Boring Thursday! Here's a link



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @_gaffer said:
    I'm not familiar with his background,

    Here's his programming projects page.

    @_gaffer said:

    If it's a case of whether it's easier to get started with Eclipse or Visual Studio, then I'll definitely say that VS is an easier setup. It may not be something I like to develop with, for various reasons, but it's a very well sorted IDE.

    Admitting there's a problem is the first step to fixing it. Unfortunately, the rest of the Linux community is too busy blaming the user to admit there's a problem in the first place.

    It's definitely not an easy problem. The Visual Studio setup works better mainly because everything is bundled into one huge package. When you're aiming for choice, and the development tools aren't automatically coupled, you need to find a way around this.

    Eclipse makes this more difficult by trying to be everything to everyone, and not succeeding in the slightest. It also looks like it should function the same way as VS, even though it doesn't.

    Personally, I have no problem with the concept of installing an editor not providing the compiler/interpreter/libraries for all its supported languages. Just a different approach? Stockholm syndrome? Different people will have different attitudes to that.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @_gaffer said:

    Personally, I have no problem with the concept of installing an editor not providing the compiler/interpreter/libraries for all its supported languages.

    Does VS provide all that stuff now? When did that start?



  • @boomzilla said:

    @_gaffer said:
    Personally, I have no problem with the concept of installing an editor not providing the compiler/interpreter/libraries for all its supported languages.

    Does VS provide all that stuff now? When did that start?

    It has been a few years since I dealt with it. Do you have to install things completely separately, or is there some sort of plugin system?


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @_gaffer said:

    @boomzilla said:
    @_gaffer said:
    Personally, I have no problem with the concept of installing an editor not providing the compiler/interpreter/libraries for all its supported languages.

    Does VS provide all that stuff now? When did that start?

    It has been a few years since I dealt with it. Do you have to install things completely separately, or is there some sort of plugin system?

    Mainly I'm talking about installing the SDK, which I think is separate. I'm not sure about .Net and its various versions, but ISTR something similar.

    Either way, the SDK is very apropos to this thread, since that's where you get all of the headers you need to do useful things when doing C/C++ on Windows. My experience has been that compilers other than VS install that stuff when you install the compiler. And one big difference is that on Linux, you have a system-wide place to put all of that system wide sort of information, so there's less configuration required to tell you compiler where all of your various libraries are. But I suppose Linux users are too busy being user hostile to make things like finding library headers more difficult by squirreling them all over the place.

    This guy clearly has no experience with Linux, and is just starting to learn about how it works. I guess someone who is not blakeyrat could make fun of Windows because someone couldn't figure out how to do stuff in the control panel or something.



  • @boomzilla said:

    @_gaffer said:
    @boomzilla said:
    @_gaffer said:
    Personally, I have no problem with the concept of installing an editor not providing the compiler/interpreter/libraries for all its supported languages.

    Does VS provide all that stuff now? When did that start?

    It has been a few years since I dealt with it. Do you have to install things completely separately, or is there some sort of plugin system?

    Mainly I'm talking about installing the SDK, which I think is separate. I'm not sure about .Net and its various versions, but ISTR something similar.

    Either way, the SDK is very apropos to this thread, since that's where you get all of the headers you need to do useful things when doing C/C++ on Windows. My experience has been that compilers other than VS install that stuff when you install the compiler. And one big difference is that on Linux, you have a system-wide place to put all of that system wide sort of information, so there's less configuration required to tell you compiler where all of your various libraries are. But I suppose Linux users are too busy being user hostile to make things like finding library headers more difficult by squirreling them all over the place.

    This guy clearly has no experience with Linux, and is just starting to learn about how it works. I guess someone who is not blakeyrat could make fun of Windows because someone couldn't figure out how to do stuff in the control panel or something.

    Hmm, ok. If that's the case, then it looks like the guy's just being wilfully inept. The piece already has an "I jabbed at random buttons, yelled, stamped my feet, AND I STILL DIDN'T GET EXACTLY WHAT I WANT" flavour to it.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @_gaffer said:

    Hmm, ok. If that's the case, then it looks like the guy's just being wilfully inept. The piece already has an "I jabbed at random buttons, yelled, stamped my feet, AND I STILL DIDN'T GET EXACTLY WHAT I WANT" flavour to it.

    Well, he does seem to be learning. The following passage demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that he's surpassed some esteemed forum members in his understanding of how package managers fit into the scheme of things:

    @Shamus said:

    Eventually I discover that this business of downloading and configuring stuff manually is only for obscure packages or hardcore devs with exotic requirements. For most people, you can get stuff like this from the Software Manager. It works a bit like Windows Update, except it downloads all kinds of different software, themes, updates, tools, packages, and other nuggets of digital treasure.

    Assuming he's read his comments, someone has pointed out that he needs the GTK dev packages. Hopefully that will clue him in a bit, and he'll be able to apply that knowledge in the future (assuming he hasn't given up). Doing things differently is often very frustrating.

    Silver Lining: At least he didn't decide to try OSX and get stuck with XCode!



  • @ASheridan2 said:

    I think package managers are a lot better now, and make it easier to find software that performs a task without knowing what it's called based on searches matching hits in the description. It's no different in the Windows world really. The name Excel doesn't have any spreadsheet conotations, Firefox doesn't immediately scream out "web browser". A big advantage in Linux is that the software is generally available in one place: through the package manager, so it's easier to discover.

    That's also the downside to Linux, that without knowing the compilation voodoo, you're limited to what's in the repositories. God forbid you want third party software or even a never version then what the distro offers.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Here's his programming projects page.

    Before I become a videogame pundit and novelist, I was a programmer for Activeworlds.
    Activeworlds!? Wow that takes me back.


  • @boomzilla said:

    Well, he does seem to be learning. The following passage …

    Yeah, looks like he's getting the idea.

    @boomzilla said:


    Assuming he's read his comments, someone has pointed out that he needs the GTK dev packages.

    Yeah, most of his problems seem to boil down to not knowing that lib* and *-dev are where to go for development needs, which doesn't seem an overly taxing requirement.

    @boomzilla said:


    Silver Lining: At least he didn't decide to try OSX and get stuck with XCode!

    Too true. I don't even USE XCode, and it still pisses me off by requiring multi-GB updates for other dev items.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Admitting there's a problem is the first step to fixing it. Unfortunately, the rest of the Linux community is too busy blaming the user to admit there's a problem in the first place.
     

    So, if I were to install Visual C# Express 2010 and then whine because it won't let me compile C++ programs, it's clearly the Windows community's fault?

    Because that's essentially what he did.



  • @boomzilla said:

    @Manni_reloaded said:
    Most tech-savvy people understand that Linux is not an OS where you say "I'll just install some stuff and see if everything works".

    I'm curious about why you think this.

     

    I'll admit it's been awhile since I've had my own Linux box, but in terms of ease of use it seems to go Mac > Windows > Linux.

    Mac products are by far the easiest to jump into with minimal technical background which is why they're eating up the market right now. This is not a personal declaration, I don't own any Apple products nor do I enjoy using them, but the iPod and iPad and iPhone are default go-to systems for anyone who wants a computing device but hates dealing with computers. The layout seems obvious and simplified, and the fact that hardware variety is limited means anyone can move to another Mac with ease. I still don't like 'em.

    Windows is up there simply because of the mass availability of products and support, as well as the minimal number of versions (XP, Vista, Win7, Win8). Typically if you need something, it's available for whatever version of Windows you have and installing is as simple as double-clicking an EXE. Not the best overall experience, but definitely seems to lead in terms of mass availability for supported hardware and software. If I want to know what programs I've installed, there's a helpful little icon that I can double-click to see that. If anyone isn't sure where to find it, there's something kinda obvious about a feature called the "Control Panel". I don't need to know command lines or filter through results and know the exact version names and numbers, or to somehow know that I should have gotten the package with "-dev" tacked onto the end.

    The article linked in this post shows the problem with drawing in new Linux users, but before that is a problem with Linux itself. First are the wide variety of flavors out there, Wikipedia says there are over 600 currently available or in development. Even in the "Popular distribution" list there are over a dozen options. I wouldn't begin to know what their differences are or which one is best, so before I even get to use the computer I first have to research which flavor of Linux I need. Then it seems like you need to know command-line utilities and parameters, the exact names of packages installed on your system, and the overall configuration options in order to get anything done. It's a far more secure operating system, but seems to falter in automated functionality and simplicity of user interaction. If I install an IDE, I'd expect there to be some basic libraries included, or a message indicating where to get them. Is there some document or website that makes it obvious I should have installed build_essential?

    People that love digging under the hood with partitioning and command line interfaces and rebuilding the kernel will have a deep love of Linux because of the control and granularity it provides. And those same people, of which I'm guessing you are one, will defend it by saying that it just takes time to get it, and once you begin understanding the way the system works you can perform every task with ease. Except that Windows and Macs already let me do those same things with ease. I realize some of this comes down to how the software is written for those systems, but frankly there seems to be an attitude and mentality when it comes to Linux that their user base almost despises a simple one-click feature or presenting GUIs with minimal options and technical jargon. Everything seems to have a learning curve or requires research, and it's off-putting. Most people want to put gas in the car and drive, Linux users need to know the ignition timing and how to rebuild the carburetor.

    I'm sure Linux fans will have fun telling me how I'm wrong, but it's not just my own point of view. It's a perception shared by many, and seeing the hoops people have to jump through just to install some software lets me know I'm not missing much. I'm sure if I got used to it I'd love it, but frankly it seems like an uphill battle I just don't have the patience for.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    If you don't want to communicate, then don't bother typing anything at all. Typing DHS ASDHA ASDUHADHAS ADhaYUDH ADJHAS DUHAD SU saJDHAUd constant acronym gibberish just wastes everybody's time.
    I suspect the vast majority of people around here knew exactly what I meant with DSW.  And your continuing to bitch about Linux and pull up links about how a person won't put in a few minutes to learn the differences between Linux and Windows is a waste of time too.

    We know how you feel about everything Linux.  You probably have a fit going from a Ford to a Toyota.  "Waaah!  The gear shift isn't in the same place!  Waah!  The radio doesn't work the same!   Waaaah!  The windshield wiper is in the wrong place!   Waaah!  I don't want Daytime Running Lights!"  You never should've started this thread in the first place.



  • @nonpartisan said:

    I suspect the vast majority of people around here knew exactly what I meant with DSW.
    I had no idea, but I then again I didn't care enough to go to Acronym Finder. I probably would have gotten the meaning you intended from there.

    On a more interesting topic, FWIW I think Manni_reloaded hit the nail on the head.



  • @Zecc said:

    Context managers / the with statement is nice to know about. It's pretty much Python's equivalent to the using statement.

    yup the tutorial didn't mention the context managers and although the one time evaluation of the parameter list was mentioned, it didn't occur to me that it could be used as a static variable



  • @Manni_reloaded said:

    Is there some document or website that makes it obvious I should have installed build_essential?

    several. quick googling reveals:



  • @Manni_reloaded said:

    Typically if you need something, it's available for whatever version of Windows you have and installing is as simple as double-clicking an EXE.
     

    Yeah, after you find and download the EXE. And then you're not done once you double click it. From there anything can happen. In Linux, typically, you click INSTALL in the software manager and that's really, actually it.

    @Manni_reloaded said:

    [In Windows] If I want to know what programs I've installed, there's a helpful little icon that I can double-click to see that.

    Not necessarily. It depends on the program. Does the Windows version of the GTK+ dev library show up in there? On Linux, typically, you have the same thing but it actually includes everything.

    @Manni_reloaded said:

    If anyone isn't sure where to find it, there's something kinda obvious about a feature called the "Control Panel".

    Linux typically has a control panel thing too where you can find the same stuff.

    @Manni_reloaded said:

    I don't need to know command lines or filter through results and know the exact version names and numbers, [...]

    You don't need to know command lines, it's just easier to send someone a command to run than guide them though a zillion forms and buttons. It's the same on Windows when I have to have someone run "regsvr32 /u /s engcom32.dll" or whatever. The Linux GUI package managers could use better search functionality, but it isn't that hard as it is. And on Windows I have no such option at all. To use a dev library on Windows I have to just Google all these files and figure out where to put them by hand. You can just do the same thing on Linux if you really want to. The OP didn't try that for some reason, and then got all flustered about exactly which package version to install, when I don't think it even mattered.

    @Manni_reloaded said:

    or to somehow know that I should have gotten the package with "-dev" tacked onto the end.

    Is there some other naming convention that would make it super obvious? What do you suggest exactly? What is the equivalent on Windows that is so much easier?

    @Manni_reloaded said:

    If I install an IDE, I'd expect there to be some basic libraries included, or a message indicating where to get them.

    Agreed. Like said before though, the IDEs are trying to do everything. They can't possibly come with every library for every language, though. This is why you, as a dev, need to go read up on what you need and where to get it, if you aren't using the defaults that your choice IDE is set up for. I assume Eclipse works better with Java out of the box, but I wouldn't know.

    After 38 seconds of research I found that "Anjuta" is apparently an IDE focused on C/C++. So I got that and clicked "New GTK+ Project" and it told me to go get the GTK3 package with the "-dev" or "-devel" suffix. It also has an "Install missing plugins" button but it's "not implemented yet." Damn! Almost 10/10.

    @Manni_reloaded said:

    Is there some document or website that makes it obvious I should have installed build_essential?

    Yes. Lots.

    @Manni_reloaded said:

    People that love digging under the hood with partitioning and command line interfaces and rebuilding the kernel will have a deep love of Linux because of the control and granularity it provides.

    I don't. I use Linux for the opposite reason. I click install and I'm done. I don't have to call India or anything.

    @Manni_reloaded said:

    Except that Windows and Macs already let me do those same things with ease.

    What "same things"? I use Mac & Win & Linux to do different things. The things I can do on all 3, for me at least, are usually by far easiest on Linux. I'm sure it's different for everybody, though. I'm sure as hell not using Linux because I'm picky about settings and like to do things the hard way.

    Apparently no other IDE comes close to Visual Studio. But I've had enough problems with VS itself, so I haven't subjected myself to any other ones. Crappy IDE's seem to be a real problem, but most of these other "perceptions" are just wrong.



  • @superjer said:

    I don't. I use Linux for the opposite reason. I click install and I'm done. I don't have to call India or anything.

    Hahaha. Obviously you've never tried to get a third-party closed-source driver to work under Linux.



  • Blah blah, demonstrably he couldn't get it working, demonstrably he could in Windows without any difficult, that means there is a problem.



  •  @MiffTheFox said:

    @superjer said:

    I don't. I use Linux for the opposite reason. I click install and I'm done. I don't have to call India or anything.

     

    Hahaha. Obviously you've never tried to get a third-party closed-source driver to work under Linux.

    See, the difference between you and me is when I have a problem, I don't assume everyone else also has the same problem.  I clicked the little radio button next to "NVIDIA binary driver (proprietary)" and it worked.

    @Blakeyrat said:

    Blah blah, demonstrably he couldn't get it working, demonstrably he could in Windows without any difficult, that means there is a problem.

    He made a GTK app in Windows? With Eclipse? How similar was what he did exactly?

     



  • @superjer said:

    He made a GTK app in Windows? With Eclipse? How similar was what he did exactly?

    He wrote a GUI app.

    "Eclipse" and "GTK" are implementation details; they don't matter.

    The point is, he could figure it out in Windows and he could not in Linux. That's the point. If you're not going to in some way acknowledge the point, please don't fucking bother replying. You're just wasting everybody's time.



  •  "that means there is a problem."

     

    Yep. TRWTF is Eclipse.

     

    Don't you have a blakeyrant devoted to the shitpile that is Eclipse?



  •  @blakeyrat said:

    @superjer said:
    He made a GTK app in Windows? With Eclipse? How similar was what he did exactly?

    He wrote a GUI app.

    "Eclipse" and "GTK" are implementation details; they don't matter.

    The point is, he could figure it out in Windows and he could not in Linux. That's the point. If you're not going to in some way acknowledge the point, please don't fucking bother replying. You're just wasting everybody's time.

    Look. I get it. There are problems. I think we can be a little more specific than "It just doesn't work on Linux." GUI package manager search sucks. Linux IDEs suck. OK. I agree, but I don't really use those, so I don't know if my opinion is very accurate.

    I acknowlege that he couldn't figure out how to "write a GUI app" on Linux. But isn't it important to discuss it in terms of which actual tools he tried to use? What if I had tried to use Borland or something on Windows? Doesn't that make a pretty big difference? Not to mention he's been using Windows for ____ years and Linux for ____ ?

    He couldn't figure it out, but I could. From a fresh install of Mint 14. I clicked "Install Anjuta", ran it, clicked "New GTK Project", installed the -dev thing  like it recommended, and had the example GUI app built and running in under 5 minutes.

    Is that even possible from a fresh Windows install?

     



  • @superjer said:

    He couldn't figure it out, but I could. From a fresh install of Mint 14. I clicked "Install Anjuta", ran it, clicked "New GTK Project", installed the -dev thing like it recommended, and had the example GUI app built and running in under 5 minutes.

    Is that even possible from a fresh Windows install?

    Herp derp herp derp no because Anjuta doesn't run on Windows and GTK requires another download on Windows and God forbid we talk about actual useful tasks that people want to perform instead of talking about implementation details herp derp derp derp!!!



  •  @blakeyrat said:

    @superjer said:
    He couldn't figure it out, but I could. From a fresh install of Mint 14. I clicked "Install Anjuta", ran it, clicked "New GTK Project", installed the -dev thing like it recommended, and had the example GUI app built and running in under 5 minutes.

    Is that even possible from a fresh Windows install?

    Herp derp herp derp no because Anjuta doesn't run on Windows and GTK requires another download on Windows and God forbid we talk about actual useful tasks that people want to perform instead of talking about implementation details herp derp derp derp!!!

    "Actual useful tasks" like "building a GUI app" but with NO mention of tools used?! What the hell?

    No straw-manning this time: Is it possible to get a GUI app built and running on Windows in under 5 minutes, regardless of "implementation details"?

     



  • @superjer said:

    No straw-manning this time: Is it possible to get a GUI app built and running on Windows in under 5 minutes, regardless of "implementation details"?

    Depends on your internet connection speed. I would say 5 minutes is pretty tight though.



  •  @blakeyrat said:

    @superjer said:
    No straw-manning this time: Is it possible to get a GUI app built and running on Windows in under 5 minutes, regardless of "implementation details"?

    Depends on your internet connection speed. I would say 5 minutes is pretty tight though.

    Well that's almost good to know, but then if I actually wanted to do it, I'd kind of have to ask you: HOW?

    Actually I do want to do it now. How?

    (I just went to download VS for Windows 8 and it's trying to give me an .ISO file. So I'm already a bit worried.)



  • Oh come on, you're being purposefully dense. You know how, don't give me this bullshit. If you have a point to make, then make the fucking point.

    @superjer said:

    (I just went to download VS for Windows 8 and it's trying to give me an .ISO file. So I'm already a bit worried.)

    Download from where? Microsoft will give you a web installer. If you download from Joe's Bargain House of ISOs, then I guess you could get anything.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Oh come on, you're being purposefully dense. You know how, don't give me this bullshit. If you have a point to make, then make the fucking point.

    I promise you I have absolutely no idea how to do it in anything approximating the near future. Last time I installed VS it was a very long process that involved many steps and registration even. It gave me Xcode flashbacks.

    And I clicked a link labelled "Download Now" on microsoft.com/... I guess it was a decoy one.

     



  • @superjer said:

    And I clicked a link labelled "Download Now" on microsoft.com/... I guess it was a decoy one.

    Yes because of course the download link for Visual Studio would be located RIGHT THERE ON MICROSOFT'S HOMEPAGE.

    You're a liar, and not even a good or entertaining one. Fuck off.



  • You obviously missed the ... in "microsoft.com/..."

    The full URL was: http://www.microsoft.com/visualstudio/eng/downloads#d-express-windows-8

    But I was trying to leave out implementation details.

    You really do try hard to strawman every little sentence, don't you?



  • Oh I stand corrected. If you click "download" (which is not the thing you want to do, so why the fuck would you click it? But anyway.) then it does download the .iso. This is the first I've heard of that. It might be new with the 2013 version, actually.

    If you click "install" (the thing you actually want to do), then it downloads a web installer.

    I GUESS IT'S ALL PEBCAK BLAME THE USER LOLORLOLOLORERCYCLE HERP DERP



  • But I did want to download it. Not only was it the first link I saw (it's right there at the bottom like normal) but "Install" links have led me to trouble in the past. I feel safer if I can download an installer. Then I can run it again if I need to without redownloading. I don't know what the "Install" link might do.

    The important thing is that you literally didn't believe me that there was a (surprise, unlabelled, instruction-free) ISO download. That speaks volumes.

    I will actually try the web installer later, I gotta go to dinner.



  • @superjer said:

    See, the difference between you and me is when I have a problem, I don't assume everyone else also has the same problem.  I clicked the little radio button next to "NVIDIA binary driver (proprietary)" and it worked.

    But apparently you're not above assuming that when you have an option, everyone else also has the same option. I had to download a .tgz from nVidia's site and run a binary that somehow managed to get it to work. Granted, on each reboot there was a 50% chance of being stuck at 1024*768 and a 5% chance of just noise on my monitor, but it "worked"? Granted, this was only in 2009, but I've had Windows setups that have been perfectly fine since 2009 so I am blaming this one on Linux.

    If you want to talk about a more "modern" problem, fine. Consider me trying to put Linux on an older PC (circa 2000), what is supposed to be one of Linux's big use cases. The first time through (with Debian because I wanted the install to last) the installer threw up some weird message about not finding a certain file. Googling this message revealed that my network card wanted some "firmware" that wasn't included on this disk, but Debian had a second, unpublicized, install disk that had the magic firmware files. From then on, I've been exclusively using the "magic" disk to install Debian just in case I run into some other hardware that wants firmware, whatever that is. (Windows XP detected that card just fine.)

    Once I had it installed though, it didn't boot, just came up to a black screen. I knew enough about Linux booting at that point to turn off silent mode on the kernel, but I wasn't able to diagnose why it froze even with the kernel messages and Google. I had to ask a friend who gave me the correct incantation "noapic nolapic wingardium leviosa" to make it boot.

    Even then, I still was never able to make X run on it before I got frustrated and decided to just reinstall it's XP.

    So yeah, that was my last major experience with Linux. Magic firmware CDs and magic boot incantations.



  • @MiffTheFox said:

    But apparently you're not above assuming that when you have an option, everyone else also has the same option.

    No. I didn't assume that at all.



  •  OK I ran the web installer and it did this:

    OK no biggie. So I rebooted and went back to the download page, and tried again.

    So now the installer is installing. It's very snazzy looking, but the random CMD.EXE windows that pop up and disappear clash a bit.

    It installed pretty quick (~3 min). But then I needed a product key.

    And for that I needed an account.

    And that required several pages of forms for personal and business contact info. All required. And the last form said if you don't want to give this info click cancel. But that apparently cancelled the whole process, while helpfully sending me to ... the download page for the thing I already installed!

    So I started over and put in lots of fake info. And I got the captcha wrong a couple times interspersed with "that hotmail address isn't available" after I got it right, so I had to do the captcha some moooooore times.

    And then I get my key and copy it in and finally start VS. And:

    "You need a developer license to develop this style of app for Windows 8"

    OK. What style? So I get a license. Whatever that even means.

    I was able to create a new Metro app, but that's not what I want at all. I would like to make a regular GUI app that will work on my Win7 PC as well. But I can't find an option for that anywhere. I'll try more later -- this is tiring.



  • @superjer said:

    "You need a developer license to develop this style of app for Windows 8"

    OK. What style? So I get a license. Whatever that even means.

    I was able to create a new Metro app, but that's not what I want at all. I would like to make a regular GUI app that will work on my Win7 PC as well. But I can't find an option for that anywhere. I'll try more later -- this is tiring.

    You downloaded the wrong version. You shouldn't do C++ development in Eclipse You shouldn't do desktop development in VS Express for Windows 8. You want Visual Studio Express for Windows Desktop.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Blah blah, demonstrably he couldn't get it working, demonstrably he could in Windows without any difficult, that means there is a problem.

    There is a problem, but that problem may be that he's more prone to ridiculous hissy-fits than he was when working with Windows.

    He started by installing Eclipse, an IDE primarily developed for Java work, and was horrified by its "basic, fundamental failure" that it didn't come with C development libraries.

    The problems he's having seem to be a mix of bad assumptions, shitty advice, and a tendency to try to scrap everything and start anew (Eclipse can support C development, but he immediately went looking for another IDE).

    Also, I don't think "demonstrable" means quite what you think it means. There's nothing to suggest he didn't struggle with this when first setting things up in Windows. It may be easy for him now, since it's a familiar process.



  • @MiffTheFox said:

    Hahaha. Obviously you've never tried to get a third-party closed-source driver to work under Linux.
     

    I didn't need to.

    Mint prompted me in a popup that there was a newer ATi module available for my video card, but it was ATi-provided and not part of the normal Mint repos, so if I clicked "yes" then it would download and install a closed-source driver rather than use the community-authored code (and that I shouldn't moan on the Mint forums that something outside of their control and a decision I'd taken was their fault if it didn't work)

    I decided to go for it, let it download and install, then once finished clicked "yes" to restart the graphical desktop, and carried on working with a smoother video experience.

    Pretty painless, really.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Blah blah, demonstrably he couldn't get it working, demonstrably he could in Windows without any difficult, that means there is a problem.
     

     

    After umpteen years of Windows experience & training.

    I can drive a car almost without thinking. if i was to move to another type of vehicle I would not expect to be able to use it immediatly.

    Heck someone who has only ever driven an automatic is going to struggle with a manual transmission for some time.

     



  • superjer:

    A) Don't do the line-by-line quote/answer. It's offensive on the eyes, it comes across as condescending, and it's the absolute minimal effort one can put into a thoughtful response. Quick blurbs and one-word answers are a nice trick to undermine the one you're responding to. And simply proving the opposition wrong does not make you right.

    B) You omitted a few things I pointed out (like which of the dozen distros should I use or the lack of immediate availability of popular software and drivers) while purposely misinterpreted others (yes it makes sense to add "-dev", but how is that intuitive to a new user?)  And from what I've seen of help documentation and user experience, you're one of the only people who considers Linux to be a system where you "click install and you're done". Are you saying you never have to use the command line? Millions of Windows and Mac users have never opened a command prompt.

    I searched for "install Eclipse on Linux", and what I got was page after page of instructions tailored to specific flavors, and every one of them relying on long convoluted command line executions, manually creating paths and setting permissions, and making custom configuration files. Not a single one of them said "click install and you're done".

    Then there's the problem of gaming. I searched for a way to play "Portal 2" on Linux, a very popular game so as to not seem biased. Turns out I'd need Wine installed first, and then after running the game installer I need to take some extra steps replacing files to get around anti-hack protection. Oh and it only apparently works with an NVidia graphics card. Does this all really seem straightforward and intuitive? Do you honestly think a Windows user can have the same experience on a Linux system? And I had to use this one because some of the others I searched didn't run at all on Linux.

    C) I was asked what my issues were with it, and I stand by that. I clearly stated that my opinions were not based on (recent) experience, they were the perception of many people based on what we see from the experiences of others. You're not a new user and I don't think you're properly putting yourself in the perspective of one. And frankly I don't see the point of learning an entirely new system just to do all the same things I currently can do while restricting myself to the market availability of popular software. I don't want to wait weeks or months for someone to develop a driver or patch for something I can use today on a Windows box, and I certainly don't want to be the one undertaking that headache myself.

    If I want to set up an in-home web server, I'll start learning Linux. For day-to-day web browsing, gaming, and application development, Windows provides more variety, simplicity, and immediate availability. Not trying to sound like a cheerleader for it, I'm aware of its many many many flaws. I still get program crashes, the rare BSOD, viruses and anti-virus programs, permissions issues (either too loose, or too tight - like why do I get "permission denied" sometimes when trying to format a USB drive?) Every type of system has its issues, I'll take the devil I know.



  • @ip-guru said:

    I can drive a car almost without thinking....
     

    Is there a "Godwin's With Cars" rule?



  •  Manni_reloaded:

    RE: A) I personally find it a very handy, concise and clear way of doing point-by-point replies, but I guess tastes can differ. Since you've obviously made clear to NOT like it, I won't use it on you (I'm civil like that ;))

    RE: B) I'm going to break this one down for you.
    Which distro: It really depends on what you want it for (compare to Win7, Win8 or WinServer2011 or whatever it's called these days). For new users, I'd always stick with Ubuntu since GENERALLY (yes it has it flaws) it makes most stuff work out of the box.
    Lack of popular software: well, it will OBVIOUSLY lack popular WINDOWS software since, ehm, it's not Windows. Popular Linux software is supported just fine though. And there's the odd cross platform program (LibreOffice, Gimp, Firefox etc.). But if you want to keep using Windows-specific software, my advice would always be: fine, stick with Windows.
    -dev suffix: I don't think new users will go hunting around for development software, unless they're already specialised developers (in which case they should know better than to expect stuff to work exactly like on the other platform).
    I don't think any Linux user will claim to "never have had to use the command line", but I'm willing to bet any Windows user with networking issues will have been asked "can you open a DOS prompt and type ipconfig" by the help technician. Define "never".

    Once you know that software SHOULD be installed via a package manager, you'll realise that yes, manual compilation can be hard, and no, you generally won't have to bother.

    The "problem of gaming": that's like complaining you can't play Mario Kart on your Xbox. It's a WII game, silly! It's different software for a different platform. Not everyone has a PC for gaming, you know.

    RE: C) This is a question of "the right tool for the right job". I'm infinitely more productive on a Linux system since for me, it gives me exactly what I need whereas under Windows I'd have to hunt around for remotely similar tools. If Windows does all you need, fine: use Windows. I'm not trying to convert anyone into using Linux.

    As for "more variety, simplicity and immediate availability": this is all from YOUR perspective, I have the opposite experience. It's just down to what you're used to.



  • @Manni_reloaded said:

    superjer:

    A) Don't do the line-by-line quote/answer. It's offensive on the eyes, it comes across as condescending, and it's the absolute minimal effort one can put into a thoughtful response. Quick blurbs and one-word answers are a nice trick to undermine the one you're responding to. And simply proving the opposition wrong does not make you right.

    It's common practice around here. It's to provide immediate context for replies that respond to several points within a post. Deal with it, cunty.

    @Manni_reloaded said:

    B) You omitted a few things I pointed out (like which of the dozen distros should I use or the lack of immediate availability of popular software and drivers) while purposely misinterpreted others (yes it makes sense to add "-dev", but how is that intuitive to a new user?)  And from what I've seen of help documentation and user experience, you're one of the only people who considers Linux to be a system where you "click install and you're done". Are you saying you never have to use the command line? Millions of Windows and Mac users have never opened a command prompt.

    I searched for "install Eclipse on Linux", and what I got was page after page of instructions tailored to specific flavors, and every
    one of them relying on long convoluted command line executions, manually
    creating paths and setting permissions, and making custom configuration
    files. Not a single one of them said "click install and you're done".

    Developers should be able to cope with -dev packages. This is not an everyday user problem. If you can't cope with a package manager, C and C++ might be a bit of a lofty goal.

    @Manni_reloaded said:

    Then there's the problem of gaming. I searched for a way to play "Portal 2" on Linux, a very popular game
    so as to not seem biased. Turns out I'd need Wine installed first, and
    then after running the game installer I need to take some extra steps
    replacing files to get around anti-hack protection. Oh and it only
    apparently works with an NVidia graphics card. Does this all really seem straightforward and intuitive? Do you honestly think a Windows user can have the same experience on a Linux system? And I had to use this one because some of the others I searched didn't run at all on Linux.

    C) I was asked what my issues were with it, and I stand by that. I clearly stated that my opinions were not based on (recent) experience, they were the perception of many people based on what we see from the experiences of others. You're not a new user and I don't think you're properly putting yourself in the perspective of one. And frankly I don't see the point of learning an entirely new system just to do all the same things I currently can do while restricting myself to the market availability of popular software. I don't want to wait weeks or months for someone to develop a driver or patch for something I can use today on a Windows box, and I certainly don't want to be the one undertaking that headache myself.

    Running Windows software on Linux is hard, though perhaps less difficult than running Linux software on Windows. Quelle suprise!

    @Manni_reloaded said:

    If I want to set up an in-home web server, I'll start learning Linux. For day-to-day web browsing, gaming, and application development, Windows provides more variety, simplicity, and immediate availability. Not trying to sound like a cheerleader for it, I'm aware of its many many many flaws. I still get program crashes, the rare BSOD, viruses and anti-virus programs, permissions issues (either too loose, or too tight - like why do I get "permission denied" sometimes when trying to format a USB drive?) Every type of system has its issues, I'll take the devil I know.

    To summarise "I like Windows and I'm more comfortable with it". Fine, keep using it.



  • @Cassidy said:

    @MiffTheFox said:

    Hahaha. Obviously you've never tried to get a third-party closed-source driver to work under Linux.
     

    I didn't need to.

    Mint prompted me in a popup that there was a newer ATi module available for my video card, but it was ATi-provided and not part of the normal Mint repos, so if I clicked "yes" then it would download and install a closed-source driver rather than use the community-authored code (and that I shouldn't moan on the Mint forums that something outside of their control and a decision I'd taken was their fault if it didn't work)

    I decided to go for it, let it download and install, then once finished clicked "yes" to restart the graphical desktop, and carried on working with a smoother video experience.

    Pretty painless, really.

    On the flipside, my Mint install didn't suggest me anything. I installed the Nvidia closed source drivers because I already knew how to search the repos for them.

    Also, I had a problem with sound where I could only hear sound if I set my volume over 60 % or some high value like that. This was because of the mess that are sound subsystems in Linux. PulseAudio is a sound server operating as a plugin over another sound server (ALSA) which deals with the hardware. The configuration was set in a way that moving PulseAudio's graphical volume slider was setting both a software ("PCM") and hardware ("Master") volumes in ALSA, with the former reaching zero way before it should. I had to edit a couple of text configuration files after some searching around on the webs. Now the hardware volume is never changed and the software volume is controlable.

    This is with the most recent version of Mint (Nadia). On the other hand, my pen modem and wireless card worked flawlessly without any intervention at all.

     



  • @Manni_reloaded said:

    I searched for "install Eclipse on Linux", and what I got was page after page of instructions tailored to specific flavors, and every
    one of them relying on long convoluted command line executions, manually
    creating paths and setting permissions, and making custom configuration
    files. Not a single one of them said "click install and you're done".

    First off, compiling is the only way to install something on "Linux". Ubuntu and Debian use debs, Fedora uses rpms, and several lesser-known distros have their own installer formats. Maybe if every distro going forward started using debs and apt, but even then standard libraries have to be, well, standardized so that cross-platform binaries are a thing.

    First result for install Eclipse on Linux was a user providing the directions becuase the latest Eclipse wasn't in the App Store Canonical's repositories.

    The second result is the Eclipse wiki, which implies a "download and extract" tgz on the linked download page (also the third result). After downloading it it appears the result is just a binary with supporting files, not source. No idea if it actually works on Linux, let alone an obscure distro, but I'll give them balls for trying to distribute a binary instead of the source. Interestingly, the Eclipse download page offers an "Eclipse IDE for C/C++ Developers".

    Fourth result is similar to the first. "The Eclipse packages in Ubuntu are are very out of date. " This one is from 2011 though, indicating that Ubuntu software is still stale.

    This is actually part of the reason I switched away from Linux on the desktop. Back when I used it in '09, I cared about ICQ for some reason or another, and needed to stay on my toes with Pidgin updates since they were trying to keep third party clients out. Since Ubuntu's repos didn't ever have the latest version (I was running a year-old install so my repo was depricated), I had to compile from source. Pidgin however, wouldn't build without a newer libssl, libssl wouldn't build without Mono (!?), and Mono wouldn't build with some cryptic error message that Google didn't find what it meant. When I finally figured out how to dist-upgrade it broke my audio drivers and I just decided 'fuck this'.

    Honestly, I think though that people should say Ubuntu instead of Linux. Unrelatedly, since Valve's bringing Steam to "Linux" when they mean Ubuntu, I wonder if it's possible to sue them for false advertising when their stuff doesn't work in Arch/Gentoo/whatever.



  • @MiffTheFox said:

    Honestly, I think though that people should say Ubuntu instead of Linux. Unrelatedly, since Valve's bringing Steam to "Linux" when they mean Ubuntu, I wonder if it's possible to sue them for false advertising when their stuff doesn't work in Arch/Gentoo/whatever.

    If the Linux community had any sense, they'd realize the window manager is the OS, and have only three of them: Gnome, KDE, and "there be dragons here".

    There's no point in having more than one distro with Gnome, or more than one with KDE with the only difference between the logo and implementation details nobody can see or give a shit about.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @MiffTheFox said:
    Honestly, I think though that people should say Ubuntu instead of Linux. Unrelatedly, since Valve's bringing Steam to "Linux" when they mean Ubuntu, I wonder if it's possible to sue them for false advertising when their stuff doesn't work in Arch/Gentoo/whatever.

    If the Linux community had any sense, they'd realize the window manager is the OS, and have only three of them: Gnome, KDE, and "there be dragons here".

    There's no point in having more than one distro with Gnome, or more than one with KDE with the only difference between the logo and implementation details nobody can see or give a shit about.

    Debian and Fedora both use Gnome. I can't take a deb from Debian and install it on Fedora, but Debian debs work fine in Ubuntu (Unity), Kubuntu (KDE), and any other fork of Debian or Ubuntu, regardless of package, manager.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    If the Linux community had any sense, they'd realize the window manager *is* the OS
     

    What, wait, just WHAT? I think I see why we'll never understand each other, we just have a totally different sense of what "an operating system" actually entails. Anyway, good luck on running all your embedded systems using a "window manager"....

     



  • @Monomelodies said:

    What, wait, just WHAT? I think I see why we'll never understand each other, we just have a totally different sense of what "an operating system" actually entails.

    The window manager is the thing the user sees 100% of the time and interacts with 100% of the time. If Ubuntu ran on the WinNT kernel instead of Linux kernel, would anybody notice or care? No. Because it doesn't matter.

    One of the problems with the Linux community are they they think all these stupid pointless implementation details actually matter. They don't. Even the fucking KERNEL is an implementation detail-- it only matters that it has enough flexibility to write drivers for any piece of hardware you can imagine and has a filesystem that doesn't crash every 8 hours. Well, both Windows and Linux has that, so what does it matter which you use? Nothing. (Well, except WinNT has a better permissions system and better memory management. But generally speaking, both kernels are well above the minimum required.)

    @Monomelodies said:

    Anyway, good luck on running all your embedded systems using a "window manager"....

    What are you talking about? No wait. Don't answer that. I don't care.



  • @MiffTheFox said:

    First off, compiling is the only way to install something on "Linux".

    Rubbish, as you even mention in the next sentence:

    @MiffTheFox said:

    Ubuntu and Debian use debs, Fedora uses rpms, and several lesser-known distros have their own installer formats.

    Compiling is the only way to transform source code into executable binary code. Package managers (including Windows add/remove programs and InstallShield stuff) take precompiled binaries along with associated dependencies (libraries) and place them in specific locations, optionally updating a database to maintain a record of what is installed and where.

    @blakeyrat said:

    If the Linux community had any sense, they'd realize the window manager *is* the OS, and have only three of them: Gnome, KDE, and "there be dragons here".

    Utter rubbish. The window manager is a graphical system dropped on top of the OS, and there are considerably more than the three you listed there.

    Blakey, stick to talking about Windows stuff. You only embarrass yourself when you start to dip your toe into areas outside of your knowledge levels.


Log in to reply