OT: OS!? - Rant

R

Rich Grise

Guest
[crossposted to alt.os.linux.slackware,sci.electronics.design,rec.puzzles
- please manage crossposted followups intelligently. Thanks.]

Have any of you encountered this: http://messenger.yahoo.com yet?

Well, I know anyone using KDE on Slackware will have seen it using
Konqueror - it probably shows up in all the browsers, but I'm
terribly, terribly curious as to what shows up on a Doze comp.
i.e., I'm sure the page is there, but is the heading, "Yahoo!
Messenger for Unix"?

I have my computer and router configured such that I can sit at
my desk, and boot Slack 10.0 and do everything I need to do
except AutoCAD Mechanical Desktop 6 and my weekly time sheet,
which they _insist_ is in MS Word 2000 format. Frankly, I'm
still a little iffy about Free Software (not like free beers)
that tries to do what Micro$oft's stuff does, which was written
by paid programmers.

But what works, works.

But this thing on Yahoo - Yikes!

I've heard of "instant messaging", and have actually "chat"ted
with someone, but I'd thought that "instant messaging" was in
the purview of AOL, with MS dabbling, and lessee, I don't
remember what vehicle I was using for my most recent chatting,
except that "vehicle" was the name of the computer I was using
at the time, but previous to that, I was using IRC, Internet
Relay Chat, which I even wonder if there still is such of a
thing, and if so, I wonder if you can still get live kiddie
porn on it.

Anyway, it seems that Yahoo has a script that can tie into
some sort of instant messaging thing, but you have to download
a precompiled binary, which apparently it makes a difference
which version of Redmond^H^H^H^HHat or Debian or FreeBSD you're
using, and I've either forgotten in this tirade whether the
source is there or if being sent off on a wild goose hunt to
look for source is what triggered me off into rant mode, when
I figured out that _some_body is making some money there, on
a Linux base, and I don't know how I should feel about it. I
really, well, part of me, has aspirations to being a Linux
purist, but then another part wonders, "But is that just to
make some kind of _statement?_" and another part wonders, "Is
this a good thing, or a bad thing?" and another part wonders,
"Are people going to think we're crazy for having these
discussions?" and The Pig Bladder From Uranus slaps us upside
the head while we're posting our stoned rantings and says,
"SHUT THE F#CK UP, YOU STUPID #~!!@@#$%^^&*(()))_!!!!!!!!!"

ObPuz:
So, what's everybody's opinion of Yahoo Instant Messaging,
and should I care about it?

Thanks,
Rich
 
On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 17:03:04 GMT, in sci.electronics.design Rich Grise
<richgrise@example.net> wrote:

[crossposted to alt.os.linux.slackware,sci.electronics.design,rec.puzzles
- please manage crossposted followups intelligently. Thanks.]

Have any of you encountered this: http://messenger.yahoo.com yet?
The Pig Bladder From Uranus slaps us upside
the head while we're posting our stoned rantings and says,
"SHUT THE F#CK UP, YOU STUPID #~!!@@#$%^^&*(()))_!!!!!!!!!"

ObPuz:
So, what's everybody's opinion of Yahoo Instant Messaging,
and should I care about it?
I've given up with MS and yahoo messy systems. I just use Skype, it
does not seem to be tied up with any browser, it does VoIP, and I can
call landlines.


martin
 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.os.linux.slackware.]
In alt.os.linux.slackware, Rich Grise dared to utter,
[crossposted to alt.os.linux.slackware,sci.electronics.design,rec.puzzles
- please manage crossposted followups intelligently. Thanks.]
How would you like the handled? If you're going to cross-post and ask
people to do so intelligently, you should do so yourself, but setting
the Followup-To: header as I have done here.

Have any of you encountered this: http://messenger.yahoo.com yet?
Yeah, everyone had heard of Yahoo! Messenger, AOL's AIM, MS's
Messenger. What's the big deal?

Well, I know anyone using KDE on Slackware will have seen it using
Konqueror - it probably shows up in all the browsers, but I'm
terribly, terribly curious as to what shows up on a Doze comp.
i.e., I'm sure the page is there, but is the heading, "Yahoo!
Messenger for Unix"?
That's trivial stuff, really. The web server just looks at the headers
your web browser sends to identify what operating system you are
running and sends you to the page with the correct utility to download.
Big whoop. If you're really interested, some web browsers have an
emulation mode where they can mask themselves as another browser or OS.
IIRC, Opera has done this for some time and Firefox has this
functionality as well.

I've heard of "instant messaging", and have actually "chat"ted
with someone, but I'd thought that "instant messaging" was in
the purview of AOL, with MS dabbling
Why don't you STFW? One google for "instant messaging" brings up AOL,
jabber, Yahoo!, MSN, ICQ, etc.

previous to that, I was using IRC, Internet
Relay Chat, which I even wonder if there still is such of a
thing, and if so, I wonder if you can still get live kiddie
porn on it.
A) Yes, IRC is still around and has never gone anywhere. Why don't you
do your own research before asking an obvious question that makes
yourself look silly?
B) Why do you want live kiddie porn?
C) Why do you admit to wanting live kiddie porn?
D) Don't answer B and C.

Anyway, it seems that Yahoo has a script that can tie into
some sort of instant messaging thing, but you have to download
a precompiled binary
No, no script. It's a binary. Scripts aren't binaries (though
technically I suppose you can argue that every piece of software is a
binary).

I figured out that _some_body is making some money there, on
a Linux base, and I don't know how I should feel about it.
What do you mean "don't know how you should feel about it"? OMG, heaven
forbide that some one actually make money, the root of all evil, with
software that runs on a free OS! There's nothing at all wrong with
this and why should you care? If you don't want to use non-free
software, you don't have to. There are plenty of open source IM clients
out there that will do Yahoo! Instant Messanging.

- --
It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise,
Than for a man to hear the song of fools.
Ecclesiastes 7:5
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCof1cvgVcFKpJf4gRAtNJAJ9N3vA9NxQNdW3uSaM36H5dA2e7vQCggBTX
/U4OjwRSsYYZnjzQHzPUipE=
=Ltmw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 17:03:04 +0000, Rich Grise wrote:

ObPuz:
So, what's everybody's opinion of Yahoo Instant Messaging, and should I
care about it?
Don't bother with the proprietary client. Google "gaim". And "Jabber".
 
Rich Grise wrote:
Have any of you encountered this: http://messenger.yahoo.com yet?
I haven't and don't intend to but ...

except AutoCAD Mechanical Desktop 6 and my weekly time sheet,
which they _insist_ is in MS Word 2000 format. Frankly, I'm
still a little iffy about Free Software (not like free beers)
that tries to do what Micro$oft's stuff does, which was written
by paid programmers.
Don't forget that the Titanic was built by professionals but Noah's ark
was built by an amateur.

Anyway, try open office
< http://download.openoffice.org/1.1.4/index.html >
I take it you are running a version of Linux. OO is cross platform.
I'm running eCS and have yet to find a Word file that OO won't handle.
YMMV. Give it a try.

Ted
 
Ted Edwards wrote...
Don't forget that the Titanic was built by professionals but
Noah's ark was built by an amateur.
With God's help. By definition God is the ultimate professional.
But it's not clear what bringing Him into the equation helps.


--
Thanks,
- Win
 
Winfield Hill wrote:
Ted Edwards wrote...
Don't forget that the Titanic was built by professionals but
Noah's ark was built by an amateur.
With God's help. By definition God is the ultimate professional.
But it's not clear what bringing Him into the equation helps.
A tounge-in-cheek comment on Rich's statement, "that tries to do what
Micro$oft's stuff does, which was written by paid programmers." Most of
us are painfully aware of the quality of stuff put out by M$s paid
programmers.

Ted
 
"Ted Edwards" <Ted_Espamless@telus.net> wrote in message
news:tmPoe.33130$wr.21273@clgrps12...
A tounge-in-cheek comment on Rich's statement, "that tries to do what
Micro$oft's stuff does, which was written by paid programmers." Most of
us are painfully aware of the quality of stuff put out by M$s paid
programmers.
Yeah, but the difference is that the fact that some Microsoft software is
pretty piss poor is a very calculated decision on someone's part up there in
Redmond. Whether or not any given piece of free software sucks is more of a
random variable...

(Linux example: There's still no standard way for software installations to
add start menu icons to the GUIs such as Gnome or KDE that run on top of Linux
proper. Yecch. The argument for why this state persists is someting along
the lines of "Well, each GUI does its own thing and the software installers
don't always have the time to write separate install routines for Gnome, KDE,
etc..." OK, fair enough, but why can't all those GUI providers at least agree
on some lowest common denominator means of adding start menu icons? And still
keep whatever extra cool features they want as well? In Windows, the start
menu is just a bunch of regular old "shortcut" files in regular old
directories -- utterly trivial.)
 
"Ted Edwards" <Ted_Espamless@telus.net> wrote in message
news:tmPoe.33130$wr.21273@clgrps12...
Winfield Hill wrote:
Ted Edwards wrote...
Don't forget that the Titanic was built by professionals but
Noah's ark was built by an amateur.
With God's help. By definition God is the ultimate professional.
But it's not clear what bringing Him into the equation helps.

A tounge-in-cheek comment on Rich's statement, "that tries to do what
Micro$oft's stuff does, which was written by paid programmers." Most of
us are painfully aware of the quality of stuff put out by M$s paid
programmers.

Ted
Ah - But: That can only mean that you have not pushed Open Source hard
enough!

There are bugs, mistakes, shortcuts, stupid application interdependencies
and plain fuckups, that a two-minute test would have found, in Open Source
too - and anyone who thinks that he/she/it will not need some kind of QA
procedure before inflicting some software upon a larger environment merely
because "the source is there" is deluded in much the same way that the
person who believes the MS advertising.

*All* real software is overcomplex crap I.M.O., the challenge is to find out
where it breaks and then not go there.
 
Joel Kolstad <JKolstad71HatesSpam@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Ted Edwards" <Ted_Espamless@telus.net> wrote in message
news:tmPoe.33130$wr.21273@clgrps12...
A tounge-in-cheek comment on Rich's statement, "that tries to do what
Micro$oft's stuff does, which was written by paid programmers." Most of
us are painfully aware of the quality of stuff put out by M$s paid
programmers.

Yeah, but the difference is that the fact that some Microsoft software is
pretty piss poor is a very calculated decision on someone's part up there in
Redmond. Whether or not any given piece of free software sucks is more of a
random variable...

(Linux example: There's still no standard way for software installations to
add start menu icons to the GUIs such as Gnome or KDE that run on top of Linux
proper. Yecch. The argument for why this state persists is someting along
the lines of "Well, each GUI does its own thing and the software installers
don't always have the time to write separate install routines for Gnome, KDE,
etc..." OK, fair enough, but why can't all those GUI providers at least agree
on some lowest common denominator means of adding start menu icons? And still
keep whatever extra cool features they want as well? In Windows, the start
menu is just a bunch of regular old "shortcut" files in regular old
directories -- utterly trivial.)
The problem is that there is no centralised authority that can say
"thou shalt do it this way".
Add this to the fact that standardisation isn't always an 'interesting'
problem, and the fact that developers tend to use only one GUI - and it
works for them, ...

A lot of the core functionality of linux - Xwindows, motif, ... has been
imported from elsewhere.
In many cases for some apps, large chunks of UI have been lifted from
windows and mac apps.

You've then got the added problem of if you've got N GUIs, M ways of
installing them on O distributions of the OS, it can result in N*M*O
special cases.
 

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top