Warp wrote:

>   You are blaming Windows for something that the applications do (iow.
> consume lots of memory)?
> 
>   If anything, you could blame Windows developers for being lazier or less
> competent than Amiga developers, and I wouldn't have much to argue about
> that. However, I don't really buy this "Windows was *vastly* slower than
> Amiga, even though the hardware was considerably more advanced".

I don't think multiple seconds to close a window is "responsive". The 
Amiga always managed to do this instantly, on every occasion. Only 
recently have PCs been able to duplicate this seemingly trivial feat. 
Sounds like a huge inefficiency to me.

(Then again, the Amiga lacks the capability for virtual memory. It 
doesn't physically possess the hardware to implement it. I guess that 
makes software authors a little more careful...)

>> That pretty much describes me and Linux. Even something trivial like 
>> configuring a network interface without DHCP seems excruciatingly hard 
>> in Linux.
> 
>   Then you have either lied about trying OpenSUSE, or you have never even
> opened Yast. Or you are exaggerating on purpose, for whatever reason.

As part of the Disaster Recovery plan I keep going on about, I had to 
set up a PC with two NICs and configure it as a NAT router. Now, in 
fairness, as far as I can tell Windoze can't do this *at all*. But it 
was pretty hard to do from Linux either.

I don't recall exactly which distro I used - I think I probably used 
KNOPPIX (i.e., Debian). And I probably didn't find the "simplest" way of 
doing it. I just dug through endless manpages and help files until I 
found a combination that works. Basically the DNS configuration lives in 
one file, DHCP settings in another file, and IP address settings have to 
be frobbed using ifconfig. And then there's the route command, which 
(logically enough) frobs the kernel routing table. Or something like 
that... I don't have my notes any more.

>> Under 
>> Windows, you just right-click on the network interface and type in what 
>> you want the settings to be.
> 
>   Exactly how this is relevantly different from Yast?

I didn't know Yast could do this. (As I say, I haven't needed to do it 
recently.)

>> ...why in the name of god would you ever want to do such a thing?
> 
>   That sounds such a "window'ish" question.

I just can't imagine a situation where you'd ever need to, that's all.

>> And 
>> wouldn't that require reading every individual byte of data on the 
>> entire HD anyway, regardless of OS?
> 
>   You know, not every search must be done on every single file in the system.
> You can actually limit searches to certain directories. Even in Windows.

Oh, right. You mean "find out which one of *these* files contains a 
given string"? That makes a bit more sense...

>   Ever heard of the magical word "grep"? Do you know what it's used for in
> unix systems? If yes, and you understand why this utility has existed for,
> like, forever, then why are you asking "why would you evern want to do such
> a thing"?

I throught that grep is an overly-complicated way of searching for the 
location of a string within one particular file? (I usually just use my 
text editor's "search" function.)

>   Maybe you don't need to search files containing a certain string, but many
> other people do.

I guess I don't very often edit large files...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message