With DaaS Windows Coming, Say Goodbye To Your PC As You Know It

In article
Nomen Nescio wrote:

In article
"Carlos E.R." wrote:

On 2018-08-01 09:04, Chris wrote:
nospam wrote:
In article , Anssi Saari
wrote:


MS underestimated Android in the phone market.
They might fail again with the desktop.

Here's hoping (for Microsoft's demise). But I think it's more like a
paradigm shift happened. Absolutely nothing threatens Microsoft on the
PC desktop,

quite a bit does. chromebooks are very strong in education and web apps
(mainly google) are winning out over ms office.

Not in the UK. Schools and universities are wall to wall MS. Which is
particularly depressing given the lack of money in schools.

I was in a classroom a few years back here (Spain), and the funny thing
was that the school officially embraced free software; yet the teachers
wrote their pieces on Word instead of LibreOffice, so the students did
the same (without licenses). Someone really using LO had a bit of a
problem because the formatting often is not accurately converted.

Open office format from Office 2007 forward. Add the
compatibility pack to Office 2003 and it could read open office
document formats as well. Can't say I never saw any conversion
issues between MS Office products and open office suites because
I did. But, you had the option of saving it to another format
where the conversion was not problematic.

Most of the people I saw used Windows and Office without licenses, so MS
was getting nothing - except that the people got familiar with MS and
demand MS products later.

Maybe ya'll should have gotten off Windows 98SE and Office 95
sooner.

In article
Nomen Nescio wrote:

In article
Dan Purgert wrote:

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.

To be fair, the "low skill level" people are just as lost in Windows as
they would be in Linux.

And most Linux people complicate things beyond belief
attemnpting to do things in Windows the same way they do in
Linux.

The biggest problem I've seen with people converting is "in Windows, I
did ..." and then being highly resistant to the response "You don't do
things that way in Linux; instead use ..."

I blame the Linux culture. It's like the whole bunch has
T.A.R.D. (Trump Acceptance Resistance Disorder) when anything
involves Windows.


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.

Yeah, that's a big difference in paradigms right there. Windows kind of
takes the route of "No user-serviceable parts inside" as opposed to the
linux approach of "have at it!".

Untrue.

That being said, for the firewall side, I believe they've made headway
in graphical utilities (although, I don't really pay attention there -
iptables on the commandline is good enough for me).

Guess you've never heard of netsh.

Software is easier to write for Windows. [...]

That's a bit of a bold statement there, and probably more of a "for you"
argument than anything.

And incorrect as software is not easier to write for Windows.
In reality, it can be more difficult.

As far as I care to look, there are realistically very few
"Windows-only" programming languages. The rest, which include (but are
not limited to) C, C++, Java (ew), Python, and Perl are all
cross-platform.

[...] 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.

Yeah, a bit of a downside when the software is provided 100%
free-of-charge, and is subsequently only supported in someone's free
time and/or by donation.

Complaint about free software noted.

A quick check shows that there are about a dozen potential alternatives
that support Linux. However, that's as far as I looked (I don't know
enough about the former to provide a proper comparison).


I can also write my own software on Windows.
Writing on Linux would be a steep learning curve.

Depends on which language(s) you write software in. VB.NET? yeah,
you've got a learning curve (mostly syntax though).

Any of the cross-platform languages? No curve at all, barring "I need
to find a new IDE."

| [...]
| 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 think "their interface" more refers to whichever (graphical) "app
store" that the distribution chose to go with, as opposed to your
takeaway here.

I don't want a system forcing file restrictions on me.

Care to explain what you mean here?

And I don't want a system with an applet middleman to oversee software
installs.

I wouldn't exactly call synaptic (or whatever graphical frontend you
prefer) an "applet middleman" to the underlying package management tool.
But, it's kind of arguing semantics; and you don't "have" to use it -
you can always just run the package management tool from the
command-line (or build from source).

I don't want it calling home. I want it to work smoothly without ever
needing to call home.

Gotcha covered there - unless you consider the package repos as "calling
home".

Last time I tried Linux it was so intrusive about
file restrictions that I ended up making FAT32
partitions for storing files.

Basic rule of Linux filesystems, by default the user can only write to

- their individual "home" directory (rough equivalent to
C:\users\yourname, and subdirectories thereto on Windows)
- the tmp directory
- Auto-mounted directories created when plugging in removable media /
inserting blank optical media.

As I understand it, Windows is becoming somewhat similar - e.g. you
cannot write to C:\ without "user elevation" (or whatever Windows calls
it).

You'd be wrong.


That's the problem I was talking about: Linux has
been going from half-built to Mac-style lockdown,

Both Linux and Mac use UNIX-style permissions. That is, they make a
clear-cut distinction between "a user" and "an administrator".

Windows systems, on the other hand, tended to have everyone running
around "as administrators" (although that has gotten considerably better
since Win7).

Again you'd be wrong. Windows doesn't do that. Lazy Linux
administrators do that trying to force Windows to work like
Linux.

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.

Here's the rub though - how long have you been using Windows? I mean,
If you've been using it through at least one release cycle, there's
ample time for you to have forgotten how much "learning" you needed to
do.

Got copies of Windows 1.0 thru Windows 2016 running on a VMs
right now.

And for the younger generations, they kinda just "grew up with it", so
that whole period of "this is stupid, I hate this machine" was tempered
by parents showing them how it works...

Kids make their own decisions and most parents were too stupid
to figure out Macs, Windows or Linux in the first place.

Stupid people made Apple a trillion $$$ company today.

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.

Linux doesn't treat their users as dumb, in my experience. Can't really
say about mac -- but then again, to pay 2-3x the price for the same
hardware as that Dell right over there ...

Linux certainly does treat users as 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.

There's literally nothing stopping one from writing GUI tools for
anything and everything they want. The simple fact with Linux is there
is quite a bit of "if it isn't broken...", and so the commandline tools
that work are left alone. Why spend time on writing a GUI program that
does the same thing, when you can write something else?

Lol, if I had a quarter for every Linux feature that gets broken
or changed between releases. It's just as bad as Windows,
sometimes worse.

[...]
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?

You can do exactly the same thing in Linux...


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.

No, I use it because, as you said, I can script the machine to do
whatever it is *I* want it to do, not what some GUI-developer decided i
could do.

Guess you've never heard of scripting in Windows either.

In my experience, the biggest limiting factor of a GUI is when you have
to do the same task multiple times to individual files (e.g. renaming
them).

That's because you weren't smart enough to name them correctly
in the first place.


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.)

Perhaps because 'games' are a way to unwind. Just like model-building,
or hobby machining, or whatever other activity you happen to prefer.

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.

Good news, you don't need a "business case" to do something in Linux.
See a problem? Feel free to fix that problem.

Linux as a desktop, high maintenance for users. Even basic
software like mail clients are primitive.

Perhaps you should read the text "The Cathedral and the Bazaar", by Eric
S. Raymond. It may give a bit of insight into some of the difference in
thinking that "Linux People(tm)" tend to have.

Why would the OP want to limit their thinking to the .5%?

In article
Chris wrote:

Nomen Nescio wrote:
In article
Chris wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
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.

Not sure where you're getting that from, but here's another source if you
prefer. There are others.
https://cen.acs.org/articles/91/web/...hs-Causes.html

3D printed guns save lives.

Ha ha ha! That's a good one. Have you got other gems?

Jonathan N. Little wrote:
mike wrote:
The issue isn't whether you can go on a treasure hunt to find
the damn thing.

Except that you don't have to.


It's about making a system that is easy to use.

Because it does. If you installed it from the repository it will be put
in whatever menu/launcher system the DE uses.

Dare I has what distro and what app?


I've had cases like Mike describes, where an
installed package doesn't get loaded into the menu/launcher.

And I don't keep a list. When this happens, I move on
with what I was doing. No time to marvel at the
scenery.

Paul

"Dan Purgert" wrote

| I should have to trust Microsoft, Google, or a Linux
| "package manager" to communicate between my
| machine and a remote location.
|
| Then don't. Install everything manually from *deb (for Debian or
| Debian-derived distributions, such as Ubuntu, Mint, MX_Linux, etc.) or
| *rpm (RedHat or RedHat-derived distributions, such as Fedora, etc.).
|
| The package manager is merely the equivalent of "the app store" on
| iOS/Android/Win10 (Dunno if Mac has one of those).
|

Thanks. I get that. I was only saying that I didn't
think of the package manager (can I call it PacMan?
as an improvement in Linux, from my own personal point
of view. And while this kind of thing can be worked
around, that usually requires extra effort.
Example: Some time ago I installed Suse, I think it was,
using Lilo. The designers had "improved" Lilo so that I
wouldn't have to understand it. Lilo picked a partition
for the install and asked for my approval. Nice and
convenient. Except that it wasn't. In the older
Lilo I had to know which partition was which. In the
newer Lilo, I needed more expertise to prevent Lilo
from overwriting Windows, which was the partition
it was suggesting to use.

I know it's a tricky business. Adding dummy features
limits things. Not adding them makes things difficult for
most people. But there's a problem in viewing the user
base as consisting of developers and civilians. In between
there are lots of handy types who benefit from good
design and accessible options.

I think Firefox is a good example of the problem. They
started, a few years ago, simplifying the settings. The
first move was to remove the ability to block 3rd-party
images in the GUI AND to change the pref. Then they
started hiding cookie settings. Then they removed javascript
settings. It's got to a point where if you want to control
Firefox you have to be intimately familiar with prefs.js.
In other words, you need to be an IT pro. That's who
prefs.js was put there for in the first place -- IT people
who needed to set up Netscape for corporate employees.

The Mozilla people were taking the approach that
FF needed to be more user-friendly. But they were also
adopting a view that the "user" shouldn't be concerned
with these things. The Mozillians figure they're better
qualified to decide whether I should enable push,
cookies, script, geo-location, auto-play videos, and
a hundred other things. They're trying to achieve a
balance that works for everyone. But in doing so they
made their OSS browser non-user-friendly. Now people
have to either accept the defaults or dig deep in
studying prefs.js. And of course, prefs.js is not even
officially documented!

Microsoft have always done something similar. They
hide settings or put them behind an intimidating button
marked "Advanced". That helps prevent inexperienced
people from shooting themselves in the foot. But it
also left millions unnecessarily vulnerable to ActiveX
exploits for years, because the IE settings were (and are)
indecipherable to mere mortals. IT people are paid to
deal with that stuff full time and even most of them
don't understand it.

Maybe Firefox and Chrome could be thought of as
somewhat corollary to Linux and Windows. The former
is OSS and very controllable, but taking control is
not feasible for most people. The latter is partially
locked spyware. Linux openness and FF prefs.js are
better, but only if you take the time and effort to
become expert at them.

Sorry to be so longwinded, but that's the view that I've
been trying to clarify. I want software that provides as
many options as possible, as easily as possible. I want
prefs.js but I also want an extensive settings window
so that I don't *have to* understand prefs.js. What I
see in Windows is an attempt to take over full control
from the end user. What I see in Linux is something like
Firefox: Developers have endless options that require
extensive expertise, while everyone else gets an increasing
number of dummy UIs.

| I run XP SP3 and Win7 SP1. Neither has ever had
| Windows Update enabled. Neither has any networking
| services running. Neither has anything running that
| needs to, or is allowed to, go online -- aside from the
| obvious things like browser, email, FTP, etc that go online
| because I acted to make them do that.
|
| That's kind of unsafe, what with the machines being connected to the
| internet. I mean, all it takes is one website having something
| malicious that can exploit your unpatched boxes.
|
| Unless you mean that you download the KBxxxx patch files direct from MS,
| rather than using Windows Update to grab / install them automatically?
|

I rarely install new patches. And XP, of course,
is no longer getting them. This topic has been
discussed here a lot. In a nutshell, I don't think of
security that way. I think it's a corporate way of
thinking. In corporate, the network is mostly trusted
while the user is not. For a standalone machine it's
the opposite. On an intranet, the front door is wide
open while every office and cabinet is locked. You
need authorization to do things. On a SOHo computer
the most efficient setup is to keep the front door
locked while locking nothing inside. Anyone inside
is trusted. In most cases there's only one user per
computer. So all that hassle of file restrictions
becomes unnecessary. (Unless you don't trust
yourself not to delete important files.)

Unfortunately, the Internet is now adopting the
intranet model. Many webpages now are not webpages
at all. They're 3-4 MB software programs, written in
javascript, with barely any HTML that's not dynamically
generated, and they're loaded from a variety of domains.
The people using the corporate model deal with that by
running as a lackey-mode user, loading up with AV and anti-
malware programs, and allowing a dripfeed of security
updates. But a lot of attacks are 0-day. That model
simply doesn't work. Running executable code remotely
cannot be made safe.

So I take the locked-front-door approach. I haven't
used AV for many years. I only install time-tested service
packs. But I also block almost all script, iframes, remotely
loaded files, etc. For most browsing I use Pale Moon and
block it all, including 3rd-party files. I also use a HOSTS
file that blocks virtually all ads and tracking. (Ads have
become a common attack vector, as you may know.) If
I have to enable some script, which occasionally happens,
I have Firefox set up with NoScript. I've never had Flash or
Java installed. I avoid Acrobat Reader. I haven't used IE
since about 2000 and would never allow it online. I also
have a second computer that I use only occasionally, for
testing software or for doing less secure things online.

If you routinely enable javascript then I'd consider your
newly-updated computer to be at far greater risk than mine.
Nearly every online attack requires javascript. Most of
the rest depend on executable crap from Adobe. (Acrobat
Reader, Flash)

I'm always amazed when I watch someone else visiting
websites on their computer. I see static, clean pages.
They see jumping cartoons, glaring popups, self-playing
videos.... It's like Miracle Mile meets late night TV.
Yesterday one of the tech writers at NYT
had an article about the problem of reading a webpage
and suddenly being interrupted by a loud ad shouting
from your speakers, coming from a video playing offscreen.
Why do people turn on their speakers?! Why are they
allowing video to play?! Most people just don't understand
their options. And as you said, convenience is king. They'd
rather hear a salesman yelling at them while they try to
read than to lift a finger to adjust settings.


| If your only experience on computers is using a
| networked computer then I suppose it may be hard
| to understand the idea of a fully stand-alone system.
|
| Nah, makes perfect sense if that's what you want. But you've not
| described fully stand-alone systems. Ones I use are air-gapped from the
| rest of the world, and if you need to transfer something off, it's "burn
| it to optical media". (right pain that... I mean, I need to move 200KiB
| off, and need to waste a 700 MB CD -- I really miss those mini-CDs we
| used to get).
|

You're right, of course. I just mean standalone in
the sense of not being intranet- or locally- networked,
so that security can be set up at the front door.

| Honestly, in home networks, I would say that the users and network
| itself are equally untrustworthy. But that being said, it does make for
| convenience (and, let's be honest here - people tend to want that above
| all else).
|

Yes. Very succinct. I guess a lot of it comes down
to where we each draw the line between security
and convenience.

| On Windows 10 that's even more relevant because
| the things calling home are spyware and an auto-update
| system that is using SOHo customers as unpaid beta
| testers for new changes, which corporate customers
| are then allowed to put off until the kinks have been
| worked out. Can you see that there's a fundamental
| difference between me downloading and installing Windows
| patch XYZ vs Microsoft coming onto my system and
| installing it without asking?
|
| And that's a difference with Linux distributions -- when they update,
| they tend to be somewhat "behind" the software devs. For example,
| openssh is currently version 7.7, but my "daily driver" system
| (MX_Linux, release 17) is only running 7.4p1.
|

Makes sense. I'm often surprised to see how many
people think they should always have the very latest
update. Now. As though patches were like freshly
baked bread. There's a simplistic assumption that newer
will be better. Often an update will only do something
like add Turkish language support. And there have been
plenty of cases of bad updates. But somehow people
always forget that.

On 08/02/2018 10:21 PM, Mayayana wrote:
"Jonathan N. Little" wrote

| mike wrote:
| My issue with that is that it's not always a complete installation.
| The gui says it's installed. OK, where the hell is it? How to I
| envoke it. Why isn't there an icon on the desktop, or in the start
| menu-adjacent list? Well, depends on the program and the distro
| and...and. You shouldn't have to remember and type in a command
| line to bring up a GUI configuration tool.
|
| That is pure BS.

You're very good at insulting people. Do you really
think he's making that up just to annoy you? This is
an example of another big Linux problem: Identifying
with the product. A misplaced, emotional sense of
loyalty. You think he's making up criticism. You think
I'm a "Windows fanboy". You feel under attack because
you identify with Linux. That's your trip. It's not ours.
We just want to use computers. It's not a religious
issue for us.

What you don't get is that Windows doesn't engender
the kind of vehement loyalty that happens with Macs
and Linux. Windows is the Ford Taurus of cars. Mac is
a sports car -- pretty but limited. Linux is a custom
build. But Windows is just a Taurus. People don't start
Ford Taurus fan clubs. No one's trying to beat your team.
We don't have a team.



If you don't think Windows has a fan club go over to the Windows
newsgroups, they'll prove you wrong.

--
Caver1

On 08/02/2018 10:26 PM, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
Paul wrote:
Jonathan N. Little wrote:
mike wrote:
My issue with that is that it's not always a complete installation.
The gui says it's installed.Â* OK, where the hell is it?Â* How to I
envoke it.Â* Why isn't there an icon on the desktop, or in the start
menu-adjacent list?Â* Well, depends on the program and the distro
and...and.Â* You shouldn't have to remember and type in a command
line to bring up a GUI configuration tool.

That is pure BS. If you install an application from the distro's
respective software repository it will setup the respective shortcuts
for the desktop environment. That's true for all the main DEs, GNOME,
Unity, KDE, LXDE, Xfce...

In Synaptic, if you locate the package, there is a Properties
thing that lists all the files installed. Maybe you
spot a /usr/bin/programname. It then doesn't matter if
the package isn't integrated with the menu system,
or the icon isn't visible or... whatever. This is just
one of the reasons I keep installing Synaptic, rather
than rely on any other craptastic replacements/distractions.

The reason I install Synaptic is with each iteration the craptastic
Software Center gets slower and slower...most times I just use apt. That
said, any app installed from repositories I've installed it configured
to add shortcut within whatever DE uses for a menu. I use Unity so it is
immediately available from the Dash. Some auto put shortcut on the
Launcher, however I find it as annoying as Windows apps that put
shortcuts on the Desktop.



I agree. I only want the apps on the launcher that I place there.
I don't want a cluttered Desktop either. Even way back when I used
Windows I removed all shortcuts from the Desktop.

--
Caver1

On 08/02/2018 10:47 PM, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
Mayayana wrote:
"Jonathan N. Little" wrote

| mike wrote:
| My issue with that is that it's not always a complete installation.
| The gui says it's installed. OK, where the hell is it? How to I
| envoke it. Why isn't there an icon on the desktop, or in the start
| menu-adjacent list? Well, depends on the program and the distro
| and...and. You shouldn't have to remember and type in a command
| line to bring up a GUI configuration tool.
|
| That is pure BS.

Â*Â* You're very good at insulting people. Do you really
think he's making that up just to annoy you?

Just calling it what it is. Me specifically? No, but awfully tired of
"Linux issues" that are just patently false. Just as false as when Linux
users say you can delete C:\Windows while running Windows and trash your
system.

This is an example of another big Linux problem: Identifying with the
product. A misplaced, emotional sense of loyalty. You think he's
making up criticism. You think I'm a "Windows fanboy". You feel under
attack because you identify with Linux. That's your trip. It's not
ours. We just want to use computers. It's not a religious issue for
us.
I use both. Not religious either, just maters if what is stated it true
or not.


Â*Â* What you don't get is that Windows doesn't engender
the kind of vehement loyalty that happens with Macs
and Linux.

Whoa! No Windows trolls in Linux NG?

Windows is the Ford Taurus of cars. Mac is
a sports car -- pretty but limited. Linux is a custom
build.

Can be, depends on the distro. Some are pre-canned to run OOTB like
Ubuntu, Mint, and many others. And others are more niche specific,
Scientific Linux comes to mind. Others more like kits such as Slack and
LFS Linux From Scratch

But Windows is just a Taurus. People don't start
Ford Taurus fan clubs. No one's trying to beat your team.
We don't have a team.

Or more like Henry's vision of the Model T where you can get it in any
color also long as it is black.



Windows is more like a modern car. You can use it but you dare try to
modify anything.
Whereas Linux is a good classic car. You can easily use it and modify it
to your hearts content.

--
Caver1

Mayayana wrote:
"William Unruh" wrote

|
| AGain, you overstate yourself and then have to backtrack. If you canuse a
| browser then you are connected to the net and have networking services
| running.
|

I meant Windows networking services. There are
various services (daemons?) on Windows that are enabled
by default because the default configuration is for
corporate workstations. I disable anything that might
need to go online through the services "shepherd",
svchost.exe. I then can block svchost at the firewall.

If I use a browser then, yes, I'm going online. I think
we agree there.

The clarification was the important part, yes. Long as it doesn't break
anything (IDK about W8+, TBH), then this approach is fine. Although, it
may also break things like filesharing (if you use that).


|
| What's so hard to understand? I want to manage the
| system myself. I don't want to enable some unknown
| quantity to make unilateral decisions that change the
|
| That is fine. On Mageia the update tells you that there are updates
| available, but it is up to you to actually initiate them.
|

And how did the updater figure that out? Did it
call online? [...]

Of course it asked "the internet". However, the way that it "asks"
depends on things.

Most "desktop" distributions have a daily scheduled job to download the
latest version list. Realistically, this is no different from your
email client downloading the list of "new emails" every so often.
Obviously, this job can be stopped.

If you have chosen to stop the checks (or are running a "server"
distribution), then the list is only updated when you issue the relevant
"update" command. This is the equivalent of disabling the "auto-check"
for new mail - requiring you to hit 'send/receive' to check if there's
anything new.

Obviously, if you don't want to rely on the updater at all, you can do
that too - it just means downloading the installation packages (or, in
some cases, the source code), and then installing them by hand.

--
|_|O|_| Registered Linux user #585947
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5 4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281

On 08/02/2018 10:21 PM, Mayayana wrote:
"Jonathan N. Little" wrote

| mike wrote:
| My issue with that is that it's not always a complete installation.
| The gui says it's installed. OK, where the hell is it? How to I
| envoke it. Why isn't there an icon on the desktop, or in the start
| menu-adjacent list? Well, depends on the program and the distro
| and...and. You shouldn't have to remember and type in a command
| line to bring up a GUI configuration tool.
|
| That is pure BS.

You're very good at insulting people. Do you really
think he's making that up just to annoy you? This is
an example of another big Linux problem: Identifying
with the product. A misplaced, emotional sense of
loyalty. You think he's making up criticism. You think
I'm a "Windows fanboy". You feel under attack because
you identify with Linux. That's your trip. It's not ours.
We just want to use computers. It's not a religious
issue for us.

What you don't get is that Windows doesn't engender
the kind of vehement loyalty that happens with Macs
and Linux. Windows is the Ford Taurus of cars. Mac is
a sports car -- pretty but limited. Linux is a custom
build. But Windows is just a Taurus. People don't start
Ford Taurus fan clubs. No one's trying to beat your team.
We don't have a team.



I remember that I was doing something with my wife's work computer.
Had a problem that I couldn't figure out so I went to the Windows
newsgroup. Told them what I did and the problem I was having.
The first thing that happened I was told that I couldn't do that,
disable IE. So I pointed them to the MS sites that said you could and
how to do that. Then all I got back from that group was that you can't
always believe what MS says about what you can do with it's OS the
started calling me a troll. Never any help.
Turns out it was a problem with her companies server and not my wife's
computer.


--
Caver1

"Dan Purgert" wrote

| I explored a similar option with WINE. It was
| interesting how much worked in WINE. But the winos
| were not willing to share anything like an API list.
| They wanted me to register as a bug hunter for
| my software and herd the bug until it was resolved.
| I was surprised and taken aback by the paramilitary
| pecking order of the whole thing. All the more so
| because I was assigned to be a lowest-level lackey.
| So the upshot was that there was no way for me
| to write to WINE and thus no reason to deal with it
| at all.
|
| Because one does not write *for WINE*. It is a compatibility layer
| between Windows-only programs (e.g. those games you seem to dislike
| strongly), and Linux-based computers.
|
| Essentially, it provides the Microsoft ABIs that these programs need to
| run - although not perfectly; and not all of them.
|

Exactly. If they were willing to share the details
then Windows people could write to WINE. API
function xyz is not supported? Then I'll use abc
instead. If I had full docs for WINE I could target
WINE. Doesn't that make sense? Then people don't
have to wait for WINE support. It could also be
built from the other end.

But they specifically didn't want to share that info.
Worse, they split up the APIs arbitrarily, so it
was nearly impossible to check for APIs. It doesn't
help if I get xyz from user32.dll and abc from
advapi32.dll. The winos might have reversed the
housing. In a classic scenario that only a Linux
fan could love, it turned out that what little existed
in terms of docs was supposed to be compiled! I had
to write a script to reformat the data in order to make
it readable. But it wasn't really docs, anyway. Their
idea was that developers would make comments in
the code and that would become docs. But of course
the developers are busy coding. They don't want
to keep stopping to write doc comments. So... no
docs. And they're probably mostly 19-22 y.o. They
want to get the latest version of GTA working in
WINE for the weekend.

| As for the "churn" of updated libraries (etc.) - Microsoft does the same
| thing with Windows Updates.

Not so much. Their customer is business. Business
writes in-house software. That needs backward
compatibility. Not that Microsoft are generous or
considerate. But business won't update Windows if
their in-house software won't run. So lib xyz might
get updated, but Win98 software can still depend
on getting the same functions from it. Most software
can be written to run on all Windows versions unless
it really needs something new, like games needing
DirectX.
In my admittedly limited experience with Linux
it seemed that updating Acme Editor v. 1.23.456
to v. 1.23.478 would require similar incremental
updates of numerous support libraries. What kind
of nut is using brand new API functions with every
update?

On 08/02/2018 06:02 AM, Nomen Nescio wrote:
In article
Chris wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
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.

Not sure where you're getting that from, but here's another source if you
prefer. There are others.
https://cen.acs.org/articles/91/web/...hs-Causes.html

3D printed guns save lives.


Just like freezing or doing away with fuel economy saves lives.
Guns when used against a human only take lives.

--
Caver1

On 08/03/2018 12:15 AM, mike wrote:
On 8/2/2018 7:02 PM, Paul wrote:
Jonathan N. Little wrote:
mike wrote:
My issue with that is that it's not always a complete installation.
The gui says it's installed.Â* OK, where the hell is it?Â* How to I
envoke it.Â* Why isn't there an icon on the desktop, or in the start
menu-adjacent list?Â* Well, depends on the program and the distro
and...and.Â* You shouldn't have to remember and type in a command
line to bring up a GUI configuration tool.

That is pure BS. If you install an application from the distro's
respective software repository it will setup the respective shortcuts
for the desktop environment. That's true for all the main DEs, GNOME,
Unity, KDE, LXDE, Xfce...

In Synaptic, if you locate the package, there is a Properties
thing that lists all the files installed. Maybe you
spot a /usr/bin/programname. It then doesn't matter if
the package isn't integrated with the menu system,
or the icon isn't visible or... whatever. This is just
one of the reasons I keep installing Synaptic, rather
than rely on any other craptastic replacements/distractions.

Â*Â*Â* Paul


The issue isn't whether you can go on a treasure hunt to find
the damn thing.Â* It's about making a system that is easy to use.
The developer can do it once, or users can do it millions of times...
well, it's linux so probably don't have millions of ordinary
non-guru desktop users who survived the humongous speed-bump
at the start of the learning curve to get their system to do what they
wanted.

The primary reason that linux didn't take over the desktop decades
ago is that they don't give a flying @#(+ about ordinary users
AKA windows refugees.

Desktop linux needs a radical trimming and consolidation.
And that will never happen with the current developer mindset.

And yes this is one of the Windows fan club.

--
Caver1

"Paul" wrote

| Honestly, you guys haven't figured out what that is yet ?
| I'm shocked.
......
| Don't you guys occasionally look at the Newsgroup list ?
| I have header view turned on, so I see the Newsgroup list
| as I'm composing.

Wow. I never, ever would have figured that out.
I guess the privacy people need to work on
communication skills. So someone is impersonating
Anonymous to repost these things with the privacy
group removed? That's beyond weird.

Thanks for the explanation. I do usually check
the group list, because some wiseguys like to
alter them, but I wasn't noticing that the groups
targetted here have been changing slightly.

Wolf K wrote:
On 2018-08-02 21:49, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
mike wrote:
My issue with that is that it's not always a complete installation.
The gui says it's installed.Â* OK, where the hell is it?Â* How to I
envoke it.Â* Why isn't there an icon on the desktop, or in the start
menu-adjacent list?Â* Well, depends on the program and the distro
and...and.Â* You shouldn't have to remember and type in a command
line to bring up a GUI configuration tool.

That is pure BS. If you install an application from the distro's
respective software repository it will setup the respective shortcuts
for the desktop environment. That's true for all the main DEs, GNOME,
Unity, KDE, LXDE, Xfce...

Yeah, from _that_ distro's repository. Unlike Windows/OS-X, there are no
universal installers that work the same for every distro. It's absurd
that if you get a program that's not in the repository, you may have to
do some extra work to get it to install.

Actually, this is somewhat untrue. If you're using Debian (or one of
its children, such as Ubuntu or Mint or ... well any of the others out
there), then you _can_ just install the *deb file and have a fairly high
expectation that it'll do what it's supposed to do. I'm not really a
RedHat guy, so can't comment on whether or not they behave similarly.

When building from source, or otherwise getting a precompiled binary
that doesn't include the launcher (".desktop" file?) , then things can
be a bit more work. But then again, I haven't compiled a GUI-based
program from source in quite some time (at least 5 years).


--
|_|O|_| Registered Linux user #585947
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5 4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281