FSCK thinks system has been started thousands of times
-
So, I've just installed ubuntu. The live CD tells me to restart. I restart. I get this:
System has booted 409567 times without checking
fsck
[========================= ] 75%
WTF?!11!one!1eleven?
-
@Mal1024's signature said:
SELECT * FROM TAGS WHERE TAG_ABUSE=0
ERROR: No tables returned.I'm with you on this one. The level of tag abuse on this site is quite astonishing. However, I would be a lot more concerned if "
SELECT * FROM TAGS …" were to return tables. Generally, the SELECT command returns rows.
-
Corrupted superblock.
-
I would be worried if a modern OS manages to corrupt a freshly-formatted hard drive partition during an install. Did the cat pull out any cables during the process?
-
@Daniel Beardsmore said:
I would be worried if a modern OS manages to corrupt a freshly-formatted hard drive partition during an install. Did the cat pull out any cables during the process?
I'd bet on a drive, cable, or controller fault.
-
well it wasn't the connection that did it.
BTW the check found 5 errors and fixed 'em all.
-
Worked for me, then I discovered you have to explicitly enable the root user unless you want to sudo everything (wtf). So I enabled it only to be told that I cant log in to the GUI as root (WTF!). That's right, if you want to use Ubuntu's "user-friendly" interface you need to type in your password every time.
As far as their no-root "security" policy goes I have this to say... Bitch if I wanted my OS to tell me what I can and can't do, I'd be using Windows. At least you don't need a BSc to use it.
-
Ubuntu no root?
areuh?
I recently installed it, so I'm continuously curious about its intricacies.
-
@DOA said:
Worked for me, then I discovered you have to explicitly enable the root user unless you want to sudo everything (wtf). So I enabled it only to be told that I cant log in to the GUI as root (WTF!). That's right, if you want to use Ubuntu's "user-friendly" interface you need to type in your password every time.
As far as their no-root "security" policy goes I have this to say... Bitch if I wanted my OS to tell me what I can and can't do, I'd be using Windows. At least you don't need a BSc to use it.
If you want to be able to log in as a user where every program that runs has full permission to kill your pc, you should be using windows.
Any GUI apps that need root permissions will prompt you for your password anyway, so it's not like you need to explicitly use a console and use sudo.
-
@DOA said:
Worked for me, then I discovered you have to explicitly enable the root user unless you want to sudo everything (wtf). So I enabled it only to be told that I cant log in to the GUI as root (WTF!). That's right, if you want to use Ubuntu's "user-friendly" interface you need to type in your password every time.
As far as their no-root "security" policy goes I have this to say... Bitch if I wanted my OS to tell me what I can and can't do, I'd be using Windows. At least you don't need a BSc to use it.
For %99 of the things you do, you won't need to be root. Also logging in as root is considered bad practice. I remember suse 7.0 had this cool background full of red bombs if you logged in as root :)
Having said that, just open a terminal and type "sudo -s", it simply opens a new shell with root permissions
-
@Mal1024 said:
well it wasn't the connection that did it.
BTW the check found 5 errors and fixed 'em all.
Yeah when I installed Ubuntu i saw the same thing.. partition hasn't been mounted for some stupidly long amount of time, checking.. found errors, scared the hell out of me, errors were corrected.
I took the leap of faith and crossed my fingers that everything was okay and to this date it's been good... I agree it's a bit of a WTF and would scare the crap out of any new linux users.
-
@DOA said:
So I enabled it only to be told that I cant log in to the GUI as root (WTF!).
It is really stupid to run your window manager as root, and pound-me-in-the-arse stupid to run firefox as root.
-
What the fsck ?
<runs>
-
Looks like someone never heard of "sudo su".
If you want to log in as root in gdm, edit /etc/gdm/gdm.conf and set "AllowRoot" to "true".
Ubuntu doesn't force you to do something in a certain way, it's just configured for good security. If some software doesn't have to run as root, you shouldn't run it as root.
-
@Daniel Beardsmore said:
@Mal1024's signature said:
SELECT * FROM TAGS WHERE TAG_ABUSE=0
ERROR: No tables returned.I'm with you on this one. The level of tag abuse on this site is quite astonishing. However, I would be a lot more concerned if "
SELECT * FROM TAGS …" were to return tables. Generally, the SELECT command returns rows.Naw baby, the result of a select command can always be considered a table. Only one though.
-
<Cannot believe I'm doing this>
The real WTF is that some n00b wants to run his GUI as root
</Cannot believe I'm doing this>
-
@asuffield said:
@DOA said:
So I enabled it only to be told that I cant log in to the GUI as root (WTF!).
It is really stupid to run your window manager as root, and pound-me-in-the-arse stupid to run firefox as root.
Or I could do it your way and type my password EVERY SINGLE TIME I need to update a library. And if you think updating libraries is rare, try installing mplayer in a new installation of Ubuntu.
You could of course use the console, but if I wanted to do it that way I wouldn't have chosen Ubuntu with its "user-friendly" interface.
-
@DOA said:
Or I could do it your way and type my password EVERY SINGLE TIME I need to update a library. And if you think updating libraries is rare, try installing mplayer in a new installation of Ubuntu.
You could of course use the console, but if I wanted to do it that way I wouldn't have chosen Ubuntu with its "user-friendly" interface.
That's got to be a troll. When I was having issues with video playback (red/blue swapped iirc, damn ATI X1900 card) I tried installing vlc and mplayer, and I only had to put my password in once, when running the "add/remove software" app in the menu.
Yes, updating libraries is rare. Yes, you should have to confirm that you trust the program that's changing them. Half-decent security practices are pretty much the only thing keeping viruses off linux.
-
@DOA said:
@asuffield said:
@DOA said:
So I enabled it only to be told that I cant log in to the GUI as root (WTF!).
It is really stupid to run your window manager as root, and pound-me-in-the-arse stupid to run firefox as root.
Or I could do it your way and type my password EVERY SINGLE TIME I need to update a library.
One of us knows how to configure sudo. I think I know which one it is.
-
@asuffield said:
@DOA said:
@asuffield said:
@DOA said:
So I enabled it only to be told that I cant log in to the GUI as root (WTF!).
It is really stupid to run your window manager as root, and pound-me-in-the-arse stupid to run firefox as root.
Or I could do it your way and type my password EVERY SINGLE TIME I need to update a library.
One of us knows how to configure sudo. I think I know which one it is.
And one of us doesn't want to. He just wants his OS to shut up and do what it's told like the old redhat and mandrake days. If I want to run software as root that will destroy my HDD, erase the bios and make my screen explode in a million lethal shards, that is my problem.
I don't want to spend my time configuring a supposedly user-friendly version of linux. I want it to accept the fact that as a root user I know wth I'm doing. And to answer all the concerns I've heard about using the GUI as root, I should point out that this was on an ancient, useless, expendable P400 system that I was messing around with as an experiment. Even if I managed to catch a linux virus from ubuntu's site (!) that managed to render the machine irreversibly damaged (!), then so be it. I'm fully aware of the risks, I just need Ubuntu to stop trying to help and do what it's told. Like I said, if I needed help, I'd be using Windows.
On a side note I'd like to thank people that tried to help as opposed to the ones trying to prove their superiority by just calling my approach stupid.
-
@DOA said:
@asuffield said:
One of us knows how to configure sudo. I think I know which one it is.
And one of us doesn't want to. He just wants his OS to shut up and do what it's told like the old redhat and mandrake days.
This is so funny it's front-page-worthy. "I don't want to tell it what to do, I want it to do what it's told"
IAnd to answer all the concerns I've heard about using the GUI as root, I should point out that this was on an ancient, useless, expendable P400 system that I was messing around with as an experiment. Even if I managed to catch a linux virus from ubuntu's site (!) that managed to render the machine irreversibly damaged (!), then so be it. I'm fully aware of the risks
"I'm fully aware of the risks, it's my choice to drive at 90mph though a built-up area with a hundred kilos of nitro on the back seat of my car - I don't mind if my car gets damaged, it's not worth much"
Get off the roads, get off the internet, and I hope you get thrown into jail because you're a danger to the rest of society.
-
@DOA said:
@asuffield said:
@DOA said:
@asuffield said:
@DOA said:
So I enabled it only to be told that I cant log in to the GUI as root (WTF!).
It is really stupid to run your window manager as root, and pound-me-in-the-arse stupid to run firefox as root.
Or I could do it your way and type my password EVERY SINGLE TIME I need to update a library.
One of us knows how to configure sudo. I think I know which one it is.
And one of us doesn't want to. He just wants his OS to shut up and do what it's told like the old redhat and mandrake days. If I want to run software as root that will destroy my HDD, erase the bios and make my screen explode in a million lethal shards, that is my problem.
I don't want to spend my time configuring a supposedly user-friendly version of linux. I want it to accept the fact that as a root user I know wth I'm doing. And to answer all the concerns I've heard about using the GUI as root, I should point out that this was on an ancient, useless, expendable P400 system that I was messing around with as an experiment. Even if I managed to catch a linux virus from ubuntu's site (!) that managed to render the machine irreversibly damaged (!), then so be it. I'm fully aware of the risks, I just need Ubuntu to stop trying to help and do what it's told. Like I said, if I needed help, I'd be using Windows.
On a side note I'd like to thank people that tried to help as opposed to the ones trying to prove their superiority by just calling my approach stupid.
stopping a user from accidentally doing something damaging or running programs that have to much control for no reason is actually a pretty huge usability feature. If Microsoft could figure out a way to stop 90% of malware infections they would be overjoyed to advertise all over their box. If you wanted complete control over everything in your system and for it to just accept you as god of all creation why the fuck are you using ubuntu? You do realize that that distro was not created for that type of use.... right?
-
@asuffield said:
@DOA said:
@asuffield said:
One of us knows how to configure sudo. I think I know which one it is.
And one of us doesn't want to. He just wants his OS to shut up and do what it's told like the old redhat and mandrake days.
This is so funny it's front-page-worthy. "I don't want to tell it what to do, I want it to do what it's told"
IAnd to answer all the concerns I've heard about using the GUI as root, I should point out that this was on an ancient, useless, expendable P400 system that I was messing around with as an experiment. Even if I managed to catch a linux virus from ubuntu's site (!) that managed to render the machine irreversibly damaged (!), then so be it. I'm fully aware of the risks
"I'm fully aware of the risks, it's my choice to drive at 90mph though a built-up area with a hundred kilos of nitro on the back seat of my car - I don't mind if my car gets damaged, it's not worth much"
Get off the roads, get off the internet, and I hope you get thrown into jail because you're a danger to the rest of society.
So risking damage to an ancient machine that I own is equivalent to driving "90mph though a built-up area with a hundred kilos of nitro on the back seat of my car"? And I should be thrown to jail?
Would you be so kind as to explain why that is? And please spare me the argument about the PC becoming a zombie. After the updates it would be put off the net.
-
@tster said:
@DOA said:
@asuffield said:
@DOA said:
@asuffield said:
@DOA said:
So I enabled it only to be told that I cant log in to the GUI as root (WTF!).
It is really stupid to run your window manager as root, and pound-me-in-the-arse stupid to run firefox as root.
Or I could do it your way and type my password EVERY SINGLE TIME I need to update a library.
One of us knows how to configure sudo. I think I know which one it is.
And one of us doesn't want to. He just wants his OS to shut up and do what it's told like the old redhat and mandrake days. If I want to run software as root that will destroy my HDD, erase the bios and make my screen explode in a million lethal shards, that is my problem.
I don't want to spend my time configuring a supposedly user-friendly version of linux. I want it to accept the fact that as a root user I know wth I'm doing. And to answer all the concerns I've heard about using the GUI as root, I should point out that this was on an ancient, useless, expendable P400 system that I was messing around with as an experiment. Even if I managed to catch a linux virus from ubuntu's site (!) that managed to render the machine irreversibly damaged (!), then so be it. I'm fully aware of the risks, I just need Ubuntu to stop trying to help and do what it's told. Like I said, if I needed help, I'd be using Windows.
On a side note I'd like to thank people that tried to help as opposed to the ones trying to prove their superiority by just calling my approach stupid.
stopping a user from accidentally doing something damaging or running programs that have to much control for no reason is actually a pretty huge usability feature. If Microsoft could figure out a way to stop 90% of malware infections they would be overjoyed to advertise all over their box. If you wanted complete control over everything in your system and for it to just accept you as god of all creation why the fuck are you using ubuntu? You do realize that that distro was not created for that type of use.... right?
But I'm not using Ubuntu, it got the boot after I found out it wasn't for me. I had no idea of this "feature" when I first installed it. It's not like they advertise it in bold letters on their site and I'm not going through a whole book about an OS before I try it. The whole point of my original post is that at least to me, a linux system that doesn't accept the root user as god was a new (and wtf-worthy) concept. After spending years working with an OS that has no problem letting you tweak its own kernel, locking root out of the GUI by default was really strange to me.
-
@DOA said:
@tster said:
@DOA said:
@asuffield said:
@DOA said:
@asuffield said:
@DOA said:
So I enabled it only to be told that I cant log in to the GUI as root (WTF!).
It is really stupid to run your window manager as root, and pound-me-in-the-arse stupid to run firefox as root.
Or I could do it your way and type my password EVERY SINGLE TIME I need to update a library.
One of us knows how to configure sudo. I think I know which one it is.
And one of us doesn't want to. He just wants his OS to shut up and do what it's told like the old redhat and mandrake days. If I want to run software as root that will destroy my HDD, erase the bios and make my screen explode in a million lethal shards, that is my problem.
I don't want to spend my time configuring a supposedly user-friendly version of linux. I want it to accept the fact that as a root user I know wth I'm doing. And to answer all the concerns I've heard about using the GUI as root, I should point out that this was on an ancient, useless, expendable P400 system that I was messing around with as an experiment. Even if I managed to catch a linux virus from ubuntu's site (!) that managed to render the machine irreversibly damaged (!), then so be it. I'm fully aware of the risks, I just need Ubuntu to stop trying to help and do what it's told. Like I said, if I needed help, I'd be using Windows.
On a side note I'd like to thank people that tried to help as opposed to the ones trying to prove their superiority by just calling my approach stupid.
stopping a user from accidentally doing something damaging or running programs that have to much control for no reason is actually a pretty huge usability feature. If Microsoft could figure out a way to stop 90% of malware infections they would be overjoyed to advertise all over their box. If you wanted complete control over everything in your system and for it to just accept you as god of all creation why the fuck are you using ubuntu? You do realize that that distro was not created for that type of use.... right?
But I'm not using Ubuntu, it got the boot after I found out it wasn't for me. I had no idea of this "feature" when I first installed it. It's not like they advertise it in bold letters on their site and I'm not going through a whole book about an OS before I try it. The whole point of my original post is that at least to me, a linux system that doesn't accept the root user as god was a new (and wtf-worthy) concept. After spending years working with an OS that has no problem letting you tweak its own kernel, locking root out of the GUI by default was really strange to me.
I suppose it's trying to stop Ubuntu from becoming the next XP. You know, with everybody logging in as root (or administrator) becaues it's more convenient for them.
-
I think we're confusing several issues here, including system security and user protection.
I have a firm belief that a computer is a tool, and a toy. It's a machine created by people to do our bidding, to entertain us. We joke about the idea that machines may one day rise against us, but I think that point has already long since come.
I suppose it would be nice if every time we tried to hit a nail with a hammer, the hammer stopped and asked us "Are you sure I'm not going to hit your thumb?" and we'd get to check the path of motion to see that no, it was headed for the nail, and continue.
Computers are supposed to do what we tell them. Microsoft have a very bad reputation for guessing when we're about to do harm. Apple's approach was much more successful, but plenty of people will still deny that Apple have reached the point where the machine's artificial intelligence is suitably transparent. Until we reach a point where people have discovered a way to endow a computer with the ability to learn and grow and understand the user, the choice will always be between annoying messages and the danger of causing harm. There's no way out of this. Generally, I prefer the computer to just do as it's told and not question me unless it has very good reason to do so. (The ability to undo changes to the system would be interesting though, but that's a complex issue for another day.)
However, this all only works under relatively special conditions. Mac OS 9 fits them perfectly -- single user (who needs more?), no remote attack vectors (apps commuicate via IPC so no need for open ports) and the user base is so small that no-one cares about writing viruses for it any more. (There are all of, what, 20 Mac viruses?) The fact that my Mac unquestioningly obeys me at all times must contribute to why I've loved it so much. I don't need tools that answer back and refuse to co-operate.
Other systems however are a bigger target. Windows, because of its prevalence. Linux, most likely because it's a dominant server platform. That's where you start having problems with malware, and the fear that the instructions the computer is receiving are not authorised by the user.
There are different angles to this, too. My approach is to run Windows as Administrator-level at all times, but behind a NAT router at all times. That keeps out the really dangerous offenders -- worms. I don't run Internet Explorer or Outlook Express (except for special circumstances) so I eliminate other large attack vectors. I'm extremely careful about what software I download and run, and if I'm really uncertain about its safety I will virus check it, although I don't have real-time scanning -- I consider it a waste of money and performance on my ancient PC. (Anyone remember real-time scanning on a 486? Now that was painful.)
I've kept this up safely for three years. In the mean time, I've been helping a friend in the US -- one of his friends has a PC that was dreadfully infested with garbage. That sort of situation brings home why so many people just cannot be left alone with a Windows computer: they are going to get into a mess. And it's not just viruses any more that threaten us, but identity theft and fraud.
Linux seems to be stradding the middle. I'm told that Linux has more viruses than Windows, but I've never seen evidence that desktop Linux is a credible target yet. Servers, very definitely, and some bad guys may not differentiate. I've even had someone try to hack my Mac, I think (since it is a server), but I'd already discovered, by myself, that hole and patched it and written about it.
Of course, as people above say: part of the problem simply is badly-designed software. We had some open-access iMacs at university and I wanted to put DivX onto one of them. No go. The DivX software has to be installed with admin permissions, probably because the developers never considered that someone might want DivX on their own user account and not the whole system. (Mac OS X makes extensive provisions for deep configuration of accounts independently of the system.) StuffIt I believe, also, has to install as admin. MSN Messenger 8 in Windows, had to be installed as admin.
The sooner people learn to truly understand the difference between user and system configuration, and setting inheritance control, we can make progress. Last I saw, the presence and appearance of the Fast User Switching menu in OS X -- whether it's a name or an icon -- is a global setting, so if any user alters it, everyone gets the new appearance. That makes no sense at all. No sense at all.
-
@DOA said:
And please spare me the argument about the PC becoming a zombie. After the updates it would be put off the net.
"I'm a good driver, I won't hit anything while I'm going through the town and after that I'll be out in the middle of nowhere, so it's fine"
Please die in a great big chemical fire. You are what is wrong with society.
-
@asuffield said:
@DOA said:
And please spare me the argument about the PC becoming a zombie. After the updates it would be put off the net.
"I'm
a good driver, I won't hit anything while I'm going through the town
and after that I'll be out in the middle of nowhere, so it's fine"Please die in a great big chemical fire. You are what is wrong with society.
Yup,
of all the bad things in the world (mass murders, rapes, torture, etc)
I'm what's wrong with society. Don't tell anyone where I am, Interpol
is already hunting me down.Please do us all a favour and don't reproduce.
-
@asuffield said:
Corrupted superblock.
@asuffield said:
One of us knows how to configure sudo. I think I know which one it is.
<hints id="hah_hints"></hints>@asuffield said:
Get off the roads, get off the internet, and I hope you get thrown into jail because you're a danger to the rest of society.
<hints id="hah_hints"></hints>Amazing. For every question from a frustrated or confused user, you have a clear, concise, and thoroughly useless answer. Congratulations, you are the reason why Linux will never see widespread adoption.
All of your responses sound exactly the same. The system is working. The system is fine. The system can do no wrong. It is always your (the user's) fault. If you don't know how to do something, or why something isn't working, then dammit, start reading the source code and learn how the system works, stupid!
Even Eric Raymond has admitted that the usability of Linux systems is, essentially, crap. You've spent years and years and years writing the perfect kernel with ultimate configurability and superb security. Wonderful - now make it into a product that ordinary people - including developers who just want to write code and not battle with the OS, AND their moms and their wives - can actually use.
And if you're going to parade Ubuntu around like it's a true revolution in Linux user-friendliness, maybe you should listen hard to the people who say that it's, uh, not very user-friendly. Otherwise it's just going to end up doomed to obscurity like all the other distros.
For the record, I used Linux for a full two years at home. I understood the commands. I basically understood the error messages. I understood how to compile and install from source tarballs. I just got sick of the grind, of the ridiculous amount of effort I had to put in just to get things to work the way they were supposed to. Can I pore over source code and atrocious documentation and google groups posts in order to get my screen resolution as high as I know it can go? Sure. Do I think it's worth the time and effort, when Windows seems to be able to do it automatically? No! Not all of us have endless time to spend arguing with a terminal console or breaking our wrists trying to figure out how the hell to save a file in vi/emacs.
You are entitled to your OS preferences. Just try to keep in mind that some of us have better things to do than fuss over sudo and superblocks. Forget speeding in a school zone; people like you think that we should all have to know how to do our own alignments and brake jobs before we're allowed to drive around in circles in the abandoned factory parking lot.
-
@Aaron said:
Wonderful - now make it into a product that ordinary people - including developers who just want to write code and not battle with the OS, AND their moms and their wives - can actually use.
Hear hear! Absolutely. (To the entire post!)
-
@Aaron said:
All of your responses sound exactly the same. The system is working. The system is fine. The system can do no wrong. It is always your (the user's) fault. If you don't know how to do something, or why something isn't working, then dammit, start reading the source code and learn how the system works, stupid!
That would be because this user is an dangerous idiot. Pandering to idiots only encourages them. You need to discourage them instead.
Do I think it's worth the time and effort, when Windows seems to be able to do it automatically?
You must be using a different Windows to the rest of us. Where can I find this wonderful product? I desperately need to replace the awful crud that Microsoft supplied for our office systems, it is wasting a great deal of my time.
-
Who let all the uninformed crybabies out onto WTF?
@DOA said:
Whine whine Ubuntu doesn't let me run the GUI as root
You know, you bitch about wanting an OS to do what you want and to be able to configure it, yet you complain when you have to edit a single line in the gdm configuration file, which is helpfully pointed in the GDM documentation in the off chance you wanted to saw off your own foot.
We've known for years now that X is not safe to run as root or to run SUID root (for a whole bunch of reasons I won't go into here). It's why we don't use startx anymore, and use GDM or a login manager. So you're going to bitch that Ubuntu is secure by default? Hello! Nearly every linux distro (and FreeBSD, and OSX) has been configured this way for like 5 years or more.
@Daniel Beardsmore said:
I like to run as administrator and hate dialogs that tell me when I might be doing something stupid
What's was good for Mac OS Classic was acceptable back in the days when web browsers didn't have the capability to open files on your hard disk with javascript. We don't do that anymore. We have websites out there with hackers trying to cross-site-script a dead drop that will turn your computer into a spam zombie. Your computer could be doing that right now without your knowledge. How helpful that you run as Administrator... it makes installing rootkits and hidden services remotely easy!
Remember, you don't have to download a program or even run it. They just have to have a firefox XPCOM exploit or an IE ActiveX exploit that gets their foot in the door, and then you're fucked. Just one slipup. Just one malicious ad banner or poorly coded forum with embedded IFRAMES, and you being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
At least if you run as an unpriviledged user, you can contain the damage (simply log out and log in as another user...).
And running behind a NAT router is completely unrelated to what user you login as; with a default install your Windows computer is ALWAYS running vulnerable background services whether you're logged in or not. You _need_ a firewall between you and the internet, period.
So, uh, welcome to the 21st century, bucko.
@Aaron said:
Linux sucks. I want everyone to give me everything for free, and I shouldn't have to troubleshoot anything. Also, every video card manufacturer should open all of their documentation so the X.org guys can write a driver which properly detects the resolution of my monitor
So don't use it. Use Windows, please.
We won't miss you. Christ...
-
Sometimes it would be great to realise that I'm only imagining the shit I see on Internet forums, and that it's all in my mind and my mis-perceptions. But you've paraphrased me above disguised as a quote (not acceptable) and there are explicit wishes for jailing and death. I think that any thread that has descended to this level ought to be thrown out and preferably certain people in it -- anyone who states a desire for the death of another forum member.
-
@Daniel Beardsmore said:
Sometimes it would be great to realise that I'm only imagining the shit I see on Internet forums, and that it's all in my mind and my mis-perceptions. But you've paraphrased me above disguised as a quote (not acceptable) and there are explicit wishes for jailing and death. I think that any thread that has descended to this level ought to be thrown out and preferably certain people in it -- anyone who states a desire for the death of another forum member.
Please don't criticise the beloved linux platform, or you will get death threats. Ask any IT journalist.
Unfortunately fanaticism tends to breed that kind of thought process, whether the ideology happens to be a religion or an operating system. Fanatics become 'one-issue' people - they define their lives by it and that's all they can talk about. Then they get mightily pissed off when criticised or when nobody else really gives a damn about their issue and just want to get on with their lives.
Don't worry folks, I'm diving into a vat of boiling oil right now just to keep everybody happy.
*sizzle*
-
@Daniel Beardsmore said:
But you've paraphrased me above disguised as a quote (not acceptable)
I thought it was funny.
@Daniel Beardsmore said:
and there are explicit wishes for jailing and death.
That's called sarcasm. Also, there should be an internet drivers' license (eye roll)
@Daniel Beardsmore said:
I think that any thread that has descended to this level ought to be thrown out and preferably certain people in it -- anyone who states a desire for the death of another forum member.
Please remove that large stick from your asshole. Thanks.
-
From my perspective? It's not the criticism that issue is taken with. It's uninformed whining (in the guise of literate criticism) that is very frustrating. It usually comes down to a configuration management issue that wouldn't be an issue in the first place if the user was some kind of network or unix administrator. I don't think this will ever really change... and I don't know why anyone expects it will. Look to groups like Ubuntu or LinuXP or PCBSD to come up with alternate approaches to solving those problems.
Don't confuse me for a mouth breather on the Gentoo forums or anything. When I get pissy on operating system issues, it's because the level of ignorance and arrogance has reached my coping threshold.
And don't drag those comparisons to religious fanaticism out here. That just muddles real communication issues with a charged and flawed analogy.
-
Great, now I've started a flame war.
-
-
@kirchhoff said:
From my perspective? It's not the criticism that issue is taken with. It's uninformed whining (in the guise of literate criticism) that is very frustrating. It usually comes down to a configuration management issue that wouldn't be an issue in the first place if the user was some kind of network or unix administrator. I don't think this will ever really change... and I don't know why anyone expects it will. Look to groups like Ubuntu or LinuXP or PCBSD to come up with alternate approaches to solving those problems.
Don't confuse me for a mouth breather on the Gentoo forums or anything. When I get pissy on operating system issues, it's because the level of ignorance and arrogance has reached my coping threshold.
And don't drag those comparisons to religious fanaticism out here. That just muddles real communication issues with a charged and flawed analogy.
Actually I was more taking issue with the poster wishing people to die or go to jail, simply because they don't like linux.
Your post was OK, although you still conveyed a nice little 'us vs them' mentality with that 'We won't miss you' crack.
My analogy was hardly flawed - fanaticism is fanaticism regardless of the source. Religion was just an obvious example. Getting pissed of with somebody just "muddies the communication" more than my stupid throwaway comparison does.
To quote Rodney King: "Can't we all just get along?"
On topic: Unfortunately linux requires a level of knowledge that most people don't have or are not interested in. To many people, a computer is a tool and they just want to get their work done. You or I are willing to tinker with it because computers are probably one of our hobbies, but Aunt Flo just wants to surf the web and compose email, not recompile her kernel or faff around with config scripts to get a program running.
That agenda that is out there of trying to push linux onto the masses will never work until it becomes useable, and unfortunately that means dumbed down and a lot of this shit automated. Or maybe more to the point, the application developers out there writing for linux not assuming that the target audience is geeks and providing an easy setup.
-
@Daniel Beardsmore said:
I suppose it would be nice if every time we tried to hit a nail with a hammer, the hammer stopped and asked us "Are you sure I'm not going to hit your thumb?" and we'd get to check the path of motion to see that no, it was headed for the nail, and continue.
when you hit your thumb with a hammer, you get immediate feedback that it was a pretty bad idea not to be concentrating enough, so you try not to do it in future. when <user>'s computer gets infected with trojan du jour, and starts spewing out spam and viral code, do they get any such feedback? in my last job i saw a long stream of repeat offenders, who just keep on getting infected because they never learned. stuff like that is fun for everyone.
@Daniel Beardsmore said:
Of course, as people above say: part of the problem simply is badly-designed software. We had some open-access iMacs at university and I wanted to put DivX onto one of them. No go. The DivX software has to be installed with admin permissions, probably because the developers never considered that someone might want DivX on their own user account and not the whole system. (Mac OS X makes extensive provisions for deep configuration of accounts independently of the system.) StuffIt I believe, also, has to install as admin. MSN Messenger 8 in Windows, had to be installed as admin.
isn't that's the way things should be? either the user knows the admin password, in which case they can install the software, or they don't, in which case they have no reason whatsoever to be modifying the system. none.
anyway, returning to the original topic...if you want to carry out advanced configuration tasks, you should expect to jump through some hoops -- even if you know what you're doing, there will be plenty of users who don't, so it makes sense for the protections to be there. the guard rail on a bridge might be a bit of a hindrance when you have to climb over the edge for maintenance work (or to drown yourself), but for all those who just want to get to the other side it's a useful safety feature.
and if you really need to carry out serious system maintenance, there are (usually) steps you can take to get around the protection.
-
@kirchhoff said:
From my perspective? It's not the criticism that issue is taken with. It's uninformed whining (in the guise of literate criticism) that is very frustrating. It usually comes down to a configuration management issue that wouldn't be an issue in the first place if the user was some kind of network or unix administrator. I don't think this will ever really change... and I don't know why anyone expects it will. Look to groups like Ubuntu or LinuXP or PCBSD to come up with alternate approaches to solving those problems.
Don't confuse me for a mouth breather on the Gentoo forums or anything. When I get pissy on operating system issues, it's because the level of ignorance and arrogance has reached my coping threshold.
What I find frustrating is people who just don't get it. You speak of arrogance and yet you can't get off your white horse long enough to understand the issue. So let me break it down for you.There are many different flavours of linux (fact). A lot of them, if not all of them follow their own central philosophy. Some are built for security, others for usability and so on (fact). If I were to find a security-oriented distro and "whine" as you put it about having to jump through extra hoops to get everything done I'd be an idiot (logic 101), because security almost invariably means jumping through hoops (fact). If I were to find a usabillity-oriented distro and discover that I have to jump through extra hoops then I'd have a point (logic 101).
You know, you bitch about wanting an OS to do what you want and to be
able to configure it, yet you complain when you have to edit a single
line in the gdm configuration file, which is helpfully pointed in the
GDM documentation in the off chance you wanted to saw off your own foot.Really? The configuration change I want to make is in the documentation? Thank you o fountain of wisdom. Maybe you'd like to teach me how to use man and google stuff online as well. For some strange reason, people always assume you're a novice. I wont bore you with my resume but I administer production linux servers as part of my job. No, I don't try to log on to the GUI as root. I use the command prompt. All the time. Which is why when I try a "user-friendly" distro at home, where there's no risk, I'm in no mood to spend hours tinkering with the OS, I just want it to be user-friendly and do what's it's told with the minimum amount of fuss.
I realize that Ubuntu's policy may be user-friendly in the long run since it will keep novice users from screwing up, but it so happens that for the niche market of proficient users looking for something easy it can be a problem (albeit a minor one). Yes i can go through the documentation. I had to in fact in order to enable root in the console. I just don't want to use my free time jumping over the extra obstacles that Ubuntu has put in my way. I'm not saying that the Ubuntu team is wrong and I'm right, just that their distro is not right for me, personally.
If I was whining I could go on to some Ubuntu forum and bitch about how they're wrong but
instead I mentioned this feature here when someone mentioned Ubuntu so
the next guy looking to choose a distro will at least know what to expect of this one.
