-10% of the market now, even if
quite a few schools switched to linux it would only go up to what...
15%? still not a very impressive number for a would be software
developer.
:
:> to teach kids the linux command prompt just to have them go out into
:> the real world and have to deal with dos? What good does it really do
:> to teach them how linux mounts drives if they use windows just to see
:> a:, c:, d: ?
:
:The dos commands (would any of the kids really have to deal with them
:anymore?) are a subset of Unix commands, usually with a different name.
:How difficult is it to lear one after you learnt the other? Or are you
:afraid that those kids would mutinee in real life because they want the
:real thing rather than a crippled subset?
I do doubt they would have to use a command prompt in either 9x or
linux. It would be good though to teach them the concept behind a
command prompt. Computer science really should be a standard high
school class.
:
:> I know computers in the classroom are more for getting kids
:> comfortable with technically but still... I think you're better off
:> teaching kids about something they will use. I use a p133 for my main
:
:I think the kids would be much better off if they learnt the concepts
:behind what they will use. Or do you think it is enough to teach them how
:to use a calculator without understanding arithmetic?
See above.
Jeff Szarka
wrote:
Umm well.......Huh???
It's a simple key combo.
You know, when you hold one down and press the other one at the same
time?
I could click on the little task bar title but... when I'm typing it's
easier to hit ALT+TAB (that's hold down ALT and press TAB at the same
time)
Really what's wrong with alt-tab? It could be any two keys, since tab
moves to the next field it's logical alt-tab would move to the next
window. Just like CTL tab moves between child windows. It's really not
that complex.
Donovan Rebbechi
>On 6 Mar 1999 23:02:06 -0600,
> Jeff Szarka <Trad...@concentric.net> wrote:
>>
>Not entirely true.
>
>There is a reason that Linux is very succesful in countries like India
>and Mexico where poverty is far more rampant than the US: because it
there's also a reason why it is not so succesful in places like China
where poverty is also rampant. Hint: piracy.
My prediction is that a lot of people will just pirate commercial
software ( with the misguided view that they are getting $xxx worth of
software while the "free" stuff really isn't "worth" anything )
and they will largely ignore opensource.
>can run on much more modest hardware
definitely a point in its favour
> and because it can be installed on
>an unlimited number of systems for the cost of a single CD.
Anti-piracy laws are not enforced in third world countries.
>With the growth of the Internet, I have no problems in seeing Linux as a
>critical part of ensuring basic human rights to countries with less
>wealth than us.
human rights ? <cough> I don't see how computers will help ...
Do you think the working people in poor countries
are going to use computers ?
How does making life more comfortable for the aristocracies help
the cause of "human rights" ?
>Think of the tens of thousands of Linux computers that will be
>installed in the Mexico public school system. Think they could afford
>Windows? Think that purchasing all those licenses for Windows would be
>a good use of their resources?
You're missing the point. The third world countries will not ( by and large )
bother purchasing licenses. The enforcability of the licenses oversees is
somewhat questionable in countries outside of the industrialised world ,
and the licensing costs in foreign countries look even more absurd than
they do here ( a full MS Office license costs more than the annual income
of many Chinese ... ) so the people just assume that the license is a sorry
joke ( it kind of is ... ) and they pirate. They really don't share your
opensource fantasies.
The reason why Mexico is a little different is that their government can not
afford to be seen condoning mass piracy since the US have a gun at their
heads ...
But in many third world countries, OSS is not taking off. ( name one major
OSS project that is based in any third world country outside South America... )
--
Donovan Rebbechi <elf...@pegasus.rutgers.edu>
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
http://www.independence.seul.org/
Mark Metson
> Really what's wrong with alt-tab? It could be any two keys, since tab
> moves to the next field it's logical alt-tab would move to the next
> window. Just like CTL tab moves between child windows. It's really not
> that complex.
I know, its just like Linux: so simple that
even a computer can do it.
It is comical the way people rave on and on
about how easier to use Windows variants are
only to discover than in fact they are just
as cryptic. However did you discover which
combination of two keys did THAT?
The way one has to with pirated games,
try every combination?
Or did you RTFM or what?
Rhetorical questions, as my remark was
to begin with.
jedi
>On Sun, 7 Mar 1999 13:11:12 -0800, je...@dementia.mishnet (jedi) wrote:
>
>:>Are they spose to know what /dev/fdd01 is? or what to type to mount a
>:
>: At least there is a meaningful form of hungarian notation
>: in device names that are not there at all in DOS drive
>: letters.
>:
>
>I think a drive letter system is easier for most home users, although
>I kind of like the unix way of doing things
No, they just get to memorize the fact that a: means first
floppy drive.
>
>:>new disk? or how to use vi to edit config files in order to get a
>:>program working?
>:
>: One does not need to edit config files to get programs
>: working. That is a misrepresentation. One sometimes needs
>: to edit config files to customize programs.
>
>
>Hmmm....Wine wouldn't work until I edited the file in /etc (wine.conf
>I think) and bitchx needed to have it's config files changed in order
>to change some pretty basic things. Also dosemu wouldn't work without
>some editing. x11amp and netscape seemed to work out of the "box'
>though. I don't use linux enough to say for sure but from my
>experience it's a 50/50 deal at best.
2 emulators and a wrapper for the oldest IRC client in
existence are hardly good indications.
jedi
>On Sun, 7 Mar 1999 13:49:59 -0800, je...@dementia.mishnet (jedi) wrote:
>
>:>I use windows nt myself. Even on older hardware (a p133) it runs
>:>pretty damn well. They're problems now and again but I can live with
>:
>: No it doesn't. I was using 3.51 when explorer came out for
>: it. Suddenly NT wasn't quite as perky as it used to be.
>:
>: Although even that doesn't represent the bulk of what gets
>: pushed on people. If people were getting stuck with NT then
>: the situation would be considerably less greivous.
>
>ie4, netscape, and a mp3 playing and things are smooth. No skips, I
>can alt-tab to another window with hardly any delay. I even ran
>horribly when running netscape.
Don't use x11amp. I can rip & encode mp3's while still
not missing a beat on an mp3 while doing various other
thigns like netscape & applix or a kernel rebuild.
>
>
>:>that. Linux just doesn't feel like quality software. Since it's in a
>:
>: It certainly runs around the SCSI3 P6/200 at work and locks
>: ups, pauses or has it's shell just plain crash less.
>:
>When I said quality I mean it doesn't feel like a finished product. By
>it's very nature the people who write a lot of the software for linux
>don't care if it is user friendly, they would rather have it just work
No, they don't care if YOU like it. Most linux developers
actually 'eat their own dogfood'. So your assertion that
linux developers pay no mind to usability is yet another
bullet piont in the FUD parade.
>well.(not that it's such a bad thing) It's just a lot of users really
>want to have a polished, ready for prime-time piece of software.(A lot
>of the kde stuff seems that way)
You've never really specified what 'polished' means beyond
attempting to be something approaching a Windows clone.
IOW: 'not polished' is just a psuedonym for !DOS.
>
>:>constant state of work everything seems to be .9 versions. Most of the
>:>friendly windows managers people talk about crash just as often as
>:>explorer. Really there is a LOT of work to be done before I will start
>:
>: Hardly. This is just a flat out lie.
>
>Maybe I had a config problem but kde just would not stay running. It
>seemed to be worse when I was running netscape and/or x11amp.
>Afterstep seemed better but still not that great.
'not that great' does not constitute crashing.
That is a flat out lie if you are trying to equate
one with the other.
>
>
>:>suggesting people use linux as a desktop OS.
>:
>: The desktop ISN'T the problem as early incarnations of both
>: consumer grade windows and NT shows. The lack of wider vendor
>: support, and the perception that if somehow your platform is
>: not the market leader it's doomed, is the real problem.
>
>That's why I always talk about things as they are *now* not what they
>might be in a year. Linux has a lot of potential but until some of
That does not address real needs of anyone that might
have some reason to use the 'market leader' it only
spreads Fear Uncertainty and Doubt and discourges people
from making sound technical descisions or their own actual
preferences.
A new set top box is going to make that situation WORSE
actually.
>
>A port of quicken would be great, but people's old habits don't die
>quickly. If you talk to someone that's been using the 9x interface
>since 1995 they really would have a hard time switching to kde or
>gnome or any other WM. I consider myself a power user and it took me
>maybe 5 minutes to get used to kde. It took very little effort to
>learn how to do things, but we can't forget about all those other
>users who just would be lost if there wasn't a clearly marked "start"
>menu and couldn't easily drag short cuts to their desktop.
It's disputable that the 'cant use another interface' crowd
really makes much use of that desktop to begin with.
jedi
>[Posted and mailed]
>
>In article <36e8e527...@news1.newscene.com>,
> Trad...@concentric.net (Jeff Szarka) writes:
>> ...
>>:(Hell, I wish US educators would take a clue from the Mexican government
>>:and instead of buying a couple PII systems with NT, buy a classroom of
>>:P166's and Linux. It would do wonders for our educational system.)
>>
>>
>> Sure it's a good thing to get as many computers into schools as we can
>> but... What good would it be to install linux when there is hardly any
>> educational software? (is there even any at all?) What good does it do
>
>With enough systems in the classroom, the educational software would follow
>very fast.
Actually, part of this whole mess could be a student centric
software development effort. The older kids learn how to
develop by doing, by making the educational software for the
younger kids.
>
>> to teach kids the linux command prompt just to have them go out into
>> the real world and have to deal with dos? What good does it really do
>> to teach them how linux mounts drives if they use windows just to see
>> a:, c:, d: ?
>
>The dos commands (would any of the kids really have to deal with them
>anymore?) are a subset of Unix commands, usually with a different name.
>How difficult is it to lear one after you learnt the other? Or are you
>afraid that those kids would mutinee in real life because they want the
>real thing rather than a crippled subset?
>
>> I know computers in the classroom are more for getting kids
>> comfortable with technically but still... I think you're better off
>> teaching kids about something they will use. I use a p133 for my main
>
>I think the kids would be much better off if they learnt the concepts
>behind what they will use. Or do you think it is enough to teach them how
>to use a calculator without understanding arithmetic?
>
>> system at home and it gets me by just fine. Most schools make the
>> mistake of buying p166's with 16MB of memory. If they just upgraded
>> the memory they'd be fine.
Mark Metson
> My prediction is that a lot of people will just pirate commercial
> software ( with the misguided view that they are getting $xxx worth of
> software while the "free" stuff really isn't "worth" anything )
> and they will largely ignore opensource.
Until the gun points their way.
> Anti-piracy laws are not enforced in third world countries.
Yet.
> human rights ? <cough> I don't see how computers will help ...
> Do you think the working people in poor countries
> are going to use computers ?
> How does making life more comfortable for the aristocracies help
> the cause of "human rights" ?
By keeping basic skills such as thinking,
reading, writing, and communicating with
such people as may still be free as an
option available only to the aristocracy
- or by making it free to all.
> You're missing the point. The third world countries will not ( by and large )
> bother purchasing licenses. The enforcability of the licenses oversees is
> somewhat questionable in countries outside of the industrialised world ,
> and the licensing costs in foreign countries look even more absurd than
> they do here ( a full MS Office license costs more than the annual income
> of many Chinese ... ) so the people just assume that the license is a sorry
> joke ( it kind of is ... ) and they pirate. They really don't share your
> opensource fantasies.
First they came for the Mexicans, but I was not Mexican...
> The reason why Mexico is a little different is that their government can not
> afford to be seen condoning mass piracy since the US have a gun at their
> heads ...
"...But thats OK, we're not Mexicans...."
> But in many third world countries, OSS is not taking off. ( name one major
> OSS project that is based in any third world country outside South America... )
They do not have the gun to their head yet,
as you pointed out.
Wake up.
jedi
>Yo, in reply to the message below:
>
>You have no idea what the hell you believe, do you? Your opinions of
>respect and personal preferences is irrelivant. Each of us will deciede
>what to like and dislike. The respect you give has direct proportions to
>the respect you recieve. It is very likely, if you respect others you
>respect yourself.
>
>Jelousy is a disrespect for yourself. Bill Gates was the Wrong person at
You don't have a clue at all do you. Not everyone follows
the cult of greed. It just happens to be the one that gets
the best attention in the current culture.
Billy succeeded by taking advantage of those with different
sensiblities, period. It will be real interesting to see what
happens to him as he moves from being a big fish in a little
pond and goes and swim with the real sharks.
>the right time with the right circumstance. He follows the Society of
>Money just like everyone else who managed to make a dollar. Do you think
>he cares if you LIKE him or not? I certainly don't. The Dollars has
>blinded him to geeks like us anyway, he only cares about his stocks value.
>
>I say take him down. If most of his money is in his company, taking him
>down means getting rid of his company. Assasins can be respected in a
>way:)
>
>Leo
>> It is pretty hard for me to respect a person who respects that shit....I
>> am sorry but it is true. You might be a nice enough guy, but if you can
>> respect someone who has lied, thieved, and bullied his way to the top
>> (as you say he did, even if he didn't your respecting him OFR this) then
>> something is wrong with you. Your pretty much saying, "Sure, he is a
>> tyrant, but you gotta respect him for it."
>>
>> Respecting him as a human being is different though,...he is human, with
>> all the weaknesses and stregnths of any other....at least he isn't out
>> killing people. Do I respect him because he set out to be a billionare
>> no matter what the cost and achived that feat? Not even.
>>
>>
>>
>
Jeff Szarka
:On 7 Mar 1999 16:27:05 -0600, Jeff Szarka <Trad...@concentric.net> wrote:
:>On Sun, 7 Mar 1999 13:11:12 -0800, je...@dementia.mishnet (jedi) wrote:
:>
:>:>Are they spose to know what /dev/fdd01 is? or what to type to mount a
:>:
:>: At least there is a meaningful form of hungarian notation
:>: in device names that are not there at all in DOS drive
:>: letters.
:>:
:>
:>I think a drive letter system is easier for most home users, although
:>I kind of like the unix way of doing things
:
: No, they just get to memorize the fact that a: means first
: floppy drive.
:
You mean the same way people memorize /mnt/fdd01 is the floppy ?
:>
:>:>new disk? or how to use vi to edit config files in order to get a
:>:>program working?
:>:
:>: One does not need to edit config files to get programs
:>: working. That is a misrepresentation. One sometimes needs
:>: to edit config files to customize programs.
:>
:>
:>Hmmm....Wine wouldn't work until I edited the file in /etc (wine.conf
:>I think) and bitchx needed to have it's config files changed in order
:>to change some pretty basic things. Also dosemu wouldn't work without
:>some editing. x11amp and netscape seemed to work out of the "box'
:>though. I don't use linux enough to say for sure but from my
:>experience it's a 50/50 deal at best.
:
: 2 emulators and a wrapper for the oldest IRC client in
: existence are hardly good indications.
Well like I said, In my experience it's that way.
Jeff Szarka
:
:>:>that. Linux just doesn't feel like quality software. Since it's in a
:>:
:>: It certainly runs around the SCSI3 P6/200 at work and locks
:>: ups, pauses or has it's shell just plain crash less.
:>:
:>When I said quality I mean it doesn't feel like a finished product. By
:>it's very nature the people who write a lot of the software for linux
:>don't care if it is user friendly, they would rather have it just work
:
: No, they don't care if YOU like it. Most linux developers
: actually 'eat their own dogfood'. So your assertion that
: linux developers pay no mind to usability is yet another
: bullet piont in the FUD parade.
Well it's true isn't it? Some linux programs are very usable but
others are very confusing and built more for the pro. I mean really,
can you honestly imagine home users compiling something? RPM takes
care of a lot of things but I've heard quite a few linux advocates
suggesting all software should come in only the standard tarball.
:>well.(not that it's such a bad thing) It's just a lot of users really
:>want to have a polished, ready for prime-time piece of software.(A lot
:>of the kde stuff seems that way)
:
: You've never really specified what 'polished' means beyond
: attempting to be something approaching a Windows clone.
:
: IOW: 'not polished' is just a psuedonym for !DOS.
To be polished a program should have:
1) A full help system, using a standard interface (Like ms uses)
2) A GUI based installation program, very simple, using a standard
kind of installation program (like install shield)
3) A way of registering it's self into start menu's and such.
Someone told me kde or gnome did this, which is a good start but until
99% of the programs do this then it's not really polished enough for
everyone.
4) A standard layout. Most linux apps seem to differ greatly in the
way the program window is setup up. It's much easier for everyone if
developers use a basic kind of interface.
5) A way of getting training info. I setup software for
people/businesses all the time and one of the main questions I get is:
"Where can we get a book or a video on this program?"
6) Software has to be available on disk, not just via download. Most
people can't handle downloading a 5 meg file, much less anything
bigger.
7) It HAS to have support. If the user has a problem he HAS to be able
to call whoever makes the program in order to get help, it's a very
basic thing but also very lacking on many linux apps.
8) True type fonts would be nice out of the box. The standard fonts
are painfully ugly and don't resize well.
9) Some kind of auto mounting system (someone has told me one exists,
if so ignore this one)
10) An easier way of setting up WM's. Such as adding new items to a
menu or removing them. KDE is pretty good at it but could be
better.(drag and drop & right clicking on menu's would be nice)
11) A standard printing interface. In windows 99% of the time you
print you get the standard print box, very useful for most users.
12) The startup has to be less cryptic, all those messages scare a lot
of users, a simple customizable splash screen would be much better I
think.
13) Plug and play. I know some say it doesn't work but with newer
hardware it works fine. I built a new system this weekend for a friend
and windows 98 detected everything, first shot.
14) More out of the box driver support, hunting for drivers on the
internet a nightmare (for windows or linux)
15) Start to phase out tools like vi and jed and joe and elm and all
those. It's insane to try and use those character based programs.
16) A standard way of associating files, I like being able to have an
icon for file type X and have it show up in every open or save dialog.
17) A way to shutdown without using "shutdown -h now" and without
getting lots of messages. A simple "it is now safe to turn off your
computer" is very useful to some people.
I could go on but.. I think you can see where I'm coming from. If any
of these exists some one please let me know, if all 17 of these were
fixed I'd seriously consider linux again.
:>
:>:>constant state of work everything seems to be .9 versions. Most of the
:>:>friendly windows managers people talk about crash just as often as
:>:>explorer. Really there is a LOT of work to be done before I will start
:>:
:>: Hardly. This is just a flat out lie.
:>
:>Maybe I had a config problem but kde just would not stay running. It
:>seemed to be worse when I was running netscape and/or x11amp.
:>Afterstep seemed better but still not that great.
:
: 'not that great' does not constitute crashing.
: That is a flat out lie if you are trying to equate
: one with the other.
I mean not great as in it still crashed but not as often as KDE. I
really liked afterstep actually, except I wish I could have used a
more 9x-ish taskbar/clock/tray
:
:>
:>
:>:>suggesting people use linux as a desktop OS.
:>:
:>: The desktop ISN'T the problem as early incarnations of both
:>: consumer grade windows and NT shows. The lack of wider vendor
:>: support, and the perception that if somehow your platform is
:>: not the market leader it's doomed, is the real problem.
:>
:>That's why I always talk about things as they are *now* not what they
:>might be in a year. Linux has a lot of potential but until some of
:
: That does not address real needs of anyone that might
: have some reason to use the 'market leader' it only
: spreads Fear Uncertainty and Doubt and discourges people
: from making sound technical descisions or their own actual
: preferences.
I don't think so, I mean if I tell people how great linux is for the
desktop I'd be lying. Sure it has the potential to be that way someday
but if i recommend something to my customers they usually end up
switching. I don't want to have them come back to me and ask why
quicken won't run or why the fonts are so ugly.
:>A port of quicken would be great, but people's old habits don't die
:>quickly. If you talk to someone that's been using the 9x interface
:>since 1995 they really would have a hard time switching to kde or
:>gnome or any other WM. I consider myself a power user and it took me
:>maybe 5 minutes to get used to kde. It took very little effort to
:>learn how to do things, but we can't forget about all those other
:>users who just would be lost if there wasn't a clearly marked "start"
:>menu and couldn't easily drag short cuts to their desktop.
:
: It's disputable that the 'cant use another interface' crowd
: really makes much use of that desktop to begin with.
I never used to use the desktop but lately I've been using it more and
more. It's easier for me to setup a system for someone and have them
avoid explorer by having all their files on the desktop. Plus it makes
things seem more logical to them, they don't have to deal with drive's
or folders or any of that, it's just there.
jedi
>On Sun, 7 Mar 1999 17:45:50 -0800, je...@dementia.mishnet (jedi) wrote:
>
>:On 7 Mar 1999 16:27:05 -0600, Jeff Szarka <Trad...@concentric.net> wrote:
>:>On Sun, 7 Mar 1999 13:11:12 -0800, je...@dementia.mishnet (jedi) wrote:
>:>
>:>:>Are they spose to know what /dev/fdd01 is? or what to type to mount a
>:>:
>:>: At least there is a meaningful form of hungarian notation
>:>: in device names that are not there at all in DOS drive
>:>: letters.
>:>:
>:>
>:>I think a drive letter system is easier for most home users, although
>:>I kind of like the unix way of doing things
>:
>: No, they just get to memorize the fact that a: means first
>: floppy drive.
>:
>
>You mean the same way people memorize /mnt/fdd01 is the floppy ?
It's a mnemonic actually: FloppyDisk*<size>
Just like HardDisk
ScsiDisk
& ScsiCD
Although, you're confusing the device name, which can
really be anything including FirstFloppyDrive and the
mount point which can also be /FirstFloppyDrive. That's
a nice aspect of flexibility and what a dev file actually
is.
The next great ease of use distributor could make each
device painfully obvious and verbose.
Whereas DOS and Windows are limited to just single
character names out of some sort of BASIC nightmare.
[deletia]
jedi
>On Sun, 07 Mar 1999 22:54:18 GMT, h...@inferno.nirvananet (Hartmann
>Schaffer) wrote:
>
>:[Posted and mailed]
>:
>:In article <36e8e527...@news1.newscene.com>,
>: Trad...@concentric.net (Jeff Szarka) writes:
>:> ...
>:>:(Hell, I wish US educators would take a clue from the Mexican government
>:>:and instead of buying a couple PII systems with NT, buy a classroom of
>:>:P166's and Linux. It would do wonders for our educational system.)
>:>
>:>
>:> Sure it's a good thing to get as many computers into schools as we can
>:> but... What good would it be to install linux when there is hardly any
>:> educational software? (is there even any at all?) What good does it do
>:
>:With enough systems in the classroom, the educational software would follow
>:very fast.
>
>quite a few schools switched to linux it would only go up to what...
>15%? still not a very impressive number for a would be software
>developer.
That rather depends on who your market is now doesn't it.
Jeff Szarka
wrote:
:Jeff Szarka wrote:
:
:> 7) It HAS to have support. If the user has a problem he HAS to be able
:> to call whoever makes the program in order to get help, it's a very
:> basic thing but also very lacking on many linux apps.
:
:This point is where Linux totally blows away
:all the others. I have never yet managed to
:contact the person who wrote the program, even
:having spent $1000+ on support contract, when
:dealing with commercial developers.
:
:Whereas with Linux, without even the expense
:of a long distance phone call or the timewasting
:of dealing with some ignorant underling on the
:telephone or of having to wait on hold on the
:telephone, I have *frequently* been in direct
:email communication with the person who actually
:does at that very time make the program - the
:person actually working on it, maintaining it
:or developing it.
:
:Furthermore I have even had such a person
:actually telnet to my machine to see what
:was wrong and help fix it.
:
:SO on this point, Linux is WAY ahead. The
:problem for such maintainers will in fact
:be how to continue providing such incredibly
:awsome beyond market standards levels of
:support when vast numbers of people conditioned
:into pretending to lack brains start using
:the products.
Well I mean sure for right now it's great but what happens when
thousands of people start calling the developer? How do you think that
will work?
jik-
>
> Yo, in reply to the message below:
>
> You have no idea what the hell you believe, do you?
Maybe some times.
Your opinions of
> respect and personal preferences is irrelivant.
How so?
Each of us will deciede
> what to like and dislike.
Go for it.
>
> Jelousy is a disrespect for yourself.
Are you saying I am jealous of Bill Gates? Not really. I wouldn't mind
having a small portion of the money he has,...but the rest of it he can
keep. No, I do not believe that I am.
Bill Gates was the Wrong person at
> the right time with the right circumstance.
No, he just took advantage of everyone around him.
He follows the Society of
> Money just like everyone else who managed to make a dollar.
Society of Money,...not everyone who has made money is like that...they
may know thier shit, and how to make money, but not all are so greedy as
your trying to express. I wouldn't mind being comfortably wealthy,
especially if I could help people with my wealth, but I won't be selling
out people to get it, and if I do, you have my permission to murder me
on the spot ok?
Do you think
> he cares if you LIKE him or not?
Not if he has any self esteme at all.
I certainly don't.
Then why did you reply both to all these list and to me? You obviously
care about something I said don't you.
BTW, that is generaly rude and inconsiderate, please don't do it again.
> Assasins can be respected in a
> way:)
umm, if you say so.
jik-
> playing The Dark Lord - or in a movie or play
> playing same - you gotta respect their roleplaying
> or acting skills if they manage to be suitably
> despicable, no?
Yeah, and your point? Are you saying TV and RPGs are the same as real
life? Sure you can admire people for acting and Role playing skills,
but could you respect a person who was really like that?
David Steuber
-> I only wish I knew a few more WINDOWS advocates. I just found this list so
-> maybe I'll meet some; however, all I ever hear excitement about at my
-> University is Unix/Linux.
Take the hint.
--
David Steuber
http://www.david-steuber.com
s/trashcan/david/ to reply by mail
Where was it you said you wanted to go today? Sorry, you can't get
there from here.
Leo Cambilargiu
You have no idea what the hell you believe, do you? Your opinions of
respect and personal preferences is irrelivant. Each of us will deciede
what to like and dislike. The respect you give has direct proportions to
the respect you recieve. It is very likely, if you respect others you
respect yourself.
Jelousy is a disrespect for yourself. Bill Gates was the Wrong person at
the right time with the right circumstance. He follows the Society of
Money just like everyone else who managed to make a dollar. Do you think
he cares if you LIKE him or not? I certainly don't. The Dollars has
blinded him to geeks like us anyway, he only cares about his stocks value.
I say take him down. If most of his money is in his company, taking him
down means getting rid of his company. Assasins can be respected in a
way:)
Leo
brian moore
jedi <je...@dementia.mishnet> wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Mar 1999 22:54:18 GMT, Hartmann Schaffer <h...@inferno.nirvananet> wrote:
> >[Posted and mailed]
> >
> >In article <36e8e527...@news1.newscene.com>,
> > Trad...@concentric.net (Jeff Szarka) writes:
> >> ...
> >>:(Hell, I wish US educators would take a clue from the Mexican government
> >>:and instead of buying a couple PII systems with NT, buy a classroom of
> >>:P166's and Linux. It would do wonders for our educational system.)
> >>
> >>
> >> Sure it's a good thing to get as many computers into schools as we can
> >> but... What good would it be to install linux when there is hardly any
> >> educational software? (is there even any at all?) What good does it do
> >
> >With enough systems in the classroom, the educational software would follow
> >very fast.
>
> software development effort. The older kids learn how to
> develop by doing, by making the educational software for the
> younger kids.
Which is indeed what Mexico has stated they intend to do. They'll also
be working on localization of software so that more tools work as well
in Spanish as English.
The older kids will come out with a real world education that will do
wonders for Mexico's technology businesses as well. (They'll have more
experience than many US universities give.)
Meanwhile US schools squander their money on Microsoft products and
act like education means teaching a kid to use Word, not how to write
and think.
--
Brian Moore | "The Zen nature of a spammer resembles
Sysadmin, C/Perl Hacker | a cockroach, except that the cockroach
Usenet Vandal | is higher up on the evolutionary chain."
Netscum, Bane of Elves. Peter Olson, Delphi Postmaster
Mark Metson
> 7) It HAS to have support. If the user has a problem he HAS to be able
> to call whoever makes the program in order to get help, it's a very
> basic thing but also very lacking on many linux apps.
This point is where Linux totally blows away
na...@bleh.org
> Through my own experience, the installations and utilizations of Microsoft's
> products has been relatively painless. Linux, though someday I may get it
> installed such that it is a better OS than Windows, has been much more
> difficult.
> jedi wrote in message ...
> >On Sat, 06 Mar 1999 06:03:01 GMT, Ben Preston <rrpr...@flash.net> wrote:
> >>The fact that I have to use this newsgroup makes me question Linux as an
> >>operating system.
> >
> > Nothing about Linux requires one to use this particular
> > newsgroup. Nothing about linux requires really any of
> > the other linux newsgroups as the real information is
> > bundled with the OS to begin with.
> >
> > Furthermore, the need to consult such 'support sources'
> > is not merely limited to Linux as the existence of the
> > *win* variants of these groups shows.
> >
> >>
> >>jedi wrote in message ...
> >>>On 5 Mar 1999 20:22:05 -0600, Jeff Szarka <Trad...@concentric.net>
> wrote:
> >>>>On Fri, 5 Mar 1999 15:08:22 +0000, s...@bivalve.wsn.ed.ac.uk (Shane
> >>>>Steven Sturrock) wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>:The other night I was talking to an MS fan and he was going on about
> how
> >>>>:well Bill Gates has done for himself considering he started out in a
> >>>>:garage somewhere. Well, I looked out this URL because it is very
> >>informative
> >>>>:and well worth a read. Gates is a man who had a huge head start on the
> >>>>:rest of us and used that start to trample his way up the ladder by
> >>stepping
> >>>>:on each and everyone. Not a man anyone should respect.
> >>>>:
> >>>>:Here is the URL
> >>>>:
> >>>>:http://photo.net/bg/
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>The fact that Bill Gates was smart enough to make himself the richest
> >>>>person in the world makes me respect him.
> >>>>
> >>>>I mean really, do you honestly think bill gates gives a fuck that
> >>>>windows 9x is total crap? That's what makes this whole anti-Ms thing
> >>>>so sad. Bill Gates doesn't care, most people at MS probably don't
> >>>>care. The only people who do sound like nuts because they blame every
> >>>>possible problem on "M$" or "windoze" or "winblows". I mean come on,
> >>>
> >>> When I have to spend time dealing with when the OS goes
> >>> poo-poo all over itself, that is indeed a problem of the
> >>> OS and whoever produced it.
> >>>
> >>>>how retarded does that make you guys seem?
> >>>
> >>> In a working free market, it wouldn't be an issue.
> >>> We could just buy our 'volvos' or 'F150's or 'benzes'
> >>> and get on with our lives with no relative utility
> >>> issues due to the fact that OUR SIZE isn't the market leader.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>"our os is better then yours heeheheheheh snort snort heehehehe"
> >>>>
> >>>>One size doesn't always fit all.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>--
> >>> Herding Humans ~ Herding Cats
> >>>
> >>>Neither will do a thing unless they really want to, or |||
> >>>is coerced to the point where it will scratch your eyes out / | \
> >>>as soon as your grip slips.
> >>>
> >>> In search of sane PPP docs? Try http://penguin.lvcm.com
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >--
> > Herding Humans ~ Herding Cats
> >
> >Neither will do a thing unless they really want to, or |||
> >is coerced to the point where it will scratch your eyes out / | \
> >as soon as your grip slips.
> >
> > In search of sane PPP docs? Try http://penguin.lvcm.com
Any linux user will concede that installing linux 'typically' (on its own
partition, w/boot manager, and hardware config'd) is harder than to upgrade
windows. However there are many methods, matching various skill levels for the
installtaion of Linux. Slackware allows you to install onto a dos drive, or
unzip right onto a zip disk, or run directly from the cd it shipped with. You
can't do that? RedHat has a pretty simple installation to, stick in the disk,
follow the prompts. Having difficulty with that? Also if you are installing
Linux on a machine with windows, its obviously going to ask for more
information because it needs to know where windows is and where exactly you
want to install it. Try installing windows on a machine with another operating
system. Now thats a difficult task. You obviously haven't tried to install or
use linux recently, a lot has changed in 2 years. I would recommend installing
redhat 5.2 and downloading KDE. Its quite simple from there...
-- Nadeem
Jim Ross
Jeff Szarka wrote in message <36e96481...@news1.newscene.com>...>:> 7) It HAS to have support. If the user has a problem he HAS to be able
>:> to call whoever makes the program in order to get help, it's a very
>:> basic thing but also very lacking on many linux apps.
>:This point is where Linux totally blows away
>:all the others. I have never yet managed to
>:contact the person who wrote the program, even
>:having spent $1000+ on support contract, when
>:dealing with commercial developers.
>:
>:Whereas with Linux, without even the expense
>:of a long distance phone call or the timewasting
>:of dealing with some ignorant underling on the
>:telephone or of having to wait on hold on the
>:telephone, I have *frequently* been in direct
>:email communication with the person who actually
>:does at that very time make the program - the
>:person actually working on it, maintaining it
>:or developing it.
>:
>:Furthermore I have even had such a person
>:actually telnet to my machine to see what
>:was wrong and help fix it.
>:
>:SO on this point, Linux is WAY ahead. The
>:problem for such maintainers will in fact
>:be how to continue providing such incredibly
>:awsome beyond market standards levels of
>:support when vast numbers of people conditioned
>:into pretending to lack brains start using
>:the products.
>
>
>thousands of people start calling the developer? How do you think that
>will work?
Have a FAQ. 95% of questions are the same and could be answered in a short
list.
Jim
Mark Metson
I thought I covered that in the next paragraph.
Respecting someone's gameplaying skill in a
games theory sense need have nothing to do with
respecting them 'as a human being'.
Mark Metson
> Well I mean sure for right now it's great but what happens when
> thousands of people start calling the developer? How do you think that
> will work?
Perhaps someone with foresight might plan ahead
for that by ensuring that the system is designed
to help people learn to actually understand what
it does, how it works, and how it does what it
does.
Thus by the time it actually came into widespread
use there would be many people all over the place
who not only had RTFM but were teaching others to
RTFM.
This is just one of the many positive effects
gained by actually helping people to become
independent thinking beings able to figure things
out for themselves, and does indeed point up one
of the many downsides of catering to dependence
and slothful unwillingness to learn.
Jim Ross
Jeff Szarka wrote in message <36e84f98...@news1.newscene.com>...
>On Sun, 7 Mar 1999 17:55:11 -0800, je...@dementia.mishnet (jedi) wrote:
>
>:
>:>:>that. Linux just doesn't feel like quality software. Since it's in a
>:>:
>:>: It certainly runs around the SCSI3 P6/200 at work and locks
>:>: ups, pauses or has it's shell just plain crash less.
>:>:
>:>When I said quality I mean it doesn't feel like a finished product. By
>:>it's very nature the people who write a lot of the software for linux
>:>don't care if it is user friendly, they would rather have it just work
>:
>: No, they don't care if YOU like it. Most linux developers
>: actually 'eat their own dogfood'. So your assertion that
>: linux developers pay no mind to usability is yet another
>: bullet piont in the FUD parade.
>
>Well it's true isn't it? Some linux programs are very usable but
>others are very confusing and built more for the pro. I mean really,
>can you honestly imagine home users compiling something? RPM takes
>care of a lot of things but I've heard quite a few linux advocates
>suggesting all software should come in only the standard tarball.
>
>
>:>well.(not that it's such a bad thing) It's just a lot of users really
>:>want to have a polished, ready for prime-time piece of software.(A lot
>:>of the kde stuff seems that way)
>:
>: You've never really specified what 'polished' means beyond
>: attempting to be something approaching a Windows clone.
>:
>: IOW: 'not polished' is just a psuedonym for !DOS.
>
>To be polished a program should have:
>
>1) A full help system, using a standard interface (Like ms uses)
This is a Window Manager issue not Linux issue.
>
>2) A GUI based installation program, very simple, using a standard
>kind of installation program (like install shield)
Yes. It could just be a shell for a command line utility, but ya.
>
>3) A way of registering it's self into start menu's and such.
>Someone told me kde or gnome did this, which is a good start but until
>99% of the programs do this then it's not really polished enough for
>everyone.
Only use KDE software.
>
>4) A standard layout. Most linux apps seem to differ greatly in the
>way the program window is setup up. It's much easier for everyone if
>developers use a basic kind of interface.
Only use KDE software. Or Gnome software.
>
>5) A way of getting training info. I setup software for
>people/businesses all the time and one of the main questions I get is:
>"Where can we get a book or a video on this program?"
Sounds a little whacky. If software all looked and acted simialr these
things would likely be unnecessary.
>
>6) Software has to be available on disk, not just via download. Most
>people can't handle downloading a 5 meg file, much less anything
>bigger.
You can download a distribution with a ton of stuff and buy online some
other stuff. Most open source software doesn't belong in stores since the
software is unprofitable unless packaged in a set with other stuff.
>
>7) It HAS to have support. If the user has a problem he HAS to be able
>to call whoever makes the program in order to get help, it's a very
>basic thing but also very lacking on many linux apps.
LinuxCare does this right?
If software was easy enough and locked down support wouldn't be a big issue.
>
>8) True type fonts would be nice out of the box. The standard fonts
>are painfully ugly and don't resize well.
Xfree 4 will due this. Long long long overdue.
Various workarounds I don't fool with out there if you NEED it.
>
>9) Some kind of auto mounting system (someone has told me one exists,
>if so ignore this one)
Long long long overdue. Although KDE can take care of mounting for you.
>
>10) An easier way of setting up WM's. Such as adding new items to a
>menu or removing them. KDE is pretty good at it but could be
>better.(drag and drop & right clicking on menu's would be nice)
KDE is still only 1.1 Give it time man.
>
>11) A standard printing interface. In windows 99% of the time you
>print you get the standard print box, very useful for most users.
Overdue. I wish outloud that if HP really supports Linux they will help out
on improving print drivers for their printers.
>
>12) The startup has to be less cryptic, all those messages scare a lot
>of users, a simple customizable splash screen would be much better I
>think.
This would offend technical people bad I think.
How about an optional splash screen?
Actually bootup should be fast anyways.
>
>13) Plug and play. I know some say it doesn't work but with newer
>hardware it works fine. I built a new system this weekend for a friend
>and windows 98 detected everything, first shot.
It does. I still don't like it. I like standard stuff like SB16.
PnP for legacy devices is nice though.
>
>14) More out of the box driver support, hunting for drivers on the
>internet a nightmare (for windows or linux)
This should change as companies recognize Linux and it's market share.
>
>15) Start to phase out tools like vi and jed and joe and elm and all
>those. It's insane to try and use those character based programs.
These are small tools and users in a GUI don't know they exist anyway.
If your X is broken you must have a tool like this to fix it.
I disagree here. Even with Windows notepad it is still a character based
program is it not? Editing text under Dos or Windows would look 99.999% the
same.
Having good GUI shells for various command line tools would be nice.
>
>16) A standard way of associating files, I like being able to have an
>icon for file type X and have it show up in every open or save dialog.
Check of Kexplorer. Nice.
>
>17) A way to shutdown without using "shutdown -h now" and without
>getting lots of messages. A simple "it is now safe to turn off your
>computer" is very useful to some people.
I do crtl-alt-delete. If you use KDM, when done I think you can click
Shutdown.
>I could go on but.. I think you can see where I'm coming from. If any
>of these exists some one please let me know, if all 17 of these were
>fixed I'd seriously consider linux again.
I think desktop users needs are very different from server users needs.
Most people don't admit that. This is why NT will have a hard time replace
Win9X. I use NT but Win9X really is a better fit. Linux needs to be
packaged very differently to better serve desktop user needs and server user
needs.
Things must be consistent and standardized by default. Of course things can
be changed, but the system should be ready to run 10 minutes after
installation. Windows is almost that good. Linux as of Redhat 5.1 comes no
where near for me or likely many.
From Redhat 5.2 I would suggest :
More, better fonts for X
Allow no/autologin
Switch desktop from fvwm95 to qvwm. Easy switch to KDE or Gnome.
Put applixware in by default (if possible)
For desk users to have much quicker bootup
Load X by default.
Install should be 5 minutes, 1 screen of options.
Wizard for PPP dialup install.
GUI utility for Lilo setup, kernel recompiling (QT or GTK very easy).
Make Gnome 1 file 45 second install.
Gnome - fix stuff, add KDE apps to menus.
Rethink current GUI utilities.
Mount fat16 partitions as vfat when possible.
Jim
>
>:>
>:>:>constant state of work everything seems to be .9 versions. Most of the
>:>:>friendly windows managers people talk about crash just as often as
>:>:>explorer. Really there is a LOT of work to be done before I will start
>:>:
>:>: Hardly. This is just a flat out lie.
No in my experience. Apps like Netscape do too.
Mark Metson
> Things must be consistent and standardized by default. Of course things can
> be changed, but the system should be ready to run 10 minutes after
> installation. Windows is almost that good. Linux as of Redhat 5.1 comes no
> where near for me or likely many.
If it came too close wouldn't that put the local
computer-store craftsmen out of work? I mean as
long as we have this ridiculous 'work' crap,
what about his job? Do we really want users to
be buying their systems by mail from one big
computerfactory somewhere? Can people at such
a distance really know intimately the needs of
the people on a given block or district of
every town and village in the world?
It surely makes sense to have each home's
nearest little computer-craftsman store
lovingly hand-tailor their computer for them
with the particular features that the
known and trusted craftsman their family
has dealt with for generations recommends
as perfect for them?
jik-
I guess I just don't see what playing a game or portraying a part in a
movie or play has to do with ripping people off. Must be stupid that
way or somethin.
Mark Metson
> I guess I just don't see what playing a game or portraying a part in a
> movie or play has to do with ripping people off. Must be stupid that
> way or somethin.
If the game rewards it, it is almost kind of
silly to think badly of those who do it.
One could equally well consider all the dirty
tricks he is not known to have yet resorted to.
Also, it is a tenet of game theory to never
underestimate one's opponent. One should always
assume one's opponent is absolutely the very
best player that is even theoretically possible
to be. That in itself could be described as
respecting one's opponent, even if the opponent
was not as clearly 'winning' at any particular
point in time.
A good friend once said of designing wargames,
"never make a rule that you cannot enforce".
Perhaps "frowning upon Mr Gates' activities"
is meant as some manner of mild enforcement of
a "you should not do such naughty things" rule.
Really though, what is so bad about one steenken
rich dude tricking another steenken rich dude
out of a bunch of what to them in their condition
amounts to monopoly money? Its just a stupid game,
its not like anyone considers the stupid money
important enough to actually be worth feeding
clothing and sheltering people with, its just
luxury money - play money. Big deal. So they are
all a bunch of crooks. So? If crooks prosper,
why should one expect them not to be? If you
have something against crookedness, do something
about the O/S that is conditioning such behaviors.
Its not as if they are immune to the laws of
karma or anything. People get the government
they deserve, why should they not get the
computers they deserve? If they want to deserve
better perhaps they could think about being
better, and what being better would entail?
--
Beware the God of Philosophy 101, for if you believe
without proof he'll send you straight to hell to
play poker with Pascal for all eternity...
Matthew Hunter
>1) A full help system, using a standard interface (Like ms uses)
man does just fine for most tasks. HTML works fine for the rest.
>2) A GUI based installation program, very simple, using a standard
>kind of installation program (like install shield)
Glint (Redhat). I understand Debian has one as well. They aren't
optimal for novices, but they ARE GUI tools, and it wouldn't be too
hard to optimize them.
>4) A standard layout. Most linux apps seem to differ greatly in the
>way the program window is setup up. It's much easier for everyone if
>developers use a basic kind of interface.
True enough, but there are far too many toolkits around for this to
happen realistically. Instead, many simple programs are being
implemented with multiple toolkits -- pick the one you like.
>5) A way of getting training info. I setup software for
>people/businesses all the time and one of the main questions I get is:
>"Where can we get a book or a video on this program?"
This just needs people making books or videos.
>6) Software has to be available on disk, not just via download. Most
>people can't handle downloading a 5 meg file, much less anything
>bigger.
This is true in a lot of cases (distribution CDs and the like have
huge numbers of programs). Some companies are starting to put out
shrinkwrapped software, too.
>7) It HAS to have support. If the user has a problem he HAS to be able
>to call whoever makes the program in order to get help, it's a very
>basic thing but also very lacking on many linux apps.
This is an artifact of commercial software. The user can email the
program developers in many cases, or can arrange for support from
someone willing to be called for help.
Newsflash: most developers don't like being called up by every luser
who needs help. This is what support staff are for. The developer
wants to write code and/or have a life.
>11) A standard printing interface. In windows 99% of the time you
>print you get the standard print box, very useful for most users.
This is the same toolkit issue.
>12) The startup has to be less cryptic, all those messages scare a lot
>of users, a simple customizable splash screen would be much better I
>think.
Those messages are also useful for debugging info. I could see a
distribution patching their kernels for this, though.
>13) Plug and play. I know some say it doesn't work but with newer
>hardware it works fine. I built a new system this weekend for a friend
>and windows 98 detected everything, first shot.
Works for me under Linux, too, other than ISA bus stuff. You DID say
new hardware.
>14) More out of the box driver support, hunting for drivers on the
>internet a nightmare (for windows or linux)
Only the manufacturers can fix this. They should go to it.
>15) Start to phase out tools like vi and jed and joe and elm and all
>those. It's insane to try and use those character based programs.
Phase out? Why? The people who don't want to use them.... won't.
The people who want to use them will keep using them.
>17) A way to shutdown without using "shutdown -h now" and without
>getting lots of messages. A simple "it is now safe to turn off your
>computer" is very useful to some people.
This already exists on most distributions.
>I could go on but.. I think you can see where I'm coming from. If any
>of these exists some one please let me know, if all 17 of these were
>fixed I'd seriously consider linux again.
Most of them ARE "fixed". The ones that aren't... aren't problems,
mostly.
>I mean not great as in it still crashed but not as often as KDE. I
>really liked afterstep actually, except I wish I could have used a
>more 9x-ish taskbar/clock/tray
Try GNOME.
>I don't think so, I mean if I tell people how great linux is for the
>desktop I'd be lying. Sure it has the potential to be that way someday
>but if i recommend something to my customers they usually end up
>switching. I don't want to have them come back to me and ask why
>quicken won't run or why the fonts are so ugly.
Then you need to educate them about what an operating system is.
--
Matthew Hunter (mhu...@andrew.cmu.edu)
The Infernal One
>Sure it's a good thing to get as many computers into schools as we can
>but... What good would it be to install linux when there is hardly any
>educational software? (is there even any at all?)
They can just make'em. Education software used in one country
(US) is quite useless in another anyways. Besides, there are
spreadsheet, wordprocessors, programming tools, etc etc for
Linux.
>What good does it do
>to teach kids the linux command prompt just to have them go out into
>the real world and have to deal with dos?
Many of them will be in the real world in 10+ years. What do
you know about what will happen in 10 years? After all,
micro-computer has been in existence only for a couple of
decades.
>I know computers in the classroom are more for getting kids
>comfortable with technically but still... I think you're better off
>teaching kids about something they will use.
But you don't know what they will use. Besides, if India's
public schools can't afford Windows, the chance is that
India's businesses will end up with Linux as well.
The Infernal One
>:With enough systems in the classroom, the educational software would follow
>:very fast.
>Maybe...maybe not. Linux has what? 5-10% of the market now, even if
>quite a few schools switched to linux it would only go up to what...
>15%? still not a very impressive number for a would be software
>developer.
Actually that's a very impressive number if, as you assumed,
there are already a lot of competitors in the Windows market
while there is none in the Linux market.
The Infernal One
>Are they spose to know what /dev/fdd01 is? or what to type to mount a
>new disk?
/dev/fdd01 is A LOT more intuitive than Drive A. You're deviating
away from the original topic (cryptic error messages) again.
>or how to use vi to edit config files in order to get a
>program working?
What does that have to do with error messages?
The Infernal One
>there's also a reason why it is not so succesful in places like China
>where poverty is also rampant. Hint: piracy.
>My prediction is that a lot of people will just pirate commercial
>software ( with the misguided view that they are getting $xxx worth of
>software while the "free" stuff really isn't "worth" anything )
>and they will largely ignore opensource.
Individuals can afford to do this but many businesses and
schools cannot. Besides, government is tracking down on
software pirates.
>> and because it can be installed on
>>an unlimited number of systems for the cost of a single CD.
>Anti-piracy laws are not enforced in third world countries.
It's being enforced about as strictly, if not more than,
it is in the US. It is the anti-piracy sentiment, that is
lacking.
>You're missing the point. The third world countries will not ( by and large )
>bother purchasing licenses. The enforcability of the licenses oversees is
>somewhat questionable in countries outside of the industrialised world ,
>and the licensing costs in foreign countries look even more absurd than
>they do here ( a full MS Office license costs more than the annual income
>of many Chinese ... ) so the people just assume that the license is a sorry
>joke ( it kind of is ... ) and they pirate. They really don't share your
>opensource fantasies.
Again, this is true for individual consumer, but big
corporations, governments, and many schools simply cannot
afford to do this.
The Ghost In The Machine
>Through my own experience, the installations and utilizations of Microsoft's
>products has been relatively painless. Linux, though someday I may get it
>installed such that it is a better OS than Windows, has been much more
>difficult.
[1] I have heard horror stories about Win98 having problems recognizing
certain hardware. For the individuals with problems, "painless" is
not the operative word, for either operating system.
[2] While it is possible that Windows has been polished to a high degree,
it's still not as well-designed as Linux, which has been worked
on design-wise, at least at a high level, for more than 20 years.
(Presumably, Unix and its cousins have had ideas for years, which
Linux [or, more properly, the people implementing same] could easily
borrow.)
[3] Redhat, for me, was relatively painless, although one did have to know
what one wanted to install. (Or have sufficient disk space to install
everything.) However, I do not have newer hardware (AWE64, PP220,
S3-based video card), so maybe that might be part of the problem.
I think X and PPP and sound cause most of the problems anyway,
unless one has a really really funky (and old) motherboard;
a friend of mine some years ago in particular tried to install
Linux on an old 386 (with my help); we never did get it working.
[4] The differences between Windows and Linux have been summarized with
many metaphors; one in particular might be that Windows is a
gussied-up Volkswagon Beetle (i.e., a kit car - some of them look
very nice, but it's still a Beetle), whereas Linux is a cross
between a forklift, a space shuttle [*], and a Mack Truck. :-)
A lot of kits and accessories are available for that Beetle. Only
now are kits coming available for the forklift/space shuttle/Mack
Truck. :-)
Guess which one is better for doing server work, though? :-)
[rest snipped]
[*] Actually, this isn't a fair comparison. The Space Shuttle's computers
(all 5 of them) combined would be eclipsed by a PC XT, or so I've
gathered, CPU power wise. But they are very reliable and cross-check
each other (it just wouldn't do to have a machine crash during
a thruster adjustment, for example, leaving a valve open and the
craft spinning out of control).
----
ew...@aimnet.com -- launch in 5...4...3...2...1...blastoff... :-)
John Thompson
> Jeff Szarka wrote:
>
> > 7) It HAS to have support. If the user has a problem he HAS to be able
> > to call whoever makes the program in order to get help, it's a very
> > basic thing but also very lacking on many linux apps.
> all the others. I have never yet managed to
> contact the person who wrote the program, even
> having spent $1000+ on support contract, when
> dealing with commercial developers.
>
> Whereas with Linux, without even the expense
> of a long distance phone call or the timewasting
> of dealing with some ignorant underling on the
> telephone or of having to wait on hold on the
> telephone, I have *frequently* been in direct
> email communication with the person who actually
> does at that very time make the program - the
> person actually working on it, maintaining it
> or developing it.
an answer. And I'm not talking about hours on "hold" waiting
for some long-distance telephone support person whose only
suggestion is to format the drive and reinstall
everything...
--
-John (John.T...@ibm.net)
John Thompson
> On Mon, 08 Mar 1999 01:07:52 -0400, Mark Metson <ma...@knotwork.com>
> wrote:
>
> :Jeff Szarka wrote:
> :
> :> 7) It HAS to have support. If the user has a problem he HAS to be able
> :> to call whoever makes the program in order to get help, it's a very
> :> basic thing but also very lacking on many linux apps.
> :
> :This point is where Linux totally blows away
> :all the others. I have never yet managed to
> :contact the person who wrote the program, even
> :having spent $1000+ on support contract, when
> :dealing with commercial developers.
> :
> :Whereas with Linux, without even the expense
> :of a long distance phone call or the timewasting
> :of dealing with some ignorant underling on the
> :telephone or of having to wait on hold on the
> :telephone, I have *frequently* been in direct
> :email communication with the person who actually
> :does at that very time make the program - the
> :person actually working on it, maintaining it
> :or developing it.
> :
> :Furthermore I have even had such a person
> :actually telnet to my machine to see what
> :was wrong and help fix it.
> :
> :SO on this point, Linux is WAY ahead. The
> :problem for such maintainers will in fact
> :be how to continue providing such incredibly
> :awsome beyond market standards levels of
> :support when vast numbers of people conditioned
> :into pretending to lack brains start using
> :the products.
> Well I mean sure for right now it's great but what happens when
> thousands of people start calling the developer? How do you think that
> will work?
That's what the on-line FAQ's are for, isn't it?
--
-John (John.T...@ibm.net)
bme...@bruce.cs.monash.edu.au
>Acutally.......It does. Honestly, as I type this I have outlook 98,
>ie4, netscape, and a mp3 playing and things are smooth. No skips, I
>can alt-tab to another window with hardly any delay. I even ran
>netscape with out a single skip on my mp3, with x11amp it skipped
>horribly when running netscape.
Wow! How did you manage that? Could it be that you didn't give x11amp
any fifo buffer?
Right at this very moment, I have mpg123 playing an MP3. I also have
10 instances of "ico -dbl -faces -noedges" going. I also just did a
"for a in *.pgm; do xv $a & done" in a directory with about 10 .pgm
files of size 256x256 to 512x512. Ah, that directory is NFS-mounted, as
is the one containing the MP3. While the XV's were still starting up,
I type "netscape ~/lynx_bookmarks &". I then continued to start playing an
MPEG-2 video in MTV. I started scrolling around the netscape window as
fast as I could.
As hard as I tried, I could not make the MP3 skip a single beat. I am running
the player at the same priority as all those other processes and the X
server. This machine also uses a hack that allows me to use the keyboard
attached to another one as if it was the one on this machine. This means that
every keypress and release has to be sent over the ethernet as a UDP packet,
and be received by a user mode daemon. Despite loading the machine down as
described above, I wouldn't be able to tell --- there is no perceivable
delay between hitting a key and emacs (which I am writing this in) showing
the character. I also have a few outgoing telnets going, some of which
produce quite a bit of output.
Now, in order to make things a bit tougher for my poor MP3 player, I just
started 10 instances of "main() {while (1);}". This made it stutter, until
I reniced it to priority -19. Now it's back to normal, i.e. completely
skipless. Typing is still instantaneous. Just for a bit of local disk
traffic, I also started a "find /usr -type f -exec cat {} >/dev/null \;".
This is a Dual P150 (i.e. using a 60 MHz bus), with an original CL
Soundblaster. Nothing fancy about it at all.
>By it's very nature the people who write a lot of the software for
>linux don't care if it is user friendly, they would rather have it
>just work well.(not that it's such a bad thing) It's just a lot of
>users really want to have a polished, ready for prime-time piece of
>software.(A lot of the kde stuff seems that way)
A lot of users would rather have a product that looks good, but doesn't
work well? Huh?
>A port of quicken would be great, but people's old habits don't die
>quickly. If you talk to someone that's been using the 9x interface
>since 1995 they really would have a hard time switching to kde or
>gnome or any other WM.
For some weird reason, few of those people had too much of a problem
in 1995, when they switched from Win3.1 to Win95....
Bernie
P.S.: And now let me kill all this stuff again ;-)
--
============================================================================
"It's a magical world, Hobbes ol' buddy...
...let's go exploring"
Calvin's final words, on December 31st, 1995
bme...@bruce.cs.monash.edu.au
>To be polished a program should have:
>1) A full help system, using a standard interface (Like ms uses)
However, if you want to have MS-ware qualify as "polished", actual useful
content in that help system seems to be entirely optional. I used to be
able to say that I had never found the answer to any problem I ever had in
an MS help system, but that is no longer true --- I recently found out about
the fact that you need to restart Windows(!) to enable the Java console
in IE. And that information was almost in the spot you'd expect it.....
OTOH, man pages might not be pretty to look at --- but man, do they
contain information. Got a question about GNU stuff? No matter whether
you like or dislike the Info system, it is undeniable that the _content_
is pretty much all one can ask for.
>2) A GUI based installation program, very simple, using a standard
>kind of installation program (like install shield)
Now, is there any way of monitoring an IS installation? Any way of
having it do a fake installation, logging all the things it would have
done if it was for real?
Heck, when it comes to that --- where is the Help System in IS? One days
I would really like to find out what that rightmost bar graph is supposed
to show.....
>5) A way of getting training info. I setup software for
>people/businesses all the time and one of the main questions I get is:
>"Where can we get a book or a video on this program?"
You walk into your friendly neighbourhood bookstore and look for books
with weird drawings of animals on the cover.
>6) Software has to be available on disk, not just via download. Most
>people can't handle downloading a 5 meg file, much less anything
>bigger.
You mean like the recent releases of IE? Or isn't that a polished product?
I don't think I have ever seen any non-linux version of Netscape on CD, either.
>7) It HAS to have support. If the user has a problem he HAS to be able
>to call whoever makes the program in order to get help, it's a very
>basic thing but also very lacking on many linux apps.
Which isn't the case with preinstalled copies of MS software, either.
Ever tried calling HP with something as simple as "I don't want your software.
How do I get my money back"? You can tell me many things, but the one
thing you can't tell me is that the guy who answered that telephone call
would be able to help me with keeping the footnotes in my PhD thesis from
ending up on the wrong pages, due to a "feature" of MS-Word.
>9) Some kind of auto mounting system (someone has told me one exists,
>if so ignore this one)
This is a great idea --- but do you really call a system "polished" that
requires you to hold down a special key while inserting a CD _and_
chosing "explore" from a right-click menu if you want to actually look
at the files on it? Hello? If I didn't want the autorun-thingie to start
when I inserted the CD (to the extent of invoking the magic keypress while
inserting it), what is the probability that I want to start it with the very
next mouseclick? Hello? Anybody home? Hello? How about providing another
method of avoiding autostart? Because the CD-ROM is about 3m away from the
keyboard, and short of matches or precariously balanced coffee-mugs, there
is very little chance of me pressing a key while inserting a CD. What if I
didn't have a keyboard to start with, but just a mouse?
>12) The startup has to be less cryptic, all those messages scare a lot
>of users, a simple customizable splash screen would be much better I
>think.
Ah, yes. And whenever something goes wrong, you can tell tech support "Well,
it gets to the splash screen, and then it hangs. No, I have no idea what
it was trying to do at the time".
>15) Start to phase out tools like vi and jed and joe and elm and all
>those. It's insane to try and use those character based programs.
Why? I am writing this in emacs on a text console. Emacs was started by
nn, a text based news reader. One VC up, there is elm.
Both news and email are inherently text based. What's wrong with using
somethig that was made for text display with them? Of course, I am using
an 80x27 screen at 75Hz, with 32x9 character cells (which just happens to
produce the exact frequencies this Apple monochrome monitor requires --- how
do I do _that_ in Windows?). I don't see a need to waste screen real estate
on window decorations, task bars and other eye-candy for things that do
not require being windowed in a graphical environment.
>17) A way to shutdown without using "shutdown -h now" and without
>getting lots of messages. A simple "it is now safe to turn off your
>computer" is very useful to some people.
Hit CTRL-ALT-DEL. When the machine says "Rebooting now" (or something to
that effect), you switch off.
>I could go on but.. I think you can see where I'm coming from. If any
>of these exists some one please let me know, if all 17 of these were
>fixed I'd seriously consider linux again.
Say, do you consider any software "polished"?
By the way, my definition of a polished, finished product is a completely
different one. For me a product is polished if I find that I ask myself
"_How_ can I do XYZ?" rather than "Can I do XYZ at all?". With MS-ware,
I constantly ask myself the second question, and usually the answer is
"no". Like "Can I make it do 1000 scans of the same image in my scanner,
and store them in numbered files?". On linux, the question was "I wonder
what the syntax for the command-line scan program is.". Another condition
for a polished product is that it has the answers to my questions, and has
them in the places where I would expect them.
Of course, that definition of "polished" comes from a much more functional
approach. All I really care about is whether something does the job. If
I were to exaggerate, I would say all you care about is whether it looks
pretty, shows up in the right places, and comes with a 1-900 number you
can call.
Bernie
bme...@bruce.cs.monash.edu.au
>Also, I beg to differ with the statement that linux drops support for older
>hardware. The last kernel I compiled still had support for machines
>without co-processors, like my ancient 486sx notebook. Care to guess how
>Win98 would run on that?
Not at all, I suspect. I tried installing Win98 on a 386, and it wouldn't
know about it (despite that 386 having 20M of memory and sufficient disk
space, as well as a VGA card). I am not quite sure whether it was a problem
with not having an FPU or with not having the bswap instruction (and couldn't
find out, as my 20MHz 387 wouldn't run at 33MHz ;-). Win95 installed, but
took forever to do so.
Does Win98 have support for using Hercules graphics cards? I really liked that
about Win3.1!
Darren Winsper
> Acutally.......It does. Honestly, as I type this I have outlook 98,
> ie4, netscape, and a mp3 playing and things are smooth. No skips, I
> can alt-tab to another window with hardly any delay. I even ran
> netscape with out a single skip on my mp3, with x11amp it skipped
> horribly when running netscape.
If I may; as I read this newsgroup I have Amp-gepi running in the
backround. It uses a whole 13-15% of my K6 200MHz CPU. Now, to test your
argument, I just logged in as my standard user, typed 'startx' and
proceeded to load Netscape. Not one skip.
--
Darren Winsper
"Microsoft says, "Oh, you've got a brain? Well, you won't need it as
long as you stay within this nice little space we've prepared for you."
Linux says, "Oh, you've got a brain? Splendid! Here are lots of fun
things to do with it."" - Daniel Birchall
huckfinn
>
> > You just don't get it.
>
> Yes I do get it, your idea of respect is,...well I don't know what, but
> nothing I would hold to be true.
>
> Liking someone and respecting them are two
> > different things. I respect people who can do things I can't.
[whacked for brevity]
> Bill Gates has acomplished exactly squat in my mind. Sure, he is the
> head of a company that for the moment rules the software world, but has
> he given anything of real value
Slow down there chief. You are starting to sound like a Monty Python movie.
"Besides education what have the Romans given us? They gave us the aqueduct!
Besides education and besides the aqueduct, what have the Romans given us! ..."
And on and on and on ...
Don't forget, Microsoft employees many many people who in turn are able to
provide for their families. Microsoft also gives the good ol' USofA economy
a healthy boost. But I hear ya, besides that, what else does Microsoft do for
us?
-huckfin
Craig Dowell
>> OS that puts itself on top of a collection of random spare parts.
>
>Ahhh, so true, so true. I love the wording, nothing hits home about the
>'PC' market more than "collection of random spare parts." We must come
>up with a designation CORSP!
Hmmm. Isn't the current anti-trust activity in Washington, DC, designed
to encourage that OS software become a "collection of random spare code"
coming from various and sundry sources?
The future platforms on which our applications will run are being
constrained by the market and government to be "a collection of random
spare code running on a collection of random spare parts"?
I remember that world ...
Sigh.
Craig Dowell
[...]
>SO on this point, Linux is WAY ahead. The
>problem for such maintainers will in fact
>be how to continue providing such incredibly
>awsome beyond market standards levels of
>support when vast numbers of people conditioned
>into pretending to lack brains start using
>the products.
No shit? You think so?
jedi
>>> Device support is a hit or miss proposition either way in any
>>> OS that puts itself on top of a collection of random spare parts.
>>
>>Ahhh, so true, so true. I love the wording, nothing hits home about the
>>'PC' market more than "collection of random spare parts." We must come
>>up with a designation CORSP!
>
>Hmmm. Isn't the current anti-trust activity in Washington, DC, designed
>to encourage that OS software become a "collection of random spare code"
>coming from various and sundry sources?
You can pretty much describe a WinTel PC like that already
in terms of it's software. In order to know what constitutes
that machine in terms of software, you have to be familiar
with everything that was ever installed on it due to those
phantom OS upgrades.
Whereas Redhat 5.2 or Suse 6.0 is a well defined list of
things in an enviroment where application intallers aren't
encouraged to play havoc with the system files.
>
>The future platforms on which our applications will run are being
>constrained by the market and government to be "a collection of random
>spare code running on a collection of random spare parts"?
>
>I remember that world ...
You mean when a consumer could try to exercise a real
choice in a mainstream computer retail establishment
and not get laughed at or just plain dumbfound the clerks?
I'm certainly glad the market was chaos for awhile. It
allowed for my computing experience to be enhanced while
MicroSloth was busy sandbagging.
Todd Bandrowsky
>Think back to the os/2 Vs. win3.1/95 days, developers stuck to
>win3.1/75. Sure some did os/2 stuff but more often then not they
>didn't give os/2 the attention it deserved.
When OS/2 and Windows 3.1 were battling it out, the big controversy was that
OS/2 replaced DOS, and Windows 3.1 ran on top of it. The right thing for
programmers was to have DOS replaced, but consumers balked at losing DOS
altogether because they didn't want to replace their junky DOS applications.
And, if you didn't like a GUI, you could still not use it all the time under
Windows 3.1. Windows 3.1 was probably the most brilliant thing that MS
ever did, for these reasons. It was aweful for development and mission
critical work, but it was the ideal solution to migrate users away from DOS.
Donovan Rebbechi
>On Sun, 7 Mar 1999 17:55:11 -0800, je...@dementia.mishnet (jedi) wrote:
>Well it's true isn't it? Some linux programs are very usable but
>others are very confusing and built more for the pro. I mean really,
True. Same is true with any platform though.
> RPM takes
>care of a lot of things but I've heard quite a few linux advocates
>suggesting all software should come in only the standard tarball.
These guys are nuts (-;
>1) A full help system, using a standard interface (Like ms uses)
See almost any KDE app ...
>2) A GUI based installation program, very simple, using a standard
>kind of installation program (like install shield)
Nonononono ... WIndows package management is a very *BAD* model of
how to do things. Not even close to RPM.
For GUI installation tools, see any of the front ends to RPM.
>3) A way of registering it's self into start menu's and such.
KDE does this.
>Someone told me kde or gnome did this, which is a good start but until
>99% of the programs do this then it's not really polished enough for
>everyone.
All of the KDE programs do this. All major apps register them into KDE's
menus ( kappfinder looks for them and puts them in )
>4) A standard layout. Most linux apps seem to differ greatly in the
>way the program window is setup up. It's much easier for everyone if
>developers use a basic kind of interface.
KDE apps are consistent.
If an expert is doing the setup and the end users just have to use the
software ( not install it ) , this is enough. If the users have to do
their own installs, it's confusing.
>5) A way of getting training info. I setup software for
Good point.
>6) Software has to be available on disk, not just via download. Most
>people can't handle downloading a 5 meg file, much less anything
>bigger.
It already is.
>8) True type fonts would be nice out of the box. The standard fonts
>are painfully ugly and don't resize well.
Good point. There are already true type font servers. SOme of the
Redhat++ versions ( including mine ) ships with one of these.
Shipping ttfonts though is a problem for licensing reasons.
>9) Some kind of auto mounting system (someone has told me one exists,
>if so ignore this one)
Yep. install autofs. Use tksysv ( GUI tool ) to make it run at boot.
Edit /etc/auto.misc ( actually you probably won't even need to. But
at least look at it. It's self explanatory ) . Now you can
view your CD stuff by going cd /misc/cd , ...
>10) An easier way of setting up WM's. Such as adding new items to a
>menu or removing them. KDE is pretty good at it but could be
>better.(drag and drop & right clicking on menu's would be nice)
kwm is much *easier* to customise than win95's wm.
>11) A standard printing interface. In windows 99% of the time you
>print you get the standard print box, very useful for most users.
Actually, my pet peeve is the general font management scheme.
You're right, it's a mess.
>12) The startup has to be less cryptic, all those messages scare a lot
>of users, a simple customizable splash screen would be much better I
>think.
No, the startup makes for darned useful debugging information when
things go wrong. Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater, huh ?
>13) Plug and play. I know some say it doesn't work but with newer
>hardware it works fine.
> I built a new system this weekend for a friend
>and windows 98 detected everything, first shot.
Hardware detection has improved greatly over the last year. My guess is
that it will continue to improve.
>14) More out of the box driver support, hunting for drivers on the
>internet a nightmare (for windows or linux)
This is really the hardware manufacturers fault. The solution is *NOT*
for the linux developers to write more drivers, it's for the linux crowd
to get on the hardware manufacturers backs and harrass them until we get
the drivers. Of course, the windows people often get mad when linux
users start making these demands. But the linux users must *demand*
support.
>15) Start to phase out tools like vi
vim ( the editor that ships with redhat ) has a gui mode , and all the
features you'd expect in a cutting edge editor. Most distros don't ship
with the standard /bin/vi
> and jed and joe and elm and all
>those. It's insane to try and use those character based programs.
These are useful on multi user systems where the users only have access
via telnet sessions. I sense a desktop-centric windows mentality here.
Don't assume the user is sitting next to the computer. This is not
always true in Linux-land.
>17) A way to shutdown without using "shutdown -h now" and without
>getting lots of messages. A simple "it is now safe to turn off your
>computer" is very useful to some people.
I don't know what is scary about the messages. I think the concluding
"system halted" message is pretty unambiguous.
I can see where you are coming from. Some of your points are pretty
good. Some of them aren't. I am surprised that of all the things you
mentioned, "more apps" wasn't one of them, as I consider this to be the
major issue at present.
Most of the issues you raise are being addressed, and I have seen a lot
of improvement over the last year ( when KDE , and GIMP were bleeding
edge , and GNOME was almost nonexistent ) On the other hand, some
of these things "aren't broke" and don't need to be "fixed"
cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi <elf...@pegasus.rutgers.edu>
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
http://www.independence.seul.org/
John Birch
Rebbechi) wrote:
>human rights ? <cough> I don't see how computers will help ...
>Do you think the working people in poor countries
>are going to use computers ?
Software costs very little to manufacture in bulk (there are very few
raw materials - none if distributed electronically). All that is
required are human beings with sufficient IQ and training to write it.
This is why the far east is one of the fastest growing areas for
software devlopment the only investment required is in the hardware.
If you can get Linux for free including development tools, and it runs
on hardware that the western world is throwing away - then you have
very low start up costs.
BTW there are a growing number of large organisations in India who
undertake software development at very low cost compared to the west -
this trend will increase.
Of course there is another huge advantage - such industries are low
pollution!
>How does making life more comfortable for the aristocracies help
>the cause of "human rights" ?
You are making an assumption here - that only the aristocracies in the
third world have access to computers.
Wake up - if you're a software engineer in ten years you may not have
a job - especially if you develop desktop solutions!
regards John B.
Seán Ó Donnchadha
>
>[4] The differences between Windows and Linux have been summarized with
> many metaphors; one in particular might be that Windows is a
> gussied-up Volkswagon Beetle (i.e., a kit car - some of them look
> very nice, but it's still a Beetle), whereas Linux is a cross
> between a forklift, a space shuttle [*], and a Mack Truck. :-)
>
> A lot of kits and accessories are available for that Beetle. Only
> now are kits coming available for the forklift/space shuttle/Mack
> Truck. :-)
>
> Guess which one is better for doing server work, though? :-)
>
That's a great analogy. Unfortunately, no matter how you dress up a
fork lift, space shuttle, or Mack Truck, the Beetle will still be a
better choice for most people.
--
Seán Ó Donnchadha
"Is maith liom Mí Mheáin an tSamhraidh."
--
"The entire structure of the antitrust statutes in this country is a jumble
of economic irrationality and ignorance. It is the product: (a) of a gross
misinterpretation of history; and (b) of rather naive, and certainly
unrealistic, economic theories."
- Alan Greenspan