5 May
2002
5 May
'02
3:57 p.m.
The MAC, for example,
I have been ignoring this, but I just can't any more.
Mac, as in Macintosh, as in the computer made by Apple Computer, is not
MAC or MacIntosh, or otherwise. It is either "Macintosh", "Mac", or
"mac".
MAC (all caps) means something entirely different. (Media Access Control).
I know you like to make sure your grammer and spelling is correct, so I
figured I should point out the painfully mistake you have been making
thru all your conversations.
And now I return you to the regularly scheduled thread.
If it were so bad, would people really buy it if
something
better, or even close to equal were offered anywhere?
Yes. Window IS perfect proof of this. You will be hard pressed to find
people that use multiple different OSes including Windows, and honestly
believe Windows is the "best of the bunch". There are some, but then for
any idea, you will always find some that believe the idea is the best. (I
am discounting all arguments regarding having to use windows or any OS by
neccessity. If the app you need is only for one OS, you use that OS
regardless of if it is great or a peice of crap).
And of course you are missing the fact that most people are too ignorant,
and/or don't care enough to educate themselves to the fact that there ARE
viable alternatives, many of which are far superior.
-chris
<http://www.mythtech.net>
5 May
5 May
4:44 p.m.
... and just exactly where does one find a precise reference to this
convention? I adopted my own style for making specific references to a
technology or brand name easier to find since someone has seen fit to make
this list's content available to anyone who happens to search on any term
occurring in the post. The consequence is that they then have to pick through
the post to see if the reference to what they think they've found is really
what they want.
BTW, grammar doesn't have an 'e' in it.
I don't think we disagree on this business regarding the popularity of
Windows. It's just the cheapest and easiest OS to get into if you know what
the average user knows.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris" <mythtech(a)mac.com>
To: "Classic Computers" <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2002 9:57 PM
Subject: Re: APPLEVISION Monitor
The MAC, for
example,
I have been ignoring this, but I just can't any more.
Mac, as in Macintosh, as in the computer made by Apple Computer, is not
MAC or MacIntosh, or otherwise. It is either "Macintosh", "Mac", or
"mac".
MAC (all caps) means something entirely different. (Media Access Control).
I know you like to make sure your grammer and spelling is correct, so I
figured I should point out the painfully mistake you have been making
thru all your conversations.
And now I return you to the regularly scheduled thread.
If it were so bad, would people really buy it if
something
better, or even close to equal were offered anywhere?
Yes. Window IS perfect proof of this. You will be hard pressed to find
people that use multiple different OSes including Windows, and honestly
believe Windows is the "best of the bunch". There are some, but then for
any idea, you will always find some that believe the idea is the best. (I
am discounting all arguments regarding having to use windows or any OS by
neccessity. If the app you need is only for one OS, you use that OS
regardless of if it is great or a peice of crap).
And of course you are missing the fact that most people are too ignorant,
and/or don't care enough to educate themselves to the fact that there ARE
viable alternatives, many of which are far superior.
-chris
<http://www.mythtech.net>
11:33 p.m.
On Sun, May 05, 2002 at 10:44:38PM -0600, Richard Erlacher wrote:
I don't think we disagree on this business regarding the popularity of
Windows. It's just the cheapest and easiest OS to get into if you know what
the average user knows.
Windows _cheap_? What world are you living in? Last time I checked,
neither Windows nor most of the applications most people try to use on
this OS were free - instead the necessary licenses amount to quite some
money. I'm using all the software I need and I didn't pay a single cent
in licensing fees for years - for the simple reason that the software as
well as the operating systems I use are free (free UNIX systems and free
software).
Regards,
Alex.
--
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not
have, nor do they deserve, either one. -- Thomas Jefferson
6 May
6 May
12:03 a.m.
On Mon, 2002-05-06 at 12:33, Alexander Schreiber wrote:
On Sun, May 05, 2002 at 10:44:38PM -0600, Richard
Erlacher wrote:
UNIX as a system to use personally is only cheap if you don't value your
free time. (well-worn but useful quote.) Disclaimer: I only use stuff
that ain't MS at home.
Alex
--
My computer's heavier than yours.
I don't think we disagree on this business regarding the popularity of
Windows. It's just the cheapest and easiest OS to get into if you know what
the average user knows.
Windows _cheap_? What world are you living in? Last time I checked,
neither Windows nor most of the applications most people try to use on
this OS were free - instead the necessary licenses amount to quite some
money. I'm using all the software I need and I didn't pay a single cent
in licensing fees for years - for the simple reason that the software as
well as the operating systems I use are free (free UNIX systems and free
software).
Regards,
Alex.
2:26 a.m.
First of all, the quotation in your sig is, according to Sellam Ismail, among
many others, incorrectly attributed to Jefferson in your sig. It's a Ben
Franklin quote, IIRC.
more below ...
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexander Schreiber" <als(a)thangorodrim.de>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 5:33 AM
Subject: Re: APPLEVISION Monitor
My own recollection in keeping UNIX alive for a year was salary of $100k for
three programmers, since I had to have someone on site 24/7 in order to keep
the thing breathing on a 4-station SUN system. That didn't include the
extreme cost of the hardware, software licenses, and applications, none of
which had price tags of fewer than 6 figures. I realize that was back in
"the old days" when a car cost less than $10k, and things have been improved
somewhat, but the bitter taste remains.
Which OS would you recommend for the typical business graduate of today?
Which OS could you recommend that takes <1 hour to install and permits the
user to take another 10 minutes to install the software that turns an
otherwise useless piece of hardware into a machine capble of manipulating data
in ways with which he/she's comfortable and and to which he/she's accustomed?
I see Windows for sale at <$100 at discount stores, and MSOFFICE at nominally
$200. Most users won't ever need more than that. This enables the user to
communicate and exchange meaningful data with nearly anyone who uses the same
OS and tools. It also enables the user to exchange that same data with users
of other OS' since the "others" are able to utilize those files the Windows
environment generates just because of their widespread use.
Even different releases of LINUX don't agree enough that one can confidently
sit at the console and bring about a particular process.
The average user wants to buy his computer, irrespective of cost, install the
software, irrespective of cost, and then start using it immediately. He
doesn't want to become a "compu-geek" which is what many of "us"
are, but he
does want to be able to use his computer within an hour of bringing it home.
That's not realistic in the case of any other OS, AFAIK.
Put any 12-year-old you know in front of Windows, and they'll be able to do
"something." That's not to say therer aren't *nix-capable 12 year olds,
but
I've seen colleagues with decades of computing experience look at the *NIX
prompt, unable to extract one iota of useful work.
I'd venture to say that if *NIX weren't an unfriendly, cryptic, and nearly
impenetrable OS to the "average" user, most of the folks who use it at home
wouldn't do that. Most of the *nix programmers/developers I know still use
Windows at home, though they have the ability to use *nix.
If you know of an OS I can put on my 80+ year-old mother's computer that will
enable her to do what she wants without reading a book or attending a class,
then I'd like to know about it.
On Sun, May 05, 2002 at 10:44:38PM -0600, Richard
Erlacher wrote:
>
> I don't think we disagree on this business regarding the popularity of
> Windows. It's just the cheapest and easiest OS to get into if you know
what
the average
user knows.
Windows _cheap_? What world are you living in? Last time I checked,
neither Windows nor most of the applications most people try to use on
this OS were free - instead the necessary licenses amount to quite some
money. I'm using all the software I need and I didn't pay a single cent
in licensing fees for years - for the simple reason that the software as
well as the operating systems I use are free (free UNIX systems and free
software).
Regards,
Alex.
--
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not
have, nor do they deserve, either one. -- Thomas Jefferson
7:06 a.m.
It was thus said that the Great Richard Erlacher once stated:
If you know of an OS I can put on my 80+ year-old mother's computer that will
enable her to do what she wants without reading a book or attending a class,
then I'd like to know about it.
It's funny, but people don't exepct to drive a car without training and a
car is *vastly* easier to operate than a computer.
So why do people expect to get immedate work out of a computer without
training?
-spc (Even using the phone requires training ... )
7:48 a.m.
The line of reasoning you present is what's called a "red herring." If
you'd
attended your "critical thinking" classes as an undergarduate, if you're
that
far along, you'd know that. It's a device used to throw someone off the
trail, in this case, the trail of the underlying logic. What people should do
and what they, in fact, DO are quite apart from one another.
The fact is we DO expect to operate a computer without having to enroll in a
defensive computing class, though I think it might be warranted just the same.
The fact is that if one attempts to operate a motor vehicle without proper
qualifications, people and property could be damaged, injured, or even killed.
The consequences of failing to drive your PC or Mac correctly are not quite so
severe.
People also expect to get work out of their microwave oven or TV set as soon
as they turn it on. Why not the computer? It's not sacred. It's just an
appliance.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner" <spc(a)conman.org>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 1:06 PM
Subject: Re: APPLEVISION Monitor
It was thus said that the Great Richard Erlacher once
stated:
>
> If you know of an OS I can put on my 80+ year-old mother's computer that
will
> enable her to do what she wants without reading a
book or attending a
class,
then I'd
like to know about it.
It's funny, but people don't exepct to drive a car without training and a
car is *vastly* easier to operate than a computer.
So why do people expect to get immedate work out of a computer without
training?
-spc (Even using the phone requires training ... )
8:24 a.m.
Richard Erlacher wrote:
The line of reasoning you present is what's called
a "red herring." If you'd
attended your "critical thinking" classes as an undergarduate, if you're
that
far along, you'd know that. It's a device used to throw someone off the
trail, in this case, the trail of the underlying logic. What people should do
and what they, in fact, DO are quite apart from one another.
The fact is we DO expect to operate a computer without having to enroll in a
defensive computing class, though I think it might be warranted just the same.
The fact is that if one attempts to operate a motor vehicle without proper
qualifications, people and property could be damaged, injured, or even killed.
The consequences of failing to drive your PC or Mac correctly are not quite so
severe.
People also expect to get work out of their microwave oven or TV set as soon
as they turn it on. Why not the computer? It's not sacred. It's just an
appliance.
Dick
Dick, I could make the same claim about the "computer-as-appliance"
argument (which isn't relevant to me or just about anyone else here),
but that's not even necessary. Your statement about Unix (or Linux) is
just plain false for modern instances. Anyone who can install Windows
out of the box can just as easily install Solaris or Redhat or OS/X or
whatever and go straight to work on spreadsheets, documents, databases,
or whatever with as much ease, if not more, as with Windows.
I don't know where you got this idea, but it's exactly the disinfo that
Redmond was peddling a couple of years ago.
jbdigriz
9:08 a.m.
I'm listening ... but I don't seem to hear anything that addresses the
question. Clearly there's a market for systems that don't require a lot of
specialized vocabulary. I barely can communicate with the Mac-types,. to say
nothing of the *nix types. Surely there's a way around that.
more below
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "James B. DiGriz" <jbdigriz(a)dragonsweb.org
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 2:24 PM
Subject: Re: APPLEVISION Monitor
> The fact is that if one attempts to operate a motor vehicle without proper
> qualifications, people and property could be damaged, injured, or even
killed.
I don't know what you mean by a modern instance, but I'm willing to believe
that it's possible to install 'em without too much effort. I've done that
with Linux from time to time, but never had any useable outcome in the wake of
the effort, so it's all back in the box. The effort of wading through the
conflicting documentation and still finding the purportedly installed features
weren't present and functional with no way of figuring out what the problem
was because of the doc-shortfalls, was too much work. It was easier to do
with NT.
The experience I've had with the Macintosh
(spelled this way so's not to p*ss
somebody off, even though the grocer spells it the way I do) suggests that the
appliance approach is a valid and desirable goal. Do you suppose the newer
Mac's are more like the PC's in the respect that there's more fiddling to do
in order to give the guys who wouldn't otherwise know what to do something to
work on? I know lots of *nix guys like to type a couple of lines of cryptic
stuff before their computer allows access to a resource that would be
point-n-click accessible under Windows.
Richard Erlacher wrote:
> The line of reasoning you present is what's called a "red herring."
If
you'd
> attended your "critical thinking"
classes as an undergarduate, if you're
that
> far along, you'd know that. It's a
device used to throw someone off the
> trail, in this case, the trail of the underlying logic. What people
should
do
> and what they, in fact, DO are quite apart from
one another.
> The fact is we DO expect to operate a
computer without having to enroll in
a
> defensive computing class, though I think it
might be warranted just the
same.
> The consequences of failing to drive your PC or
Mac correctly are not
quite so
> severe.
> People also expect to get work out of
their microwave oven or TV set as
soon
as they turn
it on. Why not the computer? It's not sacred. It's just an
appliance.
Dick
Dick, I could make the same claim about the "computer-as-appliance"
argument (which isn't relevant to me or just about anyone else here),
but that's not even necessary. Your statement about Unix (or Linux) is
just plain false for modern instances. Anyone who can install Windows
out of the box can just as easily install Solaris or Redhat or OS/X or
whatever and go straight to work on spreadsheets, documents, databases,
or whatever with as much ease, if not more, as with Windows.
Perhaps, but at what cost? (retail prices, since not everybody wants to go
dumpster diving for hardware/software?)
I don't know where you got this idea, but it's exactly the disinfo that
Redmond was peddling a couple of years ago.
Well, I'd be last to deny that Windows is a pain in the glueteus maximus, but
if there were anything better, or even remotely comparable, for the "typical"
home user, don't you think someone would think to mention it?
1:16 p.m.
On Mon, 6 May 2002, Richard Erlacher wrote:
A hell of a lot less than it costs to do that in Windows. Yes, Dick,
I know you only paid $3 for Windows XP and Works 2000. I paid less than
that for the same functionality. We're talking list-price-against-list,
or going-rate-against-going-rate. NOT your-finds-against-list-price.
OpenOffice v1.0 was just released. That's the OpenSource (free, to
you) follow-on to StarOffice 6.0. IOW, all the above for all the above
OS's for $0. MS-format compatible documents, spreadsheets, and
presentation app. Plus a lot more.
Most Linux distributions come with gnumeric (Excel-compatible
spreadsheet), several WYSIWYG text editors, and a multitude of database
systems.
----- Original Message -----
From: "James B. DiGriz" <jbdigriz(a)dragonsweb.org>
Anyone who can
install Windows
out of the box can just as easily install Solaris or Redhat or OS/X or
whatever and go straight to work on spreadsheets, documents, databases,
or whatever with as much ease, if not more, as with Windows.
Perhaps, but at what cost? (retail prices, since not everybody wants to go
dumpster diving for hardware/software?) Well, I'd be last to deny that Windows is a pain
in the glueteus maximus, but
if there were anything better, or even remotely comparable, for the "typical"
home user, don't you think someone would think to mention it?
As in "get a clue"? You can lead a horse to water....
Doc
3:38 p.m.
I'm game ... where's the pitch/doc located?
more below...
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doc" <doc(a)mdrconsult.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 7:16 PM
Subject: Re: APPLEVISION Monitor
I don't have any version of WIndows after Win98SE. That's what I got at
the
thrift store for $3. It happens it was for a Winbook, which it happens I own,
though it makes no difference. The Works was on the HDD on that P166 I got
last week. I don't have the distribution media for it, though I have snagged
distribution diskettes for Works in the sealed packs from DELL computers by
the handful.
I notice you've danced around it but haven't simply pointed at a URL or
named
an application suite. Is there some reason why people aren't flocking to this
the way they did to the original Windows? I remember the day Win3.11 came
out, there was a long line at the local CompUSA with people wanting to buy the
latest-greatest. I just wanted to get some diskette labels, but thought
better of it.
Is that Open Office suite a complete set of software with the same sorts of
object oriented features as are included with the MSOFFICE suite? I've
learned over time to do some pretty handy things in Word, linked to Excel
graphics through a database in Access. It would be painful to go back to doing
that stuff manually.
On Mon, 6 May 2002, Richard Erlacher wrote:
go
----- Original Message -----
From: "James B. DiGriz" <jbdigriz(a)dragonsweb.org>
> > Anyone who can install Windows
> > out of the box can just as easily install Solaris or Redhat or OS/X or
> > whatever and go straight to work on spreadsheets, documents, databases,
> > or whatever with as much ease, if not more, as with Windows.
> >
> Perhaps, but at what cost? (retail prices, since not everybody wants to dumpster
diving for hardware/software?)
A hell of a lot less than it costs to do that in Windows. Yes, Dick,
I know you only paid $3 for Windows XP and Works 2000. I paid less than
that for the same functionality. We're talking list-price-against-list,
or going-rate-against-going-rate. NOT your-finds-against-list-price.
OpenOffice v1.0 was just released. That's the OpenSource (free, to
you) follow-on to StarOffice 6.0. IOW, all the above for all the above
OS's for $0. MS-format compatible documents, spreadsheets, and
presentation app. Plus a lot more.
DO these app's share data so you can link from a form letter to a
corresponding database that links to several spreadsheets? That's a handy
function that's difficult to do without.
Most Linux distributions come with gnumeric (Excel-compatible
spreadsheet), several WYSIWYG text editors, and a multitude of database
systems.
> Well, I'd be last to deny that Windows is a pain in the glueteus maximus,
but
> if there were anything better, or even remotely
comparable, for the
"typical"
home user,
don't you think someone would think to mention it?
As in "get a clue"? You can lead a horse to water....
6:55 p.m.
On Mon, 6 May 2002, Richard Erlacher wrote:
See above, plz.
I'm game ... where's the pitch/doc located?
http://www.openoffice.org
I can't speak to the embedded object features, as I typically keep my
books in gnumeric. The prettification guys seem to be real happy with
it, though. ;)
And, you can try it out. It's free, and there's a Windows version.
I don't have any version of WIndows after Win98SE.
That's what I got at the
thrift store for $3. It happens it was for a Winbook, which it happens I own,
though it makes no difference. The Works was on the HDD on that P166 I got
last week. I don't have the distribution media for it, though I have snagged
distribution diskettes for Works in the sealed packs from DELL computers by
the handful.
Um, I may have exaggerated, as an allegorical point.
OpenOffice
v1.0 was just released. That's the OpenSource (free, to
you) follow-on to StarOffice 6.0. IOW, all the above for all the above
OS's for $0. MS-format compatible documents, spreadsheets, and
presentation app. Plus a lot more.
DO these app's share data so you can link from a form letter to a
corresponding database that links to several spreadsheets? That's a handy
function that's difficult to do without. I notice you've danced around it but haven't
simply pointed at a URL or named
an application suite. Is there some reason why people aren't flocking to this
the way they did to the original Windows? I remember the day Win3.11 came
out, there was a long line at the local CompUSA with people wanting to buy the
latest-greatest. I just wanted to get some diskette labels, but thought
better of it.
Google is your friend. www.openoffice.org
ApplixWare. AbiWord. WordPerfect 2000. Although right after MS
dropped about a quarter billion USD on Corel, Corel dropped Linux apps
like a hot rock. gnumeric. Midnight Commander (mc). gmc, the GUI
version of mc. StarOffice. LaTEX. Emacs.
Is that Open Office suite a complete set of software
with the same sorts of
object oriented features as are included with the MSOFFICE suite? I've
learned over time to do some pretty handy things in Word, linked to Excel
graphics through a database in Access. It would be painful to go back to doing
that stuff manually.
Yes. Including email and webbrowsing.
Doc
9:17 p.m.
See below, plz.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doc" <doc(a)mdrconsult.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 12:55 AM
Subject: Re: APPLEVISION Monitor
On Mon, 6 May 2002, Richard Erlacher wrote:
<snip>
I'm game ... where's the pitch/doc
located?
http://www.openoffice.org
I can't speak to the embedded object features, as I typically keep my
books in gnumeric. The prettification guys seem to be real happy with
it, though. ;)
And, you can try it out. It's free, and there's a Windows version.
Google is your friend. www.openoffice.org
ApplixWare. AbiWord. WordPerfect 2000. Although right after MS
dropped about a quarter billion USD on Corel, Corel dropped Linux apps
like a hot rock. gnumeric. Midnight Commander (mc). gmc, the GUI
version of mc. StarOffice. LaTEX. Emacs.
They did WHAT??? Are you saying that MS bought up Corel?
> Is that Open Office suite a complete set of software with the same sorts
of
> object oriented features as are included with the
MSOFFICE suite? I've
> learned over time to do some pretty handy things in Word, linked to Excel
> graphics through a database in Access. It would be painful to go back to
doing
that stuff
manually.
Yes. Including email and webbrowsing.
Doc
7 May
7 May
2:12 a.m.
On Tue, 7 May 2002, Richard Erlacher wrote:
NO. I'm saying MS bought OFF Corel. Corel was on the skids, MS put
about 250 million USD into the company, 2 months later Corel announced
that they were dropping their Linux app development. Prior to that,
both WordPerfect and Draw were out for Linux, besides Corel's own
distribution.
Doc
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doc" <doc(a)mdrconsult.com>
ApplixWare.
AbiWord. WordPerfect 2000. Although right after MS
dropped about a quarter billion USD on Corel, Corel dropped Linux apps
like a hot rock. gnumeric. Midnight Commander (mc). gmc, the GUI
version of mc. StarOffice. LaTEX. Emacs.
They did WHAT??? Are you saying that MS bought up Corel?
4:30 a.m.
Gee ... that's interesting!
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doc" <doc(a)mdrconsult.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 8:12 AM
Subject: Re: APPLEVISION Monitor
On Tue, 7 May 2002, Richard Erlacher wrote:
NO. I'm saying MS bought OFF Corel. Corel was on the skids, MS put
about 250 million USD into the company, 2 months later Corel announced
that they were dropping their Linux app development. Prior to that,
both WordPerfect and Draw were out for Linux, besides Corel's own
distribution.
Doc
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doc" <doc(a)mdrconsult.com>
ApplixWare. AbiWord. WordPerfect 2000. Although right after MS
dropped about a quarter billion USD on Corel, Corel dropped Linux apps
like a hot rock. gnumeric. Midnight Commander (mc). gmc, the GUI
version of mc. StarOffice. LaTEX. Emacs.
They did WHAT??? Are you saying that MS bought up Corel? 
6 May
6 May
9:30 a.m.
On Monday 06 May 2002 14:48, you wrote:
The fact is we DO expect to operate a computer without
having to enroll in
a defensive computing class, though I think it might be warranted just the
same.
People also expect to get work out of their microwave
oven or TV set as
soon as they turn it on. Why not the computer? It's not sacred. It's
just an appliance.
An appliance has its function predetermined, a computer does not
its what i often mean by "winblows limited" thinking, the brain
damage caused by winblows, the destruction of creativity
and the forming of a box around the brain that it soon cannot
operate outside of.
A toaster makes toast but it cannot ... well it makes toast.
And a TV set ... well its a video receiver
And winblows .. is well winblows
Unix on the otherhand, look and feel, user interface, end
use, nothing is predetermined, because no human on earth could
hope to know what you desire of it, unless your precooking
prefab for the Kelly girls in the secretarial pool or a touch
screen order station for a burger stand. and then the aim
is to provide the tools not force anyone to accept anything.
Chapter 1: Philosophy Matters
"Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly."
-- Henry Spencer
Write small pieces connected by clean interfaces.
Design programs to communicate easily with other programs.
Robustness is the child of transparency and simplicity.
Design for simplicity; add complexity only where you must.
Design for transparency; spend effort early to save effort later.
In interface design, obey the Rule of Least Surprise.
Programmer time is expensive; conserve it in preference to machine time.
Avoid hand-hacking; write programs to write programs when you can.
Use smart data so program logic can be stupid and robust.
Prototype, then polish. Get it working before you optimize it.
Distrust all claims for ``one true way''.
http://tuxedo.org/~esr/writings/taoup/
That paper explains much, for those not adverse to brainfood.
Raymond
9:54 a.m.
No ... it's the use of terms like "winblows" that indicates the limited
thinking. There are plenty of reasons why one might hate Microsoft, but
letting that hatred stand in the way of clear thinking about why the entire
computer industry is going the way it is a clear indicator that the references
of foolishness or stupidity are pointing in the wrong direction.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Raymond Moyers" <rmoyers(a)nop.org>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 3:30 PM
Subject: Re: APPLEVISION Monitor
On Monday 06 May 2002 14:48, you wrote:
Clearly, the majority of the world doesn't agree with you. Most of the
computers that live in offices are used in exactly the way that you're
denegrating here, and if they didn't do that, you couldn't afford one and
neither could I.
The fact is we DO expect to operate a computer
without having to enroll in
a defensive computing class, though I think it might be warranted just the
same.
People also expect to get work out of their
microwave oven or TV set as
soon as they turn it on. Why not the computer? It's not sacred. It's
just an appliance.
An appliance has its function predetermined, a computer does not
its what i often mean by "winblows limited" thinking, the brain
damage caused by winblows, the destruction of creativity
and the forming of a box around the brain that it soon cannot
operate outside of.
A toaster makes toast but it cannot ... well it makes toast.
And a TV set ... well its a video receiver
And winblows .. is well winblows
Unix on the otherhand, look and feel, user interface, end
use, nothing is predetermined, because no human on earth could
hope to know what you desire of it, unless you're precooking
prefab for the Kelly girls in the secretarial pool or a touch
screen order station for a burger stand. and then the aim
is to provide the tools not force anyone to accept anything.
Chapter 1: Philosophy Matters
"Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly."
-- Henry Spencer
<geting on soapbox>
This sort of drivel comes from those who are so insecure in their
understanding of the world, as well as the world of computers, that they fear
that if someone else is able to do what they cannot, they're doomed to
oblivion. Perhaps they're right... or should be.
<back on the ground now>
Write small pieces connected by clean interfaces.
Design programs to communicate easily with other programs.
Robustness is the child of transparency and simplicity.
Design for simplicity; add complexity only where you must.
Design for transparency; spend effort early to save effort later.
In interface design, obey the Rule of Least Surprise.
Programmer time is expensive; conserve it in preference to machine time.
Avoid hand-hacking; write programs to write programs when you can.
Use smart data so program logic can be stupid and robust.
Prototype, then polish. Get it working before you optimize it.
Distrust all claims for ``one true way''.
... well, me-boy ... I'd say, "take a slice of yer own advice ..."
noon
New subject: APPLEVISION Monitor ,, `one true way''.
On Monday 06 May 2002 16:54, you wrote:
Again.... emotion instead of reason.
As for "doomed" Unix has never seen such success, we are on a wave
like never before seen in the systems history.
Many reasons you could name, Unix finnaly available for inexpensive
hardware, at little or no cost, and the system maturity, unlike most
the systems that came before, we are still adding to and benefiting
from the exertions of those that came before us.
I operate on it, context, theres a word. with your claimed
perfection of English, perhaps your familiar.
so stepping out of the context, since you have already.
I told you this once already, Unix given a persona would not claim
best at anything, but it would claim, provably so, that its good at
more things than any other system.
So stepping back into context ...
Distrust all claims for ``one true way''.
Even the best software tools tend to be limited by the
imaginations of their designers. Nobody is smart enough
to optimize for everything. Therefore, the Unix tradition
includes a healthy mistrust of ``one true way'' approaches
to software design or implementation. It embraces multiple
languages, open extensible systems, and customization
hooks everywhere.
and to address the last one left hanging.
If you're new to Unix, these principles are worth some
meditation. Software-engineering texts recommend most
of them; but most other operating systems lack the right tools
and traditions to turn them into practice, so most programmers
can't apply them with any consistency.
They come to accept blunt tools, bad designs, overwork, and
bloated code as normal -- and then wonder what Unix fans are
so annoyed about.
Raymond
No ... it's the use of terms like
"winblows" that indicates the limited
thinking.
OK WinBloat Dumbf**k95 "Attention KMart shoppers" etc
There are plenty of reasons why one might hate
Microsoft,
Mickysoft despite your need for what Sigmund called "transference"
is rather emotionless for me, they don't matter.
East German trabants was not much of a car with its particle board
frame and little 2 cycle engine, but its what the poor slaves could get
after a many year wait while the commisars drove autobahn rockets
built the other side of the wall.
I would not be to fond of a trabant, either, i think you confuse
my view of silly and pathetic with hatred.
but letting that hatred stand in the way of clear
thinking about
why the entire computer industry is going the way it is a clear
indicator that the references of foolishness or stupidity are
pointing in the wrong direction.
Didn't we have court transcripts that laid this out ?
Like.. don't develop OS/2 apps or we will remove the insider
info you need to develop winblows apps.
The record is repleat, but here you go again making
statements on a basis that wont survive scrutiny.
Clearly, the majority of the world doesn't agree
with you. Most of the
computers that live in offices are used in exactly the way that you're
denegrating here, and if they didn't do that, you couldn't afford one and
neither could I.
if mickysoft had not taken the tactic of taretting marketing to
clueless and stupid ( about IT) upper management and
forcing sh**ware over the objections of the IT people.
Well we cant blame mickysoft, as it was an excellent
and effective tactic ( unless you was the poor IT guy
forced to toss away his chromoly tools for mickysoft
pliers made of potmetal.)
This is also well documented, the Aberdeen paper is classic.
Chapter 1: Philosophy Matters
"Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it,
poorly." -- Henry Spencer
<geting on soapbox>
This sort of drivel comes from those who are so insecure in their
understanding of the world, as well as the world of computers, that they
fear that if someone else is able to do what they cannot, they're doomed to
oblivion. Perhaps they're right... or should be. Distrust
all claims for ``one true way''.
... well, me-boy ... I'd say,
"take a slice of yer own advice ..."
12:46 p.m.
New subject: APPLEVISION Monitor ,, `one true way''.
I don't know about that car. I drove a Skoda.
Now let me get this straight ... you're saying that everyone who uses the MS
product is stupid and lame, is that right? You're saying that you're smarter
than they are, is that right? You're saying that nobody who'd use Windows is
as smart as you, right?
Calm down ... use the spell-checker, think a little ...
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Raymond Moyers" <rmoyers(a)nop.org>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 6:00 PM
Subject: Re: APPLEVISION Monitor ,, `one true way''.
I operate on it, context, theres a word. with your claimed
perfection of English, perhaps your familiar.
so stepping out of the context, since you have already.
I told you this once already, Unix given a persona would not claim
best at anything, but it would claim, provably so, that its good at
more things than any other system.
So stepping back into context ...
Distrust all claims for ``one true way''.
Even the best software tools tend to be limited by the
imaginations of their designers. Nobody is smart enough
to optimize for everything. Therefore, the Unix tradition
includes a healthy mistrust of ``one true way'' approaches
to software design or implementation. It embraces multiple
languages, open extensible systems, and customization
hooks everywhere.
and to address the last one left hanging.
If you're new to Unix, these principles are worth some
meditation. Software-engineering texts recommend most
of them; but most other operating systems lack the right tools
and traditions to turn them into practice, so most programmers
can't apply them with any consistency.
They come to accept blunt tools, bad designs, overwork, and
bloated code as normal -- and then wonder what Unix fans are
so annoyed about.
Raymond
On Monday 06 May 2002 16:54, you wrote:
to
No ... it's the use of terms like
"winblows" that indicates the limited
thinking.
OK WinBloat Dumbf**k95 "Attention KMart shoppers" etc
There are plenty of reasons why one might hate
Microsoft,
Mickysoft despite your need for what Sigmund called "transference"
is rather emotionless for me, they don't matter.
East German trabants was not much of a car with its particle board
frame and little 2 cycle engine, but its what the poor slaves could get
after a many year wait while the commisars drove autobahn rockets
built the other side of the wall.
I would not be to fond of a trabant, either, i think you confuse
my view of silly and pathetic with hatred.
but letting that hatred stand in the way of clear
thinking about
why the entire computer industry is going the way it is a clear
indicator that the references of foolishness or stupidity are
pointing in the wrong direction.
Didn't we have court transcripts that laid this out ?
Like.. don't develop OS/2 apps or we will remove the insider
info you need to develop winblows apps.
The record is repleat, but here you go again making
statements on a basis that wont survive scrutiny.
Clearly, the majority of the world doesn't
agree with you. Most of the
computers that live in offices are used in exactly the way that you're
denegrating here, and if they didn't do that, you couldn't afford one and
neither could I.
if mickysoft had not taken the tactic of taretting marketing to
clueless and stupid ( about IT) upper management and
forcing sh**ware over the objections of the IT people.
Well we cant blame mickysoft, as it was an excellent
and effective tactic ( unless you was the poor IT guy
forced to toss away his chromoly tools for mickysoft
pliers made of potmetal.)
This is also well documented, the Aberdeen paper is classic.
>
> > Chapter 1: Philosophy Matters
> > "Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it,
> > poorly." -- Henry Spencer
>
> <geting on soapbox>
>
> This sort of drivel comes from those who are so insecure in their
> understanding of the world, as well as the world of computers, that they
> fear that if someone else is able to do what they cannot, they're doomed
oblivion.
Perhaps they're right... or should be.
Again.... emotion instead of reason.
As for "doomed" Unix has never seen such success, we are on a wave
like never before seen in the systems history.
Many reasons you could name, Unix finnaly available for inexpensive
hardware, at little or no cost, and the system maturity, unlike most
the systems that came before, we are still adding to and benefiting
from the exertions of those that came before us.
Distrust all claims for ``one true way''.
... well, me-boy ... I'd say,
"take a slice of yer own advice ..." 
12:33 p.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 2204 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20020507/df72651e/at…
2:38 p.m.
Tony Duell wrote:
No it isn't, or at least it shouldn't be.
A TV set is designed to receive, demodulate, and display various RF
signals transmitted in accordance with a well-known specification. And
most people use it to do just that. In other words the manufacturer knows
exactly what it's going to be used for and can design it so it can do
that limited task in a simple-to-use way [1].
But a computer is one of the most versatile machines you'll ever come
across. The mnnufacturer can't know every possible way it can be used.
OK, maybe the manufactuer thought it might be used for word processing,
or as a terminal emulator, or... But I'll bet they didn't think of using
it to cross-develop code for an obsolete minicomputer, or to print
barcodes for a 20-year-old HP calculator or to run a cable tester, or...
(to name a few things my PCs often get used for).
But don't you hate it when they pirate TV shows on the computer via the
internet. But when I buy a TV I expect ( not true any more ) to get a
schematic and users manual. If the picture still stays fuzzy after the
first kick I know I can get it repaired for the price of the tube and
a reasonable service charge. You got all the knowledge needed to
maintain
the TV for a resonable amount of time. You might of upgraded to a bigger
screen or got a color set but you did not have do much else to keep
watching tv.
With Computers and TV's today you are at the mercy of the venders to buy
a new product all the time because you have no knowlage to maintain the
item you bought.
--
Ben Franchuk - Dawn * 12/24 bit cpu *
www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/index.html
7 May
7 May
12:24 p.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 1264 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20020508/8d4a3aad/at…
6 May
6 May
3:47 p.m.
I'm sure you realize that you're not like "everyman" in this context.
You
decline to use anything current, you don't like to use 20-year old, well
established widely accepted simulators, and, in fact, don't like simulators at
all ... you're different from me, and from many others. I wouldn't say
that's
a bad thing. It's a big wide world.
However, what I'm trying to get at is that if these off-the-beaten-path
systems were able to meet the needs of the average user, a user who's very
different from you, and, in fact very much different from either of us,
wouldn't those people buy them? Instead, they want the computer system that's
only slightly more than a toaster. It makes toast ... well, not quite ... it
runs Windows and MSOffice, and maybe a few other things ...
I know things would be better if people would just listen to me ... I know
things would be better if only ... but that that's not the way things are.
Things could and should be different, but they aren't. That's where I live.
You see things from where things should be, while I see things, or try to,
from where they are.
Things that aren't don't pay your bills or mine.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Duell" <ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 6:33 PM
Subject: Re: APPLEVISION Monitor
> The fact is we DO expect to operate a computer
without having to enroll in
a
> defensive computing class, though I think it
might be warranted just the
same.
Well, maybe you do. I certainly don't expect to use a computer (or for
that matter any other tool) without spending some time learning how to
use it properly
> People also expect to get work out of their microwave oven or TV set as
soon
as they turn
it on. Why not the computer? It's not sacred. It's just an
appliance.
No it isn't, or at least it shouldn't be.
A TV set is designed to receive, demodulate, and display various RF
signals transmitted in accordance with a well-known specification. And
most people use it to do just that. In other words the manufacturer knows
exactly what it's going to be used for and can design it so it can do
that limited task in a simple-to-use way [1].
But a computer is one of the most versatile machines you'll ever come
across. The mnnufacturer can't know every possible way it can be used.
OK, maybe the manufactuer thought it might be used for word processing,
or as a terminal emulator, or... But I'll bet they didn't think of using
it to cross-develop code for an obsolete minicomputer, or to print
barcodes for a 20-year-old HP calculator or to run a cable tester, or...
(to name a few things my PCs often get used for).
Now, you might be happy with a computer than can run one of a number of
ready-written programs. I most certainly am not. A computer is there to
solve _my_ problems. And only I know what those problems really are, so I
expect to be able to program my computer to help solve them. Sometimes a
standard program will do what I want. Most of the time it won't.
And, FWIW, learning to use the computer (as in learning how to enter and
compile a program, learning how to navigate the filesystem, heck, even
learning the programming language) is trivial compared to actually
solving the problem in most cases. But that's still not a reason to pick
a machine that makes life difficult...
[1] I will ignore the red herring that when I buy a TV set, I generally
intend to modify it into something else (poor-man's-spectrum-analyser,
etc).
-tony
5:19 p.m.
New subject: The way things are?
On Monday 06 May 2002 22:47, you wrote:
I know things would be better if people would just
listen to me ... I know
things would be better if only ... but that that's not the way things are.
Things could and should be different, but they aren't. That's where I
live. You see things from where things should be, while I see things, or
try to, from where they are.
Very true. It's two different perspectives into how the computing world is.
I take issue with people that have your stance, Dick, for the following
reasons:
Couldn't it be termed 'lazy' or 'apathetic' to say, "Well!
That's the way
the world is. I guess I'll just have to put up with the shit and go about my
business." instead of saying, "You know what? The world is this way, but it
doesn't HAVE to be this way. I know I can change it, even if it's only a
small part."
It would seem to me that the latter attitude is what brought us innovation,
expansion, revolution, and any other process that changed the status quo and
made it better or, at least, different. I see the current *nix movement,
which entails both saged *nix people saying, "Hey, we've been using great
stuff for years...surely someone else can use it, too?" and the newbie *nix
users saying, "You know what? It's not as painful as I thought it would be,
and it's almost everything I've ever wanted in a system" as the proponents
and the drive behind some change in the industry.
You know what? I don't know as though *nix will become the dominant force.
And honestly, I really don't care. Sure, it'd be nice, but what I really
want to see is companies like M$ and such taking a good, long look at HOW we
do computing and WHY we do computing, and if those can be changed, enhanced,
or even bettered. If the movement towards *nix environments is what it takes
to put that push on software and hardware companies to say, "You know what?
Maybe the users DO know what they're talking about, and maybe there IS a
different way to do things" as well as saying, "We oopsed and there are some
older methodologies that really *worked*, surely we can bring those forward
into today's computing world."
*nix, especially Linux, is becoming exactly that. A combination of old,
stalwart, respected ideas in computing (security, daemons, stability,
extendibility) and the new-fangled ideas (Intuitive GUIs, multimedia,
real-time computing). The pressure is on. If you don't believe me, ask M$
if they consider Linux a threat. Sure they do. I just hope that this makes
them look at their software on how to entice users using innovation instead
of the typical marketing wool-pulling they have tended to do in the past.
Whether we end up a Windows-centric or Linux-centric computing community
doesn't matter. What does matter is that the industry continues to move
forward with REAL solutions, not vapor or marketingware, that improves my and
your computing experience.
I just refuse to sit back on my ass and let the world whiz by without making
a stand in my own little corner. Because I'm a computer professional and I
care about the industry, this is a battle I'm going to fight.
Tarsi
210
6:17 p.m.
New subject: The way things are?
I'm convinced that someone will figure out a way to use the very popular
Microsoft Applications just as they are or something nearly like them and
package them in a way that is different from Windows, yet maintains enough of
the "look and feel" to please the user-public. That will make MS take note.
They (MS) can't get by with suing because the "look and feel" come from the
MS
application. If MS yells, they say, "well, LINUX has been around for a decade
or more, what's wrong with running this Microsoft product on the Linux-based
Windows Emulator? It's not pirated, see? Here's the CD, and here's the
receipt ..."
I'm not going to do it, though, since I'm fairly happy with what I've got
here, and don't need to change it. Sombeody will, though.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tarsi" <tarsi(a)binhost.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 11:19 PM
Subject: The way things are?
On Monday 06 May 2002 22:47, you wrote:
my
I know things would be better if people would
just listen to me ... I know
things would be better if only ... but that that's not the way things are.
Things could and should be different, but they aren't. That's where I
live. You see things from where things should be, while I see things, or
try to, from where they are.
Very true. It's two different perspectives into how the computing world is.
I take issue with people that have your stance, Dick, for the following
reasons:
Couldn't it be termed 'lazy' or 'apathetic' to say, "Well!
That's the way
the world is. I guess I'll just have to put up with the shit and go about business." instead of saying, "You know
what? The world is this way, but it
doesn't HAVE to be this way. I know I can change it, even if it's only a
small part."
It would seem to me that the latter attitude is what brought us innovation,
expansion, revolution, and any other process that changed the status quo and
made it better or, at least, different. I see the current *nix movement,
which entails both saged *nix people saying, "Hey, we've been using great
stuff for years...surely someone else can use it, too?" and the newbie *nix
users saying, "You know what? It's not as painful as I thought it would be,
and it's almost everything I've ever wanted in a system" as the proponents
and the drive behind some change in the industry.
You know what? I don't know as though *nix will become the dominant force.
And honestly, I really don't care. Sure, it'd be nice, but what I really
want to see is companies like M$ and such taking a good, long look at HOW we
do computing and WHY we do computing, and if those can be changed, enhanced,
or even bettered. If the movement towards *nix environments is what it
takes
to put that push on software and hardware companies to
say, "You know what?
Maybe the users DO know what they're talking about, and maybe there IS a
different way to do things" as well as saying, "We oopsed and there are some
older methodologies that really *worked*, surely we can bring those forward
into today's computing world."
*nix, especially Linux, is becoming exactly that. A combination of old,
stalwart, respected ideas in computing (security, daemons, stability,
extendibility) and the new-fangled ideas (Intuitive GUIs, multimedia,
real-time computing). The pressure is on. If you don't believe me, ask M$
if they consider Linux a threat. Sure they do. I just hope that this makes
them look at their software on how to entice users using innovation instead
of the typical marketing wool-pulling they have tended to do in the past.
Whether we end up a Windows-centric or Linux-centric computing community
doesn't matter. What does matter is that the industry continues to move
forward with REAL solutions, not vapor or marketingware, that improves my
and
your computing experience.
I just refuse to sit back on my ass and let the world whiz by without making
a stand in my own little corner. Because I'm a computer professional and I
care about the industry, this is a battle I'm going to fight.
Tarsi
210
8:10 p.m.
New subject: The way things are?
Finally, A rational evaluation of the win VS *nix war. I use both
linux and win NT at work. Linux to develop and build bootroms for
our SBC's, Using the Gnu ARM tools, but I use NT to write documentation.
I don't have access to the tools to transition to an all linux
environment and can't find time to locate analogs for linux
We use lotus notes for mail, Is there anything in linux to replace that?
It totally sucks, but nt is what we use for corp communications.
Jim Davis.
Tarsi wrote:
On Monday 06 May 2002 22:47, you wrote:
I know things would be better if people would
just listen to me ... I know
things would be better if only ... but that that's not the way things are.
Things could and should be different, but they aren't. That's where I
live. You see things from where things should be, while I see things, or
try to, from where they are.
Very true. It's two different perspectives into how the computing world is.
I take issue with people that have your stance, Dick, for the following
reasons:
Couldn't it be termed 'lazy' or 'apathetic' to say, "Well!
That's the way
the world is. I guess I'll just have to put up with the shit and go about my
business." instead of saying, "You know what? The world is this way, but it
doesn't HAVE to be this way. I know I can change it, even if it's only a
small part."
It would seem to me that the latter attitude is what brought us innovation,
expansion, revolution, and any other process that changed the status quo and
made it better or, at least, different. I see the current *nix movement,
which entails both saged *nix people saying, "Hey, we've been using great
stuff for years...surely someone else can use it, too?" and the newbie *nix
users saying, "You know what? It's not as painful as I thought it would be,
and it's almost everything I've ever wanted in a system" as the proponents
and the drive behind some change in the industry.
You know what? I don't know as though *nix will become the dominant force.
And honestly, I really don't care. Sure, it'd be nice, but what I really
want to see is companies like M$ and such taking a good, long look at HOW we
do computing and WHY we do computing, and if those can be changed, enhanced,
or even bettered. If the movement towards *nix environments is what it takes
to put that push on software and hardware companies to say, "You know what?
Maybe the users DO know what they're talking about, and maybe there IS a
different way to do things" as well as saying, "We oopsed and there are some
older methodologies that really *worked*, surely we can bring those forward
into today's computing world."
*nix, especially Linux, is becoming exactly that. A combination of old,
stalwart, respected ideas in computing (security, daemons, stability,
extendibility) and the new-fangled ideas (Intuitive GUIs, multimedia,
real-time computing). The pressure is on. If you don't believe me, ask M$
if they consider Linux a threat. Sure they do. I just hope that this makes
them look at their software on how to entice users using innovation instead
of the typical marketing wool-pulling they have tended to do in the past.
Whether we end up a Windows-centric or Linux-centric computing community
doesn't matter. What does matter is that the industry continues to move
forward with REAL solutions, not vapor or marketingware, that improves my and
your computing experience.
I just refuse to sit back on my ass and let the world whiz by without making
a stand in my own little corner. Because I'm a computer professional and I
care about the industry, this is a battle I'm going to fight.
Tarsi
210
10:53 p.m.
New subject: The way things are? Winapps on linux via VMware, CrossOver Office
On Tuesday 07 May 2002 03:10, you wrote:
I use both linux and win NT at work. Linux to develop
and build bootroms
for our SBC's, Using the Gnu ARM tools, but I use NT to write
documentation. I don't have access to the tools to transition to an
all linux environment and can't find time to locate analogs for linux
We use lotus notes for mail, Is there anything in linux to replace that?
It totally sucks, but nt is what we use for corp communications.
Look into vmware, it will run winblows in a virtual machine as a linux
process full screen or windowed onto the X11 desktop.
While notes runs in wine, there can be a fuss with fonts and stuff.
So If VMware dont trike your fancy, there is :
http://www.linuxworld.com/ic_840966_8574_1-3133.html
CodeWeavers Inc. in St. Paul,
Minn., has unveiled software that allows corporate users to
run Microsoft Office and Lotus Notes without a Windows
operating system.
------
CrossOver Office costs $54.95 per user and is available now.
------
The first version of the software supports Office 97 and
Office 2000, with support for Office XP coming in "the next
few months," White said.
Here are two reviews of the software
http://newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=02/03/27/0444257&tid=15
http://www.desktoplinux.com/articles/AT6509081484.html
Raymond
7 May
7 May
3:18 a.m.
New subject: The way things are? Winapps on linux via VMware, CrossOver Office
It's sad that you won't take time to correct the spelling, grammar, and syntax
errors in your posts. It almost looks as though you might have something
useful to say, something not all of us have heard before, yet your bombastic
commentary, combined with your abysmal presentation due to lack of care with
respect to syntax, spelling, and grammar robs you of credibility. It even
makes it hard to figure out what you're trying to say.
Many of us are given, from time to time, to making extreme statements, but
only a complete idiot would make such blatant errors and not endeavor to
correct them. Why not help us all out and take the extra 10 seconds per
message to straighten this sort of thing out? Surely you can do better, just
as a favor to the rest of us, who might glean some useful information from
your posts.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Raymond Moyers" <rmoyers(a)nop.org>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 4:53 AM
Subject: Re: The way things are? Winapps on linux via VMware, CrossOver Office
On Tuesday 07 May 2002 03:10, you wrote:
I use both linux and win NT at work. Linux to
develop and build bootroms
for our SBC's, Using the Gnu ARM tools, but I use NT to write
documentation. I don't have access to the tools to transition to an
all linux environment and can't find time to locate analogs for linux
We use lotus notes for mail, Is there anything in linux to replace that?
It totally sucks, but nt is what we use for corp communications.
Look into vmware, it will run winblows in a virtual machine as a linux
process full screen or windowed onto the X11 desktop.
While notes runs in wine, there can be a fuss with fonts and stuff.
So If VMware dont trike your fancy, there is :
http://www.linuxworld.com/ic_840966_8574_1-3133.html
CodeWeavers Inc. in St. Paul,
Minn., has unveiled software that allows corporate users to
run Microsoft Office and Lotus Notes without a Windows
operating system.
------
CrossOver Office costs $54.95 per user and is available now.
------
The first version of the software supports Office 97 and
Office 2000, with support for Office XP coming in "the next
few months," White said.
Here are two reviews of the software
http://newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=02/03/27/0444257&tid=15
http://www.desktoplinux.com/articles/AT6509081484.html
Raymond
3:36 a.m.
New subject: LIST ADMIN Re: The way things are? Winapps on linux via VMware, CrossOver Office
Richard (and the others currently flaming);
This has gotten out of hand. We don't need flames of "you're stupid
for..."
and such here. We don't need people complaining about spelling and
punctuation for gods sake. DROP IT. This is my last request to please take
this kind of antagonism to private email.
Jay West
5:05 a.m.
New subject: LIST ADMIN Re: The way things are? Winapps on linux via VMware, CrossOver Office
Jay West wrote:
Richard (and the others currently flaming);
This has gotten out of hand. We don't need flames of "you're stupid
for..."
and such here. We don't need people complaining about spelling and
punctuation for gods sake. DROP IT. This is my last request to please take
this kind of antagonism to private email.
Jay West
There are also Usenet advocacy groups for those who don't wish to
deprive history or the wetware virus writers of their opinions. This can
be a much better alternative than private email. Or much worse. It all
depends.
jbdigriz
4:17 a.m.
New subject: The way thin...
From: Richard Erlacher <edick(a)idcomm.com>
only a complete idiot would make such blatant errors
and not endeavor to correct them. Why not help us all
out and take the extra 10 seconds per message to
straighten this sort of thing out? Surely you can do better,
just as a favor to the rest of us, who might glean some
useful information from your posts.
Please apply your 'holier than thou' rules to yourself first.
I have seen at least three posts from you in the last 24
hours with typos them.
John A.
8:25 a.m.
New subject: The way thin...
You'll seldom see three or four per line, though.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Allain" <allain(a)panix.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 10:17 AM
Subject: Re: The way thin...
From: Richard Erlacher <edick(a)idcomm.com>
only a complete idiot would make such blatant
errors
and not endeavor to correct them. Why not help us all
out and take the extra 10 seconds per message to
straighten this sort of thing out? Surely you can do better,
just as a favor to the rest of us, who might glean some
useful information from your posts.
Please apply your 'holier than thou' rules to yourself first.
I have seen at least three posts from you in the last 24
hours with typos them.
John A.
10:42 a.m.
New subject: The way things are?
On Tuesday 07 May 2002 04:10, Jim Davis wrote:
Finally, A rational evaluation of the win VS *nix war.
I use both
linux and win NT at work. Linux to develop and build bootroms for
our SBC's, Using the Gnu ARM tools, but I use NT to write
documentation. I don't have access to the tools to transition to an all
linux environment and can't find time to locate analogs for linux
We use lotus notes for mail, Is there anything in linux to replace
that? It totally sucks, but nt is what we use for corp communications.
Jim Davis.
The domino servers run under linux, and the clients will run under wine.
I suggested putting test on a linux box but the boss said that with out
it crashing it wouldn't be a very good test platform.
12:54 p.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 2507 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20020508/010bd8cc/at…
3:05 p.m.
New subject: APPLEVISION Monitor,, Simulators
On Tuesday 07 May 2002 19:54, you wrote:
I don't use simulators as the major design tool
because simulators have
no connection to the real world
Now, if I asked you do design something and you came
back with just
simulator results I'd tell you to go away and actually build the darn
thing.
I demoed oregano for a chum.
A tube circut with values for about 30 mhz, Class C, PI output.
almost identical to the output stage of my first kilowatt
I built at age 14.
"Could i build that and it would work?" he asked
It was a difficult concept to explain that the working
drawing and the correct values and conditions
being simulated was rather short of the information
needed to create it in real life.
For this amp, where/how you place the parts is as
important as what the parts are and their connectons.
the cabinet work and how RF tight is your screening,
nutralization feedback, im sure ive missed something.
Virtual power supplies dont even sag like real ones do
nor do they couple ripple exerted by the output load
back to your rather annoyed small signal stuff.
Its almost as empty as porn simulating sex,
you can see what is happening and how
its being done but unless its real you dont
get the feel. heh
That some things are missing from a "simulator"
are not always bad.
Xtrs totaly lacks the realism of the mainboard microphonics
and the behavior of that expansion box cable when it got dirty
and those floppies where every write was a time to pray.
ive never seen a trs80 so stable. ;=)
Raymond
8 May
8 May
11:02 a.m.
New subject: APPLEVISION Monitor,, Simulators
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 2031 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20020509/cf3058f8/at…
2:15 a.m.
New subject: The Classic Computing list
While its kind of amusing to see how everybody's trying to polish their
skills of argument about this n' that, and I'm trying very hard to stay
polite here, this is supposed to be a list for people who appreciate Classic
Computing. Endless discussions about how Microsoft has commandeered the
world in the last 10 years are all off topic. It may be tempting to try to
'bring down the beast'... Microsoft and possibly some individual on the
list, but that's not why I subscribed and I wonder how may others.
Aren't we here for constructive conversation on systems which by being
10+ years old are all only of hobbyist value, (excepting the mini-mainframes
mini-supers) and as such should be almost irrelevant to argue about in a
present day context. I note that some of the e-arguments drift into the 10y
zone, but then they just drift right back out again so they really don't
register as anything but OT to me anyway.
- - -
Conflicts.
I wish we could come up with some sort of rule to limit conflicts on the
list. I thought at the outset that I might spend 4-8 hours a week on
Classic Computing. Right now I spend 7-14 hours a week on what I'll call
reading the Classic Computing List, because it leaves me almost no time
for my hobby.
- - -
I wrote this out of need yesterday morning and am submitting it now.
Jay has also been responsive to requests off list.
Thanks again, Jay.
John A.
5 May
5 May
4:54 p.m.
Yes. Window IS perfect proof of this. You will be hard
pressed to find
people that use multiple different OSes including Windows, and honestly
believe Windows is the "best of the bunch". There are some, but then for
any idea, you will always find some that believe the idea is the best. (I
am discounting all arguments regarding having to use windows or any OS by
neccessity. If the app you need is only for one OS, you use that OS
regardless of if it is great or a peice of crap).
I heard my que.. I for one am a poly-OS.. My "production" machine
runs windows 98, but it also dual boots linux. I also have a Mac
(well the one I have now is **slow** but I have one) to use.
The things my w98 does, it does well. There are games I like I
can't play anywhere else (rollercoaster tycoon...)
Linux - good for learning stuff, playing games, and programming to
the shell (c mostly)
Mac - Would prefer for "art" stuff, this one is too slow for much
though
5:30 p.m.
It's pretty clear that all the various hardware/software combinations, i.e.
computer+OS, that get any air time in this forum, seem to have a place. There
are several reasons, for example, why I don't use UNIX in my work, but, aside
from overall cost, it's mainly that I've never
had to do so. I've used UNIX
workstations but only when no alternative existed.
I understand why people
complain about Windows, and why they gripe that it's too this or that, but,
for the price, you really can't go out and buy a system, set an average
college graduate in front of it, and expect him to do anything meaningful the
first day if you install LINUX.
I've been using computers in one way or another, directly, since the very
early '60's, and still have trouble figuring out what to do on a Macintosh, or
how to do it. That's probably because of my extensive exposure to DOS/Windows
and little else for the past 15 years, but I do have 5+ years of daily
Macintosh use under my belt.
I've also got some *nix experience, and, frankly, anything that requires I
recompile the OS just to install a driver is too much trouble. I've done
that, but hopefully never will again.
People's needs are different, but their use of various products is
needs-driven. Some people need to get a job done, and if they can do it with
something cheap and easy, that's the route they pursue, while others, in need
of personal validation of one sort or another, prefer the extensive sophistry
of *nix. Now, there ARE things that *nix can do better, in some ways than can
be done under DOS/Windows, but it costs more, requires considerable learning
either at school or at home, and takes a lot of time to do. Until somebody
shows me a way to do something that's better for me in my environment and with
my applications, I'm going to be hard to sway.
It doesn't matter to me that I'm right or wrong, only that it works easily and
conveniently for me. It doesn't matter that I happen to be among the majority
of computer users on the planet, either, because that doesn't guarantee that
what I'm using/doing is the best or easiest way. Only I can determine that.
I don't play games much, so I don't need the multi-GHz CPU's that demands,
and
I don't mess with music or video much. I use both DOS and Windows, and find
that DOS is the most practical environment for doing hardware-related work,
e.g. stimulating, or monitoring the behavior of, circuits, but I find that the
low-cost development tools available for Windows make it possible to do things
I certainly couldn't afford under UNIX, with their 7-figure license costs and
5-figure per quarter maintenance costs.
You've done what's reasonable, i.e, chosen the tools that best meet your
needs. If not, you will. Though the Microsoft Windows version-du-jour may
not be your cup of tea, it's adequate for most of the users out there for the
simple reason that it does the simple and obvous things with the comfortable
if not appropriate (to some people's thinking) assume-the-obvious-and-plow-on
through approach.
While not everyone thinks that's "clean" it keeps the dollars flowing.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Hudson" <rhudson(a)cnonline.net>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2002 10:54 PM
Subject: Re: APPLEVISION Monitor
Yes. Window IS perfect proof of this. You will be
hard pressed to find
people that use multiple different OSes including Windows, and honestly
believe Windows is the "best of the bunch". There are some, but then for
any idea, you will always find some that believe the idea is the best. (I
am discounting all arguments regarding having to use windows or any OS by
neccessity. If the app you need is only for one OS, you use that OS
regardless of if it is great or a peice of crap).
I heard my que.. I for one am a poly-OS.. My "production" machine
runs windows 98, but it also dual boots linux. I also have a Mac
(well the one I have now is **slow** but I have one) to use.
The things my w98 does, it does well. There are games I like I
can't play anywhere else (rollercoaster tycoon...)
Linux - good for learning stuff, playing games, and programming to
the shell (c mostly)
Mac - Would prefer for "art" stuff, this one is too slow for much
though
6 May
6 May
2:44 a.m.
On Sun, 5 May 2002, Richard Erlacher wrote:
for the price, you really can't go out and buy a
system, set an average
college graduate in front of it, and expect him to do anything meaningful the
first day if you install LINUX.
I object, Judge.
I managed it and I was 14.
And I'd like to note, as others have, that my Linux (No, its not in
capitals - perhaps another indicator you don't have much ground to stand
on in this argument :) machine cost precisely $0.
I picked the 486 out of a dumpster (with permission) and the funniest
thing: You can download Linux (or *BSD, or...) for zip.
Just wanted to put in my ever so humble impression to the masses.
JP
5:37 a.m.
You're missing the point, here. What I was referring to is the "typical"
computer buyer, who gets out his checkbook and buys hardware, software, etc,
and takes it home, hooks it up, and expects to start working immediately. I'd
bet you had to know something, such as what Linux is, before you could begin
doing useful work with it. I've yet to see even one Linux box that worked as
smoothly and seamlessly as the typical Windows box.
Check my post regarding the hardware I found for $10 last week (including the
Applevision monitor for $2.95) to see that I know one can get stuff on the
cheap. That was not a '486, and it wasn't a minimal setup in any sense. I'm
referring to the typical case, however.
I'll bet that you couldn't do much with Linux on the first day you heard the
word. People who've never even heard the word computer before can be writing
letters and reports within 10 minutes of their first contact with Windows. In
'90, when Win3.0 came out, my younger son, now 20 years old, installed Win3.0
and started using it the day I brought it home. I doubt even you could do
that on the first day you saw and touched a PC. I'd point out, however, that
the first time I ever encountered Windows, I loaded it up started an
application and was going within minutes, having read no doc's, having
compiled no kernel, and having done little else other than typing the setup
command. That was Windows 2, which came with MS Excel. True, there were
problems with smartdrv, and with himem, etc, but that was on a '286 that
didn't do any of those things particularly well.
I've been in contact with compuers in one capacity or another since the very
early '60's and, though I admittedly don't like the obscurities and
pseudo-sophistry displayed by most *nix users, I'd point out that I was a
FORTRAN programmer for several years back when Fortran II was the primary
language used for engineering tasks. I'm not intimidated by cryptic command
lines. I just don't like 'em. I see absolutely no reason why every command
can't be in plain language, once one's learned the "right" language, and
I see
no advantage over a 2-letter command over an 8-letter command. I don't mind
typing.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "JP Hindin" <jplist(a)globe.net.nz
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 8:44 AM
Subject: Re: APPLEVISION Monitor
On Sun, 5 May 2002, Richard Erlacher wrote:
> for the price, you really can't go out and buy a system, set an average
> college graduate in front of it, and expect him to do anything meaningful
the
first day if
you install LINUX.
I object, Judge.
I managed it and I was 14.
And I'd like to note, as others have, that my Linux (No, its not in
capitals - perhaps another indicator you don't have much ground to stand
on in this argument :) machine cost precisely $0.
I picked the 486 out of a dumpster (with permission) and the funniest
thing: You can download Linux (or *BSD, or...) for zip.
Just wanted to put in my ever so humble impression to the masses.
JP
7:14 a.m.
From: Richard Erlacher <edick(a)idcomm.com>
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 1:37 PM
<delete>
10:54 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 2070 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20020506/21ef7561/at…
9:40 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 3995 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20020506/2c1df04d/at…
12:14 p.m.
Not to start another round, but ...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Duell" <ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 3:40 PM
Subject: Re: APPLEVISION Monitor
> It's pretty clear that all the various
hardware/software combinations, i.e.
Not all college graduates are in computer science. Most, in fact, are not,
and a computer is just a tool, like a screwdriver, not a deity. Most folks
just want to get their work done, and don't care to worship at the shrine of
M$ or *nix.
Well, I found it a damned nuissance to have all the trouble, when I was trying
to do something else. The fact is that most people don't want to muck about
with the OS. They want to type their letters and print them, send email,
browse the web, and play their games. Some may want to program, but that's
probably only one in 100K.
> People's needs are different, but their use of various products is
> needs-driven. Some people need to get a job done, and if they can do it with
I know this is likely to start another flamefest, but
then replying to
Richard's postings normally has that effect. Still...
The reason for that is that we have very different but very firmly established
opinions. That doesn't mean either of us is stupid or crazy, but that we have
different views of what's probably the same thing.
> computer+OS, that get any air time in this forum,
seem to have a place.
There
> are several reasons, for example, why I don't
use UNIX in my work, but,
aside
> from overall cost, it's mainly that I've
never had to do so. I've used
UNIX
Eh? Windows costs $$$ (unless you regard piracy as acceptable -- I do
not) whereas I can get a Unix-like OS, compilers, text formatters,
editors, and just about anything else I need totally free....
...but you can't get someting easy to use, meaning easy for a pre-med student,
who should, but doesn't yet, know how or need to flex all the computer's
muscle, to use to do the "standard" sorts of things. Moreover, Windows
isn't
that expensive. The updates cost about $85US.
I've heard lots about what "you can get" but all I ever hear from the guys
who
use Linux every day is that they "don't have that." Some of them use
Windows
as well, however. The two are not mutually exclusive. I think it comes down
to using the "path of least resistance."
> workstations but only when no alternative existed. I understand why
people
> complain about Windows, and why they gripe that
it's too this or that,
but,
> for the price, you really can't go out and
buy a system, set an average
> college graduate in front of it, and expect him to do anything meaningful
the
first day if
you install LINUX.
If I was going to employ a 'college graduate', I'd not even consider one
who couldn't use linux. Because
If they were a computer scientist (or similar) then they'd missed a major
part of computer science....
If they were a physicist/engineer/similar then I'd assume that they were
not curious enough to have discovered linux, and thue they were not
likely to be the sort of person who was going to be able to find
unusual/useful solutions to any other problems.
If I tell someone who's never done it before, at lunchtime, to obtain a
computer, install an OS, and be generating printable properly formatted
documents by close of business, and give him $500 to do it with, he'll be done
by 3:30 and have $100 in his pocket, still, if he does the obvious. If he
tries something else, what does that say about his ability to get the job
done? (see what I mean about disparate views of the same thing?)
People who can actually
think about a problem (rather than just trot out the 'standard solution'
to a similar problem) are fairly rare, and you can bet most of them will
have come across linux....
The thing about the "standard solution" is that it's a solution.
I've also got some *nix experience, and,
frankly, anything that requires I
recompile the OS just to install a driver is too much trouble. I've done
that, but hopefully never will again.
Oh, not this worn-out argument again....
Firstly, some unices have 'loadable modules' which can include device
drivers. In other words you can load a device driver at the shell prompt
on a running system with no problems
Secondly, what's the big deal with recompiling the kernel. It's generally
just a matter of running a configuration script (to include your new
deveice driver) and typing 'make'. If your machine doesn't have a
makefile for the kernel sources, then you've got one seriously broken
version of unix...
I used the default makefile that came with LINUX, (I tried four different
versions) and the prompts indicated, in one case, that, as I wanted, the MARS
NWE was installed, yet it didn't appear, didn't work, and just generally let
me down. The documents were not at all clear as to what was going on, so I
added the file and print services for Netware networks module to NT4, and was
done with it. My RedHat CD's are used as coasters. (Newer versions are
available gratis now, so it's no big loss.)
> something cheap and easy, that's the route
they pursue, while others, in
need
> of personal validation of one sort or another,
prefer the extensive
sophistry
> of *nix. Now, there ARE things that *nix can do
better, in some ways than
can
> be done under DOS/Windows, but it costs more,
requires considerable
learning
> either at school or at home, and takes a lot of
time to do. Until
somebody
I've never understood why people expect to be able to use a computer --
probably one of the most complicated and powerful devices they are likely
to use -- without having to learn to use it.
That's a different problem. I don't understand it either. People, in
general want to do as little as they can "get by with," saying nothing about
doing a creditable job.
For just about everything I own (calculator, computer, lathe, 'scope,
camera, etc) I've had to spend some time learning the basic principles of
the operation of that generic type of device and then a little more time
learning the specifics of the particular item I've chosen. I don't regard
this as wasting time either.
as any sensible owner would do. Not all are sensible, though.
People expect to have to spend a few months learning to drive a car. And
a computer is much more complicated than that.
That's not where we want things to be headed. An automobile is pretty
complicated and the process of driving one is too. The consequences of doing
it badly are much more serious and far-reaching than driving your computer.
I'll admit it can be frustrating if you make a mistake, but it's unlikely
you'll kill someone if you mistype at your home computer. There are things
the designers have decided it's best not to let you control about your
microwave oven, automobile, and electric range, too.
To be honest, if you're using a computer without learning a little bit
about it, then you're certainly not doing everything that computer is
capable of doing,
If someone gives you a Lear Jet and all you want is to use the installed
flashlight, why should you have to learn to fly?
and you're
probably wasting a lot of time as
a result.
Computers are there to automate jobs for you. To have
to do the same task
time-and-again by hand (as some OSes seem to expect you to do) should
indicate you're doing something wrong.
(1) Windows would not be one of those, and (2) most of the *nix users I know
enjoy the long cryptic command lines more than anything else.
2:01 p.m.
On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 06:14:17PM -0600, Richard Erlacher wrote:
But updates tend to assume that you own a license for an older version
of the product. What if this isn't the case? There _are_ people out
there (well, at least they're rumored to exist) who _do_ buy _new_
computers.
Properly formatted - yeah, right. That ill mixed and set font & colors soup
usually produced by people using Word is not exactly what anybody with a
hint of clue about typesetting would call "properly formatted". He'd
most likely use some ... less polite words.
Yes - but the problem is that people apply this mind set not only to
their private computers at home (where they can only do damage to
themselves), but as a general principle. And when the Windows mindset
("It failed? Doesn't matter, just try again. Still doesn't work? Just
re-install.") is applied to critical systems, then the stakes are much
higher. The UNIX mindset is different: "It doesn't work? Hmm - lets find
out why. And fix it/make somebody fix it." - smells of good old
engineering.
If you just want to use a flashlight, you should be given said flashlight
and not a LearJet. Period.
No, it's the enormous power and flexibility of the work environment
provided by UNIX we enjoy. One command line can get things done that
send a Windows User into a clicking frenzy for hours.
Regards,
Alex.
--
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not
have, nor do they deserve, either one. -- Benjamin Franklin
Eh? Windows costs $$$ (unless you regard piracy
as acceptable -- I do
not) whereas I can get a Unix-like OS, compilers, text formatters,
editors, and just about anything else I need totally free....
...but you can't get someting easy to use, meaning easy for a pre-med
student,
who should, but doesn't yet, know how or need to flex all the computer's
muscle, to use to do the "standard" sorts of things. Moreover, Windows
isn't
that expensive. The updates cost about $85US. I've heard lots about what "you can get"
but all I ever hear from the guys who
use Linux every day is that they "don't have that." Some of them use
Windows
Yes, there are quite some things I don't have on my systems:
- Outlook-virus of the week,
- trojan horse of the week,
- macro virus of the week,
- document eating so-called "productivity applications",
- trojan dialer of the week (a serious pest here in germany, basically
some trojan software making your (Windoze, of course) box make some
_really_ expensive calls via the modem - victims tend to face bills
in excess of US $1000,-
And I don't miss it. I can just get work done. Automate stuff that
should be automated. Boring, isn't it?
as well, however. The two are not mutually exclusive.
I think it comes down
to using the "path of least resistance."
Path of least resistence, oh yes, oh great. <tries hard to remain calm>
If they were a
physicist/engineer/similar then I'd assume that they were
not curious enough to have discovered linux, and thue they were not
likely to be the sort of person who was going to be able to find
unusual/useful solutions to any other problems.
If I tell someone who's never done it before, at lunchtime, to obtain a
computer, install an OS, and be generating printable properly formatted
documents by close of business, and give him $500 to do it with, he'll be done
People expect
to have to spend a few months learning to drive a car. And
a computer is much more complicated than that.
That's not where we want things to be headed. An automobile is pretty
complicated and the process of driving one is too. The consequences of doing
it badly are much more serious and far-reaching than driving your computer.
I'll admit it can be frustrating if you make a mistake, but it's unlikely
you'll kill someone if you mistype at your home computer. There are things
the designers have decided it's best not to let you control about your
microwave oven, automobile, and electric range, too. To be honest,
if you're using a computer without learning a little bit
about it, then you're certainly not doing everything that computer is
capable of doing,
If someone gives you a Lear Jet and all you want is to use the installed
flashlight, why should you have to learn to fly?
and you're probably wasting a lot of time as
a result.
Computers are there to automate jobs for you. To
have to do the same task
time-and-again by hand (as some OSes seem to expect you to do) should
indicate you're doing something wrong.
(1) Windows would not be one of those, and (2) most of the *nix users I know
enjoy the long cryptic command lines more than anything else.
4:12 p.m.
see below, plz.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexander Schreiber" <als(a)thangorodrim.de>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 8:01 PM
Subject: Re: APPLEVISION Monitor
Yes, but nobody would be complaining if they hadn't invested in the earlier
version of Winxxx and liked it well enough to continue using it. If there
were anything suitable, they'd buy that instead. The original Win 3.0 cost
$90, I think. The upgrade to 3.11 cost half that, though I got both versons
in the mail from MS.
done
I'm more inclined to return the product if it doesn't work. Why should I
fix
someone else's mistake?
If you just want to use a flashlight, you should be given said flashlight
and not a LearJet. Period.
That explains why people buy and use Windows, doesn't it?
perhaps, but not here.
On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 06:14:17PM -0600, Richard
Erlacher wrote:
>
> > Eh? Windows costs $$$ (unless you regard piracy as acceptable -- I do
> > not) whereas I can get a Unix-like OS, compilers, text formatters,
> > editors, and just about anything else I need totally free....
> >
> ...but you can't get someting easy to use, meaning easy for a pre-med
student,
> who should, but doesn't yet, know how or need
to flex all the computer's
> muscle, to use to do the "standard" sorts of things. Moreover, Windows
isn't
that
expensive. The updates cost about $85US.
But updates tend to assume that you own a license for an older version
of the product. What if this isn't the case? There _are_ people out
there (well, at least they're rumored to exist) who _do_ buy _new_
computers.
> I've heard lots about what "you can get" but all I ever hear from the
guys
who
> use Linux every day is that they "don't
have that." Some of them use
Windows
Yes, there are quite some things I don't have on my systems:
- Outlook-virus of the week,
- trojan horse of the week,
- macro virus of the week,
- document eating so-called "productivity applications",
- trojan dialer of the week (a serious pest here in germany, basically
some trojan software making your (Windoze, of course) box make some
_really_ expensive calls via the modem - victims tend to face bills
in excess of US $1000,-
I don't have those either. Aside from my %$#@! kid and his diskette, I've
had
no such trouble. Of course I don't have a regular modem. Even when I did, I
had no such problems, though.
And I don't miss it. I can just get work done. Automate stuff that
should be automated. Boring, isn't it?
> as well, however. The two are not mutually exclusive. I think it comes
down
to using the
"path of least resistance."
Path of least resistence, oh yes, oh great. <tries hard to remain calm>
> > If they were a physicist/engineer/similar then I'd assume that they were
> > not curious enough to have discovered linux, and thue they were not
> > likely to be the sort of person who was going to be able to find
> > unusual/useful solutions to any other problems.
>
> If I tell someone who's never done it before, at lunchtime, to obtain a
> computer, install an OS, and be generating printable properly formatted
> documents by close of business, and give him $500 to do it with, he'll be
Properly formatted - yeah, right. That ill mixed and set font & colors soup
usually produced by people using Word is not exactly what anybody with a
hint of clue about typesetting would call "properly formatted". He'd
most likely use some ... less polite words.
I wasn thinking Works rather than Word, it's cheaper, but either one works and
does nice work, too. I've had no trouble at all.
> > People expect to have to spend a few months learning to drive a car. And
> > a computer is much more complicated than that.
> >
> That's not where we want things to be headed. An automobile is pretty
> complicated and the process of driving one is too. The consequences of
doing
> it badly are much more serious and far-reaching
than driving your
computer.
> I'll admit it can be frustrating if you make
a mistake, but it's unlikely
> you'll kill someone if you mistype at your home computer. There are
things
the designers
have decided it's best not to let you control about your
microwave oven, automobile, and electric range, too.
Yes - but the problem is that people apply this mind set not only to
their private computers at home (where they can only do damage to
themselves), but as a general principle. And when the Windows mindset
("It failed? Doesn't matter, just try again. Still doesn't work? Just
re-install.") is applied to critical systems, then the stakes are much
higher. The UNIX mindset is different: "It doesn't work? Hmm - lets find
out why. And fix it/make somebody fix it." - smells of good old
engineering.
To be
honest, if you're using a computer without learning a little bit
about it, then you're certainly not doing everything that computer is
capable of doing,
If someone gives you a Lear Jet and all you want is to use the installed
flashlight, why should you have to learn to fly?
> > and you're probably wasting a lot of
time as
> a result.
> > Computers are there to automate jobs for you. To have to do the same
task
> > time-and-again by hand (as some OSes seem to
expect you to do) should
> > indicate you're doing something wrong.
> >
> (1) Windows would not be one of those, and (2) most of the *nix users I
know
enjoy the long
cryptic command lines more than anything else.
No, it's the enormous power and flexibility of the work environment
provided by UNIX we enjoy. One command line can get things done that
send a Windows User into a clicking frenzy for hours.
7 May
7 May
10:50 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 9591 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20020507/e56ba493/at…
12:27 p.m.
On Tue, 7 May 2002, Tony Duell wrote:
You are confusing 'easy to learn' with
'easy to use'. They are not the
same thing, no matter what marketroids may think. 'Easy to use' means
that a device does what I expect it to do, that it doesn't do something
crazy for not obvious reason, that it can be used to solve the real
problem I have, and so on. It does not mean that I expect to be able to
use the device without learning a little about it.
"Ease of Use" and "Ease of Learning" are the same, iff one is
incapable of
learning.
Simple example:
Wordstar cursor motion. It is very easy to use, but could be very hard to
learn for some people.
12:54 a.m.
At 10:40 PM 5/6/02 +0100, Tony wrote:
People expect to have to spend a few months learning to
drive a car. And
a computer is much more complicated than that.
To be honest, if you're using a computer without learning a little bit
about it, then you're certainly not doing everything that computer is
capable of doing. And you're probably wasting a lot of time as a result.
Computers are there to automate jobs for you. To have to do the same task
time-and-again by hand (as some OSes seem to expect you to do) should
indicate you're doing something wrong.
-tony
My computer is harder to learn than yours. ;-)
-----------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos E. Murillo-Sanchez carlos_murillo(a)nospammers.ieee.org
8311
days inactive
8314
days old
49 comments
19 participants
participants (19)
-
allain＠panix.com -
als＠thangorodrim.de -
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
bfranchuk＠jetnet.ab.ca -
carlos_murillo＠epm.net.co -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
doc＠mdrconsult.com -
edick＠idcomm.com -
jbdigriz＠dragonsweb.org -
jimdavis＠gorge.net -
jplist＠globe.net.nz -
jwest＠classiccmp.org -
kenziem＠sympatico.ca -
meltie＠myrealbox.com -
mythtech＠mac.com -
rhudson＠cnonline.net -
rmoyers＠nop.org -
spc＠conman.org -
tarsi＠binhost.com