The Nightstar Zoo

Nightstar IRC Network - irc.nightstar.net
It is currently Sun Jul 23, 2017 1:35 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Jul 02, 2005 3:26 pm 
The Linux Desktop Distribution of the Future.

The problems he points out apply to every OS, not just Linux.

When he talks about application installation and the desktop he is spot on.

Whatever the actual OS filesystem is it should be hidden from the desktop user. If the OS drops all its system files into a randomly generated structure of unpronounceable subdirectories that's just fine as long as the desktop user never has to see it.

Ultimately the desktop user should *never* be forced to muck around in system files for any reason. Windows, every Linux distribution I've ever tried, and OSX (I've been messing with a Mac Mini for a few weeks now) arn't there yet.

Gimmie my applications, my documents, and let me connect easily to peripherals and network resources and I'm happy.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 02, 2005 9:02 pm 
Offline
Concession Worker
Concession Worker
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2003 5:26 pm
Posts: 1479
Location: R'lyeh
BBlalock wrote:
The Linux Desktop Distribution of the Future.

The problems he points out apply to every OS, not just Linux.

When he talks about application installation and the desktop he is spot on.

Whatever the actual OS filesystem is it should be hidden from the desktop user. If the OS drops all its system files into a randomly generated structure of unpronounceable subdirectories that's just fine as long as the desktop user never has to see it.

Gakk! No! No, no no no no, no. No! And for emphasis: NO!
Nothing on a computer should ever be a deliberately inaccessible black box. Just like the "trusted computing" being pushed by Microsoft et al., it's something that basically takes away ownership of your computer from you.


Anyway, short article breakdown after skimming it (caution: the guy actually uses the word "paradigm"):

Part 1: Linux and the Desktop Today

Where he points out what he thinks is wrong with today's desktop OSs.

Quote:
The second point is caused by the spread out arrangement of Linux system files. This arrangement is intended to ease the multi-user aspect of Unix system. Unfortunately, it greatly complicates the user view of the system. Existing users are accustomed to having a root folder with a couple of system folders to worry about.

Now this one of the few things this guy says that make any sense - the *n?x directory layout is incredibly confusing for new users (computer newbies and tech-savvy alike).

Part 2: Applications

Where he needlessly plugs OS X (how unexpected!), and pushes for some scheme where applications are packed into disk images (!).


Part 3: File Management

Where he pushes for a metadata-driven database system. *shudder*
Expect an administrative nightmare.

Part 4: The Desktop Interface

More "Remove all options!" ranting.

E.g.:
Quote:
In particular, it is rather important for the system to NOT have desktop shortcuts in order to prevent the common glut of special offers and installers.


Which, interestingly enough, he follows up with:
Quote:
For the purposes of easy to access files, it is in the user's interest to allow selected files to appear on the Desktop.




Conclusion: this article is pushing the kind of "user friendliness" that gives us microwaves with 10 big, brightly-colored buttons marked "Defrost", "Popcorn", "Ham", etc. but no option to just throw something in and nuke it for 30 seconds...

_________________
Living in a state free from the burdens of privacy and democracy since 2008-06-18.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 03, 2005 7:20 am 
Hidden != Inaccessable Black Box

This is describing a system built for desktop users, not one for power users. Power users should always have access to the twisted innards of the box if they want it.

Until computer science advances quite a bit we won't be able to build general purpose computers that will never need a bit of TLC to keep running. Some sort of "system access" application that (after suitably warning anyone who happens to click on it) removes the big bright PlaySkool buttons to reveal the bare metal will have to be included.

There should be nothing to prevent the creation of applications to create a start menu or desktop shortcuts or whatever other desktop gizmos people really prefer.

One funny observation is that the start menu and the application folder are functionally similar despite thier visual differances. All the application folder does is make you scan a two dimensional array of stuff instead of a one dimensional array. Hmmm...all of the sudden the application folder reminds me of "Program Manager" from the long dead era of Windows 3.1. Eeeek!


I agree that the database filesystem is unnecessary and complex. (ie prone to new and wonderful failure modes)


I really don't care how it's done but application installation in Linux needs to be improved. Maybe autopackage can do it.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 08, 2005 5:44 pm 
Offline
Intern
Intern
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 4:13 pm
Posts: 1139
Location: Ground floor, first room on the right.
...

Fortunately for me, I'm a hardened Windows 98 user.

I think Linux as a system for ordinary folks is a bad idea. And it irritates people who knwo a bit about computers, too.

Here's some random opinions and ramblings of mine on Linux:

- "Where the Hell are the .exe files?!?" Despite continued exposure to Linux at school, I'm at a loss to locate them. The closest I was able to find were .rpm files that actually do something productive when clicked. All else are shortcut-like icons, I don't where they point to, though.

- I just want to meet the person who came up with the naming scheme for folders in Linux. Hell, even Microsoft realized that capitalization of some of the letters is aesthetically more pleasing than cryptic stuff like 'bin' ("What bin? Is this the Trash directory?"). Badbadbadbad. And what's the point of adding 'hd' in front of drive letters? I can figure it out whether it's a hard drive! And if I can't, would I care?

- The console should be linked with a name like 'Don't Touch' or 'Danger'. What genius thinks typing in commands is better than clicking stuff? Commands I must memorize, too. Another thing is that some stuff can only be ran from the console -- what gives? Seriously! Why do installed applications seemingly integrate themselves into the system, make themselves their own console commands?

- Why do I have to watch all that ASCII crap shuffle on the screen when I turn the computer on? It's not like I need to read it if it all starts correctly, anyway. See, I wouldn't mind error reports, but why should I care for every bit of useless info the system can dump on the default output? Can't it give me a line like, 'Everything OK. Starting OS.' and be done with it?

- It's slooooooooooooooooow. And eats a lot, too. What does it need all that RAM and processing power for? I wouldn't even mention the GUI being slow, you see, graphical interfaces tend to be like that. The problem is that the console itself has visible typing slowdown. What gives?

- The games on some distibutions are cool. Frozen Bubble!

- It needs a special partition to run 'smoothly'. Exactly, how many normies can actually operate fdisk? One in a thousand? How many knwo what a partition is? Not a lot more, methinks.

- Linux is not any more stable than Windows. I managed to crash it a dozen times. It all depends on the user -- if the user knwos how to handle a system, it won't crash.

- When I push the 'Reset' button Linux frequently damages itself somehow. I don't knwo how. It just displays error messages, something pertaining system damage or disk problems. What kind of effing system doesn't tolerate a hard reset? Hard resetting is not a hobby, it's a way of life, for God's sake!

- Mount? Unmount? What is that for? Can't the system just assume that if it's plugged in then it's mounted? Sheesh.




Now, before you take the above as a personl insult, don't. I hate Linux, not its users. I still think you lot are a coupla beans short of a full bean bag, but no, I don't hate you.

Thanks for reading!

_________________
It's the real me, I swear!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 08, 2005 6:20 pm 
AnnoDomini wrote:
...

Fortunately for me, I'm a hardened Windows 98 user.


Amen!

Windows 98se was where Microsoft should have stopped. (I must admit though that they didn't mess W2K up very badly.)
AnnoDomini wrote:
I think Linux as a system for ordinary folks is a bad idea. And it irritates people who knwo a bit about computers, too.


Linux needs a lot of work to become a fully usable desktop for Joe/Jane Sixpack

The more technical folks who are irritated with Linux are probably irritated because it's guts are very different from any non-*nix system.

AnnoDomini wrote:

Here's some random opinions and ramblings of mine on Linux:

- "Where the Hell are the .exe files?!?" Despite continued exposure to Linux at school, I'm at a loss to locate them. The closest I was able to find were .rpm files that actually do something productive when clicked. All else are shortcut-like icons, I don't where they point to, though.


The executable files have been shuffled off where ordinary folks (non-root) don't need to go. This makes perfect sense for securing a computer system that is accessed by multiple users, some of whom may not even be present when they are using it.

AnnoDomini wrote:
- I just want to meet the person who came up with the naming scheme for folders in Linux.


It's systematic, it makes sense if you know the system, and changing it now would break more things than it would fix.

AnnoDomini wrote:
And what's the point of adding 'hd' in front of drive letters? I can figure it out whether it's a hard drive! And if I can't, would I care?


That seems to be a silly thing to complain about.

AnnoDomini wrote:
- The console should be linked with a name like 'Don't Touch' or 'Danger'.


Nah. It's not that bad unless you're root.

AnnoDomini wrote:
What genius thinks typing in commands is better than clicking stuff? Commands I must memorize, too.


I use the command prompt when I'm in windows. Sometimes it's the easiest way to do stuff.

AnnoDomini wrote:
Another thing is that some stuff can only be ran from the console -- what gives? Seriously!


That's where Linux needs some polish in order to become a better desktop system for normal folks.

AnnoDomini wrote:
Why do installed applications seemingly integrate themselves into the system, make themselves their own console commands?


Scripts?

I'm not sure what you're talking about here.

AnnoDomini wrote:

- Why do I have to watch all that ASCII crap shuffle on the screen when I turn the computer on? It's not like I need to read it if it all starts correctly, anyway. See, I wouldn't mind error reports, but why should I care for every bit of useless info the system can dump on the default output? Can't it give me a line like, 'Everything OK. Starting OS.' and be done with it?


There are distros which offer that. Either Mandrake or SUSE had it, but I turned it off, (I liked the column of nice green OKs) and I don't recall which one it was.

AnnoDomini wrote:

- It's slooooooooooooooooow. And eats a lot, too. What does it need all that RAM and processing power for? I wouldn't even mention the GUI being slow, you see, graphical interfaces tend to be like that. The problem is that the console itself has visible typing slowdown. What gives?


Here's another bit where Linux needs some polish. You're obviously running some services that a desktop system doesn't need.

AnnoDomini wrote:

- The games on some distibutions are cool. Frozen Bubble!


I'm not much of a gamer. I'm pretty sure that Knoppix has Frozen Bubble, so with a simple reboot you can enjoy your game.

AnnoDomini wrote:

- It needs a special partition to run 'smoothly'. Exactly, how many normies can actually operate fdisk? One in a thousand? How many knwo what a partition is? Not a lot more, methinks.


So far I've actually had good luck just letting Linux have it's wicked way with any machine I wanted to dual boot. Yes, I made sure to resize the windows partition so there's be some free space at the end first, but after that Linux just did it's magic.

AnnoDomini wrote:


- Linux is not any more stable than Windows. I managed to crash it a dozen times. It all depends on the user -- if the user knwos how to handle a system, it won't crash.


If you include the entire bundle of applications that come with a distro then yes, you are correct. This is a quality control issue.

AnnoDomini wrote:


- When I push the 'Reset' button Linux frequently damages itself somehow. I don't knwo how. It just displays error messages, something pertaining system damage or disk problems. What kind of effing system doesn't tolerate a hard reset? Hard resetting is not a hobby, it's a way of life, for God's sake!


"Doc! It hurts when I hammer my thumb!!"
"Well don't hammer your thumb."

AnnoDomini wrote:
- Mount? Unmount? What is that for? Can't the system just assume that if it's plugged in then it's mounted? Sheesh.


Makes sense for a server, but it's a pain for a desktop.

AnnoDomini wrote:
Now, before you take the above as a personl insult, don't.


Too late!! I'm quite insulted. Your mother was a spammer!! B^)

AnnoDomini wrote:
I hate Linux, not its users. I still think you lot are a coupla beans short of a full bean bag, but no, I don't hate you.

Thanks for reading!


Just curious, when was your last exposure to Linux and which distro (or distros) did you try?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 08, 2005 9:53 pm 
Offline
Concession Worker
Concession Worker
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2003 5:26 pm
Posts: 1479
Location: R'lyeh
BBlalock wrote:
This is describing a system built for desktop users, not one for power users. Power users should always have access to the twisted innards of the box if they want it.

True that. But those "lowest common denonimator" designs have a nasty habit of becoming standards. :D




AnnoDomini wrote:
- "Where the Hell are the .exe files?!?" Despite continued exposure to Linux at school, I'm at a loss to locate them. The closest I was able to find were .rpm files that actually do something productive when clicked. All else are shortcut-like icons, I don't where they point to, though.

This is a valid complaint, at least if taken as criticism against the *n?x people's irrational hatred of filename extensions. ;)

Quote:
- I just want to meet the person who came up with the naming scheme for folders in Linux.

Try Dennis Ritchie. I think he's still working at Bell Labs. ;)

Quote:
Hell, even Microsoft realized that capitalization of some of the letters is aesthetically more pleasing than cryptic stuff like 'bin' ("What bin? Is this the Trash directory?"). Badbadbadbad.

The naming isn't that bad (Windows has its fair share of cryptically named directories) - the structure of it is. With a program's files going into different directories it can be a royal pain in the ass, especially when trying to remove/uninstall something.

On the topic of capitalization, that is in fact one of *n?x's worse points - the senseless filename case sensitivity. Just because it was easier to code and a tad faster back in the day shouldn't mean that we have to suffer for it today, over 30 years later...

Quote:
And what's the point of adding 'hd' in front of drive letters? I can figure it out whether it's a hard drive! And if I can't, would I care?

Personally, I'd prefer the dh0/dh1/etc. naming convention. ;)

Quote:
- The console should be linked with a name like 'Don't Touch' or 'Danger'. What genius thinks typing in commands is better than clicking stuff?

Consoles are better/faster for some things (batch operations on files, for example). Just as mouse-driven GUI input is better for others.

Quote:
Commands I must memorize, too. Another thing is that some stuff can only be ran from the console -- what gives? Seriously! Why do installed applications seemingly integrate themselves into the system, make themselves their own console commands?

I... don't quite follow you here either. But there's nothing saying you can't give console programs GUI front-ends.

Quote:
- Why do I have to watch all that ASCII crap shuffle on the screen when I turn the computer on? It's not like I need to read it if it all starts correctly, anyway. See, I wouldn't mind error reports, but why should I care for every bit of useless info the system can dump on the default output? Can't it give me a line like, 'Everything OK. Starting OS.' and be done with it?

What kind of Windows do you have? Every version I've ever used (that list thankfully doesn't include Windows ME)

Quote:
- It's slooooooooooooooooow. And eats a lot, too. What does it need all that RAM and processing power for? I wouldn't even mention the GUI being slow, you see, graphical interfaces tend to be like that. The problem is that the console itself has visible typing slowdown. What gives?

It shouldn't be. There must have been something wrong with your installation...
In any case, had you directed that bile against the GUI instead, I would have backed you up one hundred percent. X is a beast that, despite having served faithfully for many many years, should really be put down because it's started peeing on everybody's carpets.

Quote:
- It needs a special partition to run 'smoothly'. Exactly, how many normies can actually operate fdisk? One in a thousand? How many knwo what a partition is? Not a lot more, methinks.

I agree - this is a pain in the ass when trying to make a double-booting system.

Quote:
- Linux is not any more stable than Windows. I managed to crash it a dozen times. It all depends on the user -- if the user knwos how to handle a system, it won't crash.

Yep. But just as in Windows, most crashes are from bad hardware drivers...

Quote:
- When I push the 'Reset' button Linux frequently damages itself somehow. I don't knwo how. It just displays error messages, something pertaining system damage or disk problems. What kind of effing system doesn't tolerate a hard reset? Hard resetting is not a hobby, it's a way of life, for God's sake!

I hope you don't do that in Windows... sudden unscheduled power-offs are bad, mmkay? ;)
Granted, a decent OS should recover gracefully afterwards so there shouldn't be any lasting damage, but still.

Quote:
- Mount? Unmount? What is that for?

Procreation. :D

Quote:
Now, before you take the above as a personl insult, don't. I hate Linux, not its users. I still think you lot are a coupla beans short of a full bean bag, but no, I don't hate you.

I very much like the idea of Linux, I think the OS itself is ok (great for servers, but not ready for the desktop), but I despise its users. ;)
Not all of them mind you, just the damn zealots (so don't even get me started on Macs ;)). Unfortunately, the zealots are a very vocal maj^H^H^Hminority...

_________________
Living in a state free from the burdens of privacy and democracy since 2008-06-18.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:50 am 
Offline
Intern
Intern
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 4:13 pm
Posts: 1139
Location: Ground floor, first room on the right.
BBlalock wrote:
Just curious, when was your last exposure to Linux and which distro (or distros) did you try?


Last exposure? End of May, I think. I have come in contact with Mandrake, Knoppix, Debian, Damn Small and several custom-made harddriveless distibutions.

gnolam wrote:
Quote:
- I just want to meet the person who came up with the naming scheme for folders in Linux.

Try Dennis Ritchie. I think he's still working at Bell Labs. ;)


Hmmm. Gonna have to send him a bag-o-poop with adnotation to light it on fire and place on porch.

gnolam wrote:
Quote:
And what's the point of adding 'hd' in front of drive letters? I can figure it out whether it's a hard drive! And if I can't, would I care?

Personally, I'd prefer the dh0/dh1/etc. naming convention. ;)


Guess it's a personal preference then. I jush find it easier to differentiate drives quicker if they have one letter names than, like in Linux, having to make them apart by the last letter/number. Not ergonomical, IMO.

gnolam wrote:
Quote:
- The console should be linked with a name like 'Don't Touch' or 'Danger'. What genius thinks typing in commands is better than clicking stuff?

Consoles are better/faster for some things (batch operations on files, for example). Just as mouse-driven GUI input is better for others.


Sure, but they're not intuitive. I use DOS for some things, like PING but I would loathe to use it to install stuff. Even old DOS programs have graphical installers, such as they are.

gnolam wrote:
Quote:
Commands I must memorize, too. Another thing is that some stuff can only be ran from the console -- what gives? Seriously! Why do installed applications seemingly integrate themselves into the system, make themselves their own console commands?

I... don't quite follow you here either. But there's nothing saying you can't give console programs GUI front-ends.


I installed a game called FreeCiv on a school Mandrake 9 workstation. To my suprise it did what I consider integrating itself into the system -- made a command 'freeciv' that launched it! (Same thing happened to a Linux version of CGoban.) That's crazy! A well behaved application should have minimal impact on system components, right?

gnolam wrote:
Quote:
- Why do I have to watch all that ASCII crap shuffle on the screen when I turn the computer on? It's not like I need to read it if it all starts correctly, anyway. See, I wouldn't mind error reports, but why should I care for every bit of useless info the system can dump on the default output? Can't it give me a line like, 'Everything OK. Starting OS.' and be done with it?

What kind of Windows do you have? Every version I've ever used (that list thankfully doesn't include Windows ME)


I use Windows 98SE. It doesn't throw that much at me -- it displays the logo most of the time.

gnolam wrote:
Quote:
- It's slooooooooooooooooow. And eats a lot, too. What does it need all that RAM and processing power for? I wouldn't even mention the GUI being slow, you see, graphical interfaces tend to be like that. The problem is that the console itself has visible typing slowdown. What gives?

It shouldn't be. There must have been something wrong with your installation...


The installation wasn't mine. School workstation done by a dude that was librarian-poo about Linuxes.

gnolam wrote:
In any case, had you directed that bile against the GUI instead, I would have backed you up one hundred percent. X is a beast that, despite having served faithfully for many many years, should really be put down because it's started peeing on everybody's carpets.


Huh? I'm only saying that DOS while being similiar in look and function to the Linux console (at least in earlier Windows), doesn't slow down like Linux does. It might be a case of overcrowding the OS with stuff people don't need -- like Windows XP.

gnolam wrote:
Quote:
- Linux is not any more stable than Windows. I managed to crash it a dozen times. It all depends on the user -- if the user knwos how to handle a system, it won't crash.

Yep. But just as in Windows, most crashes are from bad hardware drivers...


I get crashes almost only if I somehow get infected. Other than that, when I try to run too many applications at once and a RAM cleaner simultaneuosly.

gnolam wrote:
Quote:
- Mount? Unmount? What is that for?

Procreation. :D


Last I heard that would be rather difficult -- incompatibility and all.

gnolam wrote:
Quote:
Now, before you take the above as a personl insult, don't. I hate Linux, not its users. I still think you lot are a coupla beans short of a full bean bag, but no, I don't hate you.

I very much like the idea of Linux, I think the OS itself is ok (great for servers, but not ready for the desktop), but I despise its users. ;)
Not all of them mind you, just the damn zealots (so don't even get me started on Macs ;)). Unfortunately, the zealots are a very vocal maj^H^H^Hminority...


Yeah, I knwo. I've met some of them.

PS: No flames? I'm pleasantly suprised, on most other boards I'd have p.o.'d at least one Linux fanatic.

_________________
It's the real me, I swear!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 10, 2005 2:38 am 
AnnoDomini wrote:
...

Fortunately for me, I'm a hardened Windows 98 user.

I think Linux as a system for ordinary folks is a bad idea. And it irritates people who knwo a bit about computers, too.

Here's some random opinions and ramblings of mine on Linux:

- "Where the Hell are the .exe files?!?" Despite continued exposure to Linux at school, I'm at a loss to locate them. The closest I was able to find were .rpm files that actually do something productive when clicked. All else are shortcut-like icons, I don't where they point to, though.

In Linux and other UNIX-like operating systems, executable files are marked by their attributes, not by their extension. If you do an "ls -l" you should see a column filled with "r"s, "w"s and "x"s. Those are the file's attributes, "r" for readable, "w" for writable and "x" for executable. If there's an "x" beside the file then it's executable.

At any rate, this is pretty much irrevelant anyway since a "Joe sixpack" user is just going to use the package manager to install programs and their desktop environment to run them. Still, if you absolutely positively have to see where your executables are, they should all be in the /bin directories (/bin, /usr/bin, /usr/local/bin, etc.)
Quote:
- I just want to meet the person who came up with the naming scheme for folders in Linux. Hell, even Microsoft realized that capitalization of some of the letters is aesthetically more pleasing than cryptic stuff like 'bin' ("What bin? Is this the Trash directory?"). Badbadbadbad. And what's the point of adding 'hd' in front of drive letters? I can figure it out whether it's a hard drive! And if I can't, would I care?

No, you shouldn't. You shouldn't be messing with that sort of thing anyway if you don't know what you're doing, and with modern Linux distributions you won't have to. Just stick to managing the files in your home directory and let your distribution's automated functions handle the rest. Actually, I'd say that giving the vital system directories cryptic names is a good thing, as giving nice, friendly names to that sort of thing encourages users who don't know what they're doing to start poking around there, which can seriously mess up the system (if they're logged in as root, that is.)
Quote:
- The console should be linked with a name like 'Don't Touch' or 'Danger'. What genius thinks typing in commands is better than clicking stuff? Commands I must memorize, too. Another thing is that some stuff can only be ran from the console -- what gives? Seriously! Why do installed applications seemingly integrate themselves into the system, make themselves their own console commands?

If a program is installed to the right place, it'll be runnable from the console regardless of what your current working directory is. I don't see what the problem is there. As a matter of fact, back in the old DOS days I'd often do that sort of thing manually, moving frequently used programs to a special directory in my path so that they'd be more easily accessable. As for being "forced" to go to the console to run certain programs, that can get annoying, but it's becoming less and less of an issue with modern distributions. Whenever I install a program, it's pretty much always automatically added to my Gnome Applications Menu, and I use Gentoo, which isn't a distribution known for its user-friendlyness.

You really should give the console a try, though. Sure, there's a bit of a learning curve (although you don't need to memorize everything. Just type "man <programname>" and you'll get a listing of all the options for whichever program you want to run,) but once you get the hang of it a lot of things are easier that way. The way I see it, using a GUI, fiddling with buttons, menus, sliders and the like, that's work. I have to physically pick up my mouse and do whatever needs to be done, however many times it needs to be done. When I'm using the console, on the other hand, I'm just telling the computer what to do. The language I need to use may be a bit awkward, but untimately it'm much less of a hassle to do things that way, especially when it needs to be done more than once or when I need to chain a few different programs togeather, two things that are very easy on the console but pretty much impossible with a GUI.
Quote:
- Why do I have to watch all that ASCII crap shuffle on the screen when I turn the computer on? It's not like I need to read it if it all starts correctly, anyway. See, I wouldn't mind error reports, but why should I care for every bit of useless info the system can dump on the default output? Can't it give me a line like, 'Everything OK. Starting OS.' and be done with it?
Most modern distributions hide that sort of thing from you anyway these days, or at least can be set to. Which distribution are you using, anyway?
Quote:
- It's slooooooooooooooooow. And eats a lot, too. What does it need all that RAM and processing power for? I wouldn't even mention the GUI being slow, you see, graphical interfaces tend to be like that. The problem is that the console itself has visible typing slowdown. What gives?
My experience has been the exact opposite, with most things being faster in Linux than in Windows.
Quote:
- The games on some distibutions are cool. Frozen Bubble!
No arguments there. :)
Quote:
- It needs a special partition to run 'smoothly'. Exactly, how many normies can actually operate fdisk? One in a thousand? How many knwo what a partition is? Not a lot more, methinks.
Again, this sort of thing should be handled automatically by your distribution's installation program. If you're using a distro that's actually geared toward desktop users, you should never have to touch fdisk.
Quote:
- Linux is not any more stable than Windows. I managed to crash it a dozen times. It all depends on the user -- if the user knwos how to handle a system, it won't crash.
I'd really like to know what you were doing when you managed to crash a Linux system...
Quote:
- When I push the 'Reset' button Linux frequently damages itself somehow. I don't knwo how. It just displays error messages, something pertaining system damage or disk problems. What kind of effing system doesn't tolerate a hard reset? Hard resetting is not a hobby, it's a way of life, for God's sake!
Again, if you're using a modern distribution that makes use of one of the journaling filesystem this shouldn't be an issue. Running chkdsk on a hard reset in Linux is equivalent to running ScanDisk on a hard reset in Win98, and with more recent versions of both Linux and Windows neither are necessary.
Quote:
- Mount? Unmount? What is that for? Can't the system just assume that if it's plugged in then it's mounted? Sheesh.
It can, if you set it up that way, and most modern distributions geared toward desktop use automatically do set it up that way.
Quote:
Now, before you take the above as a personl insult, don't. I hate Linux, not its users. I still think you lot are a coupla beans short of a full bean bag, but no, I don't hate you.

Thanks for reading!

It's obviously been quite a while since you used Linux last as nearly all the problems you mentioned have long since been fixed. Maybe you should give it another shot.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 10, 2005 6:05 am 
Offline
Intern
Intern
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 4:13 pm
Posts: 1139
Location: Ground floor, first room on the right.
Drooling Iguana wrote:
Quote:
- "Where the Hell are the .exe files?!?" Despite continued exposure to Linux at school, I'm at a loss to locate them. The closest I was able to find were .rpm files that actually do something productive when clicked. All else are shortcut-like icons, I don't where they point to, though.

In Linux and other UNIX-like operating systems, executable files are marked by their attributes, not by their extension. If you do an "ls -l" you should see a column filled with "r"s, "w"s and "x"s. Those are the file's attributes, "r" for readable, "w" for writable and "x" for executable. If there's an "x" beside the file then it's executable.


That's... a little unintuitive, no? I know I can see those when I type 'ls', but can I see it in a window? I don't know, haven't tried to access any system 'bins'.

Quote:
At any rate, this is pretty much irrevelant anyway since a "Joe sixpack" user is just going to use the package manager to install programs and their desktop environment to run them. Still, if you absolutely positively have to see where your executables are, they should all be in the /bin directories (/bin, /usr/bin, /usr/local/bin, etc.)


Doesn't that sound like the gal who thought to clean up a Windows OS and moved all .exes to an EXE folder?

Quote:
Quote:
- I just want to meet the person who came up with the naming scheme for folders in Linux. Hell, even Microsoft realized that capitalization of some of the letters is aesthetically more pleasing than cryptic stuff like 'bin' ("What bin? Is this the Trash directory?"). Badbadbadbad. And what's the point of adding 'hd' in front of drive letters? I can figure it out whether it's a hard drive! And if I can't, would I care?

No, you shouldn't. You shouldn't be messing with that sort of thing anyway if you don't know what you're doing, and with modern Linux distributions you won't have to. Just stick to managing the files in your home directory and let your distribution's automated functions handle the rest. Actually, I'd say that giving the vital system directories cryptic names is a good thing, as giving nice, friendly names to that sort of thing encourages users who don't know what they're doing to start poking around there, which can seriously mess up the system (if they're logged in as root, that is.)


Hmmm. Are there any distibutions that are meant for one user only? I mean, a desktop system generally has only one user, right?

Quote:
Quote:
- Linux is not any more stable than Windows. I managed to crash it a dozen times. It all depends on the user -- if the user knwos how to handle a system, it won't crash.
I'd really like to know what you were doing when you managed to crash a Linux system...


One time I was fiddling with Frozen Bubble's display options and the system stopped responding. Anther time I was simply trying to wake it from screensaver mode. The last time I must have pushed some keyboard shortcut I wasn't supposed to, because the screen blanked out and I needed to reset.

Quote:
It's obviously been quite a while since you used Linux last as nearly all the problems you mentioned have long since been fixed. Maybe you should give it another shot.


I might, but just not now. I'm kind of satisfied with my Win98 and Norton Ghost.

_________________
It's the real me, I swear!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 10, 2005 8:26 am 
Offline
Concession Worker
Concession Worker
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2003 5:26 pm
Posts: 1479
Location: R'lyeh
AnnoDomini wrote:
gnolam wrote:
AnnoDomini wrote:
And what's the point of adding 'hd' in front of drive letters? I can figure it out whether it's a hard drive! And if I can't, would I care?

Personally, I'd prefer the dh0/dh1/etc. naming convention. ;)

Guess it's a personal preference then. I jush find it easier to differentiate drives quicker if they have one letter names than, like in Linux, having to make them apart by the last letter/number. Not ergonomical, IMO.

I keed, I keed!
('twas a reference to the venerable AmigaOS, which names its hard drives dh0/dh1/dh2/... and its floppy/CD drives df0/df1/df2/...)

AnnoDomini wrote:
gnolam wrote:
AnnoDomini wrote:
Commands I must memorize, too. Another thing is that some stuff can only be ran from the console -- what gives? Seriously! Why do installed applications seemingly integrate themselves into the system, make themselves their own console commands?

I... don't quite follow you here either. But there's nothing saying you can't give console programs GUI front-ends.


I installed a game called FreeCiv on a school Mandrake 9 workstation. To my suprise it did what I consider integrating itself into the system -- made a command 'freeciv' that launched it! (Same thing happened to a Linux version of CGoban.) That's crazy! A well behaved application should have minimal impact on system components, right?

Err... sounds like it just put its executable in a pathed directory, that's all. No impacting the system in any way. :)


I wrote:
What kind of Windows do you have? Every version I've ever used (that list thankfully doesn't include Windows ME)

Err... that line should have read something like "Every version I've ever used (that list thankfully doesn't include Windows ME) has, even disregarding everything the BIOS spits out, given me several lines of text at startup". But it seems you managed to figure out what I was going to say anyway. :D

AnnoDomini wrote:
gnolam wrote:
In any case, had you directed that bile against the GUI instead, I would have backed you up one hundred percent. X is a beast that, despite having served faithfully for many many years, should really be put down because it's started peeing on everybody's carpets.


Huh? I'm only saying that DOS while being similiar in look and function to the Linux console (at least in earlier Windows), doesn't slow down like Linux does. It might be a case of overcrowding the OS with stuff people don't need -- like Windows XP.

Well, my point was that the Linux console shouldn't slow down, but that X, which well, every Linux GUI I know is built on, is a slow horrible kludge that shouldn't even be allowed to look at a desktop machine. ;)

AnnoDomini wrote:
I get crashes almost only if I somehow get infected.

Ack! You just lost 50 points in the "know how to take care of your computer" category. ;)
Seriously, you almost have to want to get a virus to get your 98(SE) machine infected. That or actually use IE.

AnnoDomini wrote:
Other than that, when I try to run too many applications at once and a RAM cleaner simultaneuosly.

RAM cleaner?






Drooling Iguana wrote:
AnnoDomini wrote:
- Linux is not any more stable than Windows. I managed to crash it a dozen times. It all depends on the user -- if the user knwos how to handle a system, it won't crash.
I'd really like to know what you were doing when you managed to crash a Linux system...

Oh, that's easy. Besides that it is quite possible in every-day usage, running anything graphics/sound intensive with less-than-perfect drivers (and there are far too many of those) is usually a safe bet. *Zonk*!

Drooling Iguana wrote:
AnnoDomini wrote:
- It's slooooooooooooooooow. And eats a lot, too. What does it need all that RAM and processing power for? I wouldn't even mention the GUI being slow, you see, graphical interfaces tend to be like that. The problem is that the console itself has visible typing slowdown. What gives?
My experience has been the exact opposite, with most things being faster in Linux than in Windows.

Do "most things" include, well... anything GUI-driven? Because then I say you're lying. Or just severely biased.

_________________
Living in a state free from the burdens of privacy and democracy since 2008-06-18.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 10, 2005 9:10 am 
gnolam wrote:
AnnoDomini wrote:
Other than that, when I try to run too many applications at once and a RAM cleaner simultaneuosly.

RAM cleaner?


That's iRobot's new robo-critter.

Just drop it in your computer case and it has a little vacuum brush and a bottle of solvent to clean your computer's innards.

You're supposed to turn the computer off before using it.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 10, 2005 3:09 pm 
Offline
Intern
Intern
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 4:13 pm
Posts: 1139
Location: Ground floor, first room on the right.
gnolam wrote:
AnnoDomini wrote:
I installed a game called FreeCiv on a school Mandrake 9 workstation. To my suprise it did what I consider integrating itself into the system -- made a command 'freeciv' that launched it! (Same thing happened to a Linux version of CGoban.) That's crazy! A well behaved application should have minimal impact on system components, right?

Err... sounds like it just put its executable in a pathed directory, that's all. No impacting the system in any way. :)


Are you saying that Linux searches for installed programs and adds them commands or something?

gnolam wrote:
gnolam wrote:
What kind of Windows do you have? Every version I've ever used (that list thankfully doesn't include Windows ME)

Err... that line should have read something like "Every version I've ever used (that list thankfully doesn't include Windows ME) has, even disregarding everything the BIOS spits out, given me several lines of text at startup". But it seems you managed to figure out what I was going to say anyway. :D


My topic on my Polish final exam was: "Characterize the Vocabulary of the Internet on Chosen Examples." Stands to reason I can decipher arcane and lost languages of Eaten Words.

gnolam wrote:
AnnoDomini wrote:
Huh? I'm only saying that DOS while being similiar in look and function to the Linux console (at least in earlier Windows), doesn't slow down like Linux does. It might be a case of overcrowding the OS with stuff people don't need -- like Windows XP.

Well, my point was that the Linux console shouldn't slow down, but that X, which well, every Linux GUI I know is built on, is a slow horrible kludge that shouldn't even be allowed to look at a desktop machine. ;)


Yes. The last time I saw a fast GUI was Win95.

gnolam wrote:
AnnoDomini wrote:
I get crashes almost only if I somehow get infected.

Ack! You just lost 50 points in the "know how to take care of your computer" category. ;)
Seriously, you almost have to want to get a virus to get your 98(SE) machine infected. That or actually use IE.


I don't use IE per se, but an application called Advanged Browser. It uses IE's files but not the program itself. Comes with a popup blocker.

And sometimes shit happens. I misclick a link somewhere and get like 35 viruses and malware in the space of 5 seconds. That's when the system crashes. I either disconnect and clean it or just run Norton Ghost if I'm not feeling playful.

gnolam wrote:
AnnoDomini wrote:
Other than that, when I try to run too many applications at once and a RAM cleaner simultaneuosly.

RAM cleaner?


AMS Fast Defrag 2 Freeware.

gnolam wrote:
Drooling Iguana wrote:
AnnoDomini wrote:
- It's slooooooooooooooooow. And eats a lot, too. What does it need all that RAM and processing power for? I wouldn't even mention the GUI being slow, you see, graphical interfaces tend to be like that. The problem is that the console itself has visible typing slowdown. What gives?
My experience has been the exact opposite, with most things being faster in Linux than in Windows.

Do "most things" include, well... anything GUI-driven? Because then I say you're lying. Or just severely biased.


Heh. My first clue was the mouse cursor. Or maybe Linux users like it to move tortoise-like.

_________________
It's the real me, I swear!


Last edited by AnnoDomini on Sun Jul 10, 2005 3:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 10, 2005 3:19 pm 
AnnoDomini wrote:
gnolam wrote:
AnnoDomini wrote:
I installed a game called FreeCiv on a school Mandrake 9 workstation. To my suprise it did what I consider integrating itself into the system -- made a command 'freeciv' that launched it! (Same thing happened to a Linux version of CGoban.) That's crazy! A well behaved application should have minimal impact on system components, right?

Err... sounds like it just put its executable in a pathed directory, that's all. No impacting the system in any way. :)

Are you saying that Linux searches for installed programs and adds them cammands or something?

Linux puts all of its executables in the same places, rather than just stick them in the same directory as the rest of the program's files and require the user to switch to that directory before running the program. The philosophy behind this is that the user should never have to leave their home directory unless doing system maintenance, which makes a lot of sense. Sure, it might feel a bit awkward at first not to have to change directories to run programs, but it really is better that way.

As a matter of fact, in most Linux setups the current directory isn't even included as one of the directories to be searched for executables. If you moved an executable from one of the /bin directories to your current directory and then typed the name of the program, it wouldn't run. You'd have to manually specift the directory by typing ./programname in order to run something from your working directory. This is also useful in that it makes it impossible for someone to stick an executable into your home directory with the same name as a commonly used command in order to trick you into running it instead of the command. Unless the malicious user manages to get access to the main system directories (at which point you're pretty much screwed anyway) you're safe.


Last edited by Drooling Iguana on Sun Jul 10, 2005 3:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 10, 2005 3:20 pm 
AnnoDomini wrote:
gnolam wrote:
AnnoDomini wrote:
I installed a game called FreeCiv on a school Mandrake 9 workstation. To my suprise it did what I consider integrating itself into the system -- made a command 'freeciv' that launched it! (Same thing happened to a Linux version of CGoban.) That's crazy! A well behaved application should have minimal impact on system components, right?

Err... sounds like it just put its executable in a pathed directory, that's all. No impacting the system in any way. :)


Are you saying that Linux searches for installed programs and adds them cammands or something?


If the executable file is in the search path for executables and you type the name it'll execute the file. This is the same behavior that dos/windows has.

AnnoDomini wrote:
Heh. My first clue was the mouse cursor. Or maybe Linux users like it to move tortoise-like.


I've never had any trouble with the mouse cursor being "sluggish". (Except when I've crashed the whole chupaqueso of course.)

Here's a stupid question: Was the mouse speed set too low?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 10, 2005 3:28 pm 
Offline
Intern
Intern
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 4:13 pm
Posts: 1139
Location: Ground floor, first room on the right.
BBlalock wrote:
AnnoDomini wrote:
gnolam wrote:
AnnoDomini wrote:
I installed a game called FreeCiv on a school Mandrake 9 workstation. To my suprise it did what I consider integrating itself into the system -- made a command 'freeciv' that launched it! (Same thing happened to a Linux version of CGoban.) That's crazy! A well behaved application should have minimal impact on system components, right?

Err... sounds like it just put its executable in a pathed directory, that's all. No impacting the system in any way. :)


Are you saying that Linux searches for installed programs and adds them cammands or something?


If the executable file is in the search path for executables and you type the name it'll execute the file. This is the same behavior that dos/windows has.


'Kay. I get it now.

BBlalock wrote:
AnnoDomini wrote:
Heh. My first clue was the mouse cursor. Or maybe Linux users like it to move tortoise-like.


I've never had any trouble with the mouse cursor being "sluggish". (Except when I've crashed the whole chupaqueso of course.)

Here's a stupid question: Was the mouse speed set too low?


Nope. It was set to its highest setting. I checked if by chance the dial was reversed and found I had to lift my mouse three time before getting from egde to edge.

_________________
It's the real me, I swear!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 11, 2005 10:54 am 
Linux is essentially a multi-user operating system; Windows is essentially single-user; and both are wrong. Windows is too easily hosed by a typo/visiting three-year-old/malicious email attachment/etc. because it provides no safety net for the user at all. You'd never want to delete the C:\Windows directory, and yet you can without a second glance.

Linux, on the other hand, is stuck in the '70s model of many users and an omnipotent sysadmin to handle all software and hardware configuration duties. Back then, it made sense to have a long involved procedure for installing a magnetic tape into the drive and reading the files off it, in order to make sure nothing went wrong; now, it seems pointless to go through the same steps for a CD-ROM. (On the other hand, you can't mess around with system directories unless you're the sysadmin, so this has some benefits.)

What we really need is a one-and-a-half-user system, but nobody seems particularly interested in that. Microsoft somehow thinks that adding a cute little dog to the search window is an important feature for users today, while the Linux folks can't stop arguing with each other over how to do anything. This leaves us stuck with two operating systems with a lot of useless crap that made sense 25 years ago but doesn't now. Both are infinitely frustrating.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 11, 2005 2:30 pm 
Here is something I wrote about my own thought regarding OS design, back when I was actively working on ThelemaOS (before I realized I was too lazy to ever do it):
In the OS-Development message board, Schol-R-LEA wrote:
As some of you know already, I've mostly been working on (or rather, failing to work on) a test system called LoIS, and some random experiments to practice various techniques. However, I also have a long-term plan for a system, one based on various newer ideas that I found intriguing. None of the plans I have for it are original, really, but they have not disseminated through the programming community to any great degree (one of the Big Secrets of the computer industry is that, for all the sound and fury of various fads such as Java, there hasn't been a significant new development in software design since around 1978. I call this phenomenon 'computing in the Red Queen's square', after the scene in Through the Looking Glass where the Red Queen tells Alice how she must run as fast as she can just to stay in one place). Having hung out with some ritual-magick types a lot lately, I've decided (for now) that the name of this system will be 'Thelema'.

My intended interface design is based around a universal viewer/editor/interpreter; an uber-EMACS, as it were. Special-purpose windows or forms will be built by scripting extensions to this (though visual form-building tools will eventually be added to this.

The underlying command structure will be interpreted scripts, of course, just as in Emacs, but there will be various ways to invoke them, primarily through some kind of 'live text' a la Oberon - by allowing any given section of text to be selected and run as a script, the need for a special-purpose shell vanishes. It will be possible, and hopefully easy, to build menus and define icons; in the case of menus, they would simply be ordinary text which has been 'hooked' to automatically invoke a given script and locked in place. It should be possible to edit any menu at any time, and save the new configuration as a preference. Functions and object will be organized into 'toolboxes', which can be reganized by the user as appropriate. There will be no applications in the classical sense; rather, various tools and forms will be combined to create 'frameworks', similar to EMACS modes in concept but more comprehensive and (hopefully) flexible.

One concept I mean to experiment with is layering; within a window, sub-views can overlaid to create a total view, in the same way cel sheets are overlaid to create animation frames. Each layer would itself be a full editor framework, and a single window could contain an indefinite (i.e., limited only by the system's capacity) number of different, independent frameworks. This idea has been used by various imaging editing tools IIRC, and to a very limited extent by XML layers, but has not before been applied generally to the best of my knowledge.

Instead of a conventional file system, there will be a more general document management system, based largely on the concepts pioneered by the Xanadu Project, and influenced by Raskin's work as well. I hope to implement something very similar to the classic Xanadu plan, thoug with a much diminished scope. Documents, when created, will be stored permanently, and tracked by a set of links; when a document is 'edited', what is changed is not the document itself, but rather the link trails controlling how it should be read and displayed. Different trails may share the same material, and conversely, different trails of the same document may exist with completely different content. The links will also track ownership, publication status and visibility of a given trail (though I doubt it will support automatic royalties, something that was always part of the Xanadu concept but which has proven to be unacceptable by most users). Documents can be referenced by their title (or that of a given trail) or by searches of various kinds. There will not any sort of built-in directory heirarchies, though tools to build such things out of links would be easy enough to implement if someone insisted on it.

Programs will be treated somewhat diferently than other documents, but the same to some extent still applies. It may even be possible to apply the document link system to code linking an loading, allowing for a simplified system that would support dynamic libraries as part of it general design. Programs and scripts will be associated primarily with there source code (naturally), and by default the deliverable form will include the source with it to allow for debugging. When a program is compiled, it does not generate a native binary, but rather an intermediate representation containing the parse-tree and other necessary information needed to generate the object code (similar to the 'slim binaries' in later Oberon systems). This will provide a portable format which can be conveniently either interpreted directly, or compiled locally, while still providing for full security checking. While the generated native code may be saved locally, it would not be part of the distributable, both for security reasons and portability concerns - and because it is hoped that it will be possible to incorporate machine-specific optimization in the fashion of the Synthetix kernel.

Of course, in Real Life, chances are I'll never get even half of this done. But it's what I want to do, and I fully intend to try to do it.


Last edited by Schol-R-LEA on Sat Jul 16, 2005 4:36 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 15, 2005 3:00 am 
Offline
Intern
Intern
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 4:13 pm
Posts: 1139
Location: Ground floor, first room on the right.
Mind boiling it down for the non OS-theory versed? What will the changes and innovations actually accomplish?

And regarding what matters (IMO) in an OS:

1. Ease and Functionality.
2. Speed and Expandability (y'know, applications for stuff the designers didin't think of at first and such)
3. Safety.

_________________
It's the real me, I swear!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 15, 2005 5:40 am 
AnnoDomini wrote:
Mind boiling it down for the non OS-theory versed? What will the changes and innovations actually accomplish?

And regarding what matters (IMO) in an OS:

1. Ease and Functionality.
2. Speed and Expandability (y'know, applications for stuff the designers didin't think of at first and such)
3. Safety.


I understood maybe 30% of Schol-R-LEA's post, so feel free to ignore me...

Ease depends of the User Interface designers. If this is implemented by hobbyists there either won't be any User Interface designers or there will be too many. (KDE, Gnome, XFCE, Fluxbox, etc...)

If "functionality" means "available software for users" it's going to largely depend on how easy it is to port applications to the new OS. That is not addressed in the design framework we have been provided.

Implementing a browser could be as simple as "layering" an HTML interpreter, an implementation of Java, and whatever else is required on top of each other.

If any attention is paid at all to speed and effecient coding it will probably be fast enough on modern hardware.

Expandability would be simple, provided that the "uber-EMACS" and device drivers could be easily upgraded. It appears that adding new interface componants (for instance an HTML interpreter) and the "scripting extensions" would be simple by design.

Safety (I am assuming you mean safety from malware and hacking) depends on user behavior in my experience. The user should get a harware firewall that sits between them and the internet and should Google "PROGRAMNAME +spyware" before installing *anything*.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 15, 2005 6:21 am 
Offline
Intern
Intern
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 4:13 pm
Posts: 1139
Location: Ground floor, first room on the right.
Yeah, that's what I wanted to know.

IMO Linux has too much safety, or safety aimed at the wrong place. Very few people outside server/public services need to have protection from other users.

_________________
It's the real me, I swear!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2005 7:51 pm 
gnolam wrote:
Quote:
The second point is caused by the spread out arrangement of Linux system files. This arrangement is intended to ease the multi-user aspect of Unix system. Unfortunately, it greatly complicates the user view of the system. Existing users are accustomed to having a root folder with a couple of system folders to worry about.

Now this one of the few things this guy says that make any sense - the *n?x directory layout is incredibly confusing for new users (computer newbies and tech-savvy alike).


Just on this particular point... why not:
#ln -h /usr /user
#ln -h /etc /configuration
#ln -h /bin /binary_programs
...et cetera?

BeinSane wrote:
Linux is essentially a multi-user operating system; Windows is essentially single-user; and both are wrong. Windows is too easily hosed by a typo/visiting three-year-old/malicious email attachment/etc. because it provides no safety net for the user at all. You'd never want to delete the C:\Windows directory, and yet you can without a second glance.

Linux, on the other hand, is stuck in the '70s model of many users and an omnipotent sysadmin to handle all software and hardware configuration duties. Back then, it made sense to have a long involved procedure for installing a magnetic tape into the drive and reading the files off it, in order to make sure nothing went wrong; now, it seems pointless to go through the same steps for a CD-ROM. (On the other hand, you can't mess around with system directories unless you're the sysadmin, so this has some benefits.)

What we really need is a one-and-a-half-user system, but nobody seems particularly interested in that. Microsoft somehow thinks that adding a cute little dog to the search window is an important feature for users today, while the Linux folks can't stop arguing with each other over how to do anything. This leaves us stuck with two operating systems with a lot of useless crap that made sense 25 years ago but doesn't now. Both are infinitely frustrating.

*giggles*
So, effectively you're stuck now with the choice of only a greatsword-sized OS or a shortsword-sized OS. What you really need is a Bastard Operating System, so to speak. :)

AnnoDomini wrote:
Drooling Iguana wrote:
Quote:
- "Where the Hell are the .exe files?!?" Despite continued exposure to Linux at school, I'm at a loss to locate them. The closest I was able to find were .rpm files that actually do something productive when clicked. All else are shortcut-like icons, I don't where they point to, though.

In Linux and other UNIX-like operating systems, executable files are marked by their attributes, not by their extension. If you do an "ls -l" you should see a column filled with "r"s, "w"s and "x"s. Those are the file's attributes, "r" for readable, "w" for writable and "x" for executable. If there's an "x" beside the file then it's executable.


That's... a little unintuitive, no? I know I can see those when I type 'ls', but can I see it in a window? I don't know, haven't tried to access any system 'bins'.

In practice a user should never have to type ls -l. A more friendly thing to type is ls --color, which will highlight directories as blue, binary files as purple and executables & shell scripts as green. Good distros often set it up so that typing "ls" on its own activates "ls --color" by default. However, in practice, the only poking around you should be doing anyway should be using a program like Konqueror, which is a little like Windows Explorer in purpose, only without the glorious security holes, a lot more CPU/RAM efficient, slightly more shiny and much much better at intuitively identifying your files for you.


Last edited by MineFelinePossesseth on Sun Jul 24, 2005 8:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2005 8:04 pm 
<apologies for multiple post>
<please feel free to delete this one>


Last edited by MineFelinePossesseth on Sun Jul 24, 2005 8:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2005 8:10 pm 
<apologies for multiple post>
<please feel free to delete this one>


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 16, 2010 7:44 pm 
Offline
Intern
Intern
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 4:13 pm
Posts: 1139
Location: Ground floor, first room on the right.
Two things:
1. Why is this thread in here, rather than where it was originally posted? I'm almost certain it was somewhere else, like the Schlock Mercenary subforum.
2. Jesus Tepet Christ. Did I really write all this crap?

I wrote this in the last summer before going off to study Computer Science. I type these words from a Debian 5, which has become my OS of choice.

Studies really change people. Or perhaps - time changes people.

_________________
It's the real me, I swear!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group