On 10/8/2011 14:21, Jim Henderson wrote:
> 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.

That's kind of my point exactly. :-)

> is kinda disingenuous.

I don't know "disingenuous" is the word I'd use, but sure. There are 
benefits to having one entity saying "here, it's solved, do it this way." 
There are problems with that too, when you want to do it a different way.

>>> 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.

Sure. But "the guy who installs every pre-release version over top of the 
previous pre-release version" isn't the target audience. It's much more 
efficient to design an upgrade to replace the previous production system 
than to design an upgrade to replace every previous version of every 
unreleased upgrade.

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

I'm saying it's because it hurts Linux less. You don't actually lose sales 
due to having your software pull in too many prerequisites. As opposed to 
(for example) having to distribute on a DVD rather than a CD if you are 
close to the edge. (Of course, much more worrisome with downloads or with 
floppies or other low-capacity media.)

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

Post a reply to this message

On 09/10/2011 01:50 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 01:45:29 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
>>>>> Why do you need that? All that sort of thing is built into Windows.
>>>>
>>>> Really? So how do I create an encrypted video connection to the target
>>>> machine, while at the same time preventing anybody else from doing the
>>>> same?
>>>
>>> Remote Desktop + password.
>>
>> Now how do you /encrypt/ that?
>
> It's RDP.  It's already *encrypted*.

Yeah, right. I'll believe it when I see it.

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

Post a reply to this message

On 10/8/2011 14:23, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Windows could benefit from implementing something akin to a Linux
> software repository for stuff like this.

They have it. Windows Update. Where your device drivers come from. :-)

> Getting the software makers to agree might take some work,

And that is the problem. That, and commercial entities don't really want 
their software in Windows Update where people could install it without 
paying for it. The model really only works for free software.

> but then again, Adobe has Acrobat Reader in
> most distributions' official repositories.

Probably because Adobe doesn't have to deal with it. They just have to give 
permission.

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

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 01:44:45 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>>> Plus, installing Windows isn't a 4GB download.
>>
>> 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.
> 
> Seriously?
> 
> The Windows XP CD holds less than 650 MB of data. (It's a CD.) Service
> Pack 3 is only a few hundred MB, last I checked. Most individual updates
> are a few KB to maybe a dozen MB. I would be /greatly/ surprised if you
> need to download more than 1 GB.

Oh, so you want to compare a modern Linux distribution against Windows 
from 10-ish years ago?  *Really*?  How about I say Linux is so much 
better than Windows 3.1?

> Applications? Well, yeah, that could be arbitrarily large, depending on
> what applications you want...

Precisely.  That 4 GB DVD has loads of applications on it.

>>> 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?
> 
> Not in the same building, no.

Huh, so the guy I was helping over in the openSUSE forums who has one 
computer and it isn't connected to the Internet at all is SOL for asking 
questions because he doesn't have a network connection.

Oh, wait, he went to the library and used a public computer to ask his 
questions.  Is there some reason that wouldn't work for you?

Those who want to will find a way.  Those who want to just complain will 
give up without even trying.

> I mean, I guess I could have set something up. It's just frustrating
> when all you're trying to do is a default install or whatever, and that
> isn't working.

Yeah, and it sucks when the power goes out and you have to wait for 
something to be fixed.  If you don't call it in to the power company, it 
may never get fixed.  One wouldn't be justified to just sit there and 
bitch that they haven't fixed it when you didn't report a problem.

>> 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!!!
> 
> And, uh, what do you base this assertion on?

I base it on the fact that LINUX != WINDOWS.

> You make it sound like I used Linux for five minutes, couldn't work it,
> and gave up. That's not what happened at all!

Did you ask any questions?  Or did you never, ever get to a Windows 
machine where you could ask questions?

If you want to *learn*, you ask questions.  You know this, because you're 
moderately inquisitive about lots of different topics.  But somehow it's 
absolutely impossible for you to ask for a little help sorting out a 
Linux issue.  Far easier to just say "Linux suxxors the biggest donkey 
balls" than to go to a Linux forum and ask for a little assistance!

>> Software isn't perfect.  No matter which platform it is, it isn't going
>> to be perfect.
> 
> Funny, I could have sworn Mac OS was perfect...

Only those who haven't used it say that.  Oh, wait, you haven't used it 
(by your own admission).

>> 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".
> 
> You make it sound like I've made no attempt to do so.

You say "I couldn't get it working" and didn't ask anyone with expertise 
for help.  That sure sounds to me like "little attempt to get some 
assistance".

> I can work Linux. I can usually make it do what I want it to do. I
> pointed out one specific issue: installing stuff tends to be a
> dependency nightmare. Which is true. I don't see how that makes me an
> idiot.

It doesn't.  Not asking for help when you need it?  Yeah, *that's* not 
too bright.  Then using that experience to say "this sucks" - really not 
that useful.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 17:47:22 -0700, Darren New wrote:

>>> 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.
> 
> But that's a stupid argument. Notepad still works even without
> networking if you don't try to use networking. Linux doesn't, because
> everything assumes it's there.

Conceded.

> On the other hand, Linux still works if you uninstall graphics drivers,
> and Windows (and Notepad) fall over.

Indeed that is true. :)

>> Installing Windows + applications is a lot more than 4 GB.
> 
> Windows hasn't fit on less than a DVD in quite some time. I think the
> base install is a 3.5G DVD image or so. Not counting Office and such.

Well, Andy wants to compare modern Linux distributions with a 10-year old 
version of Windows.  <shrug>

>> 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.
> 
> Does anyone else miss the good old days when it was possible to use a
> computer based on the instructions it came with, without having to have
> a live connection open to the people who wrote the software you're
> using? Where you could buy a book, and read the book, and then use in
> all its details the software the book described?

Yes, I certainly do.  Software documentation of most kinds absolutely 
sucks rocks these days.  It tends to focus on what the software does 
rather than how to do it or why you'd want to use it the way they 
designed it.

NetWare - one of my favourite OSes of all time - the last version that 
had decent documentation was 2.15.  *Maybe* 3.11 (it's been a while) did 
as well.  The last version was 6.5, and in spite of knowing and 
respecting members of the team that wrote the docs, it was pretty ugly in 
terms of actually being documentation.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 10/8/2011 14:38, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Configuration files don't autogenerate other configuration programs.

Autoconf? :-)

> 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.

I still giggle when I see someone using a gui in Linux to do things like 
find files. Just because I'm so used to the command line (and GUIs for Linux 
tend to suck horribly compared to something where it's the expected 
interface) that it looks silly to me.

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

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 01:55:00 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> On 09/10/2011 01:50 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 01:45:29 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Why do you need that? All that sort of thing is built into Windows.
>>>>>
>>>>> Really? So how do I create an encrypted video connection to the
>>>>> target machine, while at the same time preventing anybody else from
>>>>> doing the same?
>>>>
>>>> Remote Desktop + password.
>>>
>>> Now how do you /encrypt/ that?
>>
>> It's RDP.  It's already *encrypted*.
> 
> Yeah, right. I'll believe it when I see it.

I use it for what I work on.  The connection is encrypted.  RDP ain't VNC 
(which actually *isn't* encrypted).

When I connect to the Windows Server 2008 box for the classes I'm working 
on, I get a certificate validation request.

That sure as hell seems to be an encrypted connection.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 18:00:56 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 10/8/2011 14:38, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Configuration files don't autogenerate other configuration programs.
> 
> Autoconf? :-)

Autoconf isn't really a configuration file.  It's a configuration file 
parser. ;)

>> 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.
> 
> I still giggle when I see someone using a gui in Linux to do things like
> find files. Just because I'm so used to the command line (and GUIs for
> Linux tend to suck horribly compared to something where it's the
> expected interface) that it looks silly to me.

Yeah, I do as well.  find or locate does the job just fine, and beagle 
and its successors are just resource pigs.

Though I find that the state of Linux GUIs is improving.  Certainly has 
since I started using it.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 17:56:20 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 10/8/2011 14:23, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Windows could benefit from implementing something akin to a Linux
>> software repository for stuff like this.
> 
> They have it. Windows Update. Where your device drivers come from. :-)

I didn't know I could install Adobe Acrobat, Flash, or other third party 
software from Windows Update. ;)

(That's actually what I was talking about - not about driver installs)

>> Getting the software makers to agree might take some work,
> 
> And that is the problem. That, and commercial entities don't really want
> their software in Windows Update where people could install it without
> paying for it. The model really only works for free software.

The software in question I'm talking about is available gratis as it is.  
Like Flash, Acrobat Reader, Java, etc.

>> but then again, Adobe has Acrobat Reader in most distributions'
>> official repositories.
> 
> Probably because Adobe doesn't have to deal with it. They just have to
> give permission.

So why not something like that for Windows, too?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>>>> Now how do you /encrypt/ that?
>>>
>>> It's RDP.  It's already *encrypted*.
>>
>> Yeah, right. I'll believe it when I see it.
>
> I use it for what I work on.  The connection is encrypted.  RDP ain't VNC
> (which actually *isn't* encrypted).
>
> When I connect to the Windows Server 2008 box for the classes I'm working
> on, I get a certificate validation request.
>
> That sure as hell seems to be an encrypted connection.

So, just because it does strong authentication, you think that means the 
actual data is encrypted?

Given how weak the password challenge/response protocol in Windows is, 
I'd be happier tunnelling via SSH or something. You know, if I could 
actually find an SSH *server* for Windows... (Then I wouldn't need any 
extra hardware at all.)

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

Post a reply to this message