If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
With DaaS Windows Coming, Say Goodbye To Your PC As You Know It
On 01/08/18 20:36, Chris wrote:
William Unruh wrote: On 2018-08-01, The Natural Philosopher wrote: There is nothing a fleet of dispatchable nuclear power plants cannot do that cannot be done worse and more expensively and with higher carbon emissions and more adverse environmental impact by adding intermittent renewable energy. The problem is that the manufacturers/operators of nuclear power plants have proven themselves incompetent at safety. Fukushima (lets put the emergency power for water pumps in the basement). Chernobile (lets run tests and override the emergeny failsafes). And the consequences of unsafe operation are pretty devestating. No one's going argue that Chernobyl wasn't a disaster. Fukushima was hit by series of catastrophic events, one after the other, affecting multiple backup systems and yet the reactor still didn't breach. The plant failed as designed for the worst case scenario. I can't imagine anything surviving a huge earthquake, subsequent tsunami and failure of the cooling systems unscathed. Let's not forget the tsunami killed 15,000 people. No-one has died as result of the radiation leak from the fukushima accident. https://www.popularmechanics.com/sci...e-years-later/ https://xkcd.com/radiation/ So yes, your statement is OK, but it is a bit likethe anti-greenouse crowd. It's the opposite as it's based on fact . There is nothing that a bunch of coal fired plants cannot do more cheaply than any other source, until the consequences destroy civilisation. Unfortunately consequences, including those of incompetence, because incompetence is a fixed feature of the physica world, are things that need to be taken into account in making decisions. And yet despite even the Chernobyl disaster, nuclear has been shown to be safer, cleaner and better overall than fossil fuel based power plants. Fossil fuel is unsustainable, destroying the planet and killing people at an ever increasing pace. https://www.newscientist.com/article...nuclear-power/ If its in New Scientist, it's probably false. -- If I had all the money I've spent on drink... ...I'd spend it on drink. Sir Henry (at Rawlinson's End) |
Ads |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
With DaaS Windows Coming, Say Goodbye To Your PC As You Know It
On 08/01/2018 12:23 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/08/18 19:01, William Unruh wrote: On 2018-08-01, The Natural Philosopher wrote: There is nothing a fleet of dispatchable nuclear power plants cannot do that cannot be done worse and more expensively and with higher carbon emissions and more adverse environmental impact by adding intermittent renewable energy. The problem is that the manufacturers/operators of nuclear power plants have proven themselves incompetent at safety. Fukushima (lets put the emergency power for water pumps in the basement). Chernobile (lets run tests and override the emergeny failsafes). And the consequences of unsafe operation are pretty devestating. So yes, your statement is OK, but it is a bit likethe anti-greenouse crowd. There is nothing that a bunch of coal fired plants cannot do more cheaply than any other source, until the consequences destroy civilisation. Unfortunately consequences, including those of incompetence, because incompetence is a fixed feature of the physica world, are things that need to be taken into account in making decisions. Oh dear. Deaths at Chernobyl 50-70 Deaths at Three mile Island 0 Leaving aside chernobyl the other two incidents are a tribute to their safety systems. Despite complete core meltdown the secondary containment safety kept emissions so low that there was no public risk at all. Danger from CO2 emissions 0 .. No reactor of the chernobyl design is running today outside Russia You have drunk the Left Koolaid, haven't you? More deaths resulted for inappropriate response to Fukushima than from the incident itself. Part of the incompetence the previous poster cited. And incompetence in design, and location were the beginning of the failure. Try a book called "BENDING ADVERSITY Japan and the Art of Survival" by David Pilling from Penguin Press in 2014. It covers the losses and survivals from the Fukashima incident and the tsunami among other things. 20,000 people died on account of the tsunami. Half a dozen died when they were evacuated inappropriately. None died or will die from the radiation release. Radiation is not much but radioactive contamination is very deadly and at least Thyroid cancer will be seen. Hot rubble from the explosion floated through the air and water to the West Coast of the USA. Contamination at a low levels even in the Napa Valley wines. And I would want to check whether similar contaminants are in Northern Hemisphere wines. Left and Right politics don't enter into this. Oh and if there is no incompetence in the operation/design/location of the nuclear plant then the coal plants will cause more illness and release more radioactive contaminants. If a solar plant can be said to release contaminant mainly these shade the ground under the panels/mirrors, which may cause changes from direct sunlight vegetation to plants which appreciate a bit of shade. bliss -- bliss dash SF 4 ever at dslextreme dot com |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
With DaaS Windows Coming, Say Goodbye To Your PC As You Know It
In article Chris wrote: William Unruh wrote: On 2018-08-01, The Natural Philosopher wrote: There is nothing a fleet of dispatchable nuclear power plants cannot do that cannot be done worse and more expensively and with higher carbon emissions and more adverse environmental impact by adding intermittent renewable energy. The problem is that the manufacturers/operators of nuclear power plants have proven themselves incompetent at safety. Fukushima (lets put the emergency power for water pumps in the basement). Chernobile (lets run tests and override the emergeny failsafes). And the consequences of unsafe operation are pretty devestating. No one's going argue that Chernobyl wasn't a disaster. Fukushima was hit by series of catastrophic events, one after the other, affecting multiple backup systems and yet the reactor still didn't breach. The plant failed as designed for the worst case scenario. I can't imagine anything surviving a huge earthquake, subsequent tsunami and failure of the cooling systems unscathed. Let's not forget the tsunami killed 15,000 people. No-one has died as result of the radiation leak from the fukushima accident. https://www.popularmechanics.com/sci...e-years-later/ https://xkcd.com/radiation/ So yes, your statement is OK, but it is a bit likethe anti-greenouse crowd. It's the opposite as it's based on fact . There is nothing that a bunch of coal fired plants cannot do more cheaply than any other source, until the consequences destroy civilisation. Unfortunately consequences, including those of incompetence, because incompetence is a fixed feature of the physica world, are things that need to be taken into account in making decisions. And yet despite even the Chernobyl disaster, nuclear has been shown to be safer, cleaner and better overall than fossil fuel based power plants. Fossil fuel is unsustainable, destroying the planet and killing people at an ever increasing pace. https://www.newscientist.com/article...nuclear-power/ |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
With DaaS Windows Coming, Say Goodbye To Your PC As You Know It
"Anonymous" wrote
| A service is something that does something useful. | So a maid who makes the bed is a service. | | Linuxs does something useful. It is a service as much as it is | software. It is perhaps a service enabled by software much as the | bedmaking is a service enabled by a maid. | | My lawn mower would be a service with this explanation. | And he's missed the whole point of the idea of what software companies, MS in particular, are doing by defining their software as a service. for some reason he's seems to not want to know. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
With DaaS Windows Coming, Say Goodbye To Your PC As You KnowIt
Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
But that won't change Windows users. They will take it. You don't seem to have thought this through. 1) Microsoft cannot afford to start putting a rental OS on OEM computers. This will free the OEMs to put a fully functional unconstrained OS on the machine instead. A hardware manufacturer cannot ship a product with a rental OS on it. That would be "bonkers". 2) Microsoft cannot change the terms of any existing product. The supported life of Windows 7 or Windows 8, will last to the end of the stated date in the Life Cycle table. If they do not live up to their end of the contract, there will be a class action suit. 3) For the people who "upgraded" from Windows 7, they still have their original OS. The OS doesn't need updates. 4) For people who make a backup copy of Windows 10 *today* *this very minute* and store this in a safe place, when the time comes, that can be restored (with the network cable pulled), and then there is a relatively simple procedure to stop updates from Microsoft. I have a VM frozen at 16299 right now, testing this. A second step (one I haven't carried out yet), is to install a third party AV to take the place of Windows Defender, as WD depends on Windows Update. Replacing with some other AV, should reduce the nuisance factor of WD. There are plenty of options available to stay within the ecosystem. Whatever Microsoft screws up, means profit for Google. Canonical is not a player (even if it goes IPO, they don't "get it"). Google on the other hand, has the skill set to be a competitor. Paul |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
With DaaS Windows Coming, Say Goodbye To Your PC As You Know It
In article "Mayayana" wrote: "Anonymous" wrote | A service is something that does something useful. | So a maid who makes the bed is a service. | | Linuxs does something useful. It is a service as much as it is | software. It is perhaps a service enabled by software much as the | bedmaking is a service enabled by a maid. | | My lawn mower would be a service with this explanation. | And he's missed the whole point of the idea of what software companies, MS in particular, are doing by defining their software as a service. for some reason he's seems to not want to know. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
With DaaS Windows Coming, Say Goodbye To Your PC As You Know It
In article
Bobbie Sellers wrote: On 08/01/2018 12:23 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote: On 01/08/18 19:01, William Unruh wrote: On 2018-08-01, The Natural Philosopher wrote: There is nothing a fleet of dispatchable nuclear power plants cannot do that cannot be done worse and more expensively and with higher carbon emissions and more adverse environmental impact by adding intermittent renewable energy. The problem is that the manufacturers/operators of nuclear power plants have proven themselves incompetent at safety. Fukushima (lets put the emergency power for water pumps in the basement). Chernobile (lets run tests and override the emergeny failsafes). And the consequences of unsafe operation are pretty devestating. So yes, your statement is OK, but it is a bit likethe anti-greenouse crowd. There is nothing that a bunch of coal fired plants cannot do more cheaply than any other source, until the consequences destroy civilisation. Unfortunately consequences, including those of incompetence, because incompetence is a fixed feature of the physica world, are things that need to be taken into account in making decisions. Oh dear. Deaths at Chernobyl 50-70 Deaths at Three mile Island 0 Leaving aside chernobyl the other two incidents are a tribute to their safety systems. Despite complete core meltdown the secondary containment safety kept emissions so low that there was no public risk at all. Danger from CO2 emissions 0 .. No reactor of the chernobyl design is running today outside Russia You have drunk the Left Koolaid, haven't you? More deaths resulted for inappropriate response to Fukushima than from the incident itself. Part of the incompetence the previous poster cited. And incompetence in design, and location were the beginning of the failure. Try a book called "BENDING ADVERSITY Japan and the Art of Survival" by David Pilling from Penguin Press in 2014. It covers the losses and survivals from the Fukashima incident and the tsunami among other things. 20,000 people died on account of the tsunami. Half a dozen died when they were evacuated inappropriately. None died or will die from the radiation release. Radiation is not much but radioactive contamination is very deadly and at least Thyroid cancer will be seen. Hot rubble from the explosion floated through the air and water to the West Coast of the USA. Contamination at a low levels even in the Napa Valley wines. And I would want to check whether similar contaminants are in Northern Hemisphere wines. Left and Right politics don't enter into this. Oh and if there is no incompetence in the operation/design/location of the nuclear plant then the coal plants will cause more illness and release more radioactive contaminants. If a solar plant can be said to release contaminant mainly these shade the ground under the panels/mirrors, which may cause changes from direct sunlight vegetation to plants which appreciate a bit of shade. bliss -- bliss dash SF 4 ever at dslextreme dot com |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
With DaaS Windows Coming, Say Goodbye To Your PC As You Know It
"Paul" wrote
| But that won't change Windows users. They will take it. | | You don't seem to have thought this through. | | 1) Microsoft cannot afford to start putting a rental OS | on OEM computers. This will free the OEMs to put a | fully functional unconstrained OS on the machine instead. | A hardware manufacturer cannot ship a product with | a rental OS on it. That would be "bonkers". | | 2) Microsoft cannot change the terms of any existing product. | The supported life of Windows 7 or Windows 8, will last | to the end of the stated date in the Life Cycle table. | If they do not live up to their end of the contract, | there will be a class action suit. | Your points make sense, but there are probably all sorts of ways that they could do whatever they decide is best. For instance, each version of Win10 is only supported for 1 year. They could announce that everyone is free to stick with an unsupported version or join the subscription plan. I'm not saying that will happen. MS have been trying to turn Windows into adware ever since Active Desktop in '98 and it hasn't gone over well. But there are differences today: 1) Most people want devices for entertainment and don't want to have to understand them. 2) Internet speeds have caught up, so that software masquerading as webpages is now possible. I wouldn't have predicted that so many people would lie down for Win10 spyware and undependability. But they have. Most people don't see a choice. (Look at all the people who get duped by scammers who call and say they're Microsoft, demanding an overdue license fee.) |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
With DaaS Windows Coming, Say Goodbye To Your PC As You Know It
"Anonymous" wrote
| This is really a very disappointing explanation of the various Linux | systems. I am almost certain that you have never done more than | installed a Linux GUI system, played with it for a short time, | condemned it in you mind, and uninstalled it. Twice I tried getting used to it and once I looked into the feasibility of porting VB6 software using WINE. Do I need to use it and like it in order to assess it? Linux just isn't a desktop. It's fine for a server, but I don't need a server. What Windows offers is universality and relative ease of use, coupled with tools for people at all levels. The last time I tried Linux was a few years ago. I had a simple test: Set it up and use it without needing command line and get a firewall that would be easy to configure to control all outgoing and incoming communication. As easy as Online Armor is on XP. Even those 2 simple requirements were impossible to fulfill. The response from Linux fans: Command line is better and you don't need a firewall to block outgoing on Linux because it's not unsafe like Windows. That's classic Linux fan logic: If you want what we don't got then you're wrong. | Debian alone has 32,000+ | free software programs available. And iPhones have even more, don't they? But that means nothing if I don't want any of them. Linux has Firefox and TBird. For graphics there's GIMP, which is still a rough, unfinished project after almost 25 years of development. But most of the software I typically use won't run on Linux. That's not the fault of Linux, but it's the facts. 90+% of PCs run Windows. Software is easier to write for Windows. So there's lots of software for Windows. Example: RAW photo work. Aftershot Pro is very reasonably priced. On Linux? Last I saw there was only UFRaw, which wasn't much good. Even for basic graphics I have lots of choices. GIMP isn't one of them. Or rather, GIMP is a choice on Windows but not one worth using. I can also write my own software on Windows. Writing on Linux would be a steep learning curve. | Those who have converted off of | Windows have not found Linux to restrict their needs and uses for a | computer. That statement means nothing. I'd love to see more people using Linux, because then maybe developers would gradually make it more mainstream. But it's just not happening. I don't know anyone using Linux. | The other Linux distributions make it easy to install some good | programs right there in their interface. That's what I *don't* want. If I moved to Linux it would be to get free of busybody interference. I don't want a system forcing file restrictions on me. And I don't want a system with an applet middleman to oversee software installs. I don't want it calling home. I want it to work smoothly without ever needing to call home. Last time I tried Linux it was so intrusive about file restrictions that I ended up making FAT32 partitions for storing files. That's the problem I was talking about: Linux has been going from half-built to Mac-style lockdown, without ever reaching the sweet spot of Windows: An OS that does what you want without needing to learn a lot, but still allows almost any degree of customization. Of course, Microsoft are working to change that. But Linux and Mac are not worthy substitutes. If you treat computer users as dumb then your OS will be dumb. | I am a software engineer and | hated to have to re-learn how to use the Linux comandline. But there | were many places on the web that explained how to install programs | using the Linux comandline that were not in the GUI install interface. That's fine if that's what you like. It's not my preference. And it's not the preference of the vast majority. To defend it and say one can learn about it online is the classic Linux defense, as I said above. There is no defense for not having GUI options for virtually anything you might want to do. It's been relatively easy to achieve for over 20 years now. But of course, it's easier on Windows, because Microsoft want to encourage software developers, so they make easy, RAD tools. As far as I'm concerned, life's too short for command line. I could also light my stove by rubbing two sticks together. But why would I? Command line simply isn't necessary in a properly designed program. But most of what's on Linux isn't properly designed. The emphasis is all on functionality with none on usability. In the rare cases where I need to do something with command line, if I need to do it more than once I'll probably write a script. For instance, registering COM libraries. I can run a command but since I do it occasionally I wrote a script that works by just dropping the DLL onto the script on my desktop. Why would I go to the trouble of looking up and typing that command over and over when I can use drag-drop? What most Linux fans won't admit is that command line is really a pointless fetish -- an unwillingness to adapt. They want to light their stove by rubbing sticks together because it makes them feel like masters of arcane knowledge. Which would be silly enough, but then they scorn others who want to click a button rather than type out an incantation. Part of the problem there is also the culture. There are too many unsocialized geeks who spend their time either programming or playing childish computer games. It's an adolescent culture. (Just look at what gets top WINE support to see what the main priorities are. A grown man playing video games is a sad state of affairs.) Linux is not likely to ever be a well designed system unless well-rounded people, concerned with usability and productivity, decide to polish it. And since there's no business case for anyone doing that, it's not likely to happen. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
With DaaS Windows Coming, Say Goodbye To Your PC As You Know It
In article , Mayayana
wrote: | This is really a very disappointing explanation of the various Linux | systems. I am almost certain that you have never done more than | installed a Linux GUI system, played with it for a short time, | condemned it in you mind, and uninstalled it. Twice I tried getting used to it and once I looked into the feasibility of porting VB6 software using WINE. Do I need to use it and like it in order to assess it? that's not just asking for problems, it's begging. I can also write my own software on Windows. Writing on Linux would be a steep learning curve. it's always good to learn new skills, particularly if you're still using vb6. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
With DaaS Windows Coming, Say Goodbye To Your PC As You KnowIt
On 8/1/2018 7:41 PM, Mayayana wrote:
"Anonymous" wrote | This is really a very disappointing explanation of the various Linux | systems. I am almost certain that you have never done more than | installed a Linux GUI system, played with it for a short time, | condemned it in you mind, and uninstalled it. Twice I tried getting used to it and once I looked into the feasibility of porting VB6 software using WINE. Do I need to use it and like it in order to assess it? Linux just isn't a desktop. It's fine for a server, but I don't need a server. What Windows offers is universality and relative ease of use, coupled with tools for people at all levels. The last time I tried Linux was a few years ago. I had a simple test: Set it up and use it without needing command line and get a firewall that would be easy to configure to control all outgoing and incoming communication. As easy as Online Armor is on XP. Even those 2 simple requirements were impossible to fulfill. The response from Linux fans: Command line is better and you don't need a firewall to block outgoing on Linux because it's not unsafe like Windows. That's classic Linux fan logic: If you want what we don't got then you're wrong. | Debian alone has 32,000+ | free software programs available. And iPhones have even more, don't they? But that means nothing if I don't want any of them. Linux has Firefox and TBird. For graphics there's GIMP, which is still a rough, unfinished project after almost 25 years of development. But most of the software I typically use won't run on Linux. That's not the fault of Linux, but it's the facts. 90+% of PCs run Windows. Software is easier to write for Windows. So there's lots of software for Windows. Example: RAW photo work. Aftershot Pro is very reasonably priced. On Linux? Last I saw there was only UFRaw, which wasn't much good. Even for basic graphics I have lots of choices. GIMP isn't one of them. Or rather, GIMP is a choice on Windows but not one worth using. I can also write my own software on Windows. Writing on Linux would be a steep learning curve. | Those who have converted off of | Windows have not found Linux to restrict their needs and uses for a | computer. That statement means nothing. I'd love to see more people using Linux, because then maybe developers would gradually make it more mainstream. But it's just not happening. I don't know anyone using Linux. | The other Linux distributions make it easy to install some good | programs right there in their interface. That's what I *don't* want. If I moved to Linux it would be to get free of busybody interference. I don't want a system forcing file restrictions on me. And I don't want a system with an applet middleman to oversee software installs. I don't want it calling home. I want it to work smoothly without ever needing to call home. Last time I tried Linux it was so intrusive about file restrictions that I ended up making FAT32 partitions for storing files. That's the problem I was talking about: Linux has been going from half-built to Mac-style lockdown, without ever reaching the sweet spot of Windows: An OS that does what you want without needing to learn a lot, but still allows almost any degree of customization. Of course, Microsoft are working to change that. But Linux and Mac are not worthy substitutes. If you treat computer users as dumb then your OS will be dumb. | I am a software engineer and | hated to have to re-learn how to use the Linux comandline. But there | were many places on the web that explained how to install programs | using the Linux comandline that were not in the GUI install interface. That's fine if that's what you like. It's not my preference. And it's not the preference of the vast majority. To defend it and say one can learn about it online is the classic Linux defense, as I said above. There is no defense for not having GUI options for virtually anything you might want to do. It's been relatively easy to achieve for over 20 years now. But of course, it's easier on Windows, because Microsoft want to encourage software developers, so they make easy, RAD tools. As far as I'm concerned, life's too short for command line. I could also light my stove by rubbing two sticks together. But why would I? Command line simply isn't necessary in a properly designed program. But most of what's on Linux isn't properly designed. The emphasis is all on functionality with none on usability. In the rare cases where I need to do something with command line, if I need to do it more than once I'll probably write a script. For instance, registering COM libraries. I can run a command but since I do it occasionally I wrote a script that works by just dropping the DLL onto the script on my desktop. Why would I go to the trouble of looking up and typing that command over and over when I can use drag-drop? What most Linux fans won't admit is that command line is really a pointless fetish -- an unwillingness to adapt. They want to light their stove by rubbing sticks together because it makes them feel like masters of arcane knowledge. Which would be silly enough, but then they scorn others who want to click a button rather than type out an incantation. Part of the problem there is also the culture. There are too many unsocialized geeks who spend their time either programming or playing childish computer games. It's an adolescent culture. (Just look at what gets top WINE support to see what the main priorities are. A grown man playing video games is a sad state of affairs.) Linux is not likely to ever be a well designed system unless well-rounded people, concerned with usability and productivity, decide to polish it. And since there's no business case for anyone doing that, it's not likely to happen. Very well said! I spent the day trying to get mint 19 installed and integrated into a windows network. A LOT has changed in the last two years...for the worse. Somebody decided to REMOVE the GUI configuration utility for desktop sharing. dconf-editor seems to have been reduced to useless. I've got two deal-breaker issues and little interest in spending large amounts of effort if they're just gonna keep making it more confusing. You need to be a mind-reader to configure linux. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
With DaaS Windows Coming, Say Goodbye To Your PC As You Know It
In article mike wrote: On 8/1/2018 7:41 PM, Mayayana wrote: "Anonymous" wrote | This is really a very disappointing explanation of the various Linux | systems. I am almost certain that you have never done more than | installed a Linux GUI system, played with it for a short time, | condemned it in you mind, and uninstalled it. Twice I tried getting used to it and once I looked into the feasibility of porting VB6 software using WINE. Do I need to use it and like it in order to assess it? Linux just isn't a desktop. It's fine for a server, but I don't need a server. What Windows offers is universality and relative ease of use, coupled with tools for people at all levels. The last time I tried Linux was a few years ago. I had a simple test: Set it up and use it without needing command line and get a firewall that would be easy to configure to control all outgoing and incoming communication. As easy as Online Armor is on XP. Even those 2 simple requirements were impossible to fulfill. The response from Linux fans: Command line is better and you don't need a firewall to block outgoing on Linux because it's not unsafe like Windows. That's classic Linux fan logic: If you want what we don't got then you're wrong. | Debian alone has 32,000+ | free software programs available. And iPhones have even more, don't they? But that means nothing if I don't want any of them. Linux has Firefox and TBird. For graphics there's GIMP, which is still a rough, unfinished project after almost 25 years of development. But most of the software I typically use won't run on Linux. That's not the fault of Linux, but it's the facts. 90+% of PCs run Windows. Software is easier to write for Windows. So there's lots of software for Windows. Example: RAW photo work. Aftershot Pro is very reasonably priced. On Linux? Last I saw there was only UFRaw, which wasn't much good. Even for basic graphics I have lots of choices. GIMP isn't one of them. Or rather, GIMP is a choice on Windows but not one worth using. I can also write my own software on Windows. Writing on Linux would be a steep learning curve. | Those who have converted off of | Windows have not found Linux to restrict their needs and uses for a | computer. That statement means nothing. I'd love to see more people using Linux, because then maybe developers would gradually make it more mainstream. But it's just not happening. I don't know anyone using Linux. | The other Linux distributions make it easy to install some good | programs right there in their interface. That's what I *don't* want. If I moved to Linux it would be to get free of busybody interference. I don't want a system forcing file restrictions on me. And I don't want a system with an applet middleman to oversee software installs. I don't want it calling home. I want it to work smoothly without ever needing to call home. Last time I tried Linux it was so intrusive about file restrictions that I ended up making FAT32 partitions for storing files. That's the problem I was talking about: Linux has been going from half-built to Mac-style lockdown, without ever reaching the sweet spot of Windows: An OS that does what you want without needing to learn a lot, but still allows almost any degree of customization. Of course, Microsoft are working to change that. But Linux and Mac are not worthy substitutes. If you treat computer users as dumb then your OS will be dumb. | I am a software engineer and | hated to have to re-learn how to use the Linux comandline. But there | were many places on the web that explained how to install programs | using the Linux comandline that were not in the GUI install interface. That's fine if that's what you like. It's not my preference. And it's not the preference of the vast majority. To defend it and say one can learn about it online is the classic Linux defense, as I said above. There is no defense for not having GUI options for virtually anything you might want to do. It's been relatively easy to achieve for over 20 years now. But of course, it's easier on Windows, because Microsoft want to encourage software developers, so they make easy, RAD tools. As far as I'm concerned, life's too short for command line. I could also light my stove by rubbing two sticks together. But why would I? Command line simply isn't necessary in a properly designed program. But most of what's on Linux isn't properly designed. The emphasis is all on functionality with none on usability. In the rare cases where I need to do something with command line, if I need to do it more than once I'll probably write a script. For instance, registering COM libraries. I can run a command but since I do it occasionally I wrote a script that works by just dropping the DLL onto the script on my desktop. Why would I go to the trouble of looking up and typing that command over and over when I can use drag-drop? What most Linux fans won't admit is that command line is really a pointless fetish -- an unwillingness to adapt. They want to light their stove by rubbing sticks together because it makes them feel like masters of arcane knowledge. Which would be silly enough, but then they scorn others who want to click a button rather than type out an incantation. Part of the problem there is also the culture. There are too many unsocialized geeks who spend their time either programming or playing childish computer games. It's an adolescent culture. (Just look at what gets top WINE support to see what the main priorities are. A grown man playing video games is a sad state of affairs.) Linux is not likely to ever be a well designed system unless well-rounded people, concerned with usability and productivity, decide to polish it. And since there's no business case for anyone doing that, it's not likely to happen. Very well said! I spent the day trying to get mint 19 installed and integrated into a windows network. A LOT has changed in the last two years...for the worse. Somebody decided to REMOVE the GUI configuration utility for desktop sharing. dconf-editor seems to have been reduced to useless. I've got two deal-breaker issues and little interest in spending large amounts of effort if they're just gonna keep making it more confusing. You need to be a mind-reader to configure linux. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
With DaaS Windows Coming, Say Goodbye To Your PC As You Know It
In article
"Mayayana" wrote: "Anonymous" wrote | This is really a very disappointing explanation of the various Linux | systems. I am almost certain that you have never done more than | installed a Linux GUI system, played with it for a short time, | condemned it in you mind, and uninstalled it. Twice I tried getting used to it and once I looked into the feasibility of porting VB6 software using WINE. Do I need to use it and like it in order to assess it? Linux just isn't a desktop. It's fine for a server, but I don't need a server. What Windows offers is universality and relative ease of use, coupled with tools for people at all levels. The last time I tried Linux was a few years ago. I had a simple test: Set it up and use it without needing command line and get a firewall that would be easy to configure to control all outgoing and incoming communication. As easy as Online Armor is on XP. Even those 2 simple requirements were impossible to fulfill. The response from Linux fans: Command line is better and you don't need a firewall to block outgoing on Linux because it's not unsafe like Windows. That's classic Linux fan logic: If you want what we don't got then you're wrong. | Debian alone has 32,000+ | free software programs available. And iPhones have even more, don't they? But that means nothing if I don't want any of them. Linux has Firefox and TBird. For graphics there's GIMP, which is still a rough, unfinished project after almost 25 years of development. But most of the software I typically use won't run on Linux. That's not the fault of Linux, but it's the facts. 90+% of PCs run Windows. Software is easier to write for Windows. So there's lots of software for Windows. Example: RAW photo work. Aftershot Pro is very reasonably priced. On Linux? Last I saw there was only UFRaw, which wasn't much good. Even for basic graphics I have lots of choices. GIMP isn't one of them. Or rather, GIMP is a choice on Windows but not one worth using. I can also write my own software on Windows. Writing on Linux would be a steep learning curve. | Those who have converted off of | Windows have not found Linux to restrict their needs and uses for a | computer. That statement means nothing. I'd love to see more people using Linux, because then maybe developers would gradually make it more mainstream. But it's just not happening. I don't know anyone using Linux. | The other Linux distributions make it easy to install some good | programs right there in their interface. That's what I *don't* want. If I moved to Linux it would be to get free of busybody interference. I don't want a system forcing file restrictions on me. And I don't want a system with an applet middleman to oversee software installs. I don't want it calling home. I want it to work smoothly without ever needing to call home. Last time I tried Linux it was so intrusive about file restrictions that I ended up making FAT32 partitions for storing files. That's the problem I was talking about: Linux has been going from half-built to Mac-style lockdown, without ever reaching the sweet spot of Windows: An OS that does what you want without needing to learn a lot, but still allows almost any degree of customization. Of course, Microsoft are working to change that. But Linux and Mac are not worthy substitutes. If you treat computer users as dumb then your OS will be dumb. | I am a software engineer and | hated to have to re-learn how to use the Linux comandline. But there | were many places on the web that explained how to install programs | using the Linux comandline that were not in the GUI install interface. That's fine if that's what you like. It's not my preference. And it's not the preference of the vast majority. To defend it and say one can learn about it online is the classic Linux defense, as I said above. There is no defense for not having GUI options for virtually anything you might want to do. It's been relatively easy to achieve for over 20 years now. But of course, it's easier on Windows, because Microsoft want to encourage software developers, so they make easy, RAD tools. As far as I'm concerned, life's too short for command line. I could also light my stove by rubbing two sticks together. But why would I? Command line simply isn't necessary in a properly designed program. But most of what's on Linux isn't properly designed. The emphasis is all on functionality with none on usability. In the rare cases where I need to do something with command line, if I need to do it more than once I'll probably write a script. For instance, registering COM libraries. I can run a command but since I do it occasionally I wrote a script that works by just dropping the DLL onto the script on my desktop. Why would I go to the trouble of looking up and typing that command over and over when I can use drag-drop? What most Linux fans won't admit is that command line is really a pointless fetish -- an unwillingness to adapt. They want to light their stove by rubbing sticks together because it makes them feel like masters of arcane knowledge. Which would be silly enough, but then they scorn others who want to click a button rather than type out an incantation. Part of the problem there is also the culture. There are too many unsocialized geeks who spend their time either programming or playing childish computer games. It's an adolescent culture. (Just look at what gets top WINE support to see what the main priorities are. A grown man playing video games is a sad state of affairs.) Linux is not likely to ever be a well designed system unless well-rounded people, concerned with usability and productivity, decide to polish it. And since there's no business case for anyone doing that, it's not likely to happen. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
With DaaS Windows Coming, Say Goodbye To Your PC As You Know It
In article
nospam wrote: In article , Mayayana wrote: | This is really a very disappointing explanation of the various Linux | systems. I am almost certain that you have never done more than | installed a Linux GUI system, played with it for a short time, | condemned it in you mind, and uninstalled it. Twice I tried getting used to it and once I looked into the feasibility of porting VB6 software using WINE. Do I need to use it and like it in order to assess it? that's not just asking for problems, it's begging. I can also write my own software on Windows. Writing on Linux would be a steep learning curve. it's always good to learn new skills, particularly if you're still using vb6. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
With DaaS Windows Coming, Say Goodbye To Your PC As You Know It
On 08/01/2018 06:48 PM, Mayayana wrote:
"Paul" wrote | But that won't change Windows users. They will take it. | | You don't seem to have thought this through. | | 1) Microsoft cannot afford to start putting a rental OS | on OEM computers. This will free the OEMs to put a | fully functional unconstrained OS on the machine instead. | A hardware manufacturer cannot ship a product with | a rental OS on it. That would be "bonkers". And if the system on that computer is not named Windows who would bother with it? Windows is rotten to the core with spyware and many years of neglect of the users privacy and security. | | 2) Microsoft cannot change the terms of any existing product. | The supported life of Windows 7 or Windows 8, will last | to the end of the stated date in the Life Cycle table. | If they do not live up to their end of the contract, | there will be a class action suit. | Your points make sense, but there are probably all sorts of ways that they could do whatever they decide is best. For instance, each version of Win10 is only supported for 1 year. They could announce that everyone is free to stick with an unsupported version or join the subscription plan. I'm not saying that will happen. MS have been trying to turn Windows into adware ever since Active Desktop in '98 and it hasn't gone over well. But there are differences today: 1) Most people want devices for entertainment and don't want to have to understand them. 2) Internet speeds have caught up, so that software masquerading as webpages is now possible. I wouldn't have predicted that so many people would lie down for Win10 spyware and undependability. But they have. Most people don't see a choice. (Look at all the people who get duped by scammers who call and say they're Microsoft, demanding an overdue license fee.) Well it sounds like no one writing has any understanding of the GNU/Linux system and its several Desktop Environments. Of course no one mentions AmigaOS which was superior to the the Windows system even at its end of life of the original Commodore Business Machines. Before Linux I had several other GUI machines using GEOS on the Commodore 128 and AmigaOS,then XP and finally KDE on Mandriva Linux. The DEs have changed a lot since then but I still use KDE's current Plasma 5 DE. I still tried out Gnome 3.2x, Trinity DE, XFCE, LXQT and a few others. Terminals are for people who already know more Linux commands than I do but I still use terminals for specific operations such as changing ownership of files and doing checksums on downloaded ISOs. Everyone seems to think that the version of Linux they downloaded or otherwise obtained is just like every other distribution. They are not. Each has its strengths and weaknesses. Ubuntu was promoted as a system to move from Windows to Linux easily but it did so by obscurantist measures. It still even with Gnome would make a good cellphone DE but surprise nearly every major DE I have encounted can do the same sort of truncated applications list displayed as a border-less window full of icons which is really a pain on a small laptop/notebook screen. Lots of distributions make good straight- forward desktop computing possibly if you know something and have some experience with different systems. And aside from Canonical's Ubuntu you only have to worry about the spyware you might download. And I am not about to trust any creative work I may be about to a Cloud or Windows. bliss -- bliss dash SF 4 ever at dslextreme dot com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|