Equivalent operation in Windows? - Linux

This is a discussion on Equivalent operation in Windows? - Linux ; Kelsey Bjarnason wrote: > [snips] > > On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 23:16:25 +0200, Richard Rasker wrote: > >>> What a regular person wants to know is how do you plug in and use a >>> iPhone or iPod Touch, ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 34 of 34

Thread: Equivalent operation in Windows?

  1. Re: Equivalent operation in Windows?

    Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:

    > [snips]
    >
    > On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 23:16:25 +0200, Richard Rasker wrote:
    >
    >>> What a regular person wants to know is how do you plug in and use a
    >>> iPhone or iPod Touch, update your Garmin GPS maps and play the latest
    >>> video-game or Blu-Ray disk on their computer.
    >>>
    >>> Go play with vi and edit some config files. Loser.

    >>
    >> You do realize that without tech-savvy, tinker-happy people such as mr.
    >> Bjarnason there wouldn't *be* iPhones, Garmin GPS maps, Blu-Ray disks,
    >> or even Internet or computers?

    >
    >
    >
    > Even non-savvy folks can contribute. All it takes is saying "Gee,
    > wouldn't it be nice if..." to the right person.


    I'd go a step further and say that the involvement of non-savvy users in
    technological development is crucial to make technology actually usable.
    I've seen too many horrible examples of products which, technically
    speaking, functioned perfectly, but were disastrously user-unfriendly.

    For most mundane applications, Windows actually does pretty well in the
    user-friendliness department -- as long as the user only does the things
    Microsoft intends them to do, the way Microsoft intends them to. This is
    one of the rare areas where the Linux world can learn something from
    Windows.

    However, there has to be a fertile ground, i.e. enough tech-savvy people
    tinkering, to make developments and improvements happen quickly and easily.
    A monolithic, centralized model of development doesn't work any more; just
    look at all Microsoft's "innovation" disasters. Their only cash cows are a
    pair of decade-old products on which their whole monopoly is based -- and
    they even severely screwed up the next generation of one of these, i.e.
    Vista.

    [snip]

    > I guess what I find most amusing about it all is this ever-present notion
    > of "Well, you can do it in Windows, but" - and there's always a "but".
    > But you have to be running a server version. But you have to use some
    > third-party app which is almost certain to be a commercial app. But it
    > doesn't work quite as flexibly. But it doesn't work as easily. But it
    > requires you pre-set all these options on the serving machine. But, but,
    > but.


    I know. I dumped Windows ten years ago, among other things because it was
    severely getting in my way and hampering my desire to tinker, instead of
    stimulating it. For many years, I tried finding out how computers and
    software work, but increasingly, it was a matter of following the One
    Redmond Way, with politically-prompted technological monstrosities such as
    the Registry as sad highlights.
    I was delighted when I found out about Linux: I could do whatever I wanted,
    on every level I wanted -- and without tying myself to anyone.

    > I guess it comes down to this: if you're using Windows as an "appliance",
    > it works well enough.


    Um, not always. This person with a Vista machine I reported about last time
    (the one with the TV tuner card not working), still hasn't got the tuner
    card working, despite another effort from a "knowledgeable" friendly
    neighbour. And the sound issue still isn't fixed either.
    Note that there wasn't much wrong with his old XP machine, other than a due
    reinstall to get rid of the usual trouble of sluggishness and malware, and
    that he specifically bought this Vista machine as an all-in one multimedia
    machine, to make the clutter of TV, VCR and DVD player obsolete. It failed
    badly in delivering on this promise.
    So this man isn't too happy about his purchase at all, and has now decided
    that this will be the last Windows machine he'll ever buy.

    > If you're a little more like me - a geek, sure,
    > but a geek who wants to do things out of the pale, either because they're
    > useful or simply to see if or how I can do 'em - then Windows ceases to
    > be quite so wonderful and starts getting in the way.
    >
    > Here's a laugh. The girlfriend's sister is coming over for dinner
    > tonight and bringing her computer with her. Why? Her Windows XP is
    > gibbled. When she boots, she gets a message about the profile not being
    > found, XP is using a temporary profile, nothing she does during the
    > session will be saved. Yeah, that's useful. So we get to feed her
    > dinner while I figure out how to save XP from yet another round of
    > Windows screwups.
    >
    > Okay, admittedly, this one is user error - apparently her better half
    > prefers to simply hit the power switch rather than shutting the machine
    > down properly - but net result for me is the same: I get to clean up the
    > mess.


    Well, Linux can get screwed up too under these circumstances.


    Richard Rasker
    --
    http://www.linetec.nl/

  2. Re: Equivalent operation in Windows?

    On 2008-04-14, Richard Rasker claimed:
    > Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:


    >> Even non-savvy folks can contribute. All it takes is saying "Gee,
    >> wouldn't it be nice if..." to the right person.

    >
    > I'd go a step further and say that the involvement of non-savvy users in
    > technological development is crucial to make technology actually usable.
    > I've seen too many horrible examples of products which, technically
    > speaking, functioned perfectly, but were disastrously user-unfriendly.


    Like Windwoes?

    Oops. You said "functioned perfectly", so that's disqualification
    enough.

    --
    When I was a boy, we had to carve our ICs out of wood.

  3. Re: Equivalent operation in Windows?

    >some nym-shifting troll wrote:
    >>
    >>Loser.


    Now THAT'S irony!


  4. Re: Equivalent operation in Windows?

    Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:

    > Just playing around with ssh a bit today, for kicks.


    > Ya know, I've also got a squid caching proxy over there, complete with ad
    > blocking and a mess of other funky stuff. Can I make use of that, too?


    > Why yes, I can. I can set up another ssh tunnel, say from local port
    > 8080 to remote port 3128 (squid's default), point my browser at the
    > "local" proxy server 127.0.0.1:8080 and voila - I get the benefits of the
    > squid proxy I set up at home, over a compressed, encrypted connection,
    > without ever announcing anything on the home machine but the ssh port -
    > and again, I can do this from anywhere, simply by providing proper ssh
    > credentials.


    The average Windows user would probably just use this feature to
    secretly download pr0n in the first place.

  5. Re: Equivalent operation in Windows?

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 19:21:36 -0400,
    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    > On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 22:30:01 GMT, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
    >
    >>> Of course the key word you have there is "bundled".

    >>
    >> Of course.
    >>
    >> Put this in context of, oh, buying a car. Linux gives me seats and
    >> wheels and body and engine and brakes and lights and mirrors and frame
    >> and on and on and on.
    >>
    >> By contrast, Windows gives me engine and paint. In order to actually
    >> *use* the product, one needs to add on an endless variety of extra tools
    >> and goodies - and that's just to make it *basically* useful for anything
    >> much beyond simply looking at the pretty paint job.

    >
    > Actually, Linux is a lot more like that. Windows is more like ordering a
    > customly configured car, while Linux is more like the kit car where you
    > have to put it all together yourself, even though it gives you everything.
    >



    Bull****.

    >> I just checked with a popular local retailer. Their price on Vista Home
    >> Basic is $179.99. My cost for, oh, say, Ubuntu on DVD is about 25 cents
    >> for the DVD blank and 4GB of my bundled bandwidth to download it. Call
    >> it five bucks, total, if you're being generous.

    >
    > These arguments are always the same. You start out claiming Linux is
    > *technically* superior and that it can do this and that that Windows can't
    > (But first you need to artificially stack the deck by claiming you can only
    > include stuff that's installed by default, ignoring of course that much of
    > Linux often gets installed via a net connection anyways).
    >
    > Then, when it's sown that your technical arguments are just wishful
    > thinking, you fall back on the price argument.
    >



    Except he's not "falling back on the price argument"

    >> So the question is, what *functionality* do I get for 36 times the
    >> price? I should at least get functionality *parity*, right? I mean,
    >> realistically, I should be expecting 36 times the functionality, as that
    >> would actually bring what I get in line with what I pay - so what
    >> *functionality* do I get for this 36 times higher price tag?

    >
    > What you get is a solid, polished product where people make products that
    > actually 'work" out of the box, instead of having to dink with them for
    > days to make something as simple as, oh, say, dual screen monitors work
    > correctly.
    >


    work fine here, no days of "dinking" required.

    >> And here's a perfect example. Something easy to do, which gives me the
    >> benefits of relatively high security, high flexibility and high
    >> accessibility in performing a fairly simple task: accessing files and
    >> programs on my machine, remotely, in a manner consistent with how I
    >> prefer to use those apps and files (i.e. not remote desktop).
    >>
    >> So where's the Windows solution to the problem? The one *bundled* with
    >> Windows, that justifies paying 36 times more for it?

    >
    > You grossly misrepresent the cost factor. You're not paying for
    > funcitonality, you're paying because Windows is a commercial product, and
    > Linux isn't.
    >
    > Commercial products have commercial apps, commercial training, and
    > commercial benefits. You started this as a *technical* argument, so why
    > don't you keep the goalposts where they are.
    >
    > Ssh is a simple, free download away, just like it is on many Linux systems.
    >
    >>> I would have to wonder how, precisesly, one could tunnel stuff over an
    >>> encrypted connection and have them somehow exposed. By that I mean
    >>> you're being redundant, because it was already answered by your earlier
    >>> questions.

    >>
    >> Tunnelling is not the same as securing.

    >
    > In this context it is.
    >
    >>>> I know Vista is so much better than Linux, since we keep getting told
    >>>> this day in and day out, so there must be a trivial way to duplicate
    >>>> this sort of setup, I'm just curious what that way is.
    >>>
    >>> Sorry to light your carefully constructed strawman on fire.

    >>
    >> Did a little reading on this, and no, I don't think this quite works.

    >
    > You need to read more.
    >
    >> So let's examine the options you mention. Terminal Services Gateway, you
    >> say? Sounds good. What's MS got to say about that?
    >>
    >> Requirement 1: You must have a server with Windows Server 2008 installed.
    >>
    >> Okay, well, you've just ruled that out as an option for, well, pretty
    >> much everybody, and certainly as a comparable offering to what I can do
    >> with ssh. So let's look at your other solution, IPSEC.

    >
    > Moving the goalposts again I see. You asked how to do it in Windows.
    > However, many of the features work in normal termainal services as well.
    >


    "many" != all


    >> Hmm. From what I'm reading, you can use it to secure a port, map ports,
    >> do all sorts of fun stuff like that... but you still have to _expose_ the
    >> port. EG, if I want to be able to access my news server, I can map
    >> "visible" port 9119 to "internal" port 119 and secure it, but I still
    >> need to expose that port 9119 - and this again requires a policy
    >> definition on the "server" computer.

    >
    > You are wrong. You need to read more. IPSEC is also a VPN tunneling
    >
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPsec
    >
    > "IPsec was intended to provide either transport mode (end-to-end) security
    > of packet traffic in which the end-point computers do the security
    > processing, *OR TUNNEL MODE* (portal-to-portal) communications security in
    > which security of packet traffic is provided to several machines (even to
    > whole LANs) by a single node."
    >
    > Even if it were true, IPSEC allows connections to *NOT* be exposed unless
    > you have the appropriate certificate. This means you're not limited to
    > only certain locations or IP addresses, you can use it anywhere so long as
    > you present the right credentials.


    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFIA42Id90bcYOAWPYRAsmCAJ9PjF8dsbbeZ8vNVd7JO4 gY4KoI1ACePKzm
    p16JRYQG5kS+IxVuW5ULYio=
    =l2ZY
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
    "I think quotes are very dangerous things."
    -- Kate Bush

  6. Re: Equivalent operation in Windows?

    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    > Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
    >>
    >> Put this in context of, oh, buying a car. Linux gives me seats and
    >> wheels and body and engine and brakes and lights and mirrors and frame
    >> and on and on and on.
    >>
    >> By contrast, Windows gives me engine and paint. In order to actually
    >> *use* the product, one needs to add on an endless variety of extra tools
    >> and goodies - and that's just to make it *basically* useful for anything
    >> much beyond simply looking at the pretty paint job.

    >
    > Actually, Linux is a lot more like that.


    Actually, Fuddie, your claim is so obviously false, one could call it a
    lie.

    > Windows is more like ordering a
    > customly configured car, while Linux is more like the kit car where you
    > have to put it all together yourself, even though it gives you everything.


    Yet another of the idiotic, illogical, false analogies with which you are
    so adept, FUDmeister.


  7. Re: Equivalent operation in Windows?

    On 2008-04-14, Sinister Midget wrote:
    > On 2008-04-14, Richard Rasker claimed:
    >> Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:

    >
    >>> Even non-savvy folks can contribute. All it takes is saying "Gee,
    >>> wouldn't it be nice if..." to the right person.

    >>
    >> I'd go a step further and say that the involvement of non-savvy users in
    >> technological development is crucial to make technology actually usable.
    >> I've seen too many horrible examples of products which, technically
    >> speaking, functioned perfectly, but were disastrously user-unfriendly.

    >
    > Like Windwoes?


    ....agreed.

    I would be far more inclined to characterize Apple as the velvet straightjacket.

    >
    > Oops. You said "functioned perfectly", so that's disqualification
    > enough.
    >



    --
    Apple: Because a large harddrive is for power users.
    |||
    / | \

    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

  8. Re: Equivalent operation in Windows?


    "RonB" wrote in message
    news:JBtMj.140$Ph4.84@newsfe02.lga...
    > Ezekiel wrote:
    >
    >> Nobody but a loser with no life would care about crap like this. My
    >> friends could care less about using ssh to setup port forwarding.
    >>
    >> What a regular person wants to know is how do you plug in and use a
    >> iPhone
    >> or iPod Touch, update your Garmin GPS maps and play the latest
    >> video-game
    >> or Blu-Ray disk on their computer.
    >>
    >> Go play with vi and edit some config files. Loser.

    >
    > In the World of the WinTroll, knowledge and self-reliance become the
    > attributes of a "loser."


    Only in the world of a linux luser would someone be stupid enough to think
    that the average user is interested in forwarding ports through a secure
    tunnel.

    That's the fundamental difference between Windows and linux. Windows is
    targeted at everyday people and the thing that everyday people want to do.
    Things like hibernate their laptop, upload music to their iPod and sync
    with their PDA.

    On the other hand linux is targeted at data centers and geeks who get a
    boner thinking about command lines and port forwarding.



    > No wonder Micro$haft is flailing.


    Yeah - With their software running on 95% of the desktops in the world and
    over a BILLION dollars in PROFIT each and every month they are certainly
    flailing. Idiot.

    Then there's linux. Over a decade of giving away software for free it's
    running on somewhere between 0.6 and 0.8% of desktops.


    > --
    > RonB
    > "There's a story there...somewhere"



    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  9. Re: Equivalent operation in Windows?

    Ezekiel wrote:

    > Only in the world of a linux luser would someone be stupid enough to think
    > that the average user is interested in forwarding ports through a secure
    > tunnel.


    Ever hear of VOIP?

    --
    RonB
    "There's a story there...somewhere"

  10. Re: Equivalent operation in Windows?

    Ezekiel wrote:
    >
    >> No wonder Micro$haft is flailing.

    >
    > Yeah - With their software running on 95% of the desktops in the world and
    > over a BILLION dollars in PROFIT each and every month they are certainly
    > flailing. Idiot.
    >
    > Then there's linux. Over a decade of giving away software for free it's
    > running on somewhere between 0.6 and 0.8% of desktops.
    >

    Hey, you forget the phantom statics on Linux. The uncounted masses of
    millions, millions, millions and some here would say the billions of
    users at the Linux desktop.

    That's one Linux *hardcore* and *to the bone* home user each with 40
    different versions of Linux running on the their machines. They got
    Linux running on toaster ovens, vacuum cleaners, dust busters and even
    shoe boxes they put a motherboard in them with a hard drive with all of
    it sitting on their home networks.

    You must include the lost statics for Linux. That should bring statics
    up to about 2.0 overall, because otherwise, that would be unfair and the
    statistics are tainted.


  11. Re: Equivalent operation in Windows?


    "RonB" wrote in message
    news:XWSMj.37$E_.32@newsfe02.lga...
    > Ezekiel wrote:
    >
    >> Only in the world of a linux luser would someone be stupid enough to
    >> think
    >> that the average user is interested in forwarding ports through a secure
    >> tunnel.

    >
    > Ever hear of VOIP?


    Sure. Users want to click on an icon and run their VOIP app. It should
    "just work" without them having to know about the details of how it works.
    What users don't want is the linux version of this where they have to go
    down to the command line and manually setup port forwarding.

    It's not that this sort of technology doesn't exist on Windows... because
    it does. It's just not in the users face all the time the way it is with
    linux.


    > --
    > RonB
    > "There's a story there...somewhere"



    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  12. Re: Equivalent operation in Windows?

    Oh Well wrote:

    > That's one Linux *hardcore* and *to the bone* home user each with 40
    > different versions of Linux running on the their machines. They got
    > Linux running on toaster ovens, vacuum cleaners, dust busters and even
    > shoe boxes they put a motherboard in them with a hard drive with all
    > of it sitting on their home networks.


    heh!

    There are some hardcore Windows geeks, too
    http://www.stopgeek.com/hey-checkout...r-pc-case.html






  13. Re: Equivalent operation in Windows?

    [snips]

    On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 22:41:23 -0400, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    > Did it ever occur to you that what others have the same opinion? They
    > already ahve windows boxes and the tools to do such things?


    Really? Joe Sixpack already has a maching running Windows Server 2008?
    This is a typical Windows home user setup?

    News to me. I'll bet it's news to Microsoft, too. I'm sure you'll
    substantiate the claim, though, right?


  14. Re: Equivalent operation in Windows?

    On 2008-04-15, Ezekiel wrote:
    >
    > "RonB" wrote in message
    > news:XWSMj.37$E_.32@newsfe02.lga...
    >> Ezekiel wrote:
    >>
    >>> Only in the world of a linux luser would someone be stupid enough to
    >>> think
    >>> that the average user is interested in forwarding ports through a secure
    >>> tunnel.

    >>
    >> Ever hear of VOIP?

    >
    > Sure. Users want to click on an icon and run their VOIP app. It should


    "app"? Who wants to bother with the computer for VOIP?

    What you ever actuall used this sort of product, ever?

    [deletia]

    ....another advocate that doesn't seem to do anything with their
    machines except read from marketing bulletpoints provided by
    their relevant vendor.

    --
    OpenDoc is moot when Apple is your one stop iShop. |||
    / | \

    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2