>> 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

>> I still don't see why it's necessary to install a network protocl just
>> to run a text editor.
>
> That's because you're not grokking the similarities between Windows and
> Linux.
>
> Seriously.
>
> Try installing Notepad on Windows without installing Windows Networking.
>
> Oh, you can't do that.  Why?  Because Windows Networking is an integrated
> component of the operating system.
>
> Guess what - it's also an integrated component of GNOME, because
> interoperability matters.

The irony is, you actually /can/ uninstall Windows networking (and even 
the TCP/IP protocol). And Notepad still works. :-P

Plus, installing Windows isn't a 4GB download. Honestly, I can remember 
a time when all the Linux fanboys used to shout about how much leaner 
Linux is than Windows. Today a default install of most distros either 
involves DVDs or multi-GB downloads. It installs everything *and* the 
kitchen sink, and when I want to use a different text editor it *still* 
wants to download another couple of GB of data. ENOUGH ALREADY! >_<

>> Me and my dad tried updating OpenSUSE one time. After several days of
>> hell, we decided never to attempt this ever again.
>
> It's a shame you didn't come over to the forums and ask for some help.

Wouldn't that require me to figure out how to display IPv6 so that 
Firefox works again?

>> Uh, yeah. Updating Windows in-place isn't something I'd recommend
>> *either*...
>
> I generally wouldn't recommend it for any OS, but it can be a bit easier
> with Linux if your /home partition is separate from the rest of the
> system.  Worst case, you do a fresh install of the root partition and
> leave the /home data alone.

Same works for any OS.

(The only real difference is that since Unix has mount points rather 
than drive letters, you don't have this stupidity of applications which 
/assume/ your home folder is on partition #1...)

>>> RPM does a pretty good job of dependency management
>>
>> Well, some distros use RPM, some use .deb, some use something else
>> entirely. I've yet to see a package manager where it's entirely clear
>> what the heck is going on, or why selecting one small application
>> requires a 2GB download.
>
> Well, again, it comes down to understanding the interdependencies, rather
> than throwing your hands up in the air and saying "it's too damned
> complex for anyone to understand."

How about spending several years working with Linux and still not being 
able to get it to work right. Does that count? :-P

>>> but you have to take care not to add too many repositories
>>
>> I don't even know how to do that.
>
> In openSUSE: sudo yast2 repositories

OK. But the fact that I don't know how to do it demonstrates fairly 
conclusively that that isn't the problem I had.

>> Last time I tried this with VMware tools, it went something like this: -
>> Where are the kernel headers?
>> - No, the headers for the *running* kernel? - OK, now install gcc
>> please.
>> - No, the version of gcc that the kernel was compiled with. At that
>> point, I discovered that the version of gcc in question isn't available
>> for this release of Ubuntu. WTF?
>
> I can't speak to Ubuntu.  openSUSE has a pretty strict "no kernel
> upgrades" policy within a particular version.  (That doesn't mean "no
> updates" - security updates are backported by the openSUSE kernel team,
> and important enhancements frequently are as well AFAIK).  That means
> it's incredibly rare to have to deal with something like that with VMware
> once it's working.

I think I tried it with Debian and Fedora as well. Can't remember if I 
tried OpenSUSE.

This sort of thing tends to be typical of /any/ attempt to install 
something that isn't packaged. And even if the website has an RPM or a 
.deb, usually that just flips the package manager out because all the 
dependencies are wrong...

> It's a shame you don't ask questions in the Linux forums related to the
> distribution you use.  Those issues are often easily resolved, and
> novices can get help instead of just bitching "this damned stuff never
> works right!"

Yes, because I want to sign up to /yet another/ online forum just to 
make one piece of software install cleanly...

As I say, I generally just stick to Windows. When you install stuff, it 
just works.

(Not that I'm completely unsympathetic, you understand. "Linux" is one 
hell of a big moving target to try to hit...)

I love how I'm the biggest Microsoft-hater ever, and I've ended up 
defending Windows. When Linux came out, I really thought it was going to 
be the answer. Turns out it just brought a different set of problems...

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

Post a reply to this message

On 10/8/2011 2:27, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> 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?

It's useful for people trying to script Office apps from (say) PowerShell. 
Or from any other .NET-enabled language. It's useful in the same way that 
.NET stored procedures are useful in SQL.

>> 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.)

I wasn't aware they had actually let macros get to that.

>> or cooperative shared editting.
>
> It's news to me that /any/ version of Office has that.

That's kind of my point.

>>> 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...

Fair enough. But I think that's one of the *main* reasons small businesses 
without a bunch of money still use it on the desktop.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message

On 10/8/2011 2:29, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> 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

Another excellent example. Or Hermes.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message

>>> 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
>
> Another excellent example. Or Hermes.

People hate on Haskell for being so different - but that's kind of THE 
WHOLE POINT... ;-)

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

Post a reply to this message

On 10/8/2011 3:52, Jim Henderson wrote:
> In Windows, you have the entire ecosystem to support it.  It's called
> "Windows".

Plus, the tendency is to bundle all that stuff together with the program, 
because you can't rely on the people having access to a "repository". So 
every install disk has IE6, Adobe Acrobat, mvcrt.dll, and DX9 on it, along 
with the program.

> 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.

Oh, and because people programming Windows know you don't have a repository, 
so they either bundle specifically what they need, or they don't reuse code 
they could because of dependencies, or they buy a version to include with 
their code that doesn't have the dependencies they want to avoid, or etc.

Why do you think the initial install of Windows takes so long and reboots so 
often? It's installing a bunch of stuff that you'd otherwise have to grab 
from a repository during installs of other stuff. You get .NET even if 
you're not going to use it, because you might in the future.

>> 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. ;)

Bazinga.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message

On 10/8/2011 5:40, Jim Henderson wrote:
> It's hard to understand why people have trouble affording a single hard
> drive when you buy in such bulk quantities.

And remember that you're not really their big customer. When 85% of your 
sales go to the OEMs, worrying about whether this one guy can afford to 
upgrade his disk doesn't really make sense. Especially since if you can't 
afford a $50 disk, you can't afford a $200 OS. :-)

> After all, on Windows, you have CIFS/SMB available on all systems by
> default.  You take it for granted on Windows, but for the rest of the
> world, there is a choice.

Actually, it's there by default, but it doesn't have to be. You don't need 
to have any networking installed at all if you don't want. Not even TCP/IP.

> upgraded to each incremental pre-release alpha, beta, and release
> candidate on several of their internal servers.

I can imagine that would screw stuff up. Most people don't design upgrades 
to deal with every intermediate release of the software.

> RPM does a pretty good job of dependency management,

I think it's more that the programmers don't. They assume you have enough 
disk space, a fast connection, and etc.  I bet the people writing the 
editors would avoid the need to include SAMBA if you said "we'll give you 
$1000 for every package you don't depend on."

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message

>>> or cooperative shared editting.
>>
>> It's news to me that /any/ version of Office has that.
>
> That's kind of my point.

So... how do you do 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...
>
> Fair enough. But I think that's one of the *main* reasons small
> businesses without a bunch of money still use it on the desktop.

Major reasons include:

- They've heard of it.

- Everybody else is using it. (Easier to interact with clients, easier 
to find people who know how to use it, etc.)

- Because everybody else uses it, it gives some people the impression 
that it's the "correct" choice because that's what all the "big boys" use.

- Because it's so popular, there's a lot of software for it.

These arguments would all apply to /any/ product which has captured the 
majority of the market. And then, yes, there are a few things that MS 
product do that I haven't seen a comparable competetor for.

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

Post a reply to this message

On 10/7/2011 21:47, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Well, no, it's more about advanced usage.  And CLI in Windows these days
> is also for advanced users.

And for anything above the level of really simple BAT files, you're better 
off using wsh, which is much closer to bash than cmd.exe.

> Like you said, it's an extra install.  sed/grep/awk/perl/vim are standard
> tools in most Linux installs.

I'd argue the entire Linux install is a free, extra install. ;-)

> I can edit text files without installing tools that are non standard.

You can edit the registry without installing non-standard tools too. If 
you're going to argue that a developer having to download the free developer 
toolkit is a significant difference, then you really shouldn't be a 
developer on Windows. ;-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message

On 08/10/2011 05:42 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 10/8/2011 5:40, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> It's hard to understand why people have trouble affording a single hard
>> drive when you buy in such bulk quantities.
>
> And remember that you're not really their big customer. When 85% of your
> sales go to the OEMs, worrying about whether this one guy can afford to
> upgrade his disk doesn't really make sense. Especially since if you
> can't afford a $50 disk, you can't afford a $200 OS. :-)

That's a point. As far as OEMs are concerned, the more hardware it takes 
to run Windows, the more likely and users are to buy more hardware.

This, I suspect, is one of the main reasons OEMs love MS...

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

Post a reply to this message