>> Another case is in social interaction. It gives a poor impression if you
>> can't remember who the current prime minister or president is but say
>> just a minute while I Google that.
>
> Sure, amongst our age classes.  Amongst younger age groups, though, value
> knowing how to find out stuff rather than having to remember it all.
> Good or bad, it is what it is.
>

Not sure it was here, or somewhere else, but I seem to remember a 
comment on one of the problems in a class a person was attending, where 
the prof thought it was *way* more important to remember the equation, 
than how to bloody use it for something. Information is so massive at 
this point that its pretty hard to "know" everything, and also have a 
damn clue how to do anything with it. So, knowing where to find it is a 
key skill. Sadly, the problem is not just knowing where to look, but how 
to tell that the source you have found isn't complete garbage, and 
sadly, Google ain't going to do that, if there is a sudden run of pure 
idiocy about the subject under examination that week. :p

Post a reply to this message

On 07/10/2011 11:45 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 10/7/2011 7:36, Invisible wrote:
>> I'm fairly sure Office v2 had that. I may be wrong. Certainly Office 97
>> definitely had that. And that was, what, 14 years ago?
>
> Pretty sure they didn't have .NET integration,

No. But how is that useful?

> integration with SQL server,

I'm fairly sure Office 97 quite happily let you connect to any database 
with an ODBC driver. (That's kind of the whole point of ODBC.)

> or cooperative shared editting.

It's news to me that /any/ version of Office has that.

>> In fairness, I'm not aware of anything else that does what Outlook and
>> Exchange do.
>
> And that is why the world still runs Microsoft. :-)

Well, no, that's /one of/ the reasons...

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

Post a reply to this message

On 08/10/2011 05:34 AM, Darren New wrote:
> On 10/7/2011 20:54, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Architecturally they're fairly different, though.
>
> Yeah. And architecturally, C++ and Java are different, but if you're
> bored of learning new programming languages, looking at Smalltalk or APL
> might be exciting again. :-)

*cough* Haskell

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

Post a reply to this message

>> I especially like the way that installing one GNOME application installs
>> the entire GNOME system, including the GNOME sound daemon. And all I
>> actually wanted to do was run gedit...
>
> Just like installing an app on Windows that requires specific DLLs, which
> require other components, which require .NET 3.5.

If you install something on Windows, one of three things happens:

1. It just installs, and then works.

2. It says "do you want me to download some stuff?" And it does, and 
then it installs.

3. It says "I can't install. Please install .NET 2 first".

I've never figured out how to get out of dependency hell in Linux. Like, 
you ask it to install one tiny application, and it wants to install an 
entire ecosystem to support that. I'm installing a GNOME application 
that doesn't require sound. Why the hell do I need to install the GNOME 
client/server audio transport system? And the GNOME scanner subsystem? 
And the GNOME Samba interface? And Samba? I just want to edit one damned 
text file! That's all I'm trying to do! Jesus...

It's even more fun when it decides it needs a different version of 
"glibc". I have no idea what that is, but I do know that if you change 
it, your Linux will almost certainly never work ever again.

I've never tried to install a Windows application and had to download 8 
GB of data, or had my entire Windows installation completely cease 
functioning to the point where I have to reinstall. About the worst 
thing that can happen is that you need to install the .NET runtime. 
(Obviously, this problem is because .NET exists. If we could get rid of 
that, the problem would go away.)

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

Post a reply to this message

On 08/10/2011 05:39 AM, Darren New wrote:
> On 10/7/2011 20:43, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Sounds *so* familiar. Another reason to use Linux. ;)
>
> How the hell would that help?

Seconded.

> What helped was getting him off dial-up so I could talk to him at the
> same time he's on the net, *and* connect into his computer remotely.

I bought some hardware that lets me remotely connect to my grandparent's 
PC. (Unless, you know, the problem I'm trying to troubleshoot IS the 
Internet connection...)

Unfortunately, there seems to be a bug in the firmware. Certain data 
packets cause the device to stop functioning. Eventually I was forced to 
remove it from my setup because it was pissing me off so much!

Apparently I can buy a cheap Cisco VPN endpoint. If I thought I could 
program it, I might even be tempted...

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

Post a reply to this message

On 07/10/2011 8:10 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Well, I know how it is when age starts creeping in.  My dad always said
> that memory was the second thing to go. (Can't remember if I've told that
> one here before or not - but I probably have<g>)
>

If I could remember what the first thing to go was. I'd probably be sad.

> Yeah, and that is a good quote, faux or not.:)
>

I think so.

>> >  It is no reason at all, at all.:-D
> Well, exactly.:)

Indeed.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

>>> The standard command interpreter in Windows (cmd.exe, not powershell)
>>> does pretty much suck.  bash/tcsh are *far* more powerful. :)

>>> But part of the suckage that is the Windows CLI is the registry.  Linux
>>> using text files for most configuration means that using the CLI to
>>> make changes actually makes a lot of sense.

> Like you said, it's an extra install.  sed/grep/awk/perl/vim are standard
> tools in most Linux installs.
>
> I can edit text files without installing tools that are non standard.

1.

Unix was explicitly designed to be an OS for computer experts. It 
assumes you know what you're doing. It provides no help or assistence of 
any kind. Commands print status messages only in the event of a problem. 
Success is indicated by silence. There are few warning prompts or 
confirmation messages.

Windows is explicitly designed to be used by morons. The kind of people 
who shouldn't even be let near anything more complicated than a 
doorbell. The sort of people who will double-click 
"Natasha_Beddingfield_Naked.jpg.exe" because they want to see it. The 
kind of people who probably shouldn't be allowed to handle sharp objects 
either.

These people need to be protected from accidentally hurting themselves. 
Any command button that might do something bad needs three confirmation 
boxes. Anything more complicated than "start program" and "stop program" 
needs to be hidden away under an "advanced" configuration menu. When a 
Unix program crashes, it says "fatal: invalid IOCTL at 34FB-340A". When 
a Windows program crashes, it says "an error has occurred; please 
contact support". We don't want to confuse the poor dears, after all.

2.

To configure a Unix program, you must manually edit text files. To 
configure a Windows program, you use an actual options screen, which 
does things like prevent you selecting invalid combinations of features, 
refering to non-existent paths, and so on. In the main, this is /easier/ 
than editing text files. You don't have to worry about mistyping things, 
for example.

You want to configure something from the CLI? Why do you want to do that 
in the first place? Given that it's generally harder than just using the 
GUI (and it's not like Windows /has/ a CLI-only mode), what are you 
trying to accomplish?

Possible answers include:
- I want to configure something that lacks a GUI entry.
- I want to configure a dozen machines the same way.
- I want to change the default settings for all users.
- I want to automatically generate large chunks of configuration data 
(e.g., for multiple projects or something).
- I want to configure one program from another program.

If you are doing any of these things, you are not a typical computer 
luser. You are a computer expert. And to do these things, you will have 
to install computer expert's tools. Windows defaults to assuming you are 
a moron. It keeps all the sharp tools as seperate downloads, to stop 
morons hurting themselves. If you /are/ an expert, you know where to 
find these tools, how to set them up, and what they're for.

3.

CMD.EXE is for backwards compatibility only. For new applications, you 
want to be using some powerful scripting language, or writing a full 
compiled binary program.

4.

It is perfectly possible to programmatically edit the Registry. Indeed, 
it's /easier/ than manipulating text files. You don't have to figure out 
where the hell the file is stored and learn /yet another/ file format. 
You just issue a couple of Win32 calls. All programs store their 
configuration data in a single, common format - the registry.

On the down side, registry settings tend to be completely undocumented. 
But usually, if you can figure out where the root key for your 
application is, just deleting the whole let will reset everything to 
defaults. And there are tools that let you watch the registry. You can 
go into your application, change some settings, and then see what 
registry changes happened. You can then apply those changes to a dozen 
machines remotely, for example. Try doing that with diff and patch...

5.

There are even tools to automate some of this. With just a factory 
default install of a Windows server OS, I can press a few buttons in a 
GUI and apply configuration settings to every Windows machine on the 
network. With Unix, I'd have to go off and script something.

For example, where I work:
- Every PC has the screensaver set to come on after 2 minutes. You must 
use a password to unlock it. Users cannot turn this setting off.
- Every PC has Windows Update permanently turned on. The guys at HQ 
decide which individual updates to install.
- Every PC has its time synchronised to the same timesource. Users 
cannot change the system time.

In addition, at the touch of a button, the guys at HQ can make every PC 
on the network (or just certain groups of them) install a specific piece 
of software.

If you wanted to do any of this with Linux, you would have a whole bunch 
of scripting ahead of you. Under Windows, it just takes a few button 
presses to set up. You just can't do it from the end-user versions of 
Windows; it requires a server OS. (Three guesses why those cost so much 
more.)

In summary:

You can configure Windows just as easily as, if not /more/ easily than a 
Unix system. Linux may come with sed and store its configuration in text 
files, but a Windows server controlling several Windows clients can do 
all the same stuff, and usually without you having to actually develop a 
suite of sed scripts all by yourself.

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

Post a reply to this message

On 07/10/2011 8:08 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> I find myself often trying to drive someone else's computer by using my
> voice.  I tell you, voice control of another person's computer with them
> interpreting is probably one of the more frustrating things to do.
>

I point or if it is a long process ask if they mind if I drive.

> Or when my mom starts reading an error message to me - and after three
> words, I know what the next thing is and what to do next.

A good son. :-)

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 10:37:16 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>>> I especially like the way that installing one GNOME application
>>> installs the entire GNOME system, including the GNOME sound daemon.
>>> And all I actually wanted to do was run gedit...
>>
>> Just like installing an app on Windows that requires specific DLLs,
>> which require other components, which require .NET 3.5.
> 
> If you install something on Windows, one of three things happens:
> 
> 1. It just installs, and then works.
> 
> 2. It says "do you want me to download some stuff?" And it does, and
> then it installs.
> 
> 3. It says "I can't install. Please install .NET 2 first".
> 
> I've never figured out how to get out of dependency hell in Linux. Like,
> you ask it to install one tiny application, and it wants to install an
> entire ecosystem to support that. 

In Windows, you have the entire ecosystem to support it.  It's called 
"Windows".  In Linux, you have a choice of desktop environments.  If you 
want to run GNOME applications but are using KDE, you need the rest of 
the environment, because the desktop is interdependent with itself.

> I'm installing a GNOME application
> that doesn't require sound. Why the hell do I need to install the GNOME
> client/server audio transport system? And the GNOME scanner subsystem?

Because you pull in components for that "one tiny application that 
doesn't require sound" that have dependencies on the sound modules.

As a friend of mine who works for Microsoft said when I complained about 
Windows 7's insane use of disk space for 'caching' OS install files and 
the whole MSOCache, "What's the problem?  You can buy a 2 TB drive for 
under a hundred bucks - what's 30 GB of space to cache these install 
files?"

> And the GNOME Samba interface? And Samba? I just want to edit one damned
> text file! That's all I'm trying to do! Jesus...

No, you're trying to install an application to edit a text file, and that 
program has dependencies that have dependencies.

If you want a simple editor, look at nano, vi, or joe.  Small footprint, 
small dependency list.

> It's even more fun when it decides it needs a different version of
> "glibc". I have no idea what that is, but I do know that if you change
> it, your Linux will almost certainly never work ever again.

I'll leave it to you to google what glibc is. ;)

> I've never tried to install a Windows application and had to download 8
> GB of data, 

That's because in Windows you have one desktop environment, and one set 
of dependencies.  Choice comes with a cost.  If you don't want the 
choices, use Windows.  Or Mac.

> or had my entire Windows installation completely cease
> functioning to the point where I have to reinstall. 

"Orchid XP v8" - you once said that the "v8" indicated how many times you 
had reinstalled Windows XP.  So I call BS. ;)

> About the worst
> thing that can happen is that you need to install the .NET runtime.
> (Obviously, this problem is because .NET exists. If we could get rid of
> that, the problem would go away.)

It seems you'd be happier with statically linked executables.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 11:31:39 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 07/10/2011 8:10 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Well, I know how it is when age starts creeping in.  My dad always said
>> that memory was the second thing to go. (Can't remember if I've told
>> that one here before or not - but I probably have<g>)
>>
>>
> If I could remember what the first thing to go was. I'd probably be sad.

Someone once quipped that it was "hair".  Dad would've said "What's 
that?". ;)

I think someone else said "hearing", which Dad would've said "Huh?" to. ;)

Jim

Post a reply to this message