Re: ati (and other issues)

[damaged justice <frogfarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Quoting Robert G. Brown (bob@acm.org):
> Please note that I didn't say that "Bloatware" doesn't exist, or that Adam 
> was just wrong.  Bloatware DOES exist, but my Bloatware is your survival 
> tool. It's real hard to be judgmental.

One man's meat is another man's poisson. [No sp, just my mangled french pun]

> My Mother, who can type 145 words per minute (and has for the last 50 years) 
> just LOVES the little paper clip and all of his (her? anyone know how to 
> check? :) friends, mostly because they persistently remove the mystery of
> a complex environment for her.  Please note that she really liked WordPerfect 
> 5.x, running in DOS, from 1988-1997.

My mom has "adapted" to the new style of interface Gates is pushing, but
doesn't really feel comfortable with it. She's also a Word Perfect alumnus
and a speed typist (and has always wondered how I can do 65+wpm without
knowing how to touch type).

> The question: Is she running Bloatware?  Please answer this, and in the meantime
> I'll ask my Mom.

If it helps her to be more productive, then it isn't entirely worthless,
but again, value is in the perceptions of the user. (As we keep agreeing,
I notice -- hence the need for no restraints on our freedom to make tools,
so a healthy and varietous "ecosystem" can be maintained.)

[Bob notes my reason given for high prices of "niche" products like custom
computers and organic foods is not sufficient explanation by itself]

Yes, there are more reasons, and thanks for pointing them out. Thankfully,
as long as users have access to quality tools, there's little anyone can do
to stop programmers from meeting whatever demand they perceive. Whether
they can make money at it is a different story. The GNU/LPF/FSF model of
free software, paid tech support doesn't seem to satisfy many programmers,
and I can understand why -- I'd rather see property rights respected, and
let people decide for themselves whether they want to use free, cheap or
expensive software, or any combination thereof. But my quibbles with
Richard Stallman are more ideological hair-splitting than anything else;
he's certainly done much more than Bill Gates to make the world of
computing a better place. Bill has his place, but it's much lower on my
personal scale of things -- McDonald's and Chevy, mass market, mediocre.

(The cost of specialized "vertical" applications that meet a very specific
niche rules them out as an option for many people. Here, programmers could
make money contracting out for custom jobs.)

> It would be very interesting to see how a Gateway, Dell, or Compaq would 
> ship a computer with Linux. How would you specify what you wanted installed? 
> What increment would they charge for amortizing all the configuration and 
> packaging work needed?  Would it result in something people would buy?
> Be careful what you wish for.

I'd like to see a comparison of the various companies that offer Linux
preinstalled; how well they handle orders, etc. One would hope it would be
a more positive experience than your first Gateway roundup...  

[Re hormone-treated milk: Cows were being given Bovine Growth Hormone and 
most farmers were planning on switching entirely over to the new method. A 
lot of people, including me, didn't like that -- we wanted to be able to 
choose.] 


> >I've said for years that the ideal installation program will, as its very 
> >first question, ask something like: "Do you know what you are doing?"
> ...
> >Instead, we get Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum -- "Simple" and "Advanced" 
> >installations that are fundamentally no different from each other.
> This may be true with Win95, but in NT, there's a good deal of difference 
> between "simple" and "advanced", especially for the SDK's (surprise! :), 
> but also for Orifice 97, and networking the OS.

Very nice. OS/2 tried to do something nice and customizable with the CID
routine, I hear, but I never used it so can't comment on it. Can you tell
us a bit more about these installation routines? Are there any features in
them that you think it would be nice to have in Linux?

> I knew secretaries who wrote APL and FORTRAN code...at night, they went to 
> the Disco, since it was fashionable then. So were polyester leisure suits 
> and nuclear power plants.

Yes, trends go in and out of style, but quality endures. Unix may have its
faults, but still... it used to be, people were advocating VMS over Unix.
Now they're advocating WinNT [primarily built by the same guy responsible
for VMS, Dave Cutler! Maybe that would explain the fact that it seems like
such a mish mash of really neat stuff and really, really awful stuff...],
but Unix is still the goal they're trying to beat. And Unix hasn't stood
still, either; thanks to Linux, FreeBSD and open source in general, it's
still advancing up the evolutionary ladder.

> Here's a somewhat more objective (and less anecdotal) test. Take someone who 
> doesn't know anything about computers.  Sit that person down for 15 minutes 
> in front of a GUI/WYSIWYG word processor (I won't say which one, but I'm will- 
> ing to throw out anything really specialized or with obscure interfaces), and 
> just let 'em play around. Then do the same with a character-based package 
> with lots of commands available through escape sequences. Which one will they 
> prefer?  If you do this 100 times, I'll start to believe that answer.

I believe you're right about GUI's - they just make more sense. But a CUA
text interface can be just as friendly, if not as "pleasing" to look at,
and requires far less computing resources. I use text-based programs
whenever possible, no matter what OS I'm using, because they're faster and
generally more flexible/powerful. I'm definitely over my anti-GUI days,
though, and I like the ability to not be stuck in either environment, but
to be able to choose GUI and/or CLI as appropriate. Again, all my current
OS's support this except MacOS, which has scripting to give you a "virtual"
command prompt capability.

> >(The WYSIWYG model was a Very Bad Thing in at least one other respect: It 
> >convinced all the masses who stumbled onto the World Wide Web that HTML 
> >was just another page layout tool. 
> Jesus told us "The poor will always be with us." This is no less true in 
> the 20th century than it was in the 0th. We're in a more complex world, so 
> we can make more mistakes! I've found that people WILL listen, if they're 
> in a position to do so, and if they understand it's critical. Otherwise, 
> why bother? I can understand that to an Eskimo, Postscript and HTML serve 
> about the same purpose. That's fine with me, but then my language doesn't 
> have dozens of words for "snow".

They *can* serve the same purpose, but as we know, they are very different
tools, meant for very different things. It does nobody any good to try to
hammer nails with a screwdriver. In sum, I tell newbies that if they want
pixel-perfect layout, or any kind of "control" over how their material
looks, HTML is not the tool to use -- although HTTP may be still be the
best way to transport it. Again, the user needs the most accurate and
objective information, so they can determine for themselves how best to
accomplish their task.

> To confuse the two terms (popular and pervasive) is the worst kind of 
> propaganda. It causes what exists to drift into all that we will accept. 
> This is exactly what those in a dominant position want.

I apologize if you feel I have been guilty of this, and will also do my
best to refrain from engaging in rumormongering.

> >I think of Bill Gates more as P.T. Barnum than Hitler, or even Rockefeller. 
> IMO any parallel between Gates and Hitler is COMPLETELY INAPPROPRIATE, and 
> in poor taste, to say the very least. No one [here] has made such a comparison, 
> and anyone who does is exhibiting insensitivity and ignorance of history on
> an appalling scale.

Most of Usenet makes such a comparison every day, which is why I'm relying
more on mailing lists.

> 
> Rockefeller, Carnegie, Vanderbilt, Astor.. these (and others) were collectively 
> known as "Robber Barons".  The practices of these men and others like 'em were 
> what got the Anti-Trust laws on the books in the first place, and IMO it's
> not at all inappropriate to list Gates among them. I do not do so as an exercise
> in name-calling (unless you want to refer to calling a spade a spade as "name- 
> calling").

Read "The Myth of the Robber Barons". 'Nuff said; the last thing I'm gonna do
is get into more politics. (POLITICS, from the Greek: Poly, meaning "many",
and "tics", meaning, "small blood sucking animals." - Dave Barry)

> I don't like the parallel between Gates and Barnum; you're not portraying intent
> quite right. [...]

What "everyone knows" is not always true. Anyone with two brain cells to
rub together, when presented with objective facts, will come to the
conclusion that Gates' products are mediocre but usable, at best. His
intent may not be the same as Barnum's ostensibly, but the results are the
same -- everyone has a good laugh, and those who are offended deeply enough
(or embarrassed about their own gullibility, if they bought into his story)
move on to something better. People grant license by acquiescence -- and
not all of us (most of us on this list, for example) do not. "Silence shows
consent," and we are the dissenters.


> >who wouldn't switch under those circumstances, except a devout masochist? 
> Someone who doesn't allow the conventional wisdom or a few names called to 
> interfere with every choice being made in one's life? (was this a trick 
> question? :)

Not a trick question, just a sarcastic one. But analogies (and sarcasm) do
not work on the Internet. :)

Most people (obviously not US, we the "enlightened" (see below)) care so
much about what others think of them that their primary goal in life is to
conform and be accepted by others. Thankfully, I left that disease behind
in adolescence.

(Re "enlightened": As Ed Dickerson send in misc.education.home-schooling,
"Arrogance is the ultimate learning disability." I try to learn (and teach)
something new every day. I freely admit what I don't know -- how else am I
going to learn?)

--
Explain to me, slowly and carefully, why if person A, when screwed over on a
deal by B, is morally obligated to consult, pay, and defer to, person C for
the purpose of seeing justice done, and why person C has any legitimate gripe
if A just hauls off and smacks B around like a dead carp. (Michael Schneider)