On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 13:15:28 -0700, Darren New wrote:

>>> Oh, tremendously. But they're still a PITA compared to Windows'
>>> explorer, methinks.
>>
>> Depends entirely on what you're used to.
> 
> I expect there are some areas where you can definitely say "this feature
> is better implemented than that feature", and a bunch where it's much
> more important what you're used to.
> 
> But I think it's safe to say that having three different copy/paste
> buffers and having each program decide which key combination to use to
> address each one is inferior to having one copy/paste buffer
> consistently implemented, for example.

Sure, and I'd agree with that as well.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 19:32:17 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>> 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'). ;)
> 
> It least they don't call it a "guru meditation number" any more...

Microsoft never did, that was an Amiga error code.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 13:23:03 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 10/9/2011 10:24, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> 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'.
> 
> The ability to take a consistent snapshot of the disk while it's still
> active, and (for example) make a backup of it, without disturbing people
> trying to write to drives you're backing up.
> 
> http://www.howtoforge.com/linux_lvm_snapshots

OIC.  Not being a user of LVM, it makes sense that I'd not have heard of 
that.

>> 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.
> 
> Well, sure. OK, I'm missing your point, then.  Files are more than just
> blobs of data, or they wouldn't be useful, as you say. They have a
> meaning for the data, even if that meaning isn't stored within the data.
> But I'm not sure what your point is.

The point was that Andy said that binary blob data could be stored in the 
registry and not a Linux configuration file.  Point is, it could be 
stored in a Linux data file, but since it's common to change 
configuration items with an editor in Linux, it's not common to use a 
binary format (though the timezone file is an exception to that IIRC).

>> 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.
> 
> I think that's basically what they started doing, yes. Remember how
> often NT3.5 rebooted during install?

It's been a while, but yeah.  It reboots fewer times now, but still too 
frequently.  The old joke about "You've moved your mouse and now must 
restart your computer" doesn't hold as well as it used to, though. ;)

>> 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.
> 
> Possibly. I've read that about some of the hardware. That's part of the
> whole "unified driver" thing going on.

So it's still bad behaviour because of poor design.  Design that 
Microsoft could have some say in, given that they do still hold the 
largest market share.  But instead they certify drivers for hardware that 
suffers from poor design.

>> 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'). ;)
> 
> Machines have had BSOD since long before MS-Dos was around. :-)

Sure, but I don't think it was called that.

>> That made me laugh.  Another area where Linux was ahead in the game
>> (arguably, a minor one, but since we're trading barbs.<g>)
> 
> Barbs? Trading barbs would imply I care whether Windows is better than
> Linux or vice versa. :-)  Neither is my program, so I don't really care.

Well, in the end, I don't really care either, but it bugs me to see the 
same old myths recycled about Linux....just as it seems to bug you to see 
the same old myths recycled about Windows. ;)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 13:08:01 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 10/9/2011 10:15, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Nope. This was one giant compile of one source file. (Well, lots of
> nested includes, etc.) I didn't have to log back in, restart the
> compile, or anything like that. Plus, of course, on Linux, you'd have a
> corrupted output file, because Make doesn't check that the compile
> finished, only that the object code has a timestamp later than the
> source code.

I'll have to take your word for it.  I've worked on a lot of different 
systems and have never seen that kind of behaviour before.

>> 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.
> 
> Probably true. Unless like you're a giant corporation or something,
> yeah.

Even then, I've seen issues in Windows and other commercial operating 
systems that were left as-is even when a big corporation made noise.

In fact, I remember my friend at Microsoft (whom I mentioned before) 
telling me that those laptops they bought - the manufacturer wouldn't 
make drivers for them for Windows Vista.  Microsoft ended up returning 
the 15,000 laptops they had just purchased because the vendor wouldn't 
address that issue.  I understand they bought replacements from some 
other hardware manufacturer.

>>> 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. ;)
> 
> And vice versa.

Sure, each learns from the others.

Except that one tends to patent and sue (or imply a patent and sue or 
extort) when the other doesn't.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 13:11:56 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 10/9/2011 10:31, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Sure, in practice, Linux repos are the first and best source of code,
> and in practice Windows Update is the last place people go to look for
> updates of non-Microsoft code. But as I said, I think that's more the
> difference between FOSS and commercial software than a difference
> between Linux and Windows per se.
> 
> Is that your point?

Partly, yes.

>> But you're saying that it doesn't cost the folks who run Pacman money
>> to host repositories?
> 
> I'm not sure what your point is. It would cost Microsoft way more to
> host upgrades on Windows Update than it would to host free software on a
> Linux repository, even if the bandwidth and storage requirements were
> identical.

Packman (I spelt it wrong) is a large repository for open source software.

How is it that it would cost more to host a repository for software for 
one platform than the other?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 09/10/2011 09:54 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 19:32:17 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
>>> 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'). ;)
>>
>> It least they don't call it a "guru meditation number" any more...
>
> Microsoft never did, that was an Amiga error code.

I know. And I always thought it was a really weird name...

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

Post a reply to this message

On 10/9/2011 14:04, Jim Henderson wrote:
> How is it that it would cost more to host a repository for software for
> one platform than the other?

Insurance. Management. Stuff like that. Basically, overhead and risk abatement.

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

Post a reply to this message

On 10/9/2011 14:11, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> On 09/10/2011 09:54 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 19:32:17 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>
>>>> 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'). ;)
>>>
>>> It least they don't call it a "guru meditation number" any more...
>>
>> Microsoft never did, that was an Amiga error code.
>
> I know. And I always thought it was a really weird name...

You didn't know the origin of that?

The Amiga had a game that used a pad you stood or sat on that turned your 
weight shifts into a joystick input, not unlike some of the Wii surfing 
controllers and such. The idea was that you sat cross-legged on that pad, 
and when your app-under-development caused a guru meditation error, you 
shouldn't be so startled that it makes you shift your weight.

At least that's what I've read.

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

Post a reply to this message

On 10/9/2011 14:00, Jim Henderson wrote:
> The point was that Andy said that binary blob data could be stored in the
> registry and not a Linux configuration file.

Oh. I thought that was more "you *could* do it that way, but it would be a 
stupid way to do it" sort of comment. OK.

> So it's still bad behaviour because of poor design.  Design that
> Microsoft could have some say in, given that they do still hold the
> largest market share.  But instead they certify drivers for hardware that
> suffers from poor design.

They'd probably get their ass sued off if they wouldn't certify drivers just 
because it required resetting the hardware to read its state.

>> Machines have had BSOD since long before MS-Dos was around. :-)
> Sure, but I don't think it was called that.

Sure, and they weren't blue. (Actually, I still giggle that I had a 
co-worker who had installed and uninstalled so much experimental crap on his 
machine that he got a yellow-on-grey-screen-of-death every time he logged out.)

> Well, in the end, I don't really care either, but it bugs me to see the
> same old myths recycled about Linux....just as it seems to bug you to see
> the same old myths recycled about Windows. ;)

Yep, pretty much. Both of taken major strides recently.  Linux more than 
Windows, I think.

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

Post a reply to this message

On 10/9/2011 14:03, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 13:08:01 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>
>> On 10/9/2011 10:15, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Nope. This was one giant compile of one source file. (Well, lots of
>> nested includes, etc.) I didn't have to log back in, restart the
>> compile, or anything like that. Plus, of course, on Linux, you'd have a
>> corrupted output file, because Make doesn't check that the compile
>> finished, only that the object code has a timestamp later than the
>> source code.
>
> I'll have to take your word for it.  I've worked on a lot of different
> systems and have never seen that kind of behaviour before.

Well, to be fair, it was core memory, so all the processor had to do was 
save the registers when it got the "power fail" interrupt. :-) It's just one 
of those "you never have to reboot linux unless you have a kernel update" 
myth-busters.

Unless you mean the makefile stuff, which sure, it's trivial to break Make.

> In fact, I remember my friend at Microsoft (whom I mentioned before)
> telling me that those laptops they bought - the manufacturer wouldn't
> make drivers for them for Windows Vista.  Microsoft ended up returning
> the 15,000 laptops they had just purchased because the vendor wouldn't
> address that issue.  I understand they bought replacements from some
> other hardware manufacturer.

I can see that. Vista broke a lot of my hardware too.

> Except that one tends to patent and sue (or imply a patent and sue or
> extort) when the other doesn't.

Well, one is trying to make money. The fact that MS sues over patents is 
irrelevant (for the most part) to the question of technical features. :-)

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

Post a reply to this message