f



OS X is PROOF linux that sucks!

Question.  If Linux is so great and Open Source Software developers are so smart, why does the Linux desktop look like crap?  KDE and Gnome don't interoperate well.  Heck, you can't even cut and paste between gnome and kde apps reliably.  How does Apple, which is a small fish compared to MS and other computing giants come up with something as good as OS X's Aqua?  That right there is proof that Linux developers can't code worth a crap.  Heck, you'd think with all those OSS developers, the Linux desktop would have left everything in the dust!  But that is not the case, because Windows 3.1 GUI gives Linux a run for the money!

If a relatively small company like Apple Inc. can create a great OS with a world class desktop, why can't the linux knuckleheads do it?
0
mikecoxlinux (652)
6/30/2005 12:27:02 AM
comp.os.linux.advocacy 124139 articles. 3 followers. Post Follow

1043 Replies
4812 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 48

"Mike Cox" <mikecoxlinux@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:m0hdfgy9ih.fsf@yahoo.com...
> Question.  If Linux is so great and Open Source Software developers are so 
> smart, why does the Linux desktop look like crap?  KDE and Gnome don't 
> interoperate well.  Heck, you can't even cut and paste between gnome and 
> kde apps reliably.  How does Apple, which is a small fish compared to MS 
> and other computing giants come up with something as good as OS X's Aqua? 
> That right there is proof that Linux developers can't code worth a crap. 
> Heck, you'd think with all those OSS developers, the Linux desktop would 
> have left everything in the dust!  But that is not the case, because 
> Windows 3.1 GUI gives Linux a run for the money!
>
> If a relatively small company like Apple Inc. can create a great OS with a 
> world class desktop, why can't the linux knuckleheads do it?

I'll bite - why can't they? 


0
zspook213 (210)
6/30/2005 12:47:22 AM
Mike Cox wrote:

> Question.  If Linux is so great and Open Source Software developers are so
> smart, why does the Linux desktop look like crap?  KDE and Gnome don't
> interoperate well.  Heck, you can't even cut and paste between gnome and
> kde apps reliably.  How does Apple, which is a small fish compared to MS
> and other computing giants come up with something as good as OS X's Aqua? 
> That right there is proof that Linux developers can't code worth a crap. 
> Heck, you'd think with all those OSS developers, the Linux desktop would
> have left everything in the dust!  But that is not the case, because
> Windows 3.1 GUI gives Linux a run for the money!
> 
> If a relatively small company like Apple Inc. can create a great OS with a
> world class desktop, why can't the linux knuckleheads do it?

If Linux is so bad, why is it running, at least in part, 8 of the top 10
fastest computers in the world? And why would you have to focus on the
something that is as subjective as looks rather than technical merit? 
0
no9 (3192)
6/30/2005 12:51:11 AM
"Mike Cox" <mikecoxlinux@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:m0hdfgy9ih.fsf@yahoo.com...
> Question.  If Linux is so great and Open Source Software developers are so 
> smart, why does the Linux desktop look like crap?  KDE and Gnome don't 
> interoperate well.  Heck, you can't even cut and paste between gnome and 
> kde apps reliably.  How does Apple, which is a small fish compared to MS 
> and other computing giants come up with something as good as OS X's Aqua? 
> That right there is proof that Linux developers can't code worth a crap. 
> Heck, you'd think with all those OSS developers, the Linux desktop would 
> have left everything in the dust!  But that is not the case, because 
> Windows 3.1 GUI gives Linux a run for the money!
>
> If a relatively small company like Apple Inc. can create a great OS with a 
> world class desktop, why can't the linux knuckleheads do it?

I think that the answer is pretty obvious.  If you are good at anything, 
hitting a baseball, throwing a football, picking a winning horse, or coding 
a GUI, you will naturally gravitate to the major leagues where you can test 
your skills against the best.  No matter how often I threw a football and 
was thrilled in doing so, I never got to the level of Roger Staubach and so 
had to look elsewhere for achievement.  If someone loves to code a GUI and 
is good at doing so, they will end up somewhere where the pros gather.  That 
is not the NYLUG meeting or anything even remotely resembling it.  It is 
Cupertino or Mountain View or Redmond where the folks that can soar with the 
eagles will meet and the results will speak for themselves. 


0
billw (3525)
6/30/2005 12:56:51 AM
> Subject: Re: OS X is PROOF linux 

It is?

> ... that sucks!

It does?

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 19:27:02 -0500, Mike Cox wrote
(in article <m0hdfgy9ih.fsf@yahoo.com>):

> Question.  If Linux is so great and Open Source Software developers are so 
> smart, why does the Linux desktop look like crap?  

Because it was not designed as a desktop platform for GUI fans?

> KDE and Gnome don't interoperate well.  

I tend to use one or the other at a time.

> Heck, you can't even cut and paste between gnome and kde apps reliably.  

I don't use many (any?) Gnome apps, but I don't recall such 
problems.

> How does Apple, which is a small fish compared to MS and 
> other computing giants come up with something as good as OS X's Aqua?  

It's pretty decent, but very resource hungry.  One of the Linux 
goals is to run on things other than the latest greatest 
hardware.  Since it will fire up KDE and run ok on an old 
pentium, I think that's fine.

> That right there is proof that Linux developers can't code worth a crap.  

Really?  You like a commercial software package better than a 
free one, so that means that the developers are crap?  Let me 
guess now, hold on.... you don't program at all?

> Heck, you'd think with all those OSS developers, the Linux desktop would have 
left 
> everything in the dust!  

It's focus was elsewhere, and it has done quite well in other 
places.  Look at the supercomputer list sometime.  However, 
people are finally starting to pour energy into desktop linux, 
but it does not happen overnight.  Calling the developers crap 
probably will help to motivate them though.

> But that is not the case, because Windows 3.1 GUI gives Linux a run for the 
money!

Oh, you don't expect us to take you serious then.  Tata...
 

0
nunya (4574)
6/30/2005 12:59:03 AM
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 17:27:02 -0700, Mike Cox wrote:

> Question.  If Linux is so great and Open Source Software developers are so smart, why does the Linux desktop look like crap?

it doesn't.
>  KDE and Gnome don't interoperate well.  Heck, you can't even cut and
>  paste between gnome and kde apps reliably.  

I've not had any problem.

>How does Apple, which is a
>  small fish compared to MS and other computing giants come up with
>  something as good as OS X's Aqua?  That right there is proof that Linux
>  developers can't code worth a crap.  Heck, you'd think with all those
>  OSS developers, the Linux desktop would have left everything in the
>  dust!

IMHO, it has.

>  But that is not the case, because Windows 3.1 GUI gives
>Linux a
>  run for the money!
> 
> If a relatively small company like Apple Inc. can create a great OS with
> a world class desktop, why can't the linux knuckleheads do it?

They have.

0
ray65 (5421)
6/30/2005 12:59:46 AM
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 17:27:02 -0700, Mike Cox wrote:

> Question.  If Linux is so great and Open Source Software developers are
> so smart, why does the Linux desktop look like crap?

It doesn't.


>  KDE and Gnome
> don't interoperate well.  

They do.

>Heck, you can't even cut and paste between
> gnome and kde apps reliably.

Actually, they've been working better and better in this regard lately.


>  How does Apple, which is a small fish
> compared to MS and other computing giants come up with something as good
> as OS X's Aqua?  That right there is proof that Linux developers can't
> code worth a crap.  

No it isn't. And I see nothing all that special about Aqua.


>Heck, you'd think with all those OSS developers, the
> Linux desktop would have left everything in the dust!  

It pretty much does.

>But that is
> not the case, because Windows 3.1 GUI gives Linux a run for the money!

Now you are definately smoking something.

> 
> If a relatively small company like Apple Inc. can create a great OS with
> a world class desktop, why can't the linux knuckleheads do it?

We can, we are, we have.
0
liam8 (4986)
6/30/2005 1:13:38 AM
"Liam Slider" <liam@nospam.liamslider.com> stated in post
pan.2005.06.30.01.13.44.529527@nospam.liamslider.com on 6/29/05 6:13 PM:

> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 17:27:02 -0700, Mike Cox wrote:
> 
>> Question.  If Linux is so great and Open Source Software developers are
>> so smart, why does the Linux desktop look like crap?
> 
> It doesn't.

More accurately: it does and it does not - there is no one "Linux
desktop"... something that is both a strength and a weakness of Linux.
> 
> 
>> KDE and Gnome don't interoperate well.
>> 
> They do.
> 
>> Heck, you can't even cut and paste between gnome and kde apps reliably.
>> 
> Actually, they've been working better and better in this regard lately.

Good: you realize they do not do it fully yet... and that historically they
have not, even rather recently.
> 
>> How does Apple, which is a small fish compared to MS and other computing
>> giants come up with something as good as OS X's Aqua?  That right there is
>> proof that Linux developers can't code worth a crap.
>> 
> No it isn't. And I see nothing all that special about Aqua.

It is often held up as a standard for ease of use and attractiveness...
though, of course, it does depend on your needs, experience, and taste.
> 
>> Heck, you'd think with all those OSS developers, the
>> Linux desktop would have left everything in the dust!
> 
> It pretty much does.

In what way?
> 
>> But that is
>> not the case, because Windows 3.1 GUI gives Linux a run for the money!
> 
> Now you are definately smoking something.

I have not seen a Linux GUI that is as bad as Win 3.1's... at least not KDE
or GNOME.
> 
>> 
>> If a relatively small company like Apple Inc. can create a great OS with
>> a world class desktop, why can't the linux knuckleheads do it?
> 
> We can, we are, we have.

In some ways... Linux surely has a wide feature set... but in ease-of-use
and consistency, nothing beats Apple's OS X.


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




0
SNIT (24281)
6/30/2005 1:24:10 AM
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 17:27:02 -0700, Mike Cox wrote:

> Question.  If Linux is so great and Open Source Software developers are so
> smart, why does the Linux desktop look like crap? 

It doesn't.

> KDE and Gnome don't interoperate well.  

They are different windowing environments.


> Heck, you can't even cut and paste between gnome and
> kde apps reliably.

My stuff does.

> How does Apple, which is a small fish compared to MS
> and other computing giants come up with something as good as OS X's Aqua? 

They have put many years of research into GUIs ans useability.

> That right there is proof that Linux developers can't code worth a crap.

That statement proves how clueless you are.

> Heck, you'd think with all those OSS developers, the Linux desktop would
> have left everything in the dust!  But that is not the case, because
> Windows 3.1 GUI gives Linux a run for the money!
> 
> If a relatively small company like Apple Inc. can create a great OS with
> a world class desktop, why can't the linux knuckleheads do it?

First, your ignorant bigotry is showing.
Second Apple enforces its UI guidelines. Apple is one company. 'Linux' is
not a company. Red Hat, IBM, Novell are companies.

-- 
Rick
<http://ricks-place.tripod.com/sound/2cents.wav>

0
none69 (3046)
6/30/2005 1:43:52 AM
Alex <fast@mischiefuk.com> writes:

> Mike Cox wrote:
> 
> > If a relatively small company like Apple Inc...
> 
> Small?

Compared to Microsoft, HP or IBM, yes.

> There is no argument that OSX is a fantastic looking and easy to use 
> desktop. They have made obvious proprietory advancements to the unix 
> base, and especially the X11 system, and it's only a matter of time 
> before the the opensource world catches up.

WRONG WRONG WRONG!  How long has linux been "trying to catch up"?  As of 2005, Gnome and KDE STILL have trouble copying and pasting between apps!  Where is the equivalent of iTunes?  Or iLife?  Linux comes equiped with a bunch of applications that DO NOT work seemlessly together.  Each has a command line interface that is completely inconsistant with the next app's switches.  Gnomes Nautilus is possibly the worst offender in user friendliness.

> It's also "solid as a rock":
> 
> "Beneath the easy-to-use interface and rich graphics of Mac OS X lies 
> Darwin, an open source, UNIX-based foundation built on such technologies 
> as mach and FreeBSD." -- 
> http://www.apple.com/macosx/overview/advancedtechnology.html
> 
> I suppose you could say they are standing on the shoulders of knuckleheads?

HAHAHAHAAHA. You know nothing of BSD vs Linux!  BSD developer Theo Raadt (creator of the most secure operating system OpenBSD) calls linux a "joke", "garbage", and that Linus' priorities are certainly not a stabe or secure kernel.  From a recent article here is what Raadt says:

"It's terrible," De Raadt says. "Everyone is using it, and they don't realize how bad it is. And the Linux people will just stick with it and add to it rather than stepping back and saying, 'This is garbage and we should fix it.'

"I think our code quality is higher, just because that's really a big focus for us," De Raadt says. "Linux has never been about quality. There are so many parts of the system that are just these cheap little hacks, and it happens to run."


http://www.forbes.com/intelligentinfrastructure/2005/06/16/linux-bsd-unix-cz_dl_0616theo.html
0
mikecoxlinux (652)
6/30/2005 1:47:21 AM
"Mike Cox" <mikecoxlinux@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:m0r7ekbopi.fsf@yahoo.com...
>>
>> > If a relatively small company like Apple Inc...
>>
>> Small?
>
> Compared to Microsoft, HP or IBM, yes.
>

Here's an interesting piece of totally useless trivia for ya....

Market cap

Apple = 29.97 Bil
HP = 69.47 Bil
IBM = 120.6 Bil
Msft = 271.1 Bil

To put it another way, Microsoft is larger than Apple, HP and IBM combined. 
I'm a stock geek so I find this interesting.








0
6/30/2005 1:58:04 AM
Mike Cox wrote:

> If a relatively small company like Apple Inc...

Small?

There is no argument that OSX is a fantastic looking and easy to use 
desktop. They have made obvious proprietory advancements to the unix 
base, and especially the X11 system, and it's only a matter of time 
before the the opensource world catches up.

It's also "solid as a rock":

"Beneath the easy-to-use interface and rich graphics of Mac OS X lies 
Darwin, an open source, UNIX-based foundation built on such technologies 
as mach and FreeBSD." -- 
http://www.apple.com/macosx/overview/advancedtechnology.html

I suppose you could say they are standing on the shoulders of knuckleheads?




0
fast2913 (22)
6/30/2005 2:01:42 AM
"Rick" <none@trollfeed.com> stated in post
pan.2005.06.30.01.43.52.452388@trollfeed.com on 6/29/05 6:43 PM:

> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 17:27:02 -0700, Mike Cox wrote:
> 
>> Question.  If Linux is so great and Open Source Software developers are so
>> smart, why does the Linux desktop look like crap?
> 
> It doesn't.
> 
>> KDE and Gnome don't interoperate well.
> 
> They are different windowing environments.

Very good, Rick!  This is a wonderful thing for you to realize.  Good to see
your know understand that they are not the same!

And before you go on about how you have known it for a long time... since
their is *no* reason to assume the OP did not realize it, the *only* reason
for you to bring it up is for you to brag about your lovely knowledge...

Or maybe you can offer a better reason why you would state such an obvious
fact.  [the chance of that happening, however, is essentially nil]

>> Heck, you can't even cut and paste between gnome and
>> kde apps reliably.
> 
> My stuff does.

Your pride is enormous... I am sure.
> 
>> How does Apple, which is a small fish compared to MS
>> and other computing giants come up with something as good as OS X's Aqua?
> 
> They have put many years of research into GUIs ans useability.

True.
> 
>> That right there is proof that Linux developers can't code worth a crap.
> 
> That statement proves how clueless you are.

Says you: who still is bragging that you know KDE and GNOME are, gasp!
"different windowing environments"!.  LOL!
> 
>> Heck, you'd think with all those OSS developers, the Linux desktop would
>> have left everything in the dust!  But that is not the case, because
>> Windows 3.1 GUI gives Linux a run for the money!
>> 
>> If a relatively small company like Apple Inc. can create a great OS with
>> a world class desktop, why can't the linux knuckleheads do it?
> 
> First, your ignorant bigotry is showing.
> Second Apple enforces its UI guidelines. Apple is one company. 'Linux' is
> not a company. Red Hat, IBM, Novell are companies.

And that is both a strength and a weakness for Linux.


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





0
SNIT (24281)
6/30/2005 2:18:09 AM
Mike Cox <mikecoxlinux@yahoo.com> writes:

> HAHAHAHAAHA. You know nothing of BSD vs Linux!  BSD developer Theo
> Raadt (creator of the most secure operating system OpenBSD) calls
> linux a "joke", "garbage", and that Linus' priorities are certainly
> not a stabe or secure kernel.  From a recent article here is what
> Raadt says:

I wonder if you know any more about Theo than is 
mentioned in the Forbes article. Does it discuss
the circumstances of Theo's departure from NetBSD?

-SEan




0
foobar5 (331)
6/30/2005 2:23:08 AM
Mike Cox wrote:

> Question.  If Linux is so great and Open Source Software developers are so
> smart, why does the Linux desktop look like crap?  KDE and Gnome don't
> interoperate well.  Heck, you can't even cut and paste between gnome and
> kde apps reliably.  How does Apple, which is a small fish compared to MS
> and other computing giants come up with something as good as OS X's Aqua? 
> That right there is proof that Linux developers can't code worth a crap. 
> Heck, you'd think with all those OSS developers, the Linux desktop would
> have left everything in the dust!  But that is not the case, because
> Windows 3.1 GUI gives Linux a run for the money!
> 
> If a relatively small company like Apple Inc. can create a great OS with a
> world class desktop, why can't the linux knuckleheads do it?

How come you haven't yet figured out to keep your line lengths short?

-- 
Get Microsoft PowerToys for Windows XP here: 
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/powertoys/xppowertoys.mspx
"A must-have for your Toy Operating System"

0
nostop (148)
6/30/2005 2:31:02 AM
NoStop <nostop@stopspam.com> writes:

> Mike Cox wrote:
> 
> > Question.  If Linux is so great and Open Source Software developers are so
> > smart, why does the Linux desktop look like crap?  KDE and Gnome don't
> > interoperate well.  Heck, you can't even cut and paste between gnome and
> > kde apps reliably.  How does Apple, which is a small fish compared to MS
> > and other computing giants come up with something as good as OS X's Aqua? 
> > That right there is proof that Linux developers can't code worth a crap. 
> > Heck, you'd think with all those OSS developers, the Linux desktop would
> > have left everything in the dust!  But that is not the case, because
> > Windows 3.1 GUI gives Linux a run for the money!
> > 
> > If a relatively small company like Apple Inc. can create a great OS with a
> > world class desktop, why can't the linux knuckleheads do it?
> 
> How come you haven't yet figured out to keep your line lengths short?

I'm using GNU's Emacs.  This thing is a gigantic ball of string
(typical of the GNU/Linux movement. Who knows how to fix anything!
I'm lucky I even got this far.  Getting gnus set up and figuring out
how to post was a 5 hour effort!  First you need to know an obscure
programming language (lisp), then you need to figure out what commands
corrospond to what you need to do.  Then you need to figure out how to
even get around emacs with its thousands of commands and key combinations.  

It is not easy to use at all!  This is representative of what GNU and
Linux stand for.  The uber nerd experience.  With Linux you need to
learn fdisk and partitioning with weird things like / , and swap and a
bazillion file systems.  Reiser, Reiser4, XFS, AndrewFS, ext2, ext3,
the list goes on!  Then you need to know how to compile a kernel and
figure out how to use CVS and the patch to command to compile it
back.  Then you need to 

Since OS X is based on BSD, I'm able to use this emacs monster from my
iBook.  But, since OS X is so easy to use and powerful, I wonder why
Linux developers haven't come up with anything remotely as good.

By the way, I fixed the formatting by looking for and old post of mine
where someone gave me the obscure lisp command to put in my gnus
file.  I remembered I spent a lot of time figuring it out on my Linux
box before I gave up on Linux and moved to SchilliX (opensolaris
distro) and OS X.
0
mikecoxlinux (652)
6/30/2005 2:49:05 AM
begin  Error Log for Wed, 29 Jun 2005 17:27:02 -0700 - Mike Cox
<mikecoxlinux@yahoo.com> caused an invalid page fault at address
<m0hdfgy9ih.fsf@yahoo.com>, details as follows:

> Question.  If Linux is so great and Open Source Software developers are
> so smart, why does the Linux desktop look like crap?

It looks like crap according to whom?  LGX is very customizable, so if you
think the default desktop "looks like crap" then you are certainly free to
customize it in every detail to something more to your liking.

I don't think my desktop "looks like crap" at all, though I have seen some
shots of Linux and Windows desktops that certainly do.

> KDE and Gnome don't interoperate well.

They don't?  News to me, as I use both KDE and GNOME apps regularly
without any issues.

> Heck, you can't even cut and paste between gnome and kde apps reliably.

Really?  So when I edit some text in Kate and then copy&paste it into Pan,
that's unreliable?

>  How does Apple, which is a small fish compared to MS and other
>  computing giants come up with something as good
> as OS X's Aqua?

Aqua is just a look, not a product.  There are a wealth of themes for
both Windows and Linux that can emulate this look if you want it.

> That right there is proof that Linux developers can't code worth a crap.

What does code have to do with it?  I would think that lies more in the
auspices of graphic designers than programmers.  Besides, as I've stated,
you can emulate the Aqua look & feel on Windows or Linux.

>  Heck, you'd think with all those OSS developers, the
> Linux desktop would have left everything in the dust!

Well, it does really.  But that's just my opinion.

>  But that is not the case, because Windows 3.1 GUI gives Linux a run for the money!

Now you're just being silly.
 
> If a relatively small company like Apple Inc. can create a great OS with
> a world class desktop, why can't the linux knuckleheads do it?

Not counting 3rd party apps and addons, just what functionality is present
in either Windows XP or OS X that isn't with a default install of say,
Mepis Linux?

-- 
rapskat -  22:47:25 up  1:12,  2 users,  load average: 0.36, 0.25, 0.17
The woods are lovely, dark and deep.
But I have promises to keep,
and lines to code before I sleep,
And lines to code before I sleep.
        -- Stephen Williams     
0
rapskat2 (2033)
6/30/2005 2:58:33 AM
begin  Error Log for Thu, 30 Jun 2005 02:23:08 +0000 - Sean Burke
<foobar@mystery.org> caused an invalid page fault at address
<x78y0sd1o8.fsf@bolo.xenadyne.com>, details as follows:

> 
> Mike Cox <mikecoxlinux@yahoo.com> writes:
> 
>> HAHAHAHAAHA. You know nothing of BSD vs Linux!  BSD developer Theo
>> Raadt (creator of the most secure operating system OpenBSD) calls
>> linux a "joke", "garbage", and that Linus' priorities are certainly
>> not a stabe or secure kernel.  From a recent article here is what
>> Raadt says:
> 
> I wonder if you know any more about Theo than is 
> mentioned in the Forbes article. Does it discuss
> the circumstances of Theo's departure from NetBSD?
> 
> -SEan

http://mail-index.netbsd.org/netbsd-users/1994/12/23/0000.html

Just another highly opinionated, condescending, controlling and
overbearing asshole it seems.

Just goes to show that one's accomplishments, no matter how great, 
aren't any indicator of one's personality and vice-versa.

-- 
rapskat -  23:00:40 up  1:25,  2 users,  load average: 0.21, 0.26, 0.24
        "Immortality is an adequate definition of high availability for
me."
        --- Gregory F. Pfister
0
rapskat2 (2033)
6/30/2005 3:03:47 AM
begin  Error Log for Wed, 29 Jun 2005 19:18:09 -0700 - Snit
<SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> caused an invalid page fault at address
<BEE8A471.209BD%SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>, details as follows:

>>> If a relatively small company like Apple Inc. can create a great OS with
>>> a world class desktop, why can't the linux knuckleheads do it?
>> 
>> First, your ignorant bigotry is showing.
>> Second Apple enforces its UI guidelines. Apple is one company. 'Linux' is
>> not a company. Red Hat, IBM, Novell are companies.
> 
> And that is both a strength and a weakness for Linux.

A strength.  If Linux were wholely owned and controlled by one company, M$
would have made short work of it long ago.

-- 
rapskat -  23:04:49 up  1:29,  2 users,  load average: 0.06, 0.21, 0.23
	"First rule: Never sweat the petty things, or pet the sweaty things."
0
rapskat2 (2033)
6/30/2005 3:05:38 AM
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 18:24:10 -0700, Snit wrote:

> "Liam Slider" <liam@nospam.liamslider.com> stated in post
> pan.2005.06.30.01.13.44.529527@nospam.liamslider.com on 6/29/05 6:13 PM:
> 
>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 17:27:02 -0700, Mike Cox wrote:
>> 
>>> Question.  If Linux is so great and Open Source Software developers are
>>> so smart, why does the Linux desktop look like crap?
>> 
>> It doesn't.
> 
> More accurately: it does and it does not - there is no one "Linux
> desktop"... something that is both a strength and a weakness of Linux.

How does choice mean it does (look like crap) and it doesn't (look like
crap)?


>> 
>> 
>>> KDE and Gnome don't interoperate well.
>>> 
>> They do.
>> 
>>> Heck, you can't even cut and paste between gnome and kde apps
>>> reliably.
>>> 
>> Actually, they've been working better and better in this regard lately.
> 
> Good: you realize they do not do it fully yet... and that historically
> they have not, even rather recently.


I release they haven't in the past yes. But, at least on some distros,
it's being done very well right now. Mandrake/Mandriva for example.


>> 
>>> How does Apple, which is a small fish compared to MS and other
>>> computing giants come up with something as good as OS X's Aqua?  That
>>> right there is proof that Linux developers can't code worth a crap.
>>> 
>> No it isn't. And I see nothing all that special about Aqua.
> 
> It is often held up as a standard for ease of use and attractiveness...
> though, of course, it does depend on your needs, experience, and taste.


There are some nits I can pick about the OSX gui...

>> 
>>> Heck, you'd think with all those OSS developers, the
>>> Linux desktop would have left everything in the dust!
>> 
>> It pretty much does.
> 
> In what way?

Configurability, flexibility, speed on the same hardware as other
"mainstream" operating systems, choice (with Linux you can keep your OS,
but choose your Desktop Environment. Not so on other mainstream desktop
operating systems. Plus we have greater choice of hardware as well),
stability and security (we have had less malware problems than OSX
actually, although that numbers is still laughable compared to Windows.
And OSX has had a few more stability issues than Linux overall I've heard,
although that's been improving a great deal), ease of install of a vast
software library (package management systems like urpmi, apt, emerge, and
so forth give us access to many thousands of software titles with a few
simple commands, or with a simple GUI. Just a simple download and install
of virtually anything for our systems), etc...

>> 
>>> But that is
>>> not the case, because Windows 3.1 GUI gives Linux a run for the money!
>> 
>> Now you are definately smoking something.
> 
> I have not seen a Linux GUI that is as bad as Win 3.1's... at least not
> KDE or GNOME.

I think I can agree here. Win 3.1 was pretty bad.

>> 
>>> 
>>> If a relatively small company like Apple Inc. can create a great OS with
>>> a world class desktop, why can't the linux knuckleheads do it?
>> 
>> We can, we are, we have.
> 
> In some ways... Linux surely has a wide feature set... but in ease-of-use
> and consistency, nothing beats Apple's OS X.

I'd say we come damn close. OSX has areas where it is a bit irritaing at
times too you know. There are areas where, as a Linux user, I can point to
it and complain about usability issues. In fact, I have.

0
liam8 (4986)
6/30/2005 3:23:57 AM
"rapskat" <rapskat@gmail.com> stated in post
pan.2005.06.30.03.05.38.303209@rapskat.com on 6/29/05 8:05 PM:

> begin  Error Log for Wed, 29 Jun 2005 19:18:09 -0700 - Snit
> <SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> caused an invalid page fault at address
> <BEE8A471.209BD%SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>, details as follows:
> 
>>>> If a relatively small company like Apple Inc. can create a great OS with
>>>> a world class desktop, why can't the linux knuckleheads do it?
>>> 
>>> First, your ignorant bigotry is showing.
>>> Second Apple enforces its UI guidelines. Apple is one company. 'Linux' is
>>> not a company. Red Hat, IBM, Novell are companies.
>> 
>> And that is both a strength and a weakness for Linux.
> 
> A strength.  If Linux were wholely owned and controlled by one company, M$
> would have made short work of it long ago.

A weakness: the "brand" name is so scattered that people really have no idea
what to expect when they use a Linux machine.

As I said, it is both a strength and a weakness.  Overall, however, I think
it is a good thing - we already have an Apple as an alternative to MS, Linux
offers a very different alternative.  I am happy both exist.


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




0
SNIT (24281)
6/30/2005 3:25:11 AM
"Liam Slider" <liam@nospam.liamslider.com> stated in post
pan.2005.06.30.03.24.01.477430@nospam.liamslider.com on 6/29/05 8:23 PM:

> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 18:24:10 -0700, Snit wrote:
> 
>> "Liam Slider" <liam@nospam.liamslider.com> stated in post
>> pan.2005.06.30.01.13.44.529527@nospam.liamslider.com on 6/29/05 6:13 PM:
>> 
>>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 17:27:02 -0700, Mike Cox wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Question.  If Linux is so great and Open Source Software developers are
>>>> so smart, why does the Linux desktop look like crap?
>>> 
>>> It doesn't.
>> 
>> More accurately: it does and it does not - there is no one "Linux
>> desktop"... something that is both a strength and a weakness of Linux.
> 
> How does choice mean it does (look like crap) and it doesn't (look like
> crap)?

People, or distributors / IT folks / etc, can have it look, and work, in
many ways.
>>> 
>>>> KDE and Gnome don't interoperate well.
>>>> 
>>> They do.
>>> 
>>>> Heck, you can't even cut and paste between gnome and kde apps
>>>> reliably.
>>>> 
>>> Actually, they've been working better and better in this regard lately.
>> 
>> Good: you realize they do not do it fully yet... and that historically
>> they have not, even rather recently.
> 
> I release they haven't in the past yes. But, at least on some distros,
> it's being done very well right now. Mandrake/Mandriva for example.

No argument here...
>>> 
>>>> How does Apple, which is a small fish compared to MS and other
>>>> computing giants come up with something as good as OS X's Aqua?  That
>>>> right there is proof that Linux developers can't code worth a crap.
>>>> 
>>> No it isn't. And I see nothing all that special about Aqua.
>> 
>> It is often held up as a standard for ease of use and attractiveness...
>> though, of course, it does depend on your needs, experience, and taste.
> 
> There are some nits I can pick about the OSX gui...

As can I.  Even things beyond just nits:

    http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/mac_win/

I certainly do not mean to imply OS X is perfect.
>>> 
>>>> Heck, you'd think with all those OSS developers, the
>>>> Linux desktop would have left everything in the dust!
>>> 
>>> It pretty much does.
>> 
>> In what way?
> 
> Configurability, flexibility

Configurability and flexibility are a two edges sword.  I assume you know
the pros, so do not take my lack of comments on that here to mean I do not
know that there are some pros...

With that said, a well designed interface can be hurt by too much
configurability.  How many more accidents would there be on the road if it
were easy to "configure" which peddle was the gas, which was the brake...
and which direction you moved the steering wheel to turn left?  The relative
consistency (and lack of easy configurability) from car to car is a *huge*
advantage and even, literally, a life saver.

With Linux almost anything is possible - but it is not consistent from
machine to machine, from application to application, or - sometimes - even
within the same application (while this is true for other OS's, it is much
more true with Linux).  This leads to a Linux community that often blames
the user when the user can not efficiently use their computer.  It also
requires a larger learning curve and makes shared work stations less
appealing.

> , speed on the same hardware as other "mainstream" operating systems, choice
> (with Linux you can keep your OS, but choose your Desktop Environment. Not so
> on other mainstream desktop operating systems. Plus we have greater choice of
> hardware as well), stability and security (we have had less malware problems
> than OSX actually, although that numbers is still laughable compared to
> Windows.

I would like to see your support that Linux has had less malware than OS
X... 

> And OSX has had a few more stability issues than Linux overall I've heard,
> although that's been improving a great deal)

Again I would like to see your support.  10.0 (or maybe 10.1) was the last
time I can say OS X has had any real stability issues.

> , ease of install of a vast software library (package management systems like
> urpmi, apt, emerge, and so forth give us access to many thousands of software
> titles with a few simple commands, or with a simple GUI. Just a simple
> download and install of virtually anything for our systems), etc...

Easy for an experienced user... for most novices, Linux is a huge mystery -
more so than OS X or even Windows.

>>>> But that is
>>>> not the case, because Windows 3.1 GUI gives Linux a run for the money!
>>> 
>>> Now you are definately smoking something.
>> 
>> I have not seen a Linux GUI that is as bad as Win 3.1's... at least not
>> KDE or GNOME.
> 
> I think I can agree here. Win 3.1 was pretty bad.

You are being kind to say "pretty bad".  I do not think it was "pretty" at
all.  :)
>>>> 
>>>> If a relatively small company like Apple Inc. can create a great OS with
>>>> a world class desktop, why can't the linux knuckleheads do it?
>>> 
>>> We can, we are, we have.
>> 
>> In some ways... Linux surely has a wide feature set... but in ease-of-use
>> and consistency, nothing beats Apple's OS X.
> 
> I'd say we come damn close. OSX has areas where it is a bit irritaing at
> times too you know.

No doubt.

> There are areas where, as a Linux user, I can point to
> it and complain about usability issues. In fact, I have.

Even where we disagree, sounds like you are being reasonably fair minded
about this.  Good to see, as that is often not the case in CSMA / COLA


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




0
SNIT (24281)
6/30/2005 3:39:59 AM
In article <m0hdfgy9ih.fsf@yahoo.com>,
 Mike Cox <mikecoxlinux@yahoo.com> wrote:
> If a relatively small company like Apple Inc. can create a great OS with a 
> world class desktop, why can't the linux knuckleheads do it?

Apple has a market cap of $30 billion.  Compare to:

   Sun      $12 billion
   Redhat    $2 billion

Apple has over 11000 employees.

Apple has $11 billion a year in revenue.

Apple has not been a relatively small company for a long long time.

-- 
--Tim Smith
0
reply_in_group (13194)
6/30/2005 3:58:48 AM
In article <pan.2005.06.30.02.58.31.643912@rapskat.com>,
 rapskat <rapskat@gmail.com> wrote:
> Aqua is just a look, not a product.  There are a wealth of themes for
> both Windows and Linux that can emulate this look if you want it.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult>

-- 
--Tim Smith
0
reply_in_group (13194)
6/30/2005 4:01:20 AM
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 20:39:59 -0700, Snit wrote:

> "Liam Slider" <liam@nospam.liamslider.com> stated in post
> pan.2005.06.30.03.24.01.477430@nospam.liamslider.com on 6/29/05 8:23 PM:
> 
>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 18:24:10 -0700, Snit wrote:
>> 
>>> "Liam Slider" <liam@nospam.liamslider.com> stated in post
>>> pan.2005.06.30.01.13.44.529527@nospam.liamslider.com on 6/29/05 6:13 PM:
>>> 
>>>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 17:27:02 -0700, Mike Cox wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Question.  If Linux is so great and Open Source Software developers are
>>>>> so smart, why does the Linux desktop look like crap?
>>>> 
>>>> It doesn't.
>>> 
>>> More accurately: it does and it does not - there is no one "Linux
>>> desktop"... something that is both a strength and a weakness of Linux.
>> 
>> How does choice mean it does (look like crap) and it doesn't (look like
>> crap)?
> 
> People, or distributors / IT folks / etc, can have it look, and work, in
> many ways.

And, so, but, therefore....

<snip>
>>>> 
>>>>> Heck, you'd think with all those OSS developers, the
>>>>> Linux desktop would have left everything in the dust!
>>>> 
>>>> It pretty much does.
>>> 
>>> In what way?
>> 
>> Configurability, flexibility
> 
> Configurability and flexibility are a two edges sword.  I assume you know
> the pros, so do not take my lack of comments on that here to mean I do not
> know that there are some pros...
> 
> With that said, a well designed interface can be hurt by too much
> configurability.  How many more accidents would there be on the road if it
> were easy to "configure" which peddle was the gas, which was the brake...
> and which direction you moved the steering wheel to turn left?  The relative
> consistency (and lack of easy configurability) from car to car is a *huge*
> advantage and even, literally, a life saver.
> 
> With Linux almost anything is possible - but it is not consistent from
> machine to machine, from application to application, or - sometimes - even
> within the same application (while this is true for other OS's, it is much
> more true with Linux).  This leads to a Linux community that often blames
> the user when the user can not efficiently use their computer.  It also
> requires a larger learning curve and makes shared work stations less
> appealing.


Actually, this is very rarely the kind of issue you make it out to be. For
instance, GNOME and KDE are both highly configurable, and even more so
with the right add ons...but they are still GNOME and KDE at the heart of
it and still work within their frameworks. Linux still follows a fairly
Unix-like philosophy of lots of standard parts plugging into each other in
order to do various tasks. While people can customise Linux
considerably...it's still Linux.


>
>> , speed on the same hardware as other "mainstream" operating systems,
>> choice (with Linux you can keep your OS, but choose your Desktop
>> Environment. Not so on other mainstream desktop operating systems. Plus
>> we have greater choice of hardware as well), stability and security (we
>> have had less malware problems than OSX actually, although that numbers
>> is still laughable compared to Windows.
> 
> I would like to see your support that Linux has had less malware than OS
> X...


The only true viruses that Linux has ever had have been...well...confined
to the lab for all intents and purposes, and never really working even
there. OSX has had a tiny few cases I believe.

> 
>> And OSX has had a few more stability issues than Linux overall I've
>> heard, although that's been improving a great deal)
> 
> Again I would like to see your support.  10.0 (or maybe 10.1) was the
> last time I can say OS X has had any real stability issues.

True, as I said, it's very minor. Nothing approaching Windows. OSX is a
rock of stability in comparison, but I would not go so far as to say that
it's *quite* as stable as linux. Probably not even big enough for us to be
bothering arguing about though.

> 
>> , ease of install of a vast software library (package management
>> systems like urpmi, apt, emerge, and so forth give us access to many
>> thousands of software titles with a few simple commands, or with a
>> simple GUI. Just a simple download and install of virtually anything
>> for our systems), etc...
> 
> Easy for an experienced user... for most novices, Linux is a huge
> mystery - more so than OS X or even Windows.

What's so hard, so mysterious about clicking on the "install software
using <whatever>" menu item and choosing the application you want from the
well organised listing, or better, searching within that to find your
application. Then clicking the "install" button?

0
liam8 (4986)
6/30/2005 4:04:37 AM
begin  Error Log for Thu, 30 Jun 2005 04:01:20 +0000 - Tim Smith
<reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> caused an invalid page fault at address
<reply_in_group-CF71C5.21012129062005@news1.west.earthlink.net>, details
as follows:

> In article <pan.2005.06.30.02.58.31.643912@rapskat.com>,
>  rapskat <rapskat@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Aqua is just a look, not a product.  There are a wealth of themes for
>> both Windows and Linux that can emulate this look if you want it.
> 
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult>

I take it by this you are trying to convey that in creating themes for
other platforms/WM's that emulate the look and feel of Aqua, people are
"making obeisance to something that it is obvious they do not comprehend"?

Perhaps you are right.  Please explain just what mysterious element these
themes and the people that use them just aren't getting if you would.

-- 
rapskat -  00:12:58 up  2:38,  2 users,  load average: 0.14, 0.24, 0.26
	"Developing open source software is like being in a car
accident.  It's painful and bloody, lots of people stand around to
watch, but few want to help.  Those that do are saints."
	-- William Stearns
0
rapskat2 (2033)
6/30/2005 4:16:11 AM
In article <ANWdnU2x8Omd317fRVn-pA@rcn.net>, Ralph <no@way.com> wrote:

> Mike Cox wrote:
> 
> > Question.  If Linux is so great and Open Source Software developers are so
> > smart, why does the Linux desktop look like crap?  KDE and Gnome don't
> > interoperate well.  Heck, you can't even cut and paste between gnome and
> > kde apps reliably.  How does Apple, which is a small fish compared to MS
> > and other computing giants come up with something as good as OS X's Aqua? 
> > That right there is proof that Linux developers can't code worth a crap. 
> > Heck, you'd think with all those OSS developers, the Linux desktop would
> > have left everything in the dust!  But that is not the case, because
> > Windows 3.1 GUI gives Linux a run for the money!
> > 
> > If a relatively small company like Apple Inc. can create a great OS with a
> > world class desktop, why can't the linux knuckleheads do it?
> 
> If Linux is so bad, why is it running, at least in part, 8 of the top 10
> fastest computers in the world? 

Because you don't install X and KDE or Gnome on a node in a Beowulf cluster. 
There's no question that Linux is really good for such things: lots of smart 
people have worked on it to make it fast and robust. However, when geeks write 
systems for geeks, the result is a system that appeals to geeks. Unfortunately, 
they often can't understand the needs of non-geeks. 

.... which leads to the contradictory messages of "Linux for the Masses!" and 
"Linux for only the technically competent!" 

> And why would you have to focus on the
> something that is as subjective as looks rather than technical merit? 

It's not just looks. (All too many Linux application programmers mistake the 
ability to change an application's skin for being able to change its feel.) A 
part of technical merit is how well an app follows proven UI conventions and how 
well it presents a coherent model of the underlying concepts to a user.

-- 
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
If Macintosh is a luxury cruise ship, 
then Linux is a freighter with wood paneling in the officers' quarters.
0
timberwoof (3216)
6/30/2005 4:39:23 AM
Timberwoof wrote:

> In article <ANWdnU2x8Omd317fRVn-pA@rcn.net>, Ralph <no@way.com> wrote:
> 
>> Mike Cox wrote:
>> 
>> > Question.  If Linux is so great and Open Source Software developers are
>> > so
>> > smart, why does the Linux desktop look like crap?  KDE and Gnome don't
>> > interoperate well.  Heck, you can't even cut and paste between gnome
>> > and
>> > kde apps reliably.  How does Apple, which is a small fish compared to
>> > MS and other computing giants come up with something as good as OS X's
>> > Aqua? That right there is proof that Linux developers can't code worth
>> > a crap. Heck, you'd think with all those OSS developers, the Linux
>> > desktop would
>> > have left everything in the dust!  But that is not the case, because
>> > Windows 3.1 GUI gives Linux a run for the money!
>> > 
>> > If a relatively small company like Apple Inc. can create a great OS
>> > with a world class desktop, why can't the linux knuckleheads do it?
>> 
>> If Linux is so bad, why is it running, at least in part, 8 of the top 10
>> fastest computers in the world?
> 
> Because you don't install X and KDE or Gnome on a node in a Beowulf
> cluster. There's no question that Linux is really good for such things:
> lots of smart people have worked on it to make it fast and robust.
> However, when geeks write systems for geeks, the result is a system that
> appeals to geeks. Unfortunately, they often can't understand the needs of
> non-geeks.

You mean non-geek systems that get viruses and all that rot? Or ego boxes
that are over priced so people can impress people with how much money they
have to throw away like Apple computers? 

> 
> ... which leads to the contradictory messages of "Linux for the Masses!"
> and "Linux for only the technically competent!"
> 
>> And why would you have to focus on the
>> something that is as subjective as looks rather than technical merit?
> 
> It's not just looks. 

Funny that's all that Mike focused on. 

> (All too many Linux application programmers mistake 
> the ability to change an application's skin for being able to change its
> feel.)

Oh, so changing from KDE to GNOME to WindowMaker is changing skins and not
changing feel? You don't have a clue what you are talking about. Switching
from KDE to GNOME to WindowMaker changes much more than its skin OR feel,
it changes some amount of functionality! 

> A part of technical merit is how well an app follows proven UI 
> conventions and how well it presents a coherent model of the underlying
> concepts to a user.

I noticed that you could not give a single thing that makes apple
technically better than Linux for ANY USE. Guess Apples are just ego
computers so losers that can't impress anyone any other way can at least
show that they have money to waste on over priced crap.  

> 

0
no9 (3192)
6/30/2005 4:48:44 AM
begin  Error Log for Thu, 30 Jun 2005 04:39:23 +0000 - Timberwoof
<timberwoof@stimpberawoofm.com> caused an invalid page fault at address
<timberwoof-578E45.21392329062005@typhoon.sonic.net>, details as follows:

>> And why would you have to focus on the something that is as subjective
>> as looks rather than technical merit?
> 
> It's not just looks. (All too many Linux application programmers mistake
> the ability to change an application's skin for being able to change its
> feel.) A part of technical merit is how well an app follows proven UI
> conventions and how well it presents a coherent model of the underlying
> concepts to a user.

And Linux and it's applications don't do this?  If a user knows the basic
concepts of computer use, then they would have no issues with Linux et al
at all.

I see children 5 and below using Linux with no problems.

-- 
rapskat -  00:47:15 up  3:12,  2 users,  load average: 0.11, 0.29, 0.27
        "5) what are people like spaf/chris rouland/lance then?
a) THEY ARE THE ENEMY. WHITEHATS = ENEMY."
        -- http://www.blackhatbloc.org/phrack/texts/faq1.txt
0
rapskat2 (2033)
6/30/2005 4:49:34 AM
Mike Cox <mikecoxlinux@yahoo.com> writes:

> I'm using GNU's Emacs.  This thing is a gigantic ball of string
> (typical of the GNU/Linux movement. Who knows how to fix anything!
> I'm lucky I even got this far.  Getting gnus set up and figuring out
> how to post was a 5 hour effort!  First you need to know an obscure
> programming language (lisp), then you need to figure out what commands
> corrospond to what you need to do.  Then you need to figure out how to
> even get around emacs with its thousands of commands and key combinations.  
> 
> It is not easy to use at all!  This is representative of what GNU and
> Linux stand for.  

You're confusing easy-to-learn with easy-to-use.
It's easy to learn play the kazoo, and hard to learn
to play the violin. But it is very easy to use a violin
to play chamber music - not so with the kazoo.

> The uber nerd experience.  With Linux you need to
> learn fdisk and partitioning with weird things like / , and swap and a
> bazillion file systems.  Reiser, Reiser4, XFS, AndrewFS, ext2, ext3,
> the list goes on!  Then you need to know how to compile a kernel and
> figure out how to use CVS and the patch to command to compile it
> back.  Then you need to 
> 
> Since OS X is based on BSD, I'm able to use this emacs monster from my
> iBook.  But, since OS X is so easy to use and powerful, I wonder why
> Linux developers haven't come up with anything remotely as good.
> 
> By the way, I fixed the formatting by looking for and old post of mine
> where someone gave me the obscure lisp command to put in my gnus
> file.  I remembered I spent a lot of time figuring it out on my Linux
> box before I gave up on Linux and moved to SchilliX (opensolaris
> distro) and OS X.

What am i missing here? You can run GNU Emacs on Linux,
and that's one of the reasons that Linux is terrible.
You can also run it on OSX, but OSX is still easy to use
and powerful?

(BTW, i'm posting using Gnus on Solaris/Sparc).

-SEan

0
foobar5 (331)
6/30/2005 4:52:31 AM
In article <m04qbgy2xq.fsf@yahoo.com>, Mike Cox <mikecoxlinux@yahoo.com> wrote:

> NoStop <nostop@stopspam.com> writes:
> 
> > Mike Cox wrote:
> > 
> > > Question.  If Linux is so great and Open Source Software developers are so
> > > smart, why does the Linux desktop look like crap?  KDE and Gnome don't
> > > interoperate well.  Heck, you can't even cut and paste between gnome and
> > > kde apps reliably.  How does Apple, which is a small fish compared to MS
> > > and other computing giants come up with something as good as OS X's Aqua? 
> > > That right there is proof that Linux developers can't code worth a crap. 
> > > Heck, you'd think with all those OSS developers, the Linux desktop would
> > > have left everything in the dust!  But that is not the case, because
> > > Windows 3.1 GUI gives Linux a run for the money!
> > > 
> > > If a relatively small company like Apple Inc. can create a great OS with a
> > > world class desktop, why can't the linux knuckleheads do it?
> > 
> > How come you haven't yet figured out to keep your line lengths short?
> 
> I'm using GNU's Emacs.  This thing is a gigantic ball of string
> (typical of the GNU/Linux movement. Who knows how to fix anything!
> I'm lucky I even got this far.  Getting gnus set up and figuring out
> how to post was a 5 hour effort!  First you need to know an obscure
> programming language (lisp), then you need to figure out what commands
> corrospond to what you need to do.  Then you need to figure out how to
> even get around emacs with its thousands of commands and key combinations.  
> 
> It is not easy to use at all!  This is representative of what GNU and
> Linux stand for.  The uber nerd experience.  With Linux you need to
> learn fdisk and partitioning with weird things like / , and swap and a
> bazillion file systems.  Reiser, Reiser4, XFS, AndrewFS, ext2, ext3,
> the list goes on!  Then you need to know how to compile a kernel and
> figure out how to use CVS and the patch to command to compile it
> back.  Then you need to 
> 
> Since OS X is based on BSD, I'm able to use this emacs monster from my
> iBook.  But, since OS X is so easy to use and powerful, I wonder why
> Linux developers haven't come up with anything remotely as good.

Because Linux developers are geeks who enjoy complicated stuff for its own sake, 
don't mind a crufty user interface, and rate an application by the number of 
knobs to frob. They complain when an application reduces the main UI to the 
barest essentials -- it takes away their sense of control over the application. 

For instance, iTunes does let you set all kinds of parameters in how it rips 
CDs, but they're hidden in the Preferences. I've seen Linux applications where 
every last obscure MP3 encoding parameter is right there on the main UI. 

Steve hired some talented and knowledgeable artists to design the look of OS X, 
and some talented UI experts to design the feel. Together they came up with a 
system that works very well ... and wrote books that explain how to do a 
passable job of designing the UI for an OS X app. The result is that OS X apps 
tend to have a similar look and feel, one that tends to be sparse and elegant. 
What Linux geeks see right off is the sparseness and the apparent lack of 
control, and that's what they focus on. OS X isn't meant for them, and they 
don't really mean Linux for OS X users. 

Especially folks like Peter K�hlmann -- probably pretty intelligent and 
knowledgeable about Linux; maybe a decent programmer. But I'd never hire him to 
design or implement a UI. His contempt for people he thinks are stupid (he's 
said so himself) would spill out into his UI designs, which would probably be a 
QA nightmare and show utter disregard for the non-expert user. 

It's not that Linux developers are stupid or something -- they're not -- they 
for the most part just don't get what good UI design is about. 

> By the way, I fixed the formatting by looking for and old post of mine
> where someone gave me the obscure lisp command to put in my gnus
> file.  I remembered I spent a lot of time figuring it out on my Linux
> box before I gave up on Linux and moved to SchilliX (opensolaris
> distro) and OS X.

The biggest problem I have with man pages is that they generally tell you all 
the atomic behaviors but don't tell you any of the emergent behaviors. The man 
page for a 'format' command would tell you all the two dozen parameters you can 
use, but there's no wisdom about why or how to do it efficiently. I wish man 
pages would include examples, cookbook style, of the most common ways to use a 
command. (This is the equivalent of putting the essentials on the main UI and 
hiding all the other knobs in a settings dialog.) 

I still don't know how to add, for instance, the various MySQL GUI utilities to 
the KDE menu. KDE documentation is overflowing with information on how to write 
applications, but there's nothing for users. What, is a user supposed to read 
the code to figure this out? Screw that ... I'm using OS X; it's easier to read 
up on how to use that.

-- 
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
If Macintosh is a luxury cruise ship, 
then Linux is a freighter with wood paneling in the officers' quarters.
0
timberwoof (3216)
6/30/2005 4:56:42 AM
rapskat <rapskat@gmail.com> writes:

> begin  Error Log for Thu, 30 Jun 2005 02:23:08 +0000 - Sean Burke
> <foobar@mystery.org> caused an invalid page fault at address
> <x78y0sd1o8.fsf@bolo.xenadyne.com>, details as follows:
> 
> > 
> > Mike Cox <mikecoxlinux@yahoo.com> writes:
> > 
> >> HAHAHAHAAHA. You know nothing of BSD vs Linux!  BSD developer Theo
> >> Raadt (creator of the most secure operating system OpenBSD) calls
> >> linux a "joke", "garbage", and that Linus' priorities are certainly
> >> not a stabe or secure kernel.  From a recent article here is what
> >> Raadt says:
> > 
> > I wonder if you know any more about Theo than is 
> > mentioned in the Forbes article. Does it discuss
> > the circumstances of Theo's departure from NetBSD?
> > 
> > -SEan
> 
> http://mail-index.netbsd.org/netbsd-users/1994/12/23/0000.html
> 
> Just another highly opinionated, condescending, controlling and
> overbearing asshole it seems.
> 
> Just goes to show that one's accomplishments, no matter how great, 
> aren't any indicator of one's personality and vice-versa.

Definitely. Anyone who uses OpenSSL and OpenSSH (and that's pretty
much everyone, directly or indirectly) has reason to be grateful
to Theo and the OpenBSD team. But Theo's opinions about other
people and OS's should not be taken at face value.

-SEan



0
foobar5 (331)
6/30/2005 4:57:32 AM
In article <pan.2005.06.30.02.58.31.643912@rapskat.com>,
 rapskat <rapskat@gmail.com> wrote:

> Aqua is just a look, not a product.  There are a wealth of themes for
> both Windows and Linux that can emulate this look if you want it.

You are mistaken ... but take comfort in the fact that many, many developers 
think that "skinning" a gui is the same thing as changing its behavior.

-- 
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
If Macintosh is a luxury cruise ship, 
then Linux is a freighter with wood paneling in the officers' quarters.
0
timberwoof (3216)
6/30/2005 4:58:36 AM
Mike Cox wrote:

> NoStop <nostop@stopspam.com> writes:
> 
>> Mike Cox wrote:
>> 
>> > Question.  If Linux is so great and Open Source Software developers are
>> > so
>> > smart, why does the Linux desktop look like crap?  KDE and Gnome don't
>> > interoperate well.  Heck, you can't even cut and paste between gnome
>> > and
>> > kde apps reliably.  How does Apple, which is a small fish compared to
>> > MS and other computing giants come up with something as good as OS X's
>> > Aqua? That right there is proof that Linux developers can't code worth
>> > a crap. Heck, you'd think with all those OSS developers, the Linux
>> > desktop would
>> > have left everything in the dust!  But that is not the case, because
>> > Windows 3.1 GUI gives Linux a run for the money!
>> > 
>> > If a relatively small company like Apple Inc. can create a great OS
>> > with a world class desktop, why can't the linux knuckleheads do it?
>> 
>> How come you haven't yet figured out to keep your line lengths short?
> 
> I'm using GNU's Emacs.  This thing is a gigantic ball of string
> (typical of the GNU/Linux movement. Who knows how to fix anything!
> I'm lucky I even got this far.  Getting gnus set up and figuring out
> how to post was a 5 hour effort!  First you need to know an obscure
> programming language (lisp), then you need to figure out what commands
> corrospond to what you need to do.  Then you need to figure out how to
> even get around emacs with its thousands of commands and key combinations.
> 
> It is not easy to use at all!  This is representative of what GNU and
> Linux stand for.  The uber nerd experience.  With Linux you need to
> learn fdisk and partitioning with weird things like / , and swap and a
> bazillion file systems.  Reiser, Reiser4, XFS, AndrewFS, ext2, ext3,
> the list goes on!  Then you need to know how to compile a kernel and
> figure out how to use CVS and the patch to command to compile it
> back.  Then you need to
> 
> Since OS X is based on BSD, I'm able to use this emacs monster from my
> iBook.  But, since OS X is so easy to use and powerful, I wonder why
> Linux developers haven't come up with anything remotely as good.
> 
> By the way, I fixed the formatting by looking for and old post of mine
> where someone gave me the obscure lisp command to put in my gnus
> file.  I remembered I spent a lot of time figuring it out on my Linux
> box before I gave up on Linux and moved to SchilliX (opensolaris
> distro) and OS X.

Use Knode and post properly.

-- 
Get Microsoft PowerToys for Windows XP here: 
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/powertoys/xppowertoys.mspx
"A must-have for your Toy Operating System"

0
nostop (148)
6/30/2005 4:59:33 AM
begin  Error Log for Thu, 30 Jun 2005 04:58:36 +0000 - Timberwoof
<timberwoof@stimpberawoofm.com> caused an invalid page fault at address
<timberwoof-0F25EB.21583629062005@typhoon.sonic.net>, details as follows:

> In article <pan.2005.06.30.02.58.31.643912@rapskat.com>,
>  rapskat <rapskat@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Aqua is just a look, not a product.  There are a wealth of themes for
>> both Windows and Linux that can emulate this look if you want it.
> 
> You are mistaken ... but take comfort in the fact that many, many
> developers think that "skinning" a gui is the same thing as changing its
> behavior.

But the thing is, on Linux you *can* change how your WM/DE looks, feels,
and behaves.  Entirely.

For instance, on KDE you can emulate the top menu bar to be contextual to
the currently focused app, like OS X.  Granted this doesn't apply for
non-KDE apps, but then neither does it apply for non-native apps on OS X
either.

-- 
rapskat -  01:06:11 up  3:31,  2 users,  load average: 0.15, 0.31, 0.28
	If you think the problem is bad now, just wait until we've solved it.
	-- Arthur Kasspe
0
rapskat2 (2033)
6/30/2005 5:11:52 AM
Timberwoof wrote something like:

> In article <pan.2005.06.30.02.58.31.643912@rapskat.com>,
>  rapskat <rapskat@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Aqua is just a look, not a product.  There are a wealth of themes for
>> both Windows and Linux that can emulate this look if you want it.
> 
> You are mistaken ... but take comfort in the fact that many, many
> developers think that "skinning" a gui is the same thing as changing its
> behavior.

Okay, so aqua is a look /and/ feel. 

-- 
-
 I use linux. Can anyone give me a good reason to use Windows?
- 
0
amosf (123)
6/30/2005 5:14:14 AM
"Larry Qualig" <removethispartlqualig@uku.co.uk> wrote:

> Here's an interesting piece of totally useless trivia for ya....
> 
> Market cap
> 
> Apple = 29.97 Bil
> HP = 69.47 Bil
> IBM = 120.6 Bil
> Msft = 271.1 Bil
> 
> To put it another way, Microsoft is larger than Apple, HP and IBM combined. 
> I'm a stock geek so I find this interesting.

yeah, but that's market cap... yearly revenue is a better measure for 
this type of discussion... yes it's also worthless info, but it shows 
the relative sizes of the firms... not up or down stock value...

Apple revenues last year: 8,279,000   (will hit 12 billion this year)

HP revenues last year: 79,905,000 

IBM revenues last year: 96,293,000 

MS revenues last year: 36,835,000

Red Hat revenues last year:  124,737
0
csma (3267)
6/30/2005 5:14:23 AM
Oxford wrote:

> "Larry Qualig" <removethispartlqualig@uku.co.uk> wrote:
> 
>> Here's an interesting piece of totally useless trivia for ya....
>> 
>> Market cap
>> 
>> Apple = 29.97 Bil
>> HP = 69.47 Bil
>> IBM = 120.6 Bil
>> Msft = 271.1 Bil
>> 
>> To put it another way, Microsoft is larger than Apple, HP and IBM
>> combined. I'm a stock geek so I find this interesting.
> 
> yeah, but that's market cap... yearly revenue is a better measure for
> this type of discussion... yes it's also worthless info, but it shows
> the relative sizes of the firms... not up or down stock value...
> 
> Apple revenues last year: 8,279,000   (will hit 12 billion this year)

From 8 million to 12 billion is quite a jump! 

> 
> HP revenues last year: 79,905,000
> 
> IBM revenues last year: 96,293,000
> 
> MS revenues last year: 36,835,000
> 
> Red Hat revenues last year:  124,737

0
no9 (3192)
6/30/2005 5:31:36 AM
Ralph <no@way.com> wrote:

> > Apple revenues last year: 8,279,000   (will hit 12 billion this year)
> 
> From 8 million to 12 billion is quite a jump! 
> 
> > 
> > HP revenues last year: 79,905,000
> > 
> > IBM revenues last year: 96,293,000
> > 
> > MS revenues last year: 36,835,000
> > 
> > Red Hat revenues last year:  124,737

oh, i forgot, you aren't up on accounting... numbers are in millions...
0
csma (3267)
6/30/2005 5:45:26 AM
Oxford wrote:

> Ralph <no@way.com> wrote:
> 
>> > Apple revenues last year: 8,279,000   (will hit 12 billion this year)
>> 
>> From 8 million to 12 billion is quite a jump!
>> 
>> > 
>> > HP revenues last year: 79,905,000
>> > 
>> > IBM revenues last year: 96,293,000
>> > 
>> > MS revenues last year: 36,835,000
>> > 
>> > Red Hat revenues last year:  124,737
> 
> oh, i forgot, you aren't up on accounting... numbers are in millions...

Accountants would have STATED that the numbers were in millions, they don't
just automatically assume that a 7 didgit number means billion. You are
dumber than I thought, and I didn't think it was possible. 
0
no9 (3192)
6/30/2005 5:49:22 AM
On Wednesday 29 June 2005 23:14, Oxford <csma@mac.com>
(<csma-0A233C.23142329062005@news.uswest.net>) wrote:

> "Larry Qualig" <removethispartlqualig@uku.co.uk> wrote:
> 
>> Market cap
>> 
>> Apple = 29.97 Bil
>> HP = 69.47 Bil
>> IBM = 120.6 Bil
>> Msft = 271.1 Bil
>> 
> yeah, but that's market cap... yearly revenue is a better measure for
> this type of discussion... yes it's also worthless info, but it shows
> the relative sizes of the firms... not up or down stock value...
> 
> Apple revenues last year: 8,279,000   (will hit 12 billion this year)
> HP revenues last year: 79,905,000
> IBM revenues last year: 96,293,000
> MS revenues last year: 36,835,000

Using your numbers, an even better measure is the revenue-price ratio:

       Rev      Cap     Ratio
MSFT   36.835   271.1   0.14
AAPL    8.279    30.0   0.28
IBM    96.293   120.6   0.80
HP     79.905    69.5   1.15

I agree with you: both Apple and Microsoft are poor investments.
0
6/30/2005 5:54:18 AM
Mike Cox wrote:

> Question.  If Linux is so great and Open Source Software developers are so
> smart, why does the Linux desktop look like crap?  KDE and Gnome don't
> interoperate well.  Heck, you can't even cut and paste between gnome and
> kde apps reliably.  How does Apple, which is a small fish compared to MS
> and other computing giants come up with something as good as OS X's Aqua? 
> That right there is proof that Linux developers can't code worth a crap. 
> Heck, you'd think with all those OSS developers, the Linux desktop would
> have left everything in the dust!  But that is not the case, because
> Windows 3.1 GUI gives Linux a run for the money!
> 
> If a relatively small company like Apple Inc. can create a great OS with a
> world class desktop, why can't the linux knuckleheads do it?


Maks and OSX is going up and up in price, like windopes,
with interoperability failure to add to all that,
thats why people switch to Linux.

0
6/30/2005 5:58:27 AM
In article <DoydnYl_z7t_Gl7fRVn-qg@rcn.net>, Ralph <no@way.com> wrote:

> >> > Apple revenues last year: 8,279,000   (will hit 12 billion this year)
> >> 
> >> From 8 million to 12 billion is quite a jump!
> >> 
> >> > 
> >> > HP revenues last year: 79,905,000
> >> > 
> >> > IBM revenues last year: 96,293,000
> >> > 
> >> > MS revenues last year: 36,835,000
> >> > 
> >> > Red Hat revenues last year:  124,737
> > 
> > oh, i forgot, you aren't up on accounting... numbers are in millions...
> 
> Accountants would have STATED that the numbers were in millions, they don't
> just automatically assume that a 7 didgit number means billion. You are
> dumber than I thought, and I didn't think it was possible. 

give me a break... you were the one that thought it was millions in the 
first place, you aren't used to seeing numbers this large, admit it...
0
csma (3267)
6/30/2005 6:06:56 AM
In article <J8WdncHptdEw5F7fRVn-oA@rcn.net>, Ralph <no@way.com> wrote:

> Timberwoof wrote:
> 
> > In article <ANWdnU2x8Omd317fRVn-pA@rcn.net>, Ralph <no@way.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> Mike Cox wrote:
> >> 
> >> > Question.  If Linux is so great and Open Source Software developers are
> >> > so
> >> > smart, why does the Linux desktop look like crap?  KDE and Gnome don't
> >> > interoperate well.  Heck, you can't even cut and paste between gnome
> >> > and
> >> > kde apps reliably.  How does Apple, which is a small fish compared to
> >> > MS and other computing giants come up with something as good as OS X's
> >> > Aqua? That right there is proof that Linux developers can't code worth
> >> > a crap. Heck, you'd think with all those OSS developers, the Linux
> >> > desktop would
> >> > have left everything in the dust!  But that is not the case, because
> >> > Windows 3.1 GUI gives Linux a run for the money!
> >> > 
> >> > If a relatively small company like Apple Inc. can create a great OS
> >> > with a world class desktop, why can't the linux knuckleheads do it?
> >> 
> >> If Linux is so bad, why is it running, at least in part, 8 of the top 10
> >> fastest computers in the world?
> > 
> > Because you don't install X and KDE or Gnome on a node in a Beowulf
> > cluster. There's no question that Linux is really good for such things:
> > lots of smart people have worked on it to make it fast and robust.
> > However, when geeks write systems for geeks, the result is a system that
> > appeals to geeks. Unfortunately, they often can't understand the needs of
> > non-geeks.
> 
> You mean non-geek systems that get viruses and all that rot? 

I'm not sure what you're talking about. There are no viruses for OS X. 

> Or ego boxes
> that are over priced so people can impress people with how much money they
> have to throw away like Apple computers? 

You sound just like that other jerk who was making stupid claims about how 
expensive Macs are and how elitist Mac users are. Got any real technical points 
to make? 

> > ... which leads to the contradictory messages of "Linux for the Masses!"
> > and "Linux for only the technically competent!"
> > 
> >> And why would you have to focus on the
> >> something that is as subjective as looks rather than technical merit?
> > 
> > It's not just looks. 
> 
> Funny that's all that Mike focused on. 

Mike doesn't speak for me. 

> > (All too many Linux application programmers mistake 
> > the ability to change an application's skin for being able to change its
> > feel.)
> 
> Oh, so changing from KDE to GNOME to WindowMaker is changing skins and not
> changing feel? 

That's an interesting conclusion to jump to. But it is false for that is not 
what I said. 

> You don't have a clue what you are talking about. Switching
> from KDE to GNOME to WindowMaker changes much more than its skin OR feel,
> it changes some amount of functionality! 

Whoopee. I'm talking about individual apps or even entire window managers for 
which all kinds of skins are available. 

> > A part of technical merit is how well an app follows proven UI 
> > conventions and how well it presents a coherent model of the underlying
> > concepts to a user.
> 
> I noticed that you could not give a single thing that makes apple
> technically better than Linux for ANY USE. 

Well, since that was not your question... 

But since it is now, I'll give you a couple of things: 1. iPhoto makes sucking 
pictures out of my nifty new used Olympus a snap. The guy I bought it from 
warned me that drivers for it would be very hard to find. (I can just imagine 
trying to find a driver for Linux that will talk to a C-2100.) So I plugged it 
into my iBook. iPhoto launched and offered to get the pictures out of the 
camera. No muss, no fuss. No fiddle-farting around with USB drivers or mounting 
a volume under /mnt ... It just worked. 

Next, iMovie similarly sucks movies right out of DV cameras and lets one edit 
them in a friendly environment. It will import MP3s from iTunes, photos from 
iPhoto, and compositions from GarageBand. No muss, no fuss. Yeah, Linux has 
interactivity between applications ... as long as you can use the pipe operator. 
Here, pipe this song from iTunes into iMovie. Yeah, right. 

Having made a few iMovies, I can export them into iDVD, which lets me make DVDs 
with functional menus without having to write any DVD programming code. Sure, 
iDVD doesn't let you make a menu with Donkey jumping up and down in the 
background yelling "Pick me, pick me!" but the results look damn fine. 

So I just listed four ways that OS X, through its amazing ease of use, is 
technically a better choice than Linux. 

Here's another one: as a Unix workstation that can read Microshit documents that 
people with Windows PCs tend to throw around at each other, OS X is pretty much 
unbeatable. Yeah, there's OpenOffice, but it's just not as polished. 

And yet another one: I set up a G3 as a firewall at my work. It's running OS X 
and some other goodies that will keep the script kiddies at bay. Since it tweaks 
one of my cow orkers who has a hate-on for Macs and may eventually realize that 
all his work is being protected by that box, it is better than any PC. 

So was it really your intention to imply that Linux is better than OS X for ANY 
USE? 

Don't get me wrong, though. Linux is pretty cool, too. Now unlike some folks 
around here, I don't get a hard-on for just one kind of operating system. 
Different ones have their uses. To set up a quick and relatively easy server, 
whether a web server on the 'net or an internal file server, Linux does really 
well. I've got about half a dozen Linux servers at work, running efficiently on 
older hardware, mostly transparent to the users. 

> Guess Apples are just ego
> computers so losers that can't impress anyone any other way can at least
> show that they have money to waste on over priced crap.  

Yeah, yeah, yeah, and all those G3s I've got running around are really worth a 
couple of grand apiece instead of the bargain I got them for. You've really got 
a pathological fixation on Mac users' egos... I bet you're a nice guy in person, 
but you'd have more friends if you didn't harsh on others' choices in computers 
so much. 

So. How about some real technical reasons Linux is better enough than OS X for 
"ANY USE"?

-- 
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
If Macintosh is a luxury cruise ship, 
then Linux is a freighter with wood paneling in the officers' quarters.
0
timberwoof (3216)
6/30/2005 6:08:20 AM
* Sean Burke wrote:
> 
> Mike Cox <mikecoxlinux@yahoo.com> writes:
> 
>> I'm using GNU's Emacs.  This thing is a gigantic ball of string
>> (typical of the GNU/Linux movement. Who knows how to fix anything!
>> I'm lucky I even got this far.  Getting gnus set up and figuring out
>> how to post was a 5 hour effort!  First you need to know an obscure
>> programming language (lisp), then you need to figure out what commands
>> corrospond to what you need to do.  Then you need to figure out how to
>> even get around emacs with its thousands of commands and key combinations.  
>> 
>> It is not easy to use at all!  This is representative of what GNU and
>> Linux stand for.  
> 
> You're confusing easy-to-learn with easy-to-use.

IMO, he's confusing operating systems with application software. 
Emacs may be neither easy to learn nor to use, but it is not part of
GNU/Linux.  

>> By the way, I fixed the formatting by looking for and old post of mine
>> where someone gave me the obscure lisp command to put in my gnus
>> file.  I remembered I spent a lot of time figuring it out on my Linux
>> box before I gave up on Linux and moved to SchilliX (opensolaris
>> distro) and OS X.
> 
> What am i missing here? You can run GNU Emacs on Linux,
> and that's one of the reasons that Linux is terrible.
> You can also run it on OSX, but OSX is still easy to use
> and powerful?

Simply use the text editor that suits your needs on whatever
operating system.  Blaming operating systems for personal
inabilities, in particular blaming a *single* OS - not the other
ones, looks weird, indeed.

-- 
J�rg Fischer
http://nedit.gmxhome.de
0
Joerg
6/30/2005 6:09:10 AM
Oxford wrote:

> Ralph <no@way.com> wrote:
> 
>> > Apple revenues last year: 8,279,000   (will hit 12 billion this year)
>> 
>> From 8 million to 12 billion is quite a jump!
>> 
>> > 
>> > HP revenues last year: 79,905,000
>> > 
>> > IBM revenues last year: 96,293,000
>> > 
>> > MS revenues last year: 36,835,000
>> > 
>> > Red Hat revenues last year:  124,737
> 
> oh, i forgot, you aren't up on accounting... numbers are in millions...

So, you are saying that the numbers are in millions, that would mean adding
six "0"'s to the end of each... So you are saying that apple's revenue is:

8,279,000,000,000

I'm sure apple will be glad to hear they are making 8 trillion but dropping
to 12 billion will be bad news! 

Hey, MORON, to get the numbers right, I think you want to say they are in
thousands, or adding three "0"'s making apple's revenue 8,279,000,000

Did you get math tips from DFS? 
0
no9 (3192)
6/30/2005 6:09:35 AM
In article <42c37f9e@news.comindico.com.au>, amosf <amosf@bcs4me.com> wrote:

> Timberwoof wrote something like:
> 
> > In article <pan.2005.06.30.02.58.31.643912@rapskat.com>,
> >  rapskat <rapskat@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> Aqua is just a look, not a product.  There are a wealth of themes for
> >> both Windows and Linux that can emulate this look if you want it.
> > 
> > You are mistaken ... but take comfort in the fact that many, many
> > developers think that "skinning" a gui is the same thing as changing its
> > behavior.
> 
> Okay, so aqua is a look /and/ feel.

Well, then. There you go. It's not just a look that can be emulated with a 
theme.

-- 
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
If Macintosh is a luxury cruise ship, 
then Linux is a freighter with wood paneling in the officers' quarters.
0
timberwoof (3216)
6/30/2005 6:09:57 AM
Oxford wrote:

> In article <DoydnYl_z7t_Gl7fRVn-qg@rcn.net>, Ralph <no@way.com> wrote:
> 
>> >> > Apple revenues last year: 8,279,000   (will hit 12 billion this
>> >> > year)
>> >> 
>> >> From 8 million to 12 billion is quite a jump!
>> >> 
>> >> > 
>> >> > HP revenues last year: 79,905,000
>> >> > 
>> >> > IBM revenues last year: 96,293,000
>> >> > 
>> >> > MS revenues last year: 36,835,000
>> >> > 
>> >> > Red Hat revenues last year:  124,737
>> > 
>> > oh, i forgot, you aren't up on accounting... numbers are in millions...
>> 
>> Accountants would have STATED that the numbers were in millions, they
>> don't just automatically assume that a 7 didgit number means billion. You
>> are dumber than I thought, and I didn't think it was possible.
> 
> give me a break... you were the one that thought it was millions in the
> first place, you aren't used to seeing numbers this large, admit it...

You wrote it as millions! I was pointing out your error, but I guess you are
too stupid to get it. Considering you can't get it straight if you tried!
Even your claim that the numbers are in millions is WRONG! Fucking get a
clue! You are the one that obviously does not know how to deal with numbers
that big!
0
no9 (3192)
6/30/2005 6:11:49 AM
In article <tKSdnVjSrcYCEV7fRVn-gw@rcn.net>, Ralph <no@way.com> wrote:

> >> > Apple revenues last year: 8,279,000   (will hit 12 billion this year)
> >> 
> >> From 8 million to 12 billion is quite a jump!
> >> 
> >> > 
> >> > HP revenues last year: 79,905,000
> >> > 
> >> > IBM revenues last year: 96,293,000
> >> > 
> >> > MS revenues last year: 36,835,000
> >> > 
> >> > Red Hat revenues last year:  124,737
> > 
> > oh, i forgot, you aren't up on accounting... numbers are in millions...
> 
> So, you are saying that the numbers are in millions, that would mean adding
> six "0"'s to the end of each... So you are saying that apple's revenue is:
> 
> 8,279,000,000,000

yeah, your error of using millions threw me off, they are in 
thousands....

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=AAPL&annual

> I'm sure apple will be glad to hear they are making 8 trillion but dropping
> to 12 billion will be bad news! 
> 
> Hey, MORON, to get the numbers right, I think you want to say they are in
> thousands, or adding three "0"'s making apple's revenue 8,279,000,000
> 
> Did you get math tips from DFS? 

give it up ralph, you were the one that originally was confused... i 
fell into your mistake, but corrected it...
0
csma (3267)
6/30/2005 6:28:43 AM
In article <tKSdnVvSrca4EF7fRVn-gw@rcn.net>, Ralph <no@way.com> wrote:

> > give me a break... you were the one that thought it was millions in the
> > first place, you aren't used to seeing numbers this large, admit it...
> 
> You wrote it as millions! I was pointing out your error, but I guess you are
> too stupid to get it. Considering you can't get it straight if you tried!
> Even your claim that the numbers are in millions is WRONG! Fucking get a
> clue! You are the one that obviously does not know how to deal with numbers
> that big!

go complain to your broker that you don't understand how revenue numbers 
are expressed, your error is not my problem...
0
csma (3267)
6/30/2005 6:32:38 AM
In article <csma-16C5FD.23452629062005@news.uswest.net>, Oxford <csma@mac.com> 
wrote:

> Ralph <no@way.com> wrote:
> 
> > > Apple revenues last year: 8,279,000   (will hit 12 billion this year)
> > 
> > From 8 million to 12 billion is quite a jump! 
> > 
> > > 
> > > HP revenues last year: 79,905,000
> > > 
> > > IBM revenues last year: 96,293,000
> > > 
> > > MS revenues last year: 36,835,000
> > > 
> > > Red Hat revenues last year:  124,737
> 
> oh, i forgot, you aren't up on accounting... numbers are in millions...

Try again.

-- 
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
If Macintosh is a luxury cruise ship, 
then Linux is a freighter with wood paneling in the officers' quarters.
0
timberwoof (3216)
6/30/2005 6:35:37 AM
Oxford wrote something like:

> In article <tKSdnVjSrcYCEV7fRVn-gw@rcn.net>, Ralph <no@way.com> wrote:
> 
>> >> > Apple revenues last year: 8,279,000   (will hit 12 billion this
>> >> > year)
>> >> 
>> >> From 8 million to 12 billion is quite a jump!
>> >> 
>> >> > 
>> >> > HP revenues last year: 79,905,000
>> >> > 
>> >> > IBM revenues last year: 96,293,000
>> >> > 
>> >> > MS revenues last year: 36,835,000
>> >> > 
>> >> > Red Hat revenues last year:  124,737
>> > 
>> > oh, i forgot, you aren't up on accounting... numbers are in millions...
>> 
>> So, you are saying that the numbers are in millions, that would mean
>> adding six "0"'s to the end of each... So you are saying that apple's
>> revenue is:
>> 
>> 8,279,000,000,000
> 
> yeah, your error of using millions threw me off, they are in
> thousands....
> 
> http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=AAPL&annual
> 
>> I'm sure apple will be glad to hear they are making 8 trillion but
>> dropping to 12 billion will be bad news!
>> 
>> Hey, MORON, to get the numbers right, I think you want to say they are in
>> thousands, or adding three "0"'s making apple's revenue 8,279,000,000
>> 
>> Did you get math tips from DFS?
> 
> give it up ralph, you were the one that originally was confused... i
> fell into your mistake, but corrected it...

Actually you fucked up and he just took your word for the figures. Maybe
this is a wintroll thing. When they say there are 3 linux users they
actually mean 3 billion? I'll note that down, thanks!


-- 
-
 I use linux. Can anyone give me a good reason to use Windows?
- 
0
amosf (123)
6/30/2005 6:45:11 AM
Timberwoof <timberwoof@stimpberawoofm.com> wrote:

> > > > HP revenues last year: 79,905,000
> > > > 
> > > > IBM revenues last year: 96,293,000
> > > > 
> > > > MS revenues last year: 36,835,000
> > > > 
> > > > Red Hat revenues last year:  124,737
> > 
> > oh, i forgot, you aren't up on accounting... numbers are in millions...
> 
> Try again.

yes, thousands... Ralph's mistake of millions threw me off, I later had 
to correct it...
0
csma (3267)
6/30/2005 6:48:27 AM
Oxford wrote:

> In article <tKSdnVvSrca4EF7fRVn-gw@rcn.net>, Ralph <no@way.com> wrote:
> 
>> > give me a break... you were the one that thought it was millions in the
>> > first place, you aren't used to seeing numbers this large, admit it...
>> 
>> You wrote it as millions! I was pointing out your error, but I guess you
>> are too stupid to get it. Considering you can't get it straight if you
>> tried! Even your claim that the numbers are in millions is WRONG! Fucking
>> get a clue! You are the one that obviously does not know how to deal with
>> numbers that big!
> 
> go complain to your broker that you don't understand how revenue numbers
> are expressed, your error is not my problem...

I have no trouble with the numbers from my broker, they are right and stated
correctly, if the numbers are shown in thousands it is stated as such from
my broker. I do have trouble with YOUR numbers that are not correctly
labled. Even a loser like timberwolf noticed that!
0
no9 (3192)
6/30/2005 6:50:50 AM
Oxford wrote:

> Timberwoof <timberwoof@stimpberawoofm.com> wrote:
> 
>> > > > HP revenues last year: 79,905,000
>> > > > 
>> > > > IBM revenues last year: 96,293,000
>> > > > 
>> > > > MS revenues last year: 36,835,000
>> > > > 
>> > > > Red Hat revenues last year:  124,737
>> > 
>> > oh, i forgot, you aren't up on accounting... numbers are in millions...
>> 
>> Try again.
> 
> yes, thousands... Ralph's mistake of millions threw me off, I later had
> to correct it...

This is fun! Clearly nobody believes you and your claim is totally
unsupported by fact. I used YOUR numbers to come up with millions. If you
can't stand behind your numbers, you are no better than DFS. 
0
no9 (3192)
6/30/2005 6:53:32 AM
rapskat wrote:
> begin  Error Log for Thu, 30 Jun 2005 04:39:23 +0000 - Timberwoof
> <timberwoof@stimpberawoofm.com> caused an invalid page fault at address
> <timberwoof-578E45.21392329062005@typhoon.sonic.net>, details as follows:
> 
> 
>>>And why would you have to focus on the something that is as subjective
>>>as looks rather than technical merit?
>>
>>It's not just looks. (All too many Linux application programmers mistake
>>the ability to change an application's skin for being able to change its
>>feel.) A part of technical merit is how well an app follows proven UI
>>conventions and how well it presents a coherent model of the underlying
>>concepts to a user.
> 
> 
> And Linux and it's applications don't do this?  If a user knows the basic
> concepts of computer use, then they would have no issues with Linux et al
> at all.

If you honestly believe that, you're utterly out of touch.  I have major 
issues with Linux and I certainly know the basic concepts of computer use.

> 
> I see children 5 and below using Linux with no problems.
> 

A 5 year old's uses for a computer are hardly representative.

-Peter

-- 
Pull out a splinter to reply.
0
gershwin (465)
6/30/2005 7:03:23 AM
begin  Error Log for Thu, 30 Jun 2005 06:08:20 +0000 - Timberwoof
<timberwoof@stimpberawoofm.com> caused an invalid page fault at address
<timberwoof-6A316F.23082029062005@typhoon.sonic.net>, details as follows:

> (I can just imagine trying to find a driver for Linux that will talk to a C-2100.)

According to gtkam/gphoto, that model is supported.

-- 
rapskat -  03:03:42 up  5:28,  4 users,  load average: 0.29, 0.18, 0.17
	"Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of
tapes."
	-- Dr. Warren Jackson, Director, UTCS
0
rapskat2 (2033)
6/30/2005 7:04:19 AM
Ralph wrote:
[...]
> 
> I noticed that you could not give a single thing that makes apple
> technically better than Linux for ANY USE.

Off the top of my head: more stable kernel binary interfaces.

> Guess Apples are just ego
> computers so losers that can't impress anyone any other way can at least
> show that they have money to waste on over priced crap.  

Linus uses a Mac.

-Peter

-- 
Pull out a splinter to reply.
0
gershwin (465)
6/30/2005 7:07:45 AM
amosf <amosf@bcs4me.com> wrote:

> > give it up ralph, you were the one that originally was confused... i
> > fell into your mistake, but corrected it...
> 
> Actually you fucked up and he just took your word for the figures. Maybe
> this is a wintroll thing. When they say there are 3 linux users they
> actually mean 3 billion? I'll note that down, thanks!

incorrect... Ralph is the one that initially fucked up... he thought it 
was "in total" millions... go re-read the thread... he's at the root of 
the error... Yes, I said it was "in milllions" which was wrong and I 
corrected it to say the numbers were in "in thousands"... Ralph is 
clearly the problem here, I just mistakenly continued his error when he 
got confused on millions...
0
csma (3267)
6/30/2005 7:11:52 AM
Timberwoof wrote:

> In article <J8WdncHptdEw5F7fRVn-oA@rcn.net>, Ralph <no@way.com> wrote:
> 
>> Timberwoof wrote:
>> 
>> > In article <ANWdnU2x8Omd317fRVn-pA@rcn.net>, Ralph <no@way.com> wrote:
>> > 
>> >> Mike Cox wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> > Question.  If Linux is so great and Open Source Software developers
>> >> > are so
>> >> > smart, why does the Linux desktop look like crap?  KDE and Gnome
>> >> > don't
>> >> > interoperate well.  Heck, you can't even cut and paste between gnome
>> >> > and
>> >> > kde apps reliably.  How does Apple, which is a small fish compared
>> >> > to MS and other computing giants come up with something as good as
>> >> > OS X's Aqua? That right there is proof that Linux developers can't
>> >> > code worth a crap. Heck, you'd think with all those OSS developers,
>> >> > the Linux desktop would
>> >> > have left everything in the dust!  But that is not the case, because
>> >> > Windows 3.1 GUI gives Linux a run for the money!
>> >> > 
>> >> > If a relatively small company like Apple Inc. can create a great OS
>> >> > with a world class desktop, why can't the linux knuckleheads do it?
>> >> 
>> >> If Linux is so bad, why is it running, at least in part, 8 of the top
>> >> 10 fastest computers in the world?
>> > 
>> > Because you don't install X and KDE or Gnome on a node in a Beowulf
>> > cluster. There's no question that Linux is really good for such things:
>> > lots of smart people have worked on it to make it fast and robust.
>> > However, when geeks write systems for geeks, the result is a system
>> > that appeals to geeks. Unfortunately, they often can't understand the
>> > needs of non-geeks.
>> 
>> You mean non-geek systems that get viruses and all that rot?
> 
> I'm not sure what you're talking about. There are no viruses for OS X.
> 
>> Or ego boxes
>> that are over priced so people can impress people with how much money
>> they have to throw away like Apple computers?
> 
> You sound just like that other jerk who was making stupid claims about how
> expensive Macs are and how elitist Mac users are. Got any real technical
> points to make?

I'm waiting for the MAC-tards to show something that justifies the price!!! 

> 
>> > ... which leads to the contradictory messages of "Linux for the
>> > Masses!" and "Linux for only the technically competent!"
>> > 
>> >> And why would you have to focus on the
>> >> something that is as subjective as looks rather than technical merit?
>> > 
>> > It's not just looks.
>> 
>> Funny that's all that Mike focused on.
> 
> Mike doesn't speak for me.

So?

> 
>> > (All too many Linux application programmers mistake
>> > the ability to change an application's skin for being able to change
>> > its feel.)
>> 
>> Oh, so changing from KDE to GNOME to WindowMaker is changing skins and
>> not changing feel?
> 
> That's an interesting conclusion to jump to. But it is false for that is
> not what I said.

It seems nobody can figure out what you have said. I'm still waiting for
some technical reason that justifies the cost of a MAC. 

> 
>> You don't have a clue what you are talking about. Switching
>> from KDE to GNOME to WindowMaker changes much more than its skin OR feel,
>> it changes some amount of functionality!
> 
> Whoopee. I'm talking about individual apps or even entire window managers
> for which all kinds of skins are available.

And what you are talking about justifies the cost of a MAC? I think not. 

> 
>> > A part of technical merit is how well an app follows proven UI
>> > conventions and how well it presents a coherent model of the underlying
>> > concepts to a user.
>> 
>> I noticed that you could not give a single thing that makes apple
>> technically better than Linux for ANY USE.
> 
> Well, since that was not your question...
> 
> But since it is now, I'll give you a couple of things: 1. iPhoto makes
> sucking pictures out of my nifty new used Olympus a snap. 

Can do that with Linux on my Kodak but I have a CHOICE of applications. Nope
nothing that justifies the cost here. 

> The guy I bought 
> it from warned me that drivers for it would be very hard to find. (I can
> just imagine trying to find a driver for Linux that will talk to a
> C-2100.) 

One camera, BFD, you have justified the cost to very FEW people. BUt wait,
are you talking about the c-2100US? My same photo software takes care of
that. Nothing that justifies the cost here. 

> So I plugged it into my iBook. iPhoto launched and offered to get 
> the pictures out of the camera. No muss, no fuss. No fiddle-farting around
> with USB drivers or mounting a volume under /mnt ... It just worked.

I don't have to futz with any of that. And since I don't WANT applications
starting when I pug things in, I don't have to hassle disabling it. Nothing
that justifies the cost here. 

> 
> Next, iMovie similarly sucks movies right out of DV cameras and lets one
> edit them in a friendly environment. It will import MP3s from iTunes,
> photos from iPhoto, and compositions from GarageBand. No muss, no fuss.
> Yeah, Linux has interactivity between applications ... as long as you can
> use the pipe operator. Here, pipe this song from iTunes into iMovie. Yeah,
> right.

Wow, That justifies the cost to SOOOOOOOO many people. Looks like the Mac is
nothing but a nitch player, as usual. 

> 
> Having made a few iMovies, I can export them into iDVD, which lets me make
> DVDs with functional menus without having to write any DVD programming
> code. Sure, iDVD doesn't let you make a menu with Donkey jumping up and
> down in the background yelling "Pick me, pick me!" but the results look
> damn fine.
> 
> So I just listed four ways that OS X, through its amazing ease of use, is
> technically a better choice than Linux.

Nothing I have seen you write shows all that much of a technical superiority
to Linux. Certainly not enough to justify the cost to the vast majority of
computer users. 

> 
> Here's another one: as a Unix workstation that can read Microshit
> documents that people with Windows PCs tend to throw around at each other,
> OS X is pretty much unbeatable. Yeah, there's OpenOffice, but it's just
> not as polished.

Wow, that justifies the cost, your personal opinion of OO! Bwahahahahahaha. 

> 
> And yet another one: I set up a G3 as a firewall at my work. 

You actually think that is something special? I was doing that with Linux
BEFORE OSX ever came out. 

> It's running 
> OS X and some other goodies that will keep the script kiddies at bay.

Such as? 

> Since it tweaks one of my cow orkers who has a hate-on for Macs and may
> eventually realize that all his work is being protected by that box, it is
> better than any PC.

The problem is, Linux can do the same, so you have not justified the cost of
a MAC, only shown your ignorance of Linux. 

> 
> So was it really your intention to imply that Linux is better than OS X
> for ANY USE?

It was my intention to say that MAC's are NOT WORTH the price, and you have
helped prove it for me. Other than a niche market, you have shown NOTHING
that is not easy to do with Linux. Some of the things you see as advantages
are nothing but personal preferences and your acting as if a built in
firewall was something special just shows that you don't know enough about
Linux to make assessments as to it's value. 

> 
> Don't get me wrong, though. Linux is pretty cool, too. Now unlike some
> folks around here, I don't get a hard-on for just one kind of operating
> system. Different ones have their uses. To set up a quick and relatively
> easy server, whether a web server on the 'net or an internal file server,
> Linux does really well. I've got about half a dozen Linux servers at work,
> running efficiently on older hardware, mostly transparent to the users.

But you have not shown where a MAC is worth the added price. I'm talking
value here and you have not shown any added value that a MAC adds that
makes it worth the price. 

> 
>> Guess Apples are just ego
>> computers so losers that can't impress anyone any other way can at least
>> show that they have money to waste on over priced crap.
> 
> Yeah, yeah, yeah, and all those G3s I've got running around are really
> worth a couple of grand apiece instead of the bargain I got them for.
> You've really got a pathological fixation on Mac users' egos... I bet
> you're a nice guy in person, but you'd have more friends if you didn't
> harsh on others' choices in computers so much.

Yes, I beat up on MAC user's egos because they make all these claims but
just like you, can't back them up. 

> 
> So. How about some real technical reasons Linux is better enough than OS X
> for "ANY USE"?
> 

Ok, I'll admit it, for a very small NICHE market, an apple may be worth the
price. Whoopee! As usual, Apple dominates a niche market! BFD. But the real
news here is your showing that you lake the knowledge of Linux to make the
comparison. I have indeed used a MAC and don't see anything that I
currently want that justifies the price, and for the most part, I don't see
anything that most users I know would want that would justify the price. 
0
no9 (3192)
6/30/2005 7:16:05 AM
Oxford wrote:

> In article <tKSdnVjSrcYCEV7fRVn-gw@rcn.net>, Ralph <no@way.com> wrote:
> 
>> >> > Apple revenues last year: 8,279,000   (will hit 12 billion this
>> >> > year)
>> >> 
>> >> From 8 million to 12 billion is quite a jump!
>> >> 
>> >> > 
>> >> > HP revenues last year: 79,905,000
>> >> > 
>> >> > IBM revenues last year: 96,293,000
>> >> > 
>> >> > MS revenues last year: 36,835,000
>> >> > 
>> >> > Red Hat revenues last year:  124,737
>> > 
>> > oh, i forgot, you aren't up on accounting... numbers are in millions...
>> 
>> So, you are saying that the numbers are in millions, that would mean
>> adding six "0"'s to the end of each... So you are saying that apple's
>> revenue is:
>> 
>> 8,279,000,000,000
> 
> yeah, your error of using millions threw me off, they are in
> thousands....

My error? Bwahahahahaha, you clearly do not know what you are talking about.
I used the nubers YOU put forward. The error in using millions was YOURS. 

> 
> http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=AAPL&annual
> 
>> I'm sure apple will be glad to hear they are making 8 trillion but
>> dropping to 12 billion will be bad news!
>> 
>> Hey, MORON, to get the numbers right, I think you want to say they are in
>> thousands, or adding three "0"'s making apple's revenue 8,279,000,000
>> 
>> Did you get math tips from DFS?
> 
> give it up ralph, you were the one that originally was confused... i
> fell into your mistake, but corrected it...

0
no9 (3192)
6/30/2005 7:16:15 AM
Ralph <no@way.com> wrote:

> > go complain to your broker that you don't understand how revenue numbers
> > are expressed, your error is not my problem...
> 
> I have no trouble with the numbers from my broker, they are right and stated
> correctly, if the numbers are shown in thousands it is stated as such from
> my broker. I do have trouble with YOUR numbers that are not correctly
> labled. Even a loser like timberwolf noticed that!

go re-read the thread... you were the one that flubbed the extrapolation 
of 8,279,000... will hit 12 billion this year...

> >> > Apple revenues last year: 8,279,000   (will hit 12 billion this year)
> >> 
> >> From 8 million to 12 billion is quite a jump!

see... the original error was yours: "From 8 million to 12 billion is 
quite a jump!" anyone with half a brain wouldn't of made such a comment.

egg is on your face Ralph... give it up already...
0
csma (3267)
6/30/2005 7:20:21 AM
begin  Error Log for Thu, 30 Jun 2005 00:07:45 -0700 - Peter Ammon
<gershwin@splintermac.com> caused an invalid page fault at address
<sPqdna255a7UB17fRVn-2Q@comcast.com>, details as follows:

>> Guess Apples are just ego
>> computers so losers that can't impress anyone any other way can at least
>> show that they have money to waste on over priced crap.  
> 
> Linus uses a Mac.

So do I.  Both were given us, and both run Linux.

-- 
rapskat -  03:19:43 up  5:44,  4 users,  load average: 0.12, 0.27, 0.25
	Lavish spending can be disastrous.  Don't buy any lavishes for a 
while.
0
rapskat2 (2033)
6/30/2005 7:20:44 AM
Oxford wrote:

>> I have no trouble with the numbers from my broker, they are right and
>> stated correctly, if the numbers are shown in thousands it is stated as
>> such from my broker. I do have trouble with YOUR numbers that are not
>> correctly labled. Even a loser like timberwolf noticed that!
> 
> go re-read the thread... you were the one that flubbed the extrapolation
> of 8,279,000... will hit 12 billion this year...
     ^^^^^^^^^ this is YOUR statement and it is in MILLIONS. The use of
millions was YOUR error. 
0
no9 (3192)
6/30/2005 7:27:37 AM
Peter Ammon wrote:

> Ralph wrote:
> [...]
>> 
>> I noticed that you could not give a single thing that makes apple
>> technically better than Linux for ANY USE.
> 
> Off the top of my head: more stable kernel binary interfaces.
> 
>> Guess Apples are just ego
>> computers so losers that can't impress anyone any other way can at least
>> show that they have money to waste on over priced crap.
> 
> Linus uses a Mac.
> 
> -Peter
> 
 But not OS/X. Before you get all hard, you should find out WHY he uses a
MAC. 
0
no9 (3192)
6/30/2005 7:28:42 AM
Peter Ammon wrote:

>>>It's not just looks. (All too many Linux application programmers mistake
>>>the ability to change an application's skin for being able to change its
>>>feel.) A part of technical merit is how well an app follows proven UI
>>>conventions and how well it presents a coherent model of the underlying
>>>concepts to a user.
>> 
>> 
>> And Linux and it's applications don't do this?  If a user knows the basic
>> concepts of computer use, then they would have no issues with Linux et al
>> at all.
> 
> If you honestly believe that, you're utterly out of touch.  I have major
> issues with Linux and I certainly know the basic concepts of computer use.
> 

Ahhh, the claim without specifics, how typical. 
0
no9 (3192)
6/30/2005 7:29:44 AM
Peter Ammon wrote something like:

> Ralph wrote:
> [...]
>> 
>> I noticed that you could not give a single thing that makes apple
>> technically better than Linux for ANY USE.
> 
> Off the top of my head: more stable kernel binary interfaces.

Apple has known hardware. That's a big head start. 

>> Guess Apples are just ego
>> computers so losers that can't impress anyone any other way can at least
>> show that they have money to waste on over priced crap.
> 
> Linus uses a Mac.

Running linux... But seriously, linus is such a nerd he just had to have
one... Then put linux on it.

-- 
-
 I use linux. Can anyone give me a good reason to use Windows?
- 
0
amosf (123)
6/30/2005 7:31:57 AM
Oxford wrote something like:

> amosf <amosf@bcs4me.com> wrote:
> 
>> > give it up ralph, you were the one that originally was confused... i
>> > fell into your mistake, but corrected it...
>> 
>> Actually you fucked up and he just took your word for the figures. Maybe
>> this is a wintroll thing. When they say there are 3 linux users they
>> actually mean 3 billion? I'll note that down, thanks!
> 
> incorrect... Ralph is the one that initially fucked up... he thought it
> was "in total" millions... go re-read the thread... he's at the root of
> the error... Yes, I said it was "in milllions" which was wrong and I
> corrected it to say the numbers were in "in thousands"... Ralph is
> clearly the problem here, I just mistakenly continued his error when he
> got confused on millions...

Seriously, this is a pretty fucked up thread, even for cola...

(millions has two l's BTW - I'm not usually a spelling nazi, but you /are/
being a stickler for accuracy here)

-- 
-
 I use linux. Can anyone give me a good reason to use Windows?
- 
0
amosf (123)
6/30/2005 7:34:10 AM
Oxford wrote something like:

> Ralph <no@way.com> wrote:
> 
>> > go complain to your broker that you don't understand how revenue
>> > numbers are expressed, your error is not my problem...
>> 
>> I have no trouble with the numbers from my broker, they are right and
>> stated correctly, if the numbers are shown in thousands it is stated as
>> such from my broker. I do have trouble with YOUR numbers that are not
>> correctly labled. Even a loser like timberwolf noticed that!
> 
> go re-read the thread... you were the one that flubbed the extrapolation
> of 8,279,000... will hit 12 billion this year...
> 
>> >> > Apple revenues last year: 8,279,000   (will hit 12 billion this
>> >> > year)
>> >> 
>> >> From 8 million to 12 billion is quite a jump!
> 
> see... the original error was yours: "From 8 million to 12 billion is
> quite a jump!" anyone with half a brain wouldn't of made such a comment.

Help, I'm sinking, but if I wave my arms and yell maybe they won't notice.

-- 
-
 I use linux. Can anyone give me a good reason to use Windows?
- 
0
amosf (123)
6/30/2005 7:37:14 AM
Ralph <no@way.com> wrote:

> > go re-read the thread... you were the one that flubbed the extrapolation
> > of 8,279,000... will hit 12 billion this year...
>      ^^^^^^^^^ this is YOUR statement and it is in MILLIONS. The use of
> millions was YOUR error. 

Ralph, you are stuck... you mistakenly thought it was millions, "in 
total"....

Ralph's error: "From 8 million to 12 billion is quite a jump!"

I then mistakenly said that number "8,279,000" was "in millions" to help 
you understand how 12 billion could come into play... 

yes, I should of said it was "in thousands"... but it compares nothing 
to the fact you weren't able to understand "8,279,000" was representing 
"1,000's" as in roughly 8,000 million... or 8 Billion...

Let's simply say you aren't too good with accounting... and leave it at 
that...
0
csma (3267)
6/30/2005 7:42:11 AM
begin  virus.txt.scr Peter Ammon wrote:

> Ralph wrote:
> [...]
>> 
>> I noticed that you could not give a single thing that makes apple
>> technically better than Linux for ANY USE.
> 
> Off the top of my head: more stable kernel binary interfaces.
> 

Put in other words: A stagnant OS.
BTW: I can still run the exact same apps which ran on linux when OSX was
introduced. 
So your claim of "stable binary interface" is somewhat lacking in substance
It would be true only for those apps which have to deal with the kernel
directly. The apps any normal user would use everyday are *not* among those

>> Guess Apples are just ego
>> computers so losers that can't impress anyone any other way can at least
>> show that they have money to waste on over priced crap.
> 
> Linus uses a Mac.
> 

Right. He did not buy it.
And he runs linux on it. He explained that he wants to stabelize that
processor series of linux, since most effort is (naturally) done on x86
pprocessors

Oh, and don't forget: Linux on that Mac runs 64 bits.
OSX on that very same hardware does not.
-- 
All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the
parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you
can't get them together again,  there must be a reason. By all means,
do not use a hammer. <from an IBM-Manual>

0
Peter.Koehlmann (13228)
6/30/2005 8:01:12 AM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Snit wrote:

>>> KDE and Gnome don't interoperate well.
>> 
>> They are different windowing environments.
>
> Very good, Rick!  This is a wonderful thing for you to realize.  Good
> to see your know understand that they are not the same!

Where has he ever said that they were not different windowing
environments?  Message-ID, please.  Experience has told me not to trust
you on anything without backing evidence.

> And before you go on about how you have known it for a long time...
> since their is *no* reason to assume the OP did not realize it, the
> *only* reason for you to bring it up is for you to brag about your
> lovely knowledge...

Or (shock, horror) because it's actually a relevant response ...

> Or maybe you can offer a better reason why you would state such an
> obvious fact.  [the chance of that happening, however, is essentially
> nil]

KDE and Gnome aren't specifically designed to interoperate precisely
*because* they're different windowing environments.  They're entirely
different projects, developed by different people.  They do, however,
both follow a couple of basic guide-lines, which allows them to be
exchanged with relatively little effort.  Also, apps designed for on DE
will run on the other, because the underlying system allows it.

>> First, your ignorant bigotry is showing.  Second Apple enforces its
>> UI guidelines. Apple is one company. 'Linux' is not a company. Red
>> Hat, IBM, Novell are companies.
>
> And that is both a strength and a weakness for Linux.

Considering what MS has done to just about every competitor that could
be put out of business (Apple excluded, because it serves their
purpose[1]), any weakness of this model is completely overshadowed by
the fact that Linux can't be killed with their standard predatory
tactics.

[1] They don't run on the same hardware, so there is little direct
    threat, as the barrier to migration is quite high.  The Mac is quite
    a bit more expensive than Windows, when hardware is included.  They
    can point to Apple and claim "No, we aren't a monopoly".  They can
    occasionally rip off ideas from the Mac GUI (though Linux provides
    that as well).  The Mac is just another market segment to sell their
    other software to, and one with money to burn as well.  Should I go
    on?

[Followup-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCw6wtd1ZThqotgfgRAtG9AKDAnHhCTepB8WPuWdXdnAZX/H6huwCgp/LG
1lXF9jQXWsNlVg728J6pJMQ=
=3LZO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
PeKaJe

"Prisons are built with stones of Law, Brothels with bricks of Religion."
   [William Blake, "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell"]
0
usenet21 (2482)
6/30/2005 8:24:22 AM

Mike Cox wrote:
> Question.  If Linux is so great and Open Source Software developers are so smart, why does the Linux desktop look like crap?  KDE and Gnome don't interoperate well.  Heck, you can't even cut and paste between gnome and kde apps reliably.  How does Apple, which is a small fish compared to MS and other computing giants come up with something as good as OS X's Aqua?  That right there is proof that Linux developers can't code worth a crap.  Heck, you'd think with all those OSS developers, the Linux desktop would have left everything in the dust!  But that is not the case, because Windows 3.1 GUI gives Linux a run for the money!
>
> If a relatively small company like Apple Inc. can create a great OS with a world class desktop, why can't the linux knuckleheads do it?

I think it's funny whan a Unix-bashing Machead suddenly stops bashing
Unix in general, and complains ONLY about Linux now that Mac OS X is
nothing more than Unix with the Mac simpleton's-interface on top (and
still rather pathetic compared to the other Unix GUIs).

0
6/30/2005 8:38:01 AM
In article <pan.2005.06.30.04.16.10.246982@rapskat.com>,
 rapskat <rapskat@gmail.com> wrote:

> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult>
> 
> I take it by this you are trying to convey that in creating themes for
> other platforms/WM's that emulate the look and feel of Aqua, people are
> "making obeisance to something that it is obvious they do not comprehend"?

> Perhaps you are right.  Please explain just what mysterious element these
> themes and the people that use them just aren't getting if you would.

We maccies have been trying to explain this to wintrolls since forever 
- and more recently, Linux users. And we've had no luck at all.

-- 
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
0
clund (6340)
6/30/2005 8:39:09 AM

Timberwoof wrote:
> In article <m04qbgy2xq.fsf@yahoo.com>, Mike Cox <mikecoxlinux@yahoo.com> =
wrote:
>
> > NoStop <nostop@stopspam.com> writes:
> >
> > > Mike Cox wrote:
> > >
> > > > Question.  If Linux is so great and Open Source Software developers=
 are so
> > > > smart, why does the Linux desktop look like crap?  KDE and Gnome do=
n't
> > > > interoperate well.  Heck, you can't even cut and paste between gnom=
e and
> > > > kde apps reliably.  How does Apple, which is a small fish compared =
to MS
> > > > and other computing giants come up with something as good as OS X's=
 Aqua?
> > > > That right there is proof that Linux developers can't code worth a =
crap.
> > > > Heck, you'd think with all those OSS developers, the Linux desktop =
would
> > > > have left everything in the dust!  But that is not the case, because
> > > > Windows 3.1 GUI gives Linux a run for the money!
> > > >
> > > > If a relatively small company like Apple Inc. can create a great OS=
 with a
> > > > world class desktop, why can't the linux knuckleheads do it?
> > >
> > > How come you haven't yet figured out to keep your line lengths short?
> >
> > I'm using GNU's Emacs.  This thing is a gigantic ball of string
> > (typical of the GNU/Linux movement. Who knows how to fix anything!
> > I'm lucky I even got this far.  Getting gnus set up and figuring out
> > how to post was a 5 hour effort!  First you need to know an obscure
> > programming language (lisp), then you need to figure out what commands
> > corrospond to what you need to do.  Then you need to figure out how to
> > even get around emacs with its thousands of commands and key combinatio=
ns.
> >
> > It is not easy to use at all!  This is representative of what GNU and
> > Linux stand for.  The uber nerd experience.  With Linux you need to
> > learn fdisk and partitioning with weird things like / , and swap and a
> > bazillion file systems.  Reiser, Reiser4, XFS, AndrewFS, ext2, ext3,
> > the list goes on!  Then you need to know how to compile a kernel and
> > figure out how to use CVS and the patch to command to compile it
> > back.  Then you need to
> >
> > Since OS X is based on BSD, I'm able to use this emacs monster from my
> > iBook.  But, since OS X is so easy to use and powerful, I wonder why
> > Linux developers haven't come up with anything remotely as good.
>
> Because Linux developers are geeks who enjoy complicated stuff for its ow=
n sake,
> don't mind a crufty user interface, and rate an application by the number=
 of
> knobs to frob. They complain when an application reduces the main UI to t=
he
> barest essentials -- it takes away their sense of control over the applic=
ation.
>
> For instance, iTunes does let you set all kinds of parameters in how it r=
ips
> CDs, but they're hidden in the Preferences. I've seen Linux applications =
where
> every last obscure MP3 encoding parameter is right there on the main UI.
>
> Steve hired some talented and knowledgeable artists to design the look of=
 OS X,
> and some talented UI experts to design the feel. Together they came up wi=
th a
> system that works very well ... and wrote books that explain how to do a
> passable job of designing the UI for an OS X app. The result is that OS X=
 apps
> tend to have a similar look and feel, one that tends to be sparse and ele=
gant.
> What Linux geeks see right off is the sparseness and the apparent lack of
> control, and that's what they focus on. OS X isn't meant for them, and th=
ey
> don't really mean Linux for OS X users.
>
> Especially folks like Peter K=F6hlmann -- probably pretty intelligent and
> knowledgeable about Linux; maybe a decent programmer. But I'd never hire =
him to
> design or implement a UI. His contempt for people he thinks are stupid (h=
e's
> said so himself) would spill out into his UI designs, which would probabl=
y be a
> QA nightmare and show utter disregard for the non-expert user.
>
> It's not that Linux developers are stupid or something -- they're not -- =
they
> for the most part just don't get what good UI design is about.
>

Wrong.

They for the most part just don't get what good UI design is for
the person who views the computer as a mere appliance.... the Linux
UI design is PERFECT for those who want the ability to tweak
anything and everything.


Just because it's not right for lUsers like you doesn't mean that
it's not right for anybody.

0
6/30/2005 8:51:44 AM
begin  virus.txt.scr C Lund wrote:

> In article <pan.2005.06.30.04.16.10.246982@rapskat.com>,
>  rapskat <rapskat@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult>
>> 
>> I take it by this you are trying to convey that in creating themes for
>> other platforms/WM's that emulate the look and feel of Aqua, people are
>> "making obeisance to something that it is obvious they do not
>> comprehend"?
> 
>> Perhaps you are right.  Please explain just what mysterious element these
>> themes and the people that use them just aren't getting if you would.
> 
> We maccies have been trying to explain this to wintrolls since forever
> - and more recently, Linux users. And we've had no luck at all.
> 

You should ask yourself why that is.
After al, you can hardly claim that linux users generally are ignorant

Maybe it is just that linux users, especially those who use Gnome or KDE,
fail to see where your GUI is *any* better than what they already have?

That your GUI /may/ be slightly better than the windows one is arguable,
although I highly doubt that even that claim holds much water
-- 
No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message, however, a
significant number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

0
Peter.Koehlmann (13228)
6/30/2005 8:55:17 AM
**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

"Liam Slider" <liam@nospam.liamslider.com> stated in post
pan.2005.06.30.04.04.13.959000@nospam.liamslider.com on 6/29/05 9:04 PM:

> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 20:39:59 -0700, Snit wrote:
> 
>> "Liam Slider" <liam@nospam.liamslider.com> stated in post
>> pan.2005.06.30.03.24.01.477430@nospam.liamslider.com on 6/29/05 8:23 PM:
>> 
>>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 18:24:10 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>> 
>>>> "Liam Slider" <liam@nospam.liamslider.com> stated in post
>>>> pan.2005.06.30.01.13.44.529527@nospam.liamslider.com on 6/29/05 6:13 PM:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 17:27:02 -0700, Mike Cox wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Question.  If Linux is so great and Open Source Software developers are
>>>>>> so smart, why does the Linux desktop look like crap?
>>>>> 
>>>>> It doesn't.
>>>> 
>>>> More accurately: it does and it does not - there is no one "Linux
>>>> desktop"... something that is both a strength and a weakness of Linux.
>>> 
>>> How does choice mean it does (look like crap) and it doesn't (look like
>>> crap)?
>> 
>> People, or distributors / IT folks / etc, can have it look, and work, in
>> many ways.
> 
> And, so, but, therefore....

It (potentially) can look / work well or poorly for any given need (or at
least many).
> 
> <snip>
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Heck, you'd think with all those OSS developers, the
>>>>>> Linux desktop would have left everything in the dust!
>>>>> 
>>>>> It pretty much does.
>>>> 
>>>> In what way?
>>> 
>>> Configurability, flexibility
>> 
>> Configurability and flexibility are a two edges sword.  I assume you know
>> the pros, so do not take my lack of comments on that here to mean I do not
>> know that there are some pros...
>> 
>> With that said, a well designed interface can be hurt by too much
>> configurability.  How many more accidents would there be on the road if it
>> were easy to "configure" which peddle was the gas, which was the brake...
>> and which direction you moved the steering wheel to turn left?  The relative
>> consistency (and lack of easy configurability) from car to car is a *huge*
>> advantage and even, literally, a life saver.
>> 
>> With Linux almost anything is possible - but it is not consistent from
>> machine to machine, from application to application, or - sometimes - even
>> within the same application (while this is true for other OS's, it is much
>> more true with Linux).  This leads to a Linux community that often blames
>> the user when the user can not efficiently use their computer.  It also
>> requires a larger learning curve and makes shared work stations less
>> appealing.
> 
> Actually, this is very rarely the kind of issue you make it out to be. For
> instance, GNOME and KDE are both highly configurable, and even more so
> with the right add ons...but they are still GNOME and KDE at the heart of
> it and still work within their frameworks. Linux still follows a fairly
> Unix-like philosophy of lots of standard parts plugging into each other in
> order to do various tasks. While people can customise Linux
> considerably...it's still Linux.

But, as you said, it can be customized considerably.  That is not always a
good thing.  While I do not agree with all of the decisions Apple makes with
OS X, I am happy that they have such a large focus on ease-of-use.  Makes a
big difference with productivity.
>> 
>>> , speed on the same hardware as other "mainstream" operating systems,
>>> choice (with Linux you can keep your OS, but choose your Desktop
>>> Environment. Not so on other mainstream desktop operating systems. Plus
>>> we have greater choice of hardware as well), stability and security (we
>>> have had less malware problems than OSX actually, although that numbers
>>> is still laughable compared to Windows.
>> 
>> I would like to see your support that Linux has had less malware than OS
>> X...
> 
> The only true viruses that Linux has ever had have been...well...confined
> to the lab for all intents and purposes, and never really working even
> there. OSX has had a tiny few cases I believe.

None that have spread... I would say that are, for all intents and purposes,
equal here. Linux, I believe, has had some in the past, but none of any
importance since OS X was even in beta... and OS X has had none of any
importance at all. 
>> 
>>> And OSX has had a few more stability issues than Linux overall I've
>>> heard, although that's been improving a great deal)
>> 
>> Again I would like to see your support.  10.0 (or maybe 10.1) was the
>> last time I can say OS X has had any real stability issues.
> 
> True, as I said, it's very minor. Nothing approaching Windows. OSX is a
> rock of stability in comparison, but I would not go so far as to say that
> it's *quite* as stable as linux. Probably not even big enough for us to be
> bothering arguing about though.

Agreed that both OS X and Linux are amazingly stable.  I have seen both lock
up (or at least effectively lock up) but it is rare in both cases.
>> 
>>> , ease of install of a vast software library (package management
>>> systems like urpmi, apt, emerge, and so forth give us access to many
>>> thousands of software titles with a few simple commands, or with a
>>> simple GUI. Just a simple download and install of virtually anything
>>> for our systems), etc...
>> 
>> Easy for an experienced user... for most novices, Linux is a huge
>> mystery - more so than OS X or even Windows.
> 
> What's so hard, so mysterious about clicking on the "install software
> using <whatever>" menu item and choosing the application you want from the
> well organised listing, or better, searching within that to find your
> application. Then clicking the "install" button?

Work with some novices and you shall see... :)


-- 
Look, this is silly. It's not an argument, it's an armor plated walrus with
walnut paneling and an all leather interior.




-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 *** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
                      http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
0
SNIT (24281)
6/30/2005 9:01:05 AM
**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

"rapskat" <rapskat@gmail.com> stated in post
pan.2005.06.30.04.49.34.52745@rapskat.com on 6/29/05 9:49 PM:

> begin  Error Log for Thu, 30 Jun 2005 04:39:23 +0000 - Timberwoof
> <timberwoof@stimpberawoofm.com> caused an invalid page fault at address
> <timberwoof-578E45.21392329062005@typhoon.sonic.net>, details as follows:
> 
>>> And why would you have to focus on the something that is as subjective
>>> as looks rather than technical merit?
>> 
>> It's not just looks. (All too many Linux application programmers mistake
>> the ability to change an application's skin for being able to change its
>> feel.) A part of technical merit is how well an app follows proven UI
>> conventions and how well it presents a coherent model of the underlying
>> concepts to a user.
> 
> And Linux and it's applications don't do this?  If a user knows the basic
> concepts of computer use, then they would have no issues with Linux et al
> at all.
> 
> I see children 5 and below using Linux with no problems.

Do you claim they use it as well as you do?


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




-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 *** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
                      http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
0
SNIT (24281)
6/30/2005 9:01:12 AM
**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

"Timberwoof" <timberwoof@stimpberawoofm.com> stated in post
timberwoof-0F25EB.21583629062005@typhoon.sonic.net on 6/29/05 9:58 PM:

> In article <pan.2005.06.30.02.58.31.643912@rapskat.com>,
>  rapskat <rapskat@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Aqua is just a look, not a product.  There are a wealth of themes for
>> both Windows and Linux that can emulate this look if you want it.
> 
> You are mistaken ... but take comfort in the fact that many, many developers
> think that "skinning" a gui is the same thing as changing its behavior.

The mistaken idea that simply adding a skin to another GUI makes it the same
as Aqua shows how ignorant rapskat is about OS X.


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




-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 *** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
                      http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
0
SNIT (24281)
6/30/2005 9:01:15 AM

Sylvester.n.Tweety@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Wrong.
>
> They for the most part just don't get what good UI design is for
> the person who views the computer as a mere appliance.... the Linux
> UI design is PERFECT for those who want the ability to tweak
> anything and everything.

LIES LIES!!!! You cant even change the madrivel STAR ikon that won't
start because it has no T!!!! Linus so dose suck!!!!!!!

0
gateswh (102)
6/30/2005 9:07:34 AM
Sylvester.n.Tweety@gmail.com wrote:

>> It's not that Linux developers are stupid or something -- they're not --
>> they for the most part just don't get what good UI design is about.
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> They for the most part just don't get what good UI design is for
> the person who views the computer as a mere appliance.... the Linux
> UI design is PERFECT for those who want the ability to tweak
> anything and everything.
> 
> 
> Just because it's not right for lUsers like you doesn't mean that
> it's not right for anybody.

Agreed totally. Yes, Linux still sucks for people who don't have (and won't
have) knewledge about computer. However, if you are programmer, Linux's UI
are useful. 

-- 
Lukas "Almad" Linhart
[:: http://www.almad.net/ ::]
[:: PGP/GNUPg key: http://www.almad.net/download/pubkey.asc ::]
0
6/30/2005 10:05:46 AM
Ralph wrote:
> Peter Ammon wrote:
> 
> 
>>>>It's not just looks. (All too many Linux application programmers mistake
>>>>the ability to change an application's skin for being able to change its
>>>>feel.) A part of technical merit is how well an app follows proven UI
>>>>conventions and how well it presents a coherent model of the underlying
>>>>concepts to a user.
>>>
>>>
>>>And Linux and it's applications don't do this?  If a user knows the basic
>>>concepts of computer use, then they would have no issues with Linux et al
>>>at all.
>>
>>If you honestly believe that, you're utterly out of touch.  I have major
>>issues with Linux and I certainly know the basic concepts of computer use.
>>
> 
> Ahhh, the claim without specifics, how typical. 

I guess I figured it was self evident.  But if you insist, here's a 
short list of issues I typically encounter.

1) Configuring X has never been straightforward.  I have always had to 
run a program from the command line and had to guess a few times before 
I got it to support a tolerable resolution and refresh rate.

2) My scroll wheel has never worked.  I did some research and found some 
plug-ins to support scroll wheels, but it was complicated and I was 
never able to get it to work.

3) Sound usually doesn't work initially, and sometimes never at all.

4) Copy and paste has issues.  I don't think I've ever managed to copy 
and paste an image between applications.

5) There are far too many controls for irrevelant things.  Last time I 
tried what was, I think, KDM, there were preferences for changing the 
font of the login window's text.  Who cares about that?

6) There aren't controls for important things.  To add a window manager 
to KDM, I had to read a bunch of things and edit several text files, as 
root.  It was something like this: 
http://www.linux-sxs.org/display/wmxf.html

7) Permissions aren't fine grained in any GUI I've tried.  To even view 
certain settings, which should be viewable by everyone, I had to give 
the root password.

8) I never found a built in GUI to set up my basic static IP address so 
it would be the same every launch.  I had to edit a text file.

9) The visible window refreshing and "trails" is out of hand.  Linux 
looks great until you move something.

I'm sure you're going to tell me that you don't have these problems, and 
maybe you don't.  But I don't buy for a second that you have "no issues 
with Linux at all."  Every OS has issues.

-Peter

-- 
Pull out a splinter to reply.
0
gershwin (465)
6/30/2005 10:06:32 AM
begin  virus.txt.scr Peter Ammon wrote:

> Ralph wrote:
>> Peter Ammon wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>>>It's not just looks. (All too many Linux application programmers
>>>>>mistake the ability to change an application's skin for being able to
>>>>>change its feel.) A part of technical merit is how well an app follows
>>>>>proven UI conventions and how well it presents a coherent model of the
>>>>>underlying concepts to a user.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>And Linux and it's applications don't do this?  If a user knows the
>>>>basic concepts of computer use, then they would have no issues with
>>>>Linux et al at all.
>>>
>>>If you honestly believe that, you're utterly out of touch.  I have major
>>>issues with Linux and I certainly know the basic concepts of computer
>>>use.
>>>
>> 
>> Ahhh, the claim without specifics, how typical.
> 
> I guess I figured it was self evident.  But if you insist, here's a
> short list of issues I typically encounter.
> 
> 1) Configuring X has never been straightforward.  I have always had to
> run a program from the command line and had to guess a few times before
> I got it to support a tolerable resolution and refresh rate.
> 

So use a more modern distro. Like one released after 1998

> 2) My scroll wheel has never worked.  I did some research and found some
> plug-ins to support scroll wheels, but it was complicated and I was
> never able to get it to work.
> 

I have never heard such bullshit before. Scroll mice work since years
They are usually even detected corrrectly at install time

> 3) Sound usually doesn't work initially, and sometimes never at all.
> 

So don't go out of your way to buy a non-supported card.
I have several different computers with different soundcards here.
*All* work

> 4) Copy and paste has issues.  I don't think I've ever managed to copy
> and paste an image between applications.


Again, use something released later than 1998
> 
> 5) There are far too many controls for irrevelant things.  Last time I
> tried what was, I think, KDM, there were preferences for changing the
> font of the login window's text.  Who cares about that?
> 

There are obviously people who do.
Tell us, who is forcing you to use it?

> 6) There aren't controls for important things.  To add a window manager
> to KDM, I had to read a bunch of things and edit several text files, as
> root.  It was something like this:
> http://www.linux-sxs.org/display/wmxf.html
> 

Well, couldn't you find something even older than that?
It talks about integrating KDE2, for gods sake!
This stuff is several years old!

> 7) Permissions aren't fine grained in any GUI I've tried.  To even view
> certain settings, which should be viewable by everyone, I had to give
> the root password.
> 

More bullshit lies? You can view permissions since years as normal user
You also can alter permissions in the GUI since years

> 8) I never found a built in GUI to set up my basic static IP address so
> it would be the same every launch.  I had to edit a text file.
> 

Really? Agasin, use some linux released later than 1998

> 9) The visible window refreshing and "trails" is out of hand.  Linux
> looks great until you move something.
> 

You should do some more training on this lying routine. You are fairly bad
at it

> I'm sure you're going to tell me that you don't have these problems, and
> maybe you don't.  But I don't buy for a second that you have "no issues
> with Linux at all."  Every OS has issues.
> 
> -Peter
> 

Good. And now please come up with something which is actually true, will
you?
-- 
Just out of curiosity does this actually mean something or have some
of the few remaining bits of your brain just evaporated?

0
Peter.Koehlmann (13228)
6/30/2005 10:16:23 AM
In article <csma-16C5FD.23452629062005@news.uswest.net>,
 Oxford <csma@mac.com> wrote:

> Ralph <no@way.com> wrote:
> 
> > > Apple revenues last year: 8,279,000   (will hit 12 billion this year)
> > 
> > From 8 million to 12 billion is quite a jump! 
> > 
> > > 
> > > HP revenues last year: 79,905,000
> > > 
> > > IBM revenues last year: 96,293,000
> > > 
> > > MS revenues last year: 36,835,000
> > > 
> > > Red Hat revenues last year:  124,737
> 
> oh, i forgot, you aren't up on accounting... numbers are in millions...

Looks like you're not up on accounting, either. Those numbers are 
actually in thousands.

That is, HP's revenues were $79.9 billion - or $79.9 million thousands.
0
nowhere2 (2416)
6/30/2005 11:34:40 AM
In article <csma-920C4B.01202130062005@news.uswest.net>,
 Oxford <csma@mac.com> wrote:


> see... the original error was yours: "From 8 million to 12 billion is 
> quite a jump!" anyone with half a brain wouldn't of made such a comment.

Actually, anyone with half a brain wouldn't have said 'wouldn't of'.
0
nowhere2 (2416)
6/30/2005 11:35:22 AM
In article <J8WdncHptdEw5F7fRVn-oA@rcn.net>, Ralph <no@way.com> wrote:

> Timberwoof wrote:
> 
> > In article <ANWdnU2x8Omd317fRVn-pA@rcn.net>, Ralph <no@way.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> Mike Cox wrote:
> >> 
> >> > Question.  If Linux is so great and Open Source Software developers are
> >> > so
> >> > smart, why does the Linux desktop look like crap?  KDE and Gnome don't
> >> > interoperate well.  Heck, you can't even cut and paste between gnome
> >> > and
> >> > kde apps reliably.  How does Apple, which is a small fish compared to
> >> > MS and other computing giants come up with something as good as OS X's
> >> > Aqua? That right there is proof that Linux developers can't code worth
> >> > a crap. Heck, you'd think with all those OSS developers, the Linux
> >> > desktop would
> >> > have left everything in the dust!  But that is not the case, because
> >> > Windows 3.1 GUI gives Linux a run for the money!
> >> > 
> >> > If a relatively small company like Apple Inc. can create a great OS
> >> > with a world class desktop, why can't the linux knuckleheads do it?
> >> 
> >> If Linux is so bad, why is it running, at least in part, 8 of the top 10
> >> fastest computers in the world?
> > 
> > Because you don't install X and KDE or Gnome on a node in a Beowulf
> > cluster. There's no question that Linux is really good for such things:
> > lots of smart people have worked on it to make it fast and robust.
> > However, when geeks write systems for geeks, the result is a system that
> > appeals to geeks. Unfortunately, they often can't understand the needs of
> > non-geeks.
> 
> You mean non-geek systems that get viruses and all that rot? Or ego boxes

My non-geek Macs don't get viruses.


> that are over priced so people can impress people with how much money they
> have to throw away like Apple computers? 

And once again we have the true driving force behind Linux proponents - 
they simply can't understand the concept of someone paying a bit more 
for a product that they prefer. All that matters is how cheap something 
is. Or free, as in free puppies.
0
nowhere2 (2416)
6/30/2005 11:39:15 AM
Yeah, the "I want my computer to be only as versatile as my toaster"
outlook is soooooooo appealing.

There's a reason that Macs are only popular with extreme technophobes
like graphics artists.

0
6/30/2005 12:14:17 PM
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 03:06:32 -0700, Peter Ammon wrote:

> Ralph wrote:
>> Peter Ammon wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>>>It's not just looks. (All too many Linux application programmers
>>>>>mistake the ability to change an application's skin for being able to
>>>>>change its feel.) A part of technical merit is how well an app follows
>>>>>proven UI conventions and how well it presents a coherent model of the
>>>>>underlying concepts to a user.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>And Linux and it's applications don't do this?  If a user knows the
>>>>basic concepts of computer use, then they would have no issues with
>>>>Linux et al at all.
>>>
>>>If you honestly believe that, you're utterly out of touch.  I have major
>>>issues with Linux and I certainly know the basic concepts of computer
>>>use.
>>>
>>>
>> Ahhh, the claim without specifics, how typical.
> 
> I guess I figured it was self evident.  But if you insist, here's a short
> list of issues I typically encounter.
> 
> 1) Configuring X has never been straightforward.  I have always had to run
> a program from the command line and had to guess a few times before I got
> it to support a tolerable resolution and refresh rate.

I have not had to resort to the commandline for a while now. The GUI does
quite well.

> 
> 2) My scroll wheel has never worked.  I did some research and found some
> plug-ins to support scroll wheels, but it was complicated and I was never
> able to get it to work.

My scroll wheel works well. Maybe yours non-standard?

> 
> 3) Sound usually doesn't work initially, and sometimes never at all.

Sound has worked well for me. Maybe you should actaully turn up the volume
in the mixer?

> 
> 4) Copy and paste has issues.  I don't think I've ever managed to copy and
> paste an image between applications.

That may well be true.

> 
> 5) There are far too many controls for irrevelant things.  Last time I
> tried what was, I think, KDM, there were preferences for changing the font
> of the login window's text.  Who cares about that?

The people who would like to change the font of the login window.

> 
> 6) There aren't controls for important things.  To add a window manager to
> KDM, I had to read a bunch of things and edit several text files, as root.
>  It was something like this:
> http://www.linux-sxs.org/display/wmxf.html

How do you add a window manager to OS X?

> 
> 7) Permissions aren't fine grained in any GUI I've tried.  To even view
> certain settings, which should be viewable by everyone, I had to give the
> root password.

Very tight security.

> 
> 8) I never found a built in GUI to set up my basic static IP address so it
> would be the same every launch.  I had to edit a text file.

So, OS X will ferret out your static IP without any input from you?

> 
> 9) The visible window refreshing and "trails" is out of hand.  Linux looks
> great until you move something.

What 'trails'?

> 
> I'm sure you're going to tell me that you don't have these problems, and
> maybe you don't.  But I don't buy for a second that you have "no issues
> with Linux at all."  Every OS has issues.
> 
Every OS has issues, including OS X.

-- 
Rick

0
none11 (12193)
6/30/2005 12:26:34 PM
Mike Cox <mikecoxlinux@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Question.  If Linux is so great and Open Source Software developers are so
> smart, why does the Linux desktop look like crap? 

What Linux desktop?

> KDE and Gnome don't interoperate well.

Not on Linux, not on Solaris, not on Mac OS X. True.

> Heck, you can't even cut and paste between gnome and kde apps reliably.

I must check whether I can cut and paste between Aqua and KDE apps
reliably.

> How does Apple, which is a small fish compared to MS and other computing
> giants come up with something as good as OS X's Aqua?

You have to be good at something. How do the FSF come with the GCC, how
did Linus come up with Linux?

> That right there is proof that Linux developers can't code worth a crap.

What Linux developers? What part of Linux are you referring to?

> Heck, you'd think with all those OSS developers, the Linux desktop would
> have left everything in the dust!

In many areas they have. That's why Apple use OSS to run their GUI.

> But that is not the case, because Windows 3.1 GUI gives Linux a run for
> the money!

I believe you can run Windows 3.1 on Linux.

> If a relatively small company like Apple Inc. can create a great OS with a
> world class desktop, why can't the linux knuckleheads do it?

If the Linux knuckleheads can create a modern kernel, why did Apple have
to use OSS software to run their GUI on?

-- 
Andrew J. Brehm
Marx Brothers Fan
PowerPC/Macintosh User
Supporter of Chicken Sandwiches
0
ajbrehm (990)
6/30/2005 12:27:39 PM
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 00:07:45 -0700, Peter Ammon wrote:

> Ralph wrote:
> [...]
>> 
>> I noticed that you could not give a single thing that makes apple
>> technically better than Linux for ANY USE.
> 
> Off the top of my head: more stable kernel binary interfaces.
> 
>> Guess Apples are just ego
>> computers so losers that can't impress anyone any other way can at least
>> show that they have money to waste on over priced crap.
> 
> Linus uses a Mac.

.... and on his Mac (which was a gift) he runs ... Linux.

-- 
Rick

0
none11 (12193)
6/30/2005 12:27:59 PM
Mike Cox wrote:
> Alex <fast@mischiefuk.com> writes:
> 
>>There is no argument that OSX is a fantastic looking and easy to use 
>>desktop. They have made obvious proprietory advancements to the unix 
>>base, and especially the X11 system, and it's only a matter of time 
>>before the the opensource world catches up.
> 
> 
> WRONG WRONG WRONG!  How long has linux been "trying to catch up"?  As of 2005, Gnome and KDE STILL have trouble copying and pasting between apps!  Where is the equivalent of iTunes?  Or iLife?  Linux comes equiped with a bunch of applications that DO NOT work seemlessly together.  Each has a command line interface that is completely inconsistant with the next app's switches.  Gnomes Nautilus is possibly the worst offender in user friendliness.
> 
> 

Did I even mention the word "linux" in my response one single time?

Maybe you choose to make an assumption to divert the point of the 
argument which you entirely missed! Even though my main point was that 
the foundations of OSX are opensource, needless to say, BSD is a hell of 
a lot more like linux than other operating systems. OSX GUI is build 
upon X11 (XFree86 project), which is certainly not exclusive to BSD and 
are, in fact, de-facto techonologies for Linux desktops.

0
fast2913 (22)
6/30/2005 12:43:27 PM
Peter K�hlmann wrote:

>> Linus uses a Mac.
>
>Right. He did not buy it.
>And he runs linux on it. He explained that he wants to stabelize that
>processor series of linux, since most effort is (naturally) done on x86
>processors

Is he maybe wasting his time, now that Mac's future is with x86?

0
chrisv (22840)
6/30/2005 1:12:49 PM
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 02:01:05 -0700, Snit wrote:

> **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
> 
> "Liam Slider" <liam@nospam.liamslider.com> stated in post
> pan.2005.06.30.04.04.13.959000@nospam.liamslider.com on 6/29/05 9:04 PM:
> 
>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 20:39:59 -0700, Snit wrote:
>> 
>>> "Liam Slider" <liam@nospam.liamslider.com> stated in post
>>> pan.2005.06.30.03.24.01.477430@nospam.liamslider.com on 6/29/05 8:23 PM:
>>> 
>>>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 18:24:10 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> "Liam Slider" <liam@nospam.liamslider.com> stated in post
>>>>> pan.2005.06.30.01.13.44.529527@nospam.liamslider.com on 6/29/05 6:13 PM:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 17:27:02 -0700, Mike Cox wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Question.  If Linux is so great and Open Source Software developers are
>>>>>>> so smart, why does the Linux desktop look like crap?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> It doesn't.
>>>>> 
>>>>> More accurately: it does and it does not - there is no one "Linux
>>>>> desktop"... something that is both a strength and a weakness of Linux.
>>>> 
>>>> How does choice mean it does (look like crap) and it doesn't (look like
>>>> crap)?
>>> 
>>> People, or distributors / IT folks / etc, can have it look, and work, in
>>> many ways.
>> 
>> And, so, but, therefore....
> 
> It (potentially) can look / work well or poorly for any given need (or at
> least many).


Can you please point out situations where it looks poorly for any given
need (or at least many)? I mean, if there are "many" surely you can point
them out right?


>> 
>> <snip>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Heck, you'd think with all those OSS developers, the Linux desktop
>>>>>>> would have left everything in the dust!
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> It pretty much does.
>>>>> 
>>>>> In what way?
>>>> 
>>>> Configurability, flexibility
>>> 
>>> Configurability and flexibility are a two edges sword.  I assume you
>>> know the pros, so do not take my lack of comments on that here to mean
>>> I do not know that there are some pros...
>>> 
>>> With that said, a well designed interface can be hurt by too much
>>> configurability.  How many more accidents would there be on the road
>>> if it were easy to "configure" which peddle was the gas, which was the
>>> brake... and which direction you moved the steering wheel to turn
>>> left?  The relative consistency (and lack of easy configurability)
>>> from car to car is a *huge* advantage and even, literally, a life
>>> saver.
>>> 
>>> With Linux almost anything is possible - but it is not consistent from
>>> machine to machine, from application to application, or - sometimes -
>>> even within the same application (while this is true for other OS's,
>>> it is much more true with Linux).  This leads to a Linux community
>>> that often blames the user when the user can not efficiently use their
>>> computer.  It also requires a larger learning curve and makes shared
>>> work stations less appealing.
>> 
>> Actually, this is very rarely the kind of issue you make it out to be.
>> For instance, GNOME and KDE are both highly configurable, and even more
>> so with the right add ons...but they are still GNOME and KDE at the
>> heart of it and still work within their frameworks. Linux still follows
>> a fairly Unix-like philosophy of lots of standard parts plugging into
>> each other in order to do various tasks. While people can customise
>> Linux considerably...it's still Linux.
> 
> But, as you said, it can be customized considerably.  That is not always
> a good thing.  While I do not agree with all of the decisions Apple
> makes with OS X, I am happy that they have such a large focus on
> ease-of-use.  Makes a big difference with productivity.

You don't think it's possible to have a focus that is both on
configurability *and* ease of use? I'd say GNOME does wonderfully here.
Their first priority is ease of use for the end user by providing a
simple, consistent interface...but they do not ignore configurability at
all. Maybe Apple could learn something from the GNOME guys, just as the
GNOME guys have clearly learned from Apple.

<snip>
>>> 
>>>> , ease of install of a vast software library (package management
>>>> systems like urpmi, apt, emerge, and so forth give us access to many
>>>> thousands of software titles with a few simple commands, or with a
>>>> simple GUI. Just a simple download and install of virtually anything
>>>> for our systems), etc...
>>> 
>>> Easy for an experienced user... for most novices, Linux is a huge
>>> mystery - more so than OS X or even Windows.
>> 
>> What's so hard, so mysterious about clicking on the "install software
>> using <whatever>" menu item and choosing the application you want from
>> the well organised listing, or better, searching within that to find
>> your application. Then clicking the "install" button?
> 
> Work with some novices and you shall see... :)

I have. I think the problem with your approach is that you don't give
people *enough* credit for the ability to learn and think.

0
liam8 (4986)
6/30/2005 1:32:12 PM
Mike Cox wrote:
>KDE and Gnome don't interoperate well.

The real miracle is that they interoperate at all.  They're
completely different project each designed to run the desktop.
It's kinda like the level of integration you get between
Apple's X11 and Aqua...yeah, you can run them both at the
same time, but things are kinda odd.

Duke
0
duke11 (340)
6/30/2005 1:34:07 PM
begin  Error Log for Thu, 30 Jun 2005 03:06:32 -0700 - Peter Ammon
<gershwin@splintermac.com> caused an invalid page fault at address
<9tOdne5WDr2sWV7fRVn-tw@comcast.com>, details as follows:

> I'm sure you're going to tell me that you don't have these problems, and 
> maybe you don't.  But I don't buy for a second that you have "no issues 
> with Linux at all."  Every OS has issues.

Granted in the (distant) past all of these were valid issues on some
distros, but modern distros of today normally have no problems with what
you recounted.

I suppose if you want to judge modern day Linux distros based off of some
experience you had with Red Hat 4.2, then that is your prerogative,
however misleading it may be.

And I suppose it would just as fair to judge the OS X family based on my
experiences with it's predecessors as well.

-- 
rapskat -  09:36:34 up 12:01,  4 users,  load average: 0.04, 0.17, 0.18
        '"I wish those people just would be quiet," he said of computer
researchers who publish vulnerabilities in Microsoft's products.'
        -- Steve Ballmer, Microsoft
0
rapskat2 (2033)
6/30/2005 1:40:23 PM
begin  virus.txt.scr chrisv wrote:

> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> 
>>> Linus uses a Mac.
>>
>>Right. He did not buy it.
>>And he runs linux on it. He explained that he wants to stabelize that
>>processor series of linux, since most effort is (naturally) done on x86
>>processors
> 
> Is he maybe wasting his time, now that Mac's future is with x86?

Why? He runs the PPC platform, which in this case just happens to be a Mac
-- 
FLASH!  Intelligence of mankind decreasing.  Details at ... uh, when
the little hand is on the ....

0
Peter.Koehlmann (13228)
6/30/2005 1:42:45 PM
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 04:56:42 +0000, Timberwoof wrote:

> Because Linux developers are geeks who enjoy complicated stuff for its
> own sake, don't mind a crufty user interface, and rate an application by
> the number of knobs to frob. They complain when an application reduces
> the main UI to the barest essentials -- it takes away their sense of
> control over the application.
<snip more GUI complaints>

Where are you from, 10 years ago?



Also, learn to wrap your posts properly.
0
liam8 (4986)
6/30/2005 2:01:00 PM
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 12:05:46 +0200, Almad wrote:

> 
> Sylvester.n.Tweety@gmail.com wrote:
> 
>>> It's not that Linux developers are stupid or something -- they're not
>>> -- they for the most part just don't get what good UI design is about.
>> 
>> Wrong.
>> 
>> They for the most part just don't get what good UI design is for the
>> person who views the computer as a mere appliance.... the Linux UI
>> design is PERFECT for those who want the ability to tweak anything and
>> everything.
>> 
>> 
>> Just because it's not right for lUsers like you doesn't mean that it's
>> not right for anybody.
> 
> Agreed totally. Yes, Linux still sucks for people who don't have (and
> won't have) knewledge about computer. However, if you are programmer,
> Linux's UI are useful.

None of you have any idea what you are talking about. 

0
liam8 (4986)
6/30/2005 2:03:34 PM
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 18:47:21 -0700, Mike Cox wrote:

> 
> WRONG WRONG WRONG!  How long has linux been "trying to catch up"?  As of
> 2005, Gnome and KDE STILL have trouble copying and pasting between apps! 


Not true.

> Where is the equivalent of iTunes?  Or iLife? 

Where is the fully native Apple (not some port using Apple's X11 and
command line compiling and all that...) version of Cinelerra? Where's
Apple's version of the Totem media player? 

> Linux comes equiped with a
> bunch of applications that DO NOT work seemlessly together.

Funny, they work damn fine together on my distro.

>  Each has a
> command line interface that is completely inconsistant with the next
> app's switches. 

Who cares? That's the command line.

> Gnomes Nautilus is possibly the worst offender in user
> friendliness.

Actually, no it isn't. It works remarkably well. I hear it behaves similar
in some ways to file management on OSX actually. And nautilus is very well
integrated with everything else GNOME.

0
liam8 (4986)
6/30/2005 2:14:47 PM
Mike Cox wrote:
> Heck, you can't even cut and paste between gnome and kde apps reliably.

How well can you cut and paste between OS X and Windows apps?

If one can cut and paste between two different kde apps as well as
between two different OS X apps, then one is not comparing apples with
oranges.

John Savard

0
jsavard (654)
6/30/2005 2:16:12 PM
Timberwoof <timberwoof@stimpberawoofm.com> wrote:

> In article <J8WdncHptdEw5F7fRVn-oA@rcn.net>, Ralph <no@way.com> wrote:
> >
> > I noticed that you could not give a single thing that makes apple
> > technically better than Linux for ANY USE. 
> 
> Well, since that was not your question... 
> 
> But since it is now, I'll give you a couple of things: 1. iPhoto makes sucking
> pictures out of my nifty new used Olympus a snap.

That's got nothing to do with iPhoto, more to do with whether OS X
recognises the camera as a mountable drive/device.

My Fugi digital camera appears as a drive on my desktop. I open it with
Finder, Preview or any one of half a dozen or more apps. I then select
the pics I want and move them to where I want. No need for iPhoto, which
is probably one of Apple's worst offerings. It insists on duplicating
every image you give it for no purpose for starters.

> The guy I bought it from warned me that drivers for it would be very hard
> to find. (I can just imagine trying to find a driver for Linux that will
> talk to a C-2100.) So I plugged it into my iBook. iPhoto launched and
> offered to get the pictures out of the camera. No muss, no fuss. No
> fiddle-farting around with USB drivers or mounting a volume under /mnt ...

Yes, that's just pathetic in this day and age.

-- 

Peter
0
peter9808 (1493)
6/30/2005 2:16:14 PM
begin  Error Log for Thu, 30 Jun 2005 00:03:23 -0700 - Peter Ammon
<gershwin@splintermac.com> caused an invalid page fault at address
<sPqdnbK55a7ZBF7fRVn-2Q@comcast.com>, details as follows:

> rapskat wrote:
>> begin  Error Log for Thu, 30 Jun 2005 04:39:23 +0000 - Timberwoof
>> <timberwoof@stimpberawoofm.com> caused an invalid page fault at address
>> <timberwoof-578E45.21392329062005@typhoon.sonic.net>, details as follows:
>> 
>> 
>>>>And why would you have to focus on the something that is as subjective
>>>>as looks rather than technical merit?
>>>
>>>It's not just looks. (All too many Linux application programmers mistake
>>>the ability to change an application's skin for being able to change its
>>>feel.) A part of technical merit is how well an app follows proven UI
>>>conventions and how well it presents a coherent model of the underlying
>>>concepts to a user.
>> 
>> 
>> And Linux and it's applications don't do this?  If a user knows the basic
>> concepts of computer use, then they would have no issues with Linux et al
>> at all.
> 
> If you honestly believe that, you're utterly out of touch.  I have major 
> issues with Linux and I certainly know the basic concepts of computer use.
> 
>> 
>> I see children 5 and below using Linux with no problems.
>> 
> 
> A 5 year old's uses for a computer are hardly representative.

I find it very telling that you admit you have trouble where 5 year olds
don't.

-- 
rapskat -  10:15:38 up 12:40,  4 users,  load average: 0.06, 0.16, 0.26
	"... Had this been an actual emergency, we would have fled in
terror, and you would not have been informed."
	-- Eric Steele
0
rapskat2 (2033)
6/30/2005 2:16:27 PM
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 00:07:45 -0700, Peter Ammon wrote:

> Linus uses a Mac.

Running Linux.

0
liam8 (4986)
6/30/2005 2:23:32 PM

Arkady Duntov wrote:
> On Wednesday 29 June 2005 23:14, Oxford <csma@mac.com>
> (<csma-0A233C.23142329062005@news.uswest.net>) wrote:
>
> > "Larry Qualig" <removethispartlqualig@uku.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> Market cap
> >>
> >> Apple = 29.97 Bil
> >> HP = 69.47 Bil
> >> IBM = 120.6 Bil
> >> Msft = 271.1 Bil
> >>
> > yeah, but that's market cap... yearly revenue is a better measure for
> > this type of discussion... yes it's also worthless info, but it shows
> > the relative sizes of the firms... not up or down stock value...
> >
> > Apple revenues last year: 8,279,000   (will hit 12 billion this year)
> > HP revenues last year: 79,905,000
> > IBM revenues last year: 96,293,000
> > MS revenues last year: 36,835,000
>
> Using your numbers, an even better measure is the revenue-price ratio:
>
>        Rev      Cap     Ratio
> MSFT   36.835   271.1   0.14
> AAPL    8.279    30.0   0.28
> IBM    96.293   120.6   0.80
> HP     79.905    69.5   1.15
>
> I agree with you: both Apple and Microsoft are poor investments.


That's yet another way to look at it. Revenue vs Price is less often
used than Price/Earnings because this metric artificially benefits
companies with expensive products. GM sells lots of expensive items
(cars) but they don't necessarily make much profit on each item.
Ultimately earnings (profits) are a good metric to use because it takes
into account sales, profit margins, cost of sales, efficiency and etc.
Looking at the P/E ratio of these companies we get:

  Company   P/E
  IBM       15.4
  HP        19.90
  Apple     40.40
  Msft      24.40



> I agree with you: both Apple and Microsoft are poor investments.

I don't own any of these and don't plan on buying anytime in the near
future.

0
lqualig (4343)
6/30/2005 2:23:59 PM
Sylvester.n.Tweety@gmail.com <Sylvester.n.Tweety@gmail.com> wrote:

> Yeah, the "I want my computer to be only as versatile as my toaster"
> outlook is soooooooo appealing.
> 
> There's a reason that Macs are only popular with extreme technophobes
> like graphics artists.

Idiot

-- 

Peter
0
peter9808 (1493)
6/30/2005 2:26:56 PM
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 09:16:27 -0500, rapskat wrote
(in article <pan.2005.06.30.14.16.25.928180@rapskat.com>):
>>> I see children 5 and below using Linux with no problems.
>>> 
>> 
>> A 5 year old's uses for a computer are hardly representative.
> 
> I find it very telling that you admit you have trouble where 5 year olds
> don't.
 
Surely you can do better than that.  It's quite obvious that the 
complexity of use of a 5-yr-old is completely different than 
that of most adults, advocacy-group trolls not included.

Come up with something better, this dog won't hunt, although it 
is better than the argument going on.  You now, the one trying 
to claim OS X doesn't count because it costs the same amount of 
money that Windows XP does, yet for some reason it's too 
expensive, while Windows is not.  

*BOTH* come built into the price of a new system purchase from 
major manufacturers, and a mac can be bought new for $599.

The truth is, there is nothing wrong with either OS X or Linux, 
they are both good products, aimed at different markets.  The 
entire universe of computer users does not look like Eric 
Raymond, thank goodness.



0
nunya (4574)
6/30/2005 2:30:43 PM
Ralph <no@way.com> wrote:

> Peter Ammon wrote:
> 
> >>>It's not just looks. (All too many Linux application programmers mistake
> >>>the ability to change an application's skin for being able to change its
> >>>feel.) A part of technical merit is how well an app follows proven UI
> >>>conventions and how well it presents a coherent model of the underlying
> >>>concepts to a user.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> And Linux and it's applications don't do this?  If a user knows the basic
> >> concepts of computer use, then they would have no issues with Linux et al
> >> at all.
> > 
> > If you honestly believe that, you're utterly out of touch.  I have major
> > issues with Linux and I certainly know the basic concepts of computer use.
> > 
> 
> Ahhh, the claim without specifics, how typical. 

OS X is the only OS that deals properly with laptops.

Close the lid on a Windows laptop. Then wait 30 seconds or more for the
thing to wake up when you reopen the lid. Meantime, the poor user hasn't
a clue what's happening. Do I press the power button? Or wait in hope? 

Close the lid on a laptop running Linux. Anything can happen when you
reopen the lid. Anything from it staggering back into life to a
corrupted/crashed X server, to a complete machine failure.

Close the lid on an Apple OS X laptop. Reopen the lid. The thing wakes
up where it left off after about two seconds.

-- 

Peter
0
peter9808 (1493)
6/30/2005 2:40:56 PM
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 03:06:32 -0700, Peter Ammon wrote:

> Ralph wrote:
>> Peter Ammon wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>>>It's not just looks. (All too many Linux application programmers mistake
>>>>>the ability to change an application's skin for being able to change its
>>>>>feel.) A part of technical merit is how well an app follows proven UI
>>>>>conventions and how well it presents a coherent model of the underlying
>>>>>concepts to a user.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>And Linux and it's applications don't do this?  If a user knows the basic
>>>>concepts of computer use, then they would have no issues with Linux et al
>>>>at all.
>>>
>>>If you honestly believe that, you're utterly out of touch.  I have major
>>>issues with Linux and I certainly know the basic concepts of computer use.
>>>
>> 
>> Ahhh, the claim without specifics, how typical. 
> 
> I guess I figured it was self evident.  But if you insist, here's a 
> short list of issues I typically encounter.
> 
> 1) Configuring X has never been straightforward.  I have always had to 
> run a program from the command line and had to guess a few times before 
> I got it to support a tolerable resolution and refresh rate.

Rarely if ever had that problem, myself. What distro are you talking about?

> 
> 2) My scroll wheel has never worked.  I did some research and found some 
> plug-ins to support scroll wheels, but it was complicated and I was 
> never able to get it to work.

Had that issue only with Slackware, never with anything else.

> 
> 3) Sound usually doesn't work initially, and sometimes never at all.

Mine always has.

> 
> 4) Copy and paste has issues.  I don't think I've ever managed to copy 
> and paste an image between applications.

??? 

> 
> 5) There are far too many controls for irrevelant things.  Last time I 
> tried what was, I think, KDM, there were preferences for changing the 
> font of the login window's text.  Who cares about that?

Someone who has problems with their sight, for one, I should think.

> 
> 6) There aren't controls for important things.  To add a window manager 
> to KDM, I had to read a bunch of things and edit several text files, as 
> root.  It was something like this: 
> http://www.linux-sxs.org/display/wmxf.html

Did you compile from source or something? If it was downloaded and
installed by your package manager, that should have been done for you.

> 
> 7) Permissions aren't fine grained in any GUI I've tried.  To even view 
> certain settings, which should be viewable by everyone, I had to give 
> the root password.

I've almost never had t use anythig but a GUI to alter permissions.

> 
> 8) I never found a built in GUI to set up my basic static IP address so 
> it would be the same every launch.  I had to edit a text file.

Hardly much of a problem. And I'm sure there's a GUI for it.

> 
> 9) The visible window refreshing and "trails" is out of hand.  Linux 
> looks great until you move something.

I don't seem to be having this problem (and I'm posting this via ssh from
a P3 650 mhz, 256 meg RAM box).

> 
> I'm sure you're going to tell me that you don't have these problems, and 
> maybe you don't.  But I don't buy for a second that you have "no issues 
> with Linux at all."  Every OS has issues.

Not stuff this out of date.

-- 
Kier

0
vallon (8614)
6/30/2005 2:41:25 PM
So anyway, it was like, 08:08 CEST Jun 30 2005, you know? Oh, and, yeah,
Timberwoof was all like, "Dude,

> (I can just imagine trying to find a driver for Linux that will talk
> to a C-2100.)

Can you really? I'm sure you could have found this page too if you had
actually wanted to try it instead of just going by prejudice.

<http://www.linuxquestions.org/hcl/showproduct.php?product=1562>
-----8<-----
Olympus C-2100 Ultra Zoom

[..]

Date:              09-07-2004
Kernel (uname -r): 2.6.x and 2.4.x
Distribution:      SuSE Linux 9.1 pro (Also worked in 8.0)

This was a very pleasant experience to use. The camera was connected via
USB.

I Started GPhoto, selected the camera and it worked out of the box.

Any possible EXIF information was shown. It still works like a breeze
without having to install "special drivers".
[..]
----->8-----

> No muss, no fuss. No fiddle-farting around with USB drivers or mounting 
> a volume under /mnt ... It just worked. 

Indeed. I prefer using my card reader (which, in fact, I do mount
as a volume under /mnt) instead of plugging my ixus into the computer
itself, but for those who don't want to do that there are other options.
GPhoto is one.

hth, hand.

-- 
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana.      Perth ---> *
 16:36:02 up 39 days, 21:13,  8 users,  load average: 2.87, 3.26, 3.30
Linux 2.6.11.10 x86_64 GNU/Linux             Registered Linux user #261729
0
spam7 (1369)
6/30/2005 2:42:11 PM
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 00:56:51 +0000, billwg wrote:

> 
> "Mike Cox" <mikecoxlinux@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
> news:m0hdfgy9ih.fsf@yahoo.com...
>> Question.  If Linux is so great and Open Source Software developers are so 
>> smart, why does the Linux desktop look like crap?  KDE and Gnome don't 
>> interoperate well.  Heck, you can't even cut and paste between gnome and 
>> kde apps reliably.  How does Apple, which is a small fish compared to MS 
>> and other computing giants come up with something as good as OS X's Aqua? 
>> That right there is proof that Linux developers can't code worth a crap. 
>> Heck, you'd think with all those OSS developers, the Linux desktop would 
>> have left everything in the dust!  But that is not the case, because 
>> Windows 3.1 GUI gives Linux a run for the money!
>>
>> If a relatively small company like Apple Inc. can create a great OS with a 
>> world class desktop, why can't the linux knuckleheads do it?
> 
> I think that the answer is pretty obvious.  If you are good at anything, 
> hitting a baseball, throwing a football, picking a winning horse, or coding 
> a GUI, you will naturally gravitate to the major leagues where you can test 
> your skills against the best.  No matter how often I threw a football and 
> was thrilled in doing so, I never got to the level of Roger Staubach and so 
> had to look elsewhere for achievement.  If someone loves to code a GUI and 
> is good at doing so, they will end up somewhere where the pros gather.  That 
> is not the NYLUG meeting or anything even remotely resembling it.  It is 
> Cupertino or Mountain View or Redmond where the folks that can soar with the 
> eagles will meet and the results will speak for themselves.

So, you believe that OSS coders like Linux Torvalds and Alan Cox are not
good at what they do? You're *really* stupid.

-- 
Kier

0
vallon (8614)
6/30/2005 2:43:05 PM
Oxford wrote:

> Ralph, you are stuck... you mistakenly thought it was millions, "in
> total"....
> 

That is because it was what you wrote. The error was yours. MACs make you
stupid. 
0
no9 (3192)
6/30/2005 2:44:26 PM
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 09:40:56 -0500, Peter Hayes wrote
(in article <1gyz74e.rw0yh1jc4965N%peter@seahaze.demon.co.uk>):
> OS X is the only OS that deals properly with laptops.

That is not true.

> Close the lid on a Windows laptop. Then wait 30 seconds or more for the
> thing to wake up when you reopen the lid. 

My laptop does not have that problem, which is running Windows 
(and Linux) dual boot.  You are describing a problem in the ACPI 
power state code (in BIOS and firmware) on some vendors' 
notebooks, not a Windows problem.

> Meantime, the poor user hasn't
> a clue what's happening. Do I press the power button? Or wait in hope? 

Buy a better notebook.

> Close the lid on a laptop running Linux. Anything can happen when you
> reopen the lid. Anything from it staggering back into life to a
> corrupted/crashed X server, to a complete machine failure.

I have none of those problems when I am running Linux on my 
notebook.  Buy a better notebook.

> Close the lid on an Apple OS X laptop. Reopen the lid. The thing wakes
> up where it left off after about two seconds.

That much is true.
 


0
nunya (4574)
6/30/2005 2:52:00 PM

Lefty Bigfoot wrote:
>
> > Close the lid on a Windows laptop. Then wait 30 seconds or more for the
> > thing to wake up when you reopen the lid.
>
> My laptop does not have that problem, which is running Windows
> (and Linux) dual boot.  You are describing a problem in the ACPI
> power state code (in BIOS and firmware) on some vendors'
> notebooks, not a Windows problem.
>


When I open the cover on my Dell laptop (running XP-Pro SP2) the login
screen appears before I can fully open the cover. I never timed it but
I would have to say that it's well under 1-second. Whoever claimed 30
seconds... I don't think so.

0
lqualig (4343)
6/30/2005 3:01:33 PM
Peter Ammon wrote:

> Ralph wrote:
>> Peter Ammon wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>>>It's not just looks. (All too many Linux application programmers
>>>>>mistake the ability to change an application's skin for being able to
>>>>>change its feel.) A part of technical merit is how well an app follows
>>>>>proven UI conventions and how well it presents a coherent model of the
>>>>>underlying concepts to a user.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>And Linux and it's applications don't do this?  If a user knows the
>>>>basic concepts of computer use, then they would have no issues with
>>>>Linux et al at all.
>>>
>>>If you honestly believe that, you're utterly out of touch.  I have major
>>>issues with Linux and I certainly know the basic concepts of computer
>>>use.
>>>
>> 
>> Ahhh, the claim without specifics, how typical.
> 
> I guess I figured it was self evident.  But if you insist, here's a
> short list of issues I typically encounter.
> 
> 1) Configuring X has never been straightforward.  I have always had to
> run a program from the command line and had to guess a few times before
> I got it to support a tolerable resolution and refresh rate.

Can be done easily with the GUI tools in Mandriva. Both resolution and
refresh rate are configurable, have been for years with the GUI. Guess it
was not self-evedent to me because it is not true. 

> 
> 2) My scroll wheel has never worked.  I did some research and found some
> plug-ins to support scroll wheels, but it was complicated and I was
> never able to get it to work.
> 

My Logitech wheel mouse is detected and works fine from install and has done
so for many versions. No additional plug-ins required. 

> 3) Sound usually doesn't work initially, and sometimes never at all.

While true with older versions of Mandrake, I have not had this problem for
several version. 

> 
> 4) Copy and paste has issues.  I don't think I've ever managed to copy
> and paste an image between applications.

Wow, you got one right. 

> 
> 5) There are far too many controls for irrevelant things.  

Such as?

> Last time I 
> tried what was, I think, KDM, there were preferences for changing the
> font of the login window's text.  Who cares about that?

I do and have used it. My boss did and asked me to change it. I am glad that
I was able to do what my boss requested, I always hated sitting in front of
a boss saying "it can't be done" when I had to do things with windows. 

> 
> 6) There aren't controls for important things.  To add a window manager
> to KDM, I had to read a bunch of things and edit several text files, as
> root.  It was something like this:
> http://www.linux-sxs.org/display/wmxf.html

Wouldn't know about that, Every time I installed a windows manager, it
appeared automatically. But here is the great thing, you had a way that you
COULD do it. In windows, I was never able to change things that did not
have "controls" no matter how many files I tried to edit. 

> 
> 7) Permissions aren't fine grained in any GUI I've tried. 

Permissions are not "grained" by the GUI, shows that you don't know what you
are talking about. 

> To even view 
> certain settings, which should be viewable by everyone, I had to give
> the root password.

Just how old was the distro you used? KDE has shown permissions of files and
directories FOR YEARS. Just right click on the icon and chose
"permissions". Even someone as stupid as you should be able to deal with
that.  

> 
> 8) I never found a built in GUI to set up my basic static IP address so
> it would be the same every launch.  I had to edit a text file.

Fuck, you must be using a 11 year old GUI. I do it all the time from a GUI. 

> 
> 9) The visible window refreshing and "trails" is out of hand.  Linux
> looks great until you move something.

Just another lie of use of a WAY outdated linux distro. 

> 
> I'm sure you're going to tell me that you don't have these problems, 

You are right, because I DON'T. Why should I take YOUR word when your claims
must be based on a distro outdated 8 years ago? 

> and 
> maybe you don't.  But I don't buy for a second that you have "no issues
> with Linux at all."  Every OS has issues.

Of course every distro has issues, but what you have done above is just a
plain LIE or missrepresenting a very outdated version as current because
the issues you talk about have been resolved for YEARS. 

The next time you google to find problems to bitch about, please check the
dates of the post. 


> 
> -Peter

Yes, you are a peter. 

> 

0
no9 (3192)
6/30/2005 3:04:14 PM
begin  Error Log for Thu, 30 Jun 2005 14:30:43 +0000 - Lefty Bigfoot
<nunya@busyness.info> caused an invalid page fault at address
<0001HW.BEE96C4302A09173F0386550@news.verizon.net>, details as follows:

> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 09:16:27 -0500, rapskat wrote
> (in article <pan.2005.06.30.14.16.25.928180@rapskat.com>):
>>>> I see children 5 and below using Linux with no problems.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> A 5 year old's uses for a computer are hardly representative.
>> 
>> I find it very telling that you admit you have trouble where 5 year olds
>> don't.
>  
> Surely you can do better than that.  It's quite obvious that the 
> complexity of use of a 5-yr-old is completely different than 
> that of most adults, advocacy-group trolls not included.

Sure I can, but what's the point?  I would gather that the poster is
probably speaking from experience of some old version of some distro from
a few years ago as if that was still relevant to modern day Linux distros.

Perhaps I should recount the many issues and gripes I have about the MacOS
8-9 series as if they were still relevant to today's Mac OS'?

> Come up with something better, this dog won't hunt, although it 
> is better than the argument going on.  You now, the one trying 
> to claim OS X doesn't count because it costs the same amount of 
> money that Windows XP does, yet for some reason it's too 
> expensive, while Windows is not.  

I didn't claim that, did I?  

> *BOTH* come built into the price of a new system purchase from 
> major manufacturers, and a mac can be bought new for $599.

If the price of the OS is built into the cost of the whole system, then it
still is being paid regardless, isn't it?  So, it stands to reason that,
if the money that is being allocated to offset the price of the OS is used
instead for upgrading the base hardware in the system, then for the same
price you could have a better system running Linux.  QED.


> The truth is, there is nothing wrong with either OS X or Linux, 
> they are both good products, aimed at different markets.  The 
> entire universe of computer users does not look like Eric 
> Raymond, thank goodness.

Yeah, you Apple people seem to be overly concerned with appearances.  I
mean, who cares how it works or how much it costs, so long as it *looks*
good, right?  I suppose that's how Apple has been able for all of these
years to sell products that are more expensive and yet still a couple
years behind the curve, just wrap it up in a nice shiny package and call
it "different".  Maybe people are starting to catch on, and that's why
Apple is (finally) moving to Intel based platforms.

Linux people are less concerned with form as opposed to functionality. 
Looking nice is all well and good, but let's make sure it works good first.

-- 
rapskat -  10:46:26 up 13:11,  4 users,  load average: 0.29, 0.36, 0.23
        "There is no greater insult to one's religion than to use it to
justify violence."
	-- Stonent1 on slashdot
0
rapskat2 (2033)
6/30/2005 3:05:03 PM
Travelinman wrote:

> And once again we have the true driving force behind Linux proponents -
> they simply can't understand the concept of someone paying a bit more
> for a product that they prefer. All that matters is how cheap something
> is. Or free, as in free puppies.

And once again we have a MAC user that can't figure out that people want
something other than an over priced POS that offers nothing for the price
and have to sit in groups other than MAC groups and bash people that make
different choices. 

It is clear that you can not deal with someone telling the truth about MAC
vs. other OS's. 
0
no9 (3192)
6/30/2005 3:08:17 PM
begin  Error Log for Thu, 30 Jun 2005 06:08:20 +0000 - Timberwoof
<timberwoof@stimpberawoofm.com> caused an invalid page fault at address
<timberwoof-6A316F.23082029062005@typhoon.sonic.net>, details as follows:

>> I noticed that you could not give a single thing that makes apple
>> technically better than Linux for ANY USE. 
> 
> Well, since that was not your question... 
> 
> But since it is now, I'll give you a couple of things: 1. iPhoto makes sucking 
> pictures out of my nifty new used Olympus a snap. The guy I bought it from 
> warned me that drivers for it would be very hard to find. (I can just imagine 
> trying to find a driver for Linux that will talk to a C-2100.) So I plugged it 
> into my iBook. iPhoto launched and offered to get the pictures out of the 
> camera. No muss, no fuss. No fiddle-farting around with USB drivers or mounting 
> a volume under /mnt ... It just worked.

Pretty much the same on Linux, next...
 
 
> Next, iMovie similarly sucks movies right out of DV cameras and lets one edit 
> them in a friendly environment. It will import MP3s from iTunes, photos from 
> iPhoto, and compositions from GarageBand. No muss, no fuss. Yeah, Linux has 
> interactivity between applications ... as long as you can use the pipe operator. 
> Here, pipe this song from iTunes into iMovie. Yeah, right. 

Ummm...no.  Using apps like LiVES or Kino, one has pretty much the same
functionality.  No "piping" involved, unless you consider clicking an
"import audio" function as piping.

 
> Having made a few iMovies, I can export them into iDVD, which lets me make DVDs 
> with functional menus without having to write any DVD programming code. Sure, 
> iDVD doesn't let you make a menu with Donkey jumping up and down in the 
> background yelling "Pick me, pick me!" but the results look damn fine. 

And this is any different than taking the results from Kino or LiVES as
mentioned above and creating a DVD using DVDStyler...how, exactly?

Again, same functionality for much less cost.


> So I just listed four ways that OS X, through its amazing ease of use, is 
> technically a better choice than Linux. 

No, you haven't.  You've pointed out relatively simple tasks that are all
just as easily done using the plethora of apps available for Linux.  It's
very telling that you act as if Linux is devoid in these aspects,
obviously you are not very familiar with it.

> Here's another one: as a Unix workstation that can read Microshit documents that 
> people with Windows PCs tend to throw around at each other, OS X is pretty much 
> unbeatable. Yeah, there's OpenOffice, but it's just not as polished. 

Polished?  So, when all else fails, use the stock Mac Bigot's fallback,
"yeah, but mine *looks* better!".  I guess how well it works is
irrelevant, eh?


> And yet another one: I set up a G3 as a firewall at my work. It's running OS X 
> and some other goodies that will keep the script kiddies at bay. Since it tweaks 
> one of my cow orkers who has a hate-on for Macs and may eventually realize that 
> all his work is being protected by that box, it is better than any PC.

Linux is deployed in this function far more than Mac is, that's for
certain.  And it does a damned good job of it too.

> So was it really your intention to imply that Linux is better than OS X for ANY 
> USE?

Nope, I think what he was implying was how exactly was the cost
involved for OS X or Windows justified in anything that these did any
better (notice use of the word "better", not "differently") than Linux.

To date, you've still not shown anything that justifies spending that
amount since Linux does them all just fine at no out of pocket expense and
just as much ease.

-- 
rapskat -  11:07:45 up 13:32,  4 users,  load average: 0.95, 0.66, 0.52
        "Today we stare at vacant sky, where great things once loomed. 
But freedom still resounds, and the Government of Washington and
Jefferson still stands..."
        -- Remarks at memorial services for JFK
0
rapskat2 (2033)
6/30/2005 3:20:20 PM
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 08:12:49 -0500, chrisv wrote:

> Peter K�hlmann wrote:
> 
>>> Linus uses a Mac.
>>
>>Right. He did not buy it.
>>And he runs linux on it. He explained that he wants to stabelize that
>>processor series of linux, since most effort is (naturally) done on x86
>>processors
> 
> Is he maybe wasting his time, now that Mac's future is with x86?


No. Macs are not the only PPC system,  Linux for PPC based systems
will certainly continue, and his current interest is making sure that
development on the PPC does not lag behind that on the x86.
0
liam8 (4986)
6/30/2005 3:38:07 PM
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 10:05:03 -0500, rapskat wrote
(in article <pan.2005.06.30.15.05.02.578684@rapskat.com>):

>>> I find it very telling that you admit you have trouble where 5 year olds
>>> don't.
>> 
>> Surely you can do better than that.  It's quite obvious that the 
>> complexity of use of a 5-yr-old is completely different than 
>> that of most adults, advocacy-group trolls not included.
> 
> Sure I can, but what's the point?  

If you want to make the least convincing argument possible, then 
I guess there is no point in doing better.  congrats.

> I would gather that the poster is
> probably speaking from experience of some old version of some distro from
> a few years ago as if that was still relevant to modern day Linux distros.

Assumption is the mother of all fuckups.

> Perhaps I should recount the many issues and gripes I have about the MacOS
> 8-9 series as if they were still relevant to today's Mac OS'?

Since it's a totally different operating system, like comparing 
CP/M to DOS, go for it.  People will laugh at it, but that's 
about par around here.

>> Come up with something better, this dog won't hunt, although it 
>> is better than the argument going on.  You now, the one trying 
>> to claim OS X doesn't count because it costs the same amount of 
>> money that Windows XP does, yet for some reason it's too 
>> expensive, while Windows is not.  
> 
> I didn't claim that, did I?  

I didn't claim you did.  I dropped a word, it was supposed to 
read "than the OTHER argument going on", and I did say it was 
better than that one.

>> *BOTH* come built into the price of a new system purchase from 
>> major manufacturers, and a mac can be bought new for $599.
> 
> If the price of the OS is built into the cost of the whole system, then it
> still is being paid regardless, isn't it?  

duh.

> So, it stands to reason that,
> if the money that is being allocated to offset the price of the OS is used
> instead for upgrading the base hardware in the system, then for the same
> price you could have a better system running Linux.  QED.

If and only if you agree that Linux versus OS X or Windows is 
worth the hardware upgrade.  With Windows, I couldn't agree 
more.  With OS X, I'd rather run OS X than Linux on apple 
hardware.  given a choice between Windows and Linux, I'd take 
Linux every time, unless I absolutely had to run some Windows 
app that couldn't fly under Crossover Office or Wine.

>> The truth is, there is nothing wrong with either OS X or Linux, 
>> they are both good products, aimed at different markets.  The 
>> entire universe of computer users does not look like Eric 
>> Raymond, thank goodness.
> 
> Yeah, you Apple people seem to be overly concerned with appearances.  

A) I was hacking on UNIX systems long before I ever saw windows 
or a Mac.  I am just as comfortable on a Linux machine as I am 
under OS X, perhaps more so.

B) I meant in the sense of the average computer user is *not* 
technically savvy.  They are not going to enjoy Linux until it 
gets a lot more user friendly, and I don't mean "friendly to 
geeks", I mean "friendly to morons".  "Linux for Dummies" type 
users.

C) Let a Windows user switching to Linux (or a Mac user if you 
prefer) figure out how to get his music collection playing on a 
Linux distro without help from a geek friend.  Even more so if 
they want to rip or play back DVDs.  Tell a photoshop user that 
they just need to "get the Gimp experience" then they'll prefer 
it and see how they react.  It's not as easy to use for some 
tasks, and it is far easier to use for some other tasks.  

There is no single right answer for all users on the planet.

> I mean, who cares how it works or how much it costs, so long as it *looks*
> good, right?  

Wrong.  I don't care what it looks like, as long as it is 
useful, stable and achieves the desired goals.

> I suppose that's how Apple has been able for all of these
> years to sell products that are more expensive and yet still a couple
> years behind the curve, just wrap it up in a nice shiny package and call
> it "different".  

They have been successful by packaging solutions to problems, 
not feeds and speeds.  You buy a Mac because you want something 
that will work the first day, and every day, for a specific 
task.  There are a lot of problem spaces that are not handled 
well by a Mac, just as there are a lot of problem spaces that 
are not handled well by a Linux box.  Windows boxes seem to take 
a crack at handling almost all of them, but manage to screw up 
90% of them.

> Maybe people are starting to catch on, and that's why
> Apple is (finally) moving to Intel based platforms.

You haven't been paying attention.  Apple is moving to Intel 
because of power and heat issues with mobile PPC.  notebooks is 
the sweetspot in the consumer market, especially in the US, and 
Apple has been several years behind there for a while.  Intel 
mobile chipsets will put them back in the game.    Linux has 
zero to do with that.
 
> Linux people are less concerned with form as opposed to functionality. 

There is a lot of functionality missing in Linux as a desktop 
product today.  It is an outstanding server platform, perhaps 
without peer on x86 and AMD64 hardware.  It pretty much sucks 
butt on notebooks, due to issues like Broadcom 54g (don't 
pretend like you don't know about that one).

There is a lot of hacker functionality missing on OS X out of 
the box, because the target market doesn't care.  Guess what 
though, porting OSS to OS X is a piece of cake.  Anything you 
can run on Linux that doesn't depend upon platform specific 
stuff will port to OS X almost instantly.

> Looking nice is all well and good, but let's make sure it works good first.
 
It does work.  And it also happens to look good, and be easy to 
set up and use.  The KDE and Gnome crowds should be trying to 
mimic the OS X ui, instead of trying to look more and more like 
el bloato windows with every release. 

The big mistake with making Linux a great replacement for 
Windows on the desktop is trying to copy the thing you hate.

0
nunya (4574)
6/30/2005 3:56:22 PM
In article <1120140972.456799.126240@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
 jsavard@ecn.ab.ca wrote:

> Mike Cox wrote:
> > Heck, you can't even cut and paste between gnome and kde apps reliably.
> 
> How well can you cut and paste between OS X and Windows apps?
> 
> If one can cut and paste between two different kde apps as well as
> between two different OS X apps, then one is not comparing apples with
> oranges.

That's funny - it works fine on my Mac.

If I have Virtual PC running with Windows XP, I can copy and paste 
whatever I want between Mac OS X and Windows.

Nice try, though.

Not to mention, of course, that your analogy is stupid. Windows and OS X 
are entirely different operating systems. Gnome and KDE are simply 
different windowing environments on the same OS.
0
Nowhere (5224)
6/30/2005 4:04:16 PM
In article <9dGdnXFMTueHaF7fRVn-iw@io.com>,
 Duke Robillard <duke@NOSPAMio.com> wrote:

> Mike Cox wrote:
> >KDE and Gnome don't interoperate well.
> 
> The real miracle is that they interoperate at all.  They're
> completely different project each designed to run the desktop.
> It's kinda like the level of integration you get between
> Apple's X11 and Aqua...yeah, you can run them both at the
> same time, but things are kinda odd.

What about the level of integration between Mac OS X and Windows (VPC) 
on my system? I can cut and paste just fine.
0
Nowhere (5224)
6/30/2005 4:07:56 PM
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 09:34:07 -0400, Duke Robillard wrote:

> Mike Cox wrote:
>>KDE and Gnome don't interoperate well.
> 
> The real miracle is that they interoperate at all.  They're completely
> different project each designed to run the desktop. It's kinda like the
> level of integration you get between Apple's X11 and Aqua...yeah, you can
> run them both at the same time, but things are kinda odd.

Yeah, ideally you are supposed to run one or the other...not both. At most
an occasional app here or there might cross the lines. 

0
liam8 (4986)
6/30/2005 4:09:07 PM
In article <AKudnRc8G-pxC17fRVn-sw@rcn.net>, Ralph <no@way.com> wrote:

> Oxford wrote:
> 
> > Timberwoof <timberwoof@stimpberawoofm.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> > > > HP revenues last year: 79,905,000
> >> > > > 
> >> > > > IBM revenues last year: 96,293,000
> >> > > > 
> >> > > > MS revenues last year: 36,835,000
> >> > > > 
> >> > > > Red Hat revenues last year:  124,737
> >> > 
> >> > oh, i forgot, you aren't up on accounting... numbers are in millions...
> >> 
> >> Try again.
> > 
> > yes, thousands... Ralph's mistake of millions threw me off, I later had
> > to correct it...
> 
> This is fun! Clearly nobody believes you and your claim is totally
> unsupported by fact. I used YOUR numbers to come up with millions. If you
> can't stand behind your numbers, you are no better than DFS. 

Oh. come on. You're being just a little unreasonable here. Either that or you're 
using the word "totally" in some new and novel way that means "somewhat".

-- 
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
If Macintosh is a luxury cruise ship, 
then Linux is a freighter with wood paneling in the officers' quarters.
0
timberwoof (3216)
6/30/2005 4:30:16 PM
In article <AKudnRQ8G-rXC17fRVn-sw@rcn.net>, Ralph <no@way.com> wrote:

> Oxford wrote:
> 
> > In article <tKSdnVvSrca4EF7fRVn-gw@rcn.net>, Ralph <no@way.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> > give me a break... you were the one that thought it was millions in the
> >> > first place, you aren't used to seeing numbers this large, admit it...
> >> 
> >> You wrote it as millions! I was pointing out your error, but I guess you
> >> are too stupid to get it. Considering you can't get it straight if you
> >> tried! Even your claim that the numbers are in millions is WRONG! Fucking
> >> get a clue! You are the one that obviously does not know how to deal with
> >> numbers that big!
> > 
> > go complain to your broker that you don't understand how revenue numbers
> > are expressed, your error is not my problem...
> 
> I have no trouble with the numbers from my broker, they are right and stated
> correctly, if the numbers are shown in thousands it is stated as such from
> my broker. I do have trouble with YOUR numbers that are not correctly
> labled. Even a loser like timberwolf noticed that!

Ralph, you are an asshole. 

::Plonk!::

-- 
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
If Macintosh is a luxury cruise ship, 
then Linux is a freighter with wood paneling in the officers' quarters.
0
timberwoof (3216)
6/30/2005 4:31:43 PM
In article <pan.2005.06.30.04.16.10.246982@rapskat.com>, rapskat wrote:
>>> Aqua is just a look, not a product.  There are a wealth of themes for
>>> both Windows and Linux that can emulate this look if you want it.
>> 
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult>
> 
> I take it by this you are trying to convey that in creating themes for
> other platforms/WM's that emulate the look and feel of Aqua, people are
> "making obeisance to something that it is obvious they do not comprehend"?
> 
> Perhaps you are right.  Please explain just what mysterious element these
> themes and the people that use them just aren't getting if you would.

It's not the themes that matter.  A pleasing theme can make a system more
fun to work with, and even make it easier to recognize interface elements,
and a bad theme can do the opposite, but it is the behavior of things that
is more important.

If you gave OS X a Windows XP theme, it would still be a much better
interface than Windows XP.  It would just look ugly, but it would still
*work* great.  It works both ways--if you give some other system an Aqua
theme, it looks like Aqua, but it doesn't *behave* like Aqua.

-- 
--Tim Smith
0
reply_in_group (13194)
6/30/2005 4:31:53 PM
In article <0001HW.BEE96C4302A09173F0386550@news.verizon.net>,
 Lefty Bigfoot <nunya@busyness.info> wrote:

> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 09:16:27 -0500, rapskat wrote
> (in article <pan.2005.06.30.14.16.25.928180@rapskat.com>):
> >>> I see children 5 and below using Linux with no problems.
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> A 5 year old's uses for a computer are hardly representative.
> > 
> > I find it very telling that you admit you have trouble where 5 year olds
> > don't.
>  
> Surely you can do better than that.  It's quite obvious that the 
> complexity of use of a 5-yr-old is completely different than 
> that of most adults, advocacy-group trolls not included.
> 
> Come up with something better, this dog won't hunt, although it 
> is better than the argument going on.  You now, the one trying 
> to claim OS X doesn't count because it costs the same amount of 
> money that Windows XP does, yet for some reason it's too 
> expensive, while Windows is not.  
> 
> *BOTH* come built into the price of a new system purchase from 
> major manufacturers, and a mac can be bought new for $599.
> 
> The truth is, there is nothing wrong with either OS X or Linux, 
> they are both good products, aimed at different markets.  The 
> entire universe of computer users does not look like Eric 
> Raymond, thank goodness.

That's going to get you branded as a heretic ... from the Linux weenie side.

-- 
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
If Macintosh is a luxury cruise ship, 
then Linux is a freighter with wood paneling in the officers' quarters.
0
timberwoof (3216)
6/30/2005 4:33:10 PM
In article <0001HW.BEE9714002A1BCD1F0386550@news.verizon.net>,
 Lefty Bigfoot <nunya@busyness.info> wrote:

> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 09:40:56 -0500, Peter Hayes wrote
> (in article <1gyz74e.rw0yh1jc4965N%peter@seahaze.demon.co.uk>):
> > OS X is the only OS that deals properly with laptops.
> 
> That is not true.
> 
> > Close the lid on a Windows laptop. Then wait 30 seconds or more for the
> > thing to wake up when you reopen the lid. 
> 
> My laptop does not have that problem, which is running Windows 
> (and Linux) dual boot.  You are describing a problem in the ACPI 
> power state code (in BIOS and firmware) on some vendors' 
> notebooks, not a Windows problem.
> 
> > Meantime, the poor user hasn't
> > a clue what's happening. Do I press the power button? Or wait in hope? 
> 
> Buy a better notebook.
> 
> > Close the lid on a laptop running Linux. Anything can happen when you
> > reopen the lid. Anything from it staggering back into life to a
> > corrupted/crashed X server, to a complete machine failure.
> 
> I have none of those problems when I am running Linux on my 
> notebook.  Buy a better notebook.

Like what kind, and for how much money? 

> > Close the lid on an Apple OS X laptop. Reopen the lid. The thing wakes
> > up where it left off after about two seconds.
> 
> That much is true.
>

-- 
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
If Macintosh is a luxury cruise ship, 
then Linux is a freighter with wood paneling in the officers' quarters.
0
timberwoof (3216)
6/30/2005 4:34:20 PM
In article <nowhere-33777E.06352230062005@news.central.cox.net>,
 Travelinman  <nowhere@nospam.net> wrote:

> In article <csma-920C4B.01202130062005@news.uswest.net>,
>  Oxford <csma@mac.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> > see... the original error was yours: "From 8 million to 12 billion is 
> > quite a jump!" anyone with half a brain wouldn't of made such a comment.
> 
> Actually, anyone with half a brain wouldn't have said 'wouldn't of'.

You know, Oxford, I told you this before, in a friendly way. It is a simple 
error to correct, especially if you think about how that formation came to be. 

"Would have" contracts to "would've" which sounds like "would of" and then gets 
spelled that way. But "of" is not a verb, it's a preposition similar in meaning 
to "from." Can you say "would from done that"? No; it makes no sense. It's a 
syntax error. 

You're smart. Quit making this mistake. 

If you want to spell "wouldn't of" the way you said it, it would be wouldn't've. 
Simple ... for anyone who knows the rules for making contractions.

-- 
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
If Macintosh is a luxury cruise ship, 
then Linux is a freighter with wood paneling in the officers' quarters.
0
timberwoof (3216)
6/30/2005 4:40:43 PM
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 11:34:20 -0500, Timberwoof wrote
(in article 
<timberwoof-D2B74A.09341930062005@typhoon.sonic.net>):
>>> Close the lid on a laptop running Linux. Anything can happen when you
>>> reopen the lid. Anything from it staggering back into life to a
>>> corrupted/crashed X server, to a complete machine failure.
>> 
>> I have none of those problems when I am running Linux on my 
>> notebook.  Buy a better notebook.
> 
> Like what kind, and for how much money? 

Compaq, $1499 at Fry's.



0
nunya (4574)
6/30/2005 4:53:40 PM
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 11:33:10 -0500, Timberwoof wrote
(in article 
<timberwoof-ABD08D.09331030062005@typhoon.sonic.net>):

> That's going to get you branded as a heretic ... from the Linux weenie side.

Oh no.



0
nunya (4574)
6/30/2005 4:59:37 PM

Lefty Bigfoot wrote:
> >>
> >> I have none of those problems when I am running Linux on my
> >> notebook.  Buy a better notebook.
> >
> > Like what kind, and for how much money?
>
> Compaq, $1499 at Fry's.


Compaq???? No specs.

I got a nicely configured Dell earlier this month for $760... with free
shipping.

0
lqualig (4343)
6/30/2005 5:02:40 PM
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 12:02:40 -0500, lqualig@uku.co.uk wrote
(in article 
<1120150960.240991.321770@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):

> 
> 
> Lefty Bigfoot wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> I have none of those problems when I am running Linux on my
>>>> notebook.  Buy a better notebook.
>>> 
>>> Like what kind, and for how much money?
>> 
>> Compaq, $1499 at Fry's.
> 
> 
> Compaq???? No specs.

Oh, you get off on the feeds and speeds.  Ok, It's a Presario 
R3000 with an AMD Mobile 2GHz 64-bit processor and 512MB of RAM, 
15.4" widescreen display and I upgraded to a 7200RPM 60GB drive 
and the extended life battery.

Happy now?

> I got a nicely configured Dell earlier this month for $760... with free
> shipping.

goodie for you.

BTW... Dell????  No specs.



0
nunya (4574)
6/30/2005 5:27:07 PM
"Kier" <vallon@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:pan.2005.06.30.14.43.04.337801@tiscali.co.uk...
> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 00:56:51 +0000, billwg wrote:
>>
>> I think that the answer is pretty obvious.  If you are good at anything,
>> hitting a baseball, throwing a football, picking a winning horse, or 
>> coding
>> a GUI, you will naturally gravitate to the major leagues where you can 
>> test
>> your skills against the best.  No matter how often I threw a football and
>> was thrilled in doing so, I never got to the level of Roger Staubach and 
>> so
>> had to look elsewhere for achievement.  If someone loves to code a GUI 
>> and
>> is good at doing so, they will end up somewhere where the pros gather. 
>> That
>> is not the NYLUG meeting or anything even remotely resembling it.  It is
>> Cupertino or Mountain View or Redmond where the folks that can soar with 
>> the
>> eagles will meet and the results will speak for themselves.
>
> So, you believe that OSS coders like Linux Torvalds and Alan Cox are not
> good at what they do? You're *really* stupid.
>
Well, Torvalds is a working stiff now, Kier, same as the rest of us and he 
is being paid for linux code by a company that trades in that level of 
expertise.  He probably fits my definition.  Cox I never heard of.  Who is 
he?

In any event my claim is that they are vastly outnumbered by people even 
better at what they do in the commercial arena. 


0
billw (3525)
6/30/2005 5:42:26 PM
Lefty Bigfoot wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> I have none of those problems when I am running Linux on my
> >>>> notebook.  Buy a better notebook.
> >>>
> >>> Like what kind, and for how much money?
> >>
> >> Compaq, $1499 at Fry's.
> >
> >
> > Compaq???? No specs.
>
> Oh, you get off on the feeds and speeds.  Ok, It's a Presario
> R3000 with an AMD Mobile 2GHz 64-bit processor and 512MB of RAM,
> 15.4" widescreen display and I upgraded to a 7200RPM 60GB drive
> and the extended life battery.
>
> Happy now?
>

Not happier but at least I have something to compare against. A "$1499
Compaq" is pretty non-descriptive.



> > I got a nicely configured Dell earlier this month for $760... with free
> > shipping.
>
> goodie for you.
>
> BTW... Dell????  No specs.


Nope. No specs at all. It does come in a shiny silver case though.


But if this Dell did have specs it would be:
Dell Inspiron 6000
Intel Pentium M Processor 725 (1.60 GHz/2MB Cache/400MHz FSB)
15.4" widescreen display
Integrated 802.11 b/g wireless
Burns both CDs and DVDs
512 Megs RAM
60 Gig HDD (not sure on the rpm's)
Extended life battery
One year on-site support

0
lqualig (4343)
6/30/2005 5:49:51 PM
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 17:42:26 +0000, billwg wrote:

> 
> "Kier" <vallon@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message 
> news:pan.2005.06.30.14.43.04.337801@tiscali.co.uk...
>> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 00:56:51 +0000, billwg wrote:
>>>
>>> I think that the answer is pretty obvious.  If you are good at anything,
>>> hitting a baseball, throwing a football, picking a winning horse, or 
>>> coding
>>> a GUI, you will naturally gravitate to the major leagues where you can 
>>> test
>>> your skills against the best.  No matter how often I threw a football and
>>> was thrilled in doing so, I never got to the level of Roger Staubach and 
>>> so
>>> had to look elsewhere for achievement.  If someone loves to code a GUI 
>>> and
>>> is good at doing so, they will end up somewhere where the pros gather. 
>>> That
>>> is not the NYLUG meeting or anything even remotely resembling it.  It is
>>> Cupertino or Mountain View or Redmond where the folks that can soar with 
>>> the
>>> eagles will meet and the results will speak for themselves.
>>
>> So, you believe that OSS coders like Linux Torvalds and Alan Cox are not
>> good at what they do? You're *really* stupid.
>>
> Well, Torvalds is a working stiff now, Kier, same as the rest of us and he 
> is being paid for linux code by a company that trades in that level of 
> expertise.  He probably fits my definition.  Cox I never heard of.  Who is 
> he?

Oh, come off it. If you don't know, I'd say you don't have the right to be
telling people what Linus Torvalds is about, or Linux, or OSS. Try Google,
you might find yourself learning something.

> 
> In any event my claim is that they are vastly outnumbered by people even 
> better at what they do in the commercial arena.

Really? How many of them wrote a working OS from scratch while still a
student, and then persuaded a lot of people all over teh world to join in
helping him develop it?

-- 
Kier

0
vallon (8614)
6/30/2005 6:02:32 PM
begin  KillFileMe.vbs

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 at 07:34 GMT, quoth amosf <amosf@bcs4me.com>:
> Oxford wrote something like:

(usual Oxtard babbles, using the Mac-inspired 'milllions' in his rambling)

> Seriously, this is a pretty fucked up thread, even for cola...
> 
> (millions has two l's BTW - I'm not usually a spelling nazi, but you /are/
> being a stickler for accuracy here)

Oxturd is only a stickler for accuracy when he knows something about
something. I've yet to see that particular phenomenon occur, though.

-- 
"In short: just say NO TO DRUGS, and maybe you won't end up like
the Windows people."
0
sinister2419 (3164)
6/30/2005 6:19:00 PM
begin  KillFileMe.vbs

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 at 07:07 GMT, quoth Peter Ammon <gershwin@splintermac.com>:
> Ralph wrote:
> [...]
>> 
>> I noticed that you could not give a single thing that makes apple
>> technically better than Linux for ANY USE.
> 
> Off the top of my head: more stable kernel binary interfaces.

What??

>> Guess Apples are just ego
>> computers so losers that can't impress anyone any other way can at least
>> show that they have money to waste on over priced crap.  
> 
> Linus uses a Mac.

To run linux.

-- 
Microsoft: The company that made instant messaging dangerous.
0
sinister2419 (3164)
6/30/2005 6:19:00 PM
Ralph <no@way.com> wrote:

> Travelinman wrote:
> 
> > And once again we have the true driving force behind Linux proponents -
> > they simply can't understand the concept of someone paying a bit more
> > for a product that they prefer. All that matters is how cheap something
> > is. Or free, as in free puppies.
> 
> And once again we have a MAC user that can't figure out that people want
> something other than an over priced POS that offers nothing for the price
> and have to sit in groups other than MAC groups and bash people that make
> different choices. 
> 
> It is clear that you can not deal with someone telling the truth about MAC
> vs. other OS's. 

It's also very clear that Microsoft and their (paid) trolls must be
laughing their socks off as they stand back and enjoy watching the
competition squabbling like spoilt children over a packet of sweeties.

Divide & conquor.

-- 

Peter
0
peter9808 (1493)
6/30/2005 6:19:11 PM
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 12:42:26 -0500, billwg wrote
(in article <6aWwe.192473$w15.102559@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>):
>> So, you believe that OSS coders like Linux Torvalds and Alan Cox are not
>> good at what they do? You're *really* stupid.
>> 
> Well, Torvalds is a working stiff now, Kier, same as the rest of us and he 
> is being paid for linux code by a company that trades in that level of 
> expertise.  He probably fits my definition.  Cox I never heard of.  Who is 
> he?

Torvald's right-hand man basically.  Started working on Linux 
kernel code back in 1991.  Subscribe to the LKML if you want to 
know the details.  He is also much lesser known for writing one 
of the earliest MUD programs over 20 years ago, Abermud.  The 
precursor to online gaming today.

Google for Alan Cox should turn up a LOT of hits.

> In any event my claim is that they are vastly outnumbered by people even 
> better at what they do in the commercial arena. 
 
Actually, commercial software companies are lucky to have one or 
two people as good as either of them.  The Linux development 
community has dozens, if not hundreds of similar caliber.  Many 
of those also have commercial day jobs and do Linux as a 
"hobby".  

 


0
nunya (4574)
6/30/2005 6:31:08 PM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 02:01:05 -0700,
 Snit <SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
>
> "Liam Slider" <liam@nospam.liamslider.com> stated in post
> pan.2005.06.30.04.04.13.959000@nospam.liamslider.com on 6/29/05 9:04 PM:
>
>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 20:39:59 -0700, Snit wrote:
>> 
>>> "Liam Slider" <liam@nospam.liamslider.com> stated in post
>>> pan.2005.06.30.03.24.01.477430@nospam.liamslider.com on 6/29/05 8:23 PM:
>>> 
>>>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 18:24:10 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> "Liam Slider" <liam@nospam.liamslider.com> stated in post
>>>>> pan.2005.06.30.01.13.44.529527@nospam.liamslider.com on 6/29/05 6:13 PM:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 17:27:02 -0700, Mike Cox wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Question.  If Linux is so great and Open Source Software developers are
>>>>>>> so smart, why does the Linux desktop look like crap?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> It doesn't.
>>>>> 
>>>>> More accurately: it does and it does not - there is no one "Linux
>>>>> desktop"... something that is both a strength and a weakness of Linux.
>>>> 
>>>> How does choice mean it does (look like crap) and it doesn't (look like
>>>> crap)?
>>> 
>>> People, or distributors / IT folks / etc, can have it look, and work, in
>>> many ways.
>> 
>> And, so, but, therefore....
>
> It (potentially) can look / work well or poorly for any given need (or at
> least many).
>> 
>

and so an OSX, mix up a bunch of different apps, X apps, COCOA apps, the
interfaces can also change. Esp when you add in "classic" Mac apps to
the mix. 

Like GNOME/KDE however, there is a lot of internal consistancy, which is
quite sufficient. 


> <snip>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Heck, you'd think with all those OSS developers, the
>>>>>>> Linux desktop would have left everything in the dust!
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> It pretty much does.
>>>>> 
>>>>> In what way?
>>>> 
>>>> Configurability, flexibility
>>> 
>>> Configurability and flexibility are a two edges sword.  I assume you know
>>> the pros, so do not take my lack of comments on that here to mean I do not
>>> know that there are some pros...
>>> 
>>> With that said, a well designed interface can be hurt by too much
>>> configurability.  How many more accidents would there be on the road if it
>>> were easy to "configure" which peddle was the gas, which was the brake...
>>> and which direction you moved the steering wheel to turn left?  The relative
>>> consistency (and lack of easy configurability) from car to car is a *huge*
>>> advantage and even, literally, a life saver.
>>> 
>>> With Linux almost anything is possible - but it is not consistent from
>>> machine to machine, from application to application, or - sometimes - even
>>> within the same application (while this is true for other OS's, it is much
>>> more true with Linux).  This leads to a Linux community that often blames
>>> the user when the user can not efficiently use their computer.  It also
>>> requires a larger learning curve and makes shared work stations less
>>> appealing.
>> 
>> Actually, this is very rarely the kind of issue you make it out to be. For
>> instance, GNOME and KDE are both highly configurable, and even more so
>> with the right add ons...but they are still GNOME and KDE at the heart of
>> it and still work within their frameworks. Linux still follows a fairly
>> Unix-like philosophy of lots of standard parts plugging into each other in
>> order to do various tasks. While people can customise Linux
>> considerably...it's still Linux.
>
> But, as you said, it can be customized considerably.  That is not always a
> good thing.  While I do not agree with all of the decisions Apple makes with
> OS X, I am happy that they have such a large focus on ease-of-use.  Makes a
> big difference with productivity.

of course it's a good thing. 

If the user can't handle something other than the default config, they
shouldn't go out of their way to change it...


>>> 
>>>> , speed on the same hardware as other "mainstream" operating systems,
>>>> choice (with Linux you can keep your OS, but choose your Desktop
>>>> Environment. Not so on other mainstream desktop operating systems. Plus
>>>> we have greater choice of hardware as well), stability and security (we
>>>> have had less malware problems than OSX actually, although that numbers
>>>> is still laughable compared to Windows.
>>> 
>>> I would like to see your support that Linux has had less malware than OS
>>> X...
>> 
>> The only true viruses that Linux has ever had have been...well...confined
>> to the lab for all intents and purposes, and never really working even
>> there. OSX has had a tiny few cases I believe.
>
> None that have spread... I would say that are, for all intents and purposes,
> equal here. Linux, I believe, has had some in the past, but none of any
> importance since OS X was even in beta... and OS X has had none of any
> importance at all. 

pretty much. Both are far better than redmondware, picking differences
in this, beyond that level, is arguing about how man angels can pogo on
a pinhead. 

>>> 
>>>> And OSX has had a few more stability issues than Linux overall I've
>>>> heard, although that's been improving a great deal)
>>> 
>>> Again I would like to see your support.  10.0 (or maybe 10.1) was the
>>> last time I can say OS X has had any real stability issues.
>> 
>> True, as I said, it's very minor. Nothing approaching Windows. OSX is a
>> rock of stability in comparison, but I would not go so far as to say that
>> it's *quite* as stable as linux. Probably not even big enough for us to be
>> bothering arguing about though.
>
> Agreed that both OS X and Linux are amazingly stable.  I have seen both lock
> up (or at least effectively lock up) but it is rare in both cases.
>>> 
>>>> , ease of install of a vast software library (package management
>>>> systems like urpmi, apt, emerge, and so forth give us access to many
>>>> thousands of software titles with a few simple commands, or with a
>>>> simple GUI. Just a simple download and install of virtually anything
>>>> for our systems), etc...
>>> 
>>> Easy for an experienced user... for most novices, Linux is a huge
>>> mystery - more so than OS X or even Windows.
>> 
>> What's so hard, so mysterious about clicking on the "install software
>> using <whatever>" menu item and choosing the application you want from the
>> well organised listing, or better, searching within that to find your
>> application. Then clicking the "install" button?
>
> Work with some novices and you shall see... :)
>
>


same in either case. Some people can't handle anything higher tech than
a broken twig. Pat them on the head and go on your way. 



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCxDp9d90bcYOAWPYRAlu4AJ98xaFlStmU0z7qtrJ3QfnRAJI8bACeOecC
IdFfgv7qVncTYkYaQ95g7eI=
=eW0t
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Jim Richardson     http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Life is complex: it has a real part and an imaginary part.
0
warlock (9522)
6/30/2005 6:31:25 PM
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 12:49:51 -0500, lqualig@uku.co.uk wrote
(in article 
<1120153791.092161.318910@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):

> Not happier but at least I have something to compare against. A "$1499
> Compaq" is pretty non-descriptive.

I thought the interest was in compatibility concerns with Linux, 
not feature matching for some testosterone contest.

>>> I got a nicely configured Dell earlier this month for $760... with free
>>> shipping.
>> 
>> goodie for you.
>> 
>> BTW... Dell????  No specs.
> 
> Nope. No specs at all. It does come in a shiny silver case though.

How nice.  So, you got less computer, for less money.  Makes 
sense.


0
nunya (4574)
6/30/2005 6:35:07 PM
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 15:56:22 +0000, Lefty Bigfoot wrote:

>  The KDE and Gnome crowds should be trying to mimic the OS X ui,
> instead of trying to look more and more like el bloato windows with every
> release.

Have you seen GNOME lately? I mean beyond one or two vague screenshots?
It's a *lot* closer to OSX than it is to Windows.
0
liam8 (4986)
6/30/2005 6:39:11 PM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 10:39:09 +0200,
 C Lund <clund@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote:
> In article <pan.2005.06.30.04.16.10.246982@rapskat.com>,
>  rapskat <rapskat@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult>
>> 
>> I take it by this you are trying to convey that in creating themes for
>> other platforms/WM's that emulate the look and feel of Aqua, people are
>> "making obeisance to something that it is obvious they do not comprehend"?
>
>> Perhaps you are right.  Please explain just what mysterious element these
>> themes and the people that use them just aren't getting if you would.
>
> We maccies have been trying to explain this to wintrolls since forever 
> - and more recently, Linux users. And we've had no luck at all.
>


so you're saying that you aren't very good at communicating ideas?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCxDzSd90bcYOAWPYRAhegAKCSnExwok5MNRCG6Yd/scMN1/lpMgCfS8Hb
HZFXUOQspE78StDv9TLzwIw=
=IgDW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Jim Richardson     http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Ignore the propaganda, focus on what you see
0
warlock (9522)
6/30/2005 6:41:22 PM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 02:01:15 -0700,
 Snit <SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
>
> "Timberwoof" <timberwoof@stimpberawoofm.com> stated in post
> timberwoof-0F25EB.21583629062005@typhoon.sonic.net on 6/29/05 9:58 PM:
>
>> In article <pan.2005.06.30.02.58.31.643912@rapskat.com>,
>>  rapskat <rapskat@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Aqua is just a look, not a product.  There are a wealth of themes for
>>> both Windows and Linux that can emulate this look if you want it.
>> 
>> You are mistaken ... but take comfort in the fact that many, many developers
>> think that "skinning" a gui is the same thing as changing its behavior.
>
> The mistaken idea that simply adding a skin to another GUI makes it the same
> as Aqua shows how ignorant rapskat is about OS X.
>
>


The mistaken idea that a theme in KDE is merely a skin over the GUI
shows how ignorant snit is about KDE.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCxD0od90bcYOAWPYRAkdCAJ9ZlKYSaVE4+dC8QrzMqRmJKmB4nQCfRbNf
anlup8ByZUJTy8fQgS+qbno=
=3GPc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Jim Richardson     http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, from wristwatches, to super computers.
0
warlock (9522)
6/30/2005 6:42:48 PM
begin  KillFileMe.vbs

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 at 18:19 GMT, quoth Peter Hayes <peter@seahaze.demon.co.uk>:

> It's also very clear that Microsoft and their (paid) trolls must be
> laughing their socks off as they stand back and enjoy watching the
> competition squabbling like spoilt children over a packet of sweeties.
> 
> Divide & conquor.

Remind Oxtard and his Tard brothers about that, would you? They seem to
think this is where they need to be to advocate Mac usage, and to argue
that the 3-4% (and falling) users are taking over the world.

-- 
Windows is not a virus. Viruses do something.
0
sinister2419 (3164)
6/30/2005 6:42:59 PM

Lefty Bigfoot wrote:

> How nice.  So, you got less computer, for less money.  Makes
> sense.


If anything it appears that the Dell is 95% of the computer for 50% of
the cost. "Better value" is the term that comes to mind.

0
lqualig (4343)
6/30/2005 6:45:33 PM
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 13:39:11 -0500, Liam Slider wrote
(in article 
<pan.2005.06.30.18.39.19.21125@nospam.liamslider.com>):

> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 15:56:22 +0000, Lefty Bigfoot wrote:
> 
>> The KDE and Gnome crowds should be trying to mimic the OS X ui,
>> instead of trying to look more and more like el bloato windows with every
>> release.
> 
> Have you seen GNOME lately? I mean beyond one or two vague screenshots?

No, I got real sick of GNOME a while back, something about 
attempting to eat all the ram in the machine perhaps, and never 
went back.  KDE I like better, (My first X11 window manager was 
Motif, btw), but I tend to go minimalist these days, something 
like Black Box works fine for me.

> It's a *lot* closer to OSX than it is to Windows.

That's good.  Has it gotten any lighter weight in the process?


0
nunya (4574)
6/30/2005 6:50:40 PM
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 13:45:33 -0500, lqualig@uku.co.uk wrote
(in article 
<1120157133.269440.213050@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>):

> 
> 
> Lefty Bigfoot wrote:
> 
>> How nice.  So, you got less computer, for less money.  Makes
>> sense.
> 
> 
> If anything it appears that the Dell is 95% of the computer for 50% of
> the cost. 

you might want to read those specs again then.  I didn't list 
the DVD-RW or the wireless, or the media reader, not thinking 
them important, but don't pretend a Pentium M keeps up with that 
Athlon 64.

"Better value" is the term that comes to mind.

Having owned several Dell notebooks before, I know better.
Once you've had it serviced a few dozen times, you'll 
understand.  Wait until you get to talk to Punjab in India when 
you need support for whatever breaks next.  

0
nunya (4574)
6/30/2005 6:53:27 PM
Rick <none@trollfeed.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 17:27:02 -0700, Mike Cox wrote:
> 
> 
> > How does Apple, which is a small fish compared to MS
> > and other computing giants come up with something as good as OS X's Aqua?
> 
> They have put many years of research into GUIs ans useability.

But for some odd reason nobody seems to have copied much of it. I wonder
why. 

For example :-

No other OS offers single menus at the top of the screen, except as an
option with KDE.

No other OS has window resize from one corner only.

No other OS has such erratic click-through.

> > That right there is proof that Linux developers can't code worth a crap.
> 
> That statement proves how clueless you are.
> 
> > Heck, you'd think with all those OSS developers, the Linux desktop would
> > have left everything in the dust!  But that is not the case, because
> > Windows 3.1 GUI gives Linux a run for the money!
> > 
> > If a relatively small company like Apple Inc. can create a great OS with
> > a world class desktop, why can't the linux knuckleheads do it?
> 
> First, your ignorant bigotry is showing.
> Second Apple enforces its UI guidelines. Apple is one company. 'Linux' is
> not a company. Red Hat, IBM, Novell are companies.

He'd be better comparing the Apple GUI with KDE *or* Gnome *or* <insert
favourite window manager here>, not comparing it with all the Linux GUIs
simultaneously.

It's a difficult point to get over to the diehard Maccie, but eventually
it'll sink in.

-- 

Peter
0
peter9808 (1493)
6/30/2005 6:56:31 PM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 03:06:32 -0700,
 Peter Ammon <gershwin@splintermac.com> wrote:
> Ralph wrote:
>> Peter Ammon wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>>>It's not just looks. (All too many Linux application programmers mistake
>>>>>the ability to change an application's skin for being able to change its
>>>>>feel.) A part of technical merit is how well an app follows proven UI
>>>>>conventions and how well it presents a coherent model of the underlying
>>>>>concepts to a user.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>And Linux and it's applications don't do this?  If a user knows the basic
>>>>concepts of computer use, then they would have no issues with Linux et al
>>>>at all.
>>>
>>>If you honestly believe that, you're utterly out of touch.  I have major
>>>issues with Linux and I certainly know the basic concepts of computer use.
>>>
>> 
>> Ahhh, the claim without specifics, how typical. 
>
> I guess I figured it was self evident.  But if you insist, here's a 
> short list of issues I typically encounter.
>
> 1) Configuring X has never been straightforward.  I have always had to 
> run a program from the command line and had to guess a few times before 
> I got it to support a tolerable resolution and refresh rate.
>

Yes, configuring X can be straightforward.  Especially with X.org, try a
liveCD called PCLinuxOS for an example. 


> 2) My scroll wheel has never worked.  I did some research and found some 
> plug-ins to support scroll wheels, but it was complicated and I was 
> never able to get it to work.


Don't need plugins, X handles it, has for several years. 

>
> 3) Sound usually doesn't work initially, and sometimes never at all.

and often works just fine. 


>
> 4) Copy and paste has issues.  I don't think I've ever managed to copy 
> and paste an image between applications.


a valid point, finally, and one with hope on the horizon, see
Freedesktop.org for details. 

>
> 5) There are far too many controls for irrevelant things.  Last time I 
> tried what was, I think, KDM, there were preferences for changing the 
> font of the login window's text.  Who cares about that?

people who want to change the font? If that's not you, then don't poke
that button. 


>
> 6) There aren't controls for important things.  To add a window manager 
> to KDM, I had to read a bunch of things and edit several text files, as 
> root.  It was something like this: 
> http://www.linux-sxs.org/display/wmxf.html


distro dependent I suspect. I use GDM/GNOME on Ubuntu, and it handles
that automatically, nothing to do, just install the WM and it's on the
list. Same for KDM/KDE on Ubuntu. 

>
> 7) Permissions aren't fine grained in any GUI I've tried.  To even view 
> certain settings, which should be viewable by everyone, I had to give 
> the root password.

If you don't have read perms on the file/directory, you won't get the
properties either. It's a security issue. and it works very well.

>
> 8) I never found a built in GUI to set up my basic static IP address so 
> it would be the same every launch.  I had to edit a text file.

On GNOME 2.10 (menus changed a bit from 2.8 to 2.10) it's in
System->Administration->Networking Then select the network interface you
want, and click the properties button. 

On KDE3.4, kcontrol has an internet/networking entry, click on it,
select the interface, and change it to static with the relevent info. 

>
> 9) The visible window refreshing and "trails" is out of hand.  Linux 
> looks great until you move something.


depends on hardware, and settings. Since Linux will happily run on hw
that OSX or XP can't even think about running on, it has the flexibility
to reduce the eyecandy and simplify the look and effects, to reduce load
on the hardware. 

>
> I'm sure you're going to tell me that you don't have these problems, and 
> maybe you don't.  But I don't buy for a second that you have "no issues 
> with Linux at all."  Every OS has issues.


including OSX. 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCxEIDd90bcYOAWPYRAqWFAKChGGYZ23PVcxuZNRcK25KWVJj6dQCeLsK1
l/RXQIiryTWRhbqlYzHNCsw=
=FxwG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Jim Richardson     http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
You need to go back to the wizard, and ask for a brain this time.
0
warlock (9522)
6/30/2005 7:03:33 PM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 00:07:45 -0700,
 Peter Ammon <gershwin@splintermac.com> wrote:
> Ralph wrote:
> [...]
>> 
>> I noticed that you could not give a single thing that makes apple
>> technically better than Linux for ANY USE.
>
> Off the top of my head: more stable kernel binary interfaces.
>
>> Guess Apples are just ego
>> computers so losers that can't impress anyone any other way can at least
>> show that they have money to waste on over priced crap.  
>
> Linus uses a Mac.

Running Linux, not OSX.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCxEObd90bcYOAWPYRAoc2AJ9mXKkZrzv0ljsat1MCKt8cethACQCeOGXL
/Jsys3LJtPyUBzvyaONhLrE=
=MVWP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Jim Richardson     http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Any nitwit can claim to understand computers. Many do.
0
warlock (9522)
6/30/2005 7:10:19 PM
> >> How nice.  So, you got less computer, for less money.  Makes
> >> sense.
> >
> >
> > If anything it appears that the Dell is 95% of the computer for 50% of
> > the cost.
>
> you might want to read those specs again then.  I didn't list
> the DVD-RW or the wireless, or the media reader, not thinking
> them important, but don't pretend a Pentium M keeps up with that
> Athlon 64.
>


It's a laptop... not a server. A 1.6Ghz Pentium is more than adequate
for laptop use. The 2Ghz Athlon 64 is going to be faster but it's a
non-issue for a laptop computer. Very few laptops do anything that
needs 64-bit processing power. The 64-bit Athlon is power-hungry so
good luck getting decent battery life.

The $750 saved is enough to buy a desktop in addition to the laptop.
The desktop could have a faster 64-bit processor since it's better able
to dissipate heat and power consumption isn't an issue.



> "Better value" is the term that comes to mind.
>
> Having owned several Dell notebooks before, I know better.
> Once you've had it serviced a few dozen times, you'll
> understand.  Wait until you get to talk to Punjab in India when
> you need support for whatever breaks next.


Since when did Compaq stop outsourcing to India???  Fact is calling
tech support for Compaq is just as likely to be handled in India.

As far as reliability goes... a study of over 32,000 users rated HP &
Compaq as "Fair" and Dell as "Good" - From the articles I've seen it
doesn't appear that the reliability record of Compaq is anything to be
proud of. Certainly nothing one should be willing to pay a $750 premium
for.

http://pcworld.about.com/magazine/2112p132id112915.htm

0
lqualig (4343)
6/30/2005 7:19:02 PM
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 18:50:40 +0000, Lefty Bigfoot wrote:

> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 13:39:11 -0500, Liam Slider wrote (in article
> <pan.2005.06.30.18.39.19.21125@nospam.liamslider.com>):
> 
>> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 15:56:22 +0000, Lefty Bigfoot wrote:
>> 
>>> The KDE and Gnome crowds should be trying to mimic the OS X ui, instead
>>> of trying to look more and more like el bloato windows with every
>>> release.
>> 
>> Have you seen GNOME lately? I mean beyond one or two vague screenshots?
> 
> No, I got real sick of GNOME a while back


How far back?

>, something about attempting to
> eat all the ram in the machine perhaps, and never went back.  KDE I like
> better, (My first X11 window manager was Motif, btw), but I tend to go
> minimalist these days, something like Black Box works fine for me.
> 
>> It's a *lot* closer to OSX than it is to Windows.
> 
> That's good.  Has it gotten any lighter weight in the process?

Well, it's no blackbox...but it's certainly not the out and out resource
hog that GNOME used to be. 

0
liam8 (4986)
6/30/2005 7:19:43 PM
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 14:19:02 -0500, lqualig@uku.co.uk wrote
(in article 
<1120159142.051503.249770@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>):
> It's a laptop... not a server. A 1.6Ghz Pentium is more than adequate
> for laptop use. 

Ahh, the one-size-fits-all myth.  How droll

> The 64-bit Athlon is power-hungry so good luck getting decent battery life.

It gets excellent battery life.  Unlike the Dell, you can 
actually change the power settings YOURSELF, you can even 
overclock it, undervolt it, whatever.  You can do it on the fly, 
without a reboot, or let it manage it for you based upon load.

If you set it up for max battery life, you easily watch a full 
length DVD on a plane (with no quality problems), and still have 
plenty left over to catch up on email or programming later.
> The $750 saved is enough to buy a desktop in addition to the laptop.

I bought that notebook last August.  They are much cheaper now, 
that was a fairly high end box at the time.  The 3000 has been 
replaced with the 4000 now, almost a year later, but a similarly 
configured system, with the same speed processor, screen size, 
memory, DVD-RW, etc. is $949.  So much for your theory.  See how 
many 64-bit desktops you can buy for $189.

Since when did this go from being about Linux to Dell versus 
Compaq anyway?  If you're happy with Dell, that's great.  I 
wasn't, and found something I like better.  I don't need your 
permission.


0
nunya (4574)
6/30/2005 7:41:13 PM
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 14:19:43 -0500, Liam Slider wrote
(in article 
<pan.2005.06.30.19.19.46.560157@nospam.liamslider.com>):

>> No, I got real sick of GNOME a while back
> 
> 
> How far back?

No idea.  I don't keep a journal on when I fire up window 
managers.  

>> That's good.  Has it gotten any lighter weight in the process?
> 
> Well, it's no blackbox...but it's certainly not the out and out resource
> hog that GNOME used to be. 

I'll give it another shot. 


0
nunya (4574)
6/30/2005 7:42:21 PM
Liam Slider <liam@nospam.liamslider.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 15:56:22 +0000, Lefty Bigfoot wrote:
> 
> >  The KDE and Gnome crowds should be trying to mimic the OS X ui,
> > instead of trying to look more and more like el bloato windows with every
> > release.
> 
> Have you seen GNOME lately? I mean beyond one or two vague screenshots?
> It's a *lot* closer to OSX than it is to Windows.

I've been using Ubuntu a lot recently and I've found GNOME reminds me
more of OS 9 than OS X, particularly when file browsing. It's got that
similar spatial, one-window/one-folder feel.

The only really major difference I've found is that by default,
double-clicking a folder opens it in a new window and closes the
previous folder, and holding a modifer key causes it to remain open.
This is precisely the opposite way to which OS 9 behaved.

I didn't spot anything in the preferences to reverse this, does anyone
happen to know off-hand of any command-line hackery that would do it?
0
pa_nihill (274)
6/30/2005 7:46:25 PM
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 06:39:15 -0500, Travelinman  <nowhere@nospam.net>
wrote in message
<<nowhere-1AABA5.06391530062005@news.central.cox.net>>:

> My non-geek Macs don't get viruses.

How are your cult Macs doing?
0
nospam4 (524)
6/30/2005 7:47:19 PM
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 13:56:31 -0500, Peter Hayes wrote
(in article <1gyzixx.pdjjj1zxpzjxN%peter@seahaze.demon.co.uk>):

>>> How does Apple, which is a small fish compared to MS
>>> and other computing giants come up with something as good as OS X's Aqua?
>> 
>> They have put many years of research into GUIs ans useability.
> 
> But for some odd reason nobody seems to have copied much of it. I wonder
> why. 

Good point.  Probably because Microsoft is cherry picking things 
out of it, putting it into Windows, then people think they're 
copying MS instead.

> No other OS offers single menus at the top of the screen, except as an
> option with KDE.

It takes some getting used to, supposedly there is research data 
that proves people are more efficient with it, but I can use 
either now without much caring either way.

> No other OS has window resize from one corner only.

Yes, that is rather bothersome.  I also don't like the lack of 
window borders in most apps, when you have to side by side, it 
is hard to tell where one stops and the other starts sometimes.  

Of course, you can run X11 instead if you like.  

> No other OS has such erratic click-through.

I'm not sure what you mean by that.  It seems to be consistent 
to me, just different.

>> Second Apple enforces its UI guidelines. 

I've not seen much evidence of this.  None of the apps look the 
same, not even the ones from Apple.  They seem to evolve over 
time, on their own timelines.  

The same is true with Windows and Linux gui apps.  The fact that 
you can tell a KDE application from a GNOME application 
visually, regardless of what window manager or "theme" is 
selected is proof of that, and it doesn't cause problems for 
anyone with half a brain.  

Frankly, I don't care about "guidelines" nearly as much as 
usability for what I want to do with an app.  Not all apps would 
be suited for a single look and feel.  


0
nunya (4574)
6/30/2005 7:49:32 PM
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 16:04:16 GMT, TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com>
wrote in message
<<Nowhere-A94B57.11021030062005@news1.west.earthlink.net>>:

> Not to mention, of course, that your analogy is stupid.

It's typical of you to make an stupid complaint followed by ignorance:

> Windows and OS X are entirely different operating systems. Gnome and
> KDE are simply different windowing environments on the same OS.

Which operating system would that be, Joe?  FreeBSD?  NetBSD?
Solaris?  Linux?
0
nospam4 (524)
6/30/2005 7:50:08 PM
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 16:07:56 GMT, TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com>
wrote in message
<<Nowhere-C03FCC.11055030062005@news1.west.earthlink.net>>:

> What about the level of integration between Mac OS X and Windows (VPC) 
> on my system? I can cut and paste just fine.

Nobody cares how much you like Windows, Joe.
0
nospam4 (524)
6/30/2005 7:50:43 PM
> ...is $949.

You're the one who listed the price as $1499, not me. If it's $949 you
should have said so in the first place.


> Since when did this go from being about Linux
> to Dell versus Compaq anyway?

No idea. Somewhere somebody started talking about laptops for some
reason.



> If you're happy with Dell, that's great. I wasn't,
> and found something I like better.  I don't need your
> permission.


You certainly don't. It's your money and you don't need to justify your
purchases to anyone here. Best of luck to you with your machine.

0
lqualig (4343)
6/30/2005 7:51:09 PM
billwg <billw@twcf.rr.com> wrote:

> "Kier" <vallon@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message 
> news:pan.2005.06.30.14.43.04.337801@tiscali.co.uk...
> > On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 00:56:51 +0000, billwg wrote:
> >>
> >> I think that the answer is pretty obvious.  If you are good at anything,
> >> hitting a baseball, throwing a football, picking a winning horse, or
> >> coding
> >> a GUI, you will naturally gravitate to the major leagues where you can
> >> test
> >> your skills against the best.  No matter how often I threw a football and
> >> was thrilled in doing so, I never got to the level of Roger Staubach and
> >> so
> >> had to look elsewhere for achievement.  If someone loves to code a GUI
> >> and
> >> is good at doing so, they will end up somewhere where the pros gather.
> >> That
> >> is not the NYLUG meeting or anything even remotely resembling it.  It is
> >> Cupertino or Mountain View or Redmond where the folks that can soar with
> >> the
> >> eagles will meet and the results will speak for themselves.
> >
> > So, you believe that OSS coders like Linux Torvalds and Alan Cox are not
> > good at what they do? You're *really* stupid.
> >
> Well, Torvalds is a working stiff now, Kier, same as the rest of us and he
> is being paid for linux code by a company that trades in that level of
> expertise.  He probably fits my definition.  Cox I never heard of.  Who is
> he?

ROTFL

That's like saying "Wozniac I never heard of. Who is he?"

That's like saying "Allen I never heard of. Who is he?"

-- 

Peter
0
peter9808 (1493)
6/30/2005 8:09:21 PM
In article <a1j8c1lnfanq22t8qu951j9jq0nak9qt47@4ax.com>,
 Ku Karlovsky <nospam@nospam.nospam.not> wrote:

> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 06:39:15 -0500, Travelinman  <nowhere@nospam.net>
> wrote in message
> <<nowhere-1AABA5.06391530062005@news.central.cox.net>>:
> 
> > My non-geek Macs don't get viruses.
> 
> How are your cult Macs doing?

I don't have cult Macs.

It's only the idiots who are scared of Macs who call Mac user cultists.
0
Nowhere (5224)
6/30/2005 8:32:14 PM
In article <m2j8c1t74dpgs5q8a76ih4i1trh39ir1e4@4ax.com>,
 Ku Karlovsky <nospam@nospam.nospam.not> wrote:

> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 16:04:16 GMT, TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com>
> wrote in message
> <<Nowhere-A94B57.11021030062005@news1.west.earthlink.net>>:
> 
> > Not to mention, of course, that your analogy is stupid.
> 
> It's typical of you to make an stupid complaint followed by ignorance:
> 
> > Windows and OS X are entirely different operating systems. Gnome and
> > KDE are simply different windowing environments on the same OS.
> 
> Which operating system would that be, Joe?  FreeBSD?  NetBSD?
> Solaris?  Linux?

Any of the above.

The point was that you can't easily copy from KDE to Gnome or vice 
versa. This doesn't seem to depend on what OS you're using them on.
0
Nowhere (5224)
6/30/2005 8:33:19 PM
In article <n7j8c19cm2v7blchs4ed3ubddcc5te0pgc@4ax.com>,
 Ku Karlovsky <nospam@nospam.nospam.not> wrote:

> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 16:07:56 GMT, TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com>
> wrote in message
> <<Nowhere-C03FCC.11055030062005@news1.west.earthlink.net>>:
> 
> > What about the level of integration between Mac OS X and Windows (VPC) 
> > on my system? I can cut and paste just fine.
> 
> Nobody cares how much you like Windows, Joe.

I don't.

The point was that some of you Linux loonies were saying that there was 
nothing wrong with the fact that you can't cut and paste between KDE and 
Gnome. 

I showed that a proper OS doesn't have any trouble dealing with an even 
more difficult situation - copying and pasting between two different 
operating systems.
0
Nowhere (5224)
6/30/2005 8:34:45 PM
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 14:51:09 -0500, lqualig@uku.co.uk wrote
(in article 
<1120161069.599575.251340@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):

>> ...is $949.
> 
> You're the one who listed the price as $1499, not me. If it's $949 you
> should have said so in the first place.

Earth to lqualig, you asked how much I paid for my notebook.  I 
answered.  I didn't find out until later it was going to turn 
into a prick measuring contest.


0
nunya (4574)
6/30/2005 8:38:19 PM
Sinister Midget <sinister@stinkfoot.biz> wrote:

> begin  KillFileMe.vbs
> 
> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 at 18:19 GMT, quoth Peter Hayes
>  <peter@seahaze.demon.co.uk>:
> 
> > It's also very clear that Microsoft and their (paid) trolls must be
> > laughing their socks off as they stand back and enjoy watching the
> > competition squabbling like spoilt children over a packet of sweeties.
> > 
> > Divide & conquor.
> 
> Remind Oxtard and his Tard brothers about that, would you? They seem to
> think this is where they need to be to advocate Mac usage, and to argue
> that the 3-4% (and falling) users are taking over the world.

The sales droid in PC World was complaining that Apple made excellent
kit, but they (PC World) couldn't get enough stock to satisfy demand.

So, to keep their commission up they naturally try to sell you a Compaq
or a Toshiba, or a Sony, etc.

-- 

Peter
0
peter9808 (1493)
6/30/2005 8:38:44 PM
Jim Richardson <warlock@eskimo.com> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 03:06:32 -0700,
>  Peter Ammon <gershwin@splintermac.com> wrote:
> > Ralph wrote:
> >> Peter Ammon wrote:
> >> 
> >> 
> >>>>>It's not just looks. (All too many Linux application programmers mistake
> >>>>>the ability to change an application's skin for being able to change its
> >>>>>feel.) A part of technical merit is how well an app follows proven UI
> >>>>>conventions and how well it presents a coherent model of the underlying
> >>>>>concepts to a user.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>And Linux and it's applications don't do this?  If a user knows the basic
> >>>>concepts of computer use, then they would have no issues with Linux et al
> >>>>at all.
> >>>
> >>>If you honestly believe that, you're utterly out of touch.  I have major
> >>>issues with Linux and I certainly know the basic concepts of computer use.
> >>>
> >> 
> >> Ahhh, the claim without specifics, how typical. 
> >
> > I guess I figured it was self evident.  But if you insist, here's a
> > short list of issues I typically encounter.
> >
> > 1) Configuring X has never been straightforward.  I have always had to
> > run a program from the command line and had to guess a few times before
> > I got it to support a tolerable resolution and refresh rate.
> >
> 
> Yes, configuring X can be straightforward.  Especially with X.org, try a
> liveCD called PCLinuxOS for an example. 

Just don't try it with a SuSE 9.3 live CD. You'll end up going round in
circles.

-- 

Peter
0
peter9808 (1493)
6/30/2005 8:38:45 PM
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 14:50:08 -0500, Ku Karlovsky wrote
(in article <m2j8c1t74dpgs5q8a76ih4i1trh39ir1e4@4ax.com>):

> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 16:04:16 GMT, TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com>
> wrote in message
> <<Nowhere-A94B57.11021030062005@news1.west.earthlink.net>>:
> 
>> Not to mention, of course, that your analogy is stupid.
> 
> It's typical of you to make an stupid complaint followed by ignorance:
> 
>> Windows and OS X are entirely different operating systems. Gnome and
>> KDE are simply different windowing environments on the same OS.
> 
> Which operating system would that be, Joe?  FreeBSD?  NetBSD?
> Solaris?  Linux?

It also runs on OS X AIUI.  Isn't it cute when he tries to be 
technical?  Everybody laughs then, no matter if they are Mac, 
Linux or Windows fans.  Bonus.


0
nunya (4574)
6/30/2005 8:40:27 PM
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 17:27:02 -0700, Mike Cox wrote:

> Question.  If Linux is so great and Open Source Software developers are so
> smart, why does the Linux desktop look like crap?  KDE and Gnome don't
> interoperate well.  Heck, you can't even cut and paste between gnome and
> kde apps reliably.  How does Apple, which is a small fish compared to MS
> and other computing giants come up with something as good as OS X's Aqua?

Dunno, the must perform miracles basing OsX on OSS software. 

> That right there is proof that Linux developers can't code worth a crap.
> Heck, you'd think with all those OSS developers,

Ask apple why base OsX on OSS


0
steve9385 (208)
6/30/2005 8:41:28 PM
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 19:49:05 -0700, Mike Cox wrote:

> NoStop <nostop@stopspam.com> writes:
> 
>> Mike Cox wrote:
>> 
>> > Question.  If Linux is so great and Open Source Software developers
>> > are so smart, why does the Linux desktop look like crap?  KDE and
>> > Gnome don't interoperate well.  Heck, you can't even cut and paste
>> > between gnome and kde apps reliably.  How does Apple, which is a small
>> > fish compared to MS and other computing giants come up with something
>> > as good as OS X's Aqua? That right there is proof that Linux
>> > developers can't code worth a crap. Heck, you'd think with all those
>> > OSS developers, the Linux desktop would have left everything in the
>> > dust!  But that is not the case, because Windows 3.1 GUI gives Linux a
>> > run for the money!
>> > 
>> > If a relatively small company like Apple Inc. can create a great OS
>> > with a world class desktop, why can't the linux knuckleheads do it?
>> 
>> How come you haven't yet figured out to keep your line lengths short?
> 
> I'm using GNU's Emacs.  This thing is a gigantic ball of string (typical
> of the GNU/Linux movement. Who knows how to fix anything! I'm lucky I even
> got this far.  Getting gnus set up and figuring out how to post was a 5
> hour effort!  First you need to know an obscure programming language
> (lisp), then you need to figure out what commands corrospond to what you
> need to do.  Then you need to figure out how to even get around emacs with
> its thousands of commands and key combinations.

I don't drive, therefore from getting to A-B I use the transportation the
suits me. Learn from that.


0
steve9385 (208)
6/30/2005 8:49:11 PM
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 19:49:05 -0700, Mike Cox wrote:

> 
> Since OS X is based on BSD, 

Mike Cox also wrote:

> If Linux is so great and Open Source Software developers are so
> smart, why does the Linux desktop look like crap

Mike Cox failed to realise

BSD is OSS.

Can you now leave this group humiliated.
0
steve9385 (208)
6/30/2005 8:51:44 PM
"Jim Richardson" <warlock@eskimo.com> stated in post
tcqdp2-mqq.ln1@grendel.myth on 6/30/05 11:31 AM:

>> It (potentially) can look / work well or poorly for any given need (or at
>> least many).
>>> 
>> 
> 
> and so an OSX, mix up a bunch of different apps, X apps, COCOA apps, the
> interfaces can also change. Esp when you add in "classic" Mac apps to
> the mix. 

Correct.  Do you understand why this is not analogous to the KDE / GNOME /
Other situation for Linux?
> 
> Like GNOME/KDE however, there is a lot of internal consistancy, which is
> quite sufficient.

Do you really not understand the differences between what you are trying to
equate?

>>>> Configurability and flexibility are a two edges sword.  I assume you know
>>>> the pros, so do not take my lack of comments on that here to mean I do not
>>>> know that there are some pros...
>>>> 
>>>> With that said, a well designed interface can be hurt by too much
>>>> configurability.  How many more accidents would there be on the road if it
>>>> were easy to "configure" which peddle was the gas, which was the brake...
>>>> and which direction you moved the steering wheel to turn left?  The
>>>> relative consistency (and lack of easy configurability) from car to car is
>>>> a *huge* advantage and even, literally, a life saver.
>>>> 
>>>> With Linux almost anything is possible - but it is not consistent from
>>>> machine to machine, from application to application, or - sometimes - even
>>>> within the same application (while this is true for other OS's, it is much
>>>> more true with Linux).  This leads to a Linux community that often blames
>>>> the user when the user can not efficiently use their computer.  It also
>>>> requires a larger learning curve and makes shared work stations less
>>>> appealing.
>>> 
>>> Actually, this is very rarely the kind of issue you make it out to be. For
>>> instance, GNOME and KDE are both highly configurable, and even more so
>>> with the right add ons...but they are still GNOME and KDE at the heart of
>>> it and still work within their frameworks. Linux still follows a fairly
>>> Unix-like philosophy of lots of standard parts plugging into each other in
>>> order to do various tasks. While people can customise Linux
>>> considerably...it's still Linux.
>> 
>> But, as you said, it can be customized considerably.  That is not always a
>> good thing.  While I do not agree with all of the decisions Apple makes with
>> OS X, I am happy that they have such a large focus on ease-of-use.  Makes a
>> big difference with productivity.
> 
> of course it's a good thing.
> 
> If the user can't handle something other than the default config, they
> shouldn't go out of their way to change it...

And should likely be using OS X... Though it depends on the specifics of the
situation, of course.

Would you want cars that were easily configured to switch the brake and gas?
How about which way you turned the steering wheel to go left?  Do you think
all configurability is good?  If not, where do you draw the line?
> 
>>>> 
>>>>> , speed on the same hardware as other "mainstream" operating systems,
>>>>> choice (with Linux you can keep your OS, but choose your Desktop
>>>>> Environment. Not so on other mainstream desktop operating systems. Plus
>>>>> we have greater choice of hardware as well), stability and security (we
>>>>> have had less malware problems than OSX actually, although that numbers
>>>>> is still laughable compared to Windows.
>>>> 
>>>> I would like to see your support that Linux has had less malware than OS
>>>> X...
>>> 
>>> The only true viruses that Linux has ever had have been...well...confined
>>> to the lab for all intents and purposes, and never really working even
>>> there. OSX has had a tiny few cases I believe.
>> 
>> None that have spread... I would say that are, for all intents and purposes,
>> equal here. Linux, I believe, has had some in the past, but none of any
>> importance since OS X was even in beta... and OS X has had none of any
>> importance at all.
> 
> pretty much. Both are far better than redmondware, picking differences
> in this, beyond that level, is arguing about how man angels can pogo on
> a pinhead. 

Agreed.
>>>> 
>>>>> And OSX has had a few more stability issues than Linux overall I've
>>>>> heard, although that's been improving a great deal)
>>>> 
>>>> Again I would like to see your support.  10.0 (or maybe 10.1) was the
>>>> last time I can say OS X has had any real stability issues.
>>> 
>>> True, as I said, it's very minor. Nothing approaching Windows. OSX is a
>>> rock of stability in comparison, but I would not go so far as to say that
>>> it's *quite* as stable as linux. Probably not even big enough for us to be
>>> bothering arguing about though.
>> 
>> Agreed that both OS X and Linux are amazingly stable.  I have seen both lock
>> up (or at least effectively lock up) but it is rare in both cases.
>>>> 
>>>>> , ease of install of a vast software library (package management
>>>>> systems like urpmi, apt, emerge, and so forth give us access to many
>>>>> thousands of software titles with a few simple commands, or with a
>>>>> simple GUI. Just a simple download and install of virtually anything
>>>>> for our systems), etc...
>>>> 
>>>> Easy for an experienced user... for most novices, Linux is a huge
>>>> mystery - more so than OS X or even Windows.
>>> 
>>> What's so hard, so mysterious about clicking on the "install software
>>> using <whatever>" menu item and choosing the application you want from the
>>> well organised listing, or better, searching within that to find your
>>> application. Then clicking the "install" button?
>> 
>> Work with some novices and you shall see... :)
> 
> same in either case. Some people can't handle anything higher tech than
> a broken twig. Pat them on the head and go on your way.

Or make a living educating them... As I do.  :)


-- 
Look, this is silly. It's not an argument, it's an armor plated walrus with
walnut paneling and an all leather interior.



0
SNIT (24281)
6/30/2005 8:52:08 PM
Lefty Bigfoot <nunya@busyness.info> wrote:

> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 13:56:31 -0500, Peter Hayes wrote
> (in article <1gyzixx.pdjjj1zxpzjxN%peter@seahaze.demon.co.uk>):
> 
> >>> How does Apple, which is a small fish compared to MS
> >>> and other computing giants come up with something as good as OS X's Aqua?
> >> 
> >> They have put many years of research into GUIs ans useability.
> > 
> > But for some odd reason nobody seems to have copied much of it. I wonder
> > why. 
> 
> Good point.  Probably because Microsoft is cherry picking things 
> out of it, putting it into Windows, then people think they're 
> copying MS instead.

And with Longhorn (should that be "Longwait"?) delayed for another
couple of years or so I guess they'll be forever chasing Apple's GUI.

There's an irony here. The rest of the desktop world is busy chasing
Microsoft's ever changing Word and Samba formats, yet Microsoft are
floundering trying to keep up with a niche player.

> > No other OS offers single menus at the top of the screen, except as an
> > option with KDE.
> 
> It takes some getting used to, supposedly there is research data 
> that proves people are more efficient with it, but I can use 
> either now without much caring either way.

You get used to it. It's a drag though when the app you want has
vanished without trace except as a tiny Dock icon.

Virtual desktops helps a lot here.

> > No other OS has window resize from one corner only.
> 
> Yes, that is rather bothersome.  I also don't like the lack of 
> window borders in most apps, when you have to side by side, it 
> is hard to tell where one stops and the other starts sometimes.  
> 
> Of course, you can run X11 instead if you like.  
> 
> > No other OS has such erratic click-through.
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by that.  It seems to be consistent 
> to me, just different.

I'm in iMail (for example). I want to go to a Google URL in Safari. I
have to double click it. One to "activate" Safari and the second to
select the URL. But the Safari "back" button activates on one click -
sheesh.

I have to **triple** click the newsgroup list in MacSoup. One click to
"activate" the MacSoup Settings pane, then a double-click to select.

It gets very wearing after a while, especially in a mixed Windows/Mac
environment.

-- 

Peter
0
peter9808 (1493)
6/30/2005 8:52:09 PM
On 2005-06-30, amosf <amosf@bcs4me.com> wrote:
> Peter Ammon wrote something like:
>
>> Ralph wrote:
>> [...]
>>> 
>>> I noticed that you could not give a single thing that makes apple
>>> technically better than Linux for ANY USE.
>> 
>> Off the top of my head: more stable kernel binary interfaces.
>
> Apple has known hardware. That's a big head start. 

	That only works so long as no one plugs in a PCI card or a USB
device. Then past that point, a Mac is as random as antything else.

>
>>> Guess Apples are just ego
>>> computers so losers that can't impress anyone any other way can at least
>>> show that they have money to waste on over priced crap.
>> 
>> Linus uses a Mac.
>
> Running linux... But seriously, linus is such a nerd he just had to have
> one... Then put linux on it.

	He's a Unix user. What else would he do with it?

-- 
Apple: Because a large harddrive is for power users.
                                                                  |||
	                                                         / | \
0
jedi (14753)
6/30/2005 8:53:21 PM
[snips]

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 23:45:26 -0600, Oxford wrote:

>>> HP revenues last year: 79,905,000
>>> 
>>> IBM revenues last year: 96,293,000
>>> 
>>> MS revenues last year: 36,835,000
>>> 
>>> Red Hat revenues last year:  124,737
> 
> oh, i forgot, you aren't up on accounting... numbers are in millions...

Umm... *I'm* not up on accounting, either, but it didn't take more than a 
second or so to realize the numbers must have been scaled by a million - 
who would consider MS revenues of 37 *million* for a year reasonable?  
Hell, would that even cover their payroll costs? :)
0
kbjarnason (4613)
6/30/2005 8:58:25 PM
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 04:56:42 +0000, Timberwoof wrote:

> In article <m04qbgy2xq.fsf@yahoo.com>, Mike Cox <mikecoxlinux@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> NoStop <nostop@stopspam.com> writes:
>> 
>> > Mike Cox wrote:
>> > 
>> > > Question.  If Linux is so great and Open Source Software developers
>> > > are so smart, why does the Linux desktop look like crap?  KDE and
>> > > Gnome don't interoperate well.  Heck, you can't even cut and paste
>> > > between gnome and kde apps reliably.  How does Apple, which is a
>> > > small fish compared to MS and other computing giants come up with
>> > > something as good as OS X's Aqua? That right there is proof that
>> > > Linux developers can't code worth a crap. Heck, you'd think with all
>> > > those OSS developers, the Linux desktop would have left everything
>> > > in the dust!  But that is not the case, because Windows 3.1 GUI
>> > > gives Linux a run for the money!
>> > > 
>> > > If a relatively small company like Apple Inc. can create a great OS
>> > > with a world class desktop, why can't the linux knuckleheads do it?
>> > 
>> > How come you haven't yet figured out to keep your line lengths short?
>> 
>> I'm using GNU's Emacs.  This thing is a gigantic ball of string (typical
>> of the GNU/Linux movement. Who knows how to fix anything! I'm lucky I
>> even got this far.  Getting gnus set up and figuring out how to post was
>> a 5 hour effort!  First you need to know an obscure programming language
>> (lisp), then you need to figure out what commands corrospond to what you
>> need to do.  Then you need to figure out how to even get around emacs
>> with its thousands of commands and key combinations.
>> 
>> It is not easy to use at all!  This is representative of what GNU and
>> Linux stand for.  The uber nerd experience.  With Linux you need to
>> learn fdisk and partitioning with weird things like / , and swap and a
>> bazillion file systems.  Reiser, Reiser4, XFS, AndrewFS, ext2, ext3, the
>> list goes on!  Then you need to know how to compile a kernel and figure
>> out how to use CVS and the patch to command to compile it back.  Then
>> you need to
>> 
>> Since OS X is based on BSD, I'm able to use this emacs monster from my
>> iBook.  But, since OS X is so easy to use and powerful, I wonder why
>> Linux developers haven't come up with anything remotely as good.
> 
> Because Linux developers are geeks who enjoy complicated stuff for its own
> sake, don't mind a crufty user interface, and rate an application by the
> number of knobs to frob. They complain when an application reduces the
> main UI to the barest essentials -- it takes away their sense of control
> over the application.
> 
> For instance, iTunes does let you set all kinds of parameters in how it
> rips CDs, but they're hidden in the Preferences. I've seen Linux
> applications where every last obscure MP3 encoding parameter is right
> there on the main UI.

I've seen Linux applications that does exactly what itunes does too. Your
pount?

> Steve hired some talented and knowledgeable artists to design the look
> of OS X, and some talented UI experts to design the feel. Together they
> came up with a system that works very well ... and wrote books that
> explain how to do a passable job of designing the UI for an OS X app.
> The result is that OS X apps tend to have a similar look and feel, one
> that tends to be sparse and elegant. What Linux geeks see right off is
> the sparseness and the apparent lack of control, and that's what they
> focus on. OS X isn't meant for them, and they don't really mean Linux
> for OS X users.


Which apps work for you? Are there no equivalent Linux apps. Are you
forced to use emacs, slrn...

 
> Especially folks like Peter Köhlmann -- probably pretty intelligent and
> knowledgeable about Linux; maybe a decent programmer. But I'd never hire
> him to design or implement a UI. His contempt for people he thinks are
> stupid (he's said so himself) would spill out into his UI designs, which
> would probably be a QA nightmare and show utter disregard for the
> non-expert user.

I wouldn't hire me to design a UI (although I tend to come up with better
ideas than our users), it does not mean I am a command line junkie, I just
like the ability. As a coder, I appreciate IDEs that make my life easier,
I also prefer to work on a Linux desktop. 


> It's not that Linux developers are stupid or something -- they're not --
> they for the most part just don't get what good UI design is about.

I'd rather people developing my kernel were not graphic designers.

> 
>> By the way, I fixed the formatting by looking for and old post of mine
>> where someone gave me the obscure lisp command to put in my gnus file.
>> I remembered I spent a lot of time figuring it out on my Linux box
>> before I gave up on Linux and moved to SchilliX (opensolaris distro)
>> and OS X.
> 
> The biggest problem I have with man pages is that they generally tell
> you all the atomic behaviors but don't tell you any of the emergent
> behaviors. The man page for a 'format' command would tell you all the
> two dozen parameters you can use, but there's no wisdom about why or how
> to do it efficiently. I wish man pages would include examples, cookbook
> style, of the most common ways to use a command. (This is the equivalent
> of putting the essentials on the main UI and hiding all the other knobs
> in a settings dialog.)

I tend to use man for the examples.

 

0
steve9385 (208)
6/30/2005 9:01:58 PM
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 02:07:34 -0700, Bill wrote:

> 
> 
> Sylvester.n.Tweety@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Wrong.
>>
>> They for the most part just don't get what good UI design is for the
>> person who views the computer as a mere appliance.... the Linux UI
>> design is PERFECT for those who want the ability to tweak anything and
>> everything.
> 
> LIES LIES!!!! You cant even change the madrivel STAR ikon that won't start
> because it has no T!!!! Linus so dose suck!!!!!!!

Never used mandrake, but I doubt the icon is compiled in, try sym-linking
to an icon of your preference.



0
steve9385 (208)
6/30/2005 9:04:07 PM
On 2005-06-30, Peter Ammon <gershwin@splintermac.com> wrote:
> Ralph wrote:
>> Peter Ammon wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>>>It's not just looks. (All too many Linux application programmers mistake
>>>>>the ability to change an application's skin for being able to change its
>>>>>feel.) A part of technical merit is how well an app follows proven UI
>>>>>conventions and how well it presents a coherent model of the underlying
>>>>>concepts to a user.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>And Linux and it's applications don't do this?  If a user knows the basic
>>>>concepts of computer use, then they would have no issues with Linux et al
>>>>at all.
>>>
>>>If you honestly believe that, you're utterly out of touch.  I have major
>>>issues with Linux and I certainly know the basic concepts of computer use.
>>>
>> 
>> Ahhh, the claim without specifics, how typical. 
>
> I guess I figured it was self evident.  But if you insist, here's a 
> short list of issues I typically encounter.
>
> 1) Configuring X has never been straightforward.  I have always had to 

	Liar. Liar. Plants for hire.

> run a program from the command line and had to guess a few times before 
> I got it to support a tolerable resolution and refresh rate.

	This is simply bullshit. Xfree has always given you the option to
TELL IT what resolution and refresh rate your hardware actually supports.
Infact, it's more accurate to state that this is an aspect of Xfree that has
been more "user hostile".

>
> 2) My scroll wheel has never worked.  I did some research and found some 
> plug-ins to support scroll wheels, but it was complicated and I was 
> never able to get it to work.

	The last time I used an external mouse, I just clicked a selection
in the GUI installer.

>
> 3) Sound usually doesn't work initially, and sometimes never at all.

	"usually" is probably a bit strong for someone with your level
of experience. I doubt if you run very many compatibility labs.

>
> 4) Copy and paste has issues.  I don't think I've ever managed to copy 
> and paste an image between applications.

	If I went around my corporate site of 100+ people I could probably
count on one hand the number that's done this in Windows ever.

>
> 5) There are far too many controls for irrevelant things.  Last time I 
> tried what was, I think, KDM, there were preferences for changing the 
> font of the login window's text.  Who cares about that?

	Now this is really just petty. Why not let the end user tweak 
these things. You might as well advocate yanking out all the Win 3.1
level controls out of XP or OSX.

>
> 6) There aren't controls for important things.  To add a window manager 
> to KDM, I had to read a bunch of things and edit several text files, as 

	Which distribution? Debian isn't much on frills and even it doesn't
subject one to this.

> root.  It was something like this: 
> http://www.linux-sxs.org/display/wmxf.html
>
> 7) Permissions aren't fine grained in any GUI I've tried.  To even view 
> certain settings, which should be viewable by everyone, I had to give 
> the root password.
>
> 8) I never found a built in GUI to set up my basic static IP address so 
> it would be the same every launch.  I had to edit a text file.

	This is just plain Bogus.

	Slackware even had this sort of thing in 1994.

>
> 9) The visible window refreshing and "trails" is out of hand.  Linux 
> looks great until you move something.

	WIMP

	Try it sometime.

>
> I'm sure you're going to tell me that you don't have these problems, and 
> maybe you don't.  But I don't buy for a second that you have "no issues 
> with Linux at all."  Every OS has issues.

	With Linux the bad tends to be vastly outweighed by the good.

-- 
Apple: Because a large harddrive is for power users.
                                                                  |||
	                                                         / | \
0
jedi (14753)
6/30/2005 9:05:13 PM
Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
> [snips]
>
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 23:45:26 -0600, Oxford wrote:
>
>>>> HP revenues last year: 79,905,000
>>>>
>>>> IBM revenues last year: 96,293,000
>>>>
>>>> MS revenues last year: 36,835,000
>>>>
>>>> Red Hat revenues last year:  124,737
>>
>> oh, i forgot, you aren't up on accounting... numbers are in
>> millions...
>
> Umm... *I'm* not up on accounting, either, but it didn't take more
> than a second or so to realize the numbers must have been scaled by a
> million - who would consider MS revenues of 37 *million* for a year
> reasonable? Hell, would that even cover their payroll costs? :)

If I were you I'd call me stupid for confusing millions with thousands.



0
nospam11 (18349)
6/30/2005 9:16:33 PM
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 15:33:19 -0500, TravelinMan wrote
(in article 
<Nowhere-D7AED8.15311330062005@news1.west.earthlink.net>):

> In article <m2j8c1t74dpgs5q8a76ih4i1trh39ir1e4@4ax.com>,
>  Ku Karlovsky <nospam@nospam.nospam.not> wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 16:04:16 GMT, TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com>
>> wrote in message
>> <<Nowhere-A94B57.11021030062005@news1.west.earthlink.net>>:
>> 
>>> Not to mention, of course, that your analogy is stupid.
>> 
>> It's typical of you to make an stupid complaint followed by ignorance:
>> 
>>> Windows and OS X are entirely different operating systems. Gnome and
>>> KDE are simply different windowing environments on the same OS.
>> 
>> Which operating system would that be, Joe?  FreeBSD?  NetBSD?
>> Solaris?  Linux?
> 
> Any of the above.
> 
> The point was that you can't easily copy from KDE to Gnome or vice 
> versa. This doesn't seem to depend on what OS you're using them on. 

I'm guessing you've never even tried this.  Why?  Because I just 
fired up my notebook, logged into the X server (using KDE), 
fired up konsole, fired up /opt/gnome/bin/gthumb, and cut a 
directory name out of the konsole window and pasted it into the 
new folder dialog in gthumb.  Piece of cake.  no problem. 

What are you on about?  Have you EVER tried it yourself, or did 
you read this somewhere?



0
nunya (4574)
6/30/2005 9:24:20 PM
In article <1120133657.129656.290010@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Sylvester.n.Tweety@gmail.com wrote:
> There's a reason that Macs are only popular with extreme technophobes like
> graphics artists.

Extreme technophobes, eh?  You mean like the core Perl developers?  Or
well-known hackers like Paul Graham?  Or people who attend O'Reilly
conferences?  Or NASA scientists?  Or James Gosling, who does most of his
work on a PowerBook?

-- 
--Tim Smith
0
reply_in_group (13194)
6/30/2005 9:31:44 PM
begin  virus.txt.scr Tim Smith wrote:

> In article <1120133657.129656.290010@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> Sylvester.n.Tweety@gmail.com wrote:
>> There's a reason that Macs are only popular with extreme technophobes
>> like graphics artists.
> 
> Extreme technophobes, eh?  You mean like the core Perl developers?  Or
> well-known hackers like Paul Graham?  Or people who attend O'Reilly
> conferences?  Or NASA scientists?  Or James Gosling, who does most of his
> work on a PowerBook?
> 

No. People from CSMA. Like Joe Ragosta, for example. He would not know how
to use a lights switch in his bedroom without lenghty explanation
-- 
Try to be the best of whatever you are, even if what you are is 
no good.

0
Peter.Koehlmann (13228)
6/30/2005 9:37:32 PM
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 15:52:09 -0500, Peter Hayes wrote
(in article 
<1gyzo6e.1wi9lg7149trt0N%peter@seahaze.demon.co.uk>):

>> It takes some getting used to, supposedly there is research data 
>> that proves people are more efficient with it, but I can use 
>> either now without much caring either way.
> 
> You get used to it. It's a drag though when the app you want has
> vanished without trace except as a tiny Dock icon.

Or, any time you accidentally click the mouse a few pixels off 
of where you intended to and the top menu changes back to the 
finder.  That's hideous.



0
nunya (4574)
6/30/2005 9:38:29 PM
In article <0001HW.BEE9C2EB02B4E140F0386550@news.verizon.net>,
 Lefty Bigfoot <nunya@busyness.info> wrote:

> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 14:50:08 -0500, Ku Karlovsky wrote
> (in article <m2j8c1t74dpgs5q8a76ih4i1trh39ir1e4@4ax.com>):
> 
> > On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 16:04:16 GMT, TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com>
> > wrote in message
> > <<Nowhere-A94B57.11021030062005@news1.west.earthlink.net>>:
> > 
> >> Not to mention, of course, that your analogy is stupid.
> > 
> > It's typical of you to make an stupid complaint followed by ignorance:
> > 
> >> Windows and OS X are entirely different operating systems. Gnome and
> >> KDE are simply different windowing environments on the same OS.
> > 
> > Which operating system would that be, Joe?  FreeBSD?  NetBSD?
> > Solaris?  Linux?
> 
> It also runs on OS X AIUI.  Isn't it cute when he tries to be 
> technical?  Everybody laughs then, no matter if they are Mac, 
> Linux or Windows fans.  Bonus.

What does that have to do with the topic being discussed?

To refresh your memory, someone was complaining that KDE and Gnome had 
bad UI because you couldn't even copy and paste between them.

I pointed out that my OS has no problem copying and pasting between 
entirely different operating systems -when using VPC. 

How does your statement that KDE and Gnome run on OS X change that? 
Especially since I've stated repeatedly that almost anything from Linux 
can run on OS X?
0
Nowhere (5224)
6/30/2005 9:39:19 PM
In article <0001HW.BEE9D08502B81159F0386550@news.verizon.net>,
 Lefty Bigfoot <nunya@busyness.info> wrote:

> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 15:52:09 -0500, Peter Hayes wrote
> (in article 
> <1gyzo6e.1wi9lg7149trt0N%peter@seahaze.demon.co.uk>):
> 
> >> It takes some getting used to, supposedly there is research data 
> >> that proves people are more efficient with it, but I can use 
> >> either now without much caring either way.
> > 
> > You get used to it. It's a drag though when the app you want has
> > vanished without trace except as a tiny Dock icon.
> 
> Or, any time you accidentally click the mouse a few pixels off 
> of where you intended to and the top menu changes back to the 
> finder.  That's hideous.

I see. So when you click on the Finder window, you want it to NOT switch 
to the Finder?

No wonder Linux has such a screwy UI.
0
Nowhere (5224)
6/30/2005 9:40:52 PM
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 13:52:08 -0700, Snit wrote:

> "Jim Richardson" <warlock@eskimo.com> stated in post
> tcqdp2-mqq.ln1@grendel.myth on 6/30/05 11:31 AM:
> 
>>> It (potentially) can look / work well or poorly for any given need (or
>>> at least many).
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> and so an OSX, mix up a bunch of different apps, X apps, COCOA apps, the
>> interfaces can also change. Esp when you add in "classic" Mac apps to
>> the mix.
> 
> Correct.  Do you understand why this is not analogous to the KDE / GNOME /
> Other situation for Linux?

Not really. Care to explain?

>> 
>> Like GNOME/KDE however, there is a lot of internal consistancy, which
>> is quite sufficient.
> 
> Do you really not understand the differences between what you are trying
> to equate?

Different type apps for meant for different environments....run together
in the same environment? Sounds the same to me...



0
liam8 (4986)
6/30/2005 9:50:42 PM
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 16:40:52 -0500, TravelinMan wrote
(in article 
<Nowhere-727C6A.16384630062005@news1.west.earthlink.net>):

> In article <0001HW.BEE9D08502B81159F0386550@news.verizon.net>,
>  Lefty Bigfoot <nunya@busyness.info> wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 15:52:09 -0500, Peter Hayes wrote
>> (in article 
>> <1gyzo6e.1wi9lg7149trt0N%peter@seahaze.demon.co.uk>):
>> 
>>>> It takes some getting used to, supposedly there is research data 
>>>> that proves people are more efficient with it, but I can use 
>>>> either now without much caring either way.
>>> 
>>> You get used to it. It's a drag though when the app you want has
>>> vanished without trace except as a tiny Dock icon.
>> 
>> Or, any time you accidentally click the mouse a few pixels off 
>> of where you intended to and the top menu changes back to the 
>> finder.  That's hideous.
> 
> I see. So when you click on the Finder window, you want it to NOT switch 
> to the Finder?

Maybe if there was a (configurable) window border, it wouldn't 
happen at all.

> No wonder Linux has such a screwy UI.

Says the boy that thinks he knows something about KDE and Gnome. 

0
nunya (4574)
6/30/2005 10:01:33 PM
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 16:39:19 -0500, TravelinMan wrote
(in article 
<Nowhere-E2E4EF.16371330062005@news1.west.earthlink.net>):

> In article <0001HW.BEE9C2EB02B4E140F0386550@news.verizon.net>,
>  Lefty Bigfoot <nunya@busyness.info> wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 14:50:08 -0500, Ku Karlovsky wrote
>> (in article <m2j8c1t74dpgs5q8a76ih4i1trh39ir1e4@4ax.com>):
>> 
>>> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 16:04:16 GMT, TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com>
>>> wrote in message
>>> <<Nowhere-A94B57.11021030062005@news1.west.earthlink.net>>:
>>> 
>>>> Not to mention, of course, that your analogy is stupid.
>>> 
>>> It's typical of you to make an stupid complaint followed by ignorance:
>>> 
>>>> Windows and OS X are entirely different operating systems. Gnome and
>>>> KDE are simply different windowing environments on the same OS.
>>> 
>>> Which operating system would that be, Joe?  FreeBSD?  NetBSD?
>>> Solaris?  Linux?
>> 
>> It also runs on OS X AIUI.  Isn't it cute when he tries to be 
>> technical?  Everybody laughs then, no matter if they are Mac, 
>> Linux or Windows fans.  Bonus.
> 
> What does that have to do with the topic being discussed?
> 
> To refresh your memory, someone was complaining that KDE and Gnome had 
> bad UI because you couldn't even copy and paste between them.

To refresh your memory, it isn't a problem for me.  I actually 
tried it, you just parrot whatever you read that is negative 
about anything but your favorite platform.  Some people actually 
care enough to know before repeating things.

In your case, if it is pro-Apple, or anti any other solution, 
it's true automatically, and if it is anti-Apple, it is a damn 
lie and has to be backed up with a research paper from some Ph.D 
that owns stock in Apple.  You're a mindless zealot.

At least have the intellectual honesty to find out if something 
is true or not before you go off and start repeating it like it 
was holy writ.

> I pointed out that my OS has no problem copying and pasting between 
> entirely different operating systems -when using VPC. 

Which is about as relevant as the price of tea in china.

> How does your statement that KDE and Gnome run on OS X change that? 

The point you so obviously missed, from both the comments of Ku 
any myself is that Gnome and KDE don't run on a single OS.  It's 
a minor point, granted, especially since you probably won't be 
cutting and pasting between them if they're not running on the 
same OS at the time (unless we use your stupid approach that an 
emulator in a window is a "different OS").
But, it is certainly more on the point than what happens on OS X 
in Aqua with neither KDE or Gnome in the picture.

You want to add value, tell us if you can cut and paste between 
Aqua and KDE on your Mac, or Aqua and Gnome, or even KDE and 
Gnome.  IOW, actually do something before you start yapping.

> Especially since I've stated repeatedly that almost anything from Linux 
> can run on OS X?

KDE and Gnome aren't "from Linux".  They're available on a 
number of platforms.

0
nunya (4574)
6/30/2005 10:10:39 PM
TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote:

> In article <0001HW.BEE9D08502B81159F0386550@news.verizon.net>,
>  Lefty Bigfoot <nunya@busyness.info> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 15:52:09 -0500, Peter Hayes wrote
> > (in article 
> > <1gyzo6e.1wi9lg7149trt0N%peter@seahaze.demon.co.uk>):
> > 
> > >> It takes some getting used to, supposedly there is research data
> > >> that proves people are more efficient with it, but I can use 
> > >> either now without much caring either way.
> > > 
> > > You get used to it. It's a drag though when the app you want has
> > > vanished without trace except as a tiny Dock icon.
> > 
> > Or, any time you accidentally click the mouse a few pixels off 
> > of where you intended to and the top menu changes back to the 
> > finder.  That's hideous.
> 
> I see. So when you click on the Finder window, you want it to NOT switch
> to the Finder?

I think you need to re-read Lefty Bigfoot's post. He said "accidentally
click the mouse a few pixels off". And I agree with him, it's a real
pain.

> No wonder Linux has such a screwy UI.

???

-- 

Peter
0
peter9808 (1493)
6/30/2005 10:17:42 PM
JEDIDIAH wrote something like:

> On 2005-06-30, Peter Ammon <gershwin@splintermac.com> wrote:
>> Ralph wrote:

>>> Ahhh, the claim without specifics, how typical.
>>
>> I guess I figured it was self evident.  But if you insist, here's a
>> short list of issues I typically encounter.
>>
>> 1) Configuring X has never been straightforward.  I have always had to
> 
> Liar. Liar. Plants for hire.

Patrick seems so suitable to cola and the wintrolls ;)

-- 
-
 I use linux. Can anyone give me a good reason to use Windows?
- 
0
amosf (123)
6/30/2005 10:23:14 PM
Sean Burke <foobar@mystery.org> writes:

> > 
> > http://mail-index.netbsd.org/netbsd-users/1994/12/23/0000.html
> > 
> > Just another highly opinionated, condescending, controlling and
> > overbearing asshole it seems.
> > 
> > Just goes to show that one's accomplishments, no matter how great, 
> > aren't any indicator of one's personality and vice-versa.
> 
> Definitely. Anyone who uses OpenSSL and OpenSSH (and that's pretty
> much everyone, directly or indirectly) has reason to be grateful
> to Theo and the OpenBSD team. But Theo's opinions about other
> people and OS's should not be taken at face value.
> 

Well, the guy wrote the world's most secure operating system.  What he
says is what he knows if a fact.  Theo's opinions are valid as OpenBSD
has had only one exploit in 8 years!   Obviously he knows something
Linus and the rest don't.  Maybe they should listen to someone who
knows what he's talking about.  About his comment that Linux is a
bunch of hacks that work, look how many exploits and failures occur
with Linux.
0
mikecoxlinux (652)
6/30/2005 10:29:20 PM
"Kier" <vallon@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:pan.2005.06.30.18.02.20.199237@tiscali.co.uk...
>
> Really? How many of them wrote a working OS from scratch while still a
> student, and then persuaded a lot of people all over teh world to join in
> helping him develop it?

Organizationally, that is a wonderful feat, Kier.  Technologically, linux is 
a clone of unix and, according to folk like Bruce Perens who closely 
examined the SCO claims regarding copyright infringement, much of the linux 
code was copied from freeBSD and not Unix System V, but it was copied 
nonetheless.  SCO shows some 900,000 lines of code they say is infringing 
although their claims may be disputed.  But it was copied from somewhere. 


0
billw (3525)
6/30/2005 11:25:54 PM
"Peter Hayes" <peter@seahaze.demon.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:1gyzmno.16xgz6ln2bh2fN%peter@seahaze.demon.co.uk...
>
> That's like saying "Wozniac I never heard of. Who is he?"

Wozniak is a folk myth.  Wozniak was the hardware specialist for the infant 
Apple Co and his main claim to fame was his "invention" of the non-standard 
use of the floppy disk and the interface hardware thereto.  He squandered 
his Apple fortune on things like programmable remotes for consolidating the 
TV with the VCR with the audio equipment.  Not that he wasn't famous for the 
moment.

> That's like saying "Allen I never heard of. Who is he?"
>
Steve or Paul?  Paul Allen was Gates' junior partner and got filthy rich 
along with the rest of the clan. 


0
billw (3525)
6/30/2005 11:30:31 PM
"Peter Hayes" <peter@seahaze.demon.co.uk> stated in post
1gyzixx.pdjjj1zxpzjxN%peter@seahaze.demon.co.uk on 6/30/05 11:56 AM:

>> First, your ignorant bigotry is showing.
>> Second Apple enforces its UI guidelines. Apple is one company. 'Linux' is
>> not a company. Red Hat, IBM, Novell are companies.
> 
> He'd be better comparing the Apple GUI with KDE *or* Gnome *or* <insert
> favourite window manager here>, not comparing it with all the Linux GUIs
> simultaneously.

Are you unable to see why your comment is incorrect?


-- 
"Innovation is not about saying yes to everything. It's about saying NO to
all but the most crucial features."  -- Steve Jobs



0
SNIT (24281)
6/30/2005 11:59:08 PM
"rapskat" <rapskat@gmail.com> stated in post
pan.2005.06.30.05.11.51.932019@rapskat.com on 6/29/05 10:11 PM:

> begin  Error Log for Thu, 30 Jun 2005 04:58:36 +0000 - Timberwoof
> <timberwoof@stimpberawoofm.com> caused an invalid page fault at address
> <timberwoof-0F25EB.21583629062005@typhoon.sonic.net>, details as follows:
> 
>> In article <pan.2005.06.30.02.58.31.643912@rapskat.com>,
>>  rapskat <rapskat@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Aqua is just a look, not a product.  There are a wealth of themes for
>>> both Windows and Linux that can emulate this look if you want it.
>> 
>> You are mistaken ... but take comfort in the fact that many, many
>> developers think that "skinning" a gui is the same thing as changing its
>> behavior.
> 
> But the thing is, on Linux you *can* change how your WM/DE looks, feels,
> and behaves.  Entirely.

If you are willing to re-programs it, perhaps.  Otherwise there are limits.
> 
> For instance, on KDE you can emulate the top menu bar to be contextual to
> the currently focused app, like OS X.

From what I have seen it is a poor imitation of OS X, but I may not have had
all of the setting the way I "should" have.

> Granted this doesn't apply for non-KDE apps, but then neither does it apply
> for non-native apps on OS X either.

Few people use - or have any reason to use - non native apps on OS X.  That
is less true for KDE.  Heck, I had a devil of a time getting anyone in COLA
to even comment on what distro would be "pure".


-- 
"Innovation is not about saying yes to everything. It's about saying NO to
all but the most crucial features."  -- Steve Jobs



0
SNIT (24281)
6/30/2005 11:59:48 PM
Timberwoof wrote:

> In article <AKudnRc8G-pxC17fRVn-sw@rcn.net>, Ralph <no@way.com> wrote:
> 
>> Oxford wrote:
>> 
>> > Timberwoof <timberwoof@stimpberawoofm.com> wrote:
>> > 
>> >> > > > HP revenues last year: 79,905,000
>> >> > > > 
>> >> > > > IBM revenues last year: 96,293,000
>> >> > > > 
>> >> > > > MS revenues last year: 36,835,000
>> >> > > > 
>> >> > > > Red Hat revenues last year:  124,737
>> >> > 
>> >> > oh, i forgot, you aren't up on accounting... numbers are in
>> >> > millions...
>> >> 
>> >> Try again.
>> > 
>> > yes, thousands... Ralph's mistake of millions threw me off, I later had
>> > to correct it...
>> 
>> This is fun! Clearly nobody believes you and your claim is totally
>> unsupported by fact. I used YOUR numbers to come up with millions. If you
>> can't stand behind your numbers, you are no better than DFS.
> 
> Oh. come on. You're being just a little unreasonable here. Either that or
> you're using the word "totally" in some new and novel way that means
> "somewhat".
> 

Hey, aren't you the TARD that tried to say that being able to firewall was
something that OS X could do that Linux could not? The TARD that went on
about how difficult it would be to find a driver for his camera with Linux
when that camera was clearly supported? 

Now you are so stupid as to think he wrote the right numbers?
BWahahahahahah, MAC's MUST make you stupid. 
0
no9 (3192)
7/1/2005 12:32:17 AM
Timberwoof wrote:

> In article <AKudnRQ8G-rXC17fRVn-sw@rcn.net>, Ralph <no@way.com> wrote:
> 
>> Oxford wrote:
>> 
>> > In article <tKSdnVvSrca4EF7fRVn-gw@rcn.net>, Ralph <no@way.com> wrote:
>> > 
>> >> > give me a break... you were the one that thought it was millions in
>> >> > the first place, you aren't used to seeing numbers this large, admit
>> >> > it...
>> >> 
>> >> You wrote it as millions! I was pointing out your error, but I guess
>> >> you are too stupid to get it. Considering you can't get it straight if
>> >> you tried! Even your claim that the numbers are in millions is WRONG!
>> >> Fucking get a clue! You are the one that obviously does not know how
>> >> to deal with numbers that big!
>> > 
>> > go complain to your broker that you don't understand how revenue
>> > numbers are expressed, your error is not my problem...
>> 
>> I have no trouble with the numbers from my broker, they are right and
>> stated correctly, if the numbers are shown in thousands it is stated as
>> such from my broker. I do have trouble with YOUR numbers that are not
>> correctly labled. Even a loser like timberwolf noticed that!
> 
> Ralph, you are an asshole.
> 
> ::Plonk!::
> 

Ahhh, considering how wrong you were about Linux support of your camera,
that MACs could firewall and Linux could not.... I see no reason to believe
your claim that I am an asshole. 

But it is clear that either you were very stupid and that is how you got
suckered into buying a MAC or MACs made you STUPID> 
0
no9 (3192)
7/1/2005 12:34:30 AM
In article <1gyzsho.11fs0bgfoqx23N%peter@seahaze.demon.co.uk>,
 peter@seahaze.demon.co.uk (Peter Hayes) wrote:

> TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <0001HW.BEE9D08502B81159F0386550@news.verizon.net>,
> >  Lefty Bigfoot <nunya@busyness.info> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 15:52:09 -0500, Peter Hayes wrote
> > > (in article 
> > > <1gyzo6e.1wi9lg7149trt0N%peter@seahaze.demon.co.uk>):
> > > 
> > > >> It takes some getting used to, supposedly there is research data
> > > >> that proves people are more efficient with it, but I can use 
> > > >> either now without much caring either way.
> > > > 
> > > > You get used to it. It's a drag though when the app you want has
> > > > vanished without trace except as a tiny Dock icon.
> > > 
> > > Or, any time you accidentally click the mouse a few pixels off 
> > > of where you intended to and the top menu changes back to the 
> > > finder.  That's hideous.
> > 
> > I see. So when you click on the Finder window, you want it to NOT switch
> > to the Finder?
> 
> I think you need to re-read Lefty Bigfoot's post. He said "accidentally
> click the mouse a few pixels off". And I agree with him, it's a real
> pain.

Right. If you miss the menu you're aiming for and hit the Finder desktop 
instead, the Finder comes to the front.

What's the problem?
0
nowhere2 (2416)
7/1/2005 12:34:37 AM
begin  Error Log for Thu, 30 Jun 2005 16:31:53 +0000 - Tim Smith
<reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> caused an invalid page fault at address
<Z7Vwe.15289$eM6.11005@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>, details as
follows:

> In article <pan.2005.06.30.04.16.10.246982@rapskat.com>, rapskat wrote:
>>>> Aqua is just a look, not a product.  There are a wealth of themes for
>>>> both Windows and Linux that can emulate this look if you want it.
>>> 
>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult>
>> 
>> I take it by this you are trying to convey that in creating themes for
>> other platforms/WM's that emulate the look and feel of Aqua, people are
>> "making obeisance to something that it is obvious they do not
>> comprehend"?
>> 
>> Perhaps you are right.  Please explain just what mysterious element
>> these themes and the people that use them just aren't getting if you
>> would.
> 
> It's not the themes that matter.  A pleasing theme can make a system
> more fun to work with, and even make it easier to recognize interface
> elements, and a bad theme can do the opposite, but it is the behavior of
> things that is more important.

True.  How an interface behaves should be configurable to the needs and
wants of the individual.  Some people prefer single click to launch,
others prefer double.  Some people like click to focus, others prefer
focus to follow the mouse.  Some people like to launch a seperate window
for every folder, others prefer to use the same window, etc.

The thing is, all of this is and a whole lot more is configurable on
Linux, which I'm sure you already are aware of.

> If you gave OS X a Windows XP theme, it would still be a much better
> interface than Windows XP.  It would just look ugly, but it would still
> *work* great.  It works both ways--if you give some other system an Aqua
> theme, it looks like Aqua, but it doesn't *behave* like Aqua.

The WM/DE should "behave" the way the user tells it to, the way they feel
most comfortable with. If it doesn't "behave" like Acqua, that's according
to user preference.  If it doesn't "behave" like Windows, again that's a
personal choice.

How about a desktop that looks like Windows, but behaves like OS X?  Or
one that bears a striking resemblance to OS/2, but acts like MacOS 9?

Ironically, you pointed out that term and yet people that use proprietary
platforms where they are stuck with one WM/DE and few options to tailor
such to their own personal preferences are closer to the meaning of it
than users of open platforms like Linux.

-- 
rapskat -  20:23:16 up 22:48,  4 users,  load average: 0.12, 0.26, 0.53
Windows NT: n.
    32-bit extensions and a graphical shell for a 16-bit patch to an 8-bit
    operating system originally coded for a 4-bit microprocessor,  written
    by a 2-bit company that can't stand for 1 bit of competition.
0
rapskat2 (2033)
7/1/2005 12:35:24 AM
Peter Hayes wrote:

> Ralph <no@way.com> wrote:
> 
>> Travelinman wrote:
>> 
>> > And once again we have the true driving force behind Linux proponents -
>> > they simply can't understand the concept of someone paying a bit more
>> > for a product that they prefer. All that matters is how cheap something
>> > is. Or free, as in free puppies.
>> 
>> And once again we have a MAC user that can't figure out that people want
>> something other than an over priced POS that offers nothing for the price
>> and have to sit in groups other than MAC groups and bash people that make
>> different choices.
>> 
>> It is clear that you can not deal with someone telling the truth about
>> MAC vs. other OS's.
> 
> It's also very clear that Microsoft and their (paid) trolls must be
> laughing their socks off as they stand back and enjoy watching the
> competition squabbling like spoilt children over a packet of sweeties.

You mean the MS paid trolls that work at Apple? You do know that MS has a
large investment in Apple, right? So now the MS people are indeed laughing
their ass of, they have a way to troll COLA that does not lead right back
to them. 

> 
> Divide & conquor.
> 

0
no9 (3192)
7/1/2005 12:45:46 AM
Peter Hayes wrote:

> Sinister Midget <sinister@stinkfoot.biz> wrote:
> 
>> begin  KillFileMe.vbs
>> 
>> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 at 18:19 GMT, quoth Peter Hayes
>>  <peter@seahaze.demon.co.uk>:
>> 
>> > It's also very clear that Microsoft and their (paid) trolls must be
>> > laughing their socks off as they stand back and enjoy watching the
>> > competition squabbling like spoilt children over a packet of sweeties.
>> > 
>> > Divide & conquor.
>> 
>> Remind Oxtard and his Tard brothers about that, would you? They seem to
>> think this is where they need to be to advocate Mac usage, and to argue
>> that the 3-4% (and falling) users are taking over the world.
> 
> The sales droid in PC World was complaining that Apple made excellent
> kit, but they (PC World) couldn't get enough stock to satisfy demand.

A sales droid in PC World? Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah, let me
check something.... Nope, this is not April 1st! 

> 
> So, to keep their commission up they naturally try to sell you a Compaq
> or a Toshiba, or a Sony, etc.
> 

0
no9 (3192)
7/1/2005 12:47:34 AM
peter@seahaze.demon.co.uk (Peter Hayes) writes:

< snip >

> My Fugi digital camera appears as a drive on my desktop. I open it with
> Finder, Preview or any one of half a dozen or more apps. I then select
> the pics I want and move them to where I want. No need for iPhoto, which
> is probably one of Apple's worst offerings. It insists on duplicating
> every image you give it for no purpose for starters.

Just like iTunes does every time I play an mp3.

I should really clean up all those sound bites from the 2004 election
that iTunes thoughtfully archived for me.

< snip >

-- 
Tukla, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism
There are too many stupid people and nobody to eat them.
   - Carlos Mencia
0
tukla_ratte (438)
7/1/2005 12:52:04 AM
rapskat <rapskat@gmail.com> writes:

< snip >

> I suppose if you want to judge modern day Linux distros based off of some
> experience you had with Red Hat 4.2, then that is your prerogative,
> however misleading it may be.
> 
> And I suppose it would just as fair to judge the OS X family based on my
> experiences with it's predecessors as well.

Maybe I should hang out on CMSA and whine about what a PITA it was to
browse the Web under System 7.

-- 
Tukla, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism
There are too many stupid people and nobody to eat them.
   - Carlos Mencia
0
tukla_ratte (438)
7/1/2005 1:07:29 AM
begin  Error Log for Thu, 30 Jun 2005 15:56:22 +0000 - Lefty Bigfoot
<nunya@busyness.info> caused an invalid page fault at address
<0001HW.BEE9805602A54620F0386550@news.verizon.net>, details as follows:

> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 10:05:03 -0500, rapskat wrote (in article
> <pan.2005.06.30.15.05.02.578684@rapskat.com>):
> 
>>>> I find it very telling that you admit you have trouble where 5 year
>>>> olds don't.
>>> 
>>> Surely you can do better than that.  It's quite obvious that the
>>> complexity of use of a 5-yr-old is completely different than that of
>>> most adults, advocacy-group trolls not included.
>> 
>> Sure I can, but what's the point?
> 
> If you want to make the least convincing argument possible, then I guess
> there is no point in doing better.  congrats.

I've learned long ago that exchange in these groups is cathartic at best.
I save my "convincing" arguments for where they may actually have some
purpose.

>> I would gather that the poster is
>> probably speaking from experience of some old version of some distro
>> from a few years ago as if that was still relevant to modern day Linux
>> distros.
> 
> Assumption is the mother of all fuckups.

Unless the person is using a current version of Linux, then any version
they did use is indeed outdated.

>> Perhaps I should recount the many issues and gripes I have about the
>> MacOS 8-9 series as if they were still relevant to today's Mac OS'?
> 
> Since it's a totally different operating system, like comparing CP/M to
> DOS, go for it.  People will laugh at it, but that's about par around
> here.

As well people who actually use a current distro of Linux laugh at people
who recount issues that they had with outdated versions that are no longer
relevant.

Every version of every distro is for all intents and purposes, a totally
different operating system.

>>> Come up with something better, this dog won't hunt, although it is
>>> better than the argument going on.  You now, the one trying to claim
>>> OS X doesn't count because it costs the same amount of money that
>>> Windows XP does, yet for some reason it's too expensive, while Windows
>>> is not.
>> 
>> I didn't claim that, did I?
> 
> I didn't claim you did.

Yes, you did...

"You now, the one trying to claim OS X doesn't count because it costs the
same amount of money that Windows XP does, yet for some reason it's too
expensive, while Windows is not."


> I dropped a word, it was supposed to
> read "than the OTHER argument going on", and I did say it was better
> than that one.

No clue.
 
>>> *BOTH* come built into the price of a new system purchase from major
>>> manufacturers, and a mac can be bought new for $599.
>> 
>> If the price of the OS is built into the cost of the whole system, then
>> it still is being paid regardless, isn't it?
> 
> duh.

Is that your form of consent?  Ok, it'll do.
 
>> So, it stands to reason that,
>> if the money that is being allocated to offset the price of the OS is
>> used instead for upgrading the base hardware in the system, then for
>> the same price you could have a better system running Linux.  QED.
> 
> If and only if you agree that Linux versus OS X or Windows is worth the
> hardware upgrade.  With Windows, I couldn't agree more.  With OS X, I'd
> rather run OS X than Linux on apple hardware.  given a choice between
> Windows and Linux, I'd take Linux every time, unless I absolutely had to
> run some Windows app that couldn't fly under Crossover Office or Wine.

Linux has technological and economical advantages over any proprietary
platform.


>>> The truth is, there is nothing wrong with either OS X or Linux, they
>>> are both good products, aimed at different markets.  The entire
>>> universe of computer users does not look like Eric Raymond, thank
>>> goodness.
>> 
>> Yeah, you Apple people seem to be overly concerned with appearances.
> 
> A) I was hacking on UNIX systems long before I ever saw windows or a
> Mac.  I am just as comfortable on a Linux machine as I am under OS X,
> perhaps more so.

You may be comfortable with it, but I daresay for desktop use you are not
all that familiar with it by your comments.

> B) I meant in the sense of the average computer user is *not*
> technically savvy.  They are not going to enjoy Linux until it gets a
> lot more user friendly, and I don't mean "friendly to geeks", I mean
> "friendly to morons".  "Linux for Dummies" type users.

Linux can be just as, sometimes moreso, user friendly than Windows or OS
X.  Since Linux is available in a range of distros, all targetted towards
a certain set,  you can match a distro perfectly according to the
individual needs and wants of the user.

The only thing about Linux now that is holding it back is lack of the
popular commercial applications and games that people know and use, and
the winwashed mindset of the masses.

> C) Let a Windows user switching to Linux (or a Mac user if you prefer)
> figure out how to get his music collection playing on a Linux distro
> without help from a geek friend.  Even more so if they want to rip or
> play back DVDs.  Tell a photoshop user that they just need to "get the
> Gimp experience" then they'll prefer it and see how they react.  It's
> not as easy to use for some tasks, and it is far easier to use for some
> other tasks.

I'd tell a Windows user looking for a good Music management and playing
app to try amarok, and they'll probably adore it.  I'd tell someone
looking to rip DVD's to fire up DVD::Rip and get busy, and chances are
they'll always use it from then on.

To say that modern Linux is hard to use is misleading, it's really not. It
is different though, a different set of apps, a different way of doing
things.  Unfamiliarity with these would give the impression that it's
"difficult" to the inexperienced, just like people do when confronted with
anything different and unfamiliar to them.

After people get to know it a bit, they find out that it's not hard to use
at all.  If anything, it's easier for alot of things.

> There is no single right answer for all users on the planet.

Exactly.  Which is why the choice that is present with Linux is so much
better than the "one-size-fits-all" attitude of commercial platforms.

>> I mean, who cares how it works or how much it costs, so long as it
>> *looks* good, right?
> 
> Wrong.  I don't care what it looks like, as long as it is useful, stable
> and achieves the desired goals.

That's a damned good attitude to have.

>> I suppose that's how Apple has been able for all of these years to sell
>> products that are more expensive and yet still a couple years behind
>> the curve, just wrap it up in a nice shiny package and call it
>> "different".
> 
> They have been successful by packaging solutions to problems, not feeds
> and speeds.  You buy a Mac because you want something that will work the
> first day, and every day, for a specific task.  There are a lot of
> problem spaces that are not handled well by a Mac, just as there are a
> lot of problem spaces that are not handled well by a Linux box.  Windows
> boxes seem to take a crack at handling almost all of them, but manage to
> screw up 90% of them.

I'd agree here.

>> Maybe people are starting to catch on, and that's why Apple is
>> (finally) moving to Intel based platforms.
> 
> You haven't been paying attention.  Apple is moving to Intel because of
> power and heat issues with mobile PPC.  notebooks is the sweetspot in
> the consumer market, especially in the US, and Apple has been several
> years behind there for a while.  Intel mobile chipsets will put them
> back in the game.    Linux has zero to do with that.

I didn't say it did, did I?  But the fact of the matter is that Apple is
moving to Intel for whatever reasons, after over a decade of extolling
the praises of Mac hardware over "substandard generic PC clone hardware".

>> Linux people are less concerned with form as opposed to functionality.
> 
> There is a lot of functionality missing in Linux as a desktop product
> today.

No offense, but I really don't think you are qualified to make that
statement.  As someone who actually has used Linux every
day as a desktop platform personally for the past five years, I speak from
experience when I say that Linux and OSS can provide the greatest
majority of what most people use a desktop computer for with no issues.

> It is an outstanding server platform, perhaps without peer on x86 and
> AMD64 hardware.  It pretty much sucks butt on notebooks, due to issues
> like Broadcom 54g (don't pretend like you don't know about that one).

You purchase your hardware to be able to run your software, not the other
way around.  So you pick hardware that is compatible with your software,
simple as that.  When shopping for a printer for your Mac, did you go out
and purchase one that said "Windows only" on the box?

> There is a lot of hacker functionality missing on OS X out of the box,
> because the target market doesn't care.  Guess what though, porting OSS
> to OS X is a piece of cake.  Anything you can run on Linux that doesn't
> depend upon platform specific stuff will port to OS X almost instantly.

So, shouldn't that go both ways then?  Shouldn't the commercial apps that
are available for OS X port just as easily to Linux?

>> Looking nice is all well and good, but let's make sure it works good
>> first.
>  
> It does work.  And it also happens to look good, and be easy to set up
> and use.  The KDE and Gnome crowds should be trying to mimic the OS X
> ui, instead of trying to look more and more like el bloato windows with
> every release.

KDE and GNOME don't "mimic" anyone.  They may use features that are
universally accepted as good ideas, but anyone is able to change these to
look and feel anyway they like.

> The big mistake with making Linux a great replacement for Windows on the
> desktop is trying to copy the thing you hate.

Who's copying, and who's hating?

-- 
rapskat -  20:46:56 up 23:12,  4 users,  load average: 0.15, 0.20, 0.29
        "Don't say you don't have enough time.  You have exactly the
same number of hours per day that were given to Helen Keller, Pasteur,
Michaelangelo, Mother Teresa, Leonardo da Vinci, Thomas Jefferson, and
Albert Einstein."
        -- H. Jackson Brown 
0
rapskat2 (2033)
7/1/2005 1:24:39 AM
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 23:30:31 +0000, billwg wrote:

> 
> Wozniak is a folk myth.  Wozniak was the hardware specialist for the
> infant Apple Co and his main claim to fame was his "invention" of the
> non-standard use of the floppy disk and the interface hardware thereto.


LMAO. I notice you're forgetting that he's the one who pretty much came up
with the Apple computer....

0
liam8 (4986)
7/1/2005 1:48:45 AM
"Liam Slider" <liam@nospam.liamslider.com> wrote in message 
news:pan.2005.07.01.01.48.51.788112@nospam.liamslider.com...
> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 23:30:31 +0000, billwg wrote:
>
>>
>> Wozniak is a folk myth.  Wozniak was the hardware specialist for the
>> infant Apple Co and his main claim to fame was his "invention" of the
>> non-standard use of the floppy disk and the interface hardware thereto.
>
>
> LMAO. I notice you're forgetting that he's the one who pretty much came up
> with the Apple computer....
>
Wasn't that Motorola more than Wozniak?  There are only a limited number of 
ways to put the parts together and they are described in the tech sheets.

Wozniak is an interesting counter example of being in the right place at the 
right time, same as Jobs, Gates, Allen, and others.  He didn't make out as 
well, IMO.  "We gave it to the wheel and he didn't roll!" sort of thing. 


0
billw (3525)
7/1/2005 2:00:30 AM
begin  Error Log for Thu, 30 Jun 2005 16:04:16 +0000 - TravelinMan
<Nowhere@spamfree.com> caused an invalid page fault at address
<Nowhere-A94B57.11021030062005@news1.west.earthlink.net>, details as
follows:

> In article <1120140972.456799.126240@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
>  jsavard@ecn.ab.ca wrote:
> 
>> Mike Cox wrote:
>> > Heck, you can't even cut and paste between gnome and kde apps reliably.
>> 
>> How well can you cut and paste between OS X and Windows apps?
>> 
>> If one can cut and paste between two different kde apps as well as
>> between two different OS X apps, then one is not comparing apples with
>> oranges.
> 
> That's funny - it works fine on my Mac.

Works fine here too.
 
> If I have Virtual PC running with Windows XP, I can copy and paste 
> whatever I want between Mac OS X and Windows.
> 
> Nice try, though.
> 
> Not to mention, of course, that your analogy is stupid. Windows and OS X 
> are entirely different operating systems. Gnome and KDE are simply 
> different windowing environments on the same OS.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/51597445@N00/22723258/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/51597445@N00/22723259/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/51597445@N00/22723260/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/51597445@N00/22723261/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/51597445@N00/22723262/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/51597445@N00/22723263/

-- 
rapskat -  22:32:49 up 1 day, 57 min,  4 users,  load average: 0.03, 0.26, 0.35
	..all in all it's just another rule in the firewall.
	/Ping Flood/
0
rapskat2 (2033)
7/1/2005 2:35:51 AM
billwg wrote something like:

> 
> "Liam Slider" <liam@nospam.liamslider.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2005.07.01.01.48.51.788112@nospam.liamslider.com...
>> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 23:30:31 +0000, billwg wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Wozniak is a folk myth.  Wozniak was the hardware specialist for the
>>> infant Apple Co and his main claim to fame was his "invention" of the
>>> non-standard use of the floppy disk and the interface hardware thereto.
>>
>>
>> LMAO. I notice you're forgetting that he's the one who pretty much came
>> up with the Apple computer....
>>
> Wasn't that Motorola more than Wozniak?  There are only a limited number
> of ways to put the parts together and they are described in the tech
> sheets.

I'd like to hang here and see that one get torn to shreds, intel invented
the ibm pc, etc, but I gotta go...

dang.

-- 
-
 I use linux. Can anyone give me a good reason to use Windows?
- 
0
amosf (123)
7/1/2005 2:43:22 AM
In article <da0c24$97r$03$1@news.t-online.com>,
 Peter K�hlmann <peter.koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:

> begin  virus.txt.scr C Lund wrote:
> 
> > In article <pan.2005.06.30.04.16.10.246982@rapskat.com>,
> >  rapskat <rapskat@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult>
> >> 
> >> I take it by this you are trying to convey that in creating themes for
> >> other platforms/WM's that emulate the look and feel of Aqua, people are
> >> "making obeisance to something that it is obvious they do not
> >> comprehend"?
> > 
> >> Perhaps you are right.  Please explain just what mysterious element these
> >> themes and the people that use them just aren't getting if you would.
> > 
> > We maccies have been trying to explain this to wintrolls since forever
> > - and more recently, Linux users. And we've had no luck at all.
> > 
> 
> You should ask yourself why that is.
> After al, you can hardly claim that linux users generally are ignorant
> 
> Maybe it is just that linux users, especially those who use Gnome or KDE,
> fail to see where your GUI is *any* better than what they already have?
> 
> That your GUI /may/ be slightly better than the windows one is arguable,
> although I highly doubt that even that claim holds much water

Peter, I'm sure you know something about formal language theory and how to 
describe a language using BNF. A similar thing could be done with any GUI, both 
its basic rules, its UI guidelines, and how these are implemented in the real 
world. One could also analyze different environments (Mac Classic, OS X, NeXT, 
Windows 95etc, KDE, Gnome, Motif, etc.) to see what different operations the UI 
allows one to perform. 

In the same way in which the basic ugliness of a language like Fortran compares 
to the simplicity and elegance, yet power of a language like C, one would find 
that different UIs have measurable power and elegance. 

Sure, you can do structured programming in Fortran or even assembler ... but 
it's really nasty and the languages don't inherently support it the way Pascal 
or C do. Similarly there are ways in which the OS X UI is better than that of 
Windows and either KDE or Gnome. 

I have used Windows, Macintosh and Gnome. Because of its elegance and the way 
its applications are implemented, I prefer OS X. I suppose I could write a 
masters' thesis on what I just described, but I better do it at a university 
where they don't have prejudices about UIs the way you do. ... where do you 
teach?

-- 
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
If Macintosh is a luxury cruise ship, 
then Linux is a freighter with wood paneling in the officers' quarters.
0
timberwoof (3216)
7/1/2005 2:54:47 AM
In article <1120121504.643675.63710@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
 "Sylvester.n.Tweety@gmail.com" <Sylvester.n.Tweety@gmail.com> wrote:

> Timberwoof wrote:
> > In article <m04qbgy2xq.fsf@yahoo.com>, Mike Cox <mikecoxlinux@yahoo.com> 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > NoStop <nostop@stopspam.com> writes:
> > >
> > > > Mike Cox wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Question.  If Linux is so great and Open Source Software developers 
> > > > > are so smart, why does the Linux desktop look like crap?  KDE and 
> > > > > Gnome don't interoperate well.  Heck, you can't even cut and paste 
> > > > > between gnome and kde apps reliably.  How does Apple, which is a 
> > > > > small fish compared to MS and other computing giants come up with 
> > > > > something as good as OS X's Aqua? That right there is proof that 
> > > > > Linux developers can't code worth a crap. Heck, you'd think with all 
> > > > > those OSS developers, the Linux desktop would have left everything in 
> > > > > the dust!  But that is not the case, because Windows 3.1 GUI gives 
> > > > > Linux a run for the money!
> > > > >
> > > > > If a relatively small company like Apple Inc. can create a great OS 
> > > > > with a world class desktop, why can't the linux knuckleheads do it?
> > > >
> > > > How come you haven't yet figured out to keep your line lengths short?
> > >
> > > I'm using GNU's Emacs.  This thing is a gigantic ball of string (typical 
> > > of the GNU/Linux movement. Who knows how to fix anything! I'm lucky I 
> > > even got this far.  Getting gnus set up and figuring out how to post was 
> > > a 5 hour effort!  First you need to know an obscure programming language 
> > > (lisp), then you need to figure out what commands corrospond to what you 
> > > need to do.  Then you need to figure out how to even get around emacs 
> > > with its thousands of commands and key combinations.
> > >
> > > It is not easy to use at all!  This is representative of what GNU and 
> > > Linux stand for.  The uber nerd experience.  With Linux you need to learn 
> > > fdisk and partitioning with weird things like / , and swap and a 
> > > bazillion file systems.  Reiser, Reiser4, XFS, AndrewFS, ext2, ext3, the 
> > > list goes on!  Then you need to know how to compile a kernel and figure 
> > > out how to use CVS and the patch to command to compile it back.  Then you 
> > > need to
> > >
> > > Since OS X is based on BSD, I'm able to use this emacs monster from my 
> > > iBook.  But, since OS X is so easy to use and powerful, I wonder why 
> > > Linux developers haven't come up with anything remotely as good.
> >
> > Because Linux developers are geeks who enjoy complicated stuff for its own 
> > sake, don't mind a crufty user interface, and rate an application by the 
> > number of knobs to frob. They complain when an application reduces the main 
> > UI to the barest essentials -- it takes away their sense of control over 
> > the application.
> >
> > For instance, iTunes does let you set all kinds of parameters in how it 
> > rips CDs, but they're hidden in the Preferences. I've seen Linux 
> > applications where every last obscure MP3 encoding parameter is right there 
> > on the main UI.
> >
> > Steve hired some talented and knowledgeable artists to design the look of 
> > OS X, and some talented UI experts to design the feel. Together they came 
> > up with a system that works very well ... and wrote books that explain how 
> > to do a passable job of designing the UI for an OS X app. The result is 
> > that OS X apps tend to have a similar look and feel, one that tends to be 
> > sparse and elegant. What Linux geeks see right off is the sparseness and 
> > the apparent lack of control, and that's what they focus on. OS X isn't 
> > meant for them, and they don't really mean Linux for OS X users.
> >
> > Especially folks like Peter K�hlmann -- probably pretty intelligent and 
> > knowledgeable about Linux; maybe a decent programmer. But I'd never hire 
> > him to design or implement a UI. His contempt for people he thinks are 
> > stupid (he's said so himself) would spill out into his UI designs, which 
> > would probably be a QA nightmare and show utter disregard for the 
> > non-expert user.
> >
> > It's not that Linux developers are stupid or something -- they're not -- 
> > they for the most part just don't get what good UI design is about.
> >
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> They for the most part just don't get what good UI design is for the person 
> who views the computer as a mere appliance.... the Linux UI design is PERFECT 
> for those who want the ability to tweak anything and everything.

Wrong yourself. 

I like to have the kind of control you're talking about -- I maintain a small 
herd of Linux servers -- but the design of Redhat Fedora Core 3 (the specific 
"Linux UI design" I'm most familiar with) is not by any means "PERFECT". Some 
things cannot be tweaked through the GUI because the GUI is not designed to give 
full access to the internals. 

And you missed an important distinction: that between what the facilities of a 
UI allows and what the UI conventions suggest is best practice. 

> Just because it's not right for lUsers like you doesn't mean that it's not 
> right for anybody.

A friendly word off advice: I don't know if you actually are an asshole -- we 
haven't met in person -- but you do a damn good impersonation of one by calling 
peole lUsers.

-- 
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
If Macintosh is a luxury cruise ship, 
then Linux is a freighter with wood paneling in the officers' quarters.
0
timberwoof (3216)
7/1/2005 3:01:34 AM
In article <1gyz182.np2wvc3f2cxsN%ajbrehm@gmail.com>,
 ajbrehm@gmail.com (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:

> Mike Cox <mikecoxlinux@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > Question.  If Linux is so great and Open Source Software developers are so
> > smart, why does the Linux desktop look like crap? 
> 
> What Linux desktop?
> 
> > KDE and Gnome don't interoperate well.
> 
> Not on Linux, not on Solaris, not on Mac OS X. True.
> 
> > Heck, you can't even cut and paste between gnome and kde apps reliably.
> 
> I must check whether I can cut and paste between Aqua and KDE apps
> reliably.
> 
> > How does Apple, which is a small fish compared to MS and other computing
> > giants come up with something as good as OS X's Aqua?
> 
> You have to be good at something. How do the FSF come with the GCC, how
> did Linus come up with Linux?
> 
> > That right there is proof that Linux developers can't code worth a crap.
> 
> What Linux developers? What part of Linux are you referring to?

Oh! Are we discovering that it's not nice to generalize about Linux programmers? 
Gee, with the way Peter K�hlmann and others go on all the time, happily jumping 
on any excuse to call Mac users names like idiot and luser, one might have 
concluded that overgeneralization was a perfectly acceptable behavior. 



> > Heck, you'd think with all those OSS developers, the Linux desktop would
> > have left everything in the dust!
> 
> In many areas they have. That's why Apple use OSS to run their GUI.
> 
> > But that is not the case, because Windows 3.1 GUI gives Linux a run for
> > the money!
> 
> I believe you can run Windows 3.1 on Linux.
> 
> > If a relatively small company like Apple Inc. can create a great OS with a
> > world class desktop, why can't the linux knuckleheads do it?
> 
> If the Linux knuckleheads can create a modern kernel, why did Apple have
> to use OSS software to run their GUI on?

Now, now. If Apple had not done that, you'd be criticizing them for not having 
done that.

-- 
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
If Macintosh is a luxury cruise ship, 
then Linux is a freighter with wood paneling in the officers' quarters.
0
timberwoof (3216)
7/1/2005 3:05:14 AM
In article <42c3db03$0$12899$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com>,
 Alex <fast@mischiefuk.com> wrote:

> OSX GUI is build 
> upon X11 (XFree86 project), 

I'd be interested in reading the documentation you base that claim on.

-- 
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
If Macintosh is a luxury cruise ship, 
then Linux is a freighter with wood paneling in the officers' quarters.
0
timberwoof (3216)
7/1/2005 3:06:43 AM
In article <pan.2005.06.30.14.01.02.562872@nospam.liamslider.com>,
 Liam Slider <liam@nospam.liamslider.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 04:56:42 +0000, Timberwoof wrote:
> 
> > Because Linux developers are geeks who enjoy complicated stuff for its
> > own sake, don't mind a crufty user interface, and rate an application by
> > the number of knobs to frob. They complain when an application reduces
> > the main UI to the barest essentials -- it takes away their sense of
> > control over the application.
> <snip more GUI complaints>
> 
> Where are you from, 10 years ago?

No, actually Linux Fedora Core 3. 

> Also, learn to wrap your posts properly.

Use a reader that deals with posts no matter how they're wrapped.

-- 
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
If Macintosh is a luxury cruise ship, 
then Linux is a freighter with wood paneling in the officers' quarters.
0
timberwoof (3216)
7/1/2005 3:07:58 AM
In article <1gyz5o5.1s108ra1robrn7N%peter@seahaze.demon.co.uk>,
 peter@seahaze.demon.co.uk (Peter Hayes) wrote:

> Timberwoof <timberwoof@stimpberawoofm.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <J8WdncHptdEw5F7fRVn-oA@rcn.net>, Ralph <no@way.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I noticed that you could not give a single thing that makes apple
> > > technically better than Linux for ANY USE. 
> > 
> > Well, since that was not your question... 
> > 
> > But since it is now, I'll give you a couple of things: 1. iPhoto makes 
> > sucking
> > pictures out of my nifty new used Olympus a snap.
> 
> That's got nothing to do with iPhoto, more to do with whether OS X
> recognises the camera as a mountable drive/device.

It's got everything to do with iPhoto. This particular Olympus camera does not 
mount as mountable volume. Someone could write a driver to do that, but its 
interface was written before that became popular. 


> My Fugi digital camera appears as a drive on my desktop. I open it with
> Finder, Preview or any one of half a dozen or more apps. I then select
> the pics I want and move them to where I want. No need for iPhoto, which
> is probably one of Apple's worst offerings. It insists on duplicating
> every image you give it for no purpose for starters.

iPhoto has its problems, yes, but it's better at talking to this Olympus of mine 
than Linux is. 

> > The guy I bought it from warned me that drivers for it would be very hard
> > to find. (I can just imagine trying to find a driver for Linux that will
> > talk to a C-2100.) So I plugged it into my iBook. iPhoto launched and
> > offered to get the pictures out of the camera. No muss, no fuss. No
> > fiddle-farting around with USB drivers or mounting a volume under /mnt ...
> 
> Yes, that's just pathetic in this day and age.

Yeah, I can't tell you how much I miss going into the command-line to issue mnt 
every time I want to get pictures out of my camera. It really bummed me out that 
I didn't have the opportunity to brush up on fstab formats just to talk to my 
camera.

-- 
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
If Macintosh is a luxury cruise ship, 
then Linux is a freighter with wood paneling in the officers' quarters.
0
timberwoof (3216)
7/1/2005 3:14:03 AM
In article <0001HW.BEE98DC402A86BE2F0386550@news.verizon.net>,
 Lefty Bigfoot <nunya@busyness.info> wrote:

> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 11:34:20 -0500, Timberwoof wrote
> (in article 
> <timberwoof-D2B74A.09341930062005@typhoon.sonic.net>):
> >>> Close the lid on a laptop running Linux. Anything can happen when you
> >>> reopen the lid. Anything from it staggering back into life to a
> >>> corrupted/crashed X server, to a complete machine failure.
> >> 
> >> I have none of those problems when I am running Linux on my 
> >> notebook.  Buy a better notebook.
> > 
> > Like what kind, and for how much money? 
> 
> Compaq, $1499 at Fry's.

I pad less than that for my iBook.

-- 
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
If Macintosh is a luxury cruise ship, 
then Linux is a freighter with wood paneling in the officers' quarters.
0
timberwoof (3216)
7/1/2005 3:16:51 AM
In article <1gyzlb2.jly82sbemme4N%pa_nihill@yahoo.com>,
 pa_nihill@yahoo.com (Patrick Nihill) wrote:

> Liam Slider <liam@nospam.liamslider.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 15:56:22 +0000, Lefty Bigfoot wrote:
> > 
> > >  The KDE and Gnome crowds should be trying to mimic the OS X ui,
> > > instead of trying to look more and more like el bloato windows with every
> > > release.
> > 
> > Have you seen GNOME lately? I mean beyond one or two vague screenshots?
> > It's a *lot* closer to OSX than it is to Windows.
> 
> I've been using Ubuntu a lot recently and I've found GNOME reminds me
> more of OS 9 than OS X, particularly when file browsing. It's got that
> similar spatial, one-window/one-folder feel.
> 
> The only really major difference I've found is that by default,
> double-clicking a folder opens it in a new window and closes the
> previous folder, and holding a modifer key causes it to remain open.
> This is precisely the opposite way to which OS 9 behaved.
> 
> I didn't spot anything in the preferences to reverse this, does anyone
> happen to know off-hand of any command-line hackery that would do it?

You're a programmer ... why  not change it to behave the way you want?

-- 
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
If Macintosh is a luxury cruise ship, 
then Linux is a freighter with wood paneling in the officers' quarters.
0
timberwoof (3216)
7/1/2005 3:19:04 AM
Timberwoof wrote:

> In article <0001HW.BEE98DC402A86BE2F0386550@news.verizon.net>,
>  Lefty Bigfoot <nunya@busyness.info> wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 11:34:20 -0500, Timberwoof wrote
>> (in article
>> <timberwoof-D2B74A.09341930062005@typhoon.sonic.net>):
>> >>> Close the lid on a laptop running Linux. Anything can happen when you
>> >>> reopen the lid. Anything from it staggering back into life to a
>> >>> corrupted/crashed X server, to a complete machine failure.
>> >> 
>> >> I have none of those problems when I am running Linux on my
>> >> notebook.  Buy a better notebook.
>> > 
>> > Like what kind, and for how much money?
>> 
>> Compaq, $1499 at Fry's.
> 
> I pad less than that for my iBook.
> 

Put Linux on it and you might have a nice system!
0
no9 (3192)
7/1/2005 3:24:26 AM
In article <0001HW.BEE9D08502B81159F0386550@news.verizon.net>,
 Lefty Bigfoot <nunya@busyness.info> wrote:

> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 15:52:09 -0500, Peter Hayes wrote
> (in article 
> <1gyzo6e.1wi9lg7149trt0N%peter@seahaze.demon.co.uk>):
> 
> >> It takes some getting used to, supposedly there is research data 
> >> that proves people are more efficient with it, but I can use 
> >> either now without much caring either way.
> > 
> > You get used to it. It's a drag though when the app you want has
> > vanished without trace except as a tiny Dock icon.
> 
> Or, any time you accidentally click the mouse a few pixels off 
> of where you intended to and the top menu changes back to the 
> finder.  That's hideous.

I'm pretty god at aiming my mouse-clicks where I want them. OS X (and Mac 
Classic) has been very good over the years in that regard. The cursor's movement 
on the screen just feels smoother and better correlated to what I'm doing with 
the mouse. 

There's a thing in Linux/Gnome that continually makes me shout, "Dammit!": When 
I want to resize a window on the Mac, I can zoom the mouse over to the resize 
corner, click, and drag the corner to where I want it in one fluid motion. (And 
this is not a function of cpu speed; I could do this with an old 68040/25 just 
as well as with a G3/300.) But on Linux, there's always a slight latency between 
when I click the mouse button and the OS notices. As a result, I often end up 
landing that click in the next window down, with some other result than what I 
intended. Dammit! 

And it's not a matter of processor speed. I've got two old Dell severs -- a 
PII/300 and a PIII/400 -- and a new blazing fast  honkin huge server built out 
of a 3GHz Intel mobo in a Network Appliance drive shelf. They're all running 
Linux and they all have the same problem. it's causing me to change my mouse 
habits: No more zooming about clicking on the fly: I have to move, stop, click, 
drag, stop, let go, move, stop, right-click, wait, drag over, stop, drag down 
(OS X let me drag diagonally on submenus), stop, let go...

-- 
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
If Macintosh is a luxury cruise ship, 
then Linux is a freighter with wood paneling in the officers' quarters.
0
timberwoof (3216)
7/1/2005 3:28:33 AM
In article <Nowhere-F56ACF.15300830062005@news1.west.earthlink.net>,
 TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote:

> In article <a1j8c1lnfanq22t8qu951j9jq0nak9qt47@4ax.com>,
>  Ku Karlovsky <nospam@nospam.nospam.not> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 06:39:15 -0500, Travelinman  <nowhere@nospam.net>
> > wrote in message
> > <<nowhere-1AABA5.06391530062005@news.central.cox.net>>:
> > 
> > > My non-geek Macs don't get viruses.
> > 
> > How are your cult Macs doing?
> 
> I don't have cult Macs.
> 
> It's only the idiots who are scared of Macs who call Mac user cultists.

There's a way to settle this dispute. 

http://www.neopagan.net/ABCDEF.html

Now be honest. Remember, giving false answers about the "other" team is only 
evidence that your own team is more cult-like.

-- 
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
If Macintosh is a luxury cruise ship, 
then Linux is a freighter with wood paneling in the officers' quarters.
0
timberwoof (3216)
7/1/2005 3:32:28 AM
Timberwoof wrote:

>  OS X (and Mac
> Classic) has been very good over the years in that regard.

If Mac Classic was so good, why did they dump it for an completely different
architecture? If MAC hardware is so great, why is Apple switching to Intel? 
0
no9 (3192)
7/1/2005 3:39:04 AM
Peter Hayes wrote:
> TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>In article <0001HW.BEE9D08502B81159F0386550@news.verizon.net>,
>> Lefty Bigfoot <nunya@busyness.info> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 15:52:09 -0500, Peter Hayes wrote
>>>(in article 
>>><1gyzo6e.1wi9lg7149trt0N%peter@seahaze.demon.co.uk>):
>>>
>>>
>>>>>It takes some getting used to, supposedly there is research data
>>>>>that proves people are more efficient with it, but I can use 
>>>>>either now without much caring either way.
>>>>
>>>>You get used to it. It's a drag though when the app you want has
>>>>vanished without trace except as a tiny Dock icon.
>>>
>>>Or, any time you accidentally click the mouse a few pixels off 
>>>of where you intended to and the top menu changes back to the 
>>>finder.  That's hideous.
>>
>>I see. So when you click on the Finder window, you want it to NOT switch
>>to the Finder?
> 
> 
> I think you need to re-read Lefty Bigfoot's post. He said "accidentally
> click the mouse a few pixels off". And I agree with him, it's a real
> pain.

A quick command-tab puts you right back where you were.

-Peter

-- 
Pull out a splinter to reply.
0
gershwin (465)
7/1/2005 3:51:28 AM
begin  virus.txt.scr Timberwoof wrote:

< snip >
 
>> > We maccies have been trying to explain this to wintrolls since forever
>> > - and more recently, Linux users. And we've had no luck at all.
>> > 
>> 
>> You should ask yourself why that is.
>> After al, you can hardly claim that linux users generally are ignorant
>> 
>> Maybe it is just that linux users, especially those who use Gnome or KDE,
>> fail to see where your GUI is *any* better than what they already have?
>> 
>> That your GUI /may/ be slightly better than the windows one is arguable,
>> although I highly doubt that even that claim holds much water
> 
> Peter, I'm sure you know something about formal language theory and how to
> describe a language using BNF. A similar thing could be done with any GUI,
> both its basic rules, its UI guidelines, and how these are implemented in
> the real world. One could also analyze different environments (Mac
> Classic, OS X, NeXT, Windows 95etc, KDE, Gnome, Motif, etc.) to see what
> different operations the UI allows one to perform.
> 
> In the same way in which the basic ugliness of a language like Fortran
> compares to the simplicity and elegance, yet power of a language like C,
> one would find that different UIs have measurable power and elegance.
> 
> Sure, you can do structured programming in Fortran or even assembler ...
> but it's really nasty and the languages don't inherently support it the
> way Pascal or C do. Similarly there are ways in which the OS X UI is
> better than that of Windows and either KDE or Gnome.
> 
> I have used Windows, Macintosh and Gnome. Because of its elegance and the
> way its applications are implemented, I prefer OS X. I suppose I could
> write a masters' thesis on what I just described, but I better do it at a
> university where they don't have prejudices about UIs the way you do. ...
> where do you teach?
> 

And you failed to provide even a single example of OSX "elegance"
Zhanks for admitting that there is none
-- 
You're not my type.  For that matter, you're not even my species

0
Peter.Koehlmann (13228)
7/1/2005 4:48:04 AM
begin  virus.txt.scr billwg wrote:

> 
> "Kier" <vallon@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:pan.2005.06.30.18.02.20.199237@tiscali.co.uk...
>>
>> Really? How many of them wrote a working OS from scratch while still a
>> student, and then persuaded a lot of people all over teh world to join in
>> helping him develop it?
> 
> Organizationally, that is a wonderful feat, Kier.  Technologically, linux
> is a clone of unix and, according to folk like Bruce Perens who closely
> examined the SCO claims regarding copyright infringement, much of the
> linux code was copied from freeBSD and not Unix System V, but it was
> copied
> nonetheless.  SCO shows some 900,000 lines of code they say is infringing
> although their claims may be disputed.  But it was copied from somewhere.

Idiot
-- 
Yield to Temptation ... it may not pass your way again.
                -- Lazarus Long, "Time Enough for Love"

0
Peter.Koehlmann (13228)
7/1/2005 4:53:19 AM
In article <timberwoof-424687.21564229062005@typhoon.sonic.net>,
 Timberwoof <timberwoof@stimpberawoofm.com> wrote:
> The biggest problem I have with man pages is that they generally tell you 
> all the atomic behaviors but don't tell you any of the emergent behaviors. 
> The man page for a 'format' command would tell you all the two dozen 
> parameters you can use, but there's no wisdom about why or how to do it 
> efficiently. I wish man pages would include examples, cookbook style, of 
> the most common ways to use a command. (This is the equivalent of putting 
> the essentials on the main UI and hiding all the other knobs in a settings 
> dialog.) 

Man pages are meant to be a concise reference, not a tutorial.  The man page 
for a format command, for example, should be aimed at someone already knows 
why or how to do it efficiently, but just can't remember the name of a 
particular switch, or the exit code, or something like that.

> I still don't know how to add, for instance, the various MySQL GUI 
> utilities to the KDE menu. KDE documentation is overflowing with 
> information on how to write applications, but there's nothing for users. 
> What, is a user supposed to read the code to figure this out? Screw that 
> ... I'm using OS X; it's easier to read up on how to use that.

OS X can get pretty confusing at times, though...ever played with NetInfo 
Manager, for example?


-- 
--Tim Smith
0
reply_in_group (13194)
7/1/2005 5:25:47 AM
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 20:39:04 -0700, Ralph <no@way.com> wrote:


>Timberwoof wrote:

>>  OS X (and Mac
>> Classic) has been very good over the years in that regard.

>If Mac Classic was so good, why did they dump it for an completely different
>architecture? If MAC hardware is so great, why is Apple switching to Intel? 

Newsflash:  intel h/w circa 2005 != intel h/w circa 1985.
0
aznomad (417)
7/1/2005 5:31:06 AM
AZ Nomad wrote:

>>If Mac Classic was so good, why did they dump it for an completely
>>different architecture? If MAC hardware is so great, why is Apple
>>switching to Intel?
> 
> Newsflash:  intel h/w circa 2005 != intel h/w circa 1985.

Newsflash, I never said it was!

Newsflash, your statement has nothing to do with what I said.

Newsflash: Apple is still abandoning the current hardware for something
different. My point still stands: If MAC hardware is so great, why is Apple
switching? 

Why are Mac users such tards they think making statements that are
meaningless to the point being made proves something? 
0
no9 (3192)
7/1/2005 5:41:42 AM
[snips]

On 30 Jun 2005 08:01:33 -0700, lqualig@uku.co.uk wrote:

> When I open the cover on my Dell laptop (running XP-Pro SP2) the login
> screen appears before I can fully open the cover. I never timed it but
> I would have to say that it's well under 1-second. Whoever claimed 30
> seconds... I don't think so.

Do start, shut down, select "shut down".  Once completed, close the laptop.  
It'll take quite a while for anything to happen.  On the other hand, if 
it's just in suspend mode - typical when you simply close the lid - it 
should come back very quickly, and usually does, unless something's badly 
wrong.
0
kbjarnason (4613)
7/1/2005 5:55:56 AM
[snips]

On 30 Jun 2005 12:19:02 -0700, lqualig@uku.co.uk wrote:

> It's a laptop... not a server. A 1.6Ghz Pentium is more than adequate
> for laptop use.

Depends what you use it for, don't it?

> The 2Ghz Athlon 64 is going to be faster but it's a
> non-issue for a laptop computer.

Depends what you use it for, don't it?

> Very few laptops do anything that
> needs 64-bit processing power.

Depends what you use it for, don't it?

> The 64-bit Athlon is power-hungry so
> good luck getting decent battery life.

This may or may not be relevant.
0
kbjarnason (4613)
7/1/2005 5:55:56 AM
on July 01 12:25 am billwg wrote:

> Organizationally, that is a wonderful feat, Kier.  Technologically, 
> linux is a clone of unix and, according to folk like Bruce Perens who
>  closely examined the SCO claims regarding copyright infringement, 
> much of the linux code was copied from freeBSD and not Unix System V,
>  but it was copied nonetheless.  SCO shows some 900,000 lines of code
>  they say is infringing although their claims may be disputed.  But
> it was copied from somewhere.

Actually what he had to say regarding the alleged purloined code was this.

`The Linux version of BPF is not an obfuscation of the BPF code. It is a
clean-room re-implementation of BPF by Jay Schulist of the Linux
developers, sharing none of the original source code'

And this in relation to the so called evidence that SCO produced in Las
Vegas. I can find no reference to him saying `much of the linux code was
copied from freeBSD' or anything like this. Do you have an explicit
quote of him saying such a thing? In relation to the samples produced by
SCO he states that it was `used in Linux under a valid license'.

Where is this `much of the linux code was copied from freeBSD'

http://perens.com/Articles/SCO/SCOSlideShow.html
0
7/1/2005 6:15:02 AM
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 08:12:49 -0500, chrisv wrote:

> Peter K�hlmann wrote:
> 
>>> Linus uses a Mac.
>>
>>Right. He did not buy it.
>>And he runs linux on it. He explained that he wants to stabelize that
>>processor series of linux, since most effort is (naturally) done on x86
>>processors
> 
> Is he maybe wasting his time, now that Mac's future is with x86?

No. IBM will surely be happy to send him a shiny new OpenPower machine for
free.
0
me4 (19624)
7/1/2005 6:30:51 AM
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 05:14:17 -0700, Sylvester.n.Tweety@gmail.com wrote:

> Yeah, the "I want my computer to be only as versatile as my toaster"
> outlook is soooooooo appealing.
> 
> There's a reason that Macs are only popular with extreme technophobes like
> graphics artists.

Seymour Cray was no technophobe.

0
me4 (19624)
7/1/2005 6:32:07 AM
[snips]

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 20:51:28 -0700, Peter Ammon wrote:

>> I think you need to re-read Lefty Bigfoot's post. He said "accidentally
>> click the mouse a few pixels off". And I agree with him, it's a real
>> pain.
> 
> A quick command-tab puts you right back where you were.

The "fix" for borderless windows, which apparently result in mis-directed
mouse clicks, is to bypass the mouse entirely and go to the keyboard?

That must be *loads* of fun for anyone doing detailed graphics work.  You'd
think they'd hate it.  Even for the limited graphics work I do, such things
tend to drive me bonkers.
0
kbjarnason (4613)
7/1/2005 6:43:34 AM
Timberwoof <timberwoof@stimpberawoofm.com> wrote:

> In article <1gyzlb2.jly82sbemme4N%pa_nihill@yahoo.com>,
>  pa_nihill@yahoo.com (Patrick Nihill) wrote:
> 
> > Liam Slider <liam@nospam.liamslider.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 15:56:22 +0000, Lefty Bigfoot wrote:
> > > 
> > > >  The KDE and Gnome crowds should be trying to mimic the OS X ui,
> > > > instead of trying to look more and more like el bloato windows with
> > > > every release.
> > > 
> > > Have you seen GNOME lately? I mean beyond one or two vague screenshots?
> > > It's a *lot* closer to OSX than it is to Windows.
> > 
> > I've been using Ubuntu a lot recently and I've found GNOME reminds me
> > more of OS 9 than OS X, particularly when file browsing. It's got that
> > similar spatial, one-window/one-folder feel.
> > 
> > The only really major difference I've found is that by default,
> > double-clicking a folder opens it in a new window and closes the
> > previous folder, and holding a modifer key causes it to remain open.
> > This is precisely the opposite way to which OS 9 behaved.
> > 
> > I didn't spot anything in the preferences to reverse this, does anyone
> > happen to know off-hand of any command-line hackery that would do it?
> 
> You're a programmer ... why  not change it to behave the way you want?

I could do that, of course. Probably worth doing if I decide to spend
much more time using GNOME, I can't imagine it being anything other than
a trivial effort to change it. 

0
pa_nihill (274)
7/1/2005 7:32:30 AM
rapskat wrote:
[...]
> 
> 
> No offense, but I really don't think you are qualified to make that
> statement.  As someone who actually has used Linux every
> day as a desktop platform personally for the past five years, I speak from
> experience when I say that Linux and OSS can provide the greatest
> majority of what most people use a desktop computer for with no issues.
> 

That's the second or third time I've seen you use that phrase, "no 
issues."  You can't possibly believe that - every single system has 
issues.  Insisting that Linux is problem-free is a crazy position to take.

I tried Knoppix today.  Here's what I found.

I have one of the most common machines from the most popular computer 
vendor in the world - a Dell Dimension 4600.  Knoppix didn't boot on it 
out of the box.  Passing failsafe got it to boot, but limits the screen 
resolution, eliminates the network, etc.  Figuring out the proper 
hardware detection to disable to get it to boot would be a tedious 
trial-and-error process.  That's an issue already.

Scroll wheel doesn't work.  Another issue.

Start Mozilla Firefox.  Choose File->Close.  The window closes.  Now 
start KWrite.  Choose File->Close.  Nothing happens.  Bizarrely 
inconsistent user interface behavior - another issue.

Choose Graphics->Bitmap.  The menus look utterly different.  The text at 
the top is unreadably bright green on light gray.  Bizarrely 
inconsistent user interface appearance - another issue.

Click the KDE button.  Look at some of the applications.  Some have 
icons.  Others don't.  Does that mean anything?  Who knows?

Click KDE->Development->KDevelop: C/C++.  Nothing happens.  Why not?

Click KDE->Toys.  What the heck is "bb (bb)?"

Launch the GIMP.  Create an image, and copy it.  Launch Open Office. 
Try to paste.  It doesn't work.  Another issue.

Roughly six minutes of clicking on things and I've had lots of issues.

-Peter

[...]

-- 
Pull out a splinter to reply.
0
gershwin (465)
7/1/2005 7:52:28 AM
begin  virus.txt.scr Snot snotted:

> "Peter Hayes" <peter@seahaze.demon.co.uk> stated in post
> 1gyzixx.pdjjj1zxpzjxN%peter@seahaze.demon.co.uk on 6/30/05 11:56 AM:
> 
>>> First, your ignorant bigotry is showing.
>>> Second Apple enforces its UI guidelines. Apple is one company. 'Linux'
>>> is not a company. Red Hat, IBM, Novell are companies.
>> 
>> He'd be better comparing the Apple GUI with KDE *or* Gnome *or* <insert
>> favourite window manager here>, not comparing it with all the Linux GUIs
>> simultaneously.
> 
> Are you unable to see why your comment is incorrect?
> 
> 

You tell him. In detail. Naturally you will provide evidence and reasons for
your conclusions

After all, you are one of the dumbest csma trolls around. You will always
find something to post
-- 
I say you need to visit Clues 'R' Us. They are having a special on 
slightly used clues.

0
Peter.Koehlmann (13228)
7/1/2005 8:12:29 AM
In article <ivqdp2-mqq.ln1@grendel.myth>,
 Jim Richardson <warlock@eskimo.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 10:39:09 +0200,
>  C Lund <clund@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote:
> > In article <pan.2005.06.30.04.16.10.246982@rapskat.com>,
> >  rapskat <rapskat@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult>
> >> I take it by this you are trying to convey that in creating themes for
> >> other platforms/WM's that emulate the look and feel of Aqua, people are
> >> "making obeisance to something that it is obvious they do not comprehend"?
> >> Perhaps you are right.  Please explain just what mysterious element these
> >> themes and the people that use them just aren't getting if you would.
> > We maccies have been trying to explain this to wintrolls since forever 
> > - and more recently, Linux users. And we've had no luck at all.
> so you're saying that you aren't very good at communicating ideas?

That's one explanation - although that would mean that no maccies are 
good at explaining ideas.

More likely, the problem is that we maccies have been trying to 
communicate this idea (ease-of-use and so on)  to people who simply do 
not have the ability to understand it. After all, "it just works" is 
of little value to somebody who sees the DIY tinkering of Linux as one 
of the main attractions of a system. As for the wintrolls in here, the 
concept of something that "just works" is beyond comprehension. At 
least you Linux-users have a "I can make it work myself" mentality.

I have more luck with this in the real world.

-- 
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
0
clund (6340)
7/1/2005 9:00:43 AM
In article <da0c24$97r$03$1@news.t-online.com>,
 Peter Kohlmann <peter.koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> begin  virus.txt.scr C Lund wrote:
> > In article <pan.2005.06.30.04.16.10.246982@rapskat.com>,
> >  rapskat <rapskat@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult>
> >> I take it by this you are trying to convey that in creating themes for
> >> other platforms/WM's that emulate the look and feel of Aqua, people are
> >> "making obeisance to something that it is obvious they do not
> >> comprehend"?
> >> Perhaps you are right.  Please explain just what mysterious element these
> >> themes and the people that use them just aren't getting if you would.
> > We maccies have been trying to explain this to wintrolls since forever
> > - and more recently, Linux users. And we've had no luck at all.
> You should ask yourself why that is.
> After al, you can hardly claim that linux users generally are ignorant

In general, no. But there are certain individuals...

> Maybe it is just that linux users, especially those who use Gnome or KDE,
> fail to see where your GUI is *any* better than what they already have?

That's because they don't see anything wrong with having to make Linux 
work.

Having tried to install two Linux distros myself (Mandrake and YD), I 
very much see what's wrong with it. I might have managed to get them 
to work if I enjoyed tinkering with my system, but I don't.

> That your GUI /may/ be slightly better than the windows one is arguable,
> although I highly doubt that even that claim holds much water

Have you used OS X and Windows for an extended period of time? I'm not 
talking about five minutes here, but weeks or months.

-- 
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
0
clund (6340)
7/1/2005 9:05:12 AM
begin  virus.txt.scr C Lund wrote:

> In article <da0c24$97r$03$1@news.t-online.com>,
>  Peter Kohlmann <peter.koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>> begin  virus.txt.scr C Lund wrote:
>> > In article <pan.2005.06.30.04.16.10.246982@rapskat.com>,
>> >  rapskat <rapskat@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult>
>> >> I take it by this you are trying to convey that in creating themes for
>> >> other platforms/WM's that emulate the look and feel of Aqua, people
>> >> are "making obeisance to something that it is obvious they do not
>> >> comprehend"?
>> >> Perhaps you are right.  Please explain just what mysterious element
>> >> these themes and the people that use them just aren't getting if you
>> >> would.
>> > We maccies have been trying to explain this to wintrolls since forever
>> > - and more recently, Linux users. And we've had no luck at all.
>> You should ask yourself why that is.
>> After al, you can hardly claim that linux users generally are ignorant
> 
> In general, no. But there are certain individuals...
> 
>> Maybe it is just that linux users, especially those who use Gnome or KDE,
>> fail to see where your GUI is *any* better than what they already have?
> 
> That's because they don't see anything wrong with having to make Linux
> work.
> 

"Making work" meaning what exactly? Popping in a DVD, pressing OK a few
times and an hour later you are presented with a fully installed OS,
including apps naturally?
*That* way of "making work"?

> Having tried to install two Linux distros myself (Mandrake and YD), I
> very much see what's wrong with it. I might have managed to get them
> to work if I enjoyed tinkering with my system, but I don't.
> 

So you have vast (NOT) experience with linux.
Do you always try to be as ridiculous as you sound now?

>> That your GUI /may/ be slightly better than the windows one is arguable,
>> although I highly doubt that even that claim holds much water
> 
> Have you used OS X and Windows for an extended period of time? I'm not
> talking about five minutes here, but weeks or months.
> 

I know 3 people using OSX personally, and I have played around with it for
some time. There was nothing which stroke me as rather "intuitive" or "easy
to use". In fact, I like my KDE setup much more, visually and in usage

And I have used windows since version 2-386. I have several windows
computers here. I program for a living, that includes windows apps
BTW, OSX apps are a complete non-starter here. Nobody of our clients have
ever asked for a OSX version. They do ask for linux versions though
-- 
All things are possible, except skiing thru a revolving door.

0
Peter.Koehlmann (13228)
7/1/2005 9:20:27 AM
on July 01 03:00 am billwg wrote:

> Wasn't that Motorola more than Wozniak?  There are only a limited
> number of ways to put the parts together and they are described in
> the tech sheets.

Yea, if you put enough monkeys in a room with a bunch of parts they
would eventually come up with the Apple.
0
7/1/2005 9:24:25 AM
C Lund wrote:

> Have you used OS X and Windows for an extended period of time? I'm not 
> talking about five minutes here, but weeks or months.

I have.  And I find elements of both that I like and dislike.  The Mac 
is definitely prettier, although I don't like the way either GUI slows 
down with all their respective windows/console animations/niceties.  I 
turn all that crap off on my system.

I prefer the consistancy of OS X's pull-down menus between apps, 
although Windows menuing isn't all *that* different.

Frankly, all these "Mac vs. Windows" threads are making me want to start 
playing with linux again...


*yawn*


-Rick

0
agent1 (805)
7/1/2005 9:26:44 AM
Timberwoof wrote:
> In article <42c3db03$0$12899$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com>,
>  Alex <fast@mischiefuk.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>OSX GUI is build 
>>upon X11 (XFree86 project), 
> 
> 
> I'd be interested in reading the documentation you base that claim on.
> 

http://www.apple.com/macosx/overview/advancedtechnology.html
0
fast2913 (22)
7/1/2005 11:08:18 AM
"Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:nf9skx00iwk2$.1esihwrxin7bu.dlg@40tude.net...
> [snips]
>
> On 30 Jun 2005 08:01:33 -0700, lqualig@uku.co.uk wrote:
>
>> When I open the cover on my Dell laptop (running XP-Pro SP2) the login
>> screen appears before I can fully open the cover. I never timed it but
>> I would have to say that it's well under 1-second. Whoever claimed 30
>> seconds... I don't think so.
>
> Do start, shut down, select "shut down".  Once completed, close the 
> laptop.
> It'll take quite a while for anything to happen.  On the other hand, if
> it's just in suspend mode - typical when you simply close the lid - it
> should come back very quickly, and usually does, unless something's badly
> wrong.


Correct. It's not a "system shutdown" since that would require the BIOS to 
boot, the POST and a full load of the OS. I'm talking about simply closing 
the lid on the laptop with the OS still running. When the lid gets opened 
the "resume" is practically instantaneous.





0
7/1/2005 11:41:13 AM
"Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:lpxwcxokn2ou$.1efm125h3k114$.dlg@40tude.net...
> [snips]
>
> On 30 Jun 2005 12:19:02 -0700, lqualig@uku.co.uk wrote:
>
> Depends what you use it for, don't it?
>
> Depends what you use it for, don't it?
>
> Depends what you use it for, don't it?
>


True but.... what do people "generally" use a laptop for? Most businesses 
and Fortune 500 companies still run 32-bit operating systems. While the 
"novelty" of running a 64-bit OS on a personal laptop is interesting, I'd be 
surprised if this were a "necessity."









0
7/1/2005 11:45:09 AM
"Ralph" <no@way.com> wrote in message news:CKSdnWpu7fz3KlnfRVn-2g@rcn.net...
> Timberwoof wrote:
>
>>> >>
>>> >> I have none of those problems when I am running Linux on my
>>> >> notebook.  Buy a better notebook.
>>> >
>>> > Like what kind, and for how much money?
>>>
>>> Compaq, $1499 at Fry's.
>>
>> I pad less than that for my iBook.
>>
>
> Put Linux on it and you might have a nice system!


Crazy talk. I suggest DOS 3.1 with extended memory... or is it expanded 
memory.... no, I think it's extended memory that you want.




0
7/1/2005 11:46:51 AM
"malloc" <malloc_SNIP2006@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:42c50bca$0$10469$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
> on July 01 03:00 am billwg wrote:
>
>> Wasn't that Motorola more than Wozniak?  There are only a limited
>> number of ways to put the parts together and they are described in
>> the tech sheets.
>
> Yea, if you put enough monkeys in a room with a bunch of parts they
> would eventually come up with the Apple.


Reminds me of a joke I heard a while back. We've all heard that if you 
"Place thousands of monkeys in a room with typewriters that given enough 
time one of the monkeys will produce a Shakespeare novel." But in order to 
duplicate Windows you would need 4 monkeys and about 2 hours time.



0
7/1/2005 11:50:25 AM
"billwg" <billw@twcf.rr.com> wrote in message 
news:2t1xe.173456$IO.8694@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> "Liam Slider" <liam@nospam.liamslider.com> wrote in message 
> news:pan.2005.07.01.01.48.51.788112@nospam.liamslider.com...
>> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 23:30:31 +0000, billwg wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Wozniak is a folk myth.  Wozniak was the hardware specialist for the
>>> infant Apple Co and his main claim to fame was his "invention" of the
>>> non-standard use of the floppy disk and the interface hardware thereto.
>>
>>
>> LMAO. I notice you're forgetting that he's the one who pretty much came 
>> up
>> with the Apple computer....
>>
> Wasn't that Motorola more than Wozniak?  There are only a limited number 
> of ways to put the parts together and they are described in the tech 
> sheets.
>
> Wozniak is an interesting counter example of being in the right place at 
> the right time, same as Jobs, Gates, Allen, and others.  He didn't make 
> out as well, IMO.  "We gave it to the wheel and he didn't roll!" sort of 
> thing.

My knowledge of the Woz is limited but the story I've always heard is that 
he was the "technical genius" behind Apple while Jobs was the marketing 
genius. Don't know how accurate this is however.






0
7/1/2005 11:51:46 AM
"malloc" <malloc_SNIP2006@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:42c4df67$0$13809$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
> on July 01 12:25 am billwg wrote:
>
>> Organizationally, that is a wonderful feat, Kier.  Technologically, linux 
>> is a clone of unix and, according to folk like Bruce Perens who
>>  closely examined the SCO claims regarding copyright infringement, much 
>> of the linux code was copied from freeBSD and not Unix System V,
>>  but it was copied nonetheless.  SCO shows some 900,000 lines of code
>>  they say is infringing although their claims may be disputed.  But
>> it was copied from somewhere.
>
> Actually what he had to say regarding the alleged purloined code was this.
>
> `The Linux version of BPF is not an obfuscation of the BPF code. It is a
> clean-room re-implementation of BPF by Jay Schulist of the Linux
> developers, sharing none of the original source code'

So Bruce says, but it has the same variable names and documentation and, in 
any event, was not done by Torvalds, which was Kier's claim.
>
> And this in relation to the so called evidence that SCO produced in Las
> Vegas. I can find no reference to him saying `much of the linux code was
> copied from freeBSD' or anything like this. Do you have an explicit
> quote of him saying such a thing? In relation to the samples produced by
> SCO he states that it was `used in Linux under a valid license'.
>
> Where is this `much of the linux code was copied from freeBSD'
>
Well, malloc, what part of "used in Linux under a valid license" where the 
license comes from freeBSD do you not understand to mean "code copied from 
freeBSD"?  We are not talking about a call to an external module, remember, 
this is code in the Linux kernel being reviewed by Perens as to its 
liklihood that it was illegally copied from Unix System V.  Perens concludes 
that it was legally copied, but that is beside the point and proves that it 
was copied from somewhere.



0
billw (3525)
7/1/2005 12:07:31 PM
"Larry Qualig" <removethispartlqualig@uku.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:1120218706.69a2671ec9c7102c90d752a09a97d8cd@teranews...
>
> My knowledge of the Woz is limited but the story I've always heard is that 
> he was the "technical genius" behind Apple while Jobs was the marketing 
> genius. Don't know how accurate this is however.
>
From all accounts Wozniak is a wonderful person and every bit the shy, 
unassuming techie that he is portrayed as being.  I do believe, however, 
that any reasonably competent hardware designer of that era who was given 
the task of building a microprocessor based computer would come up with a 
functionally same hardware arrangement, since it is dictated by the CPU 
design.  What made Apple different was the firmware and software that 
distinguished the Apple pile of parts from somebody else's pile of parts.  I 
don't know how much Wozniak had to do with these items.

Further, people had to find out about Apple before they could buy one, and 
that was the marketing task, which succeeded better than most others in that 
time frame.  Apple was the only "home computer" company of the pre-PC era to 
evolve into a competitor with IBM.  The rest were cloners of the PC design. 


0
billw (3525)
7/1/2005 12:17:14 PM
Timberwoof <timberwoof@stimpberawoofm.com> wrote:

> In article <1gyz182.np2wvc3f2cxsN%ajbrehm@gmail.com>,
>  ajbrehm@gmail.com (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:
> 
> > 
> > > That right there is proof that Linux developers can't code worth a crap.
> > 
> > What Linux developers? What part of Linux are you referring to?
> 
> Oh! Are we discovering that it's not nice to generalize about Linux
> programmers? Gee, with the way Peter K�hlmann and others go on all the
> time, happily jumping on any excuse to call Mac users names like idiot and
> luser, one might have concluded that overgeneralization was a perfectly
> acceptable behavior.

What are you talking about?
 
> > > If a relatively small company like Apple Inc. can create a great OS
> > > with a world class desktop, why can't the linux knuckleheads do it?
> > 
> > If the Linux knuckleheads can create a modern kernel, why did Apple have
> > to use OSS software to run their GUI on?
> 
> Now, now. If Apple had not done that, you'd be criticizing them for not
> having done that.

What are you talking about?

-- 
Andrew J. Brehm
Marx Brothers Fan
PowerPC/Macintosh User
Supporter of Chicken Sandwiches
0
ajbrehm (990)
7/1/2005 12:35:32 PM
Larry Qualig wrote something like:

> 
> "malloc" <malloc_SNIP2006@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:42c50bca$0$10469$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
>> on July 01 03:00 am billwg wrote:
>>
>>> Wasn't that Motorola more than Wozniak?  There are only a limited
>>> number of ways to put the parts together and they are described in
>>> the tech sheets.
>>
>> Yea, if you put enough monkeys in a room with a bunch of parts they
>> would eventually come up with the Apple.
> 
> 
> Reminds me of a joke I heard a while back. We've all heard that if you
> "Place thousands of monkeys in a room with typewriters that given enough
> time one of the monkeys will produce a Shakespeare novel." But in order to
> duplicate Windows you would need 4 monkeys and about 2 hours time.

'Shakespeare' wrote novels?

-- 
-
 I use linux. Can anyone give me a good reason to use Windows?
- 
0
amosf (123)
7/1/2005 12:40:11 PM
"amosf" <amosf@bcs4me.com> wrote in message 
news:42c539a1@news.comindico.com.au...
> Larry Qualig wrote something like:
>
>>>
>>> Yea, if you put enough monkeys in a room with a bunch of parts they
>>> would eventually come up with the Apple.
>>
>>
>> Reminds me of a joke I heard a while back. We've all heard that if you
>> "Place thousands of monkeys in a room with typewriters that given enough
>> time one of the monkeys will produce a Shakespeare novel." But in order 
>> to
>> duplicate Windows you would need 4 monkeys and about 2 hours time.
>
> 'Shakespeare' wrote novels?
>


Wise guy? I posted this before 8:00AM and I was still on my first cup of 
coffee. At least I got the windows part right.





0
7/1/2005 12:43:18 PM
"billwg" <billw@twcf.rr.com> wrote:

> >> Wozniak is a folk myth.  Wozniak was the hardware specialist for the
> >> infant Apple Co and his main claim to fame was his "invention" of the
> >> non-standard use of the floppy disk and the interface hardware thereto.
> >
> > LMAO. I notice you're forgetting that he's the one who pretty much came up
> > with the Apple computer....
> >
> Wasn't that Motorola more than Wozniak?  There are only a limited number of 
> ways to put the parts together and they are described in the tech sheets.

ah, motorola didn't come into play until years later on the Lisa, the 
Apple / & // were based on a MOStek chip, the MOT chip was too expensive.

> Wozniak is an interesting counter example of being in the right place at the 
> right time, same as Jobs, Gates, Allen, and others.  He didn't make out as 
> well, IMO.  "We gave it to the wheel and he didn't roll!" sort of thing. 

ah, the Apple / & // are still considered works of genius by electronics 
engineers the world over, this wasn't a situation where some guy just 
put some parts together in a new way... it was an electronics break 
through by engineering an extremely capable machine for such a low price.

woz made millions, but since he and jobs never valued money, he spent 
much of his wealth on music festivals, divorce, and giving money away. 
he is still employed at apple, making something like 16K a year...

you can read more here:

http://apple2history.org/history/ah02.html
0
csma (3267)
7/1/2005 12:47:38 PM
Larry Qualig wrote something like:

> 
> "amosf" <amosf@bcs4me.com> wrote in message
> news:42c539a1@news.comindico.com.au...
>> Larry Qualig wrote something like:
>>
>>>>
>>>> Yea, if you put enough monkeys in a room with a bunch of parts they
>>>> would eventually come up with the Apple.
>>>
>>>
>>> Reminds me of a joke I heard a while back. We've all heard that if you
>>> "Place thousands of monkeys in a room with typewriters that given enough
>>> time one of the monkeys will produce a Shakespeare novel." But in order
>>> to
>>> duplicate Windows you would need 4 monkeys and about 2 hours time.
>>
>> 'Shakespeare' wrote novels?
>>
> 
> 
> Wise guy? I posted this before 8:00AM and I was still on my first cup of
> coffee. At least I got the windows part right.

Sorry. Should have put a smiley :)   It's near midnight here and it was
funny...  

-- 
-
 I use linux. Can anyone give me a good reason to use Windows?
- 
0
amosf (123)
7/1/2005 12:49:02 PM
on July 01 01:07 pm billwg wrote:

> "malloc" <malloc_SNIP2006@gmail.com> wrote in message

>> Where is this `much of the linux code was copied from freeBSD'

> Well, malloc, what part of "used in Linux under a valid license" 
> where the license comes from freeBSD do you not understand to mean 
> "code copied from freeBSD"?  We are not talking about a call to an 
> external module, remember, this is code in the Linux kernel being 
> reviewed by Perens as to its liklihood that it was illegally copied 
> from Unix System V.  Perens concludes that it was legally copied, but
>  that is beside the point and proves that it was copied from 
> somewhere.

Your original statement claims that there is wholesale copying from
FreeBSD. Perins was refering to six samples provided by SCO. Now where
is this other `much of the linux code was copied from freeBSD'?
0
7/1/2005 12:56:47 PM
on June 30 01:56 am billwg wrote:

> "Mike Cox" <mikecoxlinux@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
> news:m0hdfgy9ih.fsf@yahoo.com...

>> Question.  If Linux is so great and <snip>

>> If a relatively small company like Apple Inc. can create a great OS
>> with a world class desktop, why can't the linux knuckleheads do it?
>> 
> I think that the answer is pretty obvious. <snip>

One troll kissing the arse of another. Nothing to see here. Might as
well move on.
0
7/1/2005 1:00:39 PM
On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 02:00:30 +0000, billwg wrote:

> 
> "Liam Slider" <liam@nospam.liamslider.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2005.07.01.01.48.51.788112@nospam.liamslider.com...
>> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 23:30:31 +0000, billwg wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Wozniak is a folk myth.  Wozniak was the hardware specialist for the
>>> infant Apple Co and his main claim to fame was his "invention" of the
>>> non-standard use of the floppy disk and the interface hardware thereto.
>>
>>
>> LMAO. I notice you're forgetting that he's the one who pretty much came
>> up with the Apple computer....
>>
> Wasn't that Motorola more than Wozniak?

No.

> There are only a limited number
> of ways to put the parts together and they are described in the tech
> sheets.

.... which explais why there were so many microcomputers built around the
650s when Wozniak designed the Apple I.

> 
> Wozniak is an interesting counter example of being in the right place at
> the right time, same as Jobs, Gates, Allen, and others.  He didn't make
> out as well, IMO. 

Apparently your opinion differs from his.

> "We gave it to the wheel and he didn't roll!" sort of thing.

-- 
Rick
<http://ricks-place.tripod.com/sound/2cents.wav>

0
none69 (3046)
7/1/2005 1:11:12 PM
On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 12:17:14 +0000, billwg wrote:

> 
> "Larry Qualig" <removethispartlqualig@uku.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1120218706.69a2671ec9c7102c90d752a09a97d8cd@teranews...
>>
>> My knowledge of the Woz is limited but the story I've always heard is
>> that he was the "technical genius" behind Apple while Jobs was the
>> marketing genius. Don't know how accurate this is however.
>>
> From all accounts Wozniak is a wonderful person and every bit the shy,
> unassuming techie that he is portrayed as being.  I do believe, however,
> that any reasonably competent hardware designer of that era who was given
> the task of building a microprocessor based computer would come up with a
> functionally same hardware arrangement, since it is dictated by the CPU
> design.

Except they didn't.

> What made Apple different was the firmware and software that
> distinguished the Apple pile of parts from somebody else's pile of parts. 
> I don't know how much Wozniak had to do with these items.

He wrote the Apple I and II firmware. He came up with the color circuitry.

> 
> Further, people had to find out about Apple before they could buy one, and
> that was the marketing task, which succeeded better than most others in
> that time frame.  Apple was the only "home computer" company of the pre-PC
> era to evolve into a competitor with IBM.  The rest were cloners of the PC
> design.



-- 
Rick
<http://ricks-place.tripod.com/sound/2cents.wav>

0
none69 (3046)
7/1/2005 1:17:21 PM

amosf wrote:
> Larry Qualig wrote something like:
>
> >
> > "amosf" <amosf@bcs4me.com> wrote in message
> > news:42c539a1@news.comindico.com.au...
> >> Larry Qualig wrote something like:
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> Yea, if you put enough monkeys in a room with a bunch of parts they
> >>>> would eventually come up with the Apple.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Reminds me of a joke I heard a while back. We've all heard that if you
> >>> "Place thousands of monkeys in a room with typewriters that given enough
> >>> time one of the monkeys will produce a Shakespeare novel." But in order
> >>> to
> >>> duplicate Windows you would need 4 monkeys and about 2 hours time.
> >>
> >> 'Shakespeare' wrote novels?
> >>
> >
> >
> > Wise guy? I posted this before 8:00AM and I was still on my first cup of
> > coffee. At least I got the windows part right.
>
> Sorry. Should have put a smiley :)   It's near midnight here and it was
> funny...
>
> --
> -
>  I use linux. Can anyone give me a good reason to use Windows?
> -



No need for a smiley, I knew exactly what you meant.

0
lqualig (4343)
7/1/2005 1:52:18 PM
"Peter K�hlmann" <peter.koehlmann@t-online.de> stated in post
da2ttt$5ct$02$1@news.t-online.com on 7/1/05 1:12 AM:

> begin  virus.txt.scr Snot snotted:
> 
>> "Peter Hayes" <peter@seahaze.demon.co.uk> stated in post
>> 1gyzixx.pdjjj1zxpzjxN%peter@seahaze.demon.co.uk on 6/30/05 11:56 AM:
>> 
>>>> First, your ignorant bigotry is showing.
>>>> Second Apple enforces its UI guidelines. Apple is one company. 'Linux'
>>>> is not a company. Red Hat, IBM, Novell are companies.
>>> 
>>> He'd be better comparing the Apple GUI with KDE *or* Gnome *or* <insert
>>> favourite window manager here>, not comparing it with all the Linux GUIs
>>> simultaneously.
>> 
>> Are you unable to see why your comment is incorrect?
>> 
>> 
> 
> You tell him. In detail. Naturally you will provide evidence and reasons for
> your conclusions

I have.  Read my other posts in the thread.
> 
> After all, you are one of the dumbest csma trolls around. You will always
> find something to post

Wow... Peter is angry and bitter again - and tossing around insults.  What a
shock.  :)

You forgot to sign your post with your normal signature... You are slipping.


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




0
SNIT (24281)
7/1/2005 2:12:19 PM
begin  virus.txt.scr Snot snotted:

> "Peter Köhlmann" <peter.koehlmann@t-online.de> stated in post
> da2ttt$5ct$02$1@news.t-online.com on 7/1/05 1:12 AM:
> 
>> begin  virus.txt.scr Snot snotted:
>> 
>>> "Peter Hayes" <peter@seahaze.demon.co.uk> stated in post
>>> 1gyzixx.pdjjj1zxpzjxN%peter@seahaze.demon.co.uk on 6/30/05 11:56 AM:
>>> 
>>>>> First, your ignorant bigotry is showing.
>>>>> Second Apple enforces its UI guidelines. Apple is one company. 'Linux'
>>>>> is not a company. Red Hat, IBM, Novell are companies.
>>>> 
>>>> He'd be better comparing the Apple GUI with KDE *or* Gnome *or* <insert
>>>> favourite window manager here>, not comparing it with all the Linux
>>>> GUIs simultaneously.
>>> 
>>> Are you unable to see why your comment is incorrect?
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> You tell him. In detail. Naturally you will provide evidence and reasons
>> for your conclusions
> 
> I have.  Read my other posts in the thread.
>> 

No. Provide the Msg-IDs.

You see, I think you are not just a troll (a rather stupid one, to boot),
but also an outright liar

< Snot snip >
-- 
If you had any brains, you'd be dangerous.

0
Peter.Koehlmann (13228)
7/1/2005 2:57:26 PM
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 23:25:54 +0000, billwg wrote:

> 
> "Kier" <vallon@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message 
> news:pan.2005.06.30.18.02.20.199237@tiscali.co.uk...
>>
>> Really? How many of them wrote a working OS from scratch while still a
>> student, and then persuaded a lot of people all over teh world to join in
>> helping him develop it?
> 
> Organizationally, that is a wonderful feat, Kier.  Technologically, linux is 
> a clone of unix and, according to folk like Bruce Perens who closely 
> examined the SCO claims regarding copyright infringement, much of the linux 
> code was copied from freeBSD and not Unix System V, but it was copied 
> nonetheless.  SCO shows some 900,000 lines of code they say is infringing 
> although their claims may be disputed.  But it was copied from somewhere.

Was it? Do you have any evidence of that? You know SCo has just about zero
credibility here, don;t you?

And if the code came from freebsd, it wasn't copied illegally, since the
BSD licence allows pretty much any use.

-- 
Kier

0
vallon (8614)
7/1/2005 3:12:34 PM
On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 06:47:38 -0600, Oxford wrote:

> woz made millions, but since he and jobs never valued money,

He didn't. Jobs did. Woz was the technical genius, Jobs was the little
asshole marketing drone.

0
liam8 (4986)
7/1/2005 4:06:41 PM
On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 07:51:46 -0400, Larry Qualig wrote:

> My knowledge of the Woz is limited but the story I've always heard is that
> he was the "technical genius" behind Apple while Jobs was the marketing
> genius. Don't know how accurate this is however

Pretty accurate.

0
liam8 (4986)
7/1/2005 4:07:10 PM
On 2005-07-01, amosf <amosf@bcs4me.com> wrote:
> Larry Qualig wrote something like:
>
>> 
>> "malloc" <malloc_SNIP2006@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:42c50bca$0$10469$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
>>> on July 01 03:00 am billwg wrote:
>>>
>>>> Wasn't that Motorola more than Wozniak?  There are only a limited
>>>> number of ways to put the parts together and they are described in
>>>> the tech sheets.
>>>
>>> Yea, if you put enough monkeys in a room with a bunch of parts they
>>> would eventually come up with the Apple.
>> 
>> 
>> Reminds me of a joke I heard a while back. We've all heard that if you
>> "Place thousands of monkeys in a room with typewriters that given enough
>> time one of the monkeys will produce a Shakespeare novel." But in order to
>> duplicate Windows you would need 4 monkeys and about 2 hours time.
>
> 'Shakespeare' wrote novels?
>

	Most English teachers tend to act as if this were infact the case.

-- 
Apple: Because a large harddrive is for power users.
                                                                  |||
	                                                         / | \
0
jedi (14753)
7/1/2005 4:10:23 PM
On 2005-07-01, Rick <none@trollfeed.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 12:17:14 +0000, billwg wrote:
>
>> 
>> "Larry Qualig" <removethispartlqualig@uku.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:1120218706.69a2671ec9c7102c90d752a09a97d8cd@teranews...
>>>
>>> My knowledge of the Woz is limited but the story I've always heard is
>>> that he was the "technical genius" behind Apple while Jobs was the
>>> marketing genius. Don't know how accurate this is however.
>>>
>> From all accounts Wozniak is a wonderful person and every bit the shy,
>> unassuming techie that he is portrayed as being.  I do believe, however,
>> that any reasonably competent hardware designer of that era who was given
>> the task of building a microprocessor based computer would come up with a
>> functionally same hardware arrangement, since it is dictated by the CPU
>> design.
>
> Except they didn't.

	...and what the did come up with were machines like the Altair.

>
>> What made Apple different was the firmware and software that
>> distinguished the Apple pile of parts from somebody else's pile of parts. 
>> I don't know how much Wozniak had to do with these items.
>
> He wrote the Apple I and II firmware. He came up with the color circuitry.
[deletia]

-- 
Apple: Because a large harddrive is for power users.
                                                                  |||
	                                                         / | \
0
jedi (14753)
7/1/2005 4:11:26 PM
On 2005-07-01, AZ Nomad <aznomad@PmunOgeBOX.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 20:39:04 -0700, Ralph <no@way.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Timberwoof wrote:
>
>>>  OS X (and Mac
>>> Classic) has been very good over the years in that regard.
>
>>If Mac Classic was so good, why did they dump it for an completely different
>>architecture? If MAC hardware is so great, why is Apple switching to Intel? 
>
> Newsflash:  intel h/w circa 2005 != intel h/w circa 1985.

	By 1985, Intel hardware had infact reached parity with Motorola. 
There was no good reason that one couldn't have built something like NeXT 
on 386 as well as 68030.

	It's the pre-1985 intel cpus that suck badly and it's the 
crude pre-386 x86 OSen that suck badly. The crapulence of later MS-DOS 
and Windows is not the fault of intel. That is Microsoft's screwup and
Microsoft's screwup alone.

-- 
Apple: Because a large harddrive is for power users.
                                                                  |||
	                                                         / | \
0
jedi (14753)
7/1/2005 4:19:48 PM
On 2005-06-30, Timberwoof <timberwoof@stimpberawoofm.com> wrote:
> In article <m04qbgy2xq.fsf@yahoo.com>, Mike Cox <mikecoxlinux@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> NoStop <nostop@stopspam.com> writes:
>> 
>> > Mike Cox wrote:
[deletia]
>> I'm using GNU's Emacs.  This thing is a gigantic ball of string
>> (typical of the GNU/Linux movement. Who knows how to fix anything!
>> I'm lucky I even got this far.  Getting gnus set up and figuring out
>> how to post was a 5 hour effort!  First you need to know an obscure
>> programming language (lisp), then you need to figure out what commands
>> corrospond to what you need to do.  Then you need to figure out how to
>> even get around emacs with its thousands of commands and key combinations.  
>> 
>> It is not easy to use at all!  This is representative of what GNU and
>> Linux stand for.  The uber nerd experience.  With Linux you need to
>> learn fdisk and partitioning with weird things like / , and swap and a
>> bazillion file systems.  Reiser, Reiser4, XFS, AndrewFS, ext2, ext3,
>> the list goes on!  Then you need to know how to compile a kernel and
>> figure out how to use CVS and the patch to command to compile it
>> back.  Then you need to 
>> 
>> Since OS X is based on BSD, I'm able to use this emacs monster from my
>> iBook.  But, since OS X is so easy to use and powerful, I wonder why
>> Linux developers haven't come up with anything remotely as good.
>
> Because Linux developers are geeks who enjoy complicated stuff for its own sake, 

	Emacs has nothing to do with the geekiness of Linux users. This 
whole notion of using Emacs as your OS predates Linux entirely and really
has nothing to do with Linux beyond the fact that you can get a version of
Emacs for it.

	Then again, you could run Emacs on Ataris too.

[deletia]

	If you are not up to using Emacs like an OS, perhaps you shouldn't
torture yourself trying.


-- 
Apple: Because a large harddrive is for power users.
                                                                  |||
	                                                         / | \
0
jedi (14753)
7/1/2005 4:22:42 PM
On 2005-07-01, Timberwoof <timberwoof@stimpberawoofm.com> wrote:
> In article <pan.2005.06.30.14.01.02.562872@nospam.liamslider.com>,
>  Liam Slider <liam@nospam.liamslider.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 04:56:42 +0000, Timberwoof wrote:
>> 
>> > Because Linux developers are geeks who enjoy complicated stuff for its
>> > own sake, don't mind a crufty user interface, and rate an application by
>> > the number of knobs to frob. They complain when an application reduces
>> > the main UI to the barest essentials -- it takes away their sense of
>> > control over the application.
>> <snip more GUI complaints>
>> 
>> Where are you from, 10 years ago?
>
> No, actually Linux Fedora Core 3. 

	Since it's a beta version of an Enterprise SERVER distribution, 
this is a bit to be expected.

>
>> Also, learn to wrap your posts properly.
>
> Use a reader that deals with posts no matter how they're wrapped.
>


-- 
Apple: Because a large harddrive is for power users.
                                                                  |||
	                                                         / | \
0
jedi (14753)
7/1/2005 4:24:04 PM
On 2005-07-01, Peter K�hlmann <peter.koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> begin  virus.txt.scr Timberwoof wrote:
>
>< snip >
[deletia]
>> In the same way in which the basic ugliness of a language like Fortran
>> compares to the simplicity and elegance, yet power of a language like C,
>> one would find that different UIs have measurable power and elegance.
>> 
>> Sure, you can do structured programming in Fortran or even assembler ...
>> but it's really nasty and the languages don't inherently support it the
>> way Pascal or C do. Similarly there are ways in which the OS X UI is
>> better than that of Windows and either KDE or Gnome.
>> 
>> I have used Windows, Macintosh and Gnome. Because of its elegance and the
>> way its applications are implemented, I prefer OS X. I suppose I could
>> write a masters' thesis on what I just described, but I better do it at a
>> university where they don't have prejudices about UIs the way you do. ...
>> where do you teach?
>> 
>
> And you failed to provide even a single example of OSX "elegance"
> Zhanks for admitting that there is none

	He even managed to drag in an unsubstantiated comparison
between C and Fortran.

-- 
Apple: Because a large harddrive is for power users.
                                                                  |||
	                                                         / | \
0
jedi (14753)
7/1/2005 4:27:56 PM
On 2005-07-01, C Lund <clund@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote:
> In article <ivqdp2-mqq.ln1@grendel.myth>,
>  Jim Richardson <warlock@eskimo.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 10:39:09 +0200,
>>  C Lund <clund@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote:
>> > In article <pan.2005.06.30.04.16.10.246982@rapskat.com>,
>> >  rapskat <rapskat@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult>
>> >> I take it by this you are trying to convey that in creating themes for
>> >> other platforms/WM's that emulate the look and feel of Aqua, people are
>> >> "making obeisance to something that it is obvious they do not comprehend"?
>> >> Perhaps you are right.  Please explain just what mysterious element these
>> >> themes and the people that use them just aren't getting if you would.
>> > We maccies have been trying to explain this to wintrolls since forever 
>> > - and more recently, Linux users. And we've had no luck at all.
>> so you're saying that you aren't very good at communicating ideas?
>
> That's one explanation - although that would mean that no maccies are 
> good at explaining ideas.
>
> More likely, the problem is that we maccies have been trying to 
> communicate this idea (ease-of-use and so on)  to people who simply do 
> not have the ability to understand it. After all, "it just works" is 
> of little value to somebody who sees the DIY tinkering of Linux as one 

	It's actually of DRAMATIC value to the DIY sort of crowd. It is
the DIY sort of crowd that is actually the most demanding on ANY interface.
They want things there way, they want efficiency and they don't want to be
subjected to any unecessary work or complexity.

> of the main attractions of a system. As for the wintrolls in here, the 
> concept of something that "just works" is beyond comprehension. At 
> least you Linux-users have a "I can make it work myself" mentality.

	Nope. The Linux users here can be reassured that if they
are put into a position where THEY ARE MADE to make it work themselves
that they will have the tools to do so and some hope that they can
actually achieve this. Or someone else can and give them some fix
that can be easily cut/pasted even in an all ASCII forum.
	
>
> I have more luck with this in the real world.
>

	Without a good solid foundation, a fancy chandelier is meaningless.

-- 
Apple: Because a large harddrive is for power users.
                                                                  |||
	                                                         / | \
0
jedi (14753)
7/1/2005 4:32:17 PM
Liam Slider <liam@nospam.liamslider.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 06:47:38 -0600, Oxford wrote:
> 
> > woz made millions, but since he and jobs never valued money,
> 
> He didn't. Jobs did. Woz was the technical genius, Jobs was the little
> asshole marketing drone.

liam, woz is a millionaire many times over.... he lost quite a bit in a 
divorce and of course spent many millions on 2 US Festivals... but woz 
made just as much as steve in the early years...

"Woz became disenchanted with Apple corporate operations after a few 
years; it was no longer fun for him, and he became no longer actively 
involved in the company, although he is still an Apple employee today. 
At that time, he had stock worth $100 million dollars "

http://mtamicro.com/rb/rb072000.html

from 1998:

As employee No. 1, Woz still receives a nominal salary of about $12,000 
per year from Apple. But he has never gone back to the computer business 
or tried to ring the start-up bell again, despite having lost the bulk 
of his Apple windfall. Of the $150 to $200 million he made after Apple 
went public, Woz was relieved of nearly half - in a divorce, his 
commercially unsuccessful rock concerts (the US Festivals lost $25 
million in two years), and other ventures. In the late '80s, he put his 
remaining assets into tax-free municipal bonds, safe from the 
depredation of wise guys.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/6.09/woz_pr.html
0
csma (3267)
7/1/2005 4:33:19 PM
On 2005-06-30, Timberwoof <timberwoof@stimpberawoofm.com> wrote:
> In article <42c37f9e@news.comindico.com.au>, amosf <amosf@bcs4me.com> wrote:
>
>> Timberwoof wrote something like:
>> 
>> > In article <pan.2005.06.30.02.58.31.643912@rapskat.com>,
>> >  rapskat <rapskat@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > 
>> >> Aqua is just a look, not a product.  There are a wealth of themes for
>> >> both Windows and Linux that can emulate this look if you want it.
>> > 
>> > You are mistaken ... but take comfort in the fact that many, many
>> > developers think that "skinning" a gui is the same thing as changing its
>> > behavior.
>> 
>> Okay, so aqua is a look /and/ feel.
>
> Well, then. There you go. It's not just a look that can be emulated with a 
> theme.

	The notion of a "theme" in X is a little bit more comprehensive
that what you seem to be used to.

-- 
Apple: Because a large harddrive is for power users.
                                                                  |||
	                                                         / | \
0
jedi (14753)
7/1/2005 4:33:36 PM
On 2005-07-01, Larry Qualig <removethispartlqualig@uku.co.uk> wrote:
>
> "Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:lpxwcxokn2ou$.1efm125h3k114$.dlg@40tude.net...
>> [snips]
>>
>> On 30 Jun 2005 12:19:02 -0700, lqualig@uku.co.uk wrote:
>>
>> Depends what you use it for, don't it?
>>
>> Depends what you use it for, don't it?
>>
>> Depends what you use it for, don't it?
>>
>
>
> True but.... what do people "generally" use a laptop for? Most businesses 

	I use mine for transcoding DVs to MPEG2. I hear that 64bit code
for 6bit cpus can give quite a boost to that sort of stuff.

> and Fortune 500 companies still run 32-bit operating systems. While the 
> "novelty" of running a 64-bit OS on a personal laptop is interesting, I'd be 
> surprised if this were a "necessity."

	Such hardware is commonplace, why not be able to exploit it.

-- 
Apple: Because a large harddrive is for power users.
                                                                  |||
	                                                         / | \
0
jedi (14753)
7/1/2005 4:39:30 PM
amosf <amosf@bcs4me.com> writes:

> Timberwoof wrote something like:
> 
> > In article <pan.2005.06.30.02.58.31.643912@rapskat.com>,
> >  rapskat <rapskat@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> Aqua is just a look, not a product.  There are a wealth of themes for
> >> both Windows and Linux that can emulate this look if you want it.
> > 
> > You are mistaken ... but take comfort in the fact that many, many
> > developers think that "skinning" a gui is the same thing as changing its
> > behavior.
> 
> Okay, so aqua is a look /and/ feel. 

Right.

As for whether it's a *superior* look and feel...well, that's
completely subjective.  IMO, Windows has a better L&F than Aqua
because Windows supports click-through and has much better
context-menu support.

-- 
Tukla, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism
There are too many stupid people and nobody to eat them.
   - Carlos Mencia
0
tukla_ratte (438)
7/1/2005 6:03:57 PM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 13:52:08 -0700,
 Snit <SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Jim Richardson" <warlock@eskimo.com> stated in post
> tcqdp2-mqq.ln1@grendel.myth on 6/30/05 11:31 AM:
>
>>> It (potentially) can look / work well or poorly for any given need (or at
>>> least many).
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> and so an OSX, mix up a bunch of different apps, X apps, COCOA apps, the
>> interfaces can also change. Esp when you add in "classic" Mac apps to
>> the mix. 
>
> Correct.  Do you understand why this is not analogous to the KDE / GNOME /
> Other situation for Linux?

not really, no. Except that in the OSX case, software installs are
harder than in the Linux case with a std package manager like Synaptic. 

>> 
>> Like GNOME/KDE however, there is a lot of internal consistancy, which is
>> quite sufficient.
>
> Do you really not understand the differences between what you are trying to
> equate?


Perhaps you could be specific in the differences you see? 

>
>>>>> Configurability and flexibility are a two edges sword.  I assume you know
>>>>> the pros, so do not take my lack of comments on that here to mean I do not
>>>>> know that there are some pros...
>>>>> 
>>>>> With that said, a well designed interface can be hurt by too much
>>>>> configurability.  How many more accidents would there be on the road if it
>>>>> were easy to "configure" which peddle was the gas, which was the brake...
>>>>> and which direction you moved the steering wheel to turn left?  The
>>>>> relative consistency (and lack of easy configurability) from car to car is
>>>>> a *huge* advantage and even, literally, a life saver.
>>>>> 
>>>>> With Linux almost anything is possible - but it is not consistent from
>>>>> machine to machine, from application to application, or - sometimes - even
>>>>> within the same application (while this is true for other OS's, it is much
>>>>> more true with Linux).  This leads to a Linux community that often blames
>>>>> the user when the user can not efficiently use their computer.  It also
>>>>> requires a larger learning curve and makes shared work stations less
>>>>> appealing.
>>>> 
>>>> Actually, this is very rarely the kind of issue you make it out to be. For
>>>> instance, GNOME and KDE are both highly configurable, and even more so
>>>> with the right add ons...but they are still GNOME and KDE at the heart of
>>>> it and still work within their frameworks. Linux still follows a fairly
>>>> Unix-like philosophy of lots of standard parts plugging into each other in
>>>> order to do various tasks. While people can customise Linux
>>>> considerably...it's still Linux.
>>> 
>>> But, as you said, it can be customized considerably.  That is not always a
>>> good thing.  While I do not agree with all of the decisions Apple makes with
>>> OS X, I am happy that they have such a large focus on ease-of-use.  Makes a
>>> big difference with productivity.
>> 
>> of course it's a good thing.
>> 
>> If the user can't handle something other than the default config, they
>> shouldn't go out of their way to change it...
>
> And should likely be using OS X... Though it depends on the specifics of the
> situation, of course.
>
> Would you want cars that were easily configured to switch the brake and gas?
> How about which way you turned the steering wheel to go left?  Do you think
> all configurability is good?  If not, where do you draw the line?

If you know enough to reroute the cables, and gears, cars *are* that
configurable. If you don't know, then you can't do it. 


>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> , speed on the same hardware as other "mainstream" operating systems,
>>>>>> choice (with Linux you can keep your OS, but choose your Desktop
>>>>>> Environment. Not so on other mainstream desktop operating systems. Plus
>>>>>> we have greater choice of hardware as well), stability and security (we
>>>>>> have had less malware problems than OSX actually, although that numbers
>>>>>> is still laughable compared to Windows.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I would like to see your support that Linux has had less malware than OS
>>>>> X...
>>>> 
>>>> The only true viruses that Linux has ever had have been...well...confined
>>>> to the lab for all intents and purposes, and never really working even
>>>> there. OSX has had a tiny few cases I believe.
>>> 
>>> None that have spread... I would say that are, for all intents and purposes,
>>> equal here. Linux, I believe, has had some in the past, but none of any
>>> importance since OS X was even in beta... and OS X has had none of any
>>> importance at all.
>> 
>> pretty much. Both are far better than redmondware, picking differences
>> in this, beyond that level, is arguing about how man angels can pogo on
>> a pinhead. 
>
> Agreed.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> And OSX has had a few more stability issues than Linux overall I've
>>>>>> heard, although that's been improving a great deal)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Again I would like to see your support.  10.0 (or maybe 10.1) was the
>>>>> last time I can say OS X has had any real stability issues.
>>>> 
>>>> True, as I said, it's very minor. Nothing approaching Windows. OSX is a
>>>> rock of stability in comparison, but I would not go so far as to say that
>>>> it's *quite* as stable as linux. Probably not even big enough for us to be
>>>> bothering arguing about though.
>>> 
>>> Agreed that both OS X and Linux are amazingly stable.  I have seen both lock
>>> up (or at least effectively lock up) but it is rare in both cases.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> , ease of install of a vast software library (package management
>>>>>> systems like urpmi, apt, emerge, and so forth give us access to many
>>>>>> thousands of software titles with a few simple commands, or with a
>>>>>> simple GUI. Just a simple download and install of virtually anything
>>>>>> for our systems), etc...
>>>>> 
>>>>> Easy for an experienced user... for most novices, Linux is a huge
>>>>> mystery - more so than OS X or even Windows.
>>>> 
>>>> What's so hard, so mysterious about clicking on the "install software
>>>> using <whatever>" menu item and choosing the application you want from the
>>>> well organised listing, or better, searching within that to find your
>>>> application. Then clicking the "install" button?
>>> 
>>> Work with some novices and you shall see... :)
>> 
>> same in either case. Some people can't handle anything higher tech than
>> a broken twig. Pat them on the head and go on your way.
>
> Or make a living educating them... As I do.  :)
>

some people are beyond educating.  

>


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCxZIHd90bcYOAWPYRAhqjAKCrRcza5xhNr7cFw5rk8hW8ifdnzgCg4nRb
/qLy0xZQUL8NXkmj78rJUnU=
=+cxS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Jim Richardson     http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
One man's religion is another man's belly laugh.
0
warlock (9522)
7/1/2005 6:57:12 PM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 11:00:43 +0200,
 C Lund <clund@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote:
> In article <ivqdp2-mqq.ln1@grendel.myth>,
>  Jim Richardson <warlock@eskimo.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 10:39:09 +0200,
>>  C Lund <clund@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote:
>> > In article <pan.2005.06.30.04.16.10.246982@rapskat.com>,
>> >  rapskat <rapskat@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult>
>> >> I take it by this you are trying to convey that in creating themes for
>> >> other platforms/WM's that emulate the look and feel of Aqua, people are
>> >> "making obeisance to something that it is obvious they do not comprehend"?
>> >> Perhaps you are right.  Please explain just what mysterious element these
>> >> themes and the people that use them just aren't getting if you would.
>> > We maccies have been trying to explain this to wintrolls since forever 
>> > - and more recently, Linux users. And we've had no luck at all.
>> so you're saying that you aren't very good at communicating ideas?
>
> That's one explanation - although that would mean that no maccies are 
> good at explaining ideas.
>
> More likely, the problem is that we maccies have been trying to 
> communicate this idea (ease-of-use and so on)  to people who simply do 
> not have the ability to understand it. After all, "it just works" is 
> of little value to somebody who sees the DIY tinkering of Linux as one 
> of the main attractions of a system. As for the wintrolls in here, the 
> concept of something that "just works" is beyond comprehension. At 
> least you Linux-users have a "I can make it work myself" mentality.
>
> I have more luck with this in the real world.
>


more likely, your original claim, was in error. 

As for "it just works" OSX is riddled with it's own problems there. For
one, OSX doesn't deal well with heterogenous home networks. I have had
much more success setting up Linux to print to MS-Windows shared
printers than OSX on an iBook.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCxZSHd90bcYOAWPYRAtZcAJ9bdvxZQ3iUP0HTc092mVG5g8bFwgCgxEdL
yaojyW+5VCSz4oRWyTbSRQM=
=14M2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Jim Richardson     http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
I never believe anything until it's been officially denied.
0
warlock (9522)
7/1/2005 7:07:51 PM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 21:38:45 +0100,
 Peter Hayes <peter@seahaze.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Jim Richardson <warlock@eskimo.com> wrote:
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>> 
>> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 03:06:32 -0700,
>>  Peter Ammon <gershwin@splintermac.com> wrote:
>> > Ralph wrote:
>> >> Peter Ammon wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >>>>>It's not just looks. (All too many Linux application programmers mistake
>> >>>>>the ability to change an application's skin for being able to change its
>> >>>>>feel.) A part of technical merit is how well an app follows proven UI
>> >>>>>conventions and how well it presents a coherent model of the underlying
>> >>>>>concepts to a user.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>And Linux and it's applications don't do this?  If a user knows the basic
>> >>>>concepts of computer use, then they would have no issues with Linux et al
>> >>>>at all.
>> >>>
>> >>>If you honestly believe that, you're utterly out of touch.  I have major
>> >>>issues with Linux and I certainly know the basic concepts of computer use.
>> >>>
>> >> 
>> >> Ahhh, the claim without specifics, how typical. 
>> >
>> > I guess I figured it was self evident.  But if you insist, here's a
>> > short list of issues I typically encounter.
>> >
>> > 1) Configuring X has never been straightforward.  I have always had to
>> > run a program from the command line and had to guess a few times before
>> > I got it to support a tolerable resolution and refresh rate.
>> >
>> 
>> Yes, configuring X can be straightforward.  Especially with X.org, try a
>> liveCD called PCLinuxOS for an example. 
>
> Just don't try it with a SuSE 9.3 live CD. You'll end up going round in
> circles.
>


I think it depends on hardware. 

Do you have an OSX liveCD I can compare it to? 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCxZS+d90bcYOAWPYRAlVJAJ9p5vH56TDCeEKvXRrBvx2yiYs8yQCeN0uO
6T4eXlT+l7dgk22a2mhtrVQ=
=CcK/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Jim Richardson     http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Never appeal to a man's 'better nature.' He may not have one. Invoking his
 self-interest gives you more leverage. 	-- Lazarus Long
0
warlock (9522)
7/1/2005 7:08:46 PM
In article <89ggp2-t6g.ln1@grendel.myth>,
 Jim Richardson <warlock@eskimo.com> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 13:52:08 -0700,
>  Snit <SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> > "Jim Richardson" <warlock@eskimo.com> stated in post
> > tcqdp2-mqq.ln1@grendel.myth on 6/30/05 11:31 AM:
> >
> >>> It (potentially) can look / work well or poorly for any given need (or at
> >>> least many).
> >>>> 
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> and so an OSX, mix up a bunch of different apps, X apps, COCOA apps, the
> >> interfaces can also change. Esp when you add in "classic" Mac apps to
> >> the mix. 
> >
> > Correct.  Do you understand why this is not analogous to the KDE / GNOME /
> > Other situation for Linux?
> 
> not really, no. Except that in the OSX case, software installs are
> harder than in the Linux case with a std package manager like Synaptic. 

Really?

On OS X, you generally just drag the app where you want it. Just how is 
Linux easier than that?

Seems to me that you really ought to try using OS X before you criticize 
it.
0
Nowhere (5224)
7/1/2005 7:12:53 PM
On Friday 01 July 2005 01:52, Peter Ammon <gershwin@splintermac.com>
(<DN-dnV9zyLLba1nfRVn-3w@comcast.com>) wrote:

> I tried Knoppix today.  Here's what I found.

I'm sure your lack of experience is illustrative.

> Roughly six minutes of clicking on things and I've had lots of issues.

You have lots of issues.
0
7/1/2005 7:19:01 PM
On Friday 01 July 2005 06:47, Oxford <csma@mac.com>
(<csma-7A0124.06473801072005@news.uswest.net>) wrote:

> ah, the Apple / & // are still considered works of genius by electronics
> engineers the world over

Are you really that stupid, Oxtard?  They weren't considered "works of
genius" even when first released.
0
7/1/2005 7:23:29 PM
"Jim Richardson" <warlock@eskimo.com> stated in post
89ggp2-t6g.ln1@grendel.myth on 7/1/05 11:57 AM:

>> And should likely be using OS X... Though it depends on the specifics of the
>> situation, of course.
>> 
>> Would you want cars that were easily configured to switch the brake and gas?
>> How about which way you turned the steering wheel to go left?  Do you think
>> all configurability is good?  If not, where do you draw the line?
> 
> If you know enough to reroute the cables, and gears, cars *are* that
> configurable. If you don't know, then you can't do it.

Sure, one could do extensive work to reconfigure a car to be like that - and
there may even be people who would do better with such a car.  Do you see
why having a switch on the dashboard to do such re-configuring would be a
*bad* thing... And likely lead to the loss of life.


>>>> Work with some novices and you shall see... :)
>>> 
>>> same in either case. Some people can't handle anything higher tech than
>>> a broken twig. Pat them on the head and go on your way.
>> 
>> Or make a living educating them... As I do.  :)
>> 
> 
> some people are beyond educating.

I find that to be true of only very, very few people.  Many never become
techies, but most can become proficient in the tasks they care about.   I
will grant that when something goes wrong, there are many who just freeze up
and are lost.

That is one of the reasons I like OS X: it is more consistent and easier to
use for more people while still being very powerful for the advanced user.


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




0
SNIT (24281)
7/1/2005 7:28:56 PM
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 20:24:39 -0500, rapskat wrote
(in article <pan.2005.07.01.01.24.36.903379@rapskat.com>):

>> If you want to make the least convincing argument possible, then I guess
>> there is no point in doing better.  congrats.
> 
> I've learned long ago that exchange in these groups is cathartic at best.
> I save my "convincing" arguments for where they may actually have some
> purpose.

You make a good point.

> Linux has technological and economical advantages over any proprietary
> platform.

Has some technological, and some obvious economical advantages 
over any proprietary platform.  It does not lead in all 
technologies, and there are hidden costs to Linux that must be 
considered before blindly moving to it.  "TCO" is a horrid, 
bullshit marketing term invented years ago to justify spending a 
lot of money on management software, and it has been taken over 
for use in the OS wars (volume II, the wrath of Gates).  But, 
there is a point inside, and no OS is free to use completely, 
particularly in business, where people must be fluent in it to 
be productive.

>>> Yeah, you Apple people seem to be overly concerned with appearances.
>> 
>> A) I was hacking on UNIX systems long before I ever saw windows or a
>> Mac.  I am just as comfortable on a Linux machine as I am under OS X,
>> perhaps more so.
> 
> You may be comfortable with it, but I daresay for desktop use you are not
> all that familiar with it by your comments.

I use it every day.  I do not use it for every single task put 
before me, just as I do not use the Mac for every task.  I use 
each for what they are best at, and stay away from the weak 
spots.  I have been using Linux since RedHat first appeared on 
the scene, but migrated through a bunch of distros and landed at 
SuSE lately.  Probably not much longer though, may go GenToo for 
a spell.

>> B) I meant in the sense of the average computer user is *not*
>> technically savvy.  They are not going to enjoy Linux until it gets a
>> lot more user friendly, and I don't mean "friendly to geeks", I mean
>> "friendly to morons".  "Linux for Dummies" type users.
> 
> Linux can be just as, sometimes moreso, user friendly than Windows or OS
> X.  

And it can be much, much, more difficult.  It all depends upon 
what you are trying to do.  If you happen to have a usage model 
that mimics the people that put your chosen distro together, 
it's great.  If not, life can be painful if you are not 
technically savvy and perhaps a programmer as well.

> Since Linux is available in a range of distros, all targetted towards
> a certain set,  you can match a distro perfectly according to the
> individual needs and wants of the user.

Which Linux distro is perfectly matched to the person that wants 
to master HD movies like on a Mac with Final Cut Pro?

Which Linux distro is perfectly matched to the person that uses 
Quickbooks to manage their small home business?

> The only thing about Linux now that is holding it back is lack of the
> popular commercial applications and games that people know and use, 

"The only thing"?  That's a huge thing.  Crossover office is a 
tiny step down the road to solving that.  Putting enough 
functionality and a useful set of nice templates into OpenOffice 
is more important, and something that can take Outlook or 
Outlook express email data files and merge them directly into 
something on a Linux box is critical.  People with 500MB .PST 
files aren't going to just chunk all that to move to Linux 
without a migration path.

>> C) Let a Windows user switching to Linux (or a Mac user if you prefer)
>> figure out how to get his music collection playing on a Linux distro
>> without help from a geek friend.  Even more so if they want to rip or
>> play back DVDs.  Tell a photoshop user that they just need to "get the
>> Gimp experience" then they'll prefer it and see how they react.  It's
>> not as easy to use for some tasks, and it is far easier to use for some
>> other tasks.
> 
> I'd tell a Windows user looking for a good Music management and playing
> app to try amarok, and they'll probably adore it.  I'd tell someone
> looking to rip DVD's to fire up DVD::Rip and get busy, and chances are
> they'll always use it from then on.

Which distro has both built in?  You mentioned earlier that 
there is a perfectly tailored distro for every user.

> To say that modern Linux is hard to use is misleading, it's really not. 

In your opinion.  In my opinion as well, but for a lot of other 
people, it is very hard.  

> is different though, a different set of apps, a different way of doing
> things.  Unfamiliarity with these would give the impression that it's
> "difficult" to the inexperienced, just like people do when confronted with
> anything different and unfamiliar to them.

so it is difficult for them then.  Whether or not they will 
press on and work to figure it out long term is the question.  
The problem with Linux adoption rates is the learning curve is 
too steep.  In my opinion, the learning curve on the Mac is 
actually too shallow, it bores some technical people to have 
their hand held that much and have so much detail hidden from 
them.  And of course, Windows just sucks 24x7, but people are 
used to it sucking.  

>> There is no single right answer for all users on the planet.
> 
> Exactly.  Which is why the choice that is present with Linux is so much
> better than the "one-size-fits-all" attitude of commercial platforms.

Having Linux as a choice amongst other platforms is better than 
having only Linux, with a 100 distros to choose from.  Some 
people like BSD variants much better.  From a security 
standpoint they might have a point, but it's even harder to 
snuggle up to as a new user to a UNIX-flavored system for the 
first time than Linux is.

>>> I mean, who cares how it works or how much it costs, so long as it
>>> *looks* good, right?
>> 
>> Wrong.  I don't care what it looks like, as long as it is useful, stable
>> and achieves the desired goals.
> 
> That's a damned good attitude to have.

Then you can easily understand the motives of people that choose 
Apple.  For a narrow, but pretty well defined set of users, it's 
a perfect fit.

>>> Maybe people are starting to catch on, and that's why Apple is
>>> (finally) moving to Intel based platforms.
>> 
>> You haven't been paying attention.  Apple is moving to Intel because of
>> power and heat issues with mobile PPC.  notebooks is the sweetspot in
>> the consumer market, especially in the US, and Apple has been several
>> years behind there for a while.  Intel mobile chipsets will put them
>> back in the game.    Linux has zero to do with that.
> 
> I didn't say it did, did I?  

I had a hard time figuring out what "starting to catch on" 
means, unless you think that the CPU being from Intel is 
critical to having a good OS underneath you.  I can't see how 
the average user will give a damn, other than maybe access to 
cheaper hardware.

> But the fact of the matter is that Apple is
> moving to Intel for whatever reasons, after over a decade of extolling
> the praises of Mac hardware over "substandard generic PC clone hardware".

True.  Apple (and many of its fans) have been in love with 
throwing darts at everyone else instead of explaining what is 
good about their solution.  The negative campaigning must have a 
lot to do with their current market share.  It seems to work 
most of the time in politics, but not in mass market 
advertising.  There is a lesson in there for the Linux crowd 
too.  Linux advocates are self-typecast as "everything else sux, 
Linux rocks" people, which is    n o t     a good sales pitch.  
Explain the value in your choice, don't defend it by telling 
others how their choices suck.  People don't react to that well 
at all.

>>> Linux people are less concerned with form as opposed to functionality.
>> 
>> There is a lot of functionality missing in Linux as a desktop product
>> today.
> 
> No offense, but I really don't think you are qualified to make that
> statement.  

That is offensive, and I am very qualified to make that 
statement.

> As someone who actually has used Linux every
> day as a desktop platform personally for the past five years, 

So you are new to it then.  I've had a Linux box in front of me 
for over twice that long.  I used it back when it was painful, 
and it took a lot of technical knowledge to get it to work at 
all, when there was no office suite of any kind, unless you 
count vi or emacs, etc.   It has come a tremendous distance, in 
less time than it took Windows to get where it is today, but it 
is still green in a lot of areas, and even the most hard-core 
(but rational) Linux community members admit that.  

> When shopping for a printer for your Mac, did you go out
> and purchase one that said "Windows only" on the box?

I have a laser printer and a color photo printer.  Both are 
(ironically) attached to a Windows machine and shared over the 
network, so I can get to them easiest from Linux and the Mac.  
Getting a printer to work well over a network is one of the 
areas where I find Windows to be the best answer.

>> There is a lot of hacker functionality missing on OS X out of the box,
>> because the target market doesn't care.  Guess what though, porting OSS
>> to OS X is a piece of cake.  Anything you can run on Linux that doesn't
>> depend upon platform specific stuff will port to OS X almost instantly.
> 
> So, shouldn't that go both ways then?  Shouldn't the commercial apps that
> are available for OS X port just as easily to Linux?

If they were open source, I suppose it should.  You know well 
and good that isn't the case, and almost no commercial apps are 
written for the console anymore.  Let me know when there is a 
Cocoa/Carbon framework for Linux.

>> It does work.  And it also happens to look good, and be easy to set up
>> and use.  The KDE and Gnome crowds should be trying to mimic the OS X
>> ui, instead of trying to look more and more like el bloato windows with
>> every release.
> 
> KDE and GNOME don't "mimic" anyone.  

That must be why there is a "Windows" theme that will make a 
Linux desktop look XP down to the window layout and color 
scheme.  Spare me the bullshit.

> They may use features that are
> universally accepted as good ideas, but anyone is able to change these to
> look and feel anyway they like.

Which one makes it look like Aqua with the dock on the bottom 
and dashboard?
 


0
nunya (4574)
7/1/2005 7:34:49 PM
On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 07:40:11 -0500, amosf wrote
(in article <42c539a1@news.comindico.com.au>):

> Larry Qualig wrote something like:
> 
>> 
>> "malloc" <malloc_SNIP2006@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:42c50bca$0$10469$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
>>> on July 01 03:00 am billwg wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Wasn't that Motorola more than Wozniak?  There are only a limited
>>>> number of ways to put the parts together and they are described in
>>>> the tech sheets.
>>> 
>>> Yea, if you put enough monkeys in a room with a bunch of parts they
>>> would eventually come up with the Apple.
>> 
>> 
>> Reminds me of a joke I heard a while back. We've all heard that if you
>> "Place thousands of monkeys in a room with typewriters that given enough
>> time one of the monkeys will produce a Shakespeare novel." But in order to
>> duplicate Windows you would need 4 monkeys and about 2 hours time.
> 
> 'Shakespeare' wrote novels?

For this crowd?  No, he wrote screenplays.  :-)


0
nunya (4574)
7/1/2005 7:36:36 PM
On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 07:17:14 -0500, billwg wrote
(in article <evaxe.196989$w15.132715@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>):

> From all accounts Wozniak is a wonderful person and every bit the shy, 
> unassuming techie that he is portrayed as being.  I do believe, however, 
> that any reasonably competent hardware designer of that era who was given 
> the task of building a microprocessor based computer would come up with a 
> functionally same hardware arrangement, since it is dictated by the CPU 
> design.  

Except for the fact (which you are no doubt unaware of) that 
"reference designs" and processor-vendor sample motherboards 
didn't exist back then.  All of the logic was supplied by you, 
not purchased as a cookie-cutter chipset that you slapped a few 
i/o ports onto and stamped out by the millions.

What made Apple different was the firmware and software that 
> distinguished the Apple pile of parts from somebody else's pile of parts.  I 
> don't know how much Wozniak had to do with these items.

They didn't even exist until the Mac time frame.  Nothing about 
the Apple or Apple ][ was any more innovative than other 
home/hobbyist computers at the time.


0
nunya (4574)
7/1/2005 7:39:56 PM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 19:12:53 GMT,
 TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote:
> In article <89ggp2-t6g.ln1@grendel.myth>,
>  Jim Richardson <warlock@eskimo.com> wrote:
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>> 
>> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 13:52:08 -0700,
>>  Snit <SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>> > "Jim Richardson" <warlock@eskimo.com> stated in post
>> > tcqdp2-mqq.ln1@grendel.myth on 6/30/05 11:31 AM:
>> >
>> >>> It (potentially) can look / work well or poorly for any given need (or at
>> >>> least many).
>> >>>> 
>> >>> 
>> >> 
>> >> and so an OSX, mix up a bunch of different apps, X apps, COCOA apps, the
>> >> interfaces can also change. Esp when you add in "classic" Mac apps to
>> >> the mix. 
>> >
>> > Correct.  Do you understand why this is not analogous to the KDE / GNOME /
>> > Other situation for Linux?
>> 
>> not really, no. Except that in the OSX case, software installs are
>> harder than in the Linux case with a std package manager like Synaptic. 
>
> Really?
>
> On OS X, you generally just drag the app where you want it. Just how is 
> Linux easier than that?
>


after you have first discofered what app you want, then obtained it. All
I do, is click on synaptic, search through it, and click it to install
it. No need to wander over the net finding the app, and making sure it
will work with my system, the package manager does that for me. 

> Seems to me that you really ought to try using OS X before you criticize 
> it.



seems to me you really ought to know what you are comparing to, and not
drop steps that you need for OSX. 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCxaTmd90bcYOAWPYRAvo2AKDxbFWbYX7uTrXaCJkiPXwa5x/jmQCgtCVu
PHz9xsnakttWNWfy93LH4m8=
=XhN3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Jim Richardson     http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
They may call it 'ant and roach spray' but it sure does a number on
birds if you spray them with it long enough.
0
warlock (9522)
7/1/2005 8:17:42 PM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 12:28:56 -0700,
 Snit <SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Jim Richardson" <warlock@eskimo.com> stated in post
> 89ggp2-t6g.ln1@grendel.myth on 7/1/05 11:57 AM:
>
>>> And should likely be using OS X... Though it depends on the specifics of the
>>> situation, of course.
>>> 
>>> Would you want cars that were easily configured to switch the brake and gas?
>>> How about which way you turned the steering wheel to go left?  Do you think
>>> all configurability is good?  If not, where do you draw the line?
>> 
>> If you know enough to reroute the cables, and gears, cars *are* that
>> configurable. If you don't know, then you can't do it.
>
> Sure, one could do extensive work to reconfigure a car to be like that - and
> there may even be people who would do better with such a car.  Do you see
> why having a switch on the dashboard to do such re-configuring would be a
> *bad* thing... And likely lead to the loss of life.
>

since no one is suggesting such a thing, can you see why car analogies
are such a poor example? 



>
>>>>> Work with some novices and you shall see... :)
>>>> 
>>>> same in either case. Some people can't handle anything higher tech than
>>>> a broken twig. Pat them on the head and go on your way.
>>> 
>>> Or make a living educating them... As I do.  :)
>>> 
>> 
>> some people are beyond educating.
>
> I find that to be true of only very, very few people.  Many never become
> techies, but most can become proficient in the tasks they care about.   I
> will grant that when something goes wrong, there are many who just freeze up
> and are lost.

most people have no concept of what to do when something goes wrong.
They don't think about things going wrong, don't have alternative plans,
and are fucked when things go pear shaped. Darwin in action. 

>
> That is one of the reasons I like OS X: it is more consistent and easier to
> use for more people while still being very powerful for the advanced user.

OSX is nice, no doubt about it, even with it's glitches. But it's not
good enough for me. 



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCxaVrd90bcYOAWPYRAp4jAJ4gm6MpEkekV1i9lXLa753dvlOkRwCg0ZvP
cuYzNez8SiFv4o+zfAD2kys=
=chZF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Jim Richardson     http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Nothing says "loser" like "nymshifter".
  --chrisv on C.O.L.A
0
warlock (9522)
7/1/2005 8:19:55 PM
amosf <amosf@bcs4me.com> wrote:

> Larry Qualig wrote something like:
> 
> > 
> > "malloc" <malloc_SNIP2006@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:42c50bca$0$10469$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
> >> on July 01 03:00 am billwg wrote:
> >>
> >>> Wasn't that Motorola more than Wozniak?  There are only a limited
> >>> number of ways to put the parts together and they are described in
> >>> the tech sheets.
> >>
> >> Yea, if you put enough monkeys in a room with a bunch of parts they
> >> would eventually come up with the Apple.
> > 
> > 
> > Reminds me of a joke I heard a while back. We've all heard that if you
> > "Place thousands of monkeys in a room with typewriters that given enough
> > time one of the monkeys will produce a Shakespeare novel." But in order to
> > duplicate Windows you would need 4 monkeys and about 2 hours time.
> 
> 'Shakespeare' wrote novels?

Wasn't it Marlowe?

-- 

Peter
0
peter9808 (1493)
7/1/2005 8:27:38 PM
On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 13:23:29 -0600, Arkady Duntov wrote:

> On Friday 01 July 2005 06:47, Oxford <csma@mac.com>
> (<csma-7A0124.06473801072005@news.uswest.net>) wrote:
> 
>> ah, the Apple / & // are still considered works of genius by electronics
>> engineers the world over
> 
> Are you really that stupid, Oxtard?  They weren't considered "works of
> genius" even when first released.

Yeah, they were. You might want to check references to his disk drive
controller, and his color circuitry.

-- 
Rick
<http://ricks-place.tripod.com/sound/2cents.wav>

0
none69 (3046)
7/1/2005 8:41:04 PM
In article <60lgp2-mlh.ln1@grendel.myth>,
 Jim Richardson <warlock@eskimo.com> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 19:12:53 GMT,
>  TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote:
> > In article <89ggp2-t6g.ln1@grendel.myth>,
> >  Jim Richardson <warlock@eskimo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >> Hash: SHA1
> >> 
> >> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 13:52:08 -0700,
> >>  Snit <SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> >> > "Jim Richardson" <warlock@eskimo.com> stated in post
> >> > tcqdp2-mqq.ln1@grendel.myth on 6/30/05 11:31 AM:
> >> >
> >> >>> It (potentially) can look / work well or poorly for any given need (or 
> >> >>> at
> >> >>> least many).
> >> >>>> 
> >> >>> 
> >> >> 
> >> >> and so an OSX, mix up a bunch of different apps, X apps, COCOA apps, 
> >> >> the
> >> >> interfaces can also change. Esp when you add in "classic" Mac apps to
> >> >> the mix. 
> >> >
> >> > Correct.  Do you understand why this is not analogous to the KDE / GNOME 
> >> > /
> >> > Other situation for Linux?
> >> 
> >> not really, no. Except that in the OSX case, software installs are
> >> harder than in the Linux case with a std package manager like Synaptic. 
> >
> > Really?
> >
> > On OS X, you generally just drag the app where you want it. Just how is 
> > Linux easier than that?
> >
> 
> 
> after you have first discofered what app you want, then obtained it. All
> I do, is click on synaptic, search through it, and click it to install
> it. No need to wander over the net finding the app, and making sure it

Assuming, of course, that everything you could ever want is in synaptic. 
And that no one ever releases a newer version of their apps.

> will work with my system, the package manager does that for me. 

Funny, I NEVER have to worry about Mac apps working. It's really sad 
that you need a separate package manager to keep track of that.

> 
> > Seems to me that you really ought to try using OS X before you criticize 
> > it.
> 
> 
> 
> seems to me you really ought to know what you are comparing to, and not
> drop steps that you need for OSX. 

I'm not. You were talking about what it takes to _instal_ an app. That 
presupposes that you already have it.

Your way is only quicker IF your app is in Synaptic AND IF you know what 
you're looking for AND IF you never need a newer version than that which 
is in synaptic AND IF you don't have any compatibility problems.
0
Nowhere (5224)
7/1/2005 9:18:48 PM
begin  virus.txt.scr Rick wrote:

> On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 13:23:29 -0600, Arkady Duntov wrote:
> 
>> On Friday 01 July 2005 06:47, Oxford <csma@mac.com>
>> (<csma-7A0124.06473801072005@news.uswest.net>) wrote:
>> 
>>> ah, the Apple / & // are still considered works of genius by electronics
>>> engineers the world over
>> 
>> Are you really that stupid, Oxtard?  They weren't considered "works of
>> genius" even when first released.
> 
> Yeah, they were. You might want to check references to his disk drive
> controller, and his color circuitry.
> 

They were (perhaps) admired for their inguinity
At the same time the disk controller was hated because the disks written
with it were completely incompatible with the rest of the world
-- 
If you're right 90% of the time, why quibble about the remaining 3%?

0
Peter.Koehlmann (13228)
7/1/2005 9:22:10 PM
Jim Richardson <warlock@eskimo.com> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 21:38:45 +0100,
>  Peter Hayes <peter@seahaze.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > Jim Richardson <warlock@eskimo.com> wrote:

<...>

> >> Yes, configuring X can be straightforward.  Especially with X.org, try a
> >> liveCD called PCLinuxOS for an example. 
> >
> > Just don't try it with a SuSE 9.3 live CD. You'll end up going round in
> > circles.
> >
> 
> 
> I think it depends on hardware. 

Probably.

Certainly a Dell laptop can't cope.

> Do you have an OSX liveCD I can compare it to? 

Give it a couple of years and the answer will probably be "yes"...

-- 

Peter
0
peter9808 (1493)
7/1/2005 9:31:57 PM
Snit <SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:

> "Peter Hayes" <peter@seahaze.demon.co.uk> stated in post
> 1gyzixx.pdjjj1zxpzjxN%peter@seahaze.demon.co.uk on 6/30/05 11:56 AM:
> 
> >> First, your ignorant bigotry is showing.
> >> Second Apple enforces its UI guidelines. Apple is one company. 'Linux' is
> >> not a company. Red Hat, IBM, Novell are companies.
> > 
> > He'd be better comparing the Apple GUI with KDE *or* Gnome *or* <insert
> > favourite window manager here>, not comparing it with all the Linux GUIs
> > simultaneously.
> 
> Are you unable to see why your comment is incorrect?

Are you unable to understand why comparing one GUI on one OS to various
GUIs on another OS simultaneously is just plain dumb? 

-- 

Peter
0
peter9808 (1493)
7/1/2005 9:31:58 PM
On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 13:19:01 -0600, Arkady Duntov wrote:

> On Friday 01 July 2005 01:52, Peter Ammon <gershwin@splintermac.com>
> (<DN-dnV9zyLLba1nfRVn-3w@comcast.com>) wrote:
> 
>> I tried Knoppix today.  Here's what I found.
> 
> I'm sure your lack of experience is illustrative.
> 
>> Roughly six minutes of clicking on things and I've had lots of issues.
> 
> You have lots of issues.

Now and again, I find stuff won't work in Knoppix, but most apps, etc, do.
And considering it all runs off a CD... You do need to be patient at
times, and give the heavier apps a while to load.

Maybe he should try Kanotix instead, that sometimes exceeds Knoppix - I'm
using it right now, on a not very powerful (by today's standards) Duron
850mhz jobbie with 768meg of ram and only a crappy ATI 32 meg video card.
Works fine

-- 
Kier

0
vallon (8614)
7/1/2005 9:58:42 PM
On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 23:22:10 +0200, Peter K�hlmann wrote:

> begin  virus.txt.scr Rick wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 13:23:29 -0600, Arkady Duntov wrote:
>> 
>>> On Friday 01 July 2005 06:47, Oxford <csma@mac.com>
>>> (<csma-7A0124.06473801072005@news.uswest.net>) wrote:
>>> 
>>>> ah, the Apple / & // are still considered works of genius by
>>>> electronics engineers the world over
>>> 
>>> Are you really that stupid, Oxtard?  They weren't considered "works of
>>> genius" even when first released.
>> 
>> Yeah, they were. You might want to check references to his disk drive
>> controller, and his color circuitry.
>> 
>> 
> They were (perhaps) admired for their inguinity At the same time the disk
> controller was hated because the disks written with it were completely
> incompatible with the rest of the world

YOU might have hated them. YOU are not the world. And, BTW, disks written
at that time were all pretty much compatible with other platforms. At the
time the Disk ][ was produced there was no IBM Personal Computer and there
were many competing disk formats.

-- 
Rick
<http://ricks-place.tripod.com/sound/2cents.wav>

0
none69 (3046)
7/1/2005 10:17:43 PM
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 23:25:54 GMT, "billwg" <billw@twcf.rr.com> wrote
in message <<6c%we.134641$VH2.54441@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>>:

> SCO shows some 900,000 lines of code they say is infringing 

SCOX claims infringement.  They've shown not even a single line of
code that supports their claim.  They've shown nothing to show they
own even a single copyright in SVR4.

> although their claims may be disputed.

Their claims aren't just disputed, they're rejected.  On their claims
of copying, channeled through SCOX' Sandeep Gupta, Brian Kernighan[1]
says:

4.  If unprotectable elements are excluded from the comparison
    and an appropriate standard of similarity is applied, there
    is NO SIMILARITY between the parts of Linux identified by Mr.
    Gupta and the allegedly copyrighted works.
    [emphasis added for the Wintroll]

    -- UNSEALED DECLARATION OF BRIAN W. KERNIGHAN

> But it was copied from somewhere. 

You lie.  Since your lies are copied from SCOX' lies, you infringe on
their lies.

[1] Professor of Computer Science, Princeton University;
    formerly: Fellow, Bell Laboratories.
0
nospam4 (524)
7/1/2005 10:23:53 PM
On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 11:00:43 +0200, C Lund <clund@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no>
wrote in message
<<clund-6D3FA5.11004301072005@amstwist00.chello.com>>:

> That's one explanation - although that would mean that no maccies are 
> good at explaining ideas.

You certainly aren't.

> More likely, the problem is that we maccies have been trying to 
> communicate this idea (ease-of-use and so on)  to people who simply do 
> not have the ability to understand it.

The problem is that you have repeatedly made grandiose and unprovable
claims; people understand and reject your claims as the ravings
inspired by the True Believer Syndrome.

> I have more luck with this in the real world.

Your "real world" includes only people who drink Apple-flavored
Kool-Aid.
0
nospam4 (524)
7/1/2005 10:23:54 PM
On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 03:07:58 GMT, Timberwoof
<timberwoof@stimpberawoofm.com> wrote in message
<<timberwoof-668040.20075930062005@typhoon.sonic.net>>:

> Use a reader that deals with posts no matter how they're wrapped.

Find a newsreader that follows Usenet best practices.
0
nospam4 (524)
7/1/2005 10:23:55 PM
[snips]

On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 07:45:09 -0400, Larry Qualig wrote:

>> Depends what you use it for, don't it?
>>
> 
> True but.... what do people "generally" use a laptop for?

I tend to use them for progrmming, personally, which can take a hell of a
lot of CPU time.
0
kbjarnason (4613)
7/1/2005 10:35:17 PM
Arkady Duntov <arkady-duntov@brotherhood.ua> wrote:

> > ah, the Apple / & // are still considered works of genius by electronics
> > engineers the world over
> 
> Are you really that stupid, Oxtard?  They weren't considered "works of
> genius" even when first released.

the Apple // certainly was, engineering folk flocked to it since it was 
such a powerful system for so little money... his genius sparked the 
entire pc revolution that is still being played out to this day... not 
bad for 3 years of hard work... engineers still are marveled at how he 
was able to cram so much into so few chips, it's the same with the first 
floppy drive for pc's... which his genius brought the prices far enough 
down to make it affordable technology for pcs...

---

For his achievements at Apple Computer, Steve was awarded the National 
Medal of Technology by the President of the United States in 1985, the 
highest honor bestowed America's leading innovators.

In 2000 Steve was inducted into the Inventors Hall of Fame and was 
awarded the prestigious Heinz Award for Technology, The Economy and 
Employment for "single-handedly designing the first personal computer 
and for then redirecting his lifelong passion for mathematics and 
electronics toward lighting the fires of excitement for education in 
grade school students and their teachers.

Wozniak founded the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and was the founding 
sponsor of the Tech Museum, Silicon Valley Ballet and Children's 
Discovery Museum of San Jose.

Arkady, since you don't seem to know much about this part of computing 
history, you can learn more here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Wozniak
0
csma (3267)
7/1/2005 10:39:57 PM
In article <455bc19gb72uha0b9ufjur42ms4enq814e@4ax.com>,
 Ku Karlovsky <nospam@nospam.nospam.not> wrote:

> On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 03:07:58 GMT, Timberwoof
> <timberwoof@stimpberawoofm.com> wrote in message
> <<timberwoof-668040.20075930062005@typhoon.sonic.net>>:
> 
> > Use a reader that deals with posts no matter how they're wrapped.
> 
> Find a newsreader that follows Usenet best practices.

His lines were wrapped fine.  They were all 79 characters or less, which 
is acceptable:

<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-useage-01.txt>

72 is better, but 79 is compliant.


-- 
--Tim Smith
0
reply_in_group (13194)
7/1/2005 10:46:51 PM
On Friday 01 July 2005 16:39, Oxford <csma@mac.com>
(<csma-4C9B27.16395701072005@news.uswest.net>) wrote:

> Arkady Duntov <arkady-duntov@brotherhood.ua> wrote:
> 
>> Are you really that stupid, Oxtard?  They weren't considered "works of
>> genius" even when first released.
> 
> the Apple // certainly was

You really are that stupid.  Let me give you a few examples to supplement
your hyperbole:

Electrical engineering genius: The transistor (AT&T).
Electrical engineering genius: The integrated circuit (TI).

Design cleverness: Wozniak's disk controller (Apple).

> Wozniak founded the Electronic Frontier Foundation

Wozniak was certainly the more capable of the Steves, and has other
accomplishments to his credit.

> Arkady, since you don't seem to know much about this part of computing
> history, you can learn more here...

Ox, you're as disingenuous as they come.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll
0
7/1/2005 11:10:38 PM
Arkady Duntov <arkady-duntov@brotherhood.ua> wrote:

> > the Apple // certainly was
> 
> You really are that stupid.  Let me give you a few examples to supplement
> your hyperbole:
> 
> Electrical engineering genius: The transistor (AT&T).
> Electrical engineering genius: The integrated circuit (TI).

Sure a collective effort of basic science produces some gems.

> Design cleverness: Wozniak's disk controller (Apple).

but Woz put everything together and radically changed how the world 
operates... Look up Genius sometime... for some reason it doesn't 
include Companies...

> > Wozniak founded the Electronic Frontier Foundation
> 
> Wozniak was certainly the more capable of the Steves, and has other
> accomplishments to his credit.
>
> > Arkady, since you don't seem to know much about this part of computing
> > history, you can learn more here...
> 
> Ox, you're as disingenuous as they come.

no, I'm just more schooled on these topics which can cause conflicts 
with the less informed. the reason you are looking at an inexpensive 
computer screen and reading this reply is directly tied to the creative 
genius of the 2 steves in and around 1976...
0
csma (3267)
7/1/2005 11:43:27 PM
On Friday 01 July 2005 17:43, Oxford <csma@mac.com>
(<csma-678B94.17432701072005@news.uswest.net>) wrote:

> Arkady Duntov <arkady-duntov@brotherhood.ua> wrote:
> 
> but Woz put everything together and radically changed how the world
> operates...

The electrical shock must have changed how your brain operates...

> Look up Genius sometime... for some reason it doesn't 
> include Companies...

For some reason, it doesn't include board designers either.

>> Ox, you're as disingenuous as they come.
> 
> no

Yes:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll

> the reason you are looking at an inexpensive computer screen

Apple and inexpensive are unrelated.
0
7/2/2005 12:39:43 AM
Arkady Duntov wrote:
> On Friday 01 July 2005 01:52, Peter Ammon <gershwin@splintermac.com>
> (<DN-dnV9zyLLba1nfRVn-3w@comcast.com>) wrote:
> 
> 
>>I tried Knoppix today.  Here's what I found.
> 
> 
> I'm sure your lack of experience is illustrative.
> 
> 
>>Roughly six minutes of clicking on things and I've had lots of issues.
> 
> 
> You have lots of issues.

Don't throw sand in the sandbox, children.

-- 
Pull out a splinter to reply.
0
gershwin (465)
7/2/2005 1:36:38 AM
[snips]

On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 07:41:13 -0400, Larry Qualig wrote:

> Correct. It's not a "system shutdown" since that would require the BIOS to 
> boot, the POST and a full load of the OS. I'm talking about simply closing 
> the lid on the laptop with the OS still running. When the lid gets opened 
> the "resume" is practically instantaneous.

So it should be, on a simple resume.
0
kbjarnason (4613)
7/2/2005 1:41:46 AM
"Jim Richardson" <warlock@eskimo.com> stated in post
b4lgp2-mlh.ln1@grendel.myth on 7/1/05 1:19 PM:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 12:28:56 -0700,
>  Snit <SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>> "Jim Richardson" <warlock@eskimo.com> stated in post
>> 89ggp2-t6g.ln1@grendel.myth on 7/1/05 11:57 AM:
>> 
>>>> And should likely be using OS X... Though it depends on the specifics of
>>>> the
>>>> situation, of course.
>>>> 
>>>> Would you want cars that were easily configured to switch the brake and
>>>> gas?
>>>> How about which way you turned the steering wheel to go left?  Do you think
>>>> all configurability is good?  If not, where do you draw the line?
>>> 
>>> If you know enough to reroute the cables, and gears, cars *are* that
>>> configurable. If you don't know, then you can't do it.
>> 
>> Sure, one could do extensive work to reconfigure a car to be like that - and
>> there may even be people who would do better with such a car.  Do you see
>> why having a switch on the dashboard to do such re-configuring would be a
>> *bad* thing... And likely lead to the loss of life.
>> 
> 
> since no one is suggesting such a thing, can you see why car analogies
> are such a poor example?

My point is that having easy configuration options is not always a good
thing.  Can you agree with that?
>> 
>>>>>> Work with some novices and you shall see... :)
>>>>> 
>>>>> same in either case. Some people can't handle anything higher tech than
>>>>> a broken twig. Pat them on the head and go on your way.
>>>> 
>>>> Or make a living educating them... As I do.  :)
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> some people are beyond educating.
>> 
>> I find that to be true of only very, very few people.  Many never become
>> techies, but most can become proficient in the tasks they care about.   I
>> will grant that when something goes wrong, there are many who just freeze up
>> and are lost.
> 
> most people have no concept of what to do when something goes wrong.
> They don't think about things going wrong, don't have alternative plans,
> and are fucked when things go pear shaped. Darwin in action.

Not sure I would say "most people"... But more than a few.
>> 
>> That is one of the reasons I like OS X: it is more consistent and easier to
>> use for more people while still being very powerful for the advanced user.
> 
> OSX is nice, no doubt about it, even with it's glitches. But it's not
> good enough for me.

You won't see me trying to make you switch... Use what you like.

Out of curiosity, though, what task is does it not all you to do in a way
that you like (without going through too much setup or whatever...)


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



0
SNIT (24281)
7/2/2005 1:56:26 AM
"Peter Hayes" <peter@seahaze.demon.co.uk> stated in post
1gz1kt4.ylgyzy3vbmuqN%peter@seahaze.demon.co.uk on 7/1/05 2:31 PM:

> Snit <SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> 
>> "Peter Hayes" <peter@seahaze.demon.co.uk> stated in post
>> 1gyzixx.pdjjj1zxpzjxN%peter@seahaze.demon.co.uk on 6/30/05 11:56 AM:
>> 
>>>> First, your ignorant bigotry is showing.
>>>> Second Apple enforces its UI guidelines. Apple is one company. 'Linux' is
>>>> not a company. Red Hat, IBM, Novell are companies.
>>> 
>>> He'd be better comparing the Apple GUI with KDE *or* Gnome *or* <insert
>>> favourite window manager here>, not comparing it with all the Linux GUIs
>>> simultaneously.
>> 
>> Are you unable to see why your comment is incorrect?
> 
> Are you unable to understand why comparing one GUI on one OS to various
> GUIs on another OS simultaneously is just plain dumb?

The multiple GUI's of Linux on the desktop offer both pros and cons...


-- 
Look, this is silly. It's not an argument, it's an armor plated walrus with
walnut paneling and an all leather interior.



0
SNIT (24281)
7/2/2005 2:01:02 AM
In article <da2huj$pd0$03$1@news.t-online.com>,
 Peter K�hlmann <peter.koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:

> begin  virus.txt.scr Timberwoof wrote:
> 
> < snip >
>  
> >> > We maccies have been trying to explain this to wintrolls since forever
> >> > - and more recently, Linux users. And we've had no luck at all.
> >> > 
> >> 
> >> You should ask yourself why that is.
> >> After al, you can hardly claim that linux users generally are ignorant
> >> 
> >> Maybe it is just that linux users, especially those who use Gnome or KDE,
> >> fail to see where your GUI is *any* better than what they already have?
> >> 
> >> That your GUI /may/ be slightly better than the windows one is arguable,
> >> although I highly doubt that even that claim holds much water
> > 
> > Peter, I'm sure you know something about formal language theory and how to
> > describe a language using BNF. A similar thing could be done with any GUI,
> > both its basic rules, its UI guidelines, and how these are implemented in
> > the real world. One could also analyze different environments (Mac
> > Classic, OS X, NeXT, Windows 95etc, KDE, Gnome, Motif, etc.) to see what
> > different operations the UI allows one to perform.
> > 
> > In the same way in which the basic ugliness of a language like Fortran
> > compares to the simplicity and elegance, yet power of a language like C,
> > one would find that different UIs have measurable power and elegance.
> > 
> > Sure, you can do structured programming in Fortran or even assembler ...
> > but it's really nasty and the languages don't inherently support it the
> > way Pascal or C do. Similarly there are ways in which the OS X UI is
> > better than that of Windows and either KDE or Gnome.
> > 
> > I have used Windows, Macintosh and Gnome. Because of its elegance and the
> > way its applications are implemented, I prefer OS X. I suppose I could
> > write a masters' thesis on what I just described, but I better do it at a
> > university where they don't have prejudices about UIs the way you do. ...
> > where do you teach?
> > 
> 
> And you failed to provide even a single example of OSX "elegance"

Well, you didn't ask that question. 

> Zhanks for admitting that there is none

Thanks for jumping to unwarranted conclusions. You're so predictable.

-- 
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
If Macintosh is a luxury cruise ship, 
then Linux is a freighter with wood paneling in the officers' quarters.
0
timberwoof (3216)
7/2/2005 2:39:32 AM
In article <6u-dnd0M9ZiR8ljfRVn-2Q@comcast.com>, JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> 
wrote:

> On 2005-07-01, Peter K�hlmann <peter.koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> > begin  virus.txt.scr Timberwoof wrote:
> >
> >< snip >
> [deletia]
> >> In the same way in which the basic ugliness of a language like Fortran
> >> compares to the simplicity and elegance, yet power of a language like C,
> >> one would find that different UIs have measurable power and elegance.
> >> 
> >> Sure, you can do structured programming in Fortran or even assembler ...
> >> but it's really nasty and the languages don't inherently support it the
> >> way Pascal or C do. Similarly there are ways in which the OS X UI is
> >> better than that of Windows and either KDE or Gnome.
> >> 
> >> I have used Windows, Macintosh and Gnome. Because of its elegance and the
> >> way its applications are implemented, I prefer OS X. I suppose I could
> >> write a masters' thesis on what I just described, but I better do it at a
> >> university where they don't have prejudices about UIs the way you do. ...
> >> where do you teach?
> >> 
> >
> > And you failed to provide even a single example of OSX "elegance"
> > Zhanks for admitting that there is none
> 
> 	He even managed to drag in an unsubstantiated comparison
> between C and Fortran.

What that Fortran is syntactically ugly and can't be described with BNF, while C 
is much better-defined and easier to write a compiler for? How, exactly, is 
that, or anything else I said, in error?

-- 
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
If Macintosh is a luxury cruise ship, 
then Linux is a freighter with wood paneling in the officers' quarters.
0
timberwoof (3216)
7/2/2005 2:40:41 AM
In article <42c51637$0$13465$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com>,
 Alex <fast@mischiefuk.com> wrote:

> Timberwoof wrote:
> > In article <42c3db03$0$12899$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com>,
> >  Alex <fast@mischiefuk.com> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>OSX GUI is build 
> >>upon X11 (XFree86 project), 
> > 
> > 
> > I'd be interested in reading the documentation you base that claim on.
> > 
> 
> http://www.apple.com/macosx/overview/advancedtechnology.html

No, you misread that. 

"UNIX users will feel right at home because Mac OS X offers a complete X Window 
System implementation for running X11-based applications. Fully integrated with 
the OS, X11 for Mac OS X, based on the open source XFree86 project, gives UNIX 
users the ability to run thousands of X11 applications concurrently with other 
Mac OS X applications." 

X-11 runs on OS X, but OS X is not built upon X11. 

http://www.apple.com/macosx/techspecs/ lists the key technologies, and X11 isn't 
among them. Interestingly, Quartz Extreme, OS X's imaging engine, is. 

http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/quartzextreme/

-- 
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
If Macintosh is a luxury cruise ship, 
then Linux is a freighter with wood paneling in the officers' quarters.
0
timberwoof (3216)
7/2/2005 2:43:33 AM
In article <6u-dnaIM9Zi581jfRVn-2Q@comcast.com>, JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> 
wrote:

> On 2005-07-01, Timberwoof <timberwoof@stimpberawoofm.com> wrote:
> > In article <pan.2005.06.30.14.01.02.562872@nospam.liamslider.com>,
> >  Liam Slider <liam@nospam.liamslider.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 04:56:42 +0000, Timberwoof wrote:
> >> 
> >> > Because Linux developers are geeks who enjoy complicated stuff for its
> >> > own sake, don't mind a crufty user interface, and rate an application by
> >> > the number of knobs to frob. They complain when an application reduces
> >> > the main UI to the barest essentials -- it takes away their sense of
> >> > control over the application.
> >> <snip more GUI complaints>
> >> 
> >> Where are you from, 10 years ago?
> >
> > No, actually Linux Fedora Core 3. 
> 
> 	Since it's a beta version of an Enterprise SERVER distribution, 
> this is a bit to be expected.

The UI of the final release was not that much different from the test releases.

-- 
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
If Macintosh is a luxury cruise ship, 
then Linux is a freighter with wood paneling in the officers' quarters.
0
timberwoof (3216)
7/2/2005 2:46:39 AM
In article <reply_in_group-B5E219.22254430062005@news1.west.earthlink.net>,
 Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

> In article <timberwoof-424687.21564229062005@typhoon.sonic.net>,
>  Timberwoof <timberwoof@stimpberawoofm.com> wrote:
> > The biggest problem I have with man pages is that they generally tell you 
> > all the atomic behaviors but don't tell you any of the emergent behaviors. 
> > The man page for a 'format' command would tell you all the two dozen 
> > parameters you can use, but there's no wisdom about why or how to do it 
> > efficiently. I wish man pages would include examples, cookbook style, of 
> > the most common ways to use a command. (This is the equivalent of putting 
> > the essentials on the main UI and hiding all the other knobs in a settings 
> > dialog.) 
> 
> Man pages are meant to be a concise reference, not a tutorial.  The man page 
> for a format command, for example, should be aimed at someone already knows 
> why or how to do it efficiently, but just can't remember the name of a 
> particular switch, or the exit code, or something like that.

Okay. I'll accept that. Of course, that just begs the question of where to find 
good descriptions of the emergent behaviors. 

> > I still don't know how to add, for instance, the various MySQL GUI 
> > utilities to the KDE menu. KDE documentation is overflowing with 
> > information on how to write applications, but there's nothing for users. 
> > What, is a user supposed to read the code to figure this out? Screw that 
> > ... I'm using OS X; it's easier to read up on how to use that.
> 
> OS X can get pretty confusing at times, though...ever played with NetInfo 
> Manager, for example?

Okay, NetInfo Manager is a PITA.

-- 
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
If Macintosh is a luxury cruise ship, 
then Linux is a freighter with wood paneling in the officers' quarters.
0
timberwoof (3216)
7/2/2005 2:49:04 AM
In article <da2ttt$5ct$02$1@news.t-online.com>,
 Peter K�hlmann <peter.koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:

> begin  virus.txt.scr Snot snotted:
> 
> > "Peter Hayes" <peter@seahaze.demon.co.uk> stated in post
> > 1gyzixx.pdjjj1zxpzjxN%peter@seahaze.demon.co.uk on 6/30/05 11:56 AM:
> > 
> >>> First, your ignorant bigotry is showing.
> >>> Second Apple enforces its UI guidelines. Apple is one company. 'Linux'
> >>> is not a company. Red Hat, IBM, Novell are companies.
> >> 
> >> He'd be better comparing the Apple GUI with KDE *or* Gnome *or* <insert
> >> favourite window manager here>, not comparing it with all the Linux GUIs
> >> simultaneously.
> > 
> > Are you unable to see why your comment is incorrect?
> > 
> > 
> 
> You tell him. In detail. Naturally you will provide evidence and reasons for
> your conclusions

Yeah, just like you do all the time, Peter. 

> After all, you are one of the dumbest csma trolls around. You will always
> find something to post

Hmmmm. If not providing actual evidence and reasons for your conclusions makes 
one a dumb troll, what does that say about you? You scream a lot about other 
people's idiocy, yet it's rare for you to actually say anything that backs up 
your claims.

-- 
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
If Macintosh is a luxury cruise ship, 
then Linux is a freighter with wood paneling in the officers' quarters.
0
timberwoof (3216)
7/2/2005 2:51:37 AM
On 2005-07-02, Timberwoof <timberwoof@stimpberawoofm.com> wrote:
> In article <6u-dnaIM9Zi581jfRVn-2Q@comcast.com>, JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> 
> wrote:
>
>> On 2005-07-01, Timberwoof <timberwoof@stimpberawoofm.com> wrote:
>> > In article <pan.2005.06.30.14.01.02.562872@nospam.liamslider.com>,
>> >  Liam Slider <liam@nospam.liamslider.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 04:56:42 +0000, Timberwoof wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> > Because Linux developers are geeks who enjoy complicated stuff for its
>> >> > own sake, don't mind a crufty user interface, and rate an application by
>> >> > the number of knobs to frob. They complain when an application reduces
>> >> > the main UI to the barest essentials -- it takes away their sense of
>> >> > control over the application.
>> >> <snip more GUI complaints>
>> >> 
>> >> Where are you from, 10 years ago?
>> >
>> > No, actually Linux Fedora Core 3. 
>> 
>> 	Since it's a beta version of an Enterprise SERVER distribution, 
>> this is a bit to be expected.
>
> The UI of the final release was not that much different from the test releases.

	So? That's not the germane issue.

	Solaris & AIX aren't particularly hot in this area either and none
of them need to be.

-- 
Apple: Because a large harddrive is for power users.
                                                                  |||
	                                                         / | \
0
jedi (14753)
7/2/2005 3:03:03 AM
On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 02:43:33 GMT, Timberwoof
<timberwoof@stimpberawoofm.com> wrote in message
<<timberwoof-22C020.19433301072005@typhoon.sonic.net>>:

> among them. Interestingly, Quartz Extreme

Quartz Extreme?  Is that a new water drink for skateboarders?
0
nospam4 (524)
7/2/2005 4:00:14 AM
On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 02:51:37 GMT, Timberwoof
<timberwoof@stimpberawoofm.com> wrote in message
<<timberwoof-F79A6E.19513701072005@typhoon.sonic.net>>:

> yet it's rare for you to actually say anything that backs up 
> your claims.

Hypocrisy becomes you.
0
nospam4 (524)
7/2/2005 4:01:52 AM
In article <q84cc15caotv68nao931p2d1oha82lqcme@4ax.com>,
 Ku Karlovsky <nospam@nospam.nospam.not> wrote:

> On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 02:43:33 GMT, Timberwoof
> <timberwoof@stimpberawoofm.com> wrote in message
> <<timberwoof-22C020.19433301072005@typhoon.sonic.net>>:
> 
> > among them. Interestingly, Quartz Extreme
> 
> Quartz Extreme?  Is that a new water drink for skateboarders?

::applause:: 

You do such a good imitation of an idiot it's hard to tell you're not the real 
thing. 

Instead of acting like an idiot, you could read about it in the link I gave you. 
In case you've lost it, here it is again: 
http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/quartzextreme/

There is more information about OS X here, so now you have no excuse to go on 
talking like an ignoramus.

-- 
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
If Macintosh is a luxury cruise ship, 
then Linux is a freighter with wood paneling in the officers' quarters.
0
timberwoof (3216)
7/2/2005 4:57:31 AM
begin  virus.txt.scr Timberwoof wrote:

> In article <6u-dnd0M9ZiR8ljfRVn-2Q@comcast.com>, JEDIDIAH
> <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> 
>> On 2005-07-01, Peter K�hlmann <peter.koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>> > begin  virus.txt.scr Timberwoof wrote:
>> >
>> >< snip >
>> [deletia]
>> >> In the same way in which the basic ugliness of a language like Fortran
>> >> compares to the simplicity and elegance, yet power of a language like
>> >> C, one would find that different UIs have measurable power and
>> >> elegance.
>> >> 
>> >> Sure, you can do structured programming in Fortran or even assembler
>> >> ... but it's really nasty and the languages don't inherently support
>> >> it the way Pascal or C do. Similarly there are ways in which the OS X
>> >> UI is better than that of Windows and either KDE or Gnome.
>> >> 
>> >> I have used Windows, Macintosh and Gnome. Because of its elegance and
>> >> the way its applications are implemented, I prefer OS X. I suppose I
>> >> could write a masters' thesis on what I just described, but I better
>> >> do it at a university where they don't have prejudices about UIs the
>> >> way you do. ... where do you teach?
>> >> 
>> >
>> > And you failed to provide even a single example of OSX "elegance"
>> > Zhanks for admitting that there is none
>> 
>> He even managed to drag in an unsubstantiated comparison
>> between C and Fortran.
> 
> What that Fortran is syntactically ugly and can't be described with BNF,
> while C is much better-defined and easier to write a compiler for? How,
> exactly, is that, or anything else I said, in error?
> 

Neither Fortran nor C are made for "structured programming"

And nnow, that we have talked enough about your false analogies, would you
care to explain what "elegance" OSX has compared to, for example, KDE?

Be specific
-- 
Some people are incredibly witty AND intelligent AND sexy.
But enough about myself...

0
Peter.Koehlmann (13228)
7/2/2005 6:11:08 AM
begin  virus.txt.scr Timberwoof wrote:

> In article <da2ttt$5ct$02$1@news.t-online.com>,
>  Peter K�hlmann <peter.koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> 
>> begin  virus.txt.scr Snot snotted:
>> 
>> > "Peter Hayes" <peter@seahaze.demon.co.uk> stated in post
>> > 1gyzixx.pdjjj1zxpzjxN%peter@seahaze.demon.co.uk on 6/30/05 11:56 AM:
>> > 
>> >>> First, your ignorant bigotry is showing.
>> >>> Second Apple enforces its UI guidelines. Apple is one company.
>> >>> 'Linux' is not a company. Red Hat, IBM, Novell are companies.
>> >> 
>> >> He'd be better comparing the Apple GUI with KDE *or* Gnome *or*
>> >> <insert favourite window manager here>, not comparing it with all the
>> >> Linux GUIs simultaneously.
>> > 
>> > Are you unable to see why your comment is incorrect?
>> > 
>> > 
>> 
>> You tell him. In detail. Naturally you will provide evidence and reasons
>> for your conclusions
> 
> Yeah, just like you do all the time, Peter.

I do it quite often, even to Mac using cretins 

You surely have noted that Snot never gives actual, useable evidence, did
you?

>> After all, you are one of the dumbest csma trolls around. You will always
>> find something to post
> 
> Hmmmm. If not providing actual evidence and reasons for your conclusions
> makes one a dumb troll, what does that say about you? You scream a lot
> about other people's idiocy, yet it's rare for you to actually say
> anything that backs up your claims.
> 

I find it very telling that you defend an idiot troll
Must be because he is a fellow Mac user, I guess
-- 
No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message, however, a
significant number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

0
Peter.Koehlmann (13228)
7/2/2005 6:14:47 AM
begin  virus.txt.scr Snot snotted:

< snip >
 
>> since no one is suggesting such a thing, can you see why car analogies
>> are such a poor example?
> 
> My point is that having easy configuration options is not always a good
> thing.  Can you agree with that?

You can certainly explain in great detail *why* it is not always a good
thing, right, Snot?

< snip >
-- 
Tact, n.:
        The unsaid part of what you're thinking.

0