Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #352006 > unrolled thread

Common Myths #1: "GUI Consistency"

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy

Contents

  Common Myths #1: "GUI Consistency" vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-26 18:50 +0000
    Re: Common Myths #1: "GUI Consistency" Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-26 14:52 -0400
    Re: Common Myths #1: "GUI Consistency" chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-26 15:17 -0500
      Re: Common Myths #1: "GUI Consistency" Me Sham <osirus47@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-26 13:59 -0700
        Re: Common Myths #1: "GUI Consistency" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-26 14:33 -0700
      Re: Common Myths #1: "GUI Consistency" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-26 14:35 -0700
        Re: Common Myths #1: "GUI Consistency" Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-04-26 22:59 +0000
          Re: Common Myths #1: "GUI Consistency" owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-26 23:29 +0000
          Re: Common Myths #1: "GUI Consistency" Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-26 17:02 -0700
            Re: Common Myths #1: "GUI Consistency" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-26 18:16 -0700
              Re: Common Myths #1: "GUI Consistency" Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-04-27 08:38 +0000
                Re: Common Myths #1: "GUI Consistency" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 01:48 -0700
                  Re: Common Myths #1: "GUI Consistency" Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-04-27 22:56 +0000
                    Re: Common Myths #1: "GUI Consistency" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 17:31 -0700
      Re: Common Myths #1: "GUI Consistency" Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-04-26 22:56 +0000
        Re: Common Myths #1: "GUI Consistency" Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-26 17:00 -0700
          Re: Common Myths #1: "GUI Consistency" Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-26 20:31 -0400
            Re: Common Myths #1: "GUI Consistency" Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-26 17:41 -0700
              Re: Common Myths #1: "GUI Consistency" Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-04-27 09:36 +0000
                Re: Common Myths #1: "GUI Consistency" Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-27 07:46 -0700
                  Re: Common Myths #1: "GUI Consistency" chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-27 09:55 -0500
                  Re: Common Myths #1: "GUI Consistency" -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-04-28 04:14 -0700
          Re: Common Myths #1: "GUI Consistency" chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-27 07:13 -0500
            Re: Common Myths #1: "GUI Consistency" vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-27 18:01 +0000
              Re: Common Myths #1: "GUI Consistency" JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2016-04-28 12:56 -0500
                Re: Common Myths #1: "GUI Consistency" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-28 11:17 -0700
                  Re: Common Myths #1: "GUI Consistency" Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-28 20:24 +0200
                    Re: Common Myths #1: "GUI Consistency" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-28 12:03 -0700
                  Re: Common Myths #1: "GUI Consistency" Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 12:48 -0700
      Re: Common Myths #1: "GUI Consistency" Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-26 19:33 -0400
        Re: Common Myths #1: "GUI Consistency" chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-27 07:42 -0500
          Re: Common Myths #1: "GUI Consistency" owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-27 14:28 +0000
    Re: Common Myths #1: "GUI Consistency" John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-04-26 16:35 -0700

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#352190

> Fabian Russell wrote:
>>
>> In the future, perhaps the only hardware solutions for GNU/Linux
>> enthusiasts will be the IBM Power series.  Currently the Power8
>> series are the only processors to offer the latest hardware innovations
>> like decimal floating point.  Most likely Intel will shrink from
>> the advanced market leaving the GNU/Linux user having to pay very
>> high prices for decent hardware.  

What a supremely idiotic fucking statement!

-- 
"btw, I also recommend Windows Vista Home Premium or Ultimate."  -
Dumfsck

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#352398

Marek Novotny wrote:
> Fabian Russell wrote:
> > Marek Novotny wrote:
> >
> >> 
> >> But honestly, I think the consumer is just going to buy a lot of
> >> ChromeBooks, a lot of Android's and a lot of iPhones. I think the PC as
> >> we know it will be for developers and content creators.
> >
> > It is a worrisome trend.
> >
> > Right now I can acquire good hardware for very cheap prices, but with
> > the increased exodus of dummies from the PC market the prices are
> > bound to go up.

Cheap oil won't last forever.
 
> Well, we have a good example already. When I was in my teens and early
> twenties I could buy a Commodore 64 for $199... 
> Over the last few decades we have consolidated much. Where once we
> needed an entire controller board for a hard drive, we no longer do.
> It's all down to a chip. And that's a major reason why we see the prices
> so low. The computer has become fewer and fewer components. 

Reduced parts count is certainly part of it, although we've also seen more 
for less too:  a single RAM chip used to cost X, now it costs less while it
also went from being K to M in capacity.  Reason here is that economies of
scale and process yields have gone up too...today's 12" Si wafer has ~10x 
the work surface of yesterday's 4" wafer, but effectively no greater touch 
labor or process times, so that one factor alone affords a tenfold reduction 
in cost.

 
> We fab tons and tons of displays for TV, tablets, and monitors. That
> won't change much in the shift, so those prices are likely to remain as
> they are now. 
> 
> In my teens and early 20s I could by a mid-range PC, which was a 286 at
> the time for about $1,000. And that stayed pretty constant as technology
> advanced. This was at a time when almost no consumers had a PC and there
> were no consumer tablets or smart phones driving down the cost of
> memory. If you remember back then just memory consumed a lot of space.
> In my Amiga in the late 80s I had a full card slot with nothing but
> DRAMs all over it to give me 1.5 MBs of RAM. The fab cost was high. Our
> memory is much more dense now and even with the drive to consumer
> products that won't change. 
> 
> I agree we'll likely see some prices rise, but not that much. Simply
> because we continue to consolidate. Just look at the inside of Apple's
> latest MacBook. It's very much like the iPad itself now. The motherboard
> is a single small strip of computing. The rest is battery and the
> display. 

Not necessarily so.  The news from Intel of a 10% downsize along with the
realization that the desktop market is being superseded by the mobile 
market which doesn't use the x86 architecture means that there's going
to be a lot of shrinking in the market ... and manufacturing is trying to 
shrink gracefully too.  Since overhead costs are tricky to reduce, it means
that some key component prices must start to rise...main target here will
be the x86 CPUs.


...

> No, we compile for everything. ARM will be bigger. Intel will still make
> CPUs and we'll be using GPUs a lot more. There will be so many cores in
> a CPU that you'll look back at this day and marvel how it was. You'll
> have CPUs with 256 cores and that will grow. Things will become
> massively parallel compared to where we are now. 
> 
> Think about this... When I was in my teens a Commodore 64 operated at
> 750,000 Hz. It wasn't even 1 MHz. Then we got 4.77 MHz. Then 8 and 10
> and 12. We got the 286 and 6 MHz and then 10 and 12. We got the 386, now
> 4 times as wide and 16 MHz 20, 25 and 33 MHz. 
> 
> We got the 486 and we got 25, 33 and 50. 
> 
> We got the Pentium and we got 60, 75, 90 and 133 MHz. 
> 
> The Pentium II 166, 233 and on and on. 
> 
> Then we started to get the Pentium III and break the 1 GHz freq. The
> Pentium Pro gave us two cores. 
> 
> Today we can buy 12 core CPUs and in ten years you can add a zero to
> that. You'll get more than 100 cores. And in twenty years you'll get
> 1,000 cores. 

But 'more cores' is a divergence from clock speed scaling.  

And this trend in PC's is despite how the analog semiconductor world has been 
continuing to push to higher frequencies.  Case in point, transistor switching at
room temperature demonstrated at ... 417 GHz:

<http://www.news.gatech.edu/2014/02/17/silicon-germanium-chip-sets-new-speed-record>

> In there you're going to have CPUs that are 10x faster than what we have
> now that cost almost nothing. 

But stuff stalled at around 3.5 GHz a decade ago:  if we're really going to see CPU
clock speed scaling, we notionally should by today be at least seeing $300 Intel x86 
CPUs which can turn at 10 GHz (only 3x faster than 2004). So where are they? 


> I don't think so. If anything, the rise of so much consumer electronics
> will keep the prices low and we'll simply benefit in different ways. 

Only if your use case is still using & leveraging said mainstream consumer goods.


-hh

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#352161

Marek Novotny wrote:

> Fabian Russell wrote:
>>
>> chrisv wrote:
>>> 
>>> As always, the free market sorts it all out, better than any bickering
>>> committees.
>>
>> Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!  What a supremely idiotic fucking
>> statement!

Sure, "Fabian".

>> The "free" market has given us Microshit Windows.

And?  Is Windows so patently inferior that we would be better-off if
some "committee" prevented its offering on the market?

I would rather that the people be allowed to make that choice for
themselves, thanks.  (Yes, I realize that the desktop OS market got
fscked-over by Micro$oft, but that doesn't invalidate my point.)

>In a totally free market we'd get much worse than Microsoft. Someone
>always gets greedy and decided to buy out his competitors and then
>control prices. Innovation comes to a grinding halt. 

They wouldn't even need to buy each other out.  They could just
collude on prices, or divide-up sections of the market among
themselves.  There are many ways to screw the consumer.

Certainly, regulation is required, to prevent anti-competiative
behavior.  "Freedom" does not mean anarchy.

-- 
"If Freedom is so important to people in COLA, why not move to a more
Free system?"  -  some thing, attacking the GPL and its supporters

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#352224

On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 07:13:50 -0500, chrisv wrote:

> Marek Novotny wrote:
> 
>> Fabian Russell wrote:
>>>
>>> chrisv wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> As always, the free market sorts it all out, better than any
>>>> bickering committees.
>>>
>>> Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!  What a supremely idiotic fucking
>>> statement!
> 
> Sure, "Fabian".
> 
>>> The "free" market has given us Microshit Windows.
> 
> And?  Is Windows so patently inferior that we would be better-off if
> some "committee" prevented its offering on the market?
> 
> I would rather that the people be allowed to make that choice for
> themselves, thanks.  (Yes, I realize that the desktop OS market got
> fscked-over by Micro$oft, but that doesn't invalidate my point.)
> 
>>In a totally free market we'd get much worse than Microsoft. Someone
>>always gets greedy and decided to buy out his competitors and then
>>control prices. Innovation comes to a grinding halt.
> 
> They wouldn't even need to buy each other out.  They could just collude
> on prices, or divide-up sections of the market among themselves.  There
> are many ways to screw the consumer.
> 
> Certainly, regulation is required, to prevent anti-competiative
> behavior.  "Freedom" does not mean anarchy.

A "free market" is not a _fair_ market, without referees to ensure an 
even playing field.

-- 
 -v
"Desktops, workstations and servers are and Microsoft
is doing very well. AS well as Linux." -"Slimer"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#352502

On 2016-04-27, vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 07:13:50 -0500, chrisv wrote:
>
>> Marek Novotny wrote:
>> 
>>> Fabian Russell wrote:
>>>>
>>>> chrisv wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> As always, the free market sorts it all out, better than any
>>>>> bickering committees.
>>>>
>>>> Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!  What a supremely idiotic fucking
>>>> statement!
>> 
>> Sure, "Fabian".
>> 
>>>> The "free" market has given us Microshit Windows.
>> 
>> And?  Is Windows so patently inferior that we would be better-off if
>> some "committee" prevented its offering on the market?
>> 
>> I would rather that the people be allowed to make that choice for
>> themselves, thanks.  (Yes, I realize that the desktop OS market got
>> fscked-over by Micro$oft, but that doesn't invalidate my point.)
>> 
>>>In a totally free market we'd get much worse than Microsoft. Someone
>>>always gets greedy and decided to buy out his competitors and then
>>>control prices. Innovation comes to a grinding halt.
>> 
>> They wouldn't even need to buy each other out.  They could just collude
>> on prices, or divide-up sections of the market among themselves.  There
>> are many ways to screw the consumer.
>> 
>> Certainly, regulation is required, to prevent anti-competiative
>> behavior.  "Freedom" does not mean anarchy.
>
> A "free market" is not a _fair_ market, without referees to ensure an 
> even playing field.
>

   In most cases, that's only true for certain extreme circumstances.

   The problem with software is that it requires compatibility. It becomes 
easy for a particular ecosystem to squeeze the rest out. It's hard to see
what kind of regulation in that context would not be a cure worse than the
disease.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#352506

On 4/28/16, 10:56 AM, in article slrnni4jlj.ect.jedi@nomad.mishnet,
"JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

>>> They wouldn't even need to buy each other out.  They could just collude
>>> on prices, or divide-up sections of the market among themselves.  There
>>> are many ways to screw the consumer.
>>> 
>>> Certainly, regulation is required, to prevent anti-competiative
>>> behavior.  "Freedom" does not mean anarchy.
>> 
>> A "free market" is not a _fair_ market, without referees to ensure an
>> even playing field.
>> 
> 
>    In most cases, that's only true for certain extreme circumstances.
> 
>    The problem with software is that it requires compatibility. It becomes
> easy for a particular ecosystem to squeeze the rest out. It's hard to see
> what kind of regulation in that context would not be a cure worse than the
> disease.

What needs to happen is the desktop Linux world needs to get its act
together to provide an environment that promotes P-E-E and where it entices
developers. This is not easy... but Apple has done it well.


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#352509

The lying imbecile Snit Michael Glasser snotted:

> On 4/28/16, 10:56 AM, in article slrnni4jlj.ect.jedi@nomad.mishnet,
> "JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> 
>>>> They wouldn't even need to buy each other out.  They could just collude
>>>> on prices, or divide-up sections of the market among themselves.  There
>>>> are many ways to screw the consumer.
>>>> 
>>>> Certainly, regulation is required, to prevent anti-competiative
>>>> behavior.  "Freedom" does not mean anarchy.
>>> 
>>> A "free market" is not a _fair_ market, without referees to ensure an
>>> even playing field.
>>> 
>> 
>>    In most cases, that's only true for certain extreme circumstances.
>> 
>>    The problem with software is that it requires compatibility. It
>>    becomes
>> easy for a particular ecosystem to squeeze the rest out. It's hard to see
>> what kind of regulation in that context would not be a cure worse than
>> the disease.
> 
> What needs to happen is the desktop Linux world needs to get its act
> together to provide an environment that promotes P-E-E and where it
> entices developers. This is not easy... but Apple has done it well.
> 

That have not done it well. There are very few developers "enticed" by 
apple. For very good reasons. XCode is garbage, and desktop OSX is a small 
niche. 

And no, apple does not promote PEE. Not at all. For that they must try not 
to be different even in such small things like beyboard shortcuts. People 
who need to use different OS are appalled by that shite apple is doing

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#352515

On 4/28/16, 11:24 AM, in article nftka4$c8j$1@dont-email.me, "Peter
Köhlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:

> The lying imbecile Snit Michael Glasser snotted:
> 
>> On 4/28/16, 10:56 AM, in article slrnni4jlj.ect.jedi@nomad.mishnet,
>> "JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>> 
>>>>> They wouldn't even need to buy each other out.  They could just collude
>>>>> on prices, or divide-up sections of the market among themselves.  There
>>>>> are many ways to screw the consumer.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Certainly, regulation is required, to prevent anti-competiative
>>>>> behavior.  "Freedom" does not mean anarchy.
>>>> 
>>>> A "free market" is not a _fair_ market, without referees to ensure an
>>>> even playing field.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>>    In most cases, that's only true for certain extreme circumstances.
>>> 
>>>    The problem with software is that it requires compatibility. It
>>>    becomes
>>> easy for a particular ecosystem to squeeze the rest out. It's hard to see
>>> what kind of regulation in that context would not be a cure worse than
>>> the disease.
>> 
>> What needs to happen is the desktop Linux world needs to get its act
>> together to provide an environment that promotes P-E-E and where it
>> entices developers. This is not easy... but Apple has done it well.
> 
> That have not done it well. There are very few developers "enticed" by
> apple. For very good reasons. XCode is garbage, and desktop OSX is a small
> niche. 

here are some segments where they have NOT done well here, say gaming. Their
they have done poorly. Then again, desktop Linux has done even worse.

But overall, no, your claim is not supported by the direct proof that the
developers DO develop for OS X.

> And no, apple does not promote PEE.

Remember Owl's task challenge? I took it on and the Mac environment allowed
me to have such excellent P-E-E that both you and Owl insisted I must be
cheating. 

You also made claims about screencasting which turned out to be absolutely
false, and made other claims you did not support which are almost surely
false.

Oh, and comments about dictionaries, claims you cannot replicate errors on
KDE you see in videos, claims you found a YouTube video to be "unreadable"
on Linux, comments about how you find it "idiotic" to have a programmable
mouse, and more show you are in over your head on this topic.

> Not at all. For that they must try not to be different even in such small
> things like beyboard shortcuts. People who need to use different OS are
> appalled by that shite apple is doing

If you really believed this, which the evidence suggests if not the case and
you are in fact just trolling, you can easily show examples where desktop
Linux offers better P-E-E. I welcome that! Please do!




-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#352523

On Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 12:17:30 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote:
> On 4/28/16, 10:56 AM, in article slrnni4jlj.ect.jedi@nomad.mishnet,
> "JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> 
> >>> They wouldn't even need to buy each other out.  They could just collude
> >>> on prices, or divide-up sections of the market among themselves.  There
> >>> are many ways to screw the consumer.
> >>> 
> >>> Certainly, regulation is required, to prevent anti-competiative
> >>> behavior.  "Freedom" does not mean anarchy.
> >> 
> >> A "free market" is not a _fair_ market, without referees to ensure an
> >> even playing field.
> >> 
> > 
> >    In most cases, that's only true for certain extreme circumstances.
> > 
> >    The problem with software is that it requires compatibility. It becomes
> > easy for a particular ecosystem to squeeze the rest out. It's hard to see
> > what kind of regulation in that context would not be a cure worse than the
> > disease.
> 
> What needs to happen is the desktop Linux world needs to get its act
> together to provide an environment that promotes P-E-E and where it entices
> developers.

Why does it "need" that? Are you suggesting that its survival is at stake if it doesn't do this to the level you believe needs to be done?

> This is not easy... but Apple has done it well.

The same Apple that would not have survived if it had relied on desktop computing?

Apple is a company, " the desktop Linux world"  isn't (there's a message for you there when you sober up). 

Even MS, the creator of the most successful desktop OS ever, is having issues because it stayed so focused on that for far too long. Most of the rest of the computing world belongs to Linux... a world that doesn't appear to need help from the shrinking desktop segment.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#352069

chrisv wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> vallor wrote:
>
>> Comments welcome.
>
> Consistency cannot be enforced, because it would stifle innovation.
>
> Naturally, different people have different needs, tastes, and skill
> levels, so choices are needed.  Some prefer a controlled environment,
> others prefer the Wild West.
>
> As always, the free market sorts it all out, better than any bickering
> committees.
>
> -- 
> "two different ways IS a consistency problem."  -  "True Linux
> advocate" Hadron Quark, attacking Linux because there's more than one
> way to do some things.

Well, "Hadron" sure found more than one way to be an asshole.

-- 
You will soon forget this.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#352167

Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

>> -- 
>> "two different ways IS a consistency problem."  -  "True Linux
>> advocate" Hadron Quark, attacking Linux because there's more than one
>> way to do some things.
>
>Well, "Hadron" sure found more than one way to be an asshole.

But it was OK that his beloved Windows also had more than one way to
do many things.  

Just like it was OK that Windows always has "." on your path.  

What a hypocrite and fool, Quack was.

-- 
'EVERYONE knows that having "." on your path is a HUGE security risk
since you might inadvertently pick up a rogue script called "ls" for
example in the dir you are browsing.'  -  "Linux expert" Hadron Quark

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#352179

chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> 
>>> -- 
>>> "two different ways IS a consistency problem."  -  "True Linux
>>> advocate" Hadron Quark, attacking Linux because there's more than one
>>> way to do some things.
>>
>>Well, "Hadron" sure found more than one way to be an asshole.
> 
> But it was OK that his beloved Windows also had more than one way to
> do many things.  
> 
> Just like it was OK that Windows always has "." on your path.  
> 
> What a hypocrite and fool, Quack was.
> 

4 definitions found

From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 [gcide]:

  Hypocrite \Hyp"o*crite\, n. [F., fr. L. hypocrita, Gr. ? one who
     plays a part on the stage, a dissembler, feigner. See
     {Hypocrisy}.]
     One who plays a part; especially, one who, for the purpose of
     winning approbation of favor, puts on a fair outside seeming;
     one who feigns to be other and better than he is; a false
     pretender to virtue or piety; one who simulates virtue or
     piety.
     [1913 Webster]
  
           The hypocrite's hope shall perish.       --Job viii.
                                                    13.
     [1913 Webster]
  
           I dare swear he is no hypocrite, but prays from his
           heart.                                   --Shak.
  
     Syn: Deceiver; pretender; cheat.
          See {X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.91/32.564}
          [1913 Webster]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#352068

On Tuesday, April 26, 2016 at 2:50:22 PM UTC-4, vallor wrote:
> I started to respond to the long manifesto posted earlier, but decided it 
> was so full of well-poisoning that it wasn't worth the effort to debunk.  
> Make of that what you will.
> 
> But there is this common myth that, somehow, Windows provides a more 
> "consistent" desktop interface, and is therefore somehow superior in that 
> regard.
> 
> But how true is that?
> 
> Stipulating for the nonce that consistency = superiority, I still 
> challenge the idea that Windows is any more consistent than any other 
> operating system.  As evidence, I give you:
> 
>    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6EtHgiVi7I


Whatever that is, it is NOT a video!!!

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy

csiph-web