ELF loading
in [ASM]
|
From: Betov on 26 Aug 2007 14:08 Herbert Kleebauer <klee(a)unibwm.de> �crivait news:46D1AE4C.C2324A88 @unibwm.de: > Maybe this has nothing to do with "free works" but is because > they don't have to make a living from there work and therefore > are free to make a proper design and don't have to implement > a crappy interface just because the paying user wants it. How ridiculously arrogant! :( Betov. < http://rosasm.org >
From: Betov on 26 Aug 2007 14:24 santosh <santosh.k83(a)gmail.com> �crivait news:fasf47$otl$1(a)aioe.org: > I agree. But the catch is the people who actually *improve* the > usability of the software are programmers, so they will only improve > the usability to the extent that they deem as necessary, particularly > since, in FOSS, the programmers, as Herbert said, are unpaid by a > company and hence, under no compulsion to produce the "easiest to use" > software possible. You are missing the point: The Ubuntu Programmers _are_ payed. By some "Mark S." rich man, i have read (i do not know who he is). Any idea? > One encouraging trend in that the current versions of KDE and GNOME > are _much_ easier to use than their state around the late 1990s, which > was when they started. I still have a circa 1998 edition of Mandrake > Linux, IIRC, one of it's earliest releases - it's quite an experience > to install it to a spare partition and compare it to the latest and > greatest from Ubuntu and Co. I am afraid i also got this Mandrake version on my computer... I still have a later version of Mandrake on my actual Windows Computer. It costed me more money at buying compatible gears, than i ever spent for Windows itself... In the earlier days, i was happy when it was fine with my screen... :)) Betov. < http://rosasm.org >
From: santosh on 26 Aug 2007 14:36 Betov wrote: > CodeMonk <jascwa(a)yahoo.com> �crivait news:LIhAi.45152$Lu.11260 > @bignews8.bellsouth.net: > >> Betov wrote: >> >>> of a user to *learn* anything at all. The job of a user is, as its > name >>> says, to *use* a Software, and if a Software's final user has anything >>> to *learn*, before usign the Soft, the programmer has failed. >> >> Careful !!! :) Even RosAsm's interface is less than intuitive, and >> that's from a "final user" assembler programmer's perspective. > > Personaly, i do not think that i am a good "designer", but > we (Ludwig and me) did our best with this, and, at my own > taste, it _is_ intuitive enough. Now, RosAsm is not an OS. > It is a Tool for *programmers* - what an OS should not be > supposed to be -. So, admitting that RosAsm would be counter- > intuitive, this would not make any excuse for an OS to also > be counter-intuitive. But an OS wouldn't exist without programmers, so it is simultaneously of interest to, and used by, programmers and users. Again, the bottom-line in volunteer works, is what is actually done. No amount of carping is going to spur a programmer into implementing a feature, if he doesn't want to. Fortunately, since Linux and it's associated programs are under GPL, anyone can modify them for greater usability, if they so desire. If the improved version is really better than the previous one, it would supplant it in due course.
From: santosh on 26 Aug 2007 14:49 Betov wrote: > santosh <santosh.k83(a)gmail.com> �crivait news:fas8it$v8o$1(a)aioe.org: > >> To use a car, you need to learn to drive. To use a TV, you need to >> learn the button. To use an oven, you need to learn baking, to use a >> shaving set, you need to learn shaving, to use a can opener, you need >> to learn a can opener, to use Windows, you need to learn Windows, ad >> nauseum, .... > > To use an OS, one has to learn what a Mouse is, and how to > use a keyboard. Learning the convention of a Command-Line: > No. Not since the death of DOS, for sure. The UNIX interface predates DOS by a decade. >>> If a programmer is unable to write a correct user-interface, >>> why on earth would he be able to write any Soft, at all? >> >> The UI is correct, merely _different_ >> >> Once again, keep in mind that UNIX evolved in the late 60s and early >> 70s. At that time there were _no_ such thing as an "average Joe" user. >> Only programmers and scientists used software. Linux, based itself on >> UNIX, so has derived it's philosophy from UNIX. > > Right. In other words, a system that no joe user would have > ever considered using. I am not interrested with Programmers' > OSes. Then you'll have to either wait until Linux becomes user friendly enough for you, or just stick to Windows. BTW, have you tried MacOS? It's fans consider it the "user friendliest" of operating systems. >>> The purpose of an OS, is to _do_ the job. >> >> Yes. And the Linux kernel does it better than the Windows kernel, > > Jocking again, i suppose... It does do so. At a purely kernel level. >>> Even if Ubuntu >>> is called "User-Friendly", it is still at light-years from Windows, >>> you like it or not, at this point of view. >> >> As I said desktops like KDE and GNOME have made basic usage as >> friendly, IMHO, as for Windows. > > No. Also, if there exist *two*, one must be destroyed. Absurd. By the same logic, we must destroy multiplicity in everything. To do that we must destroy everything in world except... one person. >>> The reality is >>> that Linux is slow, unsecure, boring >> >> Yes KDE and GNOME _are_ slow. No question about that. But they are not >> Linux itself. Linux is, strictly speaking, just the kernel. Together >> with GNU's C library, compiler and fundamental utilities, it forms a >> clean, lean OS. > > :)) > > Do you see how these words are absurd? So if Adobe Acrobat Reader is bloated, requires 1 GB RAM and 3.5 GHz processor and takes 30 seconds to start up, do you fault Windows? >> It was not a bug. It was incorrect usage by the user. *sudo* asks for >> _your_ password, _not_ the root password. > > You like it or not, this _is_ a bug. There is no difference in > between root and the password, under Ubuntu. Not "the" password, but the password of the user you created when you were asked to do so during installation. This is _not_ the root user, but an ordinary user, given the permission however, to invoke administrative commands and to use sudo. However the password supplied must be this user's password, not root's password, which, IIRC, does not yet exist in a fresh, default install of Ubuntu. To enable the root account, which is disabled from logging in by default, under Ubuntu, just do, 'passwd root'. Now you can log in as root and invoke any command without messing with sudo. >> Well go ahead then with DOS and Windows. Have you followed Microsoft's >> strong recommendations and upgraded to the latest and greatest Windows >> Vista? > > No. 2000 here, and i have absolutely no intention of buying > anything else. 2000 works fine, and the only problem i have > with it is that i am ashamed of having given money to MS for > it, after having already given money for 95. So, do not put > your finger where it hurts. :)) Again, why not try MacOS if you want a professional alternative to Microsoft? <snip>
From: santosh on 26 Aug 2007 14:51
Betov wrote: > santosh <santosh.k83(a)gmail.com> �crivait news:fasf47$otl$1(a)aioe.org: > >> I agree. But the catch is the people who actually *improve* the >> usability of the software are programmers, so they will only improve >> the usability to the extent that they deem as necessary, particularly >> since, in FOSS, the programmers, as Herbert said, are unpaid by a >> company and hence, under no compulsion to produce the "easiest to use" >> software possible. > > You are missing the point: The Ubuntu Programmers _are_ payed. > By some "Mark S." rich man, i have read (i do not know who he > is). Any idea? Yes, one Mark Shuttleworth. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Shuttleworth> |