 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/19/09 10:33, Darren New wrote:
>> Sometimes you get a help page for the whole dialog box, containing
>> such gems as "Use SCSI encapsulation - Turn this on if you want to use
>> SCSI command encapsulation". Well, gee, now it all makes sense!
>
> That means one of two things:
> 1) If you don't know what SCSI encapsulation is, don't touch this.
Yes, but why bother putting it in the help file, if you're not going to
provide help for it?
--
I didn't know my husband drank until one day he came home sober.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 11/19/09 10:33, Darren New wrote:
>>> Sometimes you get a help page for the whole dialog box, containing
>>> such gems as "Use SCSI encapsulation - Turn this on if you want to use
>>> SCSI command encapsulation". Well, gee, now it all makes sense!
>>
>> That means one of two things:
>> 1) If you don't know what SCSI encapsulation is, don't touch this.
>
> Yes, but why bother putting it in the help file, if you're not going
> to provide help for it?
Because some corporate person made the rule that every option has to have a
help file entry?
The other mechanism is to say "it's in the registry, but we don't support
it", but then you get people complaining about it. "Turns on SCSI
encapsulation" is a perfectly good description if you know what it means. If
you don't know what it means, a tool tip is probably not the right place to
learn it.
It's like trying to explain anything technical in enough detail that an
uneducated user will understand. How do you explain "clear authenticated
sessions" in the firefox "clear private data" dialog without explaining how
SSL works and why you'd have to carry around session authentications between
sessions? To someone who isn't sure what the difference between the
internet and email is?
How do you explain what an IRQ conflict is or a DMA range to someone who is
still a bit confused by the difference between the monitor and the computer?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Is God willing to prevent naglams, but unable?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing, to prevent naglams?
Then he is malevolent.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> But the critical question is... Can you configure them all from the GUI?
>> Or do you have to edit some 25-mile text file?
>
> No more often than Windows settings need to be tweaked in the registry
> these days, in my experience.
Generally, you only need to tweak the registry for very obscure settings
that almost nobody will ever need to touch.
Unix software, on the other hand, seems to regard giant text files (all
with a completely different format) as the *primary* means of
configuration, and a GUI as secondary to that.
Windows software tends to regard the GUI as the primary way to
configure. And if there isn't a button for it, it's probably just not
editable at all.
And look at Mozilla Firefox. There's an options box, but there are
seemingly millions of extra config entries that aren't listed there.
(They do at least provide a reasonable UI for editing these...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Unix software, on the other hand, seems to regard giant text files (all
> with a completely different format) as the *primary* means of
> configuration, and a GUI as secondary to that.
That's because Unix doesn't have a registry. Hence, every program implements
its own configurations subsystem, and hence it's difficult to write a GUI
that understands the configuration subsystem of every program. If you do,
it's difficult to continue to update it in step with releases of the program
that break the syntax of the configuration files or add new options that
people want to use.
> Windows software tends to regard the GUI as the primary way to
> configure. And if there isn't a button for it, it's probably just not
> editable at all.
Not quite true. It's just not supported if there's no button. There's all
kinds of things you can tweak but only if you know what you're doing.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Is God willing to prevent naglams, but unable?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing, to prevent naglams?
Then he is malevolent.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Unix software, on the other hand, seems to regard giant text files
>> (all with a completely different format) as the *primary* means of
>> configuration, and a GUI as secondary to that.
>
> That's because Unix doesn't have a registry. Hence, every program
> implements its own configurations subsystem.
The registry is actually one of the few nice ideas in Windows, IMHO.
>> Windows software tends to regard the GUI as the primary way to
>> configure. And if there isn't a button for it, it's probably just not
>> editable at all.
>
> Not quite true. It's just not supported if there's no button. There's
> all kinds of things you can tweak but only if you know what you're doing.
IME, most of the stuff you have to manually tweak the registry for is
compatibility settings or obscure configuration that only a system
administrator for a large company would care about. There aren't too
many email programs that have an option to automatically spellcheck
before sending, but you can _only_ turn this on through the registry.
For example.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Not quite true. It's just not supported if there's no button. There's
>> all kinds of things you can tweak but only if you know what you're doing.
>
> IME, most of the stuff you have to manually tweak the registry for is
> compatibility settings or obscure configuration that only a system
> administrator for a large company would care about.
Right. Basically, a lot of the stuff targetted at people who can read a KB
article and understand what it's saying and not screw up the registry while
editting it.
Essentially, in MS, there are multiple levels of configuration. Tweak the
registry is the first. Run a command-line program that sets the options is
second (because then you have to support it). A GUI is third (because then
you need help messages, translating into dozens of languages, etc.)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Is God willing to prevent naglams, but unable?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing, to prevent naglams?
Then he is malevolent.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 09:58:08 +0000, Invisible wrote:
>>> But the critical question is... Can you configure them all from the
>>> GUI? Or do you have to edit some 25-mile text file?
>>
>> No more often than Windows settings need to be tweaked in the registry
>> these days, in my experience.
>
> Generally, you only need to tweak the registry for very obscure settings
> that almost nobody will ever need to touch.
I find that to be the same on my GNOME desktop systems.
> Unix software, on the other hand, seems to regard giant text files (all
> with a completely different format) as the *primary* means of
> configuration, and a GUI as secondary to that.
Let me introduce you to YaST....Before I started using it, I didn't like
the idea of it, but now that I'm used to it, guess what - I don't have to
tweak all these different configuration files, because it handles it for
me most of the time.
> Windows software tends to regard the GUI as the primary way to
> configure. And if there isn't a button for it, it's probably just not
> editable at all.
It's editable if you know how.
> And look at Mozilla Firefox. There's an options box, but there are
> seemingly millions of extra config entries that aren't listed there.
> (They do at least provide a reasonable UI for editing these...)
Yeah, that's what about:config is for....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Unix software, on the other hand, seems to regard giant text files (all
>> with a completely different format) as the *primary* means of
>> configuration, and a GUI as secondary to that.
>
> Let me introduce you to YaST....Before I started using it, I didn't like
> the idea of it, but now that I'm used to it, guess what - I don't have to
> tweak all these different configuration files, because it handles it for
> me most of the time.
The problem is, Unix has _always_ been designed around the idea that
everything is a text file and that's how you configure the entire
system. Sure, these days we have pretty front ends that atempt to hide
all the complexity. But as soon as you need to edit something there
isn't a front-end for, or the text file contains some setting that the
fancy front-end doesn't comprehend... suddenly you need to know how all
this stuff works again.
Windows, on the other hand, has always been designed around the idea
that the user doesn't know anything about computers and needs to be
shielded from anything more complicated than a lightswitch. Which is
sometimes quite frustrating, in a different way...
I think XKCD sums it up nicely:
http://www.xkcd.com/619/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:30:43 +0000, Invisible wrote:
>>> Unix software, on the other hand, seems to regard giant text files
>>> (all with a completely different format) as the *primary* means of
>>> configuration, and a GUI as secondary to that.
>>
>> Let me introduce you to YaST....Before I started using it, I didn't
>> like the idea of it, but now that I'm used to it, guess what - I don't
>> have to tweak all these different configuration files, because it
>> handles it for me most of the time.
>
> The problem is, Unix has _always_ been designed around the idea that
> everything is a text file and that's how you configure the entire
> system. Sure, these days we have pretty front ends that atempt to hide
> all the complexity. But as soon as you need to edit something there
> isn't a front-end for, or the text file contains some setting that the
> fancy front-end doesn't comprehend... suddenly you need to know how all
> this stuff works again.
Allow me (again) to introduce you to YaST, or Webmin. I've found very
little that these two frontends won't configure properly.
> Windows, on the other hand, has always been designed around the idea
> that the user doesn't know anything about computers and needs to be
> shielded from anything more complicated than a lightswitch. Which is
> sometimes quite frustrating, in a different way...
And again, allow me to introduce you to YaST and Webmin.... ;-)
> I think XKCD sums it up nicely:
>
> http://www.xkcd.com/619/
Full-screen flash video support has been around for a while.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible escreveu:
> The problem is, Unix has _always_ been designed around the idea that
> everything is a text file and that's how you configure the entire
> system. Sure, these days we have pretty front ends that atempt to hide
> all the complexity. But as soon as you need to edit something there
> isn't a front-end for, or the text file contains some setting that the
> fancy front-end doesn't comprehend... suddenly you need to know how all
> this stuff works again.
>
> Windows, on the other hand, has always been designed around the idea
> that the user doesn't know anything about computers and needs to be
> shielded from anything more complicated than a lightswitch. Which is
> sometimes quite frustrating, in a different way...
What that really means is that there are GUIs for all the n00b-level
options and if there isn't, the Windows n00b will have to mess around
with the arcane registry or RTFM for the first time in his life.
I like configuration files better than GUIs for no other reason that I
can simply grep it for whatever I'm looking for or remotely related --
direct to the point. In GUIs I have to go through a multitude of
recursive menus or tabs hidden well underneath other options etc...
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/23/09 12:15, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> http://www.xkcd.com/619/
>
> Full-screen flash video support has been around for a while.
Not really on Linux. It eats up the CPU, and doesn't seem to utilize
many capabilities of the graphics card - which the Windows plugins do.
--
"Graphic Artist seeks Boss with vision impairment."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:44:49 -0600, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 11/23/09 12:15, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> http://www.xkcd.com/619/
>>
>> Full-screen flash video support has been around for a while.
>
> Not really on Linux. It eats up the CPU, and doesn't seem to
utilize
> many capabilities of the graphics card - which the Windows plugins do.
I use it quite frequently, and while it does suck CPU, it does run full
screen, which is what the claim there was....
"Works for me"....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Windows, on the other hand, has always been designed around the idea
>> that the user doesn't know anything about computers and needs to be
>> shielded from anything more complicated than a lightswitch. Which is
>> sometimes quite frustrating, in a different way...
>
> What that really means is that there are GUIs for all the n00b-level
> options and if there isn't, the Windows n00b will have to mess around
> with the arcane registry or RTFM for the first time in his life.
The things that require you to touch the registry are so arcane that
your average n00b wouldn't even comprehend what you're talking about.
Stuff like changing the network MTU, or the order in which IRQs are
assigned to PnP devices, or other such obscure stuff like that.
Usually the challenge is just figuring out which sub-sub-menu M$ has
hidden the setting you want under. (Or just which combination of options
makes the program behave correctly.)
> I like configuration files better than GUIs for no other reason that I
> can simply grep it for whatever I'm looking for or remotely related --
> direct to the point.
I'd be surprised if that actually works.
The option you want to change might be at default, and thus there's no
entry for it in the config file. It might have a highly non-obvious
name. Or it might be configured from a totally different file. (E.g.,
there is [presumably] a file somewhere which configures your network
interfaces. But the DNS configuration is in an entirely unrelated file.)
> In GUIs I have to go through a multitude of
> recursive menus or tabs hidden well underneath other options etc...
M$ does have an annoying habit of hiding absolutely every configuration
setting under an "advanced" tab...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/23/09 21:38, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> http://www.xkcd.com/619/
>>> Full-screen flash video support has been around for a while.
>> Not really on Linux. It eats up the CPU, and doesn't seem to
> utilize
>> many capabilities of the graphics card - which the Windows plugins do.
>
> I use it quite frequently, and while it does suck CPU, it does run full
> screen, which is what the claim there was....
>
> "Works for me"....
Ah. You have a fast CPU.
It's like saying "X works", when you don't have 3-D working. A major
"feature" of the plugin fails to work. From my perspective, that means
it *doesn't* work.
Anyway, on many computers, including mine, playing HD videos full
screen on Flash gets jerky. CPU can't handle it, and the CPU isn't
supposed to handle it - the video card is.
--
"Graphic Artist seeks Boss with vision impairment."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> It's like saying "X works", when you don't have 3-D working. A major
> "feature" of the plugin fails to work. From my perspective, that means
> it *doesn't* work.
I have this persistent problem with my co-workers. Everyone was telling me
"yes, that works" and I'm saying "I'm getting no output" and they mean "it
compiled without errors." Sheesh.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
You know the kamikaze monsters in Serious Sam
with the bombs for hands, that go AAAAAHHHHHHHH!
I want that for a ring tone.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> But the DNS configuration is in an entirely unrelated file.)
In particular, in a file that says nothing about DNS in the name or
contents. And even if you knew it was called the "resolver", they spell the
name of the configuration file *wrong*, so you can't even find it with 'find'.
> M$ does have an annoying habit of hiding absolutely every configuration
> setting under an "advanced" tab...
Only the advanced ones you shouldn't screw with without knowing what you're
doing. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
You know the kamikaze monsters in Serious Sam
with the bombs for hands, that go AAAAAHHHHHHHH!
I want that for a ring tone.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
>
> Not really on Linux. It eats up the CPU, and doesn't seem to utilize
> many capabilities of the graphics card - which the Windows plugins do.
>
The Linux Flash is still a crappy piece of shit. It's a resource hog and
still it's amazingly stupid (eg. won't handle second soundcard, even
though it supports ALSA).
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Eero Ahonen <aer### [at] removethis zbxtnetinvalid> wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
> >
> > Not really on Linux. It eats up the CPU, and doesn't seem to utilize
> > many capabilities of the graphics card - which the Windows plugins do.
> >
> The Linux Flash is still a crappy piece of shit. It's a resource hog and
> still it's amazingly stupid (eg. won't handle second soundcard, even
> though it supports ALSA).
Hardly Linux's own fault given that Flash is, at least in principle,
a proprietary format owned by Adobe, who also makes the Linux Flash plugin.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
>
> Hardly Linux's own fault given that Flash is, at least in principle,
> a proprietary format owned by Adobe, who also makes the Linux Flash plugin.
>
I fully agree, the fault is on Adobe, which doesn't seem to be keen to
allocate resources to get the freaking thing to work. But still it's the
Linux version that's ultimately crappy, AFAIK Windows-Flash works much
better.
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Eero Ahonen <aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> >
> > Hardly Linux's own fault given that Flash is, at least in principle,
> > a proprietary format owned by Adobe, who also makes the Linux Flash plugin.
> >
> I fully agree, the fault is on Adobe, which doesn't seem to be keen to
> allocate resources to get the freaking thing to work. But still it's the
> Linux version that's ultimately crappy, AFAIK Windows-Flash works much
> better.
But you can't blame Linux for that.
OTOH the current plugin can be used for basically any Flash app out
there, so it's better than nothing.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
>
> But you can't blame Linux for that.
Yes, I already agreed on that (and have agreed all the time). It just
doesn't remove that Adobe piles more sucking on Linux-plugin than on
Windows-plugin.
> OTOH the current plugin can be used for basically any Flash app out
> there, so it's better than nothing.
Yes, if you have enough power. I think I do now, I haven't yet got my
new workstation (Q9550, 8GiB etc) to lag with flash, while my laptop
(C2D T5600 (1,8GHz), 4GiB etc) couldn't play youtube videos with flash,
since I didn't have enough CPU power (OTOH, MPlayer plaid them with
under 1% of CPU usage...).
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:23:40 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> I'd be surprised if that actually works.
>
> The option you want to change might be at default, and thus there's no
> entry for it in the config file. It might have a highly non-obvious
> name. Or it might be configured from a totally different file. (E.g.,
> there is [presumably] a file somewhere which configures your network
> interfaces. But the DNS configuration is in an entirely unrelated file.)
Most Linux/Unix config files include defaults commented out - that's
pretty standard. So grepping does work quite well.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:24:48 -0600, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 11/23/09 21:38, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>>> http://www.xkcd.com/619/
>>>> Full-screen flash video support has been around for a while.
>>> Not really on Linux. It eats up the CPU, and doesn't seem to
>> utilize
>>> many capabilities of the graphics card - which the Windows plugins do.
>>
>> I use it quite frequently, and while it does suck CPU, it does run full
>> screen, which is what the claim there was....
>>
>> "Works for me"....
>
> Ah. You have a fast CPU.
AMD-64 2 GHz dual core processor - not really blazingly fast by today's
standards. That's the desktop machine. The Dell laptop is a single core
(I believe) Intel 32-bit processor that runs at about 2 GHz as well.
I've a slower laptop in the office (a Thinkpad t42p) that's slower and
still seems to handle it OK.
> It's like saying "X works", when you don't have 3-D working. A
major
> "feature" of the plugin fails to work. From my perspective, that means
> it *doesn't* work.
>
> Anyway, on many computers, including mine, playing HD videos full
> screen on Flash gets jerky. CPU can't handle it, and the CPU isn't
> supposed to handle it - the video card is.
I don't disagree with that - I'm not saying it's the best engineered
piece of software in the world, but I am saying that it works well enough
for the rare occasions I do use it.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/25/09 16:02, Jim Henderson wrote:
> AMD-64 2 GHz dual core processor - not really blazingly fast by today's
> standards. That's the desktop machine. The Dell laptop is a single core
> (I believe) Intel 32-bit processor that runs at about 2 GHz as well.
> I've a slower laptop in the office (a Thinkpad t42p) that's slower and
> still seems to handle it OK.
Try Hulu. Set whatever you're watching to the highest quality, and then
switch to full screen. On my machine (P4 2.53 GHz), it plays, but it
kind of jerks a few times a minute.
It should give trouble on your slower machines.
Of course, it's possible that the plugin _is_ working with your 3-D
cards (all of them?). It's not that they don't support video cards at
all - just that it rarely works.
--
ASCII and ye shall receive.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/25/09 15:59, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Most Linux/Unix config files include defaults commented out - that's
> pretty standard. So grepping does work quite well.
I'm not sure about the "most". I'm guessing you more often deal with
common _system administration_ (mature) tools - which often are as you
described - as opposed to just wild stuff for the desktop.
Or it could be a distribution thing - they may be the ones who place a
fully commented config file for common tools.
Let's put it this way: For most of the config files that sit in my
_home_ directory, they didn't come with a config file with all the
options - although many do have a sample one in /etc that has _common_
options...
--
ASCII and ye shall receive.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:27:47 -0600, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 11/25/09 16:02, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> AMD-64 2 GHz dual core processor - not really blazingly fast by today's
>> standards. That's the desktop machine. The Dell laptop is a single
>> core (I believe) Intel 32-bit processor that runs at about 2 GHz as
>> well. I've a slower laptop in the office (a Thinkpad t42p) that's
>> slower and still seems to handle it OK.
>
> Try Hulu. Set whatever you're watching to the highest quality,
and then
> switch to full screen. On my machine (P4 2.53 GHz), it plays, but it
> kind of jerks a few times a minute.
Have done, and yes, it's jerky at the highest resolution, but I've always
had problems with it because of my bandwidth (only 3 Mbps down here at
home).
> It should give trouble on your slower machines.
>
> Of course, it's possible that the plugin _is_ working with your 3-
D
> cards (all of them?). It's not that they don't support video cards at
> all - just that it rarely works.
At issue really is a definition of "working". I consider it working if I
can watch video effectively. You seem to consider it working only if it
behaves in a particular manner, such as offloading the video rendering to
the GPU. That'd be nice, but doesn't fit my general definition of
"working" which is "I can use it most of the time without a problem".
Biggest problem I have with it is the damned thing has memory leaks
galore.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:30:36 -0600, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 11/25/09 15:59, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Most Linux/Unix config files include defaults commented out - that's
>> pretty standard. So grepping does work quite well.
>
> I'm not sure about the "most". I'm guessing you more often deal
with
> common _system administration_ (mature) tools - which often are as you
> described - as opposed to just wild stuff for the desktop.
>
> Or it could be a distribution thing - they may be the ones who
place a
> fully commented config file for common tools.
>
> Let's put it this way: For most of the config files that sit in my
> _home_ directory, they didn't come with a config file with all the
> options - although many do have a sample one in /etc that has _common_
> options...
True, and yes, I'm talking about system config files, which are generally
mature and well documented/commented. There's that pesky "works"
definition issue again. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
