How simple are newbies anyway? - Linux

This is a discussion on How simple are newbies anyway? - Linux ; Matt writes: > JEDIDIAH wrote: >> On 2008-09-19, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: > >>> Hadron's funny. He calls it "hoops" to compile a kernel. You know how >>> much time I invest in compiling a kernel? Plus downloading and >>> installing ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 12 of 22 FirstFirst ... 2 10 11 12 13 14 ... LastLast
Results 221 to 240 of 422

Thread: How simple are newbies anyway?

  1. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?

    Matt writes:

    > JEDIDIAH wrote:
    >> On 2008-09-19, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

    >
    >>> Hadron's funny. He calls it "hoops" to compile a kernel. You know how
    >>> much time I invest in compiling a kernel? Plus downloading and
    >>> installing Nvidia and VMware?

    >>
    >> It is "hoops". There are a gawdawful lot of options in the current
    >> kernels. Just sorting through that would put most people off. Although
    >> that distracts us from the point that it isn't necessary.

    >
    >
    > I think I compiled a kernel once around 1995, before we started using
    > Red Hat. Not since.


    Linonut is blowing hot air. There is no need except in exceptional
    cases. And installing an NVidia driver is not such a one.

    Most people do not want to or need to. And they certainly do not need
    the entire Linux source and build-essentials for Debian on their
    systems. Yes, the choice is good, but lets not make it into something
    that the average user wants or needs.


    --
    "Ignore the forging nym-shifting troll who pretends to be chrisv! I'm the *REAL* chrisv!"
    chrisv, COLA.

  2. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?

    After takin' a swig o' grog, Homer belched out this bit o' wisdom:

    > Verily I say unto thee, that Chris Ahlstrom spake thusly:
    >
    >> Actually, given that the kernel .config file is in /boot in Debian,
    >> and that the configuration can also be part of the kernel itself,
    >> configuration is not such as issue lately.

    >
    > It's the same with Fedora/RH, and I'd imagine many other distros.
    >
    > The Trolls make far to much fuss over the kernel, like it's some kind of
    > absolute necessity to rebuild at least once a day.


    Q. Why does a Linux user rebuild his kernel?

    A. Because he can.

    --
    Man who arrives at party two hours late will find he has been beaten
    to the punch.

  3. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?

    After takin' a swig o' grog, Gregory Shearman belched out this bit o' wisdom:

    > You really don't need to compile a kernel if you don't want to. The
    > Distros all provide kernels that can plug just about every built module
    > into it. They're a bit large and cumbersome for a Gentoo fan such as
    > myself.


    Some day I'd like to strip out /everything/ that is not needed for one
    particular computer, hardwire in the modules that support that machine's
    hardware, and see just how fast one can get the system to boot up.

    One of these years....

    --
    Walking on water wasn't built in a day.
    -- Jack Kerouac

  4. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?


    "JEDIDIAH" wrote in message
    news:slrngd7kkd.hg4.jedi@nomad.mishnet...
    > On 2008-09-19, amicus_curious wrote:
    >>
    >> "JEDIDIAH" wrote in message
    >> news:slrngd5ei2.7qb.jedi@nomad.mishnet...
    >>> On 2008-09-18, amicus_curious wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> "Peter Köhlmann" wrote in message
    >>>> news:48d2961c$0$6671$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net...
    >>>>> amicus_curious wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> "Chris Ahlstrom" wrote in message
    >>>>>> news:JHsAk.35185$XT1.24409@bignews5.bellsouth.net. ..
    >>>>>>> After takin' a swig o' grog, amicus_curious belched out this bit o'
    >>>>>>> wisdom:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> "JEDIDIAH" wrote in message
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> That doesn't mean that Windows will know what to do with
    >>>>>>>>> it.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> Attaching a windows network printer to a windows box can be
    >>>>>>>>> very illuminating.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Plug and play as far as I can tell. Do you know how to make it
    >>>>>>>> more
    >>>>>>>> complicated?
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Here's how:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>> http://uis.georgetown.edu/software/d...k.printer.html
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>> Do you consider that complicated or not?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Compared to linux? You bet
    >>>>
    >>>> Well, you are skipping the next to impossible step of having Linux
    >>>> installed
    >>>> to begin with. Installing Linux to make selecting a network printer
    >>>> allegedly easier is not going to win many votes.
    >>>
    >>> You don't even want to go there.
    >>>
    >>> OEM or full install of Windows? Talk about a usability disaster.
    >>>

    >> Well, I do not agree with that. I have installed both Linux and Windows
    >> on
    >> a number of occasions and the effort is about the same. Linux often
    >> requires some exact knowledge to configure and Windows pretty much tries
    >> to
    >> do a default and can fail when the configuration does not match what it
    >> is
    >> setup to detect. But that was not the point. The key point is that
    >> Windows

    >
    > Well... that idea has one REALLY BIG problem.
    >
    > Windows doesn't "come with drivers". The user has to fend for
    > themselves. This has to be one of the single biggest usability
    > myths about Windows.
    >

    Well Windows does come with drivers for quite a few of the devices
    available. There is a utility available for determining ahead of time if
    there is any device on the system that is likely to cause a problem.

    > It's not so bad when you get a new device and you have everying
    > readily available. It quickly gets a lot hairier when you are working
    > with something you may no longer have the driver disks for.
    >

    If you are installing a new device, it is most often new and thus comes with
    a Windows driver from its manufacturer. For the relatively rare case where
    you need something that you don't have or lost, there is the manufacturer's
    web site.

    >> will already exist on almost all computers that almost all people are
    >> likely
    >> to run into and so Linux represents a major modification regardless.
    >> Almost
    >> all the time, that is.
    >>
    >>> You will be scrambling for install media.
    >>> You may not even know what your hardware is (and windows wont tell
    >>> you).
    >>> Windows won't necessarily know which driver is which if your install
    >>> media supports more than one version of Windows.
    >>>
    >>> If you are lucky, you won't have Windows OS install disks that are
    >>> mislabeled.
    >>>

    >> There's only the one DVD, I believe.

    >
    > Go away. You've never done this before in your life.
    >
    > Sometimes I wonder if you people ever used Windows before.
    >

    I wonder the same about yourself. Do you have an MSDN subscription? The
    downloads are either CDs or DVDs, but for installing the OS, they are pretty
    universally DVDs with everything on one disk. Even Ubuntu is a DVD.

    >>
    >>> An hardware OEM recovery disk is about on par with a Linux install.
    >>>

    >> Plug and play, I think.

    >
    > Well, when you have a OS install that caters to the hardware you've
    > been sold you can kind of understand how it would be a little easier. It's
    > like getting/using a MacOS install disk.
    >

    Which is 99%+ of the cases, if you lump Macintosh with Windows.
    >>>
    >>> You hit upon a sad state of affairs: Installing Linux can be easier
    >>> than installing a network printer on Windows. Where's ESR when you need
    >>> him?
    >>>

    >> Who needs him? And for what?

    >
    > Grousing about how hard network printer installation is (in windows).
    >

    I don't think ESR does that. He looks for conspiracies and such, if we are
    talking about the same person.


  5. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?

    After takin' a swig o' grog, amicus_curious belched out this bit o' wisdom:

    > That is a valid-sounding theory, but I really do question its practicality.


    It's not just practical. Sometimes it is a /necessity/.

    > Most software products are incredibly complex these days. OS platforms,
    > office suites, graphics tools, even backup utilities. It is highly unlikely
    > that anyone skilled enough to drill down into someone else's code is ever
    > going to be motivated to do so. Their time is going to always be much more
    > valuable for their own purpose.


    Not necessarily. It depends on the circumstances.

    > Do you do development on a large commercial project?


    No, a medium-sized one.

    > If so, could you
    > really find and fix a defect in someone else's area?


    Yes. Been there, done that. I've had to dig through megabytes of some
    of the nastiest, ugliest assembly code you could ever imagine.

    > Could you find it as efficiently as the other person who designed it?


    No.

    But that doesn't matter if the other guy is /gone/.

    > I don't think that you can truthfully say yes to any of that.


    Even if I couldn't, it might be a real necessity for someone else on a
    different project.

    >> Our group has personally seen the benefits of open source versus closed
    >> products, the worst case being Rational Enterprise Suite.
    >>

    > Your meaning is unclear. Rational is not open source, is it?


    Far from it. And that is a big issue, since we have no means of support
    for it.

    --
    Psychiatry enables us to correct our faults by confessing our parents'
    shortcomings.
    -- Laurence J. Peter, "Peter's Principles"

  6. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?

    Chris Ahlstrom writes:

    > After takin' a swig o' grog, amicus_curious belched out this bit o' wisdom:
    >
    >> That is a valid-sounding theory, but I really do question its practicality.

    >
    > It's not just practical. Sometimes it is a /necessity/.
    >
    >> Most software products are incredibly complex these days. OS platforms,
    >> office suites, graphics tools, even backup utilities. It is highly unlikely
    >> that anyone skilled enough to drill down into someone else's code is ever
    >> going to be motivated to do so. Their time is going to always be much more
    >> valuable for their own purpose.

    >
    > Not necessarily. It depends on the circumstances.


    Of course. But generally you are not paid to fix other peoples code for
    third party products. At least your customers are not going to accept
    being billed for it. Get a clue.

    >
    >> Do you do development on a large commercial project?

    >
    > No, a medium-sized one.


    All relative.

    >
    >> If so, could you
    >> really find and fix a defect in someone else's area?

    >
    > Yes. Been there, done that. I've had to dig through megabytes of some
    > of the nastiest, ugliest assembly code you could ever imagine.


    Stories from the front line. All been there. But its not something to
    encourage.

    >
    >> Could you find it as efficiently as the other person who designed it?

    >
    > No.


    The truth at last!

    >
    > But that doesn't matter if the other guy is /gone/.
    >
    >> I don't think that you can truthfully say yes to any of that.

    >
    > Even if I couldn't, it might be a real necessity for someone else on a
    > different project.


    Yes. Especially if they chose to use this OSS with bugs in.

    >
    >>> Our group has personally seen the benefits of open source versus closed
    >>> products, the worst case being Rational Enterprise Suite.
    >>>

    >> Your meaning is unclear. Rational is not open source, is it?

    >
    > Far from it. And that is a big issue, since we have no means of support
    > for it.


    Or the budget OSS or not.

    --
    "His asshole is so reamed out he has room for an oxygen
    tank, too."
    -- Tattoo Vampire loooking for new accomodation in comp.os.linux.advocacy

  7. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?


    "Chris Ahlstrom" wrote in message
    news:aedBk.31079$rD2.22042@bignews4.bellsouth.net. ..
    > After takin' a swig o' grog, amicus_curious belched out this bit o'
    > wisdom:
    >
    >> That is a valid-sounding theory, but I really do question its
    >> practicality.

    >
    > It's not just practical. Sometimes it is a /necessity/.
    >
    >> Most software products are incredibly complex these days. OS platforms,
    >> office suites, graphics tools, even backup utilities. It is highly
    >> unlikely
    >> that anyone skilled enough to drill down into someone else's code is ever
    >> going to be motivated to do so. Their time is going to always be much
    >> more
    >> valuable for their own purpose.

    >
    > Not necessarily. It depends on the circumstances.
    >
    >> Do you do development on a large commercial project?

    >
    > No, a medium-sized one.
    >
    >> If so, could you
    >> really find and fix a defect in someone else's area?

    >
    > Yes. Been there, done that. I've had to dig through megabytes of some
    > of the nastiest, ugliest assembly code you could ever imagine.
    >

    I am suspicious of such a tale. First off, you would presumably only dig
    through machine code if you lacked access to the source. If you work on the
    product, you have access to the source. I would be far easier to simply
    report the defect to the original supplier and request a fix. If it is
    really a significant defect, they will fix it, I am sure. We certainly do.
    There is some sort of implication in the open source arena that suggests
    that commercial software companies are populated by nothing other than
    careless louts who delight in tormenting their customers. That is not true
    as I am sure you would agree and the best way to get some sort of defect
    corrected is to report it to those responsible. That is what most people
    seem to do even with open source products.

    >> Could you find it as efficiently as the other person who designed it?

    >
    > No.
    >
    > But that doesn't matter if the other guy is /gone/.
    >
    >> I don't think that you can truthfully say yes to any of that.

    >
    > Even if I couldn't, it might be a real necessity for someone else on a
    > different project.
    >
    >>> Our group has personally seen the benefits of open source versus closed
    >>> products, the worst case being Rational Enterprise Suite.
    >>>

    >> Your meaning is unclear. Rational is not open source, is it?

    >
    > Far from it. And that is a big issue, since we have no means of support
    > for it.
    >

    So where have you seen the "personally seen the benefits of open source
    versus closed products" in regard to Rational? Is there an open source
    clone of Rational? I don't use it myself and I have never seen an effective
    use for Rational, so I wouldn't even start to look for an OSS clone of it.


  8. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?


    "Matt" wrote in message
    news:VjYAk.12$Aw3.1@fe109.usenetserver.com...
    >
    > The question is why it took MS so long to achieve those things.
    >

    Whatever they did, they had to bring the users along with them. That is not
    a simple task.



  9. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?

    Verily I say unto thee, that Chris Ahlstrom spake thusly:

    > Some day I'd like to strip out /everything/ that is not needed for
    > one particular computer, hardwire in the modules that support that
    > machine's hardware, and see just how fast one can get the system to
    > boot up.


    You can improve boot times by just concentrating on the disk subsystem,
    and disabling DHCP by using a fixed IP instead. Between that and
    disabling unused services, you could probably knock at least 10 seconds
    off the boot time.

    --
    K.
    http://slated.org

    ..----
    | By bucking Microsoft for open source, says Gunderloy, "I'm no
    | longer contributing to the eventual death of programming."
    | ~ http://www.linux.com/feature/142083
    `----

    Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.25.11-60.fc8
    02:33:47 up 35 days, 23:46, 4 users, load average: 0.03, 0.08, 0.08

  10. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?

    On 2008-09-19, amicus_curious wrote:
    >
    > "JEDIDIAH" wrote in message
    > news:slrngd7nrr.nk1.jedi@nomad.mishnet...
    >> On 2008-09-19, amicus_curious wrote:
    >>>
    >>> "Moshe Goldfarb." wrote in message
    >>> news:1i4hfh859kjo9.1sl6q6br80770.dlg@40tude.net...
    >>>>
    >>>> Linux is free...
    >>>> People don't seem to care though.
    >>>>
    >>> Does Windows cost anything? Avoiding an expense is only useful if the
    >>> cost
    >>> can be recovered. To buy a Linux-based computer is commonly as expensive
    >>> as
    >>> or even more expensive than to buy a Windows computer. Regardless of why

    >>
    >> Why be limited to just "Windows computers"?
    >>
    >>> that might be the case, it is fact and makes the price of Linux
    >>> immaterial
    >>> to any decision in regard to cost.

    >>
    >> Only the most basic version of Windows will be free. Anything
    >> beyond that will be an extra visible line item cost that you see
    >> when ordering the machine.
    >>

    > Various models come with various versions of Windows. For retail outlet
    > packages, the user gets what's in the box. No option to pick and choose.
    >
    > That is a major reason why you are not going to see Linux on the shelves
    > since it is an all or nothing kind of selection by the distributor. If they


    Not quite.

    The end user can select or deselect anything they like.

    This is even more true once you consider network enabled software repositories.

    ...and Linux has been on store shelves for quite a while actually.

    > order the wrong version and people don't want to buy it in comparison with
    > another version, it is no sale. Dell could perhaps offer a better choice
    > since the merchandise is not shipped until sold, but there is still an
    > inventory issue. Retail stores don't want the problem. It is like having
    > two different products.
    >
    >> ...but you are essentially correct: OS cost isn't the driving factor.
    >>
    >> When Solaris x86 first came around, I was willing to pay the asking
    >> price for it.
    >>

    > You must have wanted it badly.


    That's hardly remarkable considering the state of Windows at the time.

    --

    iTunes is not progressive. It's a throwback. |||
    / | \

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

  11. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?

    On 2008-09-20, amicus_curious wrote:
    >
    > "JEDIDIAH" wrote in message
    > news:slrngd7kt5.hg4.jedi@nomad.mishnet...
    >> On 2008-09-19, amicus_curious wrote:
    >>>
    >>> "JEDIDIAH" wrote in message
    >>> news:slrngd5e74.7qb.jedi@nomad.mishnet...
    >>>> On 2008-09-18, amicus_curious wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> That assumes that all goes according to your propaganda claims.
    >>>>
    >>> All goes well enough often enough to suit the commercial need for
    >>> success.

    >>
    >> That is based on a 20 year old idea that it's "the only option
    >> really".
    >>
    >> You don't want to go there.
    >>
    >> We can all take a stroll down memory lane and recount our own
    >> personal experiences with manual memory management in MS-DOS.
    >>
    >>> Certainly there are those who fail to get what they want and I know that
    >>> happens with Windows, with Linux, and with Macintosh OS. It is a small
    >>> percentage and the common wisdom is that it is never going to go away
    >>> entirely. At some point, one has to relegate the comparative few
    >>> dissidents
    >>> to the arms of the competition. My own view is that they are welcome to
    >>> them. A dissident is a dissident regardless and will soon enough turn on
    >>> their new found friend. It is in their nature.

    >>
    >> The clock is ticking here T + 12 years.
    >>

    > And the world is changed not one whit.


    Shifting the goalposts again I see...

    Not that it really matters.

    MacOS is a going concern again.
    The web is open again.
    The msoffice hegemony is cracking.
    Many of the "best of breed" multimedia apps for Windows
    originated under Linux.

    That's just the "desktop" view.

    >>>
    >>> You criticize DFS and others who post scenarios gleaned from the Linux
    >>> support groups, but you do the same thing with scenarios from Windows
    >>> failures. The people complaining of Linux are probably many of the same

    >>
    >> The big difference here is that I am recounting PERSONAL experiences.
    >>
    >> What DFS does would in a different context be considered hearsay and
    >> would be declared useless as evidence.
    >>

    > Anecdote vs anecdote.


    I think the term liar is rather apropos for the both of you.

    >
    >>> people who used to complain of Windows.
    >>>

    >>
    >>
    >> --
    >>
    >>
    >> The average IT manager is a less effective mentor than a
    >> Spongebob Squarepants cartoon.
    >>

    > Said like a non-manager, eh?


    Someone that's any good quickly gets promoted into higher managment.

    --

    iTunes is not progressive. It's a throwback. |||
    / | \

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

  12. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?

    On 2008-09-20, amicus_curious wrote:
    >
    > "JEDIDIAH" wrote in message
    > news:slrngd7lig.hg4.jedi@nomad.mishnet...
    >> On 2008-09-19, amicus_curious wrote:
    >>>
    >>> "Matt" wrote in message
    >>> news_yAk.14318$Jp6.10657@fe103.usenetserver.com...
    >>>> amicus_curious wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "JEDIDIAH" wrote in message
    >>>>> news:slrngd04u9.ecq.jedi@nomad.mishnet...
    >>>>>> On 2008-09-16, amicus_curious wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> "JEDIDIAH" wrote in message
    >>>>>>> news:slrngcvmm6.osq.jedi@nomad.mishnet...
    >>>>>>>> On 2008-09-16, amicus_curious wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> "JEDIDIAH" wrote in message
    >>>>>>>>> news:slrngcu5de.i9m.jedi@nomad.mishnet...
    >>>>>>>>>> On 2008-09-15, amicus_curious wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> "Matt" wrote in message
    >>>>>>>>>>> news:9svzk.2141$4u4.976@fe097.usenetserver.com...
    >>>>>>>>>> [deletia]
    >>>>>>>>>>>> I have an old scanner that I haven't been able to get to work
    >>>>>>>>>>>> with
    >>>>>>>>>>>> XP
    >>>>>>>>>>>> although it works immediately when I plug it into my Ubuntu box.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> Is the Ubuntu design that ancient?
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> Why would it need to be updated?
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> What is different now?
    >>>>>>>>>> What do OS designers know now that they didn't then?
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> I don't know offhand, but there must have been some progress over
    >>>>>>>>> the
    >>>>>>>>> years.
    >>>>>>>>> They don't call it high tech for no reason.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> IOW: You have no clue whatsoever.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> I wouldn't say that exactly, but what constitutes advanced knowledge
    >>>>>>> for an
    >>>>>>> OS designer today vs a decade or more ago is surely specialized
    >>>>>>> information
    >>>>>>> known mostly to OS designers. Do you profess to know a lot about it?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Well, then you have no business saying anything definitive about it
    >>>>>> one way or another. So proclamations like "oh, I may be ignorant but
    >>>>>> there just must have been SOME progress made" are just so much white
    >>>>>> noise.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Taking it as an element of faith that there's a good reason for
    >>>>>> the degree of change in the Windows driver models is just assnine.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>> That is a lot of words just to say "No"!
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> He pointed out your error in reasoning.
    >>>>
    >>> I don't think that is the case at all. He said that my assumption that
    >>> OS
    >>> designers had surely made some progress in the last decade was assinine
    >>> and
    >>> white noise, but other than the derision, he offered no logic to counter
    >>> it.

    >>
    >> You can't describe why in even the most abstract of terms.
    >>
    >> You treat it as an article of faith. That's enough for derision.
    >>

    > So you admit that there was nothing logical in your response, only claiming
    > that you are justified due to your inability to provide an argument?
    >
    >>>>
    >>>>> You are the one saying that there has been no advances in the
    >>>>> technology
    >>>>> over such a long period of time in such a high-profile industry, so it
    >>>>> would be your responsibility to prove that. Perhaps you cannot see
    >>>>> that.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> I don't see much increase in basic capability in XP or Linux today
    >>>> compared to Unix and X in 1990.
    >>>>
    >>> Would you go back to that? My memory of 1990 Unix and X-windows is that
    >>> they were rather colorless and there was no multimedia and the internet
    >>> was
    >>> a newsgroup text kind of thing. Also, they were not personally
    >>> affordable

    >>
    >> X had color in 1990.
    >>
    >> There was "multi-media" in 1990. If you weren't some Lemming running
    >> an MS-DOS based kludge clone, you would have been WELL aware of this.
    >>
    >> The "internet" was only a newsgroup sort of thing if you had the sort
    >> of slow internet connection that most people had. You could run X
    >> across the net if you really wanted to.
    >>

    > Not with the personal computer I owned.


    In 1990, you could do the then equivalent of Flash with an 8mhz machine
    quite handily. As far as X went, it wasn't designed to need a powerful machine
    to run or to run across the network with. That's why it's a bit of a pig by
    modern standards.

    >
    >>> as are computers today. I believe that is what motivated Linus to start
    >>> his
    >>> project in the early 1990s.

    >>
    >> No, what motivated Linux to start HIS project is the fact that the
    >> state of the art coming out of Redmond at the time didn't reflect the
    >> state of the art in the hardware. The hardware was capable of better.
    >>
    >> Serious kludge clones were by no means cheap in those days
    >> either.
    >>
    >>>
    >>> I'll keep what I have now in comparison.
    >>>
    >>>> Maybe you think that there have been recent breakthroughs in OS because
    >>>> MS
    >>>> OSes started out with so little use of long-established OS concepts such
    >>>> as multitasking, virtual memory, hardware abstraction, and software
    >>>> layering.
    >>>
    >>> Well, I didn't have them on my IBM PC then. I do now, so that is
    >>> progress
    >>> as far as I am concerned. Someone invented the wheel and such basic
    >>> ideas

    >>
    >> That's sandbagging, not progress.
    >>
    >> THIS is why Linus started his OS. Redmond were a bunch of sandbaggers
    >> and the Lemmings that made up most of their customers were more than
    >> willing
    >> to go along with this crap.
    >>
    >> THIS is why you think there was no multi-media in 1990.
    >>
    >> Your view of computing reality was distorted by an inferior product.
    >>

    > Tell me that you had a Unix computer in your home with color displays and
    > used it for multimedia viewing. Otherwise admit to the facts.


    I just had a non PC.

    I Unix powerhouse simply wasn't required.

    "multi-media" more than anything else is merely an abstract understanding
    of the nature of digital data.

    >
    >>> years ago, but there is always a new car that is believed to be better
    >>> than
    >>> any that has gone before.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Ok, then name it?
    >>

    > Vista, certainly. Also the most recent version of any of the Linux


    I was talking of cars you moron.

    As far as Vista goes... it still needs 3rd party software to do
    simple things like burn a CD or play modern multimedia content
    downloaded off of the internet.

    > distributions in vogue. Or do you claim that the new Ubuntu is not an
    > improvement over the previous? Or that the new Linux kernel is not an
    > improvement over the one from 10 years ago?


    Most of the improvement in Linux over the last 10 years has been
    outside of the kernel actually. Even a lot of the "kernel level
    improvements" of relevance to someone like you have been about "3rd
    party support" more than anything else.

    If the device doesn't radically change then the API and the driver
    model shouldn't either. If either see multiple revisions then someone
    screwed up the first or third time. For a cabal of volunteers, you can
    kind of understand. For the biggest software monopoly on the planet,
    not so much.


    --

    iTunes is not progressive. It's a throwback. |||
    / | \

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

  13. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?

    On 2008-09-21, JEDIDIAH wrote:
    > On 2008-09-19, amicus_curious wrote:
    >>
    >> "JEDIDIAH" wrote in message
    >> news:slrngd7nrr.nk1.jedi@nomad.mishnet...
    >>> On 2008-09-19, amicus_curious wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> "Moshe Goldfarb." wrote in message
    >>>> news:1i4hfh859kjo9.1sl6q6br80770.dlg@40tude.net...
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Linux is free...
    >>>>> People don't seem to care though.
    >>>>>
    >>>> Does Windows cost anything? Avoiding an expense is only useful if the
    >>>> cost
    >>>> can be recovered. To buy a Linux-based computer is commonly as expensive
    >>>> as
    >>>> or even more expensive than to buy a Windows computer. Regardless of why
    >>>
    >>> Why be limited to just "Windows computers"?
    >>>
    >>>> that might be the case, it is fact and makes the price of Linux
    >>>> immaterial
    >>>> to any decision in regard to cost.
    >>>
    >>> Only the most basic version of Windows will be free. Anything
    >>> beyond that will be an extra visible line item cost that you see
    >>> when ordering the machine.
    >>>

    >> Various models come with various versions of Windows. For retail outlet
    >> packages, the user gets what's in the box. No option to pick and choose.
    >>
    >> That is a major reason why you are not going to see Linux on the shelves
    >> since it is an all or nothing kind of selection by the distributor. If they

    >
    > Not quite.
    >
    > The end user can select or deselect anything they like.
    >
    > This is even more true once you consider network enabled software repositories.
    >
    > ...and Linux has been on store shelves for quite a while actually.


    Yep, at least since 1997. I bought my first Redhat off the shelf then.


    --
    Regards,

    Gregory.
    Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power

  14. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?

    After takin' a swig o' grog, amicus_curious belched out this bit o' wisdom:

    > "Chris Ahlstrom" wrote in message
    >>
    >>> If so, could you
    >>> really find and fix a defect in someone else's area?

    >>
    >> Yes. Been there, done that. I've had to dig through megabytes of some
    >> of the nastiest, ugliest assembly code you could ever imagine.
    >>

    > I am suspicious of such a tale. First off, you would presumably only dig
    > through machine code if you lacked access to the source. If you work on the
    > product, you have access to the source.


    Your ignorance betrays you, amicus_incongruous. "Assembly code" !=
    "machine code".

    I was working on the team that produced this software, and of course I
    had access to the source.

    Weren't we /just/ talking about why open-source is so important? Yet
    you bring binary code into it!

    In any case, even though this project provided source, it had the
    following features:

    1. A lot of source code (megabytes)

    2. Really stupid use of technology

    a. All variables were global. It was like they never /heard/ of
    the stack.

    b. The global data was organized in 64K pages. A limitation of
    DOS at the time.

    c. Usage of video memory for data storage.

    d. Usage of color bytes as a syntax marker.

    And guess what their high-level programmer's editor consisted of?

    EDLIN

    On that project, I learned that you can master /anything/, if you have
    to.

    By the way, just in case you want to denigrate the project based on
    size, it was deployed in a number of sites all over the world. Not a
    huge project.

    > I would be far easier to simply
    > report the defect to the original supplier and request a fix. If it is
    > really a significant defect, they will fix it, I am sure. We certainly do.
    > There is some sort of implication in the open source arena that suggests
    > that commercial software companies are populated by nothing other than
    > careless louts who delight in tormenting their customers. That is not true
    > as I am sure you would agree and the best way to get some sort of defect
    > corrected is to report it to those responsible. That is what most people
    > seem to do even with open source products.


    (An irrelevant ramble by amicus_tippulous).

    > So where have you seen the "personally seen the benefits of open source
    > versus closed products" in regard to Rational? Is there an open source
    > clone of Rational? I don't use it myself and I have never seen an effective
    > use for Rational, so I wouldn't even start to look for an OSS clone of it.


    Source-code control: Subversion. Everybody here, from the developers
    to the customer to the actual build master /loathes/ Rational, and those
    who have been using Subversion on their own really want to go to it.

    Requirements management: Anything, including OSRMT or even marked up
    Doxygen comments, would be better than Requisite Pro, with its
    stupid-ass fragile Microsoft Word user interface and reliance on klunky
    Excel "scripts".

    Defects management: Bugzilla. Actually, Rational Clearquest is the
    least problematic tool.

    And all the Rational crap is compounded by the fact that support for it
    is so expensive that purchase of it was dropped a long time ago, and the
    only guy who knew anything about it moved on to better pastures. So
    we're left with duct tape.

    --
    Freedom is what you do with what's been done to you.
    -- Jean-Paul Sartre

  15. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?

    After takin' a swig o' grog, Homer belched out this bit o' wisdom:

    > And this isn't just some idealistic hope, it's a reality that I've
    > experienced every day for years. I've given my time and effort freely to
    > those who asked for it, even for things in which I had no particular
    > interest, and in return I receive help from complete strangers for
    > things with which I have difficulty.
    >
    > ....
    >
    > I do these things because I'm part of a community, not for personal
    > gain, but by living and participating in this community I form a
    > symbiotic relationship with others in that community. IOW others help me
    > too ... not because they feel obligated to because I help them directly,
    > but because they also have the same goals - they give away *their* time
    > and effort freely too. This is what it means to live and participate in
    > a community. The Free Software community not only provides that
    > symbiotic relationship of assistance, it also provides the actual code,
    > and the means to fix and improves that software, making it independent
    > from selfish interests that might otherwise deny us that Freedom.


    We may need someone to translate that into bizznizz-speak for
    amicus_financialous.

    --
    Yow! Maybe I should have asked for my Neutron Bomb in PAISLEY --

  16. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?

    After takin' a swig o' grog, Homer belched out this bit o' wisdom:

    > Verily I say unto thee, that Chris Ahlstrom spake thusly:
    >
    >> Some day I'd like to strip out /everything/ that is not needed for
    >> one particular computer, hardwire in the modules that support that
    >> machine's hardware, and see just how fast one can get the system to
    >> boot up.

    >
    > You can improve boot times by just concentrating on the disk subsystem,
    > and disabling DHCP by using a fixed IP instead. Between that and
    > disabling unused services, you could probably knock at least 10 seconds
    > off the boot time.


    Also by cutting out the auto-probing and loading modules directly in
    /etc/modules, and perhaps by eliminating initrd. Looks like a good
    number of techniques out there.

    --
    Feel free to contact me (flames about my english and the useless of this
    driver will be redirected to /dev/null, oh no, it's full...).
    -- Michael Beck, describing the PC-speaker sound device

  17. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?

    After takin' a swig o' grog, JEDIDIAH belched out this bit o' wisdom:

    >>> When Solaris x86 first came around, I was willing to pay the asking
    >>> price for it.
    >>>

    >> You must have wanted it badly.

    >
    > That's hardly remarkable considering the state of Windows at the time.


    I worked at a place that used Sun hardware pretty heavily, but I was on
    a PC project (386/DOS). That's where I first got my bad case of "UNIX
    envy". At least I was able to email, newsgroups (over a remote modem),
    and do source-code control (SCCS) on my low-end Sun workstation.

    Sun multimedia back then beat the pants off of Windows.

    --
    The law will never make men free; it is men who have got to make the law free.
    -- Henry David Thoreau

  18. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?


    "JEDIDIAH" wrote in message
    news:slrngdb9ge.g3d.jedi@nomad.mishnet...
    > On 2008-09-19, amicus_curious wrote:
    >>
    >> "JEDIDIAH" wrote in message
    >> news:slrngd7nrr.nk1.jedi@nomad.mishnet...
    >>> On 2008-09-19, amicus_curious wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> "Moshe Goldfarb." wrote in message
    >>>> news:1i4hfh859kjo9.1sl6q6br80770.dlg@40tude.net...
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Linux is free...
    >>>>> People don't seem to care though.
    >>>>>
    >>>> Does Windows cost anything? Avoiding an expense is only useful if the
    >>>> cost
    >>>> can be recovered. To buy a Linux-based computer is commonly as
    >>>> expensive
    >>>> as
    >>>> or even more expensive than to buy a Windows computer. Regardless of
    >>>> why
    >>>
    >>> Why be limited to just "Windows computers"?
    >>>
    >>>> that might be the case, it is fact and makes the price of Linux
    >>>> immaterial
    >>>> to any decision in regard to cost.
    >>>
    >>> Only the most basic version of Windows will be free. Anything
    >>> beyond that will be an extra visible line item cost that you see
    >>> when ordering the machine.
    >>>

    >> Various models come with various versions of Windows. For retail outlet
    >> packages, the user gets what's in the box. No option to pick and choose.
    >>
    >> That is a major reason why you are not going to see Linux on the shelves
    >> since it is an all or nothing kind of selection by the distributor. If
    >> they

    >
    > Not quite.
    >
    > The end user can select or deselect anything they like.
    >

    Not in a package that they pick up at Costco. I think that is only true for
    an item ordered online and even then the choices are restricted.

    > This is even more true once you consider network enabled software
    > repositories.
    >

    But that is far from a retail outlet package.

    > ...and Linux has been on store shelves for quite a while actually.
    >

    And off the shelves, too. Is is still on the shelf anywhere that you know
    of?

    >> order the wrong version and people don't want to buy it in comparison
    >> with
    >> another version, it is no sale. Dell could perhaps offer a better choice
    >> since the merchandise is not shipped until sold, but there is still an
    >> inventory issue. Retail stores don't want the problem. It is like
    >> having
    >> two different products.
    >>
    >>> ...but you are essentially correct: OS cost isn't the driving factor.
    >>>
    >>> When Solaris x86 first came around, I was willing to pay the asking
    >>> price for it.
    >>>

    >> You must have wanted it badly.

    >
    > That's hardly remarkable considering the state of Windows at the time.
    >

    So today Linux is free and next to no one wants it. Does that mean that it
    is not so good or that Windows is completely adequate?


  19. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?


    "Gregory Shearman" wrote in message
    news:slrngdc0ff.a3i.ZekeGregory@netscape.net...
    > On 2008-09-21, JEDIDIAH wrote:
    >> On 2008-09-19, amicus_curious wrote:
    >>>
    >>> "JEDIDIAH" wrote in message
    >>> news:slrngd7nrr.nk1.jedi@nomad.mishnet...
    >>>> On 2008-09-19, amicus_curious wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "Moshe Goldfarb." wrote in message
    >>>>> news:1i4hfh859kjo9.1sl6q6br80770.dlg@40tude.net...
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Linux is free...
    >>>>>> People don't seem to care though.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>> Does Windows cost anything? Avoiding an expense is only useful if the
    >>>>> cost
    >>>>> can be recovered. To buy a Linux-based computer is commonly as
    >>>>> expensive
    >>>>> as
    >>>>> or even more expensive than to buy a Windows computer. Regardless of
    >>>>> why
    >>>>
    >>>> Why be limited to just "Windows computers"?
    >>>>
    >>>>> that might be the case, it is fact and makes the price of Linux
    >>>>> immaterial
    >>>>> to any decision in regard to cost.
    >>>>
    >>>> Only the most basic version of Windows will be free. Anything
    >>>> beyond that will be an extra visible line item cost that you see
    >>>> when ordering the machine.
    >>>>
    >>> Various models come with various versions of Windows. For retail outlet
    >>> packages, the user gets what's in the box. No option to pick and
    >>> choose.
    >>>
    >>> That is a major reason why you are not going to see Linux on the shelves
    >>> since it is an all or nothing kind of selection by the distributor. If
    >>> they

    >>
    >> Not quite.
    >>
    >> The end user can select or deselect anything they like.
    >>
    >> This is even more true once you consider network enabled software
    >> repositories.
    >>
    >> ...and Linux has been on store shelves for quite a while actually.

    >
    > Yep, at least since 1997. I bought my first Redhat off the shelf then.
    >

    What's on that shelf today and where is it located?


  20. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?


    "Homer" wrote in message
    news:rikgq5-fmj.ln1@sky.matrix...
    >
    > What a_c fails to understand (in addition to his inability to see things
    > in anything other than financial terms) is that "independence" does not
    > just mean the independence of one man, but the independence of a whole
    > community.
    >

    Don't you think you are making all too much out of this? Software is a
    product that is designed for and sold to a market that is expected to obtain
    beneficial use on a par with its price. It isn't a quality of life issue at
    all, it is a cost based decision.

    > If the software is independent of corporate interests, then its future
    > lies in the hands of those who /use/ it, not those who exploit it for
    > profit. As you indicate, software is abandoned, or worse, abused as an
    > extortion device far too often by greedy corporate interests. This is
    > not only morally wrong, and results in unacceptable costs, but also has
    > the effect of denying access to the software that people come to depend
    > on. The only way to resolve this "lock-in" is to break that dependence,
    > by setting the software Free, such that it is "owned" by no one (or
    > conversely "owned" by *everyone*).
    >
    > That is exactly what the Free Software community sets out to accomplish.
    >

    You are a true looney toon, Homer! Why don't you go waste your time on
    something else that might be more valuable for the "community"?

    > In such a community, the software is Free for *everyone*, not just one
    > man. But there's a "price" for that Freedom, which is participation.
    > Free Software is not, and should not be seen as a spectator sport. We're
    > all players. That doesn't mean that we all need to be software
    > developers, but there's more to contribution than writing code. Just
    > look at any community distro for an example of the hundreds of ways in
    > which anyone can help out. Because we function together as a single
    > unit, this means that no one is alone in their efforts. If one person
    > needs to accomplish a goal, but lacks the means to do so, then he can
    > call on others in the community to help him. This is something else that
    > a_c (and others) fails to understand, when he claims that access to the
    > source is useless unless one is an accomplished programmer.
    >

    I am pretty sure that a looney tune like yourself is not an accomplished
    programmer, so what do YOU do with the source?



+ Reply to Thread
Page 12 of 22 FirstFirst ... 2 10 11 12 13 14 ... LastLast