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

On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 11:33:28 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>>>> 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.

Well, yes and no.  It was designed for people who work with computers, 
yes.  It does have plenty of warning prompts and confirmation messages, 
but it does vary from program to program.

> 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.

Ironically, Windows until recently has done a pretty piss poor job of 
actually keeping people from injuring themselves.  Why?  Because Gates' 
initial specifications were for no security.  Windows since WinNT has had 
to deal with backwards compatibility, and is *finally* getting to a point 
where it's harder for a user to aim the bazooka at their foot and pull 
the trigger.

UAC is a pain in the ass for advanced users.  It's a necessary component 
for the average user.

> 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.

No.  Many UNIX programs have GUIs now.  You may well have heard of CDE, 
KDE, GNOME, LXDE, Unity - all GUIs.  You may also have heard of YaST, 
Webmin, and other GUI-based (and web-based) admin tools that don't 
require you edit text files and do let you select from a predefined list.

> 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?

Why do I want to configure something from the CLI?  My server is 
headless, and dedicating memory to the GUI sucks resources.  So I have a 
server that I run without a GUI at all.  CLI editing is faster *if you 
know what you're doing*.

> 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.

CMD.EXE is quite useful.  I still use it on Windows Server 2008R2 and 
Windows 7 to perform filesystem operations.  Why?  Because I can do many 
of those things faster with a command prompt than with a mouse.  Removing 
my hand from the keyboard and using the mouse slows me down.  Time is 
money.  Wasted time is lost money.

> 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.

Hmmm, so writing a program to edit the registry is faster than going to /
etc/apache2 and editing httpd.conf?  I don't think so.

And of course tweaking a configuration item in IIS is usually a bit more 
complicated than editing a single registry key.  Which of course you have 
to find where the key is stored.  What part of the hive is it in?

> On the down side, registry settings tend to be completely undocumented.

Oh, and more than that, Microsoft routinely warns people *not* to edit 
the registry if they don't know what they're doing, and most of the 
Technet articles I've seen that include editing the registry include a 
"proceed at your own risk" disclaimer in case you totally fuck the system 
over with your change.

I have yet to see a text file change on a Linux system that can hork the 
system up as badly as Microsoft wants you to believe Windows can be 
messed up with a single registry change.

Because with Linux it's pretty rare to have to reboot to affect the 
change.  It's sometimes easier, but to this day, I continue to be amazed 
at how frequently a Windows system has to be restarted.  Twice during 
installation, and if you're applying system updates, sometimes multiple 
times to get everything current (certainly with XP, later versions are 
somewhat better).

> 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...

And of course you can't possibly ever do that on a *nix system, ever.

Oh, wait, yes you can.  You've pretty much always been able to. :P

> 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.

Wrong.

With openSUSE, for example, I can do an installation and at the end of 
the installation, the installer asks if I want to create an autoyast file 
so I can clone the system or do identical installs for multiple servers.

Trivial.  No scripting required.

> 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.)

Wrong, again on the Linux front.  I personally know people who administer 
*thousands* of Linux servers.  I worked for a company that has a product 
to apply updates on a schedule to remote Linux systems.

> 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.

Nope, and to state this is pretty much an uninformed opinion based on a 
deep(er) knowledge of Windows and a lack of knowledge about modern Linux 
systems and how they're deployed in corporate environments.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 21:39:39 -0700, 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? What, the file navigators and web browsers
> in Linux automatically tell you what part of the window is important?

It helps because I can claim that I don't know much about modern versions 
of Windows and point my mom to someone who's local to get help with her 
problems. ;)

> 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've a friend who lives in Germany; he supports his 84-year old mother 
(who is in Canada) remotely, and she's an openSUSE user.

She apparently recently got a call from one of these new scammers 
claiming to be Microsoft needing to remotely access her machine to 
install critical updates.

Much hilarity ensued, since she knew it was nothing to do with her 
machine because it runs openSUSE.  :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 11:36:10 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> 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.

Hard to do when a voice connection is all I'm working from.

>> 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. :-)

Sometimes it's quite frustrating, though - for example, "My skype no 
longer works".  Then she tries to tell me on the phone (as at that point 
I usually would talk to her on handsfree in the car on the way home from 
the office) what it's doing.

So to get around that, she bought a smart phone.  Now she doesn't know 
how to get her voice mail.  *sigh*

(The connection as to why she got a smart phone isn't obvious until you 
know that the reason she uses Skype is to talk to my brother in Japan - 
and Skype not working on her desktop means she needs another way to avoid 
running up a hideous phone bill to talk with Steve)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 22:13:22 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> 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.

It was here, and it was I who made the comment. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 08/10/2011 5:59 AM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 10/7/2011 12:10 PM, Stephen wrote:
>> I'll top post as I'm sure nobody wants to read all that again.
>>
>> What do you mean?
>>
> Sorry, much of that was a rant, attached to an initial joke. lol

⸮ Much?

> The joke being that you old fogies sometimes seem to think toolbars are
> silly, and memorizing 8,000 keyboard combination makes more sense. Some
> of us just don't think that way.
>

I think that may be wrong there. Toolbars are not silly they are very 
useful.

8,000 keyboard combinations as starters. ;-)


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message