On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 15:59:14 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>>> 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.

If you use openSUSE for configuration, you use the openSUSE documentation 
to see how to use YaST to make those configuration changes.  And if that 
doesn't get you where you need to be, you ask a question in the community.

OSS is big about community.

>>> 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.

I guess I imagined all those Technet articles that have the warning I 
sited earlier about how editing the registry can screw your system up.  
That must be it, because of course Microsoft would *never* recommend you 
do something that might bork your system.

>> 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".

Configuration files don't autogenerate other configuration programs.  
Configuration programs do, and in those instances, the warning is there 
to tell you to use the proper configuration program.

>>> 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.)

Obviously you don't know many Linux users.  I know at least 5,000, and 
many of them not only love and use the GUI, but tend to have religious 
wars over which GUI is better.

Of course, that's most certainly an attitude taken by people who think 
GUIs suck, right?

>>> 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.

Which doesn't actually address the underlying point.

>>> 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.

Not generally, no.  I've had some sleep now, but next week is going to 
see me needing to be up early every morning for the first time in months. 
(this is 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...

Linux (and most OSS software) evolves rather than going through discrete 
cycles.  The downside is that it can be difficult to peg a specific 
'stable' release unless that's built into the release schedule (of a 
distro or a particular piece of software).  The upside is that bug fixes 
and enhancements (particularly the latter) tend to find their way into 
incremental releases a bit quicker.

Commercial software tends to hold back on incremental improvements (new 
features) for a major release so they can get customers to buy it.

No market pressure for cashflow means a more flexible release schedule 
for incremental enhancements.

>> 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.

I'm not sure how "proper" that database engine is - IIRC, it's JET, and 
most DBAs that I know would say that's certainly not a proper database 
engine.

>>> 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...

Indeed.

>>> 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??

Yep, I've been frustrated by that as well.

>> 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...

Oh, I don't know, having to admit that Firefox is a reasonable browser to 
use and they should change Windows architecturally to decouple IE from it 
(or at least loosen the coupling) is a pretty significant sanction.  
Microsoft wanted to prove that IE was a core part of Windows that 
couldn't be removed (because it removed part of their competitive 
advantage - or at least they thought it did), and the EC told them "do it 
anyway", so they had to create a special version of Windows for Europe 
that had that change in place.

Maintaining multiple versions of an entire operating system can be time 
and resource intensive.

Jim

Post a reply to this message