On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 14:39:39 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> 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.

Oh, no.  It was entirely about the fact that saying the registry is 
unique (or whatever) because you can store binary data in it was kinda 
silly.

>> 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.

I dunno, they've used some pretty heavy-handed approaches in the past.  
That's part of the reason there's concern in some corners about the new 
secure UEFI stuff.

>>> 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.)

That is pretty impressive. ;)

But the term "BSOD" originally meant "Black Screen of Death" and came 
with certain versions of Novell's VLM client (1.02, IIRC) with DOS and 
Windows 3.1.  To the best of my knowledge, that's where BSOD was first 
used.

>> 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.

Indeed. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 22:11:34 +0100, 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...

So did I.  For that matter, I still do. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 14:34:50 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> 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.

So, the same kinds of things that you have to be careful of with Linux 
repositories as well.

That's why, for example, the official openSUSE repos don't have any 
proprietary codecs or device drivers in them.  Because of liability, 
insurance, and management.

So again, why would it be any more expensive for Microsoft than for an 
open source project?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 10/9/2011 16:14, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 14:34:50 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> So, the same kinds of things that you have to be careful of with Linux
> repositories as well.

No. People putting things into a Linux repository aren't going to sue them 
for failing to distribute it properly. Nobody is going to sue Red Hat when 
Reader crashes their machines. Etc.

> That's why, for example, the official openSUSE repos don't have any
> proprietary codecs or device drivers in them.  Because of liability,
> insurance, and management.

Well, there you go, then. Why are you asking why Microsoft doesn't do it, 
then? There are tons of repositories of free Windows software that Microsoft 
doesn't run.

-- 
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 16:12, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 14:39:39 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Oh, no.  It was entirely about the fact that saying the registry is
> unique (or whatever) because you can store binary data in it was kinda
> silly.

I didn't catch that assertion. OK. It's fairly unique in being a standard 
searchable format with an API, but not in that it stores binary data.

> But the term "BSOD" originally meant "Black Screen of Death" and came
> with certain versions of Novell's VLM client (1.02, IIRC) with DOS and
> Windows 3.1.  To the best of my knowledge, that's where BSOD was first
> used.

Interesting.

-- 
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 18:10:18 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 10/9/2011 16:14, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 14:34:50 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> So, the same kinds of things that you have to be careful of with Linux
>> repositories as well.
> 
> No. People putting things into a Linux repository aren't going to sue
> them for failing to distribute it properly. Nobody is going to sue Red
> Hat when Reader crashes their machines. Etc.

Are you sure about that?  And of course, why would it be any different 
for Windows?  If Acrobat Reader crashed a Windows box, it would be 
Adobe's problem regardless of if Microsoft distributed the file or if 
they got it from Adobe.

>> That's why, for example, the official openSUSE repos don't have any
>> proprietary codecs or device drivers in them.  Because of liability,
>> insurance, and management.
> 
> Well, there you go, then. Why are you asking why Microsoft doesn't do
> it, then? There are tons of repositories of free Windows software that
> Microsoft doesn't run.

I should clarify that the Fluendo codecs are in there - and are properly 
licensed in order to be in there.  I always forget about those. :)

Point is, openSUSE is just one distro and made their decision on it, but 
you can add the Packman repository and add the other codecs if you so 
desire (and then the burden of liability falls to the user, since Packman 
is non-US - based in Germany, IIRC).

But a "repository" for Windows is just a "download" site.  It doesn't 
include actual software management elements per se.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 18:11:55 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 10/9/2011 16:12, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 14:39:39 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Oh, no.  It was entirely about the fact that saying the registry is
>> unique (or whatever) because you can store binary data in it was kinda
>> silly.
> 
> I didn't catch that assertion. OK. It's fairly unique in being a
> standard searchable format with an API, but not in that it stores binary
> data.

grep -ri text /etc/*

Works pretty well for being a standard searchable format on Linux. ;)

>> But the term "BSOD" originally meant "Black Screen of Death" and came
>> with certain versions of Novell's VLM client (1.02, IIRC) with DOS and
>> Windows 3.1.  To the best of my knowledge, that's where BSOD was first
>> used.
> 
> Interesting.

Most people who haven't had a lot of exposure to NetWare are unaware of 
the term's origin. ;)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>>>>> or cooperative shared editting.
>>>>
>>>> It's news to me that /any/ version of Office has that.
>>>
>>> That's kind of my point.
>>
>> So... how do you do that?
>
> You stick it on a share and you go to the menu that says something like
> "cooperative editing" or some such. You're sitting in front of a
> google-enabled computer just like I am. :-)

You're the one claiming that this feature exists. :-P

Post a reply to this message

On 09/10/2011 03:12 AM, Darren New wrote:

> I learned UNIX by sitting down and reading thru the tome of man
> pages.

You learned Unix by reading a reference manual? How is that even 
possible? That's like trying to learn biology from an encyclopaedia...

Post a reply to this message

>>> 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.
>
> If you use openSUSE for configuration, you use the openSUSE documentation
> to see how to use YaST to make those configuration changes.

Wait - YaST has documentation?

> And if that
> doesn't get you where you need to be, you ask a question in the community.
>
> OSS is big about community.

That sounds very nice and all, but if I'm trying to quickly set 
something up, I don't really want to have to go onto the Internet and 
beg for help, and then spend a week or two hoping that somebody 
knowledgeable will just happen across my message and actually take the 
time to give me a helpful response. I want to read a manual that tells 
me how to do this RIGHT NOW.

>>>> 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.

The warning is partly there because if you're a clueless user who 
doesn't know how to work a computer properly, it's very easy to do a 
hell of a lot of damage using a registry editor. Personally, I have 
almost never borked my system by editing the registry. The only time 
it's happened is when I started deleting stuff at random in a desperate 
attempt to make something work. If you follow the instructions, it works 
fine.

My point remains: It's very uncommon to /need/ to touch the registry in 
the first place. Whereas under Unix, the text configuration files are 
the first port of call, not the last. That's just the difference in 
design mentality.

>> 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.

And yet, the vast majority of all Linux software is strictly CLI-only, 
and developers always seem to expect somebody /else/ to build the pretty 
front-end for it.

>> 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/.
>
> Linux (and most OSS software) evolves rather than going through discrete
> cycles.

Sure. The "release early and often" approach. I'm just saying, as an 
outsider, it's not always clear what actually changed between versions. 
(I guess often it's stuff under the hood that you won't notice anyway.)

>>> 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.

JET is no match for an enterprise database engine, sure. But it's more 
transactional than a flat file.

Also, I'm not completely sure that the registry is actually JET. It 
might be, but I didn't think it was. For one thing, registry files grow 
as needed, but never shrink. I don't think JET has that limitation.

>> 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.

I'd ask if Linux gets this right - expect Linux generally won't replace 
one version of an application with a totally different one just because 
you asked for security updates...

>> 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.

Admitting you're wrong is one thing. But they did something illegal; 
where is the *financial* pain for that?

> Maintaining multiple versions of an entire operating system can be time
> and resource intensive.

Maybe it's there then. Still seems like a fairly tiny price for, you 
know, BREAKING THE LAW...

Post a reply to this message