From pycyn@aol.com Sat Dec 08 11:56:07 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_1_2); 8 Dec 2001 19:56:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 86726 invoked from network); 8 Dec 2001 19:56:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m10.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 8 Dec 2001 19:56:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d04.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.36) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Dec 2001 19:56:07 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.9.) id r.7e.1f31724e (16335) for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 14:56:05 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <7e.1f31724e.2943ca54@aol.com> Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 14:56:04 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] [WWWW] Big update! To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_7e.1f31724e.2943ca54_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 118 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_7e.1f31724e.2943ca54_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 12/7/2001 11:35:12 PM Central Standard Time, cowan@ccil.org writes: > Not so. Windows and all its works are made by geeks who have sold > themselves > to marketeers. As opposed to geeks who will have nothing to do with marketeers so sit around criticizing the marketed stuff but not making improvements available (and not even wanting to, apparently). On the whole, I find the latter group more reprehensible, since they can't even claim an original idealism (as many microsofties do -- machines for the masses! And they actually did it!). The analogy only works beyond a limited technical sense, if applied to a field where there are actual Cadillacs and Toyotas and... available in the same block as Yugos. There aren't in the computer software world; there is only the little Citroen of a Macintosh -- pricey, maybe worth it, repairable only by two guys in Lyon. The tyrrany analogy escapes me -- unless you mean exactly that there are o choices. And that is, of course, just my point -- runners complain about MS but do nothing significant about offering an alternative, not even something worth fiddling with, like early MSDOS, because it showed promise. And they felt that confidence because they had alternatives that they knew would work -- better at least. And whence comes the FUD we users suufer from -- largely from the constant runner nattering about how bad Windows is. Sure Windows crashes from time to time and takes your files with it -- so does the phone in the middle of an important call, the television in the middle of the Big Game, and so on; that's modern life (not that ancient life was even approximately as good or reliable). But most of the time it does what it ought with no more (rather less usually) trouble than your father's office machines, which did considerably less and much less efficiently (I remember having to retype a whole chapter of my dissertation to correct one line near the beginning -- and that was on an advanced typewriter with some memory even). If there were genuine alternatives that crashed less or did more or did the same even better -- Chevrolets at Chevrolet prices, say -- they would wipe the Yugos out -- eventually; it might take a few years. But essentially no one is inclined to do it: the marketeers either have a product they can continue to sell as long as they refurbish it occasionally (bigger, clunkier, pricier) or have a lock on selling repairs for the aforementioned. The runners hold the whole idea of letting everyone in on their hobby in deep contempt, justified by tossing out an ill-designed bone and using its failure to demonstrate that the great unwashed are not capable or worthy of anything better. Lojban is, I think, a better thing that should be made availalbe to all and thus needs runner who can overcome that contempt and reach out to users ... and even beyond. Robin does a good job of actually trying to do a bit of the reach and, did he just keep quiet about his feelings and method of working, would stand as a paradigm of what is needed. With the others thrown in, however, he looks unreliable, since his effectiveness is seen to be merely happenstantial, not a part of his guiding plan. --part1_7e.1f31724e.2943ca54_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 12/7/2001 11:35:12 PM Central Standard Time, cowan@ccil.org writes:

Not so. Windows and all its works are made by geeks who have sold themselves
to marketeers.

As opposed to geeks who will have nothing to do with marketeers so sit around criticizing the marketed stuff but not making improvements available (and not even wanting to, apparently). On the whole, I find the latter group more reprehensible, since they can't even claim an original idealism (as many microsofties do -- machines for the masses! And they actually did it!).

<Windows is a Yugo at Cadillac prices. What is more, the Windows
culture is a tyranny, which like all such is supported by the meekness of
its victims. >
The analogy only works beyond a limited technical sense, if applied to a field where there are actual Cadillacs and Toyotas and... available in the same block as Yugos. There aren't in the computer software world; there is only the little Citroen of a Macintosh -- pricey, maybe worth it, repairable only by two guys in Lyon. The tyrrany analogy escapes me -- unless you mean exactly that there are o choices. And that is, of course, just my point -- runners complain about MS but do nothing significant about offering an alternative, not even something worth fiddling with, like early MSDOS, because it showed promise.

<The Yugo failed because people felt more confident rejecting a
piece-of-crap car; Windows has not yet failed because people were
subject to FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt).>

And they felt that confidence because they had alternatives that they knew would work -- better at least. And whence comes the FUD we users suufer from -- largely from the constant runner nattering about how bad Windows is. Sure Windows crashes from time to time and takes your files with it -- so does the phone in the middle of an important call, the television in the middle of the Big Game, and so on; that's modern life (not that ancient life was even approximately as good or reliable). But most of the time it does what it ought with no more (rather less usually) trouble than your father's office machines, which did considerably less and much less efficiently (I remember having to retype a whole chapter of my dissertation to correct one line near the beginning -- and that was on an advanced typewriter with some memory even). If there were genuine alternatives that crashed less or did more or did the same even better -- Chevrolets at Chevrolet prices, say -- they would wipe the Yugos out -- eventually; it might take a few years. But essentially no one is inclined to do it: the marketeers either have a product they can continue to sell as long as they refurbish it occasionally (bigger, clunkier, pricier) or have a lock on selling repairs for the aforementioned. The runners hold the whole idea of letting everyone in on their hobby in deep contempt, justified by tossing out an ill-designed bone and using its failure to demonstrate that the great unwashed are not capable or worthy of anything better.
Lojban is, I think, a better thing that should be made availalbe to all and thus needs runner who can overcome that contempt and reach out to users ... and even beyond.
Robin does a good job of actually trying to do a bit of the reach and, did he just keep quiet about his feelings and method of working, would stand as a paradigm of what is needed. With the others thrown in, however, he looks unreliable, since his effectiveness is seen to be merely happenstantial, not a part of his guiding plan.

--part1_7e.1f31724e.2943ca54_boundary--