8 Mar
1999
8 Mar
'99
3:21 p.m.
History will place
a very different value on their Altair because of what Linux will do to
Microsoft, far less than the tens of thousands that I imagine some people
think they may be worth some day.
Before I speak, let me point out that I am a rabid supporter of Linux and
I wish all bad things to Bill Gates, the powers that drive Micro$oft,
Micro$oft and Windblows. Now that I put that disclaimer out, Linux doesn't
have a chance against Micro$oft. The vast majority of computer users (now
and in the future) are idiots who don't care to learn anything other that
'click on this little picture to make it go'. Linux will do some damage in
the server market and other places where you have to have someone with some
computer smarts but, most corporate purse strings are again controlled by
those same 'click-idiots'.
I really wish GNU would take a good command line OS (like CP/M), make it
32/64 bit, and multi-tasking/user and add a GUI and try and compete with
Winblows.
IMHO
Arfon
8 Mar
8 Mar
4:50 p.m.
Arfon wrote:
The vast majority of computer users (now and in the
future) are idiots who
don't care to learn anything other that 'click on this little picture to
make it go'.
You'll get no argument from me here.
Linux will do some damage in the server market and
other places where you
have to have someone with some computer smarts but, most corporate purse
strings are again controlled by those same 'click-idiots'.
A lot of corporations are switching to Linux for servers. Are you saying
that the server purchases are controlled by different purse strings than
the desktop machines, or are you saying that even 'click-idiots' realize
that Linux is better for servers?
I really wish GNU would take a good command line OS
(like CP/M), make it
32/64 bit, and multi-tasking/user and add a GUI and try and compete with
Winblows.
Aside from being based on CP/M (which is actually in most regards even a more
feeble excuse for an operating system than MS-DOS), how is what you're
proposing any different than Linux with Gnome (or KDE)?
Why do you think CP/M is a better base than Linux?
I actually *like* CP/M, for what it was designed and intended for.
I just think that trying to add bags on the side in an attempt to turn it
into a "real system" will only result in a nasty kludge with lots of bags
on the side. After all, that's exactly how the Microsoft stuff got to
where it is today. So if GNU started today on a project like you're
proposing, in 18 years we would have GNU Windows, which would be every
bit as crufty and unreliable as MS Windows NT and 98 are now.
On the other hand, by improving the Linux installation process, the Gnome
or KDE desktops, and adding support for more hardware, the Linux user
experience can be made just as compelling as Windows is now.
Eric
5:39 p.m.
At the risk of going WAY off topic, since no classic machine can run it, I've
been looking at the BeOS as a replacement for win95 once my thesis (and
thereby my dependance on winblows95) is over with. If they can get some
momentum built up (as well as windows API support) I think they're going to
be the next big thing OSwise. Not free, but competatively priced and MUCH
better from what I've seen.
Realistically I think that if the government makes good and chops Microsoft up
(please, oh please) the OS department will wither and die because their products
are so bad. Except in the corporate world, where NT will still limp along for
a while.
geeks will run Linux or BeOS on PCs because the platform will continue to be
less expensive, but the real consumer and small business worlds will be owned
by Macintosh. Between Macos X for servers and Macos 8.whatever for desktop
clients, IMHO if apple plays their cards right they can own those two VERY
lucrative markets.
Also, so long as I'm predicting the future... :) I'm going to predict that
as SGI comes to the limits of the MIPS archetecture, they're going to look
around for a BSDish UNIX/RISC platform with PCI and fast processing as well as
fast I/O to things like scanners and cameras in which to stick their custom
godly graphics electronics and software. That platform will be the G3 powermac
running MacOS X. I expect there to be some agreement between the two of them
within the next couple years, ranging from contracting each other to a merger.
Of course, there are a few big IFs in there. Apple has been known to throw
away industry leadership before, and it's still remotely possible the
government case against Microsoft will fail, but these are my predictions
and I'm sticking with them. :) I also expect that, once liberated from their
own wretched operating systems groups, the Microsoft applications side will
still be very much the 600lb gorilla of the software world. My understanding
is that works for MacOS is far and away superior to works for windows, so
obviously they CAN write good apps in non MS OSs.
Arfon wrote:
--
Jim Strickland
jim(a)DIESPAMMERSCUMcalico.litterbox.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Vote Meadocrat! Bill and Opus in 2000 - Who ELSE is there?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The vast majority of computer users (now and in
the future) are idiots who
don't care to learn anything other that 'click on this little picture to
make it go'.
You'll get no argument from me here.
Linux will do some damage in the server market
and other places where you
have to have someone with some computer smarts but, most corporate purse
strings are again controlled by those same 'click-idiots'.
A lot of corporations are switching to Linux for servers. Are you saying
that the server purchases are controlled by different purse strings than
the desktop machines, or are you saying that even 'click-idiots' realize
that Linux is better for servers?
I really wish GNU would take a good command line
OS (like CP/M), make it
32/64 bit, and multi-tasking/user and add a GUI and try and compete with
Winblows.
Aside from being based on CP/M (which is actually in most regards even a more
feeble excuse for an operating system than MS-DOS), how is what you're
proposing any different than Linux with Gnome (or KDE)?
Why do you think CP/M is a better base than Linux?
I actually *like* CP/M, for what it was designed and intended for.
I just think that trying to add bags on the side in an attempt to turn it
into a "real system" will only result in a nasty kludge with lots of bags
on the side. After all, that's exactly how the Microsoft stuff got to
where it is today. So if GNU started today on a project like you're
proposing, in 18 years we would have GNU Windows, which would be every
bit as crufty and unreliable as MS Windows NT and 98 are now.
On the other hand, by improving the Linux installation process, the Gnome
or KDE desktops, and adding support for more hardware, the Linux user
experience can be made just as compelling as Windows is now.
Eric
10:06 p.m.
On Mon, 8 Mar 1999, Jim Strickland wrote:
geeks will run Linux or BeOS on PCs because the
platform will continue to be
less expensive, but the real consumer and small business worlds will be owned
by Macintosh. Between Macos X for servers and Macos 8.whatever for desktop
clients, IMHO if apple plays their cards right they can own those two VERY
lucrative markets.
Real geeks will not be switching back to dependence on closed source.
"How can you keep them down on the farm after they've seen Paree".
--
Ward Griffiths
"the timid die just like the daring; and if you don't take the plunge then
you'll just take the fall" Michael Longcor
10:26 p.m.
On Mon, 8 Mar 1999, Jim Strickland wrote:
Heh. For the same reasion I might. Because a well integrated, easy to use
client box (in addition to a good linux box) is nicer for the desktop. You
make a good point though. But this is dangerously close to comp.os.*.advocacy,
so we should probably take this discussion to private e-mail.
geeks will run Linux or BeOS on PCs because the
platform will continue to be
less expensive, but the real consumer and small business worlds will be owned
by Macintosh. Between Macos X for servers and Macos 8.whatever for desktop
clients, IMHO if apple plays their cards right they can own those two VERY
lucrative markets.
Real geeks will not be switching back to dependence on closed source.
"How can you keep them down on the farm after they've seen Paree". --
Ward Griffiths
"the timid die just like the daring; and if you don't take the plunge then
you'll just take the fall" Michael Longcor
--
Jim Strickland
jim(a)DIESPAMMERSCUMcalico.litterbox.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Vote Meadocrat! Bill and Opus in 2000 - Who ELSE is there?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
9:56 p.m.
On 8 Mar 1999, Eric Smith wrote:
I actually *like* CP/M, for what it was designed and
intended for.
I just think that trying to add bags on the side in an attempt to turn it
into a "real system" will only result in a nasty kludge with lots of bags
on the side. After all, that's exactly how the Microsoft stuff got to
where it is today. So if GNU started today on a project like you're
proposing, in 18 years we would have GNU Windows, which would be every
bit as crufty and unreliable as MS Windows NT and 98 are now.
No, I don't think so. If FSF started on anything so foolish (very
doubtful proposition), under the terms of the GPL there would be a
split and something better would be done from the previous code base
and the world would not end. The FSF _doesn't_ own everything
covered by the GPL.
--
Ward Griffiths
"the timid die just like the daring; and if you don't take the plunge then
you'll just take the fall" Michael Longcor
9 Mar
9 Mar
9:13 a.m.
Linux will do
some damage in the server market and other places where you
have to have someone with some computer smarts but, most corporate purse
strings are again controlled by those same 'click-idiots'.
A lot of corporations are switching to Linux for servers. Are you saying
that the server purchases are controlled by different purse strings than
the desktop machines, or are you saying that even 'click-idiots' realize
that Linux is better for servers? I really wish
GNU would take a good command line OS (like CP/M), make it
32/64 bit, and multi-tasking/user and add a GUI and try and compete with
Winblows.
Aside from being based on CP/M (which is actually in most regards even a more
feeble excuse for an operating system than MS-DOS), how is what you're
proposing any different than Linux with Gnome (or KDE)?
Why do you think CP/M is a better base than Linux? I actually *like* CP/M, for what it was designed and
intended for.
I just think that trying to add bags on the side in an attempt to turn it
into a "real system" will only result in a nasty kludge with lots of bags
on the side. After all, that's exactly how the Microsoft stuff got to
where it is today. So if GNU started today on a project like you're
proposing, in 18 years we would have GNU Windows, which would be every
bit as crufty and unreliable as MS Windows NT and 98 are now.
My wish is not a kludge of CP/M. I used CP/M as an example but, if you
were going to use CP/M, I'd wish for a total new re-write with all the
features I wanted built in.
On the other hand, by improving the Linux installation
process, the Gnome
or KDE desktops, and adding support for more hardware, the Linux user
experience can be made just as compelling as Windows is now.
Nope! Linux is still to hard for the average user. There are too many
different flavor of libraries (GLIBC2 vs. LIBC5 as an example). Windows
has the advantage of having (for the most part) only one version of
necessary DLLs. Linux will never match the ease of Windows because if it
did, half of Linux's attractiveness (the user configurability) will be lost.
IMHO
Arfon
10:29 a.m.
New subject: WAY OT: Re: Interesting to note about Altairs...
Sellam:
Yeah, you're right. All Linux development will
stop dead right now,
nothing will be improved and everyone involved will forever leave Linux as
it is right now because why bother? Oh, and those fancy point and click
gooey's that people have already created like kde and StarOffice? Just
ignore them, they are mirages.
No, Linux will be around for a good long time. People will continute to
contribute and commercial software people will continue to port.
Jim:
geeks will run Linux or BeOS on PCs because the
platform will continue to be
less expensive, but the real consumer and small business worlds will be owned
by Macintosh. Between Macos X for servers and Macos 8.whatever for desktop
clients, IMHO if apple plays their cards right they can own those two VERY
lucrative markets.
I don't think so because Apple has never learned from their mistakes. They
let IBM/PC compatibles take the market from them because they:
1) Would not freely release the Mac's specifications for people to
emulate/make products for.
2) Kept the expandability for the Macs very limited (at least for the early
Macs).
3) Kept the Mac's (and peripherials) prices high.
4) Limited the cloning of the Mac.
I can see that they still haven't learned. They revoked the various
licenses from PowerComputing and others that made better versions of the
Mac (can't have competition). They have come out with the iMac (what a
god-awful machine that is) and it's not upgradable and it's over priced (I
can buy a new Pentium II PC for ~$700.00 where as the iMacs are going for
~$1000.00)!
I'm sorry if it sounds like I am being rude (I am not) I just hate to see
Apple continue to go down the same path that has been killing them.
Allison:
I'm a CP/m advocate but that really doesn't
fly. First there are CP/M
emulators for Linux already. The other is CP/M was never a prime time
candidate for a GUI thing being totally single user and single tasking,
the later CCPM may have had a shot.
To keep closer to topic. Those that forget CP/M and what it was will
forever repeat it's errors. It was good, is good and limited. The lack
of heirachal directories is a serious limitation for modern software
another is the size of disk and files (8mb in 2.2, 3.0 got it to 32mb).
The single thread and single task problem would have to be dealt with
as well. Then all the apps one would want would have to be ported from
Z80 or worse 8088.
I said "like CP/M". I didn't mean CP/M. I wish for a totally newly
rewritten 32/64 bit command line based OS that has a GUI and networking
built in and is multi-tasking and multi-user and whose specs are freely
distributed and is covereld .
--------------------------
Cold hard fact: Linux will never defeat Windows (in the consumer market)
because the average non-computer person is intimidated by it and it's too
complex for them. Who ever dominates the consumer market, dominates the
industry because of the sheer numbers. Linux will always be splintered
(various distributions, various desktops and various setups) because it's
open.
IMHO
--------------------------
Back to On-topic... How about the HP2100 emulators... Anyone know how to
get it to work?
http://oscar.taurus.com/~jeff/2100/index.html
Arfon
noon
New subject: WAY OT: Re: Interesting to note about Altairs...
On Tue, 9 Mar 1999, Arfon Gryffydd wrote:
I said "like CP/M". I didn't mean CP/M.
I wish for a totally newly
rewritten 32/64 bit command line based OS that has a GUI and networking
built in and is multi-tasking and multi-user and whose specs are freely
distributed and is covereld .
You mean, oh, something perhaps like...LINUX!?
Cold hard fact: Linux will never defeat Windows (in
the consumer market)
because the average non-computer person is intimidated by it and it's too
complex for them. Who ever dominates the consumer market, dominates the
industry because of the sheer numbers. Linux will always be splintered
(various distributions, various desktops and various setups) because it's
open.
POPPY-COCK! You must forget what you knew in 1996 and move forward in
time. Much has changed since then.
Sellam Alternate e-mail: dastar(a)siconic.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't rub the lamp if you don't want the genie to come out.
Coming in 1999: Vintage Computer Festival 3.0
See http://www.vintage.org/vcf for details!
[Last web site update: 02/15/99]
12 Mar
12 Mar
4:55 a.m.
New subject: WAY OT: Re: Interesting to note about Altairs...
You mean, oh, something perhaps like...LINUX!?
Exactly. Linux is perfect, and, best of all, it's not what a company
THINKS users want, or what a company WANTS users to THINK
they want, but actually what the USERS want, as THEY coded it.
Don't like something in Linux? Change it. Really. Don't know how
to code? Find someone with a similiar view that does. Of course,
this won't always be true, especially as Linux moves more and
more to THE SERVER OS, but it's still a lot more true than with
anything else out there.
POPPY-COCK! You must forget what you knew in 1996 and
move forward in
time. Much has changed since then.
Exactly. Linux has become LOT easier to use. Most of the things
that corporate types say make Linux bad for the desktop--basically
that there is no real look for it, and so much can be changed, can
be solved by simply making policies on what software (IE KDE, but
not GNOME, etc.) can be run. I think that a good idea, however,
would be to make a distro 'standard' where you could tell that
software would run. (IE glibc based, contains these utilities, etc.)
Of course, you don't want all to be compaitble, but perhaps
versions could be made to be compatible. And if you have your
boxes go into X at start up, with KDE 1.1, Linux looks like MacOS.
Tim
Sellam
********************************************
*Tim D. Hotze - Co-Founder, The ReviewGuide*
*tim(a)thereviewguide.com *
*http://www.thereviewguide.com *
********************************************
9 Mar
9 Mar
10:33 a.m.
New subject: Scanning old manuals
Okay,
I have some old computer manuals and I just bought a scanner...... Anyone
care to suggest the best way to convert these manuals to electronic form
and not take up HUGE amounts of memory?
Thanks,
Arfon
11:32 a.m.
New subject: Scanning old manuals
On Tue, 9 Mar 1999, Arfon Gryffydd wrote:
Okay,
I have some old computer manuals and I just bought a scanner...... Anyone
care to suggest the best way to convert these manuals to electronic form
and not take up HUGE amounts of memory?
I'd like to second this notion. Could those on this list, who are
scanning for posterity, share their methods?
What platform(s), what hardware(s), what software(s). Any intermediary
format(s), final output format(s). Whatever it takes.
I am especially puzzled by dpi. Seems everybody in the world is scanning
at 600 or over. I am contemplating using a Hewlett Packard at 300 and
from some test scans, including pictures, I am hard
pressed to tell the
difference between 2 and 3 hundred. Extremely high numbers
coupled with
millions of colors (where applicable) seem to me to be just a waste of
storage space.
[I note Jim Stricklan's reply came in while writing this. I have scanned
down to newspaper legal notice size. Is this 6 point? It OCRed virtually
identically at 200 or 300 dpi and the results were high 90%]
I am also interested in what people are using to descreen/despeckle
material that was printed using a screen. Are there any third party ways
to do it or am I dependent on the scanning software? If there is other
software, are they any more successful than what I have seen?
Nothing elaborate. Just a short paragraph or two summary of technique.
I realize that these summaries could be considered somewhat off topic,
but I don't think it is a major hazard, given the traffic on the list in
recent days. Certainly, there may be particular peculiarities involved
with the material we are saving and I am hoping any respondents will
specifically address this.
-- Stephen Dauphin
12:06 p.m.
New subject: Scanning old manuals
At 12:32 PM 3/9/99 -0500, Stephen Dauphin wrote:
I'd like to second this notion. Could those on this
list, who are
scanning for posterity, share their methods?
I've only done a few, and those on a standard flat bed scanner.
I am especially puzzled by dpi. Seems everybody in the
world is scanning
at 600 or over. I am contemplating using a Hewlett Packard at 300 and
from some test scans, including pictures, I am hard pressed to tell the
difference between 2 and 3 hundred.
300 DPI B&W is good for most printed manuals _without_ graphics because it
is a 1:1 ratio with what most printers can print. 200 DPI gives you a 2:3
ratio of real pixels to printer pixels and I've seen that introduce banding
on the printed output.
I am also interested in what people are using to
descreen/despeckle
material that was printed using a screen. Are there any third party ways
to do it or am I dependent on the scanning software? If there is other
software, are they any more successful than what I have seen?
I use Corel Scan (its part of the Corel Draw package)
I realize that these summaries could be considered
somewhat off topic,
but I don't think it is a major hazard, given the traffic on the list in
recent days. Certainly, there may be particular peculiarities involved
with the material we are saving and I am hoping any respondents will
specifically address this.
If I replace my scanner with a USB scanner I will definitely get one that
has computer readable buttons on the scanner! My biggest hassle is holding
the book while I reach over to press enter to start the scan.
--Chuck
4:47 p.m.
New subject: Scanning old manuals
On Tue, Mar 09, 1999 at 12:32:43PM -0500, Stephen Dauphin wrote:
I'd like to second this notion. Could those on
this list, who are
scanning for posterity, share their methods?
What platform(s), what hardware(s), what software(s). Any intermediary
format(s), final output format(s). Whatever it takes.
* Operating system of your choice, as long as PStill binaries work in it.
* Scanning software of your choice (SANE <URL:http://www.mostang.com/sane/>,
XVScan <URL:http://www.tummy.com/xvscan/>, ...)
* NetPBM <URL:ftp://wuarchive.wustl.edu/graphics/graphics/packages/NetPBM/>,
for its pnmtotiff utility.
* libtiff <URL:ftp://ftp.sgi.com/graphics/tiff/>, for its tiffcp and tiff2ps
utilities.
* PStill <URL:http://www.this.net/~frank/pstill.html>
* Lots of disk space for intermediate PostScript file and PStill temporary
files.
Example: 39-page A4-size document scanned at 300dpi is 1.5 MB in TIFF
format (Group 4 Fax compression), 84 MB in Level 1 PostScript (PStill
does not grok Level 2 PostScript produced by tiff2ps.)
Result: 3.5 MB PDF (could be less, if PStill used CCITTFaxEncoding.)
Invocation:
scanimage --mode Lineart --resolution 300 | pnmtotiff -g4 >manual-nn.tiff
tiffcp -a -c g4 manual-??.tiff manual.tiff
tiff2ps -1 -a -O manual.ps manual.tiff
pstill -c -o manual.pdf manual.ps
. . . grindgrindgrind . . .
BTW: you can view multi-page TIFF file in Netscape or "I, Explorer" (Win32)
with a SwiftView plugin: <URL:http://www.ndg.com/product/current/npsv.exe>
--
Sergey Svishchev -- svs{at}ropnet{dot}ru
6:27 p.m.
New subject: Scanning old manuals
At 12:32 PM 3/9/99 -0500, you wrote:
On Tue, 9 Mar 1999, Arfon Gryffydd wrote:
I scanned a bunch of articles recently and found that the appearance
didn't degrade until I went below ~125 DPI. I scanned and posted
everything at 150 DPI, then used PhotoShop to save the images at a fixed
600 to 800 pixel width (keeping the height/width ratio). Scannning at 150
DPI saved a bunch of disk space and time. FWIW I was scanning black text
on a white background, you may have to adjust the settings for different
font size, color, etc.
I tried Omni-Carea OCR but it was totally useless!!!
Joe
Okay,
I have some old computer manuals and I just bought a scanner...... Anyone
care to suggest the best way to convert these manuals to electronic form
and not take up HUGE amounts of memory?
I'd like to second this notion. Could those on this list, who are
scanning for posterity, share their methods?
What platform(s), what hardware(s), what software(s). Any intermediary
format(s), final output format(s). Whatever it takes.
I am especially puzzled by dpi. Seems everybody in the world is scanning
at 600 or over. I am contemplating using a Hewlett Packard at 300 and
from some test scans, including pictures, I am hard pressed to tell the
difference between 2 and 3 hundred. Extremely high numbers coupled with
millions of colors (where applicable) seem to me to be just a waste of
storage space. 
9:06 p.m.
New subject: Scanning old manuals
Let's look at this two ways. Scanning the manuals using OmniPage Pro would take care
of the text, keeping it in the same columns as before and making storage of the
resulting text extremely easy. OmniPage Pro is expensive but there are ways around
that. It is also the best I have used and virtually perfect in its OCR cabability
plus it will keep columns together. If the manuals are old and deteriorating, scan
them at high resolution but there shouldn't be any need to go higher than 300 dpi. I
have never scanned anything at more than 300 dpi. I think for the web, anything over
72dpi is unnecessary.
The second issue is the diagrams. In order to make them legible you have to scan them
in high resolution. Assuming these are only in black and white, this would take some
trial and error to get things just right but, from my experience with manuals, there
aren't a whole lot of diagrams anyway. The non-detailed images could be dithered to
make file size smaller, detailed images would seem to be the only memory hog here. A
suggestion would be to cruise around the IBM site. They have fairly detailed
diagrams, motherboard schematics etc. on site and you could see what size those images
are simply by saving them to your computer. From my experience, any web master would
be please to give you information on how they got their images from their origins to
where they are now.
PDF format makes sense but I seem to recall Acrobat isn't exactly free. Other
suggestions would be html, which is simple to set up and easy to navigate once set up
and, arguably, more universal than PDF. Alternatively, Word or Wordperfect format
should be around for awhile or RTF. Personally I would choose html, as it is
cross-platform should you wish to make these documents available to others.
Here is a link to a page that I discovered recently, please note I have no affiliation
with this site but it is very useful:
http://www.hsdesign.com/scanning/tipswelcome.html
And another with some tips on dpi:
http://scantips.com/basics03.html
Brian Mahoney's 2 cents
--
Links to my new Computer Collecting column at Suite101
and my Computer Collecting site at Geocities:
http://suite101.com/welcome.cfm/antique_computers
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Horizon/9107/
11 Mar
11 Mar
2:28 a.m.
New subject: Scanning old manuals
I am especially
puzzled by dpi. Seems everybody in the world is scanning
at 600 or over. I am contemplating using a Hewlett Packard at 300 and
from some test scans, including pictures, I am hard pressed to tell the
difference between 2 and 3 hundred. Extremely high numbers coupled with
millions of colors (where applicable) seem to me to be just a waste of
storage space.
I scanned a bunch of articles recently and found that the appearance
didn't degrade until I went below ~125 DPI. I scanned and posted
everything at 150 DPI, then used PhotoShop to save the images at a fixed
600 to 800 pixel width (keeping the height/width ratio). Scannning at 150
DPI saved a bunch of disk space and time. FWIW I was scanning black text 
8 Mar
8 Mar
4:58 p.m.
Arfon wrote:
Micro$oft and Windblows. Now that I put that
disclaimer out, Linux doesn't
have a chance against Micro$oft. The vast majority of computer users (now
and in the future) are idiots who don't care to learn anything other that
'click on this little picture to make it go'. Linux will do some damage in
the server market and other places where you have to have someone with some
computer smarts but, most corporate purse strings are again controlled by
those same 'click-idiots'.
I really wish GNU would take a good command line OS (like CP/M), make it
32/64 bit, and multi-tasking/user and add a GUI and try and compete with
Winblows.
This is barely on topic, but it was too tempting to reply and not just hit
'd'. You have a good point, but it only leads to two objections in my mind:
1) The 'idiotification' process is already happening with Linux; there are
various projects out there (like KDE and GNOME and various other window
managers and package managers) that are attempting to make Linux look better
and present a "point-and-click" appearance. I mention package managers
because click-idiots certainly don't want to deal with the compiler.
2) Your second paragraph describes a process which is already happening with
Linux. What did you have in mind that is different? A different starting
OS? (CP/M, some free version of MS-DOS) An OS that's more intelligent
about hardware? I'm not being rude -- your ideas are probably good but you
need to spell them out.
Then there's the matter of software. If your new OS is going to have
commercially-written software, that provides an arena for the evil forces
you described. (We might be able to avoid them, but the potential for them
is certainly there.) If you're going to stick to free software, well,
that's mainly written by idealistic geeky people who like to mess around in
the source. :) So that conflicts with the design decision of writing for
idiots.
To keep this on topic -- What do you think will happen to the values of
classic computers?
-- Derek
5:33 p.m.
On Mon, 8 Mar 1999, Arfon Gryffydd wrote:
Before I speak, let me point out that I am a rabid
supporter of Linux and
I wish all bad things to Bill Gates, the powers that drive Micro$oft,
Micro$oft and Windblows. Now that I put that disclaimer out, Linux doesn't
have a chance against Micro$oft. The vast majority of computer users (now
and in the future) are idiots who don't care to learn anything other that
'click on this little picture to make it go'. Linux will do some damage in
the server market and other places where you have to have someone with some
computer smarts but, most corporate purse strings are again controlled by
those same 'click-idiots'.
Yeah, you're right. All Linux development will stop dead right now,
nothing will be improved and everyone involved will forever leave Linux as
it is right now because why bother? Oh, and those fancy point and click
gooey's that people have already created like kde and StarOffice? Just
ignore them, they are mirages.
Sellam Alternate e-mail: dastar(a)siconic.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't rub the lamp if you don't want the genie to come out.
Coming in 1999: Vintage Computer Festival 3.0
See http://www.vintage.org/vcf for details!
[Last web site update: 02/15/99]
9436
days inactive
9440
days old
18 comments
13 participants
participants (13)
-
ai705＠osfn.org -
arfonrg＠texas.net -
bmahoney＠sprint.ca -
cmcmanis＠mcmanis.com -
dastar＠ncal.verio.com -
dpeschel＠u.washington.edu -
eric＠brouhaha.com -
gram＠cnct.com -
jim＠calico.litterbox.com -
mikeford＠netwiz.net -
rigdonj＠intellistar.net -
svs＠ropnet.ru -
tim＠thereviewguide.com