Ubuntu WTFs
-
@ammoQ said:
@The Vicar said:
2. Its GUI utilities fail a lot more frequently than those included with the Windows and Mac GUIs, requiring users to grub around on the command line or in text files to actually accomplish the tasks which the utilities are supposed to achieve. (Usually, this seems to be a lack of error-checking on the parts of the programmers, combined with a "what the heck, they can always drop to the command line if they really need to do this" attitude.)
You overestimate the usefullness of GUI tools. When things become complicated, users need instructions. It's probably easier to copy-paste some commands for the command line than to follow some click-here-enter-that-instructions for the GUI, especially when the instructions are made for the English professional edition of the OS, while the user uses the German home edition. Besides that, chances are that 10-year-old instructions for the command line still work even with the latest versions of Linux. Try that on Windows.
3. Its GUIs are less configurable within the GUI itself than the Windows and Mac GUIs, requiring users to deal with the xorg.conf file directly. Since xorg.conf requires, in effect, magic keynames (how do you turn off tap-clicking on a touchpad?) this is a serious problem deserving of its own item in this list.See 2.
Right, because it's so much easier to have to learn the magic key-value pair to turn off trackpad touch-clicking in xorg.conf than it would be to have a checkbox. I mean, it takes a whole 5 seconds to open a settings panel and click a checkbox, but any n00b can open a Terminal window, type "sudo [nano|vi|emacs|whatever] /etc/xorg.conf", find the trackpad module, and add the (natural) line 'Option "MaxTapTime" "0"', then save in under 1 second. I mean, it's just so blindingly obvious that "MaxTapTime" is the key you want and -- oh, no, wait, it isn't. It's needlessly obscure, and having to edit xorg.conf to change this setting is a waste of time. Same goes for changing the monitor bit depth, which requires a similar operation. You fail. @ammoQ said:
@The Vicar said:
5. Linux programmers such as yourself don't actually see these as problems, meaning that the situation is unlikely ever to improve. (And it's hard to see how it could, anyway. Perhaps you could write a substitution library that used GTK+ widgets in response to Qt calls, or vice versa. That would certainly help. But it would take a long time to write and would probably be very difficult to implement. It would probably be simpler to abandon X11 entirely in favor of something less amateurish.)
You obviously have no fscking clue.
http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Home
http://gtk-qt.ecs.soton.ac.uk/
If 10-year-old instructions for the command line are so much better than a GUI, why are they bothering? Of course, they aren't trying to make either one better, really, just trying to address the widget library problem. I guess that explains it: one problem at a time. It will be interesting to see which comes first: a solution to the widget problem, or a release of Haiku OS. I'm betting on the latter.
-
@The Vicar said:
Well, I've put XP and Edubuntu on my daughter's eMachine with 256MB of RAM. Guess which one works better? Hint: it's not from Redmond. Granted this machine is more like 5 years old than 3.The delay is still important, though. GUIs bloat over time. (Let's call it what it is.) Three years ago Linux geeks were saying "it runs about as fast as other OSes on the current hardware", just like they say now. The difference is that I can take the hardware from three years ago and run Windows and Linux on it, (or Mac OS X and Linux on it, for PPC versions of Linux) and Linux will look like crap compared to the other OS. If I want to make my computer into an investment, something I intend to use and keep on using for a long time, then Linux currently is not a wise decision, and won't be until this sort of thing stops being taken for granted.
@The Vicar said:
Yeah, but the bar is rising at least as fast as the work progresses. The problems being solved now are the sort which should have been solved five years ago at the very least. Since you seem to object to bringing up Windows so often, let's take a different example: the BeOS GUI. It's incredibly fast on old hardware. It took less than 6 years for it to reach the point where it could be used as a primary OS. (Power Computing, a maker of Mac clones during the period when Apple was granting licenses, actually shipped machines with a BeOS alternate install!) That with a small team of engineers who also wasted a bunch of time building their own hardware. GNOME has been around for going on 11 years. In terms of man-hours (whether you think that's a good measurement or not) GNOME almost certainly had more work done in 2007 than BeOS had during the entire run of Be, Inc. from 1990 to 2001. Yet GNOME still sucks when compared to BeOS in a number of ways -- the BeOS GUI was easy to use, intuitive, clean, and coherent, in addition to being fast which is not necessarily a concern if the experience is good enough. If the Haiku Project ever completes a full OS and builds OpenOffice and either Firefox or some KHTML/Webkit-based browser, I will without hesitation switch my Linux terminals (which are meant for non-programmers) to Haiku. And that's a GUI which stopped changing in 2001!
Yes, BeOS did some cool stuff. I'm happy that you've gotten another rant about GNOME out of your system.(What are the GNOME programmers working on? Rotating cubes, wobbly windows, and other eye candy. BeOS couldn't do any of that. That's a point in its favor.)
@The Vicar said:
@boomzilla said:
I guess it depends on how broad the population of people who have a very low threshold for GUI metaphors. I think it's less a threshold for metaphors, and more a general ability to learn and think. And I'll repeat myself, too: If they can't handle the differences, they probably have even more problems with using multiple applications, so the "metaphor overload" is probably the least of their problems.To each his own. I've never understood the ferver for UI purity
It's because a GUI is nothing but metaphors, and different people have different thresholds for how much the metaphor can be polluted before it collapses for them. If you're a programmer, or even someone who regularly uses more than one OS, then you probably understand how the computer is "thinking" about things, and that raises the amount of pollution you can accept. But there are people whose tolerances are much lower, and if you're pushing for broad acceptance, you should target them. Expert users can always find ways to make an OS more productive for themselves, but someone who can't use an OS in the first place can't somehow magically compensate for that.
@The Vicar said:
You mean like supporting typed clipboard data, which Apple managed to do back in 1983 but Linux still doesn't really manage? (But look at the rotating cubes and wobbly windows!)
I agree with you here.@The Vicar said:
Most of them would probably be quite productive with Macs. I'd be reasonably happy with that, because I've gone all-Mac now except for my two Xubuntu laptops, which are a very recent development, and I wouldn't mind seeing Apple's market share grow. But I'd be happier if the choice was "any of them will make you productive" instead of "you have a choice between 'free' and 'productive'".
I guess we'll just agree to disagree. There are plenty of ways to be productive while staying within a metaphor context. And I'll restate again another time that if the shifting from GNOME to KDE is too much, then probably so is going from a spreadsheet to a word processor. Yes, it increases the burden (that's not what I'm arguing). I'm arguing that it's trivial compared to other issues. And I understand that you disagree.
-
Fun facts and a tally of the arguments I've read; I'm baised towards Linux and am doing this off of the top of my head.
Linux:
Configuration files can be exported and shared, they also allow one to setup a mass number of machines without needing a floppy for unattended install
Commands in the terminal will still be valid, provided the distribution offers them, many years from today (Windows GUI changes every release meaning re-training for support staff AND users)
Doesn't hide behind pretty things, if you want to see it's insides go right ahead
Old machines can be used for simple tasks or low-load servers while still receiving security updates
It has a command-line interface and scripting system that is actually pretty damn close to a real programming language
The basic tools are designed with scripting in mind
Microsoft Windows:Most users know how to use them
It's backwards compatible with itself, usuallyEverything they produce will integrate itself with something else they produce (like exchange and AD)
You don't have to worry about those pesky INI files circa 3.1 anymore, the registry is a nice binary and proprietary replacement which provides a central point for all configuration which provides a fairly simple CLI tool to read and modify it, and reg files patch themselves into the registry very nicely.
Everything runs on windows
Explorer is actually a decent file navigator with nice FTP/SFTP/SMB capabilities (would have liked it if you could mount FTP shares to a drive letter though, 98 had something like this that I never had a chance to confirm/test out?)
-
@Lingerance said:
Fun facts and a tally of the arguments I've read; I'm baised towards Linux and am doing this off of the top of my head.
Linux:
Configuration files can be exported and shared, they also allow one to setup a mass number of machines without needing a floppy for unattended installWindows can do this too.
Commands in the terminal will still be valid, provided the distribution offers them, many years from today (Windows GUI changes every release meaning re-training for support staff AND users)Windows command line works just the same too. You don't have to use the GUI for everything, its just that the GUI actually works, so why bother using the command line :)
Doesn't hide behind pretty things, if you want to see it's insides go right ahead
Windows is pretty transparent as well, if you actually understand it.
Old machines can be used for simple tasks or low-load servers while still receiving security updatesSo can windows machines using Server 2k3.
It has a command-line interface and scripting system that is actually pretty damn close to a real programming language
Microsoft Powershell is a .NET driven shell that allows you to script in C#, check it out, its the best damn shell I've ever used.
The basic tools are designed with scripting in mind
See Above.
Most users know how to use them
Because its easy!
It's backwards compatible with itself, usually
How is Linux on this issue?
Everything they produce will integrate itself with something else they produce (like exchange and AD)
How is linux on this issue?
You don't have to worry about those pesky INI files circa 3.1 anymore, the registry is a nice binary and proprietary replacement which provides a central point for all configuration which provides a fairly simple CLI tool to read and modify it, and reg files patch themselves into the registry very nicely.Funny thing is that we are going full circle and back to XML config files now, all .NET apps use an app.config file, and it works great.
Everything runs on windows
Explorer is actually a decent file navigator with nice FTP/SFTP/SMB capabilities (would have liked it if you could mount FTP shares to a drive letter though, 98 had something like this that I never had a chance to confirm/test out?)You can mount a FTP account under XP as a "Network place" about the same as mapping a drive letter to it.
-
I sum up my argument about Linux as follows:
"You get what you pay for"
-
@The Vicar said:
Right, because it's so much easier to have to learn the magic key-value pair to turn off trackpad touch-clicking in xorg.conf than it would be to have a checkbox. I mean, it takes a whole 5 seconds to open a settings panel and click a checkbox, but any n00b can open a Terminal window, type "sudo [nano|vi|emacs|whatever] /etc/xorg.conf", find the trackpad module, and add the (natural) line 'Option "MaxTapTime" "0"', then save in under 1 second. I mean, it's just so blindingly obvious that "MaxTapTime" is the key you want and -- oh, no, wait, it isn't. It's needlessly obscure, and having to edit xorg.conf to change this setting is a waste of time. Same goes for changing the monitor bit depth, which requires a similar operation. You fail.
The funny thing is: Now that you have told me how to do that in /etc/xorg.conf, I could immediately do it. But I could not do the same in Windows, because I see no checkbox. I guess I first have to click through some menus and dialogs. Can you tell me how to do that in Windows?
If 10-year-old instructions for the command line are so much better than a GUI, why are they bothering?
Obviously the GUI is usefull for a lot of things, like browsing the web, writing emails, composing images etc. My statement about the command line and config files was targeted about configuration issues. But of course I like GUI tools for configuration, too - why not have choices?
-
@ammoQ said:
The funny thing is: Now that you have told me how to do that in /etc/xorg.conf, I could immediately do it. But I could not do the same in Windows, because I see no checkbox. I guess I first have to click through some menus and dialogs. Can you tell me how to do that in Windows?
Mouse control panel? (Or a third party tool possibly residing in your System Tray if said driver really sucks, nothing there to do with Windows per se)
Works here. Are you saying the mouse control panel is not the right place, or is not obvious?
[url=http://img84.imageshack.us/my.php?image=taptoclickmq9.png][img=http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/9967/taptoclickmq9.th.png][/url]
(and yes, it is a little different on mine since I still left the original Dell driver on mine. I never use the touchpad. Still in the mouse control panel though.)
-
Edit timeout... I meant to embed that pic.
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
Mouse control panel? (Or a third party tool possibly residing in your System Tray if said driver really sucks, nothing there to do with Windows per se)
Works here. Are you saying the mouse control panel is not the right place, or is not obvious?
Let's play "unexperienced user" (the kind that can't be bothered with editing xorg.conf):
a) "the right place" is where?
b) why bother with the mouse control panel when I want to configure a touch pad? The mouse is working just fine. Shouldn't I go for the touch pad control panel, whereever it may be?
-
After Selecting "Control Panel - Mouse" I am presented with a nice looking tabbed dialog.
One of the tabs is labeled "TouchPad".
I don't think it gets much simpler than that.
-
@Jonathan Holland said:
After Selecting "Control Panel - Mouse" I am presented with a nice looking tabbed dialog.
One of the tabs is labeled "TouchPad".
I don't think it gets much simpler than that.
That's because you are an experiencd user, you know where to find the control panel, you know that you have to click on "Mouse" when you need to configure the touch pad. For an unexperienced user, nothing of that is obvious, and you still haven't told me where I can find it. By now I know what it looks like on your computer, but unfortunately, it's different on mine. If you wanted to give me step-by-step instructions even to find the "Mouse" control panel, you would need some informations first. Which Windows version. Which language. Classical or modern start menu. And maybe we are unlucky and I have configured (hint) "Systemsteuerung" out of my start menu, so it might take a real long time to figure out how to reach that "Mouse" control panel.
-
@ammoQ said:
@Jonathan Holland said:
After Selecting "Control Panel - Mouse" I am presented with a nice looking tabbed dialog.
One of the tabs is labeled "TouchPad".
I don't think it gets much simpler than that.
That's because you are an experiencd user, you know where to find the control panel, you know that you have to click on "Mouse" when you need to configure the touch pad. For an unexperienced user, nothing of that is obvious, and you still haven't told me where I can find it. By now I know what it looks like on your computer, but unfortunately, it's different on mine. If you wanted to give me step-by-step instructions even to find the "Mouse" control panel, you would need some informations first. Which Windows version. Which language. Classical or modern start menu. And maybe we are unlucky and I have configured (hint) "Systemsteuerung" out of my start menu, so it might take a real long time to figure out how to reach that "Mouse" control panel.
You're really reaching, aren't you? Every laptop I've ever seen which had a mock-mouse (trackball, trackpad, eraser-nub-embedded-in-the-middle-of-the-keyboard, etc.) came with ample printed documentation explaining that the mock-mouse was a portable replacement for a mouse.
Besides, if you're going to take the "how could a user possibly figure this out" game: both Windows and the Mac OS come with ample documentation, which in both cases comes with a feature we jaded GUI-users like to call "searching". I know you Linux types are too good for that sort of thing, but just checking on my Mac, searching for "tap click" brings up as one of the only three results "Changing trackpad response" which tells how to turn the feature off. Of course, Linux documentation, when present, tends to be of that "10 years old" variety you mentioned, so it's unlikely at best that a user could do this on any current Linux distro. They could use Google -- but if you aren't willing to let these hypothetical users be smart enough to find the Control Panels in Windows, then you can't let them be smart enough to correctly hook up an Internet connection and then find and use a web browser, either.
Furthermore, a user could figure this issue out on Windows or the Mac without the documentation, because a GUI-based control exists, and they would eventually find it if they went through all the control panels systematically looking at the available options. Whenever I try a new program or OS in a GUI, that's just about the first step I take after finishing the installation. This would fail on all the Linux GUIs, though, because none of them show any trackpad controls, even though all three properly detect and use my trackpads.
Since Windows technically allows you to remove the Control Panels from the Start menu, I can't say whether there are generic instructions which are always true. But there are on Mac OS X: 'Go to the Apple menu and choose "System Preferences" (or the equivalent in the currently-displayed language). When the System Preferences window opens, click on the icon with "Mouse" (or the equivalent in the currently-displayed language) in the label. (The icon should depict, at least in part, an Apple mouse.) When this panel is displayed, click on the tab which says "Trackpad" (or the equivalent in the currently-displayed language). Adjust the settings in the window to reflect your preferences, turning on any checkboxes whose labels indicate features you would like by clicking on them until the display a mark, and adjusting slider controls by clicking on them and dragging to their new values. When you are finished, you can quit the System Preferences program using the appropriate item in the System Preferences menu.'
Seriously, do you expect that any user, ever, would figure out to enter "MaxTapTime" into a text file that isn't mentioned anywhere in the GUI or the tiny, tiny amount of documentation which gets installed with Linux? Assuming they could even find that documentation first? And how would they manage to do that, since (I think I'm remembering this right) by default most users don't have write permission anyway -- you have to use sudo to feed it to the editor. (Oh, and did I mention that the "MaxTapTime" key is not one of the ones present by default? You don't just change an existing value to 0, you have to add it to the list to change it away from X11's unstated default.) That's just sad.
And the claim that you'll now "always" know how to do it isn't really true either. There's no guarantee that x.org's defaults file implementation won't change. Maybe they'll change to XML, who knows? And besides, I didn't actually say which module in the file it needs to go in. There's a long, long, long list of gotchas involved.
-
When you actually buy a boxed distro, you get printed documentation as well. For a download distro, online resources are obviously the first choice. Using google to look for "linux tap click" is exactly as difficult as using the windows help to look for the same issue, and the search results are good.
Anyway, while that MaxTapTime thingy is obviously an ommission that could (and probably should) be fixed, it's not like there is no mouse configuration dialog in e.g. Kubuntu at all. In fact the "mouse control panel" is very similar to that in Windows.
BTW, though 10 years old Linux docu is probably still valid, there is obviously a lot of newer stuff, too.
And no, I've never claimed I would now "always" know how to do that. Though chances are that it will work in future versions, too.
-
@ammoQ said:
When you actually buy a boxed distro, you get printed documentation as well.
If I wanted to pay for an OS, I'd buy Windows. (At Red Hat's subscription prices, Windows is actually cheaper; the choice is $80 per year for the desktop subscription to Red Hat, or $150 once every two and a half to three years for an OEM version of Windows.) At least with Windows, you aren't expected to plug random magic values into /etc/xorg.conf to make things work. @ammoQ said:
For a download distro, online resources are obviously the first choice. Using google to look for "linux tap click" is exactly as difficult as using the windows help to look for the same issue, and the search results are good.
Except that, on my Mac (and presumably on Windows), I can do it when I'm not hooked up to the Internet. I can do that search on an airplane, on an old machine without a network card, and when my wireless session at FreeWirelessWithExpensiveCoffee runs out. I can do it on the bus without a cellular modem card, or in a lead-lined vault. That's how real documentation works. @ammoQ said:
Anyway, while that MaxTapTime thingy is obviously an ommission that could (and probably should) be fixed, it's not like there is no mouse configuration dialog in e.g. Kubuntu at all. In fact the "mouse control panel" is very similar to that in Windows.
Except that it doesn't have any trackpad/trackball/mock-mouse settings at all, and there's no excuse for that omission.
By the time either Windows or the Mac OS were the age GNOME is now (and GNOME is the youngest of the three main Linux GUIs), they had support for trackpads. They did this even though trackpads were, at the time, new hardware for mainstream computers. In fact, by the time the Mac OS was approximately KDE's age, all portable Macs had trackpads, according to apple-history.com. The last trackball-based Mac, the PowerBook Duo 280c, was discontinued in January 1996, when the Mac was ~12 years old.
All of the Linux GUIs, on the other hand, came out after trackpads already were available to consumers, and have been around for at least a decade, but still don't have meaningful support for them. None of the Linux GUIs have the ability to change monitor bit depth, even via a "change the setting for your next login", and both Windows and the Mac have been doing that since before any of the Linux GUIs began. Even though Ubuntu is tied firmly to apt-get as its update mechanism, the provided GUI tools which use apt-get fail to properly handle some extremely obvious errors (failure mid-install and complete lack of sources). (I'm carefully only claiming Ubuntu on that once, because I'm aware that apt-get is not a universal tool.) This is not behavior a mature and competitive project would display. And then there are the widget library problems... @ammoQ said:
BTW, though 10 years old Linux docu is probably still valid, there is obviously a lot of newer stuff, too.
And no, I've never claimed I would now "always" know how to do that. Though chances are that it will work in future versions, too.
Oh, really, now? Xfce has been completely rewritten twice during its history, according to Wikipedia, and I presume the rewrites broke things. Every major version of KDE is understood to introduce major incompatibilities which are likely to break existing software, and it's now on major version 4. Admittedly, the trackpad thing is X11, not the desktop environments running on X11, but if you're arguing that Linux software doesn't break backwards compatibility often, you're dreaming. Or maybe you're talking about some other Linux. Maybe the one you're talking about is the one which will free us all from the tyranny of having to pay for a decent OS. Clearly the Linux I know is not that software, because Red Hat actually gets more from its cheapest subscriptions than Apple or Microsoft make from their equivalent offerings, and the cheap or free distros don't have documentation...
-
@Jonathan Holland said:
@Lingerance said:
Fun facts and a tally of the arguments I've read; I'm baised towards Linux and am doing this off of the top of my head.
Linux:
Configuration files can be exported and shared, they also allow one to setup a mass number of machines without needing a floppy for unattended installWindows can do this too.
Really? Tell me then, how do I export all my MS Office settings to a floppy/USB stick and then import them on another PC? Or while we're at it, my shell settings, colour scheme, terminal font settings, etc? How would I copy user foo's settings to user bar (without ever logging in as either of them)?
With linux, settings are (usually) stored in ~/.<appname> (that could be a file or folder, depending on the app). Some settings are stored in GConf (the closest equivelent to Windows' registry), but that is still ~/.gconf.
Commands in the terminal will still be valid, provided the distribution offers them, many years from today (Windows GUI changes every release meaning re-training for support staff AND users)Windows command line works just the same too. You don't have to use the GUI for everything, its just that the GUI actually works, so why bother using the command line :)
The GUI (usually, it's not perfect) works in Linux too. However, when telling a user to (for instance) change their IP address, would you rather:
"Start, Control panel, Network and Internet connections, Network connections, Whatever the active NIC is (probably 'Local Area Connection 5' since Windows likes to re-create them at random times), Properties, Internet Protocol (TCP/IP), Properties, change the IP address field, click OK, click OK, close Network Connections"
or
"open terminal, sudo ifconfig eth0 (or possibly something else, like ath0, depending on the hardware/software config) <new ip> netmask <mask> up, enter password, close terminal"?
Which do you think a novice is more likely to be able to follow e.g. over the phone?
Doesn't hide behind pretty things, if you want to see it's insides go right ahead
Windows is pretty transparent as well, if you actually understand it.
Really? So tell me, where can I see how much CPU time the GDI (closest equivelent to X) is using? How do I find out exactly how much RAM, Swap and Disc cache is in use (Note: The 'PF Usage' column in Task manager is WRONG and can be trivially proved such)?
Old machines can be used for simple tasks or low-load servers while still receiving security updatesSo can windows machines using Server 2k3.
Really? So I can (for free), put Server 2k3 on my old P-II with 64MB RAM and use it as a network router, mail server and low-volume web server? (I have done this very successfully with Linux).
It has a command-line interface and scripting system that is actually pretty damn close to a real programming language
Microsoft Powershell is a .NET driven shell that allows you to script in C#, check it out, its the best damn shell I've ever used.
So you've never used perl then? Or python? Or any of the other scripting-come-full-blown-programming languages on Linux? That are (usually) installed by default with the distro?
The basic tools are designed with scripting in mind
See Above.
Tell me then, how do I (without installing extra software) script a Windows machine to download a list of packages to install from my server, then install each one from my repository and send me the output of the install proccess by email?
Most users know how to use them
Because its easy!
Because it was the first system they ever used and now they expect all computers to be exactly the same.
It's backwards compatible with itself, usually
How is Linux on this issue?
Source compatible back to the late 70's, runs on so many different platforms that maintaining that level of binary compatability would be an absolute nightmare. Besides, there are plenty of places where Windows is severely handicapped by having to maintain binary compatability back to the late 80's.
Everything they produce will integrate itself with something else they produce (like exchange and AD)
How is linux on this issue?
Just fine. PAN makes integration of authentication systems easy. Just about every major app has plugins/helpers to integrate with anything that it makes sense to integrate with.
You don't have to worry about those pesky INI files circa 3.1 anymore, the registry is a nice binary and proprietary replacement which provides a central point for all configuration which provides a fairly simple CLI tool to read and modify it, and reg files patch themselves into the registry very nicely.Funny thing is that we are going full circle and back to XML config files now, all .NET apps use an app.config file, and it works great.
You realise that was a list of advantages of Windows, don't you? And yes, I too welcome the return of config files on Windows.
Everything runs on windows
Explorer is actually a decent file navigator with nice FTP/SFTP/SMB capabilities (would have liked it if you could mount FTP shares to a drive letter though, 98 had something like this that I never had a chance to confirm/test out?)You can mount a FTP account under XP as a "Network place" about the same as mapping a drive letter to it.
Not really. Try using that "network place" with the command line or running an app that needs to load resource files from there and watch it break.
With Linux, you can mount any filesystem or pseudo filesystem (such as gMail) and any app can read and write it just as though it were a local HDD. *nix systems were designed with filesystem interoperability from the start.
-
@The Vicar said:
@ammoQ said:
When you actually buy a boxed distro, you get printed documentation as well.
If I wanted to pay for an OS, I'd buy Windows. (At Red Hat's subscription prices, Windows is actually cheaper; the choice is $80 per year for the desktop subscription to Red Hat, or $150 once every two and a half to three years for an OEM version of Windows.) At least with Windows, you aren't expected to plug random magic values into /etc/xorg.conf to make things work.
I fail to get your point. Printed documentation obviously costs money. The OEM version of Windows doesn't come with a reasonable amount of printed documentation. There are desktop distros like Mandriva that are much cheaper than Red Hat and still come with printed documentation.
In Windows, you don't have to edit /etc/xorg.conf, but sometimes, regedit comes to the rescue - and IMO that ain't better.
@ammoQ said:
For a download distro, online resources are obviously the first choice. Using google to look for "linux tap click" is exactly as difficult as using the windows help to look for the same issue, and the search results are good.
Except that, on my Mac (and presumably on Windows), I can do it when I'm not hooked up to the Internet. I can do that search on an airplane, on an old machine without a network card, and when my wireless session at FreeWirelessWithExpensiveCoffee runs out. I can do it on the bus without a cellular modem card, or in a lead-lined vault. That's how real documentation works.
I would be happy if my biggest problem was how to configure the mousepad on an airplane. BTW, when it comes to installation issues, chances are that you are much better of with a Linux install disk (set) than a Windows DVD. Anyway, I don't consider that a major reason to prefer one operating system over the other.
Oh, really, now? Xfce has been completely rewritten twice during its history, according to Wikipedia, and I presume the rewrites broke things. Every major version of KDE is understood to introduce major incompatibilities which are likely to break existing software, and it's now on major version 4. Admittedly, the trackpad thing is X11, not the desktop environments running on X11, but if you're arguing that Linux software doesn't break backwards compatibility often, you're dreaming.
The more basic the stuff is, the greater the chances are that it will continue to work just like that in the future. But yeah, KDE is definitely not the best choice when it comes to long-term compatibility.
Or maybe you're talking about some other Linux. Maybe the one you're talking about is the one which will free us all from the tyranny of having to pay for a decent OS. Clearly the Linux I know is not that software, because Red Hat actually gets more from its cheapest subscriptions than Apple or Microsoft make from their equivalent offerings, and the cheap or free distros don't have documentation...
I do no object the idea to pay for a OS. In fact, I have a legitimate copy of Windows installed on my PC at home - and that was a custom built machine, I could as well have bought it without Windows, €80 cheaper.
-
Admittedly, that most distros omit the nice GUI tool GSynaptics and/or ksynaptics for adding a trackpad config to your laptop is pretty silly. You have to know to install that on Ubuntu, for example. If you get a laptop from, say, Dell or Emporer with linux preinstalled they'll have it on there so you can configure your trackpad settings along with everything else. But most people install linux from scratch and the installers are content with just getting the standard pointer working and not much beyond that.
Although if you install XP on a laptop you'll have the same issue until you install a trackpad driver package. Those dialogs aren't there by default. This is fixed in Vista which supports most trackpads out of the box.
So I think you guys are arguing about something particularly goofy.
-
I'm commenting on the quoted text, not arguing with it in case anyone gets confused.
@mallard said:Really? Tell me then, how do I export all my MS Office settings to a floppy/USB stick and then import them on another PC? Or while we're at it, my shell settings, colour scheme, terminal font settings, etc? How would I copy user foo's settings to user bar (without ever logging in as either of them)?
With linux, settings are (usually) stored in ~/.<appname> (that could be a file or folder, depending on the app). Some settings are stored in GConf (the closest equivelent to Windows' registry), but that is still ~/.gconf.
You can actually use Window easy transfer or whatever your version of windows calls it, however to actually use the massive file (that actually scans your entire hard-drive when made) you must mount it to a network drive (share UNCs don't work) or a portable drive (which I haven't tested yet).@mallard said:
Really? So I can (for free), put Server 2k3 on my old P-II with 64MB RAM and use it as a network router, mail server and low-volume web server? (I have done this very successfully with Linux).
Windows server 2003 requires 128 of RAM, I would have used that for my router box if said box actually had that much RAM, I did the same thing mallard did.@mallard said:
[In response to powershell comment]So you've never used perl then? Or python? Or any of the other scripting-come-full-blown-programming languages on Linux? That are (usually) installed by default with the distro?
I've actually tried power shell; after finding out MS wants me to browse their site to isntall .NET 2.0 which windows update refused to isntall for me I gave up on the first machine, I tried again at school and honestly didn'y like it, I was expecting it to behave like BASH, it was based on KSH which I haven't used, but I really wanted to tab complete for programs in the PATH, help (I think) dump this huge list of something that sure as hell wasn't useful cause I really wanted to know what arguments/options ls took as it ignored ? /? --help -h -malformed-asdf-asdf-asdmklasdf.@mallard said:
It's backwards compatible with itself, usually
How is Linux on this issue?
Source compatible back to the late 70's, runs on so many different platforms that maintaining that level of binary compatibility would be an absolute nightmare. Besides, there are plenty of places where Windows is severely handicapped by having to maintain binary compatability back to the late 80's.
I left out the part where windows has the most software out there.
Also a comment on Window's command-line software, generally *NIX programs are abbreviated which makes remembering them and guessing what they do easy, on Windows guess what mstsc.exe does.
-
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
I am aware of that, however could you guess without knowing?@Lingerance said:
Windows guess what mstsc.exe does.
MicroSoft Terminal Services Client?
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@dlikhten said:
To get windows themes u gota pay microsoft.
No you dont... Just download them. Where the fuck did you get this idea from?
Microsoft offers a bunch of stuff for free: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/desktop/default.mspx
The only theme on there that is not for media player or media center is the FFXI theme, which appears to be only a desktop background and icons, rather than anything to change the look of the window frames themselves.
-
@Random832 said:
The only theme on there that is not for media player or media center is the FFXI theme, which appears to be only a desktop background and icons, rather than anything to change the look of the window frames themselves.
Are you arguing that you need to pay MS to use a new theme?
-
@Lingerance said:
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
I am aware of that, however could you guess without knowing?@Lingerance said:
Windows guess what mstsc.exe does.
MicroSoft Terminal Services Client?
As opposed to names like grep? grok? du?
I mean, whats your point? *nix has always been known for it's cryptic command names... I really don't see how any beginner would just guess command names in either command line.
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
I mean, whats your point? *nix has always been known for it's cryptic command names... I really don't see how any beginner would just guess command names in either command line.
Usually their names are sane and untouched by marketing (Terminal Services vs Remote Desktop/Telnet), and follow a pattern the first D in df, du and dd mean the same thing, I can then guess (since d f and u don't occur in the word disk after the first d) that the second word starts with [dfu], a quick man or --help will finish any guessing. Also with commands I can do man -k "free" if I want to find something that reports free space of memory or disk space. Generally any introduction to *nix will give you enough information to learn the basics (ls, man, cp, mv, cd, and pwd), the rest can be (normally) obtained through man -k as stated before, or tab completion which MS severely butchered in cmd, and powershell is no better. The point is Unix command line is intuitive for those who use it, the MS command line is horribly crippled, the up and down arrow don't allow for doing one command repetitively unless you use up then down then up then. . .
-
@Lingerance said:
The point is Unix command line is intuitive for those who use it,
That didn't seem to be the point you were making when you started:
@Lingerance said:
Also a comment on Window's command-line software, generally *NIX programs are abbreviated which makes remembering them and guessing what they do easy, on Windows guess what mstsc.exe does.
Your argument that mstsc is somehow cryptic compared to *nix is really just opinion and experience.
@Lingerance said:
the MS command line is horribly crippled
That is your opinion, I have no problem doing anything I need in the command line. Although, the point being argued is more towards the idea that in windows in general, you really just don't NEED to use the command line as often. There are very few things I need on a daily basis that require the command line. I may find it faster or easier, yes. But in general, the GUI tools are there so I wouldn't need to remember anything like that.
-
The "cryptic command name" discussion is IMO pointless. No sane person would just guess how a command to do something might be called and type words that could do anything or nothing at all. Command names are something a user (who wishes to use them) has to learn (or copy verbatim from instructions). Unix commands are hardly more (or less) cryptic than DOS commands. That's like saying "Polish is more cryptic than German" just because I live in Austria where German is the native language.
-
@ammoQ said:
The "cryptic command name" discussion is IMO pointless. No sane person would just guess how a command to do something might be called and type words that could do anything or nothing at all. Command names are something a user (who wishes to use them) has to learn (or copy verbatim from instructions). Unix commands are hardly more (or less) cryptic than DOS commands. That's like saying "Polish is more cryptic than German" just because I live in Austria where German is the native language.
Agreed. Perfect way to sum this up.
Thanks.
-
@mallard said:
The GUI (usually, it's not perfect) works in Linux too. However, when telling a user to (for instance) change their IP address, would you rather:
"Start, Control panel, Network and Internet connections, Network connections, Whatever the active NIC is (probably 'Local Area Connection 5' since Windows likes to re-create them at random times), Properties, Internet Protocol (TCP/IP), Properties, change the IP address field, click OK, click OK, close Network Connections"
or
"open terminal, sudo ifconfig eth0 (or possibly something else, like ath0, depending on the hardware/software config) <new ip> netmask <mask> up, enter password, close terminal"?
Which do you think a novice is more likely to be able to follow e.g. over the phone?
Back in the late 1990s I had a job of which a part was talking people through fixing broken network connections over the phone, so I can actually answer your question from practice rather than theory.
GUIs were vastly, vastly superior to CLIs for this purpose. See, what you're glossing over is that, in order to run that single command, you first have to run a few other commands, to figure out what the arguments to the command you actually want should be. Users understand "click on the 'suchandsuch' button", but although you may not believe this, they have trouble following "type 'blahblahblah' and press return." You'd be absolutely amazed at how many people would actually type "and press return" in response to that direction, simply because they don't use a CLI in day-to-day work and are used to the idea of a helpful and instantly responsive computer. (As they should!) To say nothing of homophones, or people who type the names of numbers -- "five" instead of "5" and so on.
Since you have to have a back-and-forth dialog with the user anyway in order to get the information, putting them in a reasonably familiar environment (i.e. a GUI) speeds things way up. It also means that if you aren't familiar with the options because the user hasn't upgraded their computer since 1988 (we actually had such a user -- and thank goodness there was only one of them) and you're running the latest version of the OS, you can get the user to tell you what they are: "right-click on the 'soandso' icon, and tell me what's in the menu" or "what buttons do you see" or "what menus are available". @mallard said:
Really? So tell me, where can I see how much CPU time the GDI (closest equivelent to X) is using? How do I find out exactly how much RAM, Swap and Disc cache is in use (Note: The 'PF Usage' column in Task manager is WRONG and can be trivially proved such)?
Very few desktop users are going to care, because very few of them will be aware that such a thing as a swap file exists, or that the GDI is distinct from the rest of the OS. We're talking about Linux as a desktop OS for non-programmers, remember? Desktop OSes generally aren't supposed to need debugging from their users.
A much more relevant question is how to figure out how much RAM is actually installed in the machine, and what size chips it's in. That's directly relevant to upgrading the machine, which a lot of people will want to do after a year or so. I never did figure out if Ubuntu has any GUI way of doing that, or even a way of really doing it at all without looking in the BIOS -- a few searches on Google only turned up other people who were asking the same question. I know Windows can tell you the chip-level information most (all? Not sure about virtualization) of the time, although I've forgotten the name of the program you use and I'm too lazy to tease it out with Google, and the Mac has had System Profiler since before Mac OS X. Ubuntu... will definitely tell you how much RAM there is for processes, but since that number is not actually equal to the amount installed in the machine (both the machines I just was installing on gave me answers which ended in fractions of a megabyte) and doesn't give you the chip information anyway, it's useless for figuring out upgrades. (If you have 512 MB of RAM in a machine with 4 slots, is it a single 512 chip, two 256 chips, a 256 and two 128s, or four 128s?)
Yes, the user can open the machine up and look at the chips directly (assuming they're tech-savvy enough to puzzle out the sizes of RAM chips on sight -- not all manufacturers make it easy to do this), or possibly go into BIOS if the machine's BIOS gives the RAM information at the chip level. But the whole point is that they shouldn't have to do that. @ammoQ said:
@The Vicar said:
@ammoQ said:
When you actually buy a boxed distro, you get printed documentation as well.
If I wanted to pay for an OS, I'd buy Windows. (At Red Hat's subscription prices, Windows is actually cheaper; the choice is $80 per year for the desktop subscription to Red Hat, or $150 once every two and a half to three years for an OEM version of Windows.) At least with Windows, you aren't expected to plug random magic values into /etc/xorg.conf to make things work.
I fail to get your point. Printed documentation obviously costs money. The OEM version of Windows doesn't come with a reasonable amount of printed documentation. There are desktop distros like Mandriva that are much cheaper than Red Hat and still come with printed documentation.
Windows/Mac OS X comes with documentation in electronic format, which Linux basically does not. All the printed documentation has to explain is how to install, boot, and get to the help system, and if you have good electronic documentation, that's all the printed matter you need. With Mac OS 10.0, Apple had a ~24-page booklet. That was all, for an OS which was completely distinct in just about every way from every previous version.
Yes, sometimes things go wrong and then you can't boot the computer to get to help. But honestly, printed documentation has never been helpful in those circumstances, either. A hosed system is one of the places where a beginner should stop looking for DIY step-by-step instructions and find an expert. @ammoQ said:
In Windows, you don't have to edit /etc/xorg.conf, but sometimes, regedit comes to the rescue - and IMO that ain't better.
No, regedit isn't better. (Remember, I said that Windows was better than Linux at UI, but not as good as the Mac OS? That's the sort of thing I mean.) But regedit comes up so seldom that most users don't even know it's there. Whereas there are basic settings in Linux which require dropping into xorg.conf or the Terminal. @ammoQ said:
@ammoQ said:
For a download distro, online resources are obviously the first choice. Using google to look for "linux tap click" is exactly as difficult as using the windows help to look for the same issue, and the search results are good.
Except that, on my Mac (and presumably on Windows), I can do it when I'm not hooked up to the Internet. I can do that search on an airplane, on an old machine without a network card, and when my wireless session at FreeWirelessWithExpensiveCoffee runs out. I can do it on the bus without a cellular modem card, or in a lead-lined vault. That's how real documentation works.
I would be happy if my biggest problem was how to configure the mousepad on an airplane.
If that were the only thing in the electronic documentation, then it wouldn't be worthwhile. But both Mac OS X and Windows have -- and I know this possibility would never cross your mind -- suggestions on how to fix a nonfunctional network connection. So there are situations in which a Linux user dependent on Google would just be screwed, but a Mac or Windows user would still have resources. @ammoQ said:
BTW, when it comes to installation issues, chances are that you are much better of with a Linux install disk (set) than a Windows DVD. Anyway, I don't consider that a major reason to prefer one operating system over the other.
If installation media or printed documentation were the only difference between Linux and the other OSes, then you're right, it wouldn't be a major reason to have a preference. But there are all these little places where Linux requires users to do ridiculous workarounds for things which should work correctly to begin with, and if you're an exemplary Linux user the attitude is to huff and puff and get offended and deny there is even a problem. @ammoQ said:
I do no object the idea to pay for a OS. In fact, I have a legitimate copy of Windows installed on my PC at home - and that was a custom built machine, I could as well have bought it without Windows, €80 cheaper.
Amazingly enough, I have three machines here right now, and I have saved at least $240 per year by not "subscribing" to Red Hat on any of them. I hope to continue this trend. Maybe I can find a PowerPC Mac used somewhere, and save an additional $70 per year by not subscribing to Yellow Dog Linux, too.
-
@The Vicar said:
Windows/Mac OS X comes with documentation in electronic format, which Linux basically does not.
This statement, is, in general, not true. Every linux distro comes with an awfull lot of electronic documentation. But I admit that this is something there is still room for improvement.
All the printed documentation has to explain is how to install, boot, and get to the help system, and if you have good electronic documentation, that's all the printed matter you need. With Mac OS 10.0, Apple had a ~24-page booklet. That was all, for an OS which was completely distinct in just about every way from every previous version.
Well, for those people not gifted with a multiscreen-setup or a 24" screen, printed documentation has the advantage of not taking up space on the screen.
No, regedit isn't better. (Remember, I said that Windows was better than Linux at UI, but not as good as the Mac OS? That's the sort of thing I mean.) But regedit comes up so seldom that most users don't even know it's there. Whereas there are basic settings in Linux which require dropping into xorg.conf or the Terminal.
I would not call that tap thing "basic". Quit a lot of people probably do not even know that they can switch it off.
If that were the only thing in the electronic documentation, then it wouldn't be worthwhile. But both Mac OS X and Windows have -- and I know this possibility would never cross your mind -- suggestions on how to fix a nonfunctional network connection.
That's a good thing, especially for Windows Vista, since IIRC the network setup really sucks there. ;-)
Comparing the help pages for the network setup help pages from Kubuntu and XP, IMO the Kubuntu help pages are more helpful. I might be biased, but the Kubuntu configuration panel for the setup seems by far easier to use than XPs.
Though a user in a DHCP-enabled network probably never ever will have to do a manual setup anyway.
If installation media or printed documentation were the only difference between Linux and the other OSes, then you're right, it wouldn't be a major reason to have a preference. But there are all these little places where Linux requires users to do ridiculous workarounds for things which should work correctly to begin with, and if you're an exemplary Linux user the attitude is to huff and puff and get offended and deny there is even a problem.
Yes, there are other differences as well. Windows lacks quite a lot of things experienced Linux users take for granted. But do we complain? Every operating system has its strenghts and weaknesses.
-
@ammoQ said:
The "cryptic command name" discussion is IMO pointless. No sane person would just guess how a command to do something might be called and type words that could do anything or nothing at all. Command names are something a user (who wishes to use them) has to learn (or copy verbatim from instructions). Unix commands are hardly more (or less) cryptic than DOS commands. That's like saying "Polish is more cryptic than German" just because I live in Austria where German is the native language.
You're right to a point. If I knew nothing about either command line, but was stuck using it I think I'd have better luck with Windows:
- If I wanted to copy a file, I'd type "copy"
- If I wanted to move a file, I'd type "move"
- If I wanted to delete a file, I'd fail on both OSs at first, but I'd guess "del" about a year before I'd guess "rm"
Where did Linux's abbreviation scheme come from? Take ls for example. You can either remove all the vowels so it makes the same sound ("lst"), or can take the first letter from each word in a phrase. A lot of Linux commands take the first letter of a word plus some random letter in the middle.
-
@Cap'n Steve said:
You're right to a point. If I knew nothing about either command line, but was stuck using it I think I'd have better luck with Windows:
- If I wanted to copy a file, I'd type "copy"
- If I wanted to move a file, I'd type "move"
- If I wanted to delete a file, I'd fail on both OSs at first, but I'd guess "del" about a year before I'd guess "rm"
True, "copy" and "move" are examples in favor of
DOSWindows.But then, "dir" and "ls" are both rather hard to guess, as is "cd". And I think that without "dir" and "cd", you will have a hard time to start copying or moving files at all.
Where did Linux's abbreviation scheme come from? Take ls for example. You can either remove all the vowels so it makes the same sound ("lst"), or can take the first letter from each word in a phrase. A lot of Linux commands take the first letter of a word plus some random letter in the middle.
Of course they come from Unix. I guess the unix guys (the same people that brought you == in C to save a keystroke in assignments) wanted to consist all frequent commands to consist of 2 letters only, to speed up typing. Those commands were invented a decade before the rise of the GUI.
BTW, of course you can use commands like
alias dir=ls -l
alias del=rm
alias deltree=rm -r
alias move=mv
...to make the shell fell more like DOS. IIRC, some distros do that by default.
-
@The Vicar said:
All default GUI text editors have no ability to do a "sudo open" or "sudo save", which is unbelievably stupid if controlling the GUI requires editing a root-owned text file.
Serious question: What does windows (xp/vista) do when you try to edit a file you are not entitled to edit? Does it prompt with something like 'You need administrator acces to edit this file. What is your administrator password?'?
A "sudo save" option sounds neat. Can you do "Start this program with sudo" in linux (ubuntu)? If not, then how is one supposed to edit config files etc? (I always start an editor from a terminal.)
-
@BertBert said:
A "sudo save" option sounds neat. Can you do "Start this program with sudo" in linux (ubuntu)? If not, then how is one supposed to edit config files etc? (I always start an editor from a terminal.)
It can be added to one's menu by making a .desktop file and dumping it where-ever one's panel menu exists (don't use GNOME or KDE anymore so I don't know where it is). Unfortunately although Ubuntu provides a "Root Terminal" button they fail to provide a "Root Gedit/Mousepad/kWrite/beaver/whaever".
Also on a note about root shells, from my experience, you cannot open an explorer window as admin while logged in as a LUA; which caused me to have to log-out (domain, no fast user switching) login with my admin account change the dir perms; then log back in as LUA. IIRC it don't even give you an error. The terminal didn't have RDP enabled so I couldn't RDP to myself. Also having an admin person have a LUA and an admin account is MS's best practices, why is it difficult to follow the best practices since as stated by someone else not everyone wants to use the CLI.
As for my obsession with CLI I was introduced to DOS 4 years before we got a mouse and windows and (from my understanding) I might be required in certain jobs in the field I'm going into (Network admin) to login through telnet.
-
@ammoQ said:
But then, "dir" and "ls" are both rather hard to guess, as is "cd". And I think that without "dir" and "cd", you will have a hard time to start copying or moving files at all.
At least dir and cd are short for "Directory" and "Change Directory".
What is LS short for?
-
@Jonathan Holland said:
At least dir and cd are short for "Directory" and "Change Directory".
What is LS short for?
list
-
@Jonathan Holland said:
What is LS short for?
<font face="courier new,courier">bash: LS: command not found</font>
-
@Lingerance said:
It can be added to one's menu by making a .desktop file and dumping it where-ever one's panel menu exists (don't use GNOME or KDE anymore so I don't know where it is).
KDE and GNOME have kdesu and gksudo, respectively.
If you run "gksudo <command>" or "kdesu <command>", it will ask for the password and run the command.
Or even "xterm -e sudo <command>" might do it. I use it on my Fluxbox root menu for running commands like shutdown/reboot.@Lingerance said:
and (from my understanding) I might be required in certain jobs in the field I'm going into (Network admin) to login through telnet.
Yes, if you are going to do any work with Linux/UNIX servers, your primary method of administration might be via SSH/Telnet. And, since you`re going into the field of network admin, some high-end routers can be configured over a terminal emulator connected to a serial port.
-
The real Litmus test: would you give Ubuntu to your (grand)parents?
My ongoing experiment with Ubuntu has had some significant bumps: for instance not knowing where the hell my application went; or how the fuck do I install this download -- but my actions may very well never be performed by some like, say, my dad. He would not offhandly go looking for the applications system folder, nor would he try to download a strange experimental player given that the default ones in Ubuntu ran fine and automatically downloaded and installed Gstreamer when they needed it.
Ubuntu also auto-recognized the onboard nvidia card, made it work, and thus prompted me for exactly 0 driver downloads. XP did not; merely crossed its eyes while muttering baroo?
Not to mention that the application manager is so, so, so much better for any ordinary user than having to do it all by yourself under Windows and MacOS.
I could make a detailed list of all sorts of things that are good and bad about a distro like Ubuntu, but I'm not going to do that here. Just food for arguments and more lengthy posts.
So perhaps, yes, I would give Ubuntu to my dad. The jury is still out.
-
@Jonathan Holland said:
What is LS short for?
maybe its for "List and Sort" ?
In SwampOs, "ls" called "List and Sort Directory random movie photo lage text scrolling", or LSD for short.
-
@dhromed said:
The real Litmus test: would you give Ubuntu to your (grand)parents?
I would, but my dad's PC barely runs the Win95 installed on it. (I could install a small distro with IceWM instead, but what for...)
But if he had a decent PC, I would definitely install some Linux distro on it. Even if it's just to keep the malware away.
As a plus, since he lives in a rural area without broadband access to the internet, the CLI remote maintenance possibiliies of Linux would come handy.
-
@Lingerance said:
Also on a note about root shells, from my experience, you cannot open an explorer window as admin while logged in as a LUA; which caused me to have to log-out (domain, no fast user switching) login with my admin account change the dir perms; then log back in as LUA. IIRC it don't even give you an error. The terminal didn't have RDP enabled so I couldn't RDP to myself. Also having an admin person have a LUA and an admin account is MS's best practices, why is it difficult to follow the best practices since as stated by someone else not everyone wants to use the CLI.
Just as an FYI:
To spawn an Admin Explorer, use Start|Run, and type the folowing:
C:\WINDOWS\system32\runas.exe /profile /user:(Computername)\Administrator "C:\Program Files\Internet Explorer\iexplore -new C:"
Change (Computername) to the name of your PC. This will launch Internet Explorer as Administrator pointed to C: (which forces it to look at Folders, you can't se runas with Explorer.exe so you have to "trick" IE to do this for you).
-
@Tatiano said:
maybe its for "List and Sort" ?
Not, it's simply for "list". But in Unix many of the basic commands are only two letters long.
That said, what about cut, cat, grep, find...? I might have to rethink my theory..
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@Random832 said:
The only theme on there that is not for media player or media center is the FFXI theme, which appears to be only a desktop background and icons, rather than anything to change the look of the window frames themselves.
Are you arguing that you need to pay MS to use a new theme?
I'm not sure how theme signing works exactly, but by default XP can't use unsigned themes.
-
@Cap'n Steve said:
I'm not sure how theme signing works exactly, but by default XP can't use unsigned themes.
There are many sites devoted to making your own themes. Also, in the display control panel you can modify the theme and save it as a new theme.
-
@MasterPlanSoftware said:
@Cap'n Steve said:
I'm not sure how theme signing works exactly, but by default XP can't use unsigned themes.
There are many sites devoted to making your own themes. Also, in the display control panel you can modify the theme and save it as a new theme.
Like I said, I'm not sure exactly how it works. What I do know is that you need to modify uxtheme.dll if you want to use themes you download from the Internet.
-
@The Vicar said:
Right, because it's so much easier to have to learn the magic key-value pair to turn off trackpad touch-clicking in xorg.conf than it would be to have a checkbox. I mean, it takes a whole 5 seconds to open a settings panel and click a checkbox, but any n00b can open a Terminal window, type "sudo [nano|vi|emacs|whatever] /etc/xorg.conf", find the trackpad module, and add the (natural) line 'Option "MaxTapTime" "0"', then save in under 1 second. I mean, it's just so blindingly obvious that "MaxTapTime" is the key you want and -- oh, no, wait, it isn't. It's needlessly obscure, and having to edit xorg.conf to change this setting is a waste of time.
(actually, I do have a gripe in the fact that gsynaptics is not installed and the shm config magic that it needs is not enabled by default, but that's neither here nor there.)
The problem with check boxes is they're not scalable. Sure, it's quick to click and check one check box, but what about when you have ten different options, you need ten check boxes (or numeric spinners, or a checkbox AND a numeric spinner because users are too dumb to understand that 0 means off, or dropdowns, or text boxes). What about when you have a hundred? A thousand?
@The Vicar said:
Same goes for changing the monitor bit depth, which requires a similar operation. You fail.
When the hell are you going to need to change monitor bit depth, ever? this isn't 1996, there aren't any crappy programs that are written in such a way as to crash if it's not set to 256-color mode. And resolution change, on the other hand, does have a GUI these days.
-
Do you not understand the difference between a REAL theme, and the theme you get by changing the desktop background, icons, and colors (but only for classic, can't change colors for luna)? The "can't use unsigned themes" refers to the former, your "you can modify the theme and save it as a new theme" refers to the latter
-
That is your opinion, I have no problem doing anything I need in the command line. Although, the point being argued is more towards the idea that in windows in general, you really just don't NEED to use the command line as often. There are very few things I need on a daily basis that require the command line. I may find it faster or easier, yes. But in general, the GUI tools are there so I wouldn't need to remember anything like that.
Well, the thing is, you're right. But, there are lots of things you simply can't do, on either system, without downloading a third-party tool. And, on windows, most of those third-party tools are GUI (crappy little MFC, or these days .NET, GUIs, but GUIs nonetheless), and on linux, most of them are command line. Oh, and most of the tools actually come with a linux distribution, rather than you having to download them. Windows has the registry editor, but is that REALLY less arcane than using the command line and editing text files?
-
@Random832 said:
blah blah I love the command line blah blah linux is great blah blah
Did you really revive a dead thread just to profess to us all that you haven't quite caught up to this decade?
