Advocacy
Zac Bond
example, I see people "advocating" the use of AMD processors to "put Intel
out of buisness." That's kinda dumb. Right now, Intel is pretty
overpriced, IMO, so I always buy AMD chips, and save quite a bit of money.
However, if Intel goes out of buisness, why would AMD keep its prices low?
That's not a smart corporate move. As soon as Intel lowers prices and
undercuts AMD with high qyuality product, I'll go root in their corner.
But I have to admit, reading the .advocacy groups is good for a laugh. I
mean, why wold anyone advocate Windows? I'm not talking quality here, I
don't care which is the better OS. But good competition for WIndows means
that the Windows-advocate can have the program you love for a much lower
price, if the competition is successful! I hate paying $200 for an OS. Is
there something these people enjoy about throwing money away? However much
you loves WIndows, you gotta admit Microsoft really is squeezing the market,
trying to get every penny possible from its OS monopoly. With some luck,
decent competition would force product quality to increase and price to
decrease....which is good for everyone.
And now for the question part of this message--FOr you, what's the tradeoff
between quality and price? FOr me, price is really, really imortant. I
would not argue with the statement that SCSI hard disks are faster and
generally better than IDE drives. But I still would only buy an IDE drive,
because the perfomance increase would not help me enough to justify the
tremendous price difference of buying a new drive, plus buying the interface
card and cabling.
Thoughts?
-Ophidian
The Demogorgon
For
example, I see people "advocating" the use of AMD processors to "put
Intel
out of buisness." That's kinda dumb. Right now, Intel is pretty
overpriced, IMO, so I always buy AMD chips, and save quite a bit of
money.
However, if Intel goes out of buisness, why would AMD keep its prices
low?
That's not a smart corporate move. As soon as Intel lowers prices and
undercuts AMD with high qyuality product, I'll go root in their corner."
Same here. Why pay a lot more for something that is more or less the
same, if not slightly worse?
"But I have to admit, reading the .advocacy groups is good for a laugh.
I
mean, why wold anyone advocate Windows? I'm not talking quality here, I
don't care which is the better OS. But good competition for WIndows
means
that the Windows-advocate can have the program you love for a much lower
price, if the competition is successful! I hate paying $200 for an OS.
Is
there something these people enjoy about throwing money away? However
much
you loves WIndows, you gotta admit Microsoft really is squeezing the
market,
trying to get every penny possible from its OS monopoly. With some
luck,
decent competition would force product quality to increase and price to
decrease....which is good for everyone."
Heh, Microsoft will soon be competing with... MICROSOFT! LOL, my ass
they will. One will take Office, the other will take Windows.
"And now for the question part of this message--FOr you, what's the
tradeoff
between quality and price? FOr me, price is really, really imortant. I
would not argue with the statement that SCSI hard disks are faster and
generally better than IDE drives. But I still would only buy an IDE
drive,
because the perfomance increase would not help me enough to justify the
tremendous price difference of buying a new drive, plus buying the
interface
card and cabling."
Hey, if I had the cash to buy a SCSI drive, I probably would. I most
certainly don't at the moment. I dunno though, I might feel bad wasting
my money on something that I could live without...
Demo
--
--**<< The Demogorgon, Graymalkin Dragon, Elrick >>**--
Pix!
news:8pbhbm$3pe$1...@eeyore.INS.CWRU.Edu...
> And now for the question part of this message--FOr you, what's the
tradeoff
> between quality and price? FOr me, price is really, really imortant. I
> would not argue with the statement that SCSI hard disks are faster and
> generally better than IDE drives. But I still would only buy an IDE
drive,
> because the perfomance increase would not help me enough to justify the
> tremendous price difference of buying a new drive, plus buying the
interface
> card and cabling.
Ever use SCSI? Try installing something off a CD and doing, well, anything
else on the computer at the same time. Ditto for compiling a 100K-line
program, etc.
Lost Dragon
>between quality and price? FOr me, price is really, really imortant. I
It depends on what I'm going to be doing with whatever I'm buying.
If I want to do professional work, I try to buy good quality tools
(software, hardware, etc) that are widely supported.
If I'm merely trying some new hobby, then cheaper stuff will usually
do.
Basically, if you spend more time fiddling with makeshift tools or
slow hardware than you do actually working, it's probably time to
think about updating your rig.
Price also comes into consideration. It's important to keep the
law of diminishing returns in mind whenever you make big
purchases.
/| .oo__. B .---.=- -= Lost Dragon =- -=.---. U
{ \| ,-'' B |_O_|==- -= Forever Dead Forgotten Lie =- -==|_O_| D
`,_/'(_)\_ O | | |==- Remembered Souls, They Cannot Die -==| | | I
<...{_)_)_'' W `---`===-- http://www.lostdragon.com/ --==='---' C
Fortran Dragon
[Snip]
> Ever use SCSI? Try installing something off a CD and doing, well, anything
> else on the computer at the same time. Ditto for compiling a 100K-line
> program, etc.
Or burn a CD from another CD while playing Quake 3. :)
--
Fortran Dragon -==(UDIC)==-
Hidalgo Trading Company: <http://home.kc.rr.com/hidalgo/>
rgcu.* FAQ: <http://home.kc.rr.com/hidalgo/faq/rgcudfaq.html>
Zac Bond
"Pix!" <pixe...@MsSpN.CaOmM> wrote in message
news:uGaSuudGAHA.320@cpmsnbbsa09...
and cabling.
>
> Ever use SCSI? Try installing something off a CD and doing, well,
anything
> else on the computer at the same time. Ditto for compiling a 100K-line
> program, etc.
>
I burn CD's every few days; I very rarely compile 100K+ line programs.
Ergo, is that capability worth an extra $100-$500? No.
-Ophidian
Fortran Dragon
[Snip]
> I burn CD's every few days; I very rarely compile 100K+ line programs.
> Ergo, is that capability worth an extra $100-$500? No.
Ever access multiple drives on your PC at the same time? With any
frequency? Then SCSI is the system for you. :)
The nice thing about SCSI is you can add it a bit at a time to your
system.
Samurai
>Advocacy is pretty stupid.
Tell that to lawyers. ;)
[munch]
>And now for the question part of this message--FOr you, what's the
>tradeoff between quality and price? FOr me, price is really, really
>imortant. I would not argue with the statement that SCSI hard disks
>are faster and generally better than IDE drives. But I still would
>only buy an IDE drive, because the perfomance increase would not help
>me enough to justify the tremendous price difference of buying a new
>drive, plus buying the interface card and cabling.
>
>Thoughts?
Though some people will always look for value, and some for
performance, I imagine for most folks, it depends on their disposable
income. Id I'm earning $100 an hour, I'm far less likely to be
concerned at price than if I'm earning $10.
Yes, there's the old chestnut about rich people not having gotten rich
by being spendthrifts. But I'll bet you there aren't many
millionaires around who are buying 500MHz Celerons with 32MB of RAM
today. :)
As for me -- well, I'll probably have a Duron in my next PC, which I
hope to get before Christmas (so I can finally play U9) if, as is
likely, my plans for an autumn break fall through.
--
___________________________________________________________
\^\^//
,^ ( ..) Samurai Dragon d++e+N T--Om+U146MA7'L8u-uC++
| \ \ -==(UDIC)==- uF-uG++uLB+uA+nC++uR nH+nP+++
\ `^--^ \\\/// nI--nPT nS+++nT--wM-wC y+ a25
\ \ \ << Lord High Pop-Culture Guru Master of Spankiness >>
ksj ^--^ ___________________________________________________________
Musashi Dragon
Zac Bond wrote:
>"Pix!" <pixe...@MsSpN.CaOmM> wrote in message
>news:uGaSuudGAHA.320@cpmsnbbsa09...
>and cabling.
>> Ever use SCSI? Try installing something off a CD and doing, well,
>anything
>> else on the computer at the same time. Ditto for compiling a 100K-line
>> program, etc.
Can't that be avoided by having IDE devices on different cables? I have an
IDE system, and still do things while installing software and stuff...?
>I burn CD's every few days; I very rarely compile 100K+ line programs.
>Ergo, is that capability worth an extra $100-$500? No.
I'm in the same boat, but the difference isn't so pronounced now. IDE drives
have been catching up to their SCSI counterparts. :)
--
Musashi Dragon Graduate student of Innuendo and Twisting
-==(UDIC Greybread)==- Silly Penguin
Angle of Hot Sex Silvertongue
Extremely Sic Linux Junkie
Musashi Dragon
Zac Bond wrote:
>example, I see people "advocating" the use of AMD processors to "put Intel
>out of buisness." That's kinda dumb. Right now, Intel is pretty
>overpriced, IMO, so I always buy AMD chips, and save quite a bit of money.
>However, if Intel goes out of buisness, why would AMD keep its prices low?
>That's not a smart corporate move. As soon as Intel lowers prices and
>undercuts AMD with high qyuality product, I'll go root in their corner.
Just to play the Advocate (dodges spluts), they might want Intel out of
business due to past actions. Maybe they think that the Pentium serial
numbers are so bad that Intel should go out of business because of them?
Ignoring the fact that other chip manufacturers have been doing the same thing
for ages, of course. :)
On a similar note, I wouldn't mind seeing MS go bankrupt rather than adjust to
the new open-source market. Sure, almost everybody would benefit in having a
minor player like MS will be in ten years... but I find the lure of revenge
sweeter in this case.
>But I have to admit, reading the .advocacy groups is good for a laugh. I
>mean, why wold anyone advocate Windows? I'm not talking quality here, I
Reaction against people who advocate different things. My oldest friend does
this... point out a good thing in UT, and he comes back with a Quake 3
superiority. Point out a good thing in Linux, he finds a flaw in the OS or a
strength of Windows. It gets *really* annoying... :/
For the record, I don't want him to use Linux (well, I'd like that, but that's
not my annoyance). All I want him to do is *try* it. Give it a fair chance.
I've burned CDs. I gave his brother a 1.6 G drive, and gave him a 2.0 G
drive, because they were leery of splitting their FAT drives. I've offered to
answer any Linux question; even to go over to their house to fix stuff
(not that I expect I'd need to). I gave them HOMM3 for Linux (I don't play
it anymore) so that they can see how easy it is to install games in Linux.
But they still haven't tried it. And it's not that he's computer-shy. He's
had a computer almost as long as I have (since I was 10). He's worked as
those "computer guy" jobs in businesses. He's a fourth-year major in computer
science. Ideal Linux / bsd / other OS material. (I could well imagine him
being a Solaris or FreeBSD fan instead of Linux; I'm fine with that). If only
he'd open his eyes, try something new, and learn about all the other options
he has...!
Um. </rant>
>And now for the question part of this message--FOr you, what's the tradeoff
>between quality and price? FOr me, price is really, really imortant. I
I'm finding myself agreeing with RMS more and more these days... right now, my
biggest concern with software is that it's free. If it's a cool OS, I want to
be able to burn extra copies and hand them out to my (other) friends. If it's
a neat program, I want to be able to point people to where they can download
it. And while I'm not quite up to doing it myself, I want to cannibalize the
good parts from a particular piece of software, put it together with other
things, and then distribute the new thing.
I wouldn't mind paying money, though. I wouldn't mind paying $50 for some
good, open-source SBLive drivers. Ditto for TNT2 drivers. As long as it was
Free (in the Debian-compliant way) software.
As for quality... well, I know that I'm sacrificing some. I don't have EAX
support for my sound card, for example. But I personally find it worth it...
in no small part due to the fact that I don't have any software that can use
EAX. :)
Anyway, that's my personal opinion, FWIW. This does not represent my Official
Position as a Linux Junkie. :P
Singing Dragon
>And now for the question part of this message--FOr you, what's the tradeoff
>between quality and price? FOr me, price is really, really imortant. I
>would not argue with the statement that SCSI hard disks are faster and
>generally better than IDE drives. But I still would only buy an IDE drive,
>because the perfomance increase would not help me enough to justify the
>tremendous price difference of buying a new drive, plus buying the interface
>card and cabling.
>
>Thoughts?
Really depends on each particular situation. For example, right now,
SCSI isn't worth it to you, but if you were going to be running a
high-performance server, it probably would, because the extra speed
would be necessary. Likewise, most people wouldn't want to spend
$5000 on a saxophone, but I would (and I love my sax more the more I
play it. WOO!)
--
Singing Dragon
-- Don't forget to *enjoy* the *sauce* --
- UnSpluttable -
Zac Bond
"Singing Dragon" <jo...@redowl.penguinpowered.com> wrote in message
news:Briu5.19280$nw6.6...@carnaval.risq.qc.ca...
> Really depends on each particular situation. For example, right now,
> SCSI isn't worth it to you, but if you were going to be running a
> high-performance server, it probably would, because the extra speed
> would be necessary.
This is why it annoys me when people go off and say, "Well mines better than
yours cuase its faster muaaaaah" when frankly I think the best system is the
one which best suits one's needs.....If I were running a server, I would
definitely go for SCSI simply because of the speed and the large number of
devices.
But it really wouldn't do me any good because of the extra cost, and the
wasting of what I have now...
-Ophidian
Lost Dragon
>only he'd open his eyes, try something new, and learn about all the other
>options he has...!
>Um. </rant>
If you really want him to try new things, are you going to also
advocate BeOS, and MacOS at a later date?
Musashi Dragon
>>being a Solaris or FreeBSD fan instead of Linux; I'm fine with that). If
>>only he'd open his eyes, try something new, and learn about all the other
>>options he has...!
>>Um. </rant>
>
>If you really want him to try new things, are you going to also
>advocate BeOS, and MacOS at a later date?
I can't really see him liking BeOS, nor do I have personal experience with it.
(I was all set to try it out last weekend, but it seemed to require Win32? If
I'm wrong, please tell me... I found it extremely off-putting to have an OS
that depended on another one. :/ )
From what I've heard of BeOS, it sounds perfect for his sister, but not him.
But yes, I think he should try it. As for MacOS... I wasn't aware that they
were making an x86 version. And will it be freely downloadable?
Zac Bond
"Musashi Dragon" <Musash...@home.com> wrote in message
news:slrn8rjkdc.h7r...@mobius.idlepower.net...
> Something, oh anything, would be wittier than this header:
> Lost Dragon wrote:
> >>being a Solaris or FreeBSD fan instead of Linux; I'm fine with that).
If
> >>only he'd open his eyes, try something new, and learn about all the
other
> >>options he has...!
> >>Um. </rant>
> >
> >If you really want him to try new things, are you going to also
> >advocate BeOS, and MacOS at a later date?
>
> I can't really see him liking BeOS, nor do I have personal experience with
it.
> (I was all set to try it out last weekend, but it seemed to require Win32?
If
> I'm wrong, please tell me... I found it extremely off-putting to have an
OS
> that depended on another one. :/ )
>
> From what I've heard of BeOS, it sounds perfect for his sister, but not
him.
> But yes, I think he should try it. As for MacOS... I wasn't aware that
they
> were making an x86 version. And will it be freely downloadable?
Ah, I had forgotten about BeOS. I think I'll try it.
A 512 MB restriction's pretty stupid though.
-Ophidian
Zac Bond
"Musashi Dragon" <Musash...@home.com> wrote in message
news:slrn8rjkdc.h7r...@mobius.idlepower.net...
> From what I've heard of BeOS, it sounds perfect for his sister, but not
him.
> But yes, I think he should try it. As for MacOS... I wasn't aware that
they
> were making an x86 version. And will it be freely downloadable?
And wouldn't you know, BeOS does not install. No error messages, no
nothing. It just doesn't do anyhting. Hmm.
-Ophidian
DS
Zac Bond wrote:
I installed the freely available demo a little while ago, it was quite nice
for what
it was but its important to remember that it is a demo and not the full
product. As for why
your install didn't work I have no idea :/
--
"Solaris where did you want to go yesterday?"
DS
Musashi Dragon wrote:
> Something, oh anything, would be wittier than this header:
> Zac Bond wrote:
> [SNIP]
> On a similar note, I wouldn't mind seeing MS go bankrupt rather than adjust to
> the new open-source market. Sure, almost everybody would benefit in having a
> minor player like MS will be in ten years... but I find the lure of revenge
> sweeter in this case.
>
I wouldn't be so sure that software is moving towards an open source market.
The way I see it, apps will be payed for on a cheap pay per view basis, ala
Ultima Online etc. IMHO this will lead to the instinction of piracy. In a
few years time I predict that we will see apps that have a very cheap client,
and then a monthly rental fee, with free updates. These kind of moves
will ensure the survival of software houses and the rest of the information
economy.
> >But I have to admit, reading the .advocacy groups is good for a laugh. I
> >mean, why wold anyone advocate Windows? I'm not talking quality here, I
>
> Reaction against people who advocate different things. My oldest friend does
> this... point out a good thing in UT, and he comes back with a Quake 3
> superiority. Point out a good thing in Linux, he finds a flaw in the OS or a
> strength of Windows. It gets *really* annoying... :/
>
> For the record, I don't want him to use Linux (well, I'd like that, but that's
> not my annoyance). All I want him to do is *try* it. Give it a fair chance.
> I've burned CDs. I gave his brother a 1.6 G drive, and gave him a 2.0 G
> drive, because they were leery of splitting their FAT drives. I've offered to
> answer any Linux question; even to go over to their house to fix stuff
> (not that I expect I'd need to). I gave them HOMM3 for Linux (I don't play
> it anymore) so that they can see how easy it is to install games in Linux.
>
> But they still haven't tried it. And it's not that he's computer-shy. He's
> had a computer almost as long as I have (since I was 10). He's worked as
> those "computer guy" jobs in businesses. He's a fourth-year major in computer
> science. Ideal Linux / bsd / other OS material. (I could well imagine him
> being a Solaris or FreeBSD fan instead of Linux; I'm fine with that). If only
> he'd open his eyes, try something new, and learn about all the other options
> he has...!
>
> Um. </rant>
>
> >And now for the question part of this message--FOr you, what's the tradeoff
> >between quality and price? FOr me, price is really, really imortant. I
I agress price is very important, thats why I choose AMD processors now over
their Intel equivelents, it could be argued that Intel products have better
upgrade
options. But with the pace that the technology is being driven, at the moment any
MOBO bought now well be obsolete within in a few months.
> I'm finding myself agreeing with RMS more and more these days... right now, my
> biggest concern with software is that it's free. If it's a cool OS, I want to
> be able to burn extra copies and hand them out to my (other) friends. If it's
> a neat program, I want to be able to point people to where they can download
> it. And while I'm not quite up to doing it myself, I want to cannibalize the
> good parts from a particular piece of software, put it together with other
> things, and then distribute the new thing.
>
> I wouldn't mind paying money, though. I wouldn't mind paying $50 for some
> good, open-source SBLive drivers. Ditto for TNT2 drivers. As long as it was
> Free (in the Debian-compliant way) software.
>
> As for quality... well, I know that I'm sacrificing some. I don't have EAX
> support for my sound card, for example. But I personally find it worth it...
> in no small part due to the fact that I don't have any software that can use
> EAX. :)
>
> Anyway, that's my personal opinion, FWIW. This does not represent my Official
> Position as a Linux Junkie. :P
When will you learn that NT is so much better!! I prove my point by stating my 486
linux boxes up time is 100 days while the schools NT box is 30 :P
MdmeDis
Musash...@home.com says...
> Just to play the Advocate (dodges spluts), they might want Intel out of
> business due to past actions.
One thing that interests me - why is it that when the preferred
manufacturer (top seller) produces something that doesn't perform as
expected,he's out to screw everyone, but when the wanna be puts out an
inferior product, that's OK. Perhaps you could explain.
> On a similar note, I wouldn't mind seeing MS go bankrupt rather than adjust to
> the new open-source market. Sure, almost everybody would benefit in having a
> minor player like MS will be in ten years... but I find the lure of revenge
> sweeter in this case.
Revenge for what? If it hadn't been for windows, chances are very good
you wouldn't be able to afford a pc (generic).
Unfortunately for the rest of us, there are a lot of people out there
with the same egocentric attitude. Completely ignore the reality of the
situation, (ie that people, including yourself one day, have to make a
living) and destroy something because of some imagined personal slight.
I tell you something - all other consideration aside, I'm rapidly
reaching the point where hell will freeze over before I'll touch linux
because of the attitude of so many who use it.
>
> >But I have to admit, reading the .advocacy groups is good for a laugh. I
> >mean, why wold anyone advocate Windows? I'm not talking quality here, I
>
> Reaction against people who advocate different things.
It isn't what they advocate - its the myopic, spiteful way they advocate
it. An insistence that everything be destroyed except their favourite
system is about as restrictive and unfree as it gets. I'm getting to the
point where linux has become an issue, not an OS.
> My oldest friend does
> this... point out a good thing in UT, and he comes back with a Quake 3
> superiority. Point out a good thing in Linux, he finds a flaw in the OS or a
> strength of Windows. It gets *really* annoying... :/
I wonder why?
> For the record, I don't want him to use Linux (well, I'd like that, but that's
> not my annoyance). All I want him to do is *try* it. Give it a fair chance.
> I've burned CDs. I gave his brother a 1.6 G drive, and gave him a 2.0 G
> drive, because they were leery of splitting their FAT drives. I've offered to
> answer any Linux question; even to go over to their house to fix stuff
> (not that I expect I'd need to). I gave them HOMM3 for Linux (I don't play
> it anymore) so that they can see how easy it is to install games in Linux.
>
> But they still haven't tried it.And
> it's not that he's computer-shy. He's
> had a computer almost as long as I have (since I was 10). He's worked as
> those "computer guy" jobs in businesses. He's a fourth-year major in computer
> science. Ideal Linux / bsd / other OS material. (I could well imagine him
> being a Solaris or FreeBSD fan instead of Linux; I'm fine with that). If only
> he'd open his eyes, try something new, and learn about all the other options
> he has...!
I've given you the answer above. I'm obviously not alone in my reaction
to Advocates.
>
> Um. </rant>
>
> >And now for the question part of this message--FOr you, what's the tradeoff
> >between quality and price? FOr me, price is really, really imortant. I
>
> I'm finding myself agreeing with RMS more and more these days...
<sigh>
--
Disoriented Dragon
-==(UDIC)==-
Having finally opted for it being the rest of the
world that's screwed, after all.
MdmeDis
says...
> Advocacy is pretty stupid. Brand name loyalty is also pretty stupid.
But they are not the same...
> For
> example, I see people "advocating" the use of AMD processors to "put Intel
> out of buisness."
But that's not Advocacy (correct me if I'm wrong - isn't Advocacy
concerned with software?) Thats stupidity, based on envy.
> That's kinda dumb. Right now, Intel is pretty
> overpriced, IMO, so I always buy AMD chips, and save quite a bit of money.
> However, if Intel goes out of buisness, why would AMD keep its prices low?
Bingo! Its called competition, and it is why wishing one company would
put another out of business is incredibly short-sighted. In a
competitive market, companies are pushed to produce bigger, better
faster cheaper products, so the consumer benefits. In one where one
company dominates, or a few agree not to compete (the situation you have
with software retail outlets currently) the consumer loses, both in
terms of price and quality.
> That's not a smart corporate move.
It is smart for the corporation in the short term - it's very bad for
the consumer.
> As soon as Intel lowers prices and
> undercuts AMD with high qyuality product, I'll go root in their corner.
>
> But I have to admit, reading the .advocacy groups is good for a laugh. I
> mean, why wold anyone advocate Windows?
I dunno what you mean by "advocate" it. If you mean defend it against
people who say get rid of it, I can see why.(a) It can be used by the
average consumer - Linux, at least according to Torval, isn't ready yet
and (b)as you have pointed out, lack of competition is Bad.
> I'm not talking quality here, I
> don't care which is the better OS. But good competition for WIndows means
> that the Windows-advocate can have the program you love for a much lower
> price, if the competition is successful!
But if the competition is successful, it will drive it out of business,
as its advocates seem to want and you'll be in exactly the same boat as
you are now - stuck with one system. The downside of monopoly isn't just
financial.
> I hate paying $200 for an OS.
For me, if I divide that number by the hours of use I get out of it,
it's pretty cheap. If I turn my computer on once a week to check e-
mail,it's pretty expensive. As long as it motivates the producer to stay
in business, and produce enough that scarcity doesn't force the price
higher (and MS hasn't played that game) which could be another effect of
competition - "gee, now we're only selling half as many as we were, we
have to up the price"
> Is
> there something these people enjoy about throwing money away? However much
> you loves WIndows, you gotta admit Microsoft really is squeezing the market,
> trying to get every penny possible from its OS monopoly. With some luck,
> decent competition would force product quality to increase and price to
> decrease....which is good for everyone.
Luck has almost nothing to do with it. MS crushed any competition - not
by putting out a better product, as did intel, but by a load of sneaky
legal moves and maneuvers. If Advocacy scares them into improving their
product, that is good, because they can't put Advocates out of business.
But, as in the case you cited of AMD/intel, if linux becomes the only
flavour available, and it forces the price of Windows up, it is bad.
>
> And now for the question part of this message--FOr you, what's the tradeoff
> between quality and price?
For me, the important thing is that I have a choice of some kind.
Currently with OS I have neither. I have no choice of price for the
slightly temperamental one, and the one I get for free I can't use and
won't do most of the things *I* want it for.
> FOr me, price is really, really imortant.
That is because money is short - in other words, you are not driven by
freedom of choice. I hope you won't always make decisions based
exclusively on price - there are other factors. Suitability is a major
one. If the cheapest system doesn't meet your needs, and a more
expensive one does, assuming you have the resources, its pretty dumb to
let price be the only consideration, or deciding factor.....
I
> would not argue with the statement that SCSI hard disks are faster and
> generally better than IDE drives. But I still would only buy an IDE drive,
> because the perfomance increase would not help me enough to justify the
> tremendous price difference of buying a new drive, plus buying the interface
> card and cabling.
Right - but under these circumstances, price isn't the only factor. Need
is. Suppose all the things you use your computer for ran perfectly on
SCSI, but only half-assed or not at all on IDE? And you had $100,000 in
a bank account to spend as you liked?
Fortran Dragon
[Snip]
> I'm in the same boat, but the difference isn't so pronounced now. IDE drives
> have been catching up to their SCSI counterparts. :)
SCSI is still moving forward, too. :)
Fortran Dragon
[Snip]
> this... point out a good thing in UT, and he comes back with a Quake 3
> superiority. Point out a good thing in Linux, he finds a flaw in the OS or a
> strength of Windows. It gets *really* annoying... :/
It sounds like he is being just as much an advocate as you are. :)
Maybe that will give you some perspective on why people react the way
they do. It is awfully easy to slip from advocating something to
bashing its competition.
An advocate either has to have a light touch or has to focus on the
positives of the thing they are advocating (and be honest about the
shortcomings). Once the bashing starts people tune the advocate out
because the advocate comes across as just another disgruntled person
with an axe to grind.
Also, constant advocacy get to be very wearying for those around
the advocate. If someone isn't interested in trying the thing being
advocated then the advocate needs to shut up. Immediately. People
don't like being treated as retarded children simply because they made a
decision different from the advocate. A good advocate accepts that
adults can and will make different decisions and that is ok.
Fortran Dragon
[Snip]
> One thing that interests me - why is it that when the preferred
> manufacturer (top seller) produces something that doesn't perform as
> expected,he's out to screw everyone, but when the wanna be puts out an
> inferior product, that's OK. Perhaps you could explain.
What I want to know is why is it ok for the second and third seller
to put out inferior products? :)
Fortran Dragon
[Snip]
> yours cuase its faster muaaaaah" when frankly I think the best system is the
> one which best suits one's needs.....If I were running a server, I would
> definitely go for SCSI simply because of the speed and the large number of
> devices.
SCSI is also good for heavy-duty workstations. At times I needed
to push my 'puter's performance and IDE wasn't working very well.
> But it really wouldn't do me any good because of the extra cost, and the
> wasting of what I have now...
Again, you can convert your system to SCSI a little bit at a time.
I originally used SCSI For my scanner and ZIP drive. I later added the
CD-ROM and the CD-R/RW drives. Finally I moved to a SCSI hard drive.
My DVD drive is still an IDE model because I wanted a specific model for
a particular game and I simply don't used DVD that much on my PC.
So, if you would like a SCSI-based system you can get there in easy
steps, with each step being at the right time for you.
Zac Bond
"DS" <jacasey...@deakin.edu.au> wrote in message
news:39BA0E58...@deakin.edu.au...
>
>
> Musashi Dragon wrote:
>
> > Something, oh anything, would be wittier than this header:
> > Zac Bond wrote:
> > [SNIP]
> > On a similar note, I wouldn't mind seeing MS go bankrupt rather than
adjust to
> > the new open-source market. Sure, almost everybody would benefit in
having a
> > minor player like MS will be in ten years... but I find the lure of
revenge
> > sweeter in this case.
> >
>
> I wouldn't be so sure that software is moving towards an open source
market.
> The way I see it, apps will be payed for on a cheap pay per view basis,
ala
> Ultima Online etc. IMHO this will lead to the instinction of piracy. In
a
> few years time I predict that we will see apps that have a very cheap
client,
> and then a monthly rental fee, with free updates. These kind of moves
> will ensure the survival of software houses and the rest of the
information
> economy.
Pay per view basis? Count me out. If WIndows began charging a monthly fee
for use, I will either delete it utterly and switch to Linux, or find a way
to get around it. I find "Web Apps" to be stupid, and I always chuckle when
I hear a pundit saying they're going to replace boxed software. Most people
prefer real manuals to crappy online documentation, and most of us without
fast access would not want to only be able to use our word pocessors when
we're online. The Internet is not gonna conquer the world just yet.
Anyway, just my rant.
-Ophidian
Musashi Dragon
>Musashi Dragon wrote:
>>
>I wouldn't be so sure that software is moving towards an open source market.
>The way I see it, apps will be payed for on a cheap pay per view basis, ala
>Ultima Online etc. IMHO this will lead to the instinction of piracy. In a
extinction
>few years time I predict that we will see apps that have a very cheap client,
>and then a monthly rental fee, with free updates. These kind of moves
>will ensure the survival of software houses and the rest of the information
>economy.
That's the direction that some companies, most notably MS, Sony, and Sun, are
heading. However, in my highly unscientific experience, that's not the
direction that consumers want to go. People would much rather buy something
rather than rent it. This model is great for companies, because consumers
have less rights over rented material than over owned products.
But I don't think that will happen. Maybe I'm overly optimistic, but I think
that consumers will take a serious look at the free software out there. And
if they can get most or all of their needs satisfied by it, they'll go for it.
>options. But with the pace that the technology is being driven, at the moment any
>
>MOBO bought now well be obsolete within in a few months.
What do you mean by "obsolete"? "Not the very best"? Certainly. "Not
usuable"? I don't think so. My pentium 133 is years old, and makes a
wonderfully overpowered print and file server.
Think about it -- how did most of us start learning computers? Remember those
"PC"s that ran nothing but GW-BASIC? Do you recall the new 8086? The days
when a 386 made you a school-wide celebrity?
In the old gold days of Unix supremacy and big iron mainframes, an entire
university was powered by one computer that was less powerful than my current
desktop machine. If that isn't enough power for one person, maybe we should
re-evaluate the kind of stuff we do on our systems.
DS
Musashi Dragon wrote:
> Something, oh anything, would be wittier than this header:
> DS wrote:
> >Musashi Dragon wrote:
> >>
> >I wouldn't be so sure that software is moving towards an open source market.
> >The way I see it, apps will be payed for on a cheap pay per view basis, ala
> >Ultima Online etc. IMHO this will lead to the instinction of piracy. In a
> ~~~~~~~~~~~
> extinction
my instints till me your write ;)
> >few years time I predict that we will see apps that have a very cheap client,
> >and then a monthly rental fee, with free updates. These kind of moves
> >will ensure the survival of software houses and the rest of the information
> >economy.
>
> That's the direction that some companies, most notably MS, Sony, and Sun, are
> heading. However, in my highly unscientific experience, that's not the
> direction that consumers want to go. People would much rather buy something
> rather than rent it. This model is great for companies, because consumers
> have less rights over rented material than over owned products.
>
> But I don't think that will happen. Maybe I'm overly optimistic, but I think
> that consumers will take a serious look at the free software out there. And
> if they can get most or all of their needs satisfied by it, they'll go for it.
I too hope that software won't go this rented way and there could well/will be
a consumer backlash.
> >options. But with the pace that the technology is being driven, at the moment any
> >
> >MOBO bought now well be obsolete within in a few months.
>
> What do you mean by "obsolete"? "Not the very best"? Certainly. "Not
> usuable"? I don't think so. My pentium 133 is years old, and makes a
> wonderfully overpowered print and file server.
well I mean not at the forefront of technology, basically less bragging rights ;) My
machine at the
moment is basically a glorified terminal :)
> Think about it -- how did most of us start learning computers? Remember those
> "PC"s that ran nothing but GW-BASIC? Do you recall the new 8086? The days
> when a 386 made you a school-wide celebrity?
lol! I remember those pc's that ran nothing but ROM basic!! (well if you didn't insert
a disk that is)
> In the old gold days of Unix supremacy and big iron mainframes, an entire
> university was powered by one computer that was less powerful than my current
> desktop machine. If that isn't enough power for one person, maybe we should
> re-evaluate the kind of stuff we do on our systems.--
Well I don't plan on upgrading my current system for a few years, it works and works
well for
what I need it to do. The only time I would consider new hardware is if I was going to
buy a whole
new system.
DS
Zac Bond wrote:
Well the Internet access for the average user is getting faster all the time,
but I do
agree that java apps and the like are not exactly taking the world by storm.
> Most people
> prefer real manuals to crappy online documentation, and most of us without
> fast access would not want to only be able to use our word pocessors when
> we're online. The Internet is not gonna conquer the world just yet.
What if turned out to be cheaper? what if the use of these apps was included
in your Internet usage charges?
> Anyway, just my rant.
>
> -Ophidian
--
Musashi Dragon
>In article <slrn8rj8tt.f9v...@mobius.idlepower.net>,
>Musash...@home.com says...
>> Just to play the Advocate (dodges spluts), they might want Intel out of
>> business due to past actions.
>
>One thing that interests me - why is it that when the preferred
>manufacturer (top seller) produces something that doesn't perform as
>expected,he's out to screw everyone, but when the wanna be puts out an
>inferior product, that's OK. Perhaps you could explain.
I was playing Devil's Advocate. I don't have any problem with Intel; I think
the Celerons are a great deal. I'm temporarily cheering for AMD, for
competition reasons -- but I'm only 'cheering'. When it comes to buying new
chips, I'll stick to Intel. For now, at least.
Four or so years ago, the competition just plain sucked. Cyrixes (sp?) were
infamous for being used in baking ovens, and while the K6 had good integer
arithmetic, the FPU -- used in the games I played back then -- was bad. As a
reasult, Cyrix and AMD suffered.
The Athlon seems like a good product to me, though Athlon chipsets had some
problems. AFAIK, they still don't support SMP, and the first motherboards
didn't supply the required voltage to the AGP port. This resulted in major
problems between the GeForce and Athlon chips.
But apart from that, I'm not aware of any major flaws in AMD's chips...?
>> On a similar note, I wouldn't mind seeing MS go bankrupt rather than adjust to
>> the new open-source market. Sure, almost everybody would benefit in having a
>
>Revenge for what? If it hadn't been for windows, chances are very good
>you wouldn't be able to afford a pc (generic).
I'm not claiming that everything that MS has done has been bad. But, to
understate the case, some things they've done *have* been bad. I dislike them
for those things.
>I tell you something - all other consideration aside, I'm rapidly
>reaching the point where hell will freeze over before I'll touch linux
>because of the attitude of so many who use it.
"Some British football fans are rowdy, violent, and IIRC caused Tony Blair to
apoligize on their behalf. Therefore I shall never watch a British football
team."
>> Reaction against people who advocate different things.
>
>It isn't what they advocate - its the myopic, spiteful way they advocate
>it. An insistence that everything be destroyed except their favourite
>system is about as restrictive and unfree as it gets.
Who wants everything to be destroyed except their favourite OS? I have no
problems with people using Windows, BeOS, MacOS, Corel Linux, or any OS that
doesn't suit my personal desires in an OS. What I dislike is people using
Windows because they think it's the only thing out there. I don't (try to)
advocate people using Linux -- I (try to) advocate people *trying* Linux.
My ability to advocate might be dismal, but that's my flaw -- not OS bigotry.
>> I'm finding myself agreeing with RMS more and more these days...
>
><sigh>
I know that he has a reputation as being an extremist, which is partly true.
But I find that most people dislike him without quite realizing what he wants.
RMS believes in freedom and sharing. His main cause is to those things. For
various reasons, he works to support those through computer programs. He
thinks that by having Free (in the way he defines it) stuff in the computer
world, we will become more aware -- and fight for -- freedom in the rest of
our lives.
His end goal is not, and has never been, to make good software. He views this
as a means to a different end.
When I first heard these things, I thought he was a nutcake. A skilled
programmer nutcake. But that kind of 'spillover' effect *does* work; in some
people at least.
If you bear in mind what his agenda is -- and it *is* a political agenda; he's
very open about this -- then he makes sense. But regardless of how worthy
think his agenda is, he certainly persues it in a nice way. He wants to be
able to share software, but does not condone piracy in any way. He wants to
abolish copyright (umm, I think; don't quote me here), but works strictly
within its rules.
## disclaimer: this is what I *think* RMS stands for. I'm pretty certain, but
## I could be wrong. I haven't read all the stuff he's written.
Zac Bond
> > Most people
> > prefer real manuals to crappy online documentation, and most of us
without
> > fast access would not want to only be able to use our word pocessors
when
> > we're online. The Internet is not gonna conquer the world just yet.
>
> What if turned out to be cheaper? what if the use of these apps was
included
> in your Internet usage charges?
Price is irrelevent in this case because web apps do not provide the service
I require, eg, offline usage.
-Ophidian
Lost Dragon
>for use, I will either delete it utterly and switch to Linux, or find a way
I think it could eventually find a niche. Licensing like that might
not be all that popular with consumers, but I could see using it in
our lab. Eg: We're going to run trial class_foo this semester and it
needs xxx copies of software_y. We can either go out and buy all that
software and hope that the class is popular, or... We could pay a
monthly fee and cut it off if the class turned out to not be a
money-maker.
>to get around it. I find "Web Apps" to be stupid, and I always chuckle when
>I hear a pundit saying they're going to replace boxed software. Most people
>prefer real manuals to crappy online documentation, and most of us without
OTOH...
I can see some pretty neat stuff coming out of monthly-fee software -
it all just depends on how things are implemented and what the content
is like.
What about a single-player game with a $5 monthly subscription fee
that delivered new content bi-monthly? If the story was good and
the game engine wasn't crap, I'd probably go for that. At $5 monthly,
that's the cost of one game per year. I think a lot of neat things
could be done with that idea.
>fast access would not want to only be able to use our word pocessors when
>we're online. The Internet is not gonna conquer the world just yet.
Widespread distribution of broadband internet access is the key to
making any of this work. The broadband's not really there yet, but
that will eventually be ironed out.
MdmeDis
Musash...@home.com says...
> Something, oh anything, would be wittier than this header:
> MdmeDis wrote:
> >In article <slrn8rj8tt.f9v...@mobius.idlepower.net>,
> >Musash...@home.com says...
> >> Just to play the Advocate (dodges spluts), they might want Intel out of
> >> business due to past actions.
> >
> >One thing that interests me - why is it that when the preferred
> >manufacturer (top seller) produces something that doesn't perform as
> >expected,he's out to screw everyone, but when the wanna be puts out an
> >inferior product, that's OK. Perhaps you could explain.
>
> I was playing Devil's Advocate. I don't have any problem with Intel; I think
> the Celerons are a great deal. I'm temporarily cheering for AMD, for
> competition reasons -- but I'm only 'cheering'. When it comes to buying new
> chips, I'll stick to Intel. For now, at least.
>
> Four or so years ago, the competition just plain sucked. Cyrixes (sp?) were
> infamous for being used in baking ovens, and while the K6 had good integer
> arithmetic, the FPU -- used in the games I played back then -- was bad. As a
> reasult, Cyrix and AMD suffered.
This is what I mean - "the competition sucked" Not "the competition is
deliberately trying to screw the consumer" Why is it that the non number
one company is viewed as simply not up to snuff, whereas the number one
company, when it puts out something that isn't 100%, has tried to screw
the consumer and should be killed.
>
> The Athlon seems like a good product to me, though Athlon chipsets had some
> problems. AFAIK, they still don't support SMP, and the first motherboards
> didn't supply the required voltage to the AGP port. This resulted in major
> problems between the GeForce and Athlon chips.
>
> But apart from that, I'm not aware of any major flaws in AMD's chips...?
>
> >> On a similar note, I wouldn't mind seeing MS go bankrupt rather than adjust to
> >> the new open-source market. Sure, almost everybody would benefit in having a
> >
> >Revenge for what? If it hadn't been for windows, chances are very good
> >you wouldn't be able to afford a pc (generic).
>
> I'm not claiming that everything that MS has done has been bad. But, to
> understate the case, some things they've done *have* been bad. I dislike them
> for those things.
Fine - but "revenge"? You have an alternative - I don't.
>
> >I tell you something - all other consideration aside, I'm rapidly
> >reaching the point where hell will freeze over before I'll touch linux
> >because of the attitude of so many who use it.
>
> "Some British football fans are rowdy, violent, and IIRC caused Tony Blair to
> apoligize on their behalf. Therefore I shall never watch a British football
> team."
There ya go - the difference of course being that the British football
team didn't encourage that attitude.
>
> >> Reaction against people who advocate different things.
> >
> >It isn't what they advocate - its the myopic, spiteful way they advocate
> >it. An insistence that everything be destroyed except their favourite
> >system is about as restrictive and unfree as it gets.
>
> Who wants everything to be destroyed except their favourite OS?
Not minding seeing a company go bankrupt, and putting thousands out of
work, because you don't like a system seems pretty destructive to me.
> I have no
> problems with people using Windows, BeOS, MacOS, Corel Linux, or any OS that
> doesn't suit my personal desires in an OS. What I dislike is people using
> Windows because they think it's the only thing out there.
Generally, people don't think that - they think its the only one out
there for a PC that will run practically everything they need, and they
are right. Ungenerally, I don't know a computer savvy person who thinks
that Windows is the only operating system.
As I said, and you cut, Torvald (sp) himself says it won't be ready for
everyday use for another five years or so - his immediate family use
Windows.
And he drives a pricey BMW.
I don't (try to)
> advocate people using Linux -- I (try to) advocate people *trying* Linux.
>
> My ability to advocate might be dismal, but that's my flaw -- not OS bigotry.
Well - the topic *is* Advocacy, after all....
> >> I'm finding myself agreeing with RMS more and more these days...
> >
> ><sigh>
>
> I know that he has a reputation as being an extremist, which is partly true.
> But I find that most people dislike him without quite realizing what he wants.
That wasn't why I sighed. I sighed because you do a lot better when you
subscribe to Musashi's ideas. In part, I think, this is why I get so
agitated with you. Of late, you seem to latch onto something trendy and
apply none of your own thoughts to it.
Now I want to snarl. You realize you've just indicated that people are
not capable of understanding plain English - but apparently you are? The
fact a lot of people disagree with him doesn't mean they don't
understand.
> RMS believes in freedom and sharing. His main cause is to those things. For
> various reasons, he works to support those through computer programs. He
> thinks that by having Free (in the way he defines it) stuff in the computer
> world, we will become more aware -- and fight for -- freedom in the rest of
> our lives.
As Fortran said, lecturing as to a child does little to help your cause.
The problem with Stallamn and his ideas of freedom are that they
trample all over other peoples freedoms. He believes his way is right,
and its ok to copy and pass on the work of others because HIS idea and
HIS freedom somehow supercedes theirs. That isn't what freedom is about.
> His end goal is not, and has never been, to make good software. He views this
> as a means to a different end.
And his views are economically unsound. Further, he doesn't practice
what he preaches. His stuff isn't free, its copyrighted and conditional.
>
> When I first heard these things, I thought he was a nutcake. A skilled
> programmer nutcake. But that kind of 'spillover' effect *does* work; in some
> people at least.
In very small communities of like-minded individuals, yes. It starts
going bad when they stop promoting their stuff, and start attacking that
of others.
> If you bear in mind what his agenda is -- and it *is* a political agenda; he's
> very open about this -- then he makes sense.
Then he should stick to politics, and stop meddling with software - or
the other way round. He's hurting both.
> But regardless of how worthy
> think his agenda is, he certainly persues it in a nice way. He wants to be
> able to share software, but does not condone piracy in any way.
Bullshit. He states that the individuals right to knowledge is more
important than copyright, so a person would be right to make an illegal
copy and pass it on in the interests of freedom and sharing knowledge.
> He wants to
> abolish copyright (umm, I think; don't quote me here), but works strictly
> within its rules.
His work is copyrighted. If you believe in something, you need to be
doing it - not telling others to whilst using it yourself - no matter
why. Free is not conditional - his stuff is conditional, so it isn't
free. You can have it on his terms - just like you can have Windows on
MS terms.
>
> ## disclaimer: this is what I *think* RMS stands for.
You agree with him - yet you don't *really* understand what he stands
for? And yet you say people disagree because they don't understand?
I'm pretty certain, but
> ## I could be wrong. I haven't read all the stuff he's written.
I've read a lot. His overall problem starts with the concept that
software is somehow magically different to any other marketable product.
It then borders on a variety of communistic type ideals, which don't
work well at all in practice, for a variety of reasons - number one
being, all people involved have to be of a like mind.
I disagree for many reasons, but I'm not thrilled with being told that
because I disagree, I somehow "don't understand"
Advocacy should be concerned with promotion. When there is a need to
demean the competition, people start to think there is a problem with
the product - they are often correct.
And your lines are too long.
Musashi Dragon
MdmeDis wrote:
>In article <slrn8rlmig.vi...@mobius.idlepower.net>,
>Musash...@home.com says...
>> Something, oh anything, would be wittier than this header:
>> MdmeDis wrote:
>> >In article <slrn8rj8tt.f9v...@mobius.idlepower.net>,
>> >Musash...@home.com says...
>> >> Just to play the Advocate (dodges spluts), they might want Intel out of
>> >> business due to past actions.
>> >
>> >One thing that interests me - why is it that when the preferred
>> >manufacturer (top seller) produces something that doesn't perform as
>> >expected,he's out to screw everyone, but when the wanna be puts out an
>> >inferior product, that's OK. Perhaps you could explain.
- snip my response, but left your original thing -
>This is what I mean - "the competition sucked" Not "the competition is
>deliberately trying to screw the consumer" Why is it that the non number
>one company is viewed as simply not up to snuff, whereas the number one
>company, when it puts out something that isn't 100%, has tried to screw
>the consumer and should be killed.
Sorry, I'm still lost. I don't think that Intel should be killed. I
offered, as Devil's advocate, one possible reason why somebody might
want Intel dead -- the chip ID privacy deal. An extremist could argue
that any company that violates privacy in such a way should be put out
of business. Some people *have* organized boycotts against Intel over
this issue. Such an extremist would boycott (sp?) any other chip
manufacturer who did a similar thing.
>> >Revenge for what? If it hadn't been for windows, chances are very good
>> >you wouldn't be able to afford a pc (generic).
>>
>> I'm not claiming that everything that MS has done has been bad. But, to
>> understate the case, some things they've done *have* been bad. I dislike them
>> for those things.
>
>Fine - but "revenge"? You have an alternative - I don't.
Let's make a distinction between Windows and MS. And yes, it's
certainly possible for each one to survive without the other.
I believe that MS has conspired blah blah as seen in court case blah
blah and should be punished. But I don't think that punishment should
be the immediate abolishment of MS. As Linux becomes easier to use and
more powerful for servers, I hope that people will look at it, decide
that it fits their needs, and stop paying MS. I hope that this trend
continues until MS is a minor player.
At this stage, what happens to MS really doesn't matter to consumers.
They could become like SCO unix is today -- a nobody, keeping their head
above the water but nothing more -- or just plain die. I hope for the
latter, though I guess in this fantasy the other option would still be
nice. Then we'd have a living monument to remind us of how far it had
fallen...
To those who think this a farfetched idea; what happened to some of the
old giants? IBM is still going, but nowhere near what it used to be.
What about the big unix companies? Sun seems to be doing ok, but the
rest? And in more recent history, corel seems to be annoucing bankrupcy
every month now.
Regardless of what happens, I agree that MS won't die unless there is
an alternative to windows and office that the "average user" can use. I
just happen to think that this will arrive a lot sooner than others do.
>> "Some British football fans are rowdy, violent, and IIRC caused Tony Blair to
>> apoligize on their behalf. Therefore I shall never watch a British football
>> team."
>
>There ya go - the difference of course being that the British football
>team didn't encourage that attitude.
Neither do Linux developers.
>> Who wants everything to be destroyed except their favourite OS?
>
>Not minding seeing a company go bankrupt, and putting thousands out of
>work, because you don't like a system seems pretty destructive to me.
It's because I don't like the *company*, not the OS. If, ad impossible,
MS suddenly sold Windows to Apple (or some other company), I'd still not
mind MS going bankrupt, for the same reasons.
>> doesn't suit my personal desires in an OS. What I dislike is people using
>> Windows because they think it's the only thing out there.
>
>Generally, people don't think that - they think its the only one out
>there for a PC that will run practically everything they need, and they
>are right. Ungenerally, I don't know a computer savvy person who thinks
>that Windows is the only operating system.
I know quite a few people, some computer savvy, that think that Windows
is the only OS worth considering for a desktop system. Not even worth
considering. That's the part that I react against. If they took a look
at current-day Linux, as opposed to the stuff they saw at a friend's
house two years ago, and decided to use Windows, I'd wish them luck.
>As I said, and you cut, Torvald (sp) himself says it won't be ready for
>everyday use for another five years or so - his immediate family use
>Windows.
Yes, I read that quote. I respectfully disagree with Torvalds, as do
many other Linux users and developers. In fact, here's a quote from the
KDE website:
"Is Unix ready for the desktop? We this so!"
I don't think that Linux is suitable for all people, of course. Yet.
But in a year or so, it'll be suitable for most people. IMNSHO, in five
years it'll have a marketshare of over 50% -- unless something drastic
happens in the windows market. Something drastic meaning MS making
Windows available for free or the like.
>> I know that he has a reputation as being an extremist, which is partly true.
>> But I find that most people dislike him without quite realizing what he wants
>
>That wasn't why I sighed. I sighed because you do a lot better when you
>subscribe to Musashi's ideas. In part, I think, this is why I get so
>agitated with you. Of late, you seem to latch onto something trendy and
>apply none of your own thoughts to it.
Hmm. I haven't *felt* particularily disciple-like recently (I have on
other occasions, though), but maybe it's a subtle kind. But I *have*
been presenting the ideas of other people. I view it practice for being
a professor (where I will have to give a good account and defense of a
philosophical view that I might abhor and believe is complete garbage).
> Now I want to snarl. You realize you've just indicated that people are
>not capable of understanding plain English - but apparently you are? The
*cough* Sorry, most of the criticisms of RMS I've seen have been on
Slashdot. But yes, I think that most Slashdot posters are not capable
of reading an article before commenting on it.
>fact a lot of people disagree with him doesn't mean they don't
>understand.
It depends *how* they disagree. When somebody says "why should we
listen to this guy; who cares if it's technically illegal to distribute
KDE, nobody will sue Redhat?" , it's pretty obvious that they're not
familiar with RMS's position.
Regardless, my apologies for slipping in that bit. The comment was
directed at the crowd on a different forum that has nothing to do with
this one. It was particularily bad since I should really post such
things on Slashdot, but I can't be bothered to use their stupid web
interface.
> The problem with Stallamn and his ideas of freedom are that they
>trample all over other peoples freedoms. He believes his way is right,
>and its ok to copy and pass on the work of others because HIS idea and
>HIS freedom somehow supercedes theirs. That isn't what freedom is about.
But RMS doens't -- unless I'm drastically mistaken -- believe in copying
the work of others without their permission. Yes, he wants to have a
communistic-style sharing arrangement -- but it must be voluntary.
>> His end goal is not, and has never been, to make good software. He views this
>> as a means to a different end.
>
>And his views are economically unsound. Further, he doesn't practice
>what he preaches. His stuff isn't free, its copyrighted and conditional.
True, but those conditions are similar to restrinctions on not murdering
a human being. "Like liberty for all". It's the problem of how to stop
people from infringing on the liberties of others.
>> If you bear in mind what his agenda is -- and it *is* a political agenda; he's
>> very open about this -- then he makes sense.
>
>Then he should stick to politics, and stop meddling with software - or
>the other way round. He's hurting both.
How is he hurting either? He's made many contributions to Free
software, especially Emacs. As for politics... well, I don't really
know how to measure politics.
>> But regardless of how worthy
>> think his agenda is, he certainly persues it in a nice way. He wants to be
>> able to share software, but does not condone piracy in any way.
>
>Bullshit. He states that the individuals right to knowledge is more
>important than copyright, so a person would be right to make an illegal
>copy and pass it on in the interests of freedom and sharing knowledge.
Hmm. Maybe my reading of him *was* mistaken after all. I thought he
didn't support piracy.
>> ## disclaimer: this is what I *think* RMS stands for.
>
>You agree with him - yet you don't *really* understand what he stands
>for? And yet you say people disagree because they don't understand?
"I find myself agreeing with RMS more and more" does not mean that I
slavishly follow everything he says.
In the beginning, I thought -- without any real research behind it --
that RMS was a wacko. But as I read things, such as his forays into the
KDE/QT debacle, I realized that he had a few good points. I went from
disagreeing with most things to agreeing to some things.
> I'm pretty certain, but
>> ## I could be wrong. I haven't read all the stuff he's written.
>
>I've read a lot. His overall problem starts with the concept that
>software is somehow magically different to any other marketable product.
Isn't that because you can make a perfect copy at no cost? I'd say that
that's a difference between software and material goods.
>It then borders on a variety of communistic type ideals, which don't
>work well at all in practice, for a variety of reasons - number one
>being, all people involved have to be of a like mind.
Regardless of how easy Linux is right now, it is *something*. Sure,
it's not perfect, and still has a lot of work that needs to be done,
but...
>And your lines are too long.
Really? I set vi to wrap at 78 chars... oh well; it's 72 now. But I
didn't change the quoted stuff.
Zac Bond
"Lost Dragon" <lostd...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:dh4mrsspqh36bsc3i...@4ax.com...
> I think it could eventually find a niche. Licensing like that might
> not be all that popular with consumers, but I could see using it in
> our lab. Eg: We're going to run trial class_foo this semester and it
> needs xxx copies of software_y. We can either go out and buy all that
> software and hope that the class is popular, or... We could pay a
> monthly fee and cut it off if the class turned out to not be a
> money-maker.
That makes sense when you expect to use the software to make more income
than it costs. Most consumers aren't really using the product to make
income. You could argue that it's a try-before-you-buy issue, but then you
might as well use limited shareware instead.
> What about a single-player game with a $5 monthly subscription fee
> that delivered new content bi-monthly? If the story was good and
> the game engine wasn't crap, I'd probably go for that. At $5 monthly,
> that's the cost of one game per year. I think a lot of neat things
> could be done with that idea.
The key here of course is the new content--That's why subscription plans
would work well for anything that can have new content. But what new
content is there for, say, a word processor? Bugfixes? New features?
I would personally dislike having to pay for bug fixes. I expect my
software to be bug-free, much like I expect my car to have functional brakes
and windshield wipers at the time of purchase....
> Widespread distribution of broadband internet access is the key to
> making any of this work. The broadband's not really there yet, but
> that will eventually be ironed out.
It's going to be awhile. Yeah, big cities might have it relatively quick,
but my home in Alabama can't even get above 28.8kbps connection. It will be
a long time before anyone decides to install cable or DSL wiring.
-Ophidian
Fortran Dragon
[Snip]
> problems with people using Windows, BeOS, MacOS, Corel Linux, or any OS that
> doesn't suit my personal desires in an OS. What I dislike is people using
> Windows because they think it's the only thing out there. I don't (try to)
> advocate people using Linux -- I (try to) advocate people *trying* Linux.
You still get bent out of shape if they choose not to try. Not
being interested in Linux is ok. Not wanting to try is ok. If the
tools they have meet their needs, making a major effort to try something
else and completely disrupting their work is something most people won't
do. Good enough is always the enemy of better.
> My ability to advocate might be dismal, but that's my flaw -- not OS bigotry.
It is bigotry if you don't accept that people will make their own
decisions based on what is important to _them_.
Lost Dragon
>than it costs. Most consumers aren't really using the product to make
Which is why I see this type of licensing being more popular with
corporate customers than regular consumers.
>income. You could argue that it's a try-before-you-buy issue, but then you
>might as well use limited shareware instead.
Maybe.. If the limited shareware does everything you want it to. I
wouldn't mind seeing a try-before-you-buy copy of WinME for example.
>The key here of course is the new content--That's why subscription plans
>would work well for anything that can have new content. But what new
>content is there for, say, a word processor? Bugfixes? New features?
Dunno. I only focus on games :)
Musashi Dragon
>My glass typewriter shows Musashi Dragon typing...
>
> It is bigotry if you don't accept that people will make their own
>decisions based on what is important to _them_.
I always ask people what they want to do with their computer and then
discuss how well (or not) Linux can do it. In the case of Lost and
Fire, for example, it was apparent that Linux can't yet cover their
needs. OTOH, I know fairly well what that friend of mine does -- he
plays Quake 3, writes university homework using notepad, and programs.
Lost Dragon
Cool. My very own mini-me!
>nice. Then we'd have a living monument to remind us of how far it had
>fallen...
Yah.. And all it'd take was the simultaneous failure of their OS,
Consumer Software, Hardware, and XBox divisions. That's gonna happen
right after Torvald declares himself to be the next incarnation of Ra.
I've got my sun-shield ready, let's go die for something stupid.
Woo-hoo!
>To those who think this a farfetched idea; what happened to some of the
>old giants? IBM is still going, but nowhere near what it used to be.
IBM is still a major player. They just don't dictate the market like
they used to.
>Regardless of what happens, I agree that MS won't die unless there is
>an alternative to windows and office that the "average user" can use. I
>just happen to think that this will arrive a lot sooner than others do.
Uh, no. It will take an alternative with a huge bank of software that
is extremely well marketed and very well distributed in regular retail
channels. Alternative OSs have come and gone a thousand times
already. You have to have the whole package if you want to compete
for regular consumer money.
>considering. That's the part that I react against. If they took a look
>at current-day Linux, as opposed to the stuff they saw at a friend's
>house two years ago, and decided to use Windows, I'd wish them luck.
I've never seen any linux box that made me want to switch. Where's
the cool factor? I know you won't be showing me but a handful of
commercial quality games.
>>As I said, and you cut, Torvald (sp) himself says it won't be ready for
>>everyday use for another five years or so - his immediate family use
>>Windows.
I think Torvald is the last sensible linux advocate.
>many other Linux users and developers. In fact, here's a quote from the
>KDE website: "Is Unix ready for the desktop? We this so!"
What else are they going to say? "Hell no, our GUI sucks?"
>I don't think that Linux is suitable for all people, of course. Yet.
>But in a year or so, it'll be suitable for most people. IMNSHO, in five
>years it'll have a marketshare of over 50% -- unless something drastic
Linux is going to have 50% of the consumer market in 5 years? Maybe -
if a big company jumped on it, marketed it well, cleaned it up for
real consumer use, and had a bank of *already* popular software titles
ready to go. Otherwise, I think you're way off.
I actually wanted to use Linux until about 6 months ago when you
started harping on it all the time. Now I'm just sick of hearing
about it.
Musashi Dragon
>I actually wanted to use Linux until about 6 months ago when you
>started harping on it all the time. Now I'm just sick of hearing
>about it.
*growl* OK, we seem to have a problem here.
I enjoy discussing Linux. I acknowledge that I have been vastly
overenthusiastic in the past. But in the past couple of months I have
tried to mark my Linux posts with the (linux) tag. In the past week or
two, there *have* been a lot of Linux posts, but I think that most of
them were technical discussions, rather than general advocacy /
discussions.
I started using the (linux) tag in a similar way that we use the NET.
It was my hope that the keyword in the subject would make it easy for
those not interested in the subject to filter out. I believe that since
there are a number of Dragons interested in the subject, we should
continue posting here, but I certainly do not wish to inconvienience
people who do not want to hear about it.
I apologize for discussing the matter in a post which is not marked with
that tag; I have become lax in the matter. Would it be an acceptible
compromise if I add the (linux) tag to the subject of all future posts I
make about Linux?
--
Musashi Dragon
MdmeDis
say...
> Something, oh anything, would be wittier than this header:
> MdmeDis wrote:
> >In article <slrn8rlmig.vi...@mobius.idlepower.net>,
> >Musash...@home.com says...
> >> Something, oh anything, would be wittier than this header:
> >> MdmeDis wrote:
> >> >In article <slrn8rj8tt.f9v...@mobius.idlepower.net>,
> >> >Musash...@home.com says...
> >> >> Just to play the Advocate (dodges spluts), they might want Intel out of
> >> >> business due to past actions.
> >> >
> >> >One thing that interests me - why is it that when the preferred
> >> >manufacturer (top seller) produces something that doesn't perform as
> >> >expected,he's out to screw everyone, but when the wanna be puts out an
> >> >inferior product, that's OK. Perhaps you could explain.
>
> - snip my response, but left your original thing -
>
> >This is what I mean - "the competition sucked" Not "the competition is
> >deliberately trying to screw the consumer" Why is it that the non number
> >one company is viewed as simply not up to snuff, whereas the number one
> >company, when it puts out something that isn't 100%, has tried to screw
> >the consumer and should be killed.
>
> Sorry, I'm still lost.
There is a mentality out there, that takes a malicious delight in seeing
the number one company fall from grace and the justification they use is
that the company is "screwing" people - they cite something that was
wrong with the product. But they don't cite far worse problems with the
underdog's product as screwing people - they say its a bad system or bad
design. Why is that not true of the leading seller?
> I don't think that Intel should be killed. I
> offered, as Devil's advocate, one possible reason why somebody might
> want Intel dead -- the chip ID privacy deal. An extremist could argue
> that any company that violates privacy in such a way should be put out
> of business. Some people *have* organized boycotts against Intel over
> this issue. Such an extremist would boycott (sp?) any other chip
> manufacturer who did a similar thing.
I'm glad you used the word extremist, because that puts it in better
perspective. That chip thing was designed to allow people to do business
online with greater safety. The fact it could be used and abused by
marketing companies is at the door of those companies, not intel. Intel
responded to people by giving them a way round it, and didn't do it on
subsequent chips. What better response to consumer concern could one
want?
It is this very extremist attitude, and people picking up on it and
running with it like a load of sheep, that bothers me. Intel has stayed
on top because it has put out the best product and has been responsive
to customers - it, like MS has driven the market by constantly driving
to have stuff ahead of what people are currently using. We all have
better faster machines that will run most everything out there as a
result. Software can't keep up.
>
> >> >Revenge for what? If it hadn't been for windows, chances are very good
> >> >you wouldn't be able to afford a pc (generic).
> >>
> >> I'm not claiming that everything that MS has done has been bad. But, to
> >> understate the case, some things they've done *have* been bad. I dislike them
> >> for those things.
> >
> >Fine - but "revenge"? You have an alternative - I don't.
>
> Let's make a distinction between Windows and MS.
When the Advocates start making that distinction, I will. As it is, they
are knocking the product in the vain hope that the company will fold.
> And yes, it's
> certainly possible for each one to survive without the other.
>
> I believe that MS has conspired blah blah as seen in court case blah
> blah and should be punished.
As do the US Govt. and the courts - so lets leave it to them to decide
the punishment and stop acting with mob mentality, shall we?
> But I don't think that punishment should
> be the immediate abolishment of MS.
What do you think the punishment should be?
> As Linux becomes easier to use and
> more powerful for servers, I hope that people will look at it, decide
> that it fits their needs, and stop paying MS. I hope that this trend
> continues until MS is a minor player.
But that doesn't separate Windows from MS, does it? In fact, the ONLY
way to force them out of business, short of through the courts, is to
attack its product.
I have no problem with this last para and its sentiments, BTW. If the
Advocates stuck to this - ie putting out a better product, everything in
the garden would be lovely. But they don't - they get embroiled in
politics, adopt a lynch mob mentality, appointing themselves judge, jury
and executioner and embark upon a holy crusade.
>
> At this stage, what happens to MS really doesn't matter to consumers.
> They could become like SCO unix is today -- a nobody, keeping their head
> above the water but nothing more -- or just plain die. I hope for the
> latter,
There you go again. Holy crusade. If you have the better system, what
does it matter what other people use? Other than to settle some feeling
of spite they've somehow generated?
> though I guess in this fantasy the other option would still be
> nice. Then we'd have a living monument to remind us of how far it had
> fallen...
This isn't entirely rational, you know...
>
> To those who think this a farfetched idea; what happened to some of the
> old giants? IBM is still going, but nowhere near what it used to be.
Number 6 in the Fortune 500 for the past couple of years, number 16 in
the world. MS, by comparison ranks 84 and 216 respectively. It would
seem the mighty haven't fallen too far, in this case.:)
Perhaps their "fall" has to do with the fact they are fully advocating
Linux as an OS.... ;)
> What about the big unix companies? Sun seems to be doing ok, but the
> rest?
They've been taken over by HP (who rank 13 and 44) and IBM.
> And in more recent history, corel seems to be annoucing bankrupcy
> every month now.
They were never big.
>
>
> Regardless of what happens, I agree that MS won't die unless there is
> an alternative to windows and office that the "average user" can use. I
> just happen to think that this will arrive a lot sooner than others do.
Why? Its creator and developer says otherwise. What reason do you have
to disagree? Remember, I'm an average user and have both windows and
linux in daily use in our house, so I do know how far short for the
average user linux is.
> >> "Some British football fans are rowdy, violent, and IIRC caused Tony Blair to
> >> apoligize on their behalf. Therefore I shall never watch a British football
> >> team."
> >
> >There ya go - the difference of course being that the British football
> >team didn't encourage that attitude.
>
> Neither do Linux developers.
Stallman does. He says that freely sharing information by copying it and
passing it on is more important than copyright.
>
> >> Who wants everything to be destroyed except their favourite OS?
> >
> >Not minding seeing a company go bankrupt, and putting thousands out of
> >work, because you don't like a system seems pretty destructive to me.
>
> It's because I don't like the *company*, not the OS. If, ad impossible,
> MS suddenly sold Windows to Apple (or some other company), I'd still not
> mind MS going bankrupt, for the same reasons.
So why do you knock Windows for being a bad product? Knock MS for being
crooked if you want to, but for heaven's (or Linux) sake stop confusing
the two. It makes people resentful, and resentful people won't use the
system for the same illogical reason you won't use theirs.
> >> doesn't suit my personal desires in an OS. What I dislike is people using
> >> Windows because they think it's the only thing out there.
> >
> >Generally, people don't think that - they think its the only one out
> >there for a PC that will run practically everything they need, and they
> >are right. Ungenerally, I don't know a computer savvy person who thinks
> >that Windows is the only operating system.
>
> I know quite a few people, some computer savvy, that think that Windows
> is the only OS worth considering for a desktop system. Not even worth
> considering.
Usually, they have considered it - usually something along the lines of
"will it run my most used stuff by insert, point and click? No? Then
sorry, I'm not interested. I'm not interested in computers, just what
they can do"
> That's the part that I react against. If they took a look
> at current-day Linux, as opposed to the stuff they saw at a friend's
> house two years ago, and decided to use Windows, I'd wish them luck.
But you are not just wishing them luck - you are ranting because they
won't try it. You are wanting to see companies driven out of business,
you are calling the competition crap, when the competition does more and
can be used simply and practically. You are yelling that your Ferrari is
better than your neighbors Honda, when all he wants is a car to get him
to and from work and around town - and you are getting all bent out of
shape when he starts to push your buttons, or closes the door in your
face when he sees you coming.
>
> >As I said, and you cut, Torvald (sp) himself says it won't be ready for
> >everyday use for another five years or so - his immediate family use
> >Windows.
>
> Yes, I read that quote. I respectfully disagree with Torvalds, as do
> many other Linux users and developers. In fact, here's a quote from the
> KDE website:
> "Is Unix ready for the desktop? We this so!"
>
> I don't think that Linux is suitable for all people, of course. Yet.
> But in a year or so, it'll be suitable for most people.
The only way it will be suitable is if it is commercially developed -
which is happening now, (companies like Red Hat et al are paying for the
development) and adopting the "Give away the razor, charge for the
blade" selling. Which isn't free, in any sense of the word. It means the
OS may be free, but that companies are finding ways to circumvent
what Stallmans copyright prevents them doing currently.
> IMNSHO, in five
> years it'll have a marketshare of over 50%
If it does, it won't be free. You'll be paying, one way or the other.
-- unless something drastic
> happens in the windows market. Something drastic meaning MS making
> Windows available for free or the like.
The only way MS will lose that market will be by not staying ahead
technically. The simple fact of the matter is, things cannot be done on
a large scale for free.
>
> >> I know that he has a reputation as being an extremist, which is partly true.
> >> But I find that most people dislike him without quite realizing what he wants
> >
> >That wasn't why I sighed. I sighed because you do a lot better when you
> >subscribe to Musashi's ideas. In part, I think, this is why I get so
> >agitated with you. Of late, you seem to latch onto something trendy and
> >apply none of your own thoughts to it.
>
> Hmm. I haven't *felt* particularily disciple-like recently (I have on
> other occasions, though), but maybe it's a subtle kind. But I *have*
> been presenting the ideas of other people.
You said you agreed with Stallman - that is different to presenting his
views.
> I view it practice for being
> a professor (where I will have to give a good account and defense of a
> philosophical view that I might abhor and believe is complete garbage).
This is a place for discussion - it doesn't reflect on your ability to
show your professor you heard what he said. I'm not your professor, and
unfortunately I react badly to being scolded by people not in full
possession of facts. I like you but I have such a negative reaction to
your 'serious' posts I actually go out of my way not to read 'em - this
was an accident, and look what is happening!
>
> > Now I want to snarl. You realize you've just indicated that people are
> >not capable of understanding plain English - but apparently you are? The
>
> *cough* Sorry, most of the criticisms of RMS I've seen have been on
> Slashdot. But yes, I think that most Slashdot posters are not capable
> of reading an article before commenting on it.
It has gone down hill - I seldom bother any more, and when I do I stick
to the ones with 4 or 5 points. Basically though that is because most of
the respondents don't know their subject - EITHER WAY. There is a strong
element of people who blindly follow Stallman without understanding all
the implications - ie with complete ignorance of how things work, or
don't, in the real world.
>
> >fact a lot of people disagree with him doesn't mean they don't
> >understand.
>
> It depends *how* they disagree. When somebody says "why should we
> listen to this guy; who cares if it's technically illegal to distribute
> KDE, nobody will sue Redhat?" , it's pretty obvious that they're not
> familiar with RMS's position.
<shrug> Depends which position. Unfortunately, his words and actions are
contradictory, so defining whether or not someone "understands" is
tricky.
> Regardless, my apologies for slipping in that bit. The comment was
> directed at the crowd on a different forum that has nothing to do with
> this one. It was particularily bad since I should really post such
> things on Slashdot, but I can't be bothered to use their stupid web
> interface.
Then obviously you can't be bothered to get your message out to the
people who you feel need it. Preaching to the choir is notoriously
ineffective. Although irritating, it is incredibly simple to respond.
Pull up the box, and type in what you want to say.
>
> > The problem with Stallamn and his ideas of freedom are that they
> >trample all over other peoples freedoms. He believes his way is right,
> >and its ok to copy and pass on the work of others because HIS idea and
> >HIS freedom somehow supercedes theirs. That isn't what freedom is about.
>
> But RMS doens't -- unless I'm drastically mistaken -- believe in copying
> the work of others without their permission. Yes, he wants to have a
> communistic-style sharing arrangement -- but it must be voluntary.
RMS says, amoung other things it is socially wrong not to pass on
information, and psychosocially damaging to expect people to abide by
copyright law. In other words, if you subscribe to his ideas of free
distribution, you will be forced to be morally wrong when you don't
violate copyright in the best interests of society.
>
> >> His end goal is not, and has never been, to make good software. He views this
> >> as a means to a different end.
> >
> >And his views are economically unsound. Further, he doesn't practice
> >what he preaches. His stuff isn't free, its copyrighted and conditional.
>
> True, but those conditions are similar to restrinctions on not murdering
> a human being.
No they are not the same by any stretch of the imagination And that is
because his grasp of what law is is flawed. He seems to think that laws
should be concerned with ethics and morality. They shouldn't, and by and
large don't in the free world.. They are there to protect people from
each other, basically.
> "Like liberty for all". It's the problem of how to stop
> people from infringing on the liberties of others.
In any given society, there is no such thing as liberty. There are
stated boundaries to what you can do. Stallman confuses and blurrs those
boundaries, and uses logic to do it, which is why he appeals to so many
undergraduates who don't grasp that logic is simply ONE path.
>
> >> If you bear in mind what his agenda is -- and it *is* a political agenda; he's
> >> very open about this -- then he makes sense.
> >
> >Then he should stick to politics, and stop meddling with software - or
> >the other way round. He's hurting both.
>
> How is he hurting either?
by making people like myself so irritated I don't want to use products
he's associated with. Same as you and MS.
> He's made many contributions to Free
> software, especially Emacs.
But he has his stuff copyrighted, so it isn't free, its conditional like
any other software. I'd have some respect for him if he practised what
he preached - certainly some if he didn't preach.
> >> But regardless of how worthy
> >> think his agenda is, he certainly persues it in a nice way. He wants to be
> >> able to share software, but does not condone piracy in any way.
> >
> >Bullshit. He states that the individuals right to knowledge is more
> >important than copyright, so a person would be right to make an illegal
> >copy and pass it on in the interests of freedom and sharing knowledge.
>
> Hmm. Maybe my reading of him *was* mistaken after all. I thought he
> didn't support piracy.
He doesn't flat out. He just points out that if you agree with Free, you
are morally and socially wrong not to copy and pass on when you think
society benefits.
I don't happen to think Free benefits society, so it's a dilemma I don't
face. But he puts his disciples there - and that is what I mean by
manipulative and contradictory.
>
> >> ## disclaimer: this is what I *think* RMS stands for.
> >
> >You agree with him - yet you don't *really* understand what he stands
> >for? And yet you say people disagree because they don't understand?
>
> "I find myself agreeing with RMS more and more" does not mean that I
> slavishly follow everything he says.
I didn't say it did. I was commenting on the fact you are criticizing
people for disagreeing on the grounds of not understanding, when you
agree on grounds of incomplete knowledge yourself - so if you don't
know, but only think - how can you judge whether or not they understand?
I'm quite clear about what he's saying, and until you can say the same,
you can't with any degree of accuracy be telling me I don't understand.
> In the beginning, I thought -- without any real research behind it --
> that RMS was a wacko. But as I read things, such as his forays into the
> KDE/QT debacle, I realized that he had a few good points. I went from
> disagreeing with most things to agreeing to some things.
>
> > I'm pretty certain, but
> >> ## I could be wrong. I haven't read all the stuff he's written.
> >
> >I've read a lot. His overall problem starts with the concept that
> >software is somehow magically different to any other marketable product.
>
> Isn't that because you can make a perfect copy at no cost?
Once you own the equipment - and you can do the same with dollar bills
and pictures, so no it isn't different.
> I'd say that
> that's a difference between software and material goods.
Obviously there are intrinsic differences between every item out there.
I'm not getting into this chestnut again! There are no intrinsic
differences that take away RIGHTS of ownership and distributorship
automagically.
> >It then borders on a variety of communistic type ideals, which don't
> >work well at all in practice, for a variety of reasons - number one
> >being, all people involved have to be of a like mind.
>
> Regardless of how easy Linux is right now, it is *something*. Sure,
> it's not perfect, and still has a lot of work that needs to be done,
> but...
And I think it will become something more in the not too distant future
- but that it won't be "free" in any sense of the word.
> >And your lines are too long.
>
> Really? I set vi to wrap at 78 chars... oh well; it's 72 now. But I
> didn't change the quoted stuff.
It was wrapping at 78. Is 72 no longer standard?
BTW - I've been checking some of the stuff I was saying about Stallman,
and a big part of my irritation stems from his views - so I think I
become irritated when you quote him, rather than with you per se, which
makes me feel better.
He's highly manipulative in his presentation of his ideas and use of
logic, and that always irritates me. He sells his idea that giving stuff
away is great - therefore if you accept that, you must accept giving
away someone else's stuff is wonderful also. And on.
Zac Bond
> I actually wanted to use Linux until about 6 months ago when you
> started harping on it all the time. Now I'm just sick of hearing
> about it.
Well, on a somewhat related note, I post a lot of Linux questions here
because here people tend to actually answer them, unlike any of the linux
hep newsgroups (to which I posted questions as well).
But there are some things that mildly annoy me, like back in the "new user"
thread. Now I can't say I seriously expected someone to actually solve my
problem, but no one on the windows help groups ever replied, so I figured it
was worth a shot. Yet one of the first responses I got was "Why don't you
switch to Linux, it's much more secure."
I do make an effort to write titles tha t adequately reflect the subject,
although late at night it tends to go a bit sour...For instance, "Wow, Linux
finally works" would have been more appropriate than "Wow it finally works"
for the name of that thread.
Now I can't remember where I was leading with all of this! Oh well :-)
-Ophidian
Singing Dragon
>## disclaimer: this is what I *think* RMS stands for. I'm pretty certain, but
>## I could be wrong. I haven't read all the stuff he's written.
No... RMS stands for Richard M. Stallman.
I spent about an hour looking around for his middle name. Ugh...
I've now given up. Grr.
--
Singing Dragon
-- Don't forget to *enjoy* the *sauce* --
- UnSpluttable -
Lost Dragon
>because here people tend to actually answer them, unlike any of the linux
I don't particularly mind that.
>was worth a shot. Yet one of the first responses I got was "Why don't you
>switch to Linux, it's much more secure."
That is what I'm sick of.
If somebody's asking a question about how to do something on their
Windows box, the automatic "switch to linux" response is a pretty
shitty answer IMO.
Heh.
Me: The deadbolt on my front door broke. How can I fix it?
Linux Advocate: Get a new house. Your house sucks. I live in a
free house. Is your house free? Can your house do this? Do you
pay monthly rent on your house? I built my own house. Let me
summon 50 friends to tell you about my house. Soon my house
design will populate the earth. Are you threatening me? I can
customize my house for my body shape. The couch in the corner has an
ass-groove shaped to my buttocks. At the flip of switch, my house
can change its colors. Did I mention that my house was free?
Me: Yeah, ok. Can someone just help me with the deadbolt I already
have?
MdmeDis
says...
> But there are some things that mildly annoy me, like back in the "new user"
> thread. Now I can't say I seriously expected someone to actually solve my
> problem, but no one on the windows help groups ever replied, so I figured it
> was worth a shot. Yet one of the first responses I got was "Why don't you
> switch to Linux, it's much more secure."
Mmm. If every time someone asked a "how to" about Linux, they got a "Why
are you running that junk, switch to Windows and you wouldn't have the
problem" response they'd begin to get the picture. If you don't use
Windows, and can't answer the question, best you give the post a pass,
no?
Fortran Dragon
> I enjoy discussing Linux.
I don't think anyone has a problem with that. After all, a big
part of the Dragons is about helping each other.
The thing is, all of us know about Linux. We don't need it
promoted or publicized. If we want to try it, we will. If we need help
with it, we'll ask. If we need help with something else, we'll ask
about that, but we don't want to be told that Linux, BeOS, Max OS X,
CP/M, or Apple ProDOS for that matter is the answer when our question
doesn't concern those OSes.
Good, bad, or indifferent, we've made our choices and we would like
some respect for our choices and, hopefully, an answer to our question.
MdmeDis
Musash...@home.com says...
> I apologize for discussing the matter in a post which is not marked with
> that tag; I have become lax in the matter. Would it be an acceptible
> compromise if I add the (linux) tag to the subject of all future posts I
> make about Linux?
Why? Do you think most of us here can't make the connection?
Speaking strictly for myself, I don't mind Linux discussions - either
technical or Linux vs Windows - provided they are discussions. When I
run into ongoing tirades about the stupidity of those that don't follow
Stallman and United GNUs Against Windows in the crusade to overthrow
the demon Microsoft, I find it more annoying than a Jehovah's Witness
with his foot in my door and I tend to say so.
MdmeDis
lostd...@worldnet.att.net says...
> IBM is still a major player. They just don't dictate the market like
> they used to.
They must be the only Linux user that isn't trying, then!
http://www-4.ibm.com/software/is/mp/linux/
Submersible Dragon
> There is a mentality out there, that takes a malicious delight in seeing
> the number one company fall from grace and the justification they use is
> that the company is "screwing" people - they cite something that was
> wrong with the product. But they don't cite far worse problems with the
> underdog's product as screwing people - they say its a bad system or bad
> design. Why is that not true of the leading seller?
Schadenfreude, I think. Just generalised bitterness and resentment. Not
to mention typical double standards. It's a lot easier to align yourself
with a bunch of wankers who can't do their job if they're on the same
side of the fence as you, looking at another, basically identical bunch
of wankers, who happen to have a nicer lawn and a bigger car.
> > >> >Revenge for what? If it hadn't been for windows, chances are very good
> > >> >you wouldn't be able to afford a pc (generic).
> > >>
> > >> I'm not claiming that everything that MS has done has been bad. But, to
> > >> understate the case, some things they've done *have* been bad. I dislike them
> > >> for those things.
> > >
> > >Fine - but "revenge"? You have an alternative - I don't.
> >
> > Let's make a distinction between Windows and MS.
>
> When the Advocates start making that distinction, I will. As it is, they
> are knocking the product in the vain hope that the company will fold.
*nod*
Some Microsoft products are pretty nice. Twisted as it is in some
regards, I like using Visual Studio and think it's a fairly neat piece
of software. Maybe not the best in the world by several spurious
criteria, but I find it pleasant to hack out my stabiliser-wheel C in at
work. It's probably not at all healthy for me, though... ;)
> > And yes, it's
> > certainly possible for each one to survive without the other.
> >
> > I believe that MS has conspired blah blah as seen in court case blah
> > blah and should be punished.
>
> As do the US Govt. and the courts - so lets leave it to them to decide
> the punishment and stop acting with mob mentality, shall we?
Unfortunately, and as much as I concur, I don't ever see this becoming a
reality. People are never going to be satisified with a judgment handed
down from authority, and shall always feel eager to spout their own
opinions, ill-conceived or otherwise. I'm reminded of the OJ Simpson
murder trial, and a little closer to home, the Jamie Bulger case. People
seem to like acting as judge, jury and executioner.
> > As Linux becomes easier to use and
> > more powerful for servers, I hope that people will look at it, decide
> > that it fits their needs, and stop paying MS. I hope that this trend
> > continues until MS is a minor player.
>
> But that doesn't separate Windows from MS, does it? In fact, the ONLY
> way to force them out of business, short of through the courts, is to
> attack its product.
>
> I have no problem with this last para and its sentiments, BTW. If the
> Advocates stuck to this - ie putting out a better product, everything in
> the garden would be lovely. But they don't - they get embroiled in
> politics, adopt a lynch mob mentality, appointing themselves judge, jury
> and executioner and embark upon a holy crusade.
*nod*
My personal opinion?
There are an awful lot of bullshitters out there, who don't know shit
about shit, and see spurious opportunities to raise their {insert
meaningless-barometer-of-personal-aptitude-as-defined-and-curated-by-your-fellow-nonentities
here}. I wonder how many Advocates have actually had to deal with all
the pressure and complexities of life outside their own little bubbles.
They all sound like miniature Frank Zappas to me... malevolent, vicious
old bastard that he was.
> > At this stage, what happens to MS really doesn't matter to consumers.
> > They could become like SCO unix is today -- a nobody, keeping their head
> > above the water but nothing more -- or just plain die. I hope for the
> > latter,
>
> There you go again. Holy crusade. If you have the better system, what
> does it matter what other people use? Other than to settle some feeling
> of spite they've somehow generated?
*nod*
> Why? Its creator and developer says otherwise. What reason do you have
> to disagree? Remember, I'm an average user and have both windows and
> linux in daily use in our house, so I do know how far short for the
> average user linux is.
I would agree with you on this, although I've yet to experience Linux in
any great capacity outside work and idle play at University (eg, I've
never yet had to take one to bits/set one up entirely from scratch/do
anything like load a specific driver for a weird hardware device).
I'm still positive that the way forward for developing a what I would
hesitantly dub a `consumer system` is to jettison the common elements of
the UI that people wouldn't recognise from Windows: I have this
recurring slice of footage of my Mum booting up a Linux system and
hitting a command-line requesting a password login, and her not knowing
what to do about it. Say what you like about Windows {insert dismissal
here}, it is at least vaguely intuitive to someone who doesn't know much
about what they're doing and has no especial desire/time/opportunity to
learn.
And Musashi very definitely isn't representative, or even in a good
position to contemplate what defines an `average user`.
Make of that what you will. ;)
> Usually, they have considered it - usually something along the lines of
> "will it run my most used stuff by insert, point and click? No? Then
> sorry, I'm not interested. I'm not interested in computers, just what
> they can do"
*nod*
I have something of an ambivalent relationship with my computer. When I
put the Mandrake distro that Mushie's sending me onto my computer, it's
because I want to run synthesis apps that aren't available for anything
but Macs and Linux to make what Singing presciently described as `funky
noises`, not because I want to sneer at Windows people.
I'm interested in how they work, and I like to nose around, because I
find it interesting. But unlike a lot of my meatspace friends, I can
sympathise with what those obnoxious pricks on the Slashdot boards
dismiss as `Solitaire Granny`. Most ordinary people - and here I make a
shocking generalisation, so I'll change that to `many computer users` -
have a list about 5 lines long of things they want to do with a
computer. Porno is generally in there somewhere, or lurking in the
margins, but basically the list will include: email, games,
web-browsing, and wp/spreadsheets.
And that'll be about it. What a lot of people (including but not limited
to Advocates) seem to fail to comprehend is that a lot of people buy
computers, go back to work the next day, finish work eight/nine hours
later, come home, make dinner, and generally do things other than
sitting at their computer. Because they're knackered, have more
constructive things to do, or higher priority things to do...
> > IMNSHO, in five
> > years it'll have a marketshare of over 50%
>
> If it does, it won't be free. You'll be paying, one way or the other.
I agree.
Maybe (hopefully?) not as much as I did for Windows 98, however.
> > Hmm. I haven't *felt* particularily disciple-like recently (I have on
> > other occasions, though), but maybe it's a subtle kind. But I *have*
> > been presenting the ideas of other people.
>
> You said you agreed with Stallman - that is different to presenting his
> views.
He *did* qualify that statement, however... :|
> I like you but I have such a negative reaction to
> your 'serious' posts I actually go out of my way not to read 'em - this
> was an accident, and look what is happening!
> BTW - I've been checking some of the stuff I was saying about Stallman,
> and a big part of my irritation stems from his views - so I think I
> become irritated when you quote him, rather than with you per se, which
> makes me feel better.
Mao, I was glad to see these... it makes me feel better, too.
I managed to grab a minute or two at the away-team PC last night, and
saw what I think was your first response to Mushie. *cough* This is
going to sound soppy at best, and at worst a shallow attempt at
manipulation, but I was quite upset by what I read as some of the
personal stuff. That's my problem, though. Lots of things on my mind at
the moment.
I don't always agree with Musashi - despite all evidence to the contrary
- and in fact I was pretty much with you 100% on the points you were
making - and I'm definitely with Fortran - but at the same time I was
bound by loyalty to my friend. Play-acting(?) aside, I feel very close
to Musashi. Even when he does/says something
naive/daft/misguided/unencumbered by knowledge most people are painfully
privy to.
Anyway, I'm glad that I saw that you like Mushie. I had a serious case
of divided loyalties there, as you might appreciate.
(That sounds so unbearably inane, it's just not true... *pout*)
> It has gone down hill - I seldom bother any more, and when I do I stick
> to the ones with 4 or 5 points. Basically though that is because most of
> the respondents don't know their subject - EITHER WAY. There is a strong
> element of people who blindly follow Stallman without understanding all
> the implications - ie with complete ignorance of how things work, or
> don't, in the real world.
*nod*
Likewise, I have to say. Again. Don't I have any original thoughts of my
own?
> <shrug> Depends which position. Unfortunately, his words and actions are
> contradictory, so defining whether or not someone "understands" is
> tricky.
Not so much whether you do something exactly by the book, as which book
you do it by...
> > "Like liberty for all". It's the problem of how to stop
> > people from infringing on the liberties of others.
>
> In any given society, there is no such thing as liberty. There are
> stated boundaries to what you can do. Stallman confuses and blurrs those
> boundaries, and uses logic to do it, which is why he appeals to so many
> undergraduates who don't grasp that logic is simply ONE path.
*grin*
Ah. `Glib Mode`:
I hear a lot about rights these days, but not a lot about
responsibilities. To oneself and to one's fellow man.
> > >> If you bear in mind what his agenda is -- and it *is* a political agenda; he's
> > >> very open about this -- then he makes sense.
> > >
> > >Then he should stick to politics, and stop meddling with software - or
> > >the other way round. He's hurting both.
> >
> > How is he hurting either?
>
> by making people like myself so irritated I don't want to use products
> he's associated with. Same as you and MS.
*nods vigorously*
The key aspects in me no-longer-reading Slashdot are 1) the
how-thrilling-it-is-to-observe-the-bullshitters-busy-bullshitting
factor, and 2) the anti-MS-spite factor. I just don't need that in my
life: I can get the information elsewhere, minus the shite. Suits me
fine. Again, a system that works.
> He doesn't flat out. He just points out that if you agree with Free, you
> are morally and socially wrong not to copy and pass on when you think
> society benefits.
>
> I don't happen to think Free benefits society, so it's a dilemma I don't
> face. But he puts his disciples there - and that is what I mean by
> manipulative and contradictory.
I think there's a trembling line between notions of free and valueless.
Especially when notions seem to be being bandied around with such
abandon by mouthpieces.
Speaking as a (deeply frustrated) artist, this disturbs me. I think we
should honour people who create things, in real terms that can support
them in a meaningful way. I think art-things should have meaningful
value, just as a tool should have value. Hell, I like paying money that
I worked for, to pay for records that I want to hear and hold and touch
and smell and see. I like buying things, and then later on, feeling that
I own them. I like working and doing things for other people who give me
money in return so that I can do other things in my own time. On a
fundamental level. Most of the time I'm doing it I resent it bitterly,
of course, but I never feel sorry afterwards. :)
I'm an
Maybe it'd be nicer, or I could have more of them, if records were
cheaper, but I like every element of the ritual of buying the
record/book/video as an Art Object, and don't really want to see it
go...
And I don't think it will, either.
-sd.
Submersible Dragon
> >Regardless of what happens, I agree that MS won't die unless there is
> >an alternative to windows and office that the "average user" can use. I
> >just happen to think that this will arrive a lot sooner than others do.
>
> Uh, no. It will take an alternative with a huge bank of software that
> is extremely well marketed and very well distributed in regular retail
> channels. Alternative OSs have come and gone a thousand times
> already. You have to have the whole package if you want to compete
> for regular consumer money.
*nod*
*points gravely towards O/S 2*
Rarely has one shown so much potential, but selling to business - which
is where Linux is arguably `succeeding` at the moment, succeeding on
reliability and security - is very different to selling to regular
domestic consumers. Most people who own home computers couldn't give a
fuck about ssl et al. What not-too-many people in the habit of
pontificating at length on the nature of `Solitaire Granny` seem to
consider is the possibility that what most people really want is
something like an internet-ready Commodore 64. Most people don't want to
run a webserver, edit .conf files, etc. They have not the time, the
interest, or even the slightest inclination to learn. As is their right.
They don't want to do anything particularly `serious` with their
machine: they don't need the serious stuff. Simple.
They should neither be damned nor pitied for this. It's their money,
their computer, (a component of) their life.
> >>As I said, and you cut, Torvald (sp) himself says it won't be ready for
> >>everyday use for another five years or so - his immediate family use
> >>Windows.
>
> I think Torvald is the last sensible linux advocate.
Maybe not the last. He's definitely one of the most sensible, however.
> >many other Linux users and developers. In fact, here's a quote from the
> >KDE website: "Is Unix ready for the desktop? We this so!"
>
> What else are they going to say? "Hell no, our GUI sucks?"
*grin*
Correct: that site's a shop window, not a pulpit.
> >I don't think that Linux is suitable for all people, of course. Yet.
> >But in a year or so, it'll be suitable for most people. IMNSHO, in five
> >years it'll have a marketshare of over 50% -- unless something drastic
>
> Linux is going to have 50% of the consumer market in 5 years? Maybe -
> if a big company jumped on it, marketed it well, cleaned it up for
> real consumer use, and had a bank of *already* popular software titles
> ready to go. Otherwise, I think you're way off.
*nod*
It needs a lot of the elements present in the current distros chiselled
off before `ordinary people` will trust it. What it needs is to be
presented in an out-of-the-box, locked-down fashion. In such a way that
the install of whichever package it's ultimately flogged as is as
foolproof as that of Windows. In such a way that everything is as
intuitive as - and even perhaps cloned from - Windows. In such a way
that users don't get expected to deal with unfamiliar and strange things
like mounting a floppy disk drive.
That's just the surface of what needs to be done in terms of making it
more obvious. Everything needs to be underlined. Developers need to
understand that an awful people don't want to learn about their
computer, they just want to browse/write emails/look at other people
doing things to goats/etc.
> I actually wanted to use Linux until about 6 months ago when you
> started harping on it all the time. Now I'm just sick of hearing
> about it.
I think maybe that's a little unfair to Musashi. He's by no means the
most vociferous advocate around here. :\
-sd.
Submersible Dragon
>
> In article <slrn8rnmdr.don...@mobius.idlepower.net>,
> Musash...@home.com says...
>
> > I apologize for discussing the matter in a post which is not marked with
> > that tag; I have become lax in the matter. Would it be an acceptible
> > compromise if I add the (linux) tag to the subject of all future posts I
> > make about Linux?
>
> Why? Do you think most of us here can't make the connection?
So that those among us who don't want to read it can filter the threads
out with newsreader rules, like he said. Musashi isn't playing to the
gallery. Stop being mean to him.
-sd.
Submersible Dragon
Fortran Dragon wrote:
>
> My glass typewriter shows Musashi Dragon typing...
> [Snip]
> > I enjoy discussing Linux.
>
> I don't think anyone has a problem with that. After all, a big
> part of the Dragons is about helping each other.
>
> The thing is, all of us know about Linux. We don't need it
> promoted or publicized. If we want to try it, we will. If we need help
> with it, we'll ask. If we need help with something else, we'll ask
> about that, but we don't want to be told that Linux, BeOS, Max OS X,
> CP/M, or Apple ProDOS for that matter is the answer when our question
> doesn't concern those OSes.
>
> Good, bad, or indifferent, we've made our choices and we would like
> some respect for our choices and, hopefully, an answer to our question.
I agree with all of this... but I'm getting upset by how personal some
of this seems to be getting. This is just my perception, I know... but I
know that I'd be getting hurt by this.
Musashi is not *that* rabid. That example that `Phid raised a while back
of someone suggesting he just switch to Linux in response to a question
he had over Windows was not posted by him, it was posted by Monoceros.
And I don't think I know of Musashi having been actively disrespectful
to anyone on a consistent basis. Well, actually, the `Laughing Crazily`
post was actively disrespctful, but I think everyone - including him -
accepts that was bloody daft in the first place.
I agree with a lot of what people are posting in this thread, but I'm
very wary of how aggressive the tone of some of this posting is. It
makes me very unhappy to see someone get such a pasting, never mind how
attached I may or may not personally be to them. It's not deserved,
IMHO. :(
-sd, planting his little flag.
Jonathan Addlemanmacro
>Musashi Dragon, don't look at me in that tone of voice!
>>## disclaimer: this is what I *think* RMS stands for. I'm pretty certain, but
>>## I could be wrong. I haven't read all the stuff he's written.
>
>No... RMS stands for Richard M. Stallman.
>
>I spent about an hour looking around for his middle name. Ugh...
>I've now given up. Grr.
Anyway.. enough silliness. I feel very strongly about these issues
about copyright, advocacy, Stallman, etc etc... unfortunately, I
feel strongly in many many different ways. I don't feel particularly
"loyal" to anything or anyone. Though I feel I've been let down by
almost every organization, system, society, or anything else, just
in my day-to-day working with such things. This, to me, indicates
that, whatever might be Right and Wrong, something's gotta change.
The way things are set up now serve to create huge amounts of
frustration and annoyance, not to mention actually making it very
difficult to make a living and LIVE...
About copyright: basically, if we could do without it, I'd be happy.
Can we do without it? I don't know. I'd love to try... Maybe I will
this year, with some harpsichord recordings. We'll see.
That said, I don't know if I can do without it. I don't want to do
without it if it means artists can't get paid for their work. (and
that goes for programmers and everything else too). Even more than
that, I want people to be ACKNOWLEDGED for their work - basically,
what I have in mind is copyright laws that don't restrict use, but
require crediting the creators of anything you print, sell, use,
change, base your work on, etc... But I don't want to restrict
people from using something that I write.
I do feel very strongly about this, but at the same time, I realize
that I'm a bit of a hypocrite - I don't mind if people use what I
create, but I don't really create anything myself! Nothing that fits
this criteria anyway, (yet)... I hardly write any words besides
what's on this newsgroup, I don't really write any music outside of
theory classes, don't program, have hardly made any recordings, etc
etc.. I'd LIKE to do those things - I dream about being able to..
but as of right now, I just don't have the skills or the drive.
Is Stallman right with what he says? Maybe. I find it hard to agree
with everything he says - as an extremist (one thing almost everyone
can agree on) it would be a little odd if many people DID agree with
everything he says. However, I think he has raised some very
interesting points, and come up with interesting solutions to things
that are very much different from the "normal" way that things are
created. The entire GNU system works within our current copyright
system, yet exists more or less to work counter to it. To me, this
isn't hypocritical. It doesn't make me dismiss him as a liar. It
makes me hopeful that we CAN work something new, something less
restrictive, into our current system without blatantly disregarding
the current laws and practices of our society. To me, this is
wonderful. This is what we should be striving to do - even if you
disagree about specifics, I can't imagine anyone would disagree
about the merits of gradually shifting to a system that works
better, without disrupting the current system any more than
absolutely necessary. Now, whether this new system actually IS
better or not is a matter of great debate. Whether there even IS a
new system for us to move towards yet, I don't know (I don't really
think so, at least not in most fields, though many possibilities
exist). But I find hope in the fact that people aren't content to
sit with the status quo, and are actively looking for something
better.
Here I speak as someone who is rather completely fed up with the way
things work. I find myself limited, both by what is available, and
what I can make available. I find most of what I do is owned by
someone else. I find half of my daily routines are, at least in the
minds of many corporations, if not in the actual legal practise of
society, illegal. And I don't know what I can do about it.
So rather than saying someone is too pushy with their ideas, or
doesn't acknowledge certain aspects of life, or business, or
politics in their philosophies, why don't we take what DOES work? Or
even what has POTENTIAL to work, and add in what's missing? Fix
things up, try to really develop something new that can work and
make everything better for everyone?
This thread has somewhat gone in two directions - one way, advocacy
of products; the other way, advocacy of ideas. But in the last
paragraph, I mean to refer to both. If a piece of software, or a car
design, or a new musical style, or a philosophy, or a bill of law is
poor, instead of denouncing it loudly and denouncing the originator
of that idea at the same time, we can all (myself included) benefit
if we try to take what's good in it, and fill the gaps. Mix two
ideas together. Take what's good, lose what's bad, and hopefully end
up with a better whole.
This post has ended up being a somewhat foolishly optimistic "let's
all be friends" sort of message, but people seem awfully intent to
do the opposite, whether it's calling for the downfall of Microsoft
and all it stands for, or denouncing Stallman and all of his ideas.
Both have proven to be very successful in the past decade. We all
can get a lot of good ideas from both of them, and see why they both
work. If we can combine them both, somehow, I expect we'll finally
have something that truly satisfies the majority of the population.
Fortran Dragon
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You may need to fine-tune your macro, Singing. :)
Now off to read your post.
Fortran Dragon
[Snip]
> I agree with all of this... but I'm getting upset by how personal some
> of this seems to be getting. This is just my perception, I know... but I
> know that I'd be getting hurt by this.
In my case it is something I've been saying to Musashi for quite a
while. I was using Unix when he was still in diapers so, for _me_, it
gets irritating when someone harps on and on about how wonderful a Unix-
based system can be. I know, as I have used the pure quill, so to
speak.
I know I've been far calmer this go around than in past times.
> Musashi is not *that* rabid.
He has been. His worst phase was when he was promoting Linux while
still using Windows apps in an emulator. Not practicing what you preach
was very bad form and left a bad taste in people's mouths I imagine.
Combine that with a group of Linux supporters generally poo-pooing
people when they tried to explain that Linux doesn't support their
favorite tools and that being an important reason why they don't want
switch and you have the current low-level irritation about Linux
advocacy.
The Dragons don't like being lectured to (I know, I've done it. :(
Never again if I can help it.). They rightfully feel they are smart
enough to make up their own mind given the facts. They also ask and
receive tolerance for being different or for being normal. It is their
choice and being told their choice is wrong because someone made a
different decision doesn't sit well with them.
> That example that `Phid raised a while back
> of someone suggesting he just switch to Linux in response to a question
> he had over Windows was not posted by him, it was posted by Monoceros.
That's something you need to take up with 'Phid, but I did notice
that 'Phid didn't mention Musashi nor did either of the respondents
(that I see). In my view it was more of a general complaint about Linux
advocacy in general in this newsgroup.
[Snip]
> I agree with a lot of what people are posting in this thread, but I'm
> very wary of how aggressive the tone of some of this posting is.
It is symptomatic of an irritation that has been building for a
long time.
If people want to discuss Linux here and help each other, great! I
think a majority are simply tired of being lectured to about Linux.
Advocacy of _anything_ grates over time, even Ultima.
In fact, look at how all of us deal with Ultima. We help each
other and share our favorite stories and even squabble a time or two
over which Ultima is good and which is bad, but we don't do it all the
time. If someone continually stated that the Apple ][ version of Ultima
IV was the best Ultima ever and that none of the rest were as good,
wouldn't you get tired of them after a year or more?
> It
> makes me very unhappy to see someone get such a pasting, never mind how
> attached I may or may not personally be to them. It's not deserved,
> IMHO. :(
So what are we to do? Active Linux advocacy by anyone irritates a
number people in this newsgroup. Is it too much to ask them to leave
the advocacy in the *.advocacy newsgroups? No one is saying 'don't
discuss Linux here', it is just a little more responsibility and
discretion might ease things. Show by example, not by preaching, is a
good idea in my mind.
By the way, people aren't out to get Musashi. He made a far bigger
gaffe when U9 came out, but the newsgroup managed to work things out and
move on. In this case Musashi gets to be the flashpoint for irritation
about Linux Advocacy because he is the most vocal/visible advocate here.
> -sd, planting his little flag.
CTF? :)
Singing Dragon
>My glass typewriter shows Jonathan Addlemanmacro typing...
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> You may need to fine-tune your macro, Singing. :)
>
> Now off to read your post.
It's all better now. (I hope...)
Fortran Dragon
[Snip]
> It's all better now. (I hope...)
You're singing, now. :)
MdmeDis
says...
I'm not. I'm saying, and have said before to him, we don't need a
mommy. This is an adult public forum, where anything is on topic and
where threads morph beyond recognition.
Fortran Dragon
[Snip]
> So that those among us who don't want to read it can filter the threads
> out with newsreader rules, like he said.
That's fine if it is a thread he starts. So what do you do when
Linux Advocacy gets raised in a Windows thread? And then there is the
case of topic-drift being a normal Dragon habit.
> Musashi isn't playing to the gallery.
No, he's trying to preach to the choir. The Dragons aren't the
choir.
> Stop being mean to him.
Oh, please. People aren't trying to flame him to a crisp or
drive him out of the newsgroup. Musashi is engaging in a behavior that
irritates people. People have told him they don't like it, but he
refuses to stop. Thus they snap at him once in a while. If this is
being mean, he's lived a life of isolation.
Fortran Dragon
[Snip]
> most vociferous advocate around here. :\
Who is the most vociferous Linux Advocate around here?
MdmeDis
says...
I see Mus as being blissfully oblivious to many aspects of the whole -
in part because he has not yet had the life experiences - in part as you
say, because he is not the average user. But he isn't going to learn
much if someone doesn't point that out....
>
>
> > Usually, they have considered it - usually something along the lines of
> > "will it run my most used stuff by insert, point and click? No? Then
> > sorry, I'm not interested. I'm not interested in computers, just what
> > they can do"
>
> *nod*
>
> I have something of an ambivalent relationship with my computer. When I
> put the Mandrake distro that Mushie's sending me onto my computer, it's
> because I want to run synthesis apps that aren't available for anything
> but Macs and Linux to make what Singing presciently described as `funky
> noises`, not because I want to sneer at Windows people.
>
> I'm interested in how they work, and I like to nose around, because I
> find it interesting. But unlike a lot of my meatspace friends, I can
> sympathise with what those obnoxious pricks on the Slashdot boards
> dismiss as `Solitaire Granny`. Most ordinary people - and here I make a
> shocking generalisation, so I'll change that to `many computer users` -
> have a list about 5 lines long of things they want to do with a
> computer. Porno is generally in there somewhere, or lurking in the
> margins, but basically the list will include: email, games,
> web-browsing, and wp/spreadsheets.
And what they don't quite grasp is that those are the main market - they
are basically the niche.
I was rushed last night (Fortran - bed - interesting bump under the
blanket) and I didn't have time to clean my post up up the way I wanted
- to hide some of the irritation. I zoomed out this morning, and didn't
like it any better.
> This is
> going to sound soppy at best, and at worst a shallow attempt at
> manipulation, but I was quite upset by what I read as some of the
> personal stuff. That's my problem, though. Lots of things on my mind at
> the moment.
It's my problem as well. I do indeed like Musashi - I think he is
probably one of the nicest, kindest people in this group - I on the
other hand can be extraordinarily abrasive BUT (it had to come didn't
it?) he can be extraordinarily irritating. So what to do? Not snap, but
at least try to explain. Should I even *be* irritated? Express my
irritation? Ignore him, and hope someone else deals with it? My choice
was to take 6 hours to express my feelings and thoughts and beliefs,
including the irritation.
> I don't always agree with Musashi - despite all evidence to the contrary
> - and in fact I was pretty much with you 100% on the points you were
> making - and I'm definitely with Fortran - but at the same time I was
> bound by loyalty to my friend. Play-acting(?) aside, I feel very close
> to Musashi. Even when he does/says something
> naive/daft/misguided/unencumbered by knowledge most people are painfully
> privy to.
It isn't a question of disagreeing with him; I can do that without
rancour - the problems arise (for me) when he starts calling people
stupid because they disagree with his view, as he did on the subject of
libertarians, or wishing companies would go out of business (and deprive
hundreds of people of their livlihood in the process) because he doesn't
like their product.
> Anyway, I'm glad that I saw that you like Mushie. I had a serious case
> of divided loyalties there, as you might appreciate.
I do like him. In my wilderness period, he was one of very few dragons
who e-mailed me.
MdmeDis
says...
> I agree with all of this... but I'm getting upset by how personal some
> of this seems to be getting. This is just my perception, I know... but I
> know that I'd be getting hurt by this.
I was, when it happened to me. But the fact remained I needed to hear
it. Then I had the choice of either changing my behaviour, opting out or
being berated constantly.
> Musashi is not *that* rabid. That example that `Phid raised a while back
> of someone suggesting he just switch to Linux in response to a question
> he had over Windows was not posted by him, it was posted by Monoceros.
I don't think anyone said it was. I was thinking about *several* people
when I made my comment - but now you come to mention it, I think Musashi
has done that.
> I agree with a lot of what people are posting in this thread, but I'm
> very wary of how aggressive the tone of some of this posting is.
And I am weary of the tone of some Musashi's posts. The (my) tone is
aggressive because its been said before - and will probably be said
again if he exercises his right to continue in the same manner. Many of
us have had similar or harsher. I have, Phid has - and we both learned
from it.
Singing Dragon
>[Snip]
>> It's all better now. (I hope...)
>
> You're singing, now. :)
Ho eyo he hum!
Submersible Dragon
Fortran Dragon wrote:
>
> My glass typewriter shows Submersible Dragon typing...
> [Snip]
> > I think maybe that's a little unfair to Musashi. He's by no means the
> > most vociferous advocate around here. :\
>
> Who is the most vociferous Linux Advocate around here?
Monoceros, IMHO.
-sd.
Submersible Dragon
MdmeDis wrote:
>
> In article <39BD6565...@eim.surrey.ac.uk>, cs9...@eim.surrey.ac.uk
> says...
> > MdmeDis wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <slrn8rnmdr.don...@mobius.idlepower.net>,
> > > Musash...@home.com says...
> > >
> > > > I apologize for discussing the matter in a post which is not marked with
> > > > that tag; I have become lax in the matter. Would it be an acceptible
> > > > compromise if I add the (linux) tag to the subject of all future posts I
> > > > make about Linux?
> > >
> > > Why? Do you think most of us here can't make the connection?
> >
> > So that those among us who don't want to read it can filter the threads
> > out with newsreader rules, like he said. Musashi isn't playing to the
> > gallery. Stop being mean to him.
>
> I'm not. I'm saying, and have said before to him, we don't need a
> mommy. This is an adult public forum, where anything is on topic and
> where threads morph beyond recognition.
...which is guarded and cherished very closely, I see.
Fair enough. You aren't being mean: I accept that.
I'm in the bad habit of reading things too personally, and I get too
defensive of my closest friends. Inexpertly so, at that.
*sigh*
I'm sorry. Posting like a fool today. :(
-sd.
Submersible Dragon
MdmeDis wrote:
>
>
> > I'm still positive that the way forward for developing a what I would
> > hesitantly dub a `consumer system` is to jettison the common elements of
> > the UI that people wouldn't recognise from Windows: I have this
> > recurring slice of footage of my Mum booting up a Linux system and
> > hitting a command-line requesting a password login, and her not knowing
> > what to do about it. Say what you like about Windows {insert dismissal
> > here}, it is at least vaguely intuitive to someone who doesn't know much
> > about what they're doing and has no especial desire/time/opportunity to
> > learn.
> >
> > And Musashi very definitely isn't representative, or even in a good
> > position to contemplate what defines an `average user`.
> >
> > Make of that what you will. ;)
>
> I see Mus as being blissfully oblivious to many aspects of the whole -
> in part because he has not yet had the life experiences - in part as you
> say, because he is not the average user. But he isn't going to learn
> much if someone doesn't point that out....
*nod*
Very true.
> > I'm interested in how they work, and I like to nose around, because I
> > find it interesting. But unlike a lot of my meatspace friends, I can
> > sympathise with what those obnoxious pricks on the Slashdot boards
> > dismiss as `Solitaire Granny`. Most ordinary people - and here I make a
> > shocking generalisation, so I'll change that to `many computer users` -
> > have a list about 5 lines long of things they want to do with a
> > computer. Porno is generally in there somewhere, or lurking in the
> > margins, but basically the list will include: email, games,
> > web-browsing, and wp/spreadsheets.
>
> And what they don't quite grasp is that those are the main market - they
> are basically the niche.
Exactly! Neither do they grasp that at the end of the day, for most
people, computers are about as interesting and diverse and thrilling as
roller-skates, or a hacksaw, or a telephone handset.
> > Mao, I was glad to see these... it makes me feel better, too.
> >
> > I managed to grab a minute or two at the away-team PC last night, and
> > saw what I think was your first response to Mushie. *cough*
>
> I was rushed last night (Fortran - bed - interesting bump under the
> blanket) and I didn't have time to clean my post up up the way I wanted
> - to hide some of the irritation. I zoomed out this morning, and didn't
> like it any better.
*nod*
I was afk all weekend... I saw this post on Saturday night, and brooded,
and brooded, and brooded... I don't particularly like what I wrote late
last night in some regards, either. But, OTOH, I needed to see those
replies. :)
> > This is
> > going to sound soppy at best, and at worst a shallow attempt at
> > manipulation, but I was quite upset by what I read as some of the
> > personal stuff. That's my problem, though. Lots of things on my mind at
> > the moment.
>
> It's my problem as well. I do indeed like Musashi - I think he is
> probably one of the nicest, kindest people in this group - I on the
> other hand can be extraordinarily abrasive BUT (it had to come didn't
> it?) he can be extraordinarily irritating. So what to do? Not snap, but
> at least try to explain. Should I even *be* irritated? Express my
> irritation? Ignore him, and hope someone else deals with it? My choice
> was to take 6 hours to express my feelings and thoughts and beliefs,
> including the irritation.
*nod*
I see your dilemma. It's one I would probably not have the courage to
raise in public. If I raised it at all, that is.
> > I don't always agree with Musashi - despite all evidence to the contrary
> > - and in fact I was pretty much with you 100% on the points you were
> > making - and I'm definitely with Fortran - but at the same time I was
> > bound by loyalty to my friend. Play-acting(?) aside, I feel very close
> > to Musashi. Even when he does/says something
> > naive/daft/misguided/unencumbered by knowledge most people are painfully
> > privy to.
>
> It isn't a question of disagreeing with him; I can do that without
> rancour - the problems arise (for me) when he starts calling people
> stupid because they disagree with his view, as he did on the subject of
> libertarians, or wishing companies would go out of business (and deprive
> hundreds of people of their livlihood in the process) because he doesn't
> like their product.
Words so lightly thrown, hmm?
I know what you mean... I think it's common to a lot of people
(nowadays?).
> > Anyway, I'm glad that I saw that you like Mushie. I had a serious case
> > of divided loyalties there, as you might appreciate.
>
> I do like him. In my wilderness period, he was one of very few dragons
> who e-mailed me.
Glad to hear it: this has been something I've never been exactly assured
of, and something that I would admit has concerned me in the past. With
more pertinence to what has been said over the last few days, I'm not
contesting what you and Fortran (and others) have said so much as I
sought clarification. I'll admit now - whilst no-one's asking - that I'm
going to struggle to maintain an objective viewpoint in a situation like
this, but... well. I don't know. Musashi's been and remains a very dear
and close friend of mine, play-acting (?) aside... and I wanted to make
a show of some sort of support in the light of what I read as some
pretty harsh words. I'll also counter that with acknowledgement of the
fact that I was arguably overreacting - especially when I asked you to
stop being mean to him - but, if it makes any difference, by then, I was
quite definitely upset. Perspective again, I suppose.
-sd.
Submersible Dragon
Fortran Dragon wrote:
>
> My glass typewriter shows Submersible Dragon typing...
> [Snip]
[snip]
> > Musashi isn't playing to the gallery.
>
> No, he's trying to preach to the choir. The Dragons aren't the
> choir.
*nod*
I read Mdme's reply in an entirely different manner to how it was
intended, clearly. For this I apologise. I still contend that he wasn't
trying to imply that most people couldn't make the connection, however.
For all his (sometime) arrogance, he just isn't a particularly
provocative person. Occasionally extremely tactless, I would agree, but
generally I believe him to be very good-natured.
Not knowing/having experienced nearly as much of the back-history of
this as I would like, I can't share/contend your frustrations...
> > Stop being mean to him.
>
> Oh, please. People aren't trying to flame him to a crisp or
> drive him out of the newsgroup. Musashi is engaging in a behavior that
> irritates people. People have told him they don't like it, but he
> refuses to stop. Thus they snap at him once in a while. If this is
> being mean, he's lived a life of isolation.
Okay: I *don't* have the perspective on this that others who've been
here longer have, even with my previous lurkings. (I'm not making an
excuse, simply stating fact.) And equally true, this isn't now, in the
light of what your replies said, conspicuously harsh.
*shakes head resignedly*
I don't know... you're definitely right w.r.t. our different
considerations of what constitutes `being mean`. I regretted writing
that soon after I posted it - always the way, ought to use that Draft
folder, etc. Reading it back, it was singularly unnecessary, I think.
I think I probably reacted to this with greater concern than most people
would have... hmm, I don't know. I have much yet to learn, I think. :)
-sd.
Submersible Dragon
MdmeDis wrote:
>
> In article <39BD729A...@eim.surrey.ac.uk>, cs9...@eim.surrey.ac.uk
> says...
>
> > I agree with all of this... but I'm getting upset by how personal some
> > of this seems to be getting. This is just my perception, I know... but
> > I know that I'd be getting hurt by this.
>
> I was, when it happened to me. But the fact remained I needed to hear
> it. Then I had the choice of either changing my behaviour, opting out or
> being berated constantly.
*nod*
And equally, would you agree that it's very valuable in that position to
feel some degree of moral support from a quarter in the aftermath of a
bollocking? That was in my mind very much as I posted.
That sounds horribly sanctimonious. Or pious. Whatever. I wanted to show
my (if not total, then at least moral) support for someone who's done a
great deal of kindness to me, in a difficult, potentially upsetting, and
not vastly pleasant situation. My motivations in posting to this thread
were arguably personal ones.
*sigh*
> > Musashi is not *that* rabid. That example that `Phid raised a while
> > back of someone suggesting he just switch to Linux in response to a
> > question he had over Windows was not posted by him, it was posted by
> > Monoceros.
>
> I don't think anyone said it was. I was thinking about *several* people
> when I made my comment - but now you come to mention it, I think Musashi
> has done that.
*nod*
Well... yeah. No-one said it was, true, but it seemed to me that a lot
of feathers were drifting around, and one person had been explicitly
tarred.
> > I agree with a lot of what people are posting in this thread, but I'm
> > very wary of how aggressive the tone of some of this posting is.
>
> And I am weary of the tone of some Musashi's posts. The (my) tone is
> aggressive because its been said before - and will probably be said
> again if he exercises his right to continue in the same manner. Many of
> us have had similar or harsher. I have, Phid has - and we both learned
> from it.
*nod*
I know what you mean. I suppose that my somewhat - timid? - nature
probably factors in this somewhere: the whole consideration of different
levels of aggression. I'm not rejecting what any of you have said
explicitly, although in my green-ness I was somewhat unprepared for the
responses that I saw. But I hated the idea that I was all very happy to
flirt with him et al, but that when the shit came down I got out of
town...
Hmm. This really is too complex to explain, I'm afraid. :(
-sd.
Lost Dragon
Well.. I certainly hope they do better with linux than they
did with OS/2. :)
-
Matthew Richard Xavier Xander Xanthias Dentith
<MPG.14259a18d...@news.alt.net>:
>In any given society, there is no such thing as liberty. There are
>stated boundaries to what you can do. Stallman confuses and blurrs those
>boundaries, and uses logic to do it, which is why he appeals to so many
>undergraduates who don't grasp that logic is simply ONE path.
Ah, since I know of whole Faculties that will admit Logic is a flawed and
misunderstood beast, yet still the only viable system of coherent
explanationary principles, I seek clarification as to the other ways... You
sentence indicates that there are other options aside from logic as
principles of explanation... Unless of course you meant to say '...who
don't grasp the logic...' in which case my question is irrelevant.
>I'm not getting into this chestnut again! There are no intrinsic
>differences that take away RIGHTS of ownership and distributorship
>automagically.
Because I've been having this conversation with a number of law students
and ethicists recently I just want to state categorically that I do not
believe in Rights discourse and I believe it to be one of the most
destructive ideas Philosophy has put forward in recent years. Absolutely
nothing to do with this discussion but I felt it was important nonetheless.
I do not believe in Rights.
Anyway, back to Teilhard; continue on, people.
Dracos Dragon
Dentith) wrote in <8FACBB66Edraco...@203.96.152.26>:
>Because I've been having this conversation with a number of law students
>and ethicists recently I just want to state categorically that I do not
>believe in Rights discourse and I believe it to be one of the most
>destructive ideas Philosophy has put forward in recent years. Absolutely
>nothing to do with this discussion but I felt it was important
>nonetheless. I do not believe in Rights.
>
>Anyway, back to Teilhard; continue on, people.
Bugger; I didn't choose my Identity in XNews so I posted as me rather than
me. Sorry.
One other point in reply to me: hating Rights discourse can be very awkward
in a society based on Rights, specifically when it comes to publishing... I
don't mean in my stance that everything should be free, etc., all I mean is
that Rights discourse is an ineffective method of ascribing duties and the
like...
I make very little sense in person at the moment, either. Too much
writing, not enough life.
--
Dracos, Dragon and -=<Bluebeard>=-
(Pontifex Minimus NC, Most Holy Mallard, Philosopher,
Possibly Passable, Plonked)
\_/
\|/
/___\
"Logic only gives you the authority to be wrong."
-The Second Doctor
Lost Dragon
>is where Linux is arguably `succeeding` at the moment, succeeding on
>reliability and security - is very different to selling to regular
>domestic consumers. Most people who own home computers couldn't give a
>fuck about ssl et al. What not-too-many people in the habit of
In defense of linux:
I think a company like Sony could come along, take 3 years with
linux and turn it into a great consumer OS. They have the marketing
droids to spin it and they have the money to front it. That's the
kind of company I could see pulling something interesting off.
>that users don't get expected to deal with unfamiliar and strange things
>like mounting a floppy disk drive.
It's the 5 minute rule. If I can't figure it out in 5 minutes, my
interest wanes and the only thing that mounts is frustration. Most
people don't even give it 5 minutes. ;)
>I think maybe that's a little unfair to Musashi. He's by no means the
>most vociferous advocate around here. :\
This wasn't supposed to be an extended Musashi bashing party. If
I didn't like Musashi, I would've gnawed on him 3 months ago.
I read and generally enjoy his posts about music and the viola,
etc.
Lost Dragon
>blanket) and I didn't have time to clean
Say who of the what now? You can't simply leave us in the
dark now. ;->
Musashi Dragon
MdmeDis wrote:
>In article <slrn8rma50.2dm...@mobius.idlepower.net>, you
>say...
>> But I don't think that punishment should
>> be the immediate abolishment of MS.
>
>What do you think the punishment should be?
They should have to make the APIs public. Beyond that I have no
particular preference. Splitting the company up diagonally, making them
give out rebates of $50 for each copy of MS Bob they sold, charging the
execs with criminal negligance -- I've heard lots of wierd things --
doesn't really matter to me.
>> At this stage, what happens to MS really doesn't matter to consumers.
>> They could become like SCO unix is today -- a nobody, keeping their head
>> above the water but nothing more -- or just plain die. I hope for the
>> latter,
>
>There you go again. Holy crusade. If you have the better system, what
>does it matter what other people use? Other than to settle some feeling
>of spite they've somehow generated?
*sigh* I guess it's a bit too late to clarify that sentiment, but I
hope for the latter in the same way that I hope that Canada does well in
the Olympics, or in the way that I hope that the International Space
Station stays on schedual. Or gets back on schedual, in case it's
behind. (Which kind-of demonstrates just how much this matter disturbs
my sleep)
>> though I guess in this fantasy the other option would still be
>> nice. Then we'd have a living monument to remind us of how far it had
>> fallen...
>
>This isn't entirely rational, you know...
This is getting really tangental, but isn't revenge by definition
irrational?
>> Regardless of what happens, I agree that MS won't die unless there is
>> an alternative to windows and office that the "average user" can use. I
>> just happen to think that this will arrive a lot sooner than others do.
>
>Why? Its creator and developer says otherwise. What reason do you have
>to disagree?
Personal experience?
As I told Fortran earlier, it could be that we have different
conceptions of what the "average user" needs. I think that Linux can
satisfy the needs of the Joe Sixpack / Granny kinds. Web browser,
email, school homework, checkbook* -- yes.
* maybe a few months off for
the checkbook; I haven't checked (no pun intended) Gnucash recently.
However, that's assuming that Joe doesn't want to do more complicated
things -- sound and video editing, educational software, etc. Linux
isn't ready for that kind of home market yet.
Another reason why my opinion could differ from Torvald's is that I
spend more time looking at the 'easy to use' distros. He probably has
better things to rather than waste Saturday installing an OS that he
won't be using. :)
.
.
.
Mao, my cat is vicious at this time of night! ## sucks arm
>The only way MS will lose that market will be by not staying ahead
>technically. The simple fact of the matter is, things cannot be done on
>a large scale for free.
Really? We'll see. ISP charges notwithstanding, there's an awful lot
you can get on the 'net. News, services -- sure, Deja isn't the best,
but still...
>> I view it practice for being
>> a professor (where I will have to give a good account and defense of a
>> philosophical view that I might abhor and believe is complete garbage).
>
>This is a place for discussion - it doesn't reflect on your ability to
>show your professor you heard what he said.
I never thought that my professors would look here. As I said, I
attempted it to gain practice at presenting other viewpoints. While the
experience that I gain in doing does not have any direct bearing on my
university work, it may help in the future.
>I like you but I have such a negative reaction to
>your 'serious' posts I actually go out of my way not to read 'em - this
>was an accident, and look what is happening!
I can't recall any serious posts I've made since the last one -- they
never turn out the way I wanted, and just seem to cause trouble. This
one was an accident from my side as well.
>> Really? I set vi to wrap at 78 chars... oh well; it's 72 now. But I
>> didn't change the quoted stuff.
>
>It was wrapping at 78. Is 72 no longer standard?
I wasn't sure... for some reason I had the figure of 80 in my mind when
I was setting it up, so shaved a few off for quoting. It's 72 now.
--
Musashi Dragon Graduate student of Innuendo and Twisting
-==(UDIC Greybread)==- Silly Penguin
Angle of Hot Sex Silvertongue
Extremely Sic Linux Junkie
Dracos Dragon
<slrn8rp5fa.2hs...@mobius.idlepower.net>:
>>This isn't entirely rational, you know...
>
>This is getting really tangental, but isn't revenge by definition
>irrational?
Aye: within the field of Ethics revenge is an emotional form of
retribution. It is usually felt to be something said or done in the heat of
the moment and not a calculated action.
Wow, tutoring Ethics did come in useful...
clausdragon
Fortran Dragon <xy...@kc.rr.com> wrote:
*snip some stuff*
> The Dragons don't like being lectured to (I know, I've done it.
> :( Never again if I can help it.).
*snip some really good writing*
ah well, somthing vaguely true. *g*
ok, now to add my two cents: i have to admit that my english is simply
not good enough to write such long posts as fortran´s and to express my
thoughts in such a particular way.
but he mentioned a few things which i only can agree with.
linux vs. windows (or else? has there ever been anything else?):
maybe linux is a secure and safe os by now. but i have to admit that i
simply don´t care about it right now. i am used to windows, i can work
with it, i can work with most applications (as far as i need them. i
never use an application if i am not forced to).
but i dislike windows. i dislike microsoft.
the problems that i have with those two things (which are not the
same!) are as follows:
windows: it is slow, it is unstable, there are several errors which even
i as a mostly non-programmer recognize.
microsoft: i am always wary of market-leading enterprises, evven if i
like their products. just some kind of paranoia, i guess *g*
now i am really fed up with all those "get rid of windows - use linux
instead!" posts (yes, mushie, this is mainly aimed at you!). sure many
dragons are programmers, hence have the ability to switch os without
blinking (they can change the configurations "per hand"), but i guess
that_all_of_them_know_about_linux_and_don´t_need_another_post_about_how_
linux_surpasses_windows_in_everything.
and there still are a few dragons (including myself!) who are not really
programmers and are using windows, either because they don´t mind, or
because they can´t stand linux as well or because they are lazy (that´s
me!).
don´t get me wrong: i am not saying that you are not allowed to post
anything about linux (how could i?), but please keep an eye on the tone
of your posts. no one here needs additional lessons, ok?
if someone is interested, he will ask, hence write a post and beg for
information. we all know the basic rules of communication (and some
basic english words).
no one is superior just because of what os he uses...
ranting complete. log off.
--
clausdragon - back to uni -
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Singing Dragon
>> I'd say that
>> that's a difference between software and material goods.
>
>Obviously there are intrinsic differences between every item out there.
>I'm not getting into this chestnut again! There are no intrinsic
>differences that take away RIGHTS of ownership and distributorship
>automagically.
I'd say we SHOULD get into this again - this issue is FUNDAMENTAL to
every disagreement we have on this subject. Those arguing for
changes in IP law generally do so specifically because they
recognize IP as being different from physical property. That you
think differently makes just about any conversation on the topic
meaningless... One fact is true: IP can be copied essentially for
free. Non IP can't.
Singing Dragon
>now i am really fed up with all those "get rid of windows - use linux
>instead!" posts (yes, mushie, this is mainly aimed at you!). sure many
>dragons are programmers, hence have the ability to switch os without
>blinking (they can change the configurations "per hand"), but i guess
>that_all_of_them_know_about_linux_and_don´t_need_another_post_about_how_
>linux_surpasses_windows_in_everything.
I think this sort of sentiment is what annoys Musashi and I and
other linux advocates... The thing is, I'm not a programmer at all!
I've written one semi-complete program that wasn't required for a
course, and that was in qbasic years ago. And yet, I've been using
linux since last Christmas as my main OS.
That said, it DOES take time to get used to it and to learn how
things work, and to get it set up the way you want it. (I'm still
fiddling, and will probably never stop). If someone doesn't use it
for those reasons, I can understand, and won't belabour the point.
However, to say that it's too hard... nah.
My opinion is that anyone with a half-decent understanding of
computers and some free time could switch to linux as their main OS,
barring the need of specific software that doesn't work in linux, or
something like that. If you can get u7 to work in dos, you're
probably ok. :)
But I'll reiterate - I undersand that people don't switch. It's a
big change, and takes a long time to get used to. I myself used
linux off and on for server tasks, and occasional toying around for
years before I actually began using it as my main OS. However, after
a while, I just decided enough was enough, I was fed up with
windows, and I wanted to do something about it. So I did! I
certainly have spent a lot of time in the past year reading docs,
and fiddling with things, but I think it's very much worth it, and I
don't regret spending that time.
So I'll hold to my opinion: if you have a bit of knowledge about
computers (no programming necessary) and have free time and patience
to read a few docs, try it out! It can't hurt (as long as you're
careful with it, preferably making backups of your data) and you
stand to gain a lot.
Of course, I'm like that with a great many things, which explains
why I usually have half a million things on the go, and no time to
eat or sleep.. but hey, it keeps life interesting. :)
I hereby invite anyone to send me a nasty e-mail if I ever step too
far in my advocacy (which I think is generally quite mild in tone),
but I will drop in a comment now and then, when I think one is
warranted, like this one.
Submersible Dragon
> >I was rushed last night (Fortran - bed - interesting bump under the
> >blanket) and I didn't have time to clean
>
> Say who of the what now? You can't simply leave us in the
> dark now. ;->
I wasnae gonna comment on that... but that's a stunning bit of editing
you've done there, if I do say so myself... :)
Hmm.
*wistful expression*
Someday, I too will have some interesting bumps under my blanket.
Bumps not all my own, either.
*soft sigh*
I wish I had a mate...
--
------------------------------------------------------------
Submersible Dragon -\- UDIC -/- Journeyman of Mao
------------------------------------------------------------
William W.
the artist formerly known as MdmeDis said:
>In article <8pgmut$nnk$4...@eeyore.INS.CWRU.Edu>, zacw...@hotmail.com
>says...
>
>> But there are some things that mildly annoy me, like back in the "new user"
>> thread. Now I can't say I seriously expected someone to actually solve my
>> problem, but no one on the windows help groups ever replied, so I figured it
>> was worth a shot. Yet one of the first responses I got was "Why don't you
>> switch to Linux, it's much more secure."
>
>Mmm. If every time someone asked a "how to" about Linux, they got a "Why
>are you running that junk, switch to Windows and you wouldn't have the
>problem" response they'd begin to get the picture. If you don't use
>Windows, and can't answer the question, best you give the post a pass,
>no?
I wish that people who did know Windows would take the time to answer
Windows questions. As long as people are using the damned thing, it is
in everyone's best interest to see that they use it well and to its
potential. Most people use Windows in such an unproductive way that I
have to question whether they'd get more done if they just unplugged the
computer and pushed it aside. Windows may not be a great system, but it
does have capabilities that far exceed what most people do with it.
From the perspective of a Linux missionary, helping people with Windows
is a good thing too, since the kind of person who won't use the advanced
features of Windows like ctrl+a and ctrl+c isn't likely to want to use
Linux either. Once people start using Windows for all it's worth,
they'll discover the limitations in the system and become annoyed with
them. Ultimately, a knowledgeable Windows user is more likely to want
to push Windows farther than it will go, and may look at something
different.
Personally, I don't care if people use Linux or not (though I'd prefer
that the Windows monopoly didn't prevent me from using it or something
similar instead of Windows, so in that sense I'd like to see Windows
usage crumble), but I do care that people are wasting their time and the
tremendous potential that is sitting right in front of them because
nobody will teach them how to use it.
--
The Silly Dragon | It is pitch black.
-=(UDIC)=- | You are likely to be spammed by a grue.
Pix!
news:8pc2ub$hq2$1...@eeyore.INS.CWRU.Edu...
> I burn CD's every few days; I very rarely compile 100K+ line programs.
> Ergo, is that capability worth an extra $100-$500? No.
For you, fine. I'm a programmer. :)
Pix!
news:slrn8rj7ko.f9v...@mobius.idlepower.net...
> Something, oh anything, would be wittier than this header:
> >"Pix!" <pixe...@MsSpN.CaOmM> wrote in message
> >news:uGaSuudGAHA.320@cpmsnbbsa09...
> >and cabling.
> >> Ever use SCSI? Try installing something off a CD and doing, well,
> >anything
> >> else on the computer at the same time. Ditto for compiling a 100K-line
> >> program, etc.
> Can't that be avoided by having IDE devices on different cables? I have
an
> IDE system, and still do things while installing software and stuff...?
Not as much, unless the IDE controllers have gotten better. SCSI does a lot
of stuff without CPU intervention; the controller on the host adapter is
more intelligent.
> I'm in the same boat, but the difference isn't so pronounced now. IDE
drives
> have been catching up to their SCSI counterparts. :)
While I haven't bought a new SCSI drive in a couple of years, I suspect
that's not very likely. (IOW, pick up a new 10GB 10k RPM wide SCSI-III
drive and compare it to an ATA-66. By compiling the aforementioned
100k-line program. Or installing Diablo II. Or copying a gig or two from
one drive to another.)
Pix!
> I gave them HOMM3 for Linux
Urrrr?
Aside: Do they make the new addon, whatchamahoosit of death, as a plain
addon, WITHOUT a bundled copy of HOMM3? I've already got that. I've
already got AB. Why should I drop $40 for an addon?
> I'm finding myself agreeing with RMS more and more these days... right
now, my
> biggest concern with software is that it's free. If it's a cool OS, I
want to
> be able to burn extra copies and hand them out to my (other) friends.
Remember, kids, "free" as in "freedom", not "free" as in "price".
> I wouldn't mind paying money, though. I wouldn't mind paying $50 for some
> good, open-source SBLive drivers. Ditto for TNT2 drivers. As long as it
was
> Free (in the Debian-compliant way) software.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
? How does Debian-compliance differ from GPL-compliance, out of curiosity?
Pix!
> A 512 MB restriction's pretty stupid though.
Only on the free version, is my understanding.
Musashi Dragon
>Musashi Dragon <Musash...@home.com> wrote in message
>news:slrn8rj8tt.f9v...@mobius.idlepower.net...
>> I gave them HOMM3 for Linux
>
>Urrrr?
Ported by Loki; www.lokigames.com . Unless I misunderstood your
question...?
>Aside: Do they make the new addon, whatchamahoosit of death, as a plain
>addon, WITHOUT a bundled copy of HOMM3? I've already got that. I've
>already got AB. Why should I drop $40 for an addon?
No idea; I'm not a terrific fan of 3DO. I got it because it was for
Linux. :)
>> I wouldn't mind paying money, though. I wouldn't mind paying $50 for some
>> good, open-source SBLive drivers. Ditto for TNT2 drivers. As long as it
>was
>> Free (in the Debian-compliant way) software.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>? How does Debian-compliance differ from GPL-compliance, out of curiosity?
The Debian Open Source definition. It's a definition that includes BSD, GPL,
artistic, and a few others. The actual definition is here:
http://www.debian.org/social_contract
MdmeDis
<giggles a bit> I'll invite you over to another group next time I get
into a flame war.... that will help perpective! But having watched you
most handily deal with our little troll, I'm not entirely sure you're
the shrinking violet you'd have us all believe;)
> But I hated the idea that I was all very happy to
> flirt with him et al, but that when the shit came down I got out of
> town...
>
> Hmm. This really is too complex to explain, I'm afraid. :(
I'll answer here, rather than several times over. I think everything you
said was fine and perfectly appropriate - I wouldn't have been nearly
as polite if I'd been you, if I'd felt a close friend was being attacked
unfairly - but realize I deal with friend and foe alike in these things
- which has led to termination of one friendship at least. <coughs>.
In my corner of the universe, it's the principle, not the person that
matters - although I do try to consider the individual.
It also gave me the opportunity to say from whence I came, so Musashi
knows that it isn't some kind of personal thing.
Fortran Dragon
[Snip]
> computers (no programming necessary) and have free time and patience
> to read a few docs, try it out!
Don't you think that people know by now that they can try Linux?
--
Fortran Dragon -==(UDIC)==-
Hidalgo Trading Company: <http://home.kc.rr.com/hidalgo/>
rgcu.* FAQ: <http://home.kc.rr.com/hidalgo/faq/rgcudfaq.html>
MdmeDis
jo...@redowl.penguinpowered.com says...
> My opinion is that anyone with a half-decent understanding of
> computers and some free time could switch to linux as their main OS,
> barring the need of specific software that doesn't work in linux, or
> something like that. If you can get u7 to work in dos, you're
> probably ok. :)
Yes, they could! What part of WE DON'T WANT TO is so hard to grasp?
>
> But I'll reiterate - I undersand that people don't switch.
Apparently not, or you wouldn't have made yet another condescending post
about it. WE'VE GOT THE MESSAGE - I even HAVE the useless thing on one
of our computers. Fortran's been muttering about BSD - looks pretty much
as though it will become a reality now.
Goodbye and good riddance Linux.
Fortran Dragon
[Snip]
> intended, clearly. For this I apologise. I still contend that he wasn't
> trying to imply that most people couldn't make the connection, however.
> For all his (sometime) arrogance, he just isn't a particularly
> provocative person. Occasionally extremely tactless, I would agree, but
> generally I believe him to be very good-natured.
I would add that Musashi sometimes comes across as if he considers
this newsgroup his private playground. I know _that_ attitude irritates
many people seven ways to Sunday.
[Snip]
> I think I probably reacted to this with greater concern than most people
> would have... hmm, I don't know. I have much yet to learn, I think. :)
That's ok. I don't think anyone has a problem with you defending
a friend as long as you try to understand why we are irritated with
that friend. You don't have to agree with us, but please give our views
the courtesy you want yours accorded. After all, one of the things we
Dragons treasure is the ability of each of us to think for ourselves.
:)
Singing Dragon
>My glass typewriter shows Singing Dragon typing...
>[Snip]
>> So I'll hold to my opinion: if you have a bit of knowledge about
>> computers (no programming necessary) and have free time and patience
>> to read a few docs, try it out!
>
> Don't you think that people know by now that they can try Linux?
Yes yes yes.. I know. I wouldn't have bothered saying anything
probably if it wasn't in the thread it was in. Though there was also
the fact that Claus implied rather strongly that one of the main
reasons that he didn't use linux was because he wasn't a programmer.
It seems to me to be a fairly common assumption - that you need to
be a programmer to use linux. So I chose to dispel that myth...
Singing Dragon
>In article <0s6v5.627$a5.5...@carnaval.risq.qc.ca>,
>jo...@redowl.penguinpowered.com says...
>
>> My opinion is that anyone with a half-decent understanding of
>> computers and some free time could switch to linux as their main OS,
>> barring the need of specific software that doesn't work in linux, or
>> something like that. If you can get u7 to work in dos, you're
>> probably ok. :)
>
>Yes, they could! What part of WE DON'T WANT TO is so hard to grasp?
Er... he didn't really say that...
>> But I'll reiterate - I undersand that people don't switch.
>
>Apparently not, or you wouldn't have made yet another condescending post
>about it. WE'VE GOT THE MESSAGE - I even HAVE the useless thing on one
>of our computers. Fortran's been muttering about BSD - looks pretty much
>as though it will become a reality now.
>
> Goodbye and good riddance Linux.
I'm very sorry if that sounded condescending, by the way.. I
certainly don't mean to. I probably shouldn't have said anything at
all. I actually thought I was making a point about how "advocacy"
can be rather low-key, with suggestions and facts, rather than
just shouting out the Gospel-of-the-Day... Maybe I failed. More
likely (I hope) it's just that you were a little sensitive
considering the thread, and its recent posts. I don't blame you at
all, and again, I apologize if I was a bit stupid in writing that
whole thing.
MdmeDis
hundm...@home.com.support-cauce-now says...
> In our last episode (Sun, 10 Sep 2000 16:54:01 -0500),
> the artist formerly known as MdmeDis said:
> >In article <8pgmut$nnk$4...@eeyore.INS.CWRU.Edu>, zacw...@hotmail.com
> >says...
> >
> >> But there are some things that mildly annoy me, like back in the "new user"
> >> thread. Now I can't say I seriously expected someone to actually solve my
> >> problem, but no one on the windows help groups ever replied, so I figured it
> >> was worth a shot. Yet one of the first responses I got was "Why don't you
> >> switch to Linux, it's much more secure."
> >
> >Mmm. If every time someone asked a "how to" about Linux, they got a "Why
> >are you running that junk, switch to Windows and you wouldn't have the
> >problem" response they'd begin to get the picture. If you don't use
> >Windows, and can't answer the question, best you give the post a pass,
> >no?
>
> I wish that people who did know Windows would take the time to answer
> Windows questions.
'Phids comment was that he got answers from neither Linux nor Windows
groups, so apparently the same wish should to be applied to Linux.
Speaking of this group, the complaint is that when someone answers a
windows question, as Fortran did a week or so back, someone jumped all
over him, called him a MS zombie etc. (who, I don't remember) or they
start pushing Linux. So if you do know the answer, you get berated...
> As long as people are using the damned thing, it is
> in everyone's best interest to see that they use it well and to its
> potential. Most people use Windows in such an unproductive way that I
> have to question whether they'd get more done if they just unplugged the
> computer and pushed it aside. Windows may not be a great system, but it
> does have capabilities that far exceed what most people do with it.
Again though, why should people have to use something to it's potential?
I have no interest in so doing - I use it simply because it (a) runs all
the stuff I use, and (b) I can use it without help. I guess I'm saying
where is the harm in overkill? I put my truck into 4 WD three times a
year on average - but the snowy night we had to get the neighbors baby
to the hospital, and the peace of mind I can go places all winter more
than makes up the extra $1000 it cost.
>
> From the perspective of a Linux missionary, helping people with Windows
> is a good thing too, since the kind of person who won't use the advanced
> features of Windows like ctrl+a and ctrl+c isn't likely to want to use
> Linux either. Once people start using Windows for all it's worth,
> they'll discover the limitations in the system and become annoyed with
> them. Ultimately, a knowledgeable Windows user is more likely to want
> to push Windows farther than it will go, and may look at something
> different.
You raise some interesting points here, as far as business goes
particularly. But offhand it seems that overkill is better than the
other way round - which seems to be the complaint of knowledgeable users
about other systems.
>
> Personally, I don't care if people use Linux or not (though I'd prefer
> that the Windows monopoly didn't prevent me from using it or something
> similar instead of Windows, so in that sense I'd like to see Windows
> usage crumble),
If it crumbles as a market result, sure. Given that companies like IBM
are perfectly happy to push other systems - particularly Linux, and Dell
is willing to install it on request I think we may be turning the corner
with that aspect of the monopoly situation.
Then the playing field will be level again, and MS will have to compete
and/or crumble *providing the other systems are competitive* Which means
they will have to provide all windows does. Lots of issues there...
If the other systems don't offer the "unused extras", and people still
go for Windows because it has the stuff - are the Advocates likely to
accept it is competition?
> but I do care that people are wasting their time and the
> tremendous potential that is sitting right in front of them because
> nobody will teach them how to use it.
This may be true, especially in business, but when they *are* asking,
being told to switch systems isn't exactly educating them.
Unfortunately, Lost summed up pretty much how it goes.
I wind up feeling like I do after a session with a car dealer - "yes,
it's a wonderful car, but it isn't the car I want, and at this stage
you've got me to the point where if it were the last car on earth, I'd
go back to horse and buggy"
I tend to think far more in non-business desk top terms, and to *me* as
I said elsewhere, what Linux has to offer is the same as a Ferrari for
grocery shopping. It seems that to the knowledgeable user it doesn't
offer enough options, currently.
As Fortran said, though - the Granny consumer will be more inclined to
consider Linux if they use it at work.
Fortran Dragon
[Snip]
> probably if it wasn't in the thread it was in. Though there was also
> the fact that Claus implied rather strongly that one of the main
> reasons that he didn't use linux was because he wasn't a programmer.
It helps though. When I installed Red Hat 6.1 on my old Toshiba
laptop (Satellite Pro 430CDS), if I hadn't been knowledgeable enough to
edit the config files for X I would have had a shitty looking GUI. All
because the install tools wouldn't recognize a known video chipset.
Considering that laptop is several years old, a Linux install
should have been a no-brainer. Windows certainly is on that PC. I can
be up and running and *productive* far faster with Windows than Linux in
this particular case. And I'm not a Unix newbie.
Then there was the case of installing an updated RPM crashed and
toasted the entire install (and I wasn't even logged in as root, to
boot).
> It seems to me to be a fairly common assumption - that you need to
> be a programmer to use linux. So I chose to dispel that myth...
It is still a programmer-oriented system, in my opinion, despite
all of the current face paint applied. I think, though, in a few years
that will be a different story.
MdmeDis
jo...@redowl.penguinpowered.com says...
> >Yes, they could! What part of WE DON'T WANT TO is so hard to grasp?
>
> Er... he didn't really say that...
That, to me was the essence.
> I'm very sorry if that sounded condescending, by the way.. I
> certainly don't mean to. I probably shouldn't have said anything at
> all.
*nods vigorously* ;) I know it's not hard for you; it is for me - in
part because I don't want to go to those lengths when I have something
that isn't hard and does the job. I don't want to play games in
emulation when I can play them without - I don't care how easy it is....
> I actually thought I was making a point about how "advocacy"
> can be rather low-key, with suggestions and facts,
To me, it came across as EXACTLY what I was wailing about....
> rather than
> just shouting out the Gospel-of-the-Day... Maybe I failed. More
> likely (I hope) it's just that you were a little sensitive
> considering the thread, and its recent posts. I don't blame you at
> all, and again, I apologize if I was a bit stupid in writing that
> whole thing.
The funny thing is - in our household you are fairly consistently cited
as one of the best advocates of Linux in this group (Silly does a good
job too, when his technical knowledge isn't overwhelmed with his desire
to strangle the ignorant ;) - you don't push it, usually...
You're right - I am a tad overwrought on the issue, but you just gave a
classic rendition of what is so annoying. And mine was a pure gut re-
action, which I posted in part to show the effect it has on me.
I'm very relieved you weren't mortally offended.
Dracos Dragon
thesis but I can't be bothered (why procrastinate when you can do something
else and say you were being productive?); I am getting sick of both points
of view.
Sure, Linux Advocacy can be aggravating, but so can the 'Stop harping
on about it' side as well. Both sides are preaching; I don't really think
there is a choir, though.
Now I realise that this is an issue that has been going on for a
while and I realise that tempers have flared in the past and will flare
again, so I doubt my words will ne heeded, but, in all seriousness:
GET OVER IT, PEOPLE!
(I hope the all-caps words and exclamation mark hit the spot).
Both sides are beginning to look like school yard cliques; 'Don't do that,
it isn't cool' and 'We know, already, so...'. This newsgroup is a
fluctuating noomass and its noosphere is in a state of constant change; new
ideas come up, old ideas resurface, new ideas turn out to be old ideas
repainted and sold at escalated prices, etc. I've complained about Linux
Advocacy here before (as Paulon can attest to) yet it is also the reason
why I want to try it out after I finish work on the thesis.
I think, and I stress the 'I' here because it is my take upon the
matter, that people are being a tad too rigid in their views. Yes, some
people here knew of Unix and its ofspring well before it came into fashion
geekdom; some didn't. I wouldn't have thought of trying another OS if it
weren't for the advocates here (and I stress here), and perhaps they over
do it once in a while, but it does work. There is no choir as far as I can
tell, and if people stop mentioning Linux I'd probably happily forget about
it and never try it.
So let's stop the school yard arguing and get back to discussing why
U6 isn't the best Ultima (since U5 is clearly better).
clausdragon
can you judge whether a person believes to be good enough at computers
in order to switch his main OS? methinks not.
what i wanted to add: those people who aren´t programmers perhaps don´t
care about the features in which linux surpasses windows (at least i
don´t - yet) because they are not programmers.
clausdragon
jad...@po-box.mcgill.ca wrote:
> My, MdmeDis, what a big post you have!
> >In article <0s6v5.627$a5.5...@carnaval.risq.qc.ca>,
> >jo...@redowl.penguinpowered.com says...
> >
> >> My opinion is that anyone with a half-decent understanding of
> >> computers and some free time could switch to linux as their main
OS,
> >> barring the need of specific software that doesn't work in linux,
or
> >> something like that. If you can get u7 to work in dos, you're
> >> probably ok. :)
> >
> >Yes, they could! What part of WE DON'T WANT TO is so hard to grasp?
>
> Er... he didn't really say that...
>
at the moment, i am simply too lazy to change my OS, hence i don´t want
to. i think i have written that.
perhaps i will install redhat some time this fall (my brother needs it),
if i have any questions, i will glady post here in order to make a few
people happy.
Rob Davies
[wrench]
Sorry, Mdme, but I couldn't help myself, and I know you would've done
the same if faced with a blatantly quoteable comment such as this:
> I know it's not hard for you; it is for me - in
> part because I don't want to go to those lengths when I have something
> that isn't hard and does the job.
Can't help but think something here conflicts; and what's Fro's take on
the matter?! ;)
RF.
--
Rob Davies - Programmer, Advent Publishing Systems
http://www.3b2.com mailto:rob_d...@3b2.com
Singing Dragon
>[Snip]
>> Yes yes yes.. I know. I wouldn't have bothered saying anything
>> probably if it wasn't in the thread it was in. Though there was also
>> the fact that Claus implied rather strongly that one of the main
>> reasons that he didn't use linux was because he wasn't a programmer.
>
> It helps though. When I installed Red Hat 6.1 on my old Toshiba
>laptop (Satellite Pro 430CDS), if I hadn't been knowledgeable enough to
>edit the config files for X I would have had a shitty looking GUI. All
>because the install tools wouldn't recognize a known video chipset.
I've done things like that too - but I wouldn't say looking through
a shell script that consists of a couple of if statements requires
the skills of a programmer. I certainly don't call myself a
programmer, beyond some very rudimentary skills.
Sure it helps though - I certainly WISH I was a better programmer.
There's no denying that. The only point I wanted to make was that a
non-programmer CAN use linux.
> Considering that laptop is several years old, a Linux install
>should have been a no-brainer. Windows certainly is on that PC. I can
>be up and running and *productive* far faster with Windows than Linux in
>this particular case. And I'm not a Unix newbie.
I think that's your basic tradeoff: windows can get set up faster,
but linux works faster once it's setup. Not just in pure OS speed,
but in productivity, time lost to reboots, etc etc.. it just works
better. But getting it to the point where it does work better takes
more time and work.
> Then there was the case of installing an updated RPM crashed and
>toasted the entire install (and I wasn't even logged in as root, to
>boot).
I think I'll *not* trade my anecdotes about the ways windows has
broken. <G>
>> It seems to me to be a fairly common assumption - that you need to
>> be a programmer to use linux. So I chose to dispel that myth...
>
> It is still a programmer-oriented system, in my opinion, despite
>all of the current face paint applied. I think, though, in a few years
>that will be a different story.
Again, it helps. Some very rudimentary skills are very handy to
have. But anyone who can write a config.sys can probably handle
those rudiments that I'm talking about.
I just don't want people to dismiss it out of hand because they're
not programmers. Same way I don't want people to dismiss learning
music if they aren't already a virtuoso.
Singing Dragon
belaboured point]
>I'm very relieved you weren't mortally offended.
Considering the current state of my vital signs (faint, but still
present) I think I have yet to be mortally offended by anything. :)
Truly, I have a very thick skin about anything that matters. Tiny
inconsequential things are much more likely to affect me.
Singing Dragon
>somehow i get it always wrong:
>can you judge whether a person believes to be good enough at computers
>in order to switch his main OS? methinks not.
Nope. But I can say that in some cases someone might be making a
mistake when I see them say something that I know to be false (or at
least not completely true)
>what i wanted to add: those people who aren´t programmers perhaps don´t
>care about the features in which linux surpasses windows (at least i
>don´t - yet) because they are not programmers.
I won't dispute that you're fine in windows - personally, I wasn't.
It drove me crazy. And I'm not a programmer. Again, that's the point
I wanted to make.