On 10/8/2011 7:32, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Just like on Windows it used to depend on whether the developer wrote an
> INI file or used the registry.

More precisely, it's a question of whether the developer wrote his own code 
to frob INI files, or whether he used the Windows API to do so. Because when 
the registry came out, the Windows API was later changed to stor INI files 
in the registry.

>> [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.

The Linux file system isn't transactional. It's just journaled. There's no 
way to update three files at once and ensure nobody sees only one of them 
updated. There's no way to save six files full of Apache config and ensure 
the backup program running in the background hasn't backed up three of the 
new ones and three of the old ones.

> And I've yet to see anything more effective than a binary blob as a
> file.

I'm curious what this sentence is supposed to mean. Binary blobs are the 
lowest common denominator, but almost no files actually store a binary blob.

> Sometimes distros choose that route because it's just easier than
> educating the user.  I would prefer if they educated the user instead.

Or because it's more reliable.  If you update half an installation without 
actually restarting the programs using the DLLs and config files you just 
updated, you could be pretty screwed down the line.  Happened all the time 
to me when (for example) the sys admin would update a running server but not 
save the configuration to outlast a reboot, and then the machine would get 
rebooted and all the software depending on that new configuration would fail.

> Doing the same on my openSUSE boxes, it's one reboot.  Period.  *If*
> there's a kernel update.

Out of curiosity, why would you care how many boots it takes to install the 
OS? It's not like there's other things running while you're trying to 
install, right?

-- 
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 10:09, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Regardless, *every* copy of (say) Vista has the same management
> capabilities.

Nonsense. The home versions can't even log into a domain.

-- 
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 2:41, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I bought some hardware that lets me remotely connect to my grandparent's PC.

Why do you need that? All that sort of thing is built into Windows.

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

Post a reply to this message

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

>> 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

Not if you try to save to a networked drive.

> 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! >_<

Installing Windows + applications is a lot more than 4 GB.  With the 
caching done on my Win7 VM, it sure seems to have downloaded 4+ GB of 
updates since installed, too.

>>> 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?

No.

You have a Windows machine, do you not?  It's not uncommon for people to 
use one OS to ask questions about another, especially when they're having 
networking issues.

>>> 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.

True enough.

>>>> 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.

Your problem is a lack of knowledge.  That can be corrected.  If you go 
into using Linux thinking it's going to be exactly like Windows, you're 
doomed to fail before you even boot the machine.

Newsflash:  Linux is NOT Windows.  It doesn't work like Windows.  It 
doesn't feel like Windows.  Why?  BECAUSE IT ISN'T FREAKING WINDOWS!!!

>>> 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...

Which is why having a community to ask questions of (including 'is there 
a pre-built package for 'x'', surprisingly enough) is a good thing.

>> 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...

If you're using Fedora, go to fedoraforums.  If you're using Ubuntu, go 
to ubuntuforums.  If you use openSUSE, go to the openSUSE forums.

Chances are you're not going to get sent to a forum for Photivo (for 
example), unless you're having a problem specific to Photivo.  Just like 
with Windows apps, you're not going to go to the Microsoft forums to ask  
a question about issues installing Peachtree Accounting.

> 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...

Software isn't perfect.  No matter which platform it is, it isn't going 
to be perfect.  You have to be willing to take some time to learn how the 
system works, rather than just try it and lament "it's hard".

Linux is not hard.  It requires some dedication to learn in order to use 
it effectively, just as Windows does.  If you doubt that, look at any 
user on your network who hasn't taken the time to figure out how to use 
Windows effectively.

Everyone's a new user at least once.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 09:42:26 -0700, 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 certainly true.  But chances are if you bought the machine, 
Windows was included.

>> 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.

I guess that's true, but kinda beside the point.  The point is there's an 
entire ecosystem of DLLs and system drivers/files that are necessary for 
Windows to run if you want to run Notepad or Word.  Just because on 
Windows there's exactly one option means that all that stuff is installed 
by default.

Linux brings a number of choices - for better or for worse - and bitching 
about having to install the entirety of the KDE libraries to run k3b (for 
example) because it's a better disc burning tool than brasero (which is 
the GNOME utility) is kinda disingenuous.

>> 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.

The guys at Microsoft I talked to (this was back in 2002/2003) said it 
was a complete nightmare.

>> 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."

True, and it does come down to developers identifying the prerequisites 
appropriately.  There are sloppy coders in both OSS and closed source 
development, so that's not really a problem unique to Linux.

It is perhaps more common in Linux than it should be, though.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 09:34:06 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> 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.

Windows could benefit from implementing something akin to a Linux 
software repository for stuff like this.  Getting the software makers to 
agree might take some work, but then again, Adobe has Acrobat Reader in 
most distributions' official repositories.

>> 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.

Yep, same reason some libraries are installed on a default Linux 
installation unless you're using Gentoo or LFS.

>>> 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.

LOL

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 12:34:21 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 10/8/2011 7:32, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Just like on Windows it used to depend on whether the developer wrote
>> an INI file or used the registry.
> 
> More precisely, it's a question of whether the developer wrote his own
> code to frob INI files, or whether he used the Windows API to do so.
> Because when the registry came out, the Windows API was later changed to
> stor INI files in the registry.

Yes, that's more or less what I meant.

>>> [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.
> 
> The Linux file system isn't transactional. It's just journaled. There's
> no way to update three files at once and ensure nobody sees only one of
> them updated. There's no way to save six files full of Apache config and
> ensure the backup program running in the background hasn't backed up
> three of the new ones and three of the old ones.

Depends on the filesystem in question.  I think the new upcomer 'btrfs' 
is supposed to be transactional.

>> And I've yet to see anything more effective than a binary blob as a
>> file.
> 
> I'm curious what this sentence is supposed to mean. Binary blobs are the
> lowest common denominator, but almost no files actually store a binary
> blob.

All files are binary blobs.  Some have restricted character sets, but 
when it comes down to it, a file is nothing more than a collection of 
bytes.

>> Sometimes distros choose that route because it's just easier than
>> educating the user.  I would prefer if they educated the user instead.
> 
> Or because it's more reliable.  If you update half an installation
> without actually restarting the programs using the DLLs and config files
> you just updated, you could be pretty screwed down the line.  Happened
> all the time to me when (for example) the sys admin would update a
> running server but not save the configuration to outlast a reboot, and
> then the machine would get rebooted and all the software depending on
> that new configuration would fail.

Well, it's more reliable with users who don't have the education on how 
to restart the service rather than rebooting the system.

>> Doing the same on my openSUSE boxes, it's one reboot.  Period.  *If*
>> there's a kernel update.
> 
> Out of curiosity, why would you care how many boots it takes to install
> the OS? It's not like there's other things running while you're trying
> to install, right?

It's a matter of design elegance in my book.  Yes, it doesn't really 
matter if the system reboots a hundred times during the installation.  
Well, except that I'm used to dealing with a single reboot on OS 
installs, so each time the system reboots, I stop what I'm working on 
because I think it's done, and it turns out it's not.

If I spent more time installing Windows, I'm sure I'd become more used to 
it.  In this case, it's a question of being used to going "Oh, it's not 
done yet".  But Windows has never been good at telling the user how long 
something's going to take (to the point that I guess in Win 8, they're 
going to stop trying to predict things like how long a multiple file copy 
is going to take to complete).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

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

On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 09:55:14 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 10/8/2011 4:08, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> echo > /etc/fstab

While it will create a problem with getting the system running, it's far 
from unrecoverable.

Windows Server 2000 as a domain controller.  If you lose your 
administrator password, you're hosed.  You're reinstalling. (I understand 
they fixed that oversight in Server 2003, but that's beside the point).

Had a lab full of machines that the power went out in once (electricians 
doing a power upgrade).  We shut everything down properly, they did some 
work, we powered everything up, and then they started their actual work 
and threw the main breaker.

Half the Windows machines wouldn't boot.  All the *nix and NetWare 
machines (and AS/400s et al) booted more or less without any issue at all.

>> 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).
> 
> Because nobody but Linux weenies care whether they have to reboot their
> system to upgrade their software?

It's an inconvenience.  An annoyance.  Something that's far too often 
required on Windows.  Yes, Windows weenies don't particularly care, 
because they've been taught not to care.  They've been taught that 
"troubleshooting" involves "did you turn it off and back on again, and 
when it came back up, did the problem recur?".

Sorry, *that's* not troubleshooting.  That's problem avoidance.

>> Trivial.  No scripting required.
> 
> These are relatively recent tools in Linux, you must admit. UNIX went 40
> years before getting such support, and only because it started to get
> targeted at less tech-savvy people.

Relatively recent being "in the last 10 years or so".  That's about 2-3 
technological generations.

I might as well name Windows faults based on experiences exclusively with 
Windows 3.1.

>>> 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.
> 
> Is it included standard in Linux? ;-)

No, but at least one of the tools is a free tool to download and use.

> But yeah, this stuff happens fine in Linux. Probably easier in Linux
> than Windows, actually. I can't imagine the kind of operations Google
> does in their data centers working on something proprietary like
> Windows.

Indeed. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 09:48:10 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> 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.

And a relatively recent development, no?

>> 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. ;-)

Of course you would, coming from a Windows background.  You'd probably 
also call it 'unnecessary'. ;)

>> 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. ;-)

Good thing I'm not a Windows developer. ;)

Point is, on most *nix systems, those are standard tools, not an 
additional download.

Jim

Post a reply to this message