On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 17:54:10 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> 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. :-)

Then we agree there.

>> 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.

Thing is, if the best program to accomplish a task on Windows didn't 
follow the Windows UI standards, you'd have the same issue with regards 
to usability.

>>>> 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.

Yes, agreed.  I was pointing out a worst case scenario for upgrading 
Windows, nothing more.

>> 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.)

Sure.  But there are ways of dealing with that, too.  Most computers have 
USB ports these days, so a USB flash drive can be used (in fact, I did my 
upgrade from oS 11.4 to 12.1 beta 1 using a flash drive.)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 09/10/2011 01:57 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> 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*?

I'm comparing Linux against the Windows release that most people are 
currently using.

>> 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.

Linux comes with a hell of a lot more applications than Windows does. 
This is a good thing.

It's still frustrating that I have to download multiple GB of data for 
libraries that I'm not actually going to use, just because the package 
dependency system isn't a little more fine-grained.

>>> You have a Windows machine, do you not?
>>
>> Not in the same building, no.
>
> Those who want to will find a way.  Those who want to just complain will
> give up without even trying.

Yes. Because spending a week trying to fix something it *totally* the 
same as just giving up and complaining about it. Oh, wait...

>>> 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.

As you're probably aware, that isn't the statement I was querying.

>> 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!

Again, I didn't say Linux sucks. I said one specific aspect of it sucks.

>>> 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).

Sarcasm doesn't work via text, apparently...

>> 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.

Now, to me, if the only way to make a system work is to find a 
super-expert to explain it, then it's not a very good system. If only 
the distribution developers themselves have enough insider knowledge to 
figure out how to work the package manager, then it's not a terribly 
good system. Just, you know, my opinion. Feel free to disagree...

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

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 02:06:59 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>>>>> 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?

It's actually a certificate verification message, not a 'strong 
authentication' message.  It's asking about an SSL certificate that's 
used to encrypt the entire communications channel.

You know, like actual security.

Don't believe me?  Fine, I'll do a wireshark trace on it.

Nope, 1200 packets, nothing in the clear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_Desktop_Protocol

"128-bit encryption, using the RC4 encryption algorithm, as of Version 6.
[15] Older implementations suffer from a man-in-the-middle vulnerability, 
which can allow an attacker to decrypt the encrypted streams by recording 
the encryption key as it is transmitted.[16]"

(Under "Features").

Nope, I guess you're right.  Adding 128-bit encryption isn't security.

"Support for Transport Layer Security (TLS) 1.0 on both server and client 
ends (set as default)."

I guess TLS also isn't security.  (That's as of version 6, released in 
2006).

Clearly I don't have a clue what I'm talking about.  RDP just uses 128-
bit encryption and has TLS available for full connection encryption.

> 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.)

You need to read more about the newer versions of RDP, I reckon.  

Oh, and I pointed you at an SSH server for Windows.  It comes with Cygwin.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 02:15:37 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> On 09/10/2011 01:57 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> 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*?
> 
> I'm comparing Linux against the Windows release that most people are
> currently using.

A more appropriate comparison is latest against latest.

You want to compare distribution size for modern against what Microsoft 
shipped 10 years ago, you're comparing apples and radioactive asteroids 
orbiting with Charon.

Linux from 10 years ago, features compared against Windows from 10 years 
ago?  No comparison, Linux was in its infancy.  Stuff *was* actually 
difficult to do, and you did have to have expertise.

>>> 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.
> 
> Linux comes with a hell of a lot more applications than Windows does.
> This is a good thing.

Yes, it is.

> It's still frustrating that I have to download multiple GB of data for
> libraries that I'm not actually going to use, just because the package
> dependency system isn't a little more fine-grained.

You don't know that you're not going to use them.

If you want something more specialized, you can do a custom roll-your-own 
with SUSE Studio.  No need to download anything you don't want, because 
you build the distribution on a remote system using a web browser, test 
it, and then download it.

>>>> You have a Windows machine, do you not?
>>>
>>> Not in the same building, no.
>>
>> Those who want to will find a way.  Those who want to just complain
>> will give up without even trying.
> 
> Yes. Because spending a week trying to fix something it *totally* the
> same as just giving up and complaining about it. Oh, wait...

You spent a week trying to fix something that had you asked a question in 
an online forum, you probably could've gotten an answer for in a day or 
two.

And then you complained that you couldn't figure it out.

Yeah, ultimately, you gave up without asking for help.  If you'd asked 
for help, someone probably would've been able to help you.

>>> 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!
> 
> Again, I didn't say Linux sucks. I said one specific aspect of it sucks.

An aspect you didn't ask any questions about, but beat your head against 
the desk for a week without asking for help.

>>>> 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).
> 
> Sarcasm doesn't work via text, apparently...

Apparently not. ;)

>>> 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.
> 
> Now, to me, if the only way to make a system work is to find a
> super-expert to explain it, then it's not a very good system. If only
> the distribution developers themselves have enough insider knowledge to
> figure out how to work the package manager, then it's not a terribly
> good system. Just, you know, my opinion. Feel free to disagree...

You don't need a super expert to explain it.  You need someone with more 
knowledge than you have to explain it.  Plenty of normal everyday non-
technical end users manage to use it without problems.

And those who don't understand it who ask questions quickly learn tips 
and tricks that actually, you know, make it usable.  Just like learning 
how to drive a stick shift - it can be learned, but it's easier to learn 
(and is less likely to cost you a new transmission) if you have someone 
who knows how to properly engage the clutch teach you.

I sure as hell am not a package developer or someone with "insider 
knowledge" (how does that even apply in an open source model?) about the 
supposed special incantations.

Again, if you want Windows, use Windows.  You know Linux isn't the same 
as Windows.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 10/8/2011 14:28, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Depends on the filesystem in question.  I think the new upcomer 'btrfs'
> is supposed to be transactional.

True. I heard recently that one is coming out for Linux. Now, how many 
programs will actually depend on it? And will it be a half-solution like 
disk snapshots are in Linux? :-)

>>> 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.

Nope. All files are represented as binary blobs, at least in Linux and 
Windows. Name me three types of files that don't have recognizable records 
in them.

Lots of mainframes had much more sophisticated file systems. PR1ME had SQL 
tables as their basic file system entity. The fact you've never seen an OS 
that has a better file system doesn't mean they don't exist.

And, indeed, files in Linux and Windows are *not* represented the way they 
are on disk. Both represent files as arrays of bytes with a length accurate 
to the byte. But there's also ACLs, alternate streams (under Windows), 
directories, etc etc etc. If you want to see a language and OS that 
represents files the way they really are, look at FORTH, which represents 
disks as arrays of blocks, and it's up to you to decide which files go with 
which blocks. Or CP/M, the progenitor of our so-wonderful ^Z-is-end-of-file 
custom for text files.

Memory is a flat array of bytes too. That doesn't mean a language with 
hashtables built in isn't useful.

(Sorry. You touched a peeve there. ;-)

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

It also assumes that packages which rely on that updated library declare 
that they do, and that the package tells you how to restart the service. If 
you update something in glibc, does Linux know that the apache service will 
run something different?

> 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.

You know, part of it is the fact that Windows takes better advantage of lots 
of hardware (in the sense that Windows device drivers written by the 
hardware vendor tend to know more about the hardware). Sometimes hardware is 
designed that you can only detect some bits immediately after a reset, so 
rebooting is required to select the right driver out of many.

And, honestly, I don't think Windows (Vista) rebooted more than once during 
the last install I did either.

> But Windows has never been good at telling the user how long
> something's going to take

Very true.  Indeed, it bugs me that'll show a progress bar progressing even 
if you're copying over the network and you just pulled out the cable or 
something.  No, really, it's not progressing. Stop flying pages from one 
folder to the next. You've gotten reliable enough that things can break 
without taking down the system to the point where GIF animations stop 
animating just because the network cable is unplugged.

 > (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).

Heh.

-- 
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 14:44, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Windows Server 2000 as a domain controller.  If you lose your
> administrator password, you're hosed.  You're reinstalling.

Um, that's a good thing, you know. You're not supposed to recover from that.

My laptop has an encrypted drive. If I forget my password, I can't get to 
it. That's not a flaw, that's a design goal.

> 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.

Never had that problem, myself.

On the other hand, I have had the power go out without warning 20 minutes 
into a 30-minute compile on a mainframe. When the power came back, the 
compile finished in 10 minutes. Something you won't see Linux *or* Windows 
doing.

> It's an inconvenience.  An annoyance.

No it's not. Why would it be?

> Something that's far too often
> required on Windows.

Not any more, really. I can't remember the last time an upgrade asked me to 
reboot.

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

True. But it isn't a whole let better on Linux, unless you're a developer. 
On Windows, the problem gets automatically reported back to the developer 
anyway, if you set it up that way. :-)

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

Sure. Just saying, it was other systems making it easier that drove Linux to 
doing this, methinks.

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

I'm not describing faults. I'm describing "catching up with other more 
popular systems."

>> Is it included standard in Linux? ;-)
>
> No, but at least one of the tools is a free tool to download and use.

Methinks you missed my joke. Earlier you were talking about dev tools on 
Windows not counting because they had to be downloaded.

-- 
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 14:45, Jim Henderson wrote:
> 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?

"""
Windows Script Host is distributed and installed by default on Windows 98 
and later versions of Windows. It is also installed if Internet Explorer 5 
(or a later version) is installed. Beginning with Windows 2000, the Windows 
Script Host became available for use with user login scripts.
"""

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'. ;)

That was a joke. I actually read the source code of Unix V7 when it was new, 
long before Windows was a chocolate bar in Gate's back pocket. I don't come 
from a Windows background. I come from a microcomputer and mainframe 
background. I just know more about Windows internals than most Linux fans.

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

And that's about as important as pointing out that Windows can uninstall 
TCP/IP or that Windows reboots thrice instead of twice during the OS install.

-- 
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 17:32, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> On 08/10/2011 08:38 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> 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.
>
> 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?

Have your target go to the help center and send you an email for "remote 
assistance", and have them tell you the password over the phone. (You might 
have to have them turn on "cp->system->remote->allow remote assistance" if 
they've turned it off.)

If you have a non-"home" version of Windows, set up Remote Desktop, which is 
in controlpanel->system->remote settings->remote->allow remote desktop. Of 
course, once they've done the former, you can remote in and do the latter 
for them.

HTH!

-- 
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 18:06, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> So, just because it does strong authentication, you think that means the
> actual data is encrypted?

You're sitting in front of a machine hooked to both Microsoft's online 
documentation and google, you know.

-- 
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 18:00, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Well, Andy wants to compare modern Linux distributions with a 10-year old
> version of Windows.<shrug>

Sure. I was just offering a counterpoint. Windows and Linux both come on one 
DVD. (I don't know if both 32 and 64 Windows come on the same DVD. I've just 
seen directory listings.) Linux without apps fits on a CD. Windows without 
apps doesn't.

> 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.

Or even in enough completeness you could use it. I remember learning APL 
from the APL interpreter manual that came with the computer. How cool is 
that? I learned UNIX by sitting down and reading thru the tome of man pages.

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

Post a reply to this message