>> 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.

If you pull up the documentation for (say) Apache, it won't tell you how 
to use the Apache YaST module. It will tell you how to edit the 
underlying text file. And if something doesn't work right, and you can't 
figure it out from YaST, you'll have to look under the covers to see 
what it's written in the configuration file, to see why Apache isn't 
doing what you want.

>> 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.

Except that this almost never happens. That's the entire point. Most 
Linux front-ends seem to be tacked on afterwards, whereas on Windows, 
the GUI is the primary focus.

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

I thought that's just code for "this file is autogenerated from some 
other configuration file - you should go edit that instead".

>> It's just about where the developers focus their attention. Under Unix,
>> the configuration file is the definite interface.
>
> Well, again, on Linux it depends.

OK. But certainly most Linux uses seem to have the opinion of "GUI? Pah! 
We don't need that. That's just for n00bs who don't know what they're 
doing..." (Whether this attitude applies to most /developers/ is more 
debatable.)

>> Oh yeah, but /all/ platforms have crappy software.
>
> 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.

Sure. But most programs seem to be primarily Unix or primarily Windows.

POV-Ray: The Windows version has a full IDE. All the other versions are 
just the rendering engine.

Apache: It runs everywhere, but it's clearly designed in the mould of a 
Unix daemon process.

CUPS: It's available for Windows. But it has "Unix" right there in the name.

>> 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.

Well, each to their own...

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

This is not a good 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.

I notice that there's always a lot of stuff "happening" with Linux. I'm 
never sure what the hell any of it actually /does/. As far as I can 
tell, the difference between each release of any given Linux distro is 
that the colour scheme is different, and some of the default options 
have changed. I'm sure there must be more to it than that, but...

(A simliar thing could be said about MS Office, of course.)

>> [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.

Doesn't stop two scripts both trying to update the same config file at 
the same time. If you do that with the registry, it works. Because it's 
a proper database engine, not just a flat file.

>> 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 guess it isn't just MS that makes poor choices in the name of keeping 
users...

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

OK, fair enough.

Personally, I'm not very impressed by the Windows Update system. Like, 
it'll install a bazillion updates for IE6 in the same session as it also 
installs IE8. And then you go back and it wants to install a bunch of 
IE8 updates. Um, why couldn't you do that the first time around??

>> 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.

I love how multiple courts have proved that what MS is doing is illegal, 
and as a result they have received NO PUNISHMENT OF ANY KIND. That's 
such a big motivation for them to stop casually disregarding the law...

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

Post a reply to this message