On 10/8/2011 18:08, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Then we agree there.

I think we agree on this whole message. Nuff said. :-)

> 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.)

Sure. But you're not going to upgrade a proprietary for-fee OS like Windows 
from a flash drive. I'm not saying Linux is bad or anything. I'm just 
pointing out *why* it is different, which sadly many people fail (or refuse) 
to notice.

-- 
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 18:05, Jim Henderson wrote:
> I didn't know I could install Adobe Acrobat, Flash, or other third party
> software from Windows Update. ;)

You can, if it passes Microsoft certification requirements. I saw 
instructions somewhere for setting it up with Microsoft.

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

And device drivers aren't third party software? Some of the DRM plug-ins are 
similar as well.

>>> 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.

Sure. But people giving away free software want to be in your face about it, 
not as a silent background install. There's a reason that Adobe plasters 
their icon on your desktop on every update regardless of the fact you never 
start it without a file.

>>> 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?

Sure. Feel free. Go ahead. :-)  The point is that it costs Microsoft real 
money to provide that service, and people generally don't want to use that, 
because Microsoft controls it too much.  Commercial entities don't like 
that, but they'll put up with it if that's the only way to get their free 
software in front of their target audience.

If you want to start your own Windows repository for free software, go right 
ahead. I suggest you talk to google about how they work their updates, 
because it saves a lot of bandwidth.

-- 
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 18:03, Jim Henderson wrote:
> 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. ;)

Hey, it's all binary blobs anyway, right? ;-)

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

Oh, tremendously. But they're still a PITA compared to Windows' explorer, 
methinks.

-- 
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 19:02:28 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> 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.

Shows how long it's been since I looked into this. :)

>>>> 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.

Yeah, I knew it was a joke, that's why I winked. ;)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 18:58:24 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> 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.

One that Microsoft reversed in Server 2003, IIRC.

>> 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.

Well, I think you probably would - some of the compiled code would 
already be in object form, and the compiler wouldn't have to compile it 
again.

>> It's an inconvenience.  An annoyance.
> 
> No it's not. Why would it be?

I already explained why.

>> 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.

Last time I applied a service pack to Windows 7, it required a 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. :-)

Same thing happens on some Linux distributions - GNOME's bug-buddy will 
report things back to the developer if it's set up properly.

I think (but as I don't use it, I don't know) KDE does as well.

The thing is that on Linux, if you have a problem and report it, there's 
a far better chance it'll be fixed quickly.

>> 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'd agree with that.

>> 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."

It's good to see Windows catching up with Linux, isn't it?  Some of the 
features in Win8 have been available in Linux for years. ;)

>>> 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.

Management tools are a bit different than dev tools. ;)

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 18:53:14 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> 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? :-)

Not sure what you mean about 'disk snapshots'.  As for who's going to 
depend on it, that remains to be seen, as the development isn't finished 
yet.

>>>> 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.

It doesn't really matter if they've got recognizable records in them.  
Those records are still "blobs" that have to be interpreted by a program.

It's all just data.  To say otherwise is just silly.  By definition, that 
blob of data has to mean something to *someone*, unless it's just random 
bytes strung together.

> 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.

I've seen plenty of better filesystems than what's on a typical PC.

> 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. ;-)

I'm good at that. ;)

But I'm not saying that because structure can be assigned to it, it's not 
useful.  I'm just pointing out the axiom that data is data is data is 
data.

>> 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?

Sure, the dev who builds the package has to define the dependencies 
correctly.  That's true on any platform.  On Windows (or an AS/400, or a 
Mac) if you link the wrong version of a shared library, badness can 
happen if the dev is depending on the unique behaviour of a function in a 
specific version of the library.

>> 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.

So rather than stop the installation and reboot, it seems it would be 
better to queue those things together so a single reboot deals with them 
all.

But more to the point, what you're essentially saying is that Windows has 
to reboot because the hardware vendor's poor design means their own 
driver can't determine the device correctly unless it's been freshly 
reset.

My BS meter is going off. ;)

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

Win 7 did twice, IIRC.

>> 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.

Of course, Microsoft stole the idea of a progress bar that makes no sense 
from Novell.  Just like BSOD (which they embraced, and then 'enhanced' by 
making it 'blue' instead of 'black'). ;)

>  > (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.

That made me laugh.  Another area where Linux was ahead in the game 
(arguably, a minor one, but since we're trading barbs. <g>)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 19:20:24 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 10/8/2011 18:03, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> 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. ;)
> 
> Hey, it's all binary blobs anyway, right? ;-)

Sure.  I suppose you'll point out that the binary structure of an 
executable that actually does something to manipulate the data in another 
file means that the executable is a configuration file.

My point was data is data is data is data, regardless of structure 
assigned to that data.  If you put a "binary blob" in the Windows 
registry, something knows what the structure of that blob means, 
otherwise it's just random data.

>> Though I find that the state of Linux GUIs is improving.  Certainly has
>> since I started using it.
> 
> Oh, tremendously. But they're still a PITA compared to Windows'
> explorer, methinks.

Depends entirely on what you're used to.

Having recently been asked to do some work that requires Windows, I've 
had my own frustrations with the Windows interface and things that don't 
work as efficiently on Windows as they do in Linux.

The same is true for comparing featuresets between Hyper-V and VMware 
Workstation.  For example, in Hyper-V, if you "pause" a machine, it stays 
allocated in memory rather than suspending.  "Pause" means "suspend 
execution".

In VMware, if you "pause" the VM, VMware grabs the state and commits it 
to disk, freeing up the memory for other VMs.  I find VMware's usage 
makes a lot more sense.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 19:19:27 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 10/8/2011 18:05, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I didn't know I could install Adobe Acrobat, Flash, or other third
>> party software from Windows Update. ;)
> 
> You can, if it passes Microsoft certification requirements. I saw
> instructions somewhere for setting it up with Microsoft.

Not really the point, though.

>> (That's actually what I was talking about - not about driver installs)
> 
> And device drivers aren't third party software? Some of the DRM plug-ins
> are similar as well.

Sure, they are - but then again, Linux tends to include a lot more device 
drivers on the media than Windows does.  But sure, ATI and nVidia 
drivers, for openSUSE, are installed from a repository.

>>>> 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.
> 
> Sure. But people giving away free software want to be in your face about
> it, not as a silent background install. There's a reason that Adobe
> plasters their icon on your desktop on every update regardless of the
> fact you never start it without a file.

Oddly, that doesn't happen with the Linux versions.  Certainly not on 
systems running GNOME3 (which actually won't let you put icons on the 
desktop).

>>>> 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?
> 
> Sure. Feel free. Go ahead. :-)  The point is that it costs Microsoft
> real money to provide that service, and people generally don't want to
> use that, because Microsoft controls it too much.  Commercial entities
> don't like that, but they'll put up with it if that's the only way to
> get their free software in front of their target audience.

I don't use Windows enough for it to be useful.

But you're saying that it doesn't cost the folks who run Pacman money to 
host repositories?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 19:12:58 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> 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.

True.

>> 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.

Yep, absolutely. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 19:15:12 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 10/8/2011 18:08, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Then we agree there.
> 
> I think we agree on this whole message. Nuff said. :-)

Right. :)

>> 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.)
> 
> Sure. But you're not going to upgrade a proprietary for-fee OS like
> Windows from a flash drive. I'm not saying Linux is bad or anything. I'm
> just pointing out *why* it is different, which sadly many people fail
> (or refuse) to notice.

Windows doesn't really seem to have a mechanism for doing an upgrade from 
a flash drive, but yes, usually people are going to do it online.

Jim

Post a reply to this message