1. that US agencies prevented folks like me (I live in Europe) from having stronger encryption.
2. Encryption not possible to decrypt by US agencies are considered WEAPONS and not released, even not to US citizens.
3. Those of us who use a Unix flavor still are possible victims due to cookies and redirects. (Please don't tell me I'm wrong about cookies unless you really know what they are, AND what Java can do.)
- I've been an astronomer for some time, and I can assure you, this won't harm satellites or anything else.
This is way more common than it seems, just because such things weren't reported in the past (meaning 10+ years ago).
The sun's activity has a 8 / 12 year cycle. Over that period activity, such as flares and increasing sun spots, become more frequent, then they fade back to normal.
In other words: 8 / 12 years ago the same thing happened, and it didn't caused any harm.
PS: "8 / 12" year cycle means that there are two cycles overlapping each other. Astronomers normally mention just the 12 year period, and both periods are not accurate.
I felt uncomfortable with having Linux used by the masses, and the discussion made me think about that again.
No one cares about what I feel, I know that.
I want to point out, that my approach is different NOW, and that the article, the discussions, AND THIS REPLY TO US SLASHDOT folks really changed something.
No Linux for the masses was my opinion, BECAUSE Linux looks more and more like MS Windows every day. There's hardly a week, where there's no GUI "improvment" to make it look and feel like M$ Windows.
I didn't mentioned it, but I thought about the X Consortium at MIT's, who sure don't wanted to re-invent an M$ Windows screen.
Now I learned something: I'll just go for "esoteric" windowmanagers, and try to keep my mouth shut about this topic.
As long as I have the plain ncurses console and the power of a *nix system, it's okay with me.
Thanks for these insightful discusssion, and especially for the reply to our comments !!
- The answer to the problem is out there - for 20 years.
It's the MIT "construction".
Professors at MIT were not only allowed, but URGED to spend up to 20% of their time in the commercial world. That means consulting, money generating activities in commercial companies, (are there non-comercial companies ? ) and even starting their own company.
So there was no need for Negroponte, Minsky [add more names here] to leave the university to make more bucks. Same for a dozen people you ALL know by their names.
(There is however a need for ex-soviet nuclear scientists to get a payraise from whoever...)
> it is crucial that the not-for-profit motive should be respected > when the needs of research communities are best served in this way.
First, what is this "not-for-profit motive" ?
You have the skills, tools and time to do something new. You feel the need, that you should contribute something to this world.
Second, what are "the needs of research communities" ?
A scientist will see that need. It sure is not "Instant Messaging". It's gopher, archie, ftp, a browser, email.
Like Eudora. Eudora was and still is written/maintained by someone at NASA. My LAN uses an ethernet driver developed by D. Becker, again NASA. My email-client is PINE, University of Washington.
Now do these folks have nothing better to do ? Nope. But they spend time - often unpaid overtime - because they feel the need to contribute something.
It's fine, that at least someone else pointed out again, that "THE WEB" is not a US thing, but the outcome of a Switzerland research team.
So it's not me again telling you that THE WEB is a child of CERN. (I'm just telling you again, right ? )
> The scrappy, early 'Mosaic' browser designed > at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications at the University of > Illinois only took off when some of the scientists who invented it > went on to set up Netscape.
That's not true. Mosaic was up and running BEFORE there was Netscape. I personally saw and used it in the early 90s.
What the author wants to tell us here, is that without money, no real scientist would give something to the world (and not just to his company).
> the abuse of commercial monopolies is also too evident, with > much of the world having been held hostage > to the dismal operating system DOS for more than a decade.
That's offtopic. DOS is not a scientific thing.
When Bill Gates bought the code for DOS from someone he knew, for a few bucks, and sold it to IBM, he made it [for himself] forever.
If a company like MS has no competition, what's wrong with that ?
If APPLE would have had the bucks, Gates got from IBM, we might all use MAC boxes.
If no-one would have tried to bring up a car factory, we would all drive FORD's. (Yeah, not the black T model, okay.)
That's life. At least on your planet.
> the continuation of the open spirit in the tradition of Internet pioneers.
I'm one of them, but I will die sooner or later. I see it here on Slashdot since I joined (not long ago), there are very very few "Internet pioneers" here.
+++ Folks, these pioneers are 40 to 50+ years old. You tend not to bond with them. +++
So what I'm doing is to slowly quit, doing research on my own. My new stuff won't get published. +++ BECAUSE if I would, I'd receive emails telling me what to do better by folks who are into computing for some 5 years.
In the 80's and early 90's it was different.
> Linux operating system developed by Linus Benedict Torvalds > [snip] as a 'hobby' -- which IBM last week decided to put at the core of its hardware > plans. > Because the code is not proprietary, it is being built on and debugged by > an army of amateur developers worldwide, many of them academic scientists. > In short, amateur software developers are playing a key role in keeping systems open.
+++++++++ WHAT ?????? +++++++++++
Unpaid developers are keeping systems open ? IBM could do the same if they wanted to.
Who get's the money ??? IBM
Who worked on what IBM makes money with ??? Unpaid software developers.
> Because the code is not proprietary it is abused by a comercial company.
Hands up Everybody, who think that IBM will "pay back" and release their OS for FREE, the same way these "army of amateur developers" did.
There's just something inside me, that doesn't like to be a face in the crowd, and doesn't like to make a kewl Unix System look like Bill Gate's best idea (to buy the original DOS code).
If you want your mothers use Linux, then you are right.
I don't [want that].
I fear the efforts of the developers will very soon be financially abused by companies that are already on that track. It's not even Corel or IBM or DELL, just take RatHead. What these companies do is creating an easy-to-use OS (like MS Windows, for your mams) and make big bucks outta the work of real nerds who originally never thought about money.
I don't like folks being abused.
And I do NOT HAVE A CHOICE when it comes to GUI's for Linux. Afterstep is not what is was. It doesn't look like NEXTStep anymore -- it's MS Windows-, MAC- like... well, you can read it here on Slashdot.
I'm part of a real minority - okay. But I just don't want stuff everybody has.
I want something SPECIAL.
Linux is/was something special. Not KDE or GNOME.
Once it looks like MS/MAC, the thrill is gone. At least, for me. Fine day Everybody, george./
... I'm working around 90% as you do. Ie. I start Acroread from wharf, and - like you - I know which file I wanna see.
So a lot of pgms have a tiny (!!) xyz-terms w/ a tiny script asking me for the filename, with "just ENTER" set to reasonable defaults.
Some of these defaults present a filelist, * *** but I do not have the __OVERHEAD__ of a filemanager ***, I just have an "ls".
When you started in the 70s you know like I do, that saving resources is a good thing. Even on a powerful machine.
We upgrade our hardware constantly, but --- DOES ANYTHING RUN FASTER ???
It doesn't (w/ exceptions of course), because we add new OVERHEAD. We do that because some of us like to click with pointing devices. I don't. I prefer keystrokes and I try to keep the system load as low as possible.
- The only thing is that I think Staroffice and finance apps are too complicated, but hey, I use the pgms I wrote myself to keep track of money and such.
But no, I don't do my taxes in hexadecimal... george./
As a UNIX user, I notice that you are trying to give Linux an MS Window like GUI.
I don't like that.
> Windows without the X is like making love > without a partner. (By mwikholm@at8.abo.fi, MaDsen Wikholm)
> As an added benefit, it would help everyone to > maintain clean hard drives free of all junk > files... deleting would just be too much fun!
Why does a "Geek" need a "file manager" (or whatever you call it, what you're crying for) ?
There is a tmpwatch script that automatically removes unneeded files. (Coincidence: just today it wiped off 100 MB on one of my machines.)
A really good configured system maintains itself.
Why must there be a "panel" on a GUI ??
My afterstep config w/ wharf and zharf looks cool, does especially not look like MS Windows, and is way more handy - for newbies as well as for me.
Problems to understand the filesystem ?
Read the documentation and put your "Geek" sticker in the backburner until you understand UNIX.
Then realize that Linux is a UNIX system, not something that is to be compared to MS Windows or MAC.
If you don't like the MIT's X System, you're not a "geek" or "nerd".
I like to type this on one machine, with the actual work being done on another machine on my LAN. How do you want to make this "handy" for someone who can't imagine that he's typing and reading on a machine, that doesn't really process the keystrokes ?
GNOME and KDE are good for newbies - no question.
But it's not something that a real UNIX pro would use.
- Women are better on debugging if they are good in programming at all.
If I gave a part of code to someone else, he saw what I overlooked. If I just tell someone about the code, I find the error just because I have to translate the [abstract] code into [human] language.
Most folks know this funny effect.
Debugging is a bit like Editing, as a lecture to find typos. Since female earthlings see much more details than their male counterparts, they are just better in it.
Of course you are right, Venomous Louse, debugging is a subset of programming.
When I use the word ARGUEMENT, I mean "part of a discussion", not something negative or agressive. In case that word has a different primary meaning, please someone tell me. I'm not a US citizen, so that might cause misunderstandings I'd like to avoid.
> If everything you say is absolutely accurate, > why then I'd say that it's no wonder so much > software is so damn buggy. Tour description of > women sounds like somebody who'd really kick ass > at debugging
Hey, nobody is perfect, neither a woman nor a man.
I never said I'm perfect (although I'm that close that it already scares me).
In 22 years I saw 98% of female programmers quitting, because they just couldn't do it. They TRIED HARDER THAN EVERY OTHER MAN, but they still couldn't do it.
The fact, that those, who can, make mistakes (your debugging argument) doesn't mean anything. He who does nothing makes no mistakes. Male programmers just do less mistakes than female hackers.
- Why do we need more girls for computing ? Is there a plan to kill all male Earthlings here ? WE HAVE BIGGER PROBLEMS: We need more heavy weight female boxers. We need more gays on the catwalk. We need more men who get their dress-color scheme right. We need more girls who start smoking. _ Take a reality check before you post here ! george./
[ ] Only the hours you get paid for. [ ] Only the hours you spend in an office / home office. [ ] Only the hours you actually do business related tasks. [X] All the time you spend thinking about work. [X] Include all the you spend enhancing skills that relate to your work. [ ] Other hours: ____________
That really makes 12 h/d, 84 h/week, cya, george./
I ment UNIX *** USERS ***.. UNIX is the OS at most big sites. Next is IBM/370 to ES9000 etc.. Under X, they do not see a difference to MS Windows. I experience that almost every day. You just have to configure X in such a way, that they (the users) have everything handy. (And that's what I provide.) I completely agree with you that the point is to USE *nix, not to learn it, when it comes to the average user. I've just posted a long comment on excatly this at here
>.... that's why it would > be/is tough to teach people about Linux.
NEW COMPUTER USERS have to learn, no matter what OS or application they use. That's a fact.
NEW LINUX USERS - they need not - NOT - learn about the OS. They want to USE the box, running APPLICATIONS.
They didn't know how MW Window managed "EXCEL" or whatever - they USED it.
DON'T ANYBODY TRY TO TEACH SOMEONE LINUX !!
It would mean to teach them UNIX. That would mean they had to go thru 6 years (2136 days !!!) of classes.
A layman wants to drive a car, not to be able to repair or even build it.
A layman wants to make a spreadsheet, not to be able to trace system calls or program the spreadsheet application.
I've two kinds of customers here: Spreadsheet "freaks" and furniture designers.
I myself have NO idea about these two things.
Now I start X on one machine, give them Staroffice, Applixware, WP, half a dozen CAD programs, whatever.
I'm using AfterStep in a unique configuration (took me more than half a year - I offer installation and support) so please don't take KDE or GNOME as "what naturally is on a Linux box".
They grab my chair and start clicking, typing and then they call me: "Look, now you can make this table (in a spreadsheet) in 3D" - click-click-click - "Easy, hey?" - and I don't understand anything. They do, because they work with APPLICATIONS.
After 15 seconds they have already forgotten, that they work on a powerful *nix machine.
And I can NOT follow them - that's why I still use a pgm I wrote to keep track of my money (if any), because I HAVEN'T UNDERSTOOD WHAT A LAYMAN TOLD ME.
The point here is, that "Linux" is not the problem. Making a big deal about it is the problem.
I'm sure I will point this out here on/. for quite a while, since I believe, that nearly all Linux users/admins/gurus here lost contact with what people really want.
I want a new car. I don't care about the brand of the valves inside the engine.
A customer wants a MINI-CAD application. He doesn't care about system calls.
> The fact that you've been in the business that > long gives you the edge in the computer > situation and indeed makes you an almost > automatic exception to the rule.
I'm familiar with computers, yes. But that means: MAINFRAMES.
> You're at least *comfortable* with a computer.
I'm familiar w/ these PCs for 5 yrs only, but I'm a very fast learner - okay. I spend almost my entire day in front of my machines - okay.
> Windows user... without having to seriously > re-train or coddle them? No. No way!
WRONG !
I'm 22 yrs in the biz, and I still have to learn too. (*1)
But EVERYBODY how enters my lab starts clicking on (X System) apps and uses them better than I do.
Just don't present a ncurses screen to a MS Window user. Under X, everybody used programs [I didn't used] to show ME how to make a spreadsheet or whatever.
(*1) I lived in the IBM/370 world for over 15 yrs, so I have some gaps on UNIX. I never used a spreadsheet pgm - I made my own pgm to calculate what I need.
I know that, especially since my head is 2 meters away from a noisy box (which I can't replace right now due to lack of bucks...). It helps to use styropore (sp, I know, it's the plastic you find in boxes to absorbe shocks). That's a perfect absorber. Also, if the noise does not change (no spin/downs/ups of HDDs) I can live with it. Put a CD in, let it fade out over 30 minutes, and you have a perfect sleep. That's what I sometimes do.
Slashdot Mirror
-
Please let me remind you,
1.
that US agencies prevented folks like me (I live in Europe) from having stronger encryption.
2.
Encryption not possible to decrypt by US agencies are considered WEAPONS and not released, even not to US citizens.
3.
Those of us who use a Unix flavor still are possible victims due to cookies and redirects.
(Please don't tell me I'm wrong about cookies unless you really know what they are, AND what Java can do.)
4.
Two words: SETEC ASTRONOMY
5.
One word: FEMA
george./
-
...to use "MS DOS".
They had the hardware, but no OS.
Gates knew someone how hacked an OS.
He [Bill Gates] bought it for pocket money,
sold it to IBM.
In case you don't remember:
"DOS" was called "Quick and DIRTY OPERATING SYSTEM" at that time.
george./
-
I've been an astronomer for some time,
and I can assure you, this won't harm satellites or anything else.
This is way more common than it seems,
just because such things weren't reported in the past (meaning 10+ years ago).
The sun's activity has a 8 / 12 year cycle.
Over that period activity, such as flares and increasing sun spots, become more frequent, then they fade back to normal.
In other words: 8 / 12 years ago the same thing happened, and it didn't caused any harm.
PS: "8 / 12" year cycle means that there are two cycles overlapping each other.
Astronomers normally mention just the 12 year period, and both periods are not accurate.
So - don't panic, nothing will happen.
george./
"Anonymous Coward" isn't a bad ID at all...
I told you I'll keep my mouth shut over Linux./.TheMasses.
Hope you're satisfied now.
To admit an error is something that has a place here - I think.
Especially, when SLASHDOT provoked that change of mind.
"AC", that's why we're talking here...
Peace ! george./
-
so I thank you all!
I felt uncomfortable with having Linux used by the masses,
and the discussion made me think about that again.
No one cares about what I feel, I know that.
I want to point out, that my approach is different NOW, and that the article, the discussions,
AND THIS REPLY TO US SLASHDOT folks
really changed something.
No Linux for the masses was my opinion,
BECAUSE Linux looks more and more like MS Windows every day.
There's hardly a week, where there's no GUI "improvment" to make it look and feel like M$ Windows.
I didn't mentioned it, but I thought about the X Consortium at MIT's, who sure don't wanted to re-invent an M$ Windows screen.
Now I learned something:
I'll just go for "esoteric" windowmanagers,
and try to keep my mouth shut about this topic.
As long as I have the plain ncurses console and the power of a *nix system, it's okay with me.
Thanks for these insightful discusssion,
and especially for the reply to our comments !!
Have a fine weekend, george./
-
The answer to the problem is out there - for 20 years.
It's the MIT "construction".
Professors at MIT were not only allowed, but URGED to spend up to 20% of their time in the commercial world.
That means consulting, money generating activities in commercial companies,
(are there non-comercial companies ? )
and even starting their own company.
So there was no need for Negroponte, Minsky [add more names here] to leave the university to make more bucks.
Same for a dozen people you ALL know by their names.
(There is however a need for ex-soviet nuclear scientists to get a payraise from whoever...)
> it is crucial that the not-for-profit motive should be respected
> when the needs of research communities are best served in this way.
First, what is this "not-for-profit motive" ?
You have the skills, tools and time to do something new.
You feel the need, that you should contribute something to this world.
Second, what are "the needs of research communities" ?
A scientist will see that need.
It sure is not "Instant Messaging".
It's gopher, archie, ftp, a browser, email.
Like Eudora.
Eudora was and still is written/maintained by someone at NASA.
My LAN uses an
ethernet driver
developed by D. Becker, again NASA.
My email-client is
PINE,
University of Washington.
Now do these folks have nothing better to do ? Nope.
But they spend time - often unpaid overtime - because they feel the need to contribute something.
It's fine, that at least someone else pointed out again,
that
"THE WEB"
is not a US thing, but the outcome of a Switzerland research team.
So it's not me again telling you that THE WEB is a child of CERN.
(I'm just telling you again, right ? )
> The scrappy, early 'Mosaic' browser designed
> at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications at the University of
> Illinois only took off when some of the scientists who invented it
> went on to set up Netscape.
That's not true.
Mosaic was up and running BEFORE there was Netscape.
I personally saw and used it in the early 90s.
What the author wants to tell us here,
is that without money, no real scientist would give something to the world (and not just to his company).
> the abuse of commercial monopolies is also too evident, with
> much of the world having been held hostage
> to the dismal operating system DOS for more than a decade.
That's offtopic.
DOS is not a scientific thing.
When Bill Gates bought the code for DOS from someone he knew, for a few bucks,
and sold it to IBM, he made it [for himself] forever.
If a company like MS has no competition, what's wrong with that ?
If APPLE would have had the bucks, Gates got from IBM, we might all use MAC boxes.
If no-one would have tried to bring up a car factory,
we would all drive FORD's. (Yeah, not the black T model, okay.)
That's life.
At least on your planet.
> the continuation of the open spirit in the tradition of Internet pioneers.
I'm one of them, but I will die sooner or later.
I see it here on Slashdot since I joined (not long ago),
there are very very few "Internet pioneers" here.
+++ Folks, these pioneers are 40 to 50+ years old. You tend not to bond with them. +++
So what I'm doing is to slowly quit, doing research on my own.
My new stuff won't get published.
+++ BECAUSE if I would, I'd receive emails telling me what to do better by folks who are into computing for some 5 years.
In the 80's and early 90's it was different.
> Linux operating system developed by Linus Benedict Torvalds
> [snip] as a 'hobby' -- which IBM last week decided to put at the core of its hardware
> plans.
> Because the code is not proprietary, it is being built on and debugged by
> an army of amateur developers worldwide, many of them academic scientists.
> In short, amateur software developers are playing a key role in keeping systems open.
+++++++++ WHAT ?????? +++++++++++
Unpaid developers are keeping systems open ?
IBM could do the same if they wanted to.
Who get's the money ???
IBM
Who worked on what IBM makes money with ???
Unpaid software developers.
> Because the code is not proprietary
it is abused by a comercial company.
Hands up Everybody,
who think that IBM will "pay back" and release their OS for FREE,
the same way these "army of amateur developers" did.
Thanks for your time reading this,
george./
-
Yes folks, you are right.
There's just something inside me, that doesn't like to be a face in the crowd,
and doesn't like to make a kewl Unix System look like Bill Gate's best idea (to buy the original DOS code).
If you want your mothers use Linux, then you are right.
I don't [want that].
I fear the efforts of the developers will very soon be financially abused by companies that are already on that track.
It's not even Corel or IBM or DELL, just take RatHead.
What these companies do is creating an easy-to-use OS (like MS Windows, for your mams) and make big bucks outta the work of real nerds who originally never thought about money.
I don't like folks being abused.
And I do NOT HAVE A CHOICE when it comes to GUI's for Linux.
Afterstep is not what is was.
It doesn't look like NEXTStep anymore -- it's MS Windows-, MAC- like... well, you can read it here on Slashdot.
I'm part of a real minority - okay.
But I just don't want stuff everybody has.
I want something SPECIAL.
Linux is/was something special.
Not KDE or GNOME.
Once it looks like MS/MAC, the thrill is gone.
At least, for me.
Fine day Everybody, george./
...
I'm working around 90% as you do.
Ie. I start Acroread from wharf, and - like you - I know which file I wanna see.
So a lot of pgms have a tiny (!!) xyz-terms w/ a tiny script asking me for the filename, with "just ENTER" set to reasonable defaults.
Some of these defaults present a filelist,
*
*** but I do not have the __OVERHEAD__ of a filemanager ***,
I just have an "ls".
When you started in the 70s you know like I do, that saving resources is a good thing.
Even on a powerful machine.
We upgrade our hardware constantly,
but --- DOES ANYTHING RUN FASTER ???
It doesn't (w/ exceptions of course), because we add new OVERHEAD.
We do that because some of us like to click with pointing devices.
I don't.
I prefer keystrokes and I try to keep the system load as low as possible.
We're not so far away I think...
george./
-
The only thing is that I think Staroffice and finance apps are too complicated,
but hey, I use the pgms I wrote myself to keep track of money and such.
But no, I don't do my taxes in hexadecimal...
george./
...
that Linux is a UNIX workalike ?
As a UNIX user, I notice that you are trying to give Linux an MS Window like GUI.
I don't like that.
> Windows without the X is like making love
> without a partner.
(By mwikholm@at8.abo.fi, MaDsen Wikholm)
> As an added benefit, it would help everyone to
> maintain clean hard drives free of all junk
> files... deleting would just be too much fun!
Why does a "Geek" need a "file manager" (or whatever you call it, what you're crying for) ?
There is a tmpwatch script that automatically removes unneeded files.
(Coincidence: just today it wiped off 100 MB on one of my machines.)
A really good configured system maintains itself.
Why must there be a "panel" on a GUI ??
My afterstep config w/ wharf and zharf looks cool,
does especially not look like MS Windows, and is way more handy - for newbies as well as for me.
Problems to understand the filesystem ?
Read the documentation and put your "Geek" sticker in the backburner until you understand UNIX.
Then realize that Linux is a UNIX system,
not something that is to be compared to MS Windows or MAC.
If you don't like the MIT's X System, you're not a "geek" or "nerd".
I like to type this on one machine, with the actual work being done on another machine on my LAN.
How do you want to make this "handy" for someone who can't imagine that he's typing and reading on a machine, that doesn't really process the keystrokes ?
GNOME and KDE are good for newbies - no question.
But it's not something that a real UNIX pro would use.
Fine day Everybody, george./
-
Women are better on debugging if they are good in programming at all.
If I gave a part of code to someone else, he saw what I overlooked.
If I just tell someone about the code, I find the error just because I have to translate the [abstract] code into [human] language.
Most folks know this funny effect.
Debugging is a bit like Editing, as a lecture to find typos.
Since female earthlings see much more details than their male counterparts, they are just better in it.
Of course you are right, Venomous Louse, debugging is a subset of programming.
When I use the word ARGUEMENT, I mean "part of a discussion", not something negative or agressive.
In case that word has a different primary meaning, please someone tell me.
I'm not a US citizen, so that might cause misunderstandings I'd like to avoid.
Thanks, george./
-
I NEVER said anything about "debugging".
Re-read what I've written.
Someone else started this crazy argument.
DEBUGGING is BTW something WOMEN can do BETTER,
because they see the details I, as a man, overlook.
I completely agree with you on your debugging-story, but that's offtopic.
I never used that word.
later, george./
-
You're completely right.
Just said that whoever moderates this doesn't seem to have any psychological knowledge,
so all this discussion goes into wasteland....
george./
> If everything you say is absolutely accurate,
> why then I'd say that it's no wonder so much
> software is so damn buggy. Tour description of
> women sounds like somebody who'd really kick ass > at debugging
Hey, nobody is perfect, neither a woman nor a man.
I never said I'm perfect (although I'm that close that it already scares me).
In 22 years I saw 98% of female programmers quitting, because they just couldn't do it.
They TRIED HARDER THAN EVERY OTHER MAN, but they still couldn't do it.
The fact, that those, who can, make mistakes (your debugging argument) doesn't mean anything.
He who does nothing makes no mistakes.
Male programmers just do less mistakes than female hackers.
Don't you see it here on this very site ?
Fine day everybody,
george./
-
That's what I posted.
I don't understand the score(1) I got for my post, but the entire discussion here goes awry.
Read it again, it's known psychology, it's true,
and you see the proof EVERY SINGLE DAY.
george./
- Why do we need more girls for computing ? Is there a plan to kill all male Earthlings here ? WE HAVE BIGGER PROBLEMS: We need more heavy weight female boxers. We need more gays on the catwalk. We need more men who get their dress-color scheme right. We need more girls who start smoking. _ Take a reality check before you post here ! george./
-
It's horrible to see what macho shit geeks posted.
Psychologist know that the biggest difference between Men and Women IS THE *** BRAIN ***.
Women can see more details, remember them, don't overlook things.
Men can think abstract, ie. have a better orientation sense.
When driving, a WOMEN should DRIVE,
while the MAN reads the map.
Women see streetsigns - men don't.
Men know they must turn left somewhere - women don't.
Women remember that Jack had a red tie on the last party, whilst her buddy doesn't even remember that Jack was there.
Just check these few examples and you'll see why it's harder for women to code,
and harder for men to see their own typing errors.
GOSH !! george./
12 h/d - 84 h/week:
[ ] Only the hours you get paid for.
[ ] Only the hours you spend in an office / home office.
[ ] Only the hours you actually do business related tasks.
[X] All the time you spend thinking about work.
[X] Include all the you spend enhancing skills that relate to your work.
[ ] Other hours: ____________
That really makes 12 h/d, 84 h/week,
cya, george./
I ment UNIX *** USERS ***.. UNIX is the OS at most big sites. Next is IBM /370 to ES9000 etc.. Under X, they do not see a difference to MS Windows. I experience that almost every day. You just have to configure X in such a way, that they (the users) have everything handy. (And that's what I provide.) I completely agree with you that the point is to USE *nix, not to learn it, when it comes to the average user. I've just posted a long comment on excatly this at here
HERE IS WISDOM:
.... that's why it would
/. for quite a while, since I believe, that nearly all Linux users/admins/gurus here lost contact with what people really want.
>
> be/is tough to teach people about Linux.
NEW COMPUTER USERS have to learn, no matter what OS or application they use.
That's a fact.
NEW LINUX USERS -
they need not - NOT - learn about the OS.
They want to USE the box, running APPLICATIONS.
They didn't know how MW Window managed "EXCEL" or whatever - they USED it.
DON'T ANYBODY TRY TO TEACH SOMEONE LINUX !!
It would mean to teach them UNIX.
That would mean they had to go thru 6 years (2136 days !!!) of classes.
A layman
wants to drive a car,
not to be able to repair or even build it.
A layman
wants to make a spreadsheet,
not to be able to trace system calls or program the spreadsheet application.
I've two kinds of customers here:
Spreadsheet "freaks" and furniture designers.
I myself have NO idea about these two things.
Now I start X on one machine, give them Staroffice, Applixware, WP, half a dozen CAD programs, whatever.
I'm using AfterStep in a unique configuration (took me more than half a year - I offer installation and support) so please don't take KDE or GNOME as "what naturally is on a Linux box".
They grab my chair and start clicking, typing and then they call me:
"Look, now you can make this table (in a spreadsheet) in 3D"
- click-click-click -
"Easy, hey?"
- and I don't understand anything.
They do, because they work with APPLICATIONS.
After 15 seconds they have already forgotten, that they work on a powerful *nix machine.
And I can NOT follow them - that's why I still use a pgm I wrote to keep track of my money (if any),
because I HAVEN'T UNDERSTOOD WHAT A LAYMAN TOLD ME.
The point here is,
that "Linux" is not the problem.
Making a big deal about it is the problem.
I'm sure I will point this out here on
I want a new car.
I don't care about the brand of the valves inside the engine.
A customer wants a MINI-CAD application.
He doesn't care about system calls.
> The fact that you've been in the business that
> long gives you the edge in the computer
> situation and indeed makes you an almost
> automatic exception to the rule.
I'm familiar with computers, yes.
But that means: MAINFRAMES.
> You're at least *comfortable* with a computer.
I'm familiar w/ these PCs for 5 yrs only, but I'm a very fast learner - okay.
I spend almost my entire day in front of my machines - okay.
later, george./
> Windows user... without having to seriously
/370 world for over 15 yrs, so I have some gaps on UNIX.
> re-train or coddle them? No. No way!
WRONG !
I'm 22 yrs in the biz, and I still have to learn too. (*1)
But EVERYBODY how enters my lab starts clicking on (X System) apps and uses them better than I do.
Just don't present a ncurses screen to a MS Window user.
Under X, everybody used programs [I didn't used] to show ME how to make a spreadsheet or whatever.
(*1)
I lived in the IBM
I never used a spreadsheet pgm - I made my own pgm to calculate what I need.
george./
Are you all INSANE ???
Linux is UNIX on Intel CPU's.
No UNIX user has any problems with this.
Put an MS Window user in front of an IBM mainframe and he's more lost than if you'd place him in front of a "Linux machine".
If you really wanna make Linux a Windows-look-and-work-alike, as GNOME, KDE etc do,
then save your time and install MS Windows !!!
Hell, I don't get you !!!
I know that, especially since my head is 2 meters away from a noisy box (which I can't replace right now due to lack of bucks...). It helps to use styropore (sp, I know, it's the plastic you find in boxes to absorbe shocks). That's a perfect absorber. Also, if the noise does not change (no spin/downs /ups of HDDs) I can live with it. Put a CD in, let it fade out over 30 minutes, and you have a perfect sleep. That's what I sometimes do.