On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 15:05:45 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>>> Yeah, they do tend to prioritise easy of use higher than security,
>>> which isn't particularly to my liking. But hey...
>>
>> Ease of use and security often need to be balanced.  More secure =
>> harder to use.  Less secure = easier to use.
> 
> Yeah, I'm aware of that. The other issue is backwards compatibility. If
> you make the system more secure, old software tends to stop working.
> (E.g., to this day Nero only works if you're an Administrator. No
> reason, it's just poorly written.)

Yep, backwards compatibility does become an issue as well.

>>>> UAC is a pain in the ass for advanced users.  It's a necessary
>>>> component for the average user.
>>>
>>> What's UAC? Is that new in Windows 7 or something? (I've only used
>>> Vista.)
>>
>> User Access Controls, introduced in Vista IIRC.
> 
> Oh, OK. Maybe I just haven't run across that one yet then. I don't use
> my Vista machine all that much.

IIRC, it's kinda forced upon you.  In Win7, you can disable it pretty 
easily, but it's pretty hard to miss.

>> Hmm, and GUI frotn-ends for Windows configuration aren't anything more
>> than ways of modifying the registry (or in now the rare case, an INI
>> file somewhere)?  Sorry, again, you've constructed a straw man.
> 
> It's a mentality difference, not a technological one.

Yes, that is certainly true.

> Under Unix, the primary way to control most software is through
> configuration files. These days Linux has added pretty front-ends to
> some of these systems, but they tend to be designed only for the people
> who aren't smart enough to use the "real" interface - i.e., edit the
> text fails manually.

Well, yes and no.  Users of SUSE products (openSUSE and SLE*) often do 
know how to do the manual edits, but prefer using YaST anyways.

> Under Windows, the GUI is the "real" interface. The configuration data
> is stored in the registry, but you're not supposed to edit it directly.

Except for when there's no other way.

> You're supposed to go to the GUI first. Therefore, much more effort it
> put into making the GUI cover everything. (And far less effort is put
> into making the registry data human-readable, or even documented.)

Well, again, yes and no.  On Linux, some developers do put a lot of 
effort into hiding the backend.  Look at compizconfig, for example (not 
simple-ccsm, but the full configuration tool).  It can write its 
configuration to the flat file config file, or to a gconf backend, which 
in some ways mimics a registry.  The intention is that users modify the 
config through the tool and not by editing the files directly.

In openSUSE and SLE, there are in fact several files that are explicitly 
commented with "DO NOT EDIT THIS FILE DIRECTLY".

> It's just about where the developers focus their attention. Under Unix,
> the configuration file is the definite interface. Under Windows, the GUI
> is. (Or possibly the COM interface. But I don't know much about that
> one...)

Well, again, on Linux it depends.

Just like on Windows it used to depend on whether the developer wrote an 
INI file or used the registry.

>>> Windows programs tend to be designed around the GUI first and
>>> foremost.
>>
>> Well, Microsoft programs tend to be.  Windows programs as a whole -
>> some are, some aren't.  I've seen some pretty crappy designs for
>> Windows UIs in my time.  Blackberry Desktop comes to mind immediately.
> 
> Oh yeah, but /all/ platforms have crappy software. Heck, when I tried
> KLogic, its simulations sometimes GAVE THE WRONG ANSWER. And frequently,
> just tweaking a few lines would crash the problem. So much for OSS
> always being of high quality... In truth, crap software exists
> everywhere. The interesting question is where the /good/ software is.

Well, look at OpenOffice or LibreOffice.  Those are not programs designed 
for the geek, they're designed for the casual user.  You can't lump all 
programs on Linux in one category and all programs on Windows in the 
other - there's crossover.

>>>> Why do I want to configure something from the CLI?  My server is
>>>> headless, and dedicating memory to the GUI sucks resources.
>>>
>>> Right. That isn't something that is going to worry the average home
>>> user who's just trying to surf the 'net.
>>
>> You know, the average home user surfing the net doesn't have to do
>> diddly with a Linux box either.
> 
> Sure. But that isn't the point. The point is that how powerful the CLI
> interface is only matters to power users. Which isn't who Windows is
> primarily aimed at.

Yes, but on the one hand you're arguing about the average home user 
there.  Detailed configuration isn't something they need to worry about 
on *either* platform.

>>> Firing up RegEdit and going to the appropriate key is roughly as easy
>>> as opening up a text editor on your program's configuration file.
>>
>> Firing up regedit isn't "programming".  Navigating through the hives to
>> find the right key is a freaking nightmare.  Even when you know the key
>> you want to navigate to.
> 
> No more nightmarish than navigating to a particular file. You just click
> on a tree view. Just like a file browser.

No need for a file browser with CLI in Linux (though if you want, you can 
use something like mc).  I've navigated the /etc directory on Linux, and 
I've navigated the registry on several versions of Windows (including the 
most recent non-beta releases).  I'll take the /etc directory any day.

>> Give me a text editor and a config file *any day*.  Most of those
>> config files have documentation in the comments.  Show me a full
>> description for what any given registry key does *within regedit*, and
>> then I *might* believe that it's "as easy as editing a config file on
>> Linux".
> 
> Like I said, it's not the primary interface. You're supposed to use it
> only as a last resort. I'll admit I'd like it a lot more if there was
> more documentation for the registry.

And with openSUSE, editing the files directly is a last resort as well, 
with YaST being the preferred and recommended tool.

>> You're simply wrong about this.  Been using Linux since the 90s, pretty
>> much daily, and *never* have brought a Linux system down *instantly* by
>> changing a config file.  N.E.V.E.R.
> 
> You've misparsed what I wrote. I meant that getting the Windows registry
> wrong can down Windows instantly. I very much doubt you could do
> anything similar to Linux.

OK, I guess I did.  Hey, it was 7:15 AM here and I've been up all 
night. ;)

>> Several do.  If I change the configuration file for vsftpd, for
>> example, or sshd, the change comes into play the next time a user
>> connects to it. xinetd is a wonderful thing.
> 
> Interesting. I'm pretty sure I had to send SIG_HUP (or whatever it is)
> to sshd to get it to notice that I just turned off password
> authentication...

Just like in Windows, it depends on the program, and how long ago.  You 
may have noticed that Linux development isn't exactly stagnant.

> [Let's not even get into the fact that the registry is transactional,
> while text files aren't. Or that it supports storing binary blobs
> relatively efficiently...]

Transactionality is a function of the filesystem, and I use a journaled 
filesystem.

And I've yet to see anything more effective than a binary blob as a 
file.  It's just inconvenient to use binary data when the primary purpose 
of configuration files is for them not to be obscured.

>>> Ubuntu seems to contantly want me to reboot when I install updates
>>> too. I think the problem is more that Windows requires updating more
>>> often.
>>
>> Only if there's a kernel update.  Ubuntu may prompt more frequently
>> because it's more convenient and what users coming from Windows are
>> used to.
> 
> That's just ironic. Doing something defective because that's how Windows
> does it. Ha!

Sometimes distros choose that route because it's just easier than 
educating the user.  I would prefer if they educated the user instead.

>> I've spent a fair amount of time recently installing Windows Server
>> 2008R2 and SQL Server 2008R2 for some work I've been doing.  The
>> install is smoother than Server 2000 and 2003, I'll grant.  But still,
>> it's in the stone ages compared to Linux in terms of reboots.
> 
> AFAIK, you boot the CD, do the text-mode bit, reboot into GUI mode,
> reboot one final time, and you're done. That's, like, 2 reboots. Hardly
> excessive...

On an openSUSE installation, you boot the DVD, do the installation, and 
then it boots the installed kernel.  In most situations, it doesn't POST 
the machine again before it's up and running.

But then start applying patches on Windows.  To get 2008R2 current, 
that's probably 2-3 more reboots.

Doing the same on my openSUSE boxes, it's one reboot.  Period.  *If* 
there's a kernel update.

>>> That's just it. Windows is one product, with one set of management
>>> tools. The original Unix, as best as I can tell, has almost no
>>> management features at all. You're supposed to roll your own. So every
>>> major distro builder has built their own independent system of
>>> management tools.
>>
>> The *original* Unix was built in the 60's, and much of what was true
>> for that is simply not true today.  That would be like me saying
>> Windows was totally insecure because it was with Windows 1.0.  Such a
>> statement would be complete bullshit; so is making statements about
>> Linux based on Unix developed in the 60's.
> 
> It's also true that people write software that targets "Unix". It
> expects standard Unix tools like make, patch, cc and so forth, and it
> builds from source. The original Unix flavour provides all these tools,
> but it doesn't provide much in the way of pre-build, widely standardised
> management features. (Partly, as I presume you're hinting, because when
> Unix was new, PCs didn't exist yet. If you have one computer, what do
> you need remote management for?)

You clearly haven't looked at how Linux code development is done with 
modern package management.

>>> If you wanted to compare how easy this is, you can't really compare
>>> "Windows" to "Linux". You'd have to compare "Windows" to "Debian",
>>> "Ubuntu", "OpenSUSE", "Fedora", ...
>>
>> In reality, that is certainly true.  Because we're talking about a
>> complete system, and "Linux" isn't.  A distribution is.
>>
>> But then a distribution includes things that Microsoft doesn't include
>> - office suites, several gigabytes of other applications, and so on.
> 
> That I will grant you. Originally Windows was literally just an OS with
> a text editor. If you wanted to get /anything/ done, you had to pay
> money to install more software. (That's slowly changing of course. Now
> you have a web browser and a movie player and even video editing built
> in, and everybody screaming "monopoly!"...)

Slightly different situation when the manufacturer is extorting OEMs to 
pre-install Windows on every machine they ship (and charge for a license 
regardless of whether they ship Windows or not).  That actually is an 
abuse of monopoly power; the US Antitrust trial found that, and so did 
the EC's investigation.

>>> Windows gives you one standard set of management tools, out of the
>>> box. If those tools don't quite cover what you want, you have a
>>> slightly harder problem then you would with Unix, but it's hardly
>>> intractable.
>>
>> And Unix/Linux management is hardly intractable either.  But to listen
>> to you, it's freakin' impossible - because if you don't know it, it
>> MUST be impossible, right?
> 
> That isn't what I'm trying to say.
> 
> You said "Windows stores everything in the registry, which means you
> can't do any management stuff on it like you can with Linux". I'm
> demonstrating that, no, that's not the case at all. You might not be
> able to grep a text file and run sed over it to effect a configuration
> change, but you also don't /need/ to with Windows. There are other ways
> to reach the same goal - many of them easier than Unix shell
> scripting...

You don't seem to understand that Unix shell scripting is one tool of a 
variety of tools available.

If you know bash better than powershell, then how exactly is bash more 
difficult than powershell?

(The converse is also true)

BTW, those management tools we were talking about my former employer 
selling?  Turns out there's actually a free suite as well.  Relatively 
recent release, so I don't know all the details.  But it is cross-
distribution too IIRC.

Jim

Post a reply to this message