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

In comp.os.linux.misc Carlos E.R. wrote:
....
Why? I use Linux GUI usenet clients, like Thunderbird, knodem, claws or
pan. Unfortunately usenet is considered dead by some and some clients
are thus getting not enough care.

I do not like the available text mode usenet clients :-P

I use both old Tin (text based) and SeaMonkey (based on Mozilla's
Thunderbird)'s usenet readers. Yeah, I'm old school. :P
--
Quote of the Week: "The ants are a people not strong, yet they prepare their meat in the summer." --Proverbs 30:25 (Bible)
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.home.dhs.org / http://antfarm.ma.cx
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail privately. If credit-
| |o o| | ing, then please kindly use Ant nickname and URL/link.
\ _ /
( )

"Ant" wrote

|
| I've used a firewall since Win98. The first time I
| remember anything trying to phone home without asking
| was Norton System Works. I was installing it for a
| friend. (Maybe 2005-ish?) The firewall told me it was
| trying to go out. The Norton install never said so. It
| just paused for a long time -- a minute or more -- and
| then finally gave up and carried on the install.
|
| Do you remember what process it was? MSI file? Setup? If so, then it is
| probably checking its digital signed files to be sure the files are
| valid.

I think this predated MSIs and signed files. I only
remember that it was an install CD. It was Norton
trying to go out, but I don't remember noticing
whether there was omore than one Norton process
running.

It's possible that it just wanted to check for
updates, but I find it creepy that software would
be designed to take that liberty and even hide
what's doing.

| I also block with firewalls since I don't like these phoning home
| without my permissions.
|

Nice to know I'm not the only one. I remember
in '99 Microsoft was caught checking registration
entries in the Registry, probably via ActiveX in IE,
when people logged into Windows Update. There was
outrage. MS promised to stop. Now it's more likely
that people will just whine slightly when MS reboots
their system, changes system files, and moves their
data to the cloud. That's not even getting into the
spyware issue.

"mike" wrote

| Gambas was to enable my transition to linux.
| I'd hoped to convert my VB6 programs to Gambas.
| Learning C was out of the question.
| What I found was a lot of, "this feature not yet implemented."
| Over the years it didn't get much better. Not enough
| of what I needed.

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.

| I remember the days when you could just type a command.
| In this week's linux install/configure attempts,
| the majority of my keystrokes have been "sudo" and typing
| my password, only to find that the command no longer exists
| in this version of that distro with the other desktop.

That's the other glaring problem with Linux. Win98 is
still a viable OS if one wants to write to it. Most software
still works on XP. Yet when I tried Suse I think the support
cycle was either 12 or 18 months. Constant churn of
updated libraries and kernel.

"Andreas Kohlbach" wrote

| 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.
|
| That is the case since decades. History shows that that doesn't
| matter. Ordinary users (think they) want Windows.
|
So Linux isn't popular because people are dumb?
Over the past decade or so I've seen a lot of people
move to Macs. They're expensive, restricted and limited,
but they have one thing that Windows doesn't: stability
provided by control of the hardware. Macs are also
designed to do whatever Lord Jobs thought you should
want to do, without providing other options. And of
course, they're pretty, which is not a small factor for
young people.

So why did people switch? Not just because Macs are
pretty. Partly because Apple is good at marketing, but
mostly because those people didn't want to have to
understand security, malware, etc. Malware was
becoming more common and no one wants to
havve to restrict their activity to deal with it. People
want to shop with their credit card online and have
no care about malware. They saw Macs as a way to
sidestep those issues. Computers have been increasingly
been the focus of consumer services rather than
productivity and that makes Macs look good, because
the one thing it's good for is buying stuff in relative
safety. It's the AOL of computers.

So why didn't people move to Linux instead? No,
just kidding. Obviously they couldn't do that. They
could move to a Linux tablet. And there's a computer
called Wow! for seniors that pretty much just lets
you browse the Web and read email. No file system
access. But a desktop? Even if there were Linux
desktops for sale, the vast majority of people
couldn't get it set up with what they need. A hundred
things would stop them. Since they were looking for
easier rather than harder, Linux would have been
completely out of the question. But those people
didn't hesitate about moving to Mac because all they
had to do was come up with the cash.

In article
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 02/08/18 20:56, Mayayana wrote:
You think that's just my reckless, halfwit opinion?
Maybe. But it also seems to be the opinion of the
vast majority of people, who could have Linux for
free but aren't interested.


I thionk you have spun the real issue.

When linux comes pre-isntalled so they user doesnt havce to install it,
it outselles the competrion. Android for example

Or chrome books



--
"Corbyn talks about equality, justice, opportunity, health care, peace,
community, compassion, investment, security, housing...."
"What kind of person is not interested in those things?"

"Jeremy Corbyn?"

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

Over the past decade or so I've seen a lot of people
move to Macs.

yep, and a *lot* more have moved to smartphones and tablets.

They're expensive, restricted and limited,

nope to all three.

but they have one thing that Windows doesn't: stability
provided by control of the hardware.

that's not why.

Macs are also
designed to do whatever Lord Jobs thought you should
want to do, without providing other options.

absolutely false.

there are *plenty* of options.

And of
course, they're pretty, which is not a small factor for
young people.

it's a factor for people of all ages.
computers do not need to be ugly and loud.

So why did people switch? Not just because Macs are
pretty. Partly because Apple is good at marketing, but
mostly because those people didn't want to have to
understand security, malware, etc. Malware was
becoming more common and no one wants to
havve to restrict their activity to deal with it. People
want to shop with their credit card online and have
no care about malware. They saw Macs as a way to
sidestep those issues. Computers have been increasingly
been the focus of consumer services rather than
productivity and that makes Macs look good, because
the one thing it's good for is buying stuff in relative
safety. It's the AOL of computers.

nonsense.

In article
mike wrote:

On 8/2/2018 6:22 AM, Mayayana wrote:
"Dan Purgert" wrote


I did once try a VB6 replacement for Linux, called
Gambas. The author seemed to mainly be interested
in telling VB people that they code wrong. Then he
explained that he would provide a product to make
us code right. And he gave it a cute, anthropomorphic
lobster logo. But he completely missed the point. VB
isn't a beginner tool. It's anything from beginner to
advanced, depending on what you need.

Gambas was to enable my transition to linux.
I'd hoped to convert my VB6 programs to Gambas.
Learning C was out of the question.
What I found was a lot of, "this feature not yet implemented."
Over the years it didn't get much better. Not enough
of what I needed.
In a pinch, I could use xbasic to write cross-platform
apps, but there was no reason to go to the effort.

Aside:
MIT AppInventor is a hoot. Very limited, but it's amazing
what you can do on a smart phone sticking jigsaw pieces together.

I remember the days when you could just type a command.
In this week's linux install/configure attempts,
the majority of my keystrokes have been "sudo" and typing
my password, only to find that the command no longer exists
in this version of that distro with the other desktop.

On 2018-08-02, Mayayana wrote:
"Dan Purgert" wrote

I have no problem with downloading but I
don't want web installs. In other words, I want to
manage the system and know what I'm changing.
I don't want auto-updates, web installs, or anything
that requires going online. The software is installed.
Unless it's something like a browser there's no
excuse for it going online.

Again this paragraph makes no sense. You do not have all possible programs and
updates on you own computer. Ie, you have to get them from somewhere, and
nowadays that somewhere is the net. I have not idea how you would get an
update for say Word from anywhere but the net. Thus you have to go online to
install or update. Now you may not have meant what you said, but perhaps you
could say what you mean in that case.

|
It gets complicated. Mostly I just mean that I want
to be free of data file restrictions. But the same restrictions

I have no idea what that means. Certainly in Linux if you created the data
file, then you will have full rights to it. Ie, no restrictions. If the system
created that data file, then there may or may not be restrictions, depending
on what the data file is. An often you can get access if you place yourself
into the appropriate group.

root, bin, daemon, admin, wheel, lp, are some of the key possible groups.

In article
"Mayayana" wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote
| On 02/08/18 20:56, Mayayana wrote:
| You think that's just my reckless, halfwit opinion?
| Maybe. But it also seems to be the opinion of the
| vast majority of people, who could have Linux for
| free but aren't interested.
|
|
| I thionk you have spun the real issue.
|
| When linux comes pre-isntalled so they user doesnt havce to install it,
| it outselles the competrion. Android for example
|
| Or chrome books

I'm beginning to think you're an alias of the
notorious nospam, who argues incessantly to
no purpose.

What's "the real issue"? We were talking about
the usability of Linux as a desktop system.
Android and Chrome are not desktop OSs,
which is the point I was just making. So the
issue for you is which OS has the most
hardware installs for any purpose? Does that
matter somehow? You want Linux to win the
install count and that will prove Linux beats
Windows.... or something like that?

Good luck using your Android device as a
desktop. Maybe that explains why your typing
averages 3 typos per line. I'm guessing that
you're on a bus, using a broken chopstick to
type on your computer phone, and it screws
up every time you go over a bump, right?

I'll be curious to see how your new letterhead
comes out. I guess you must be creating it
with Libre Office on a 3 inch screen.... Woops!
Watch out for those bumps!

In article
mike wrote:

On 8/2/2018 5:17 AM, Caver1 wrote:
On 08/01/2018 10:41 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.



You are stuck in a rut. Don't want to learn anything new.

That's a silly accusation.
Say you live in middle america.
Some Russians move to the next town and refuse to integrate.
They berate you for not learning to speak Russian.

Well, you'll never need to interface with them at all.
Your existing language suits your environment perfectly.
They don't have anything that you don't already have elsewhere.

If they would integrate with the community and LEAD you
to their better way instead of badmouthing you for not
dropping everything you hold dear and converting to their ways,
the community would thrive.

All of what
you said above is personal opinion and is either just wrong or borders
on it.
So that's what 'wrong adjacent' means...
There are a few Linux distros now that you don't ever have to use the
commandline if you don't want to. As a software engineer not using the
commandline is very limiting.

Please list those distros; CURRENT version.
Enumerate the GUI tools to:
Seamlessly integrate with a windows network
Share the desktop, either direction, with windows
Install software (It's amazing that some distros require
the command line to install a GUI software installer.)
Configure a firewall, on the fly, as new situations are encountered

Then, there's the whole nightmare of hardware drivers that actually
enable all the functions of hardware devices that don't come with
linux drivers.

I got this far without even mentioning CHAOS...oops...



I've been tolerant of Mint and Zorin, but the last couple of versions
have rendered all my notes on how to install/use the older versions
worthless. Lots of change, and not for the better. Doesn't matter
how 'good' the OS is if you can't figure out how to configure it.

The command line is useless if you don't know what to type...or if
they moved or renamed the file you need to edit...
GUI has the options listed on the screen. Pick one and you're done.

Puppy Linux still reigns supreme for ease of use, but it's not a full
desktop solution.

On 8/2/2018 7:45 AM, Dan Purgert wrote:
Mayayana wrote:
"Dan Purgert" wrote

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

Yes, to some extent. With any computer
there's a lot to learn. The metaphors of file
folders and desktop are not intuitive. But
Windows is designed to be usable. And
Microsoft pressured developers a long time
ago to go along with that approach: Build
a 1-click installer, make menus that reflect
Windows File, Edit, view, etc. Never require
hand-editing config files or using command line.

The "app store" approach used by Linux is considerably more "one-click"
for installation than *msi files .

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.

The menubars tend to follow that paradigm for Linux things as well.

[...]
| 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!".

Have at it indeed...
Start with a hundred public libraries full of books.
Drag them all to the same plot of land.
Take all the card catalogs and jumble them up together
and make a big pile. Shuffle the pile periodically for good
measure.
That's the linux equivalent of figgering out what to do and how
to do it. Sure, it's in there somewhere! Good luck finding it.
|
I guess that's one way to look at it. If you
consider it freedom to have no easy config GUI
and to edit/compile the software you use, then
the typical finished product on Windows could be
as frustrating as Apple's custom screws and
resin-embedded hardware.

It really depends on what you mean by "easy config GUI". I mean, a lot
of the tools in the past 2-3 years have gotten GUI frontends, and a lot
of the DEs have had pretty straightforward GUI config options for
longer.
I wish I could remember the distro...I'd reinstall it...but you could
click the start-menu-adjacent box, click system settings and there
was an icon for desktop sharing that brought up a GUI that just worked.
I couldn't find anything even close in current versions of mint or zorin,
both of which used to be my favorites for ease of use...behind puppy.

| 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.
|
| 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.
|
To be honest, I don't know much about Linux
options. But I'd be surprised if Linux has anything
as sophisticated as Visual Studio.

Pretty sure that MS made "VS: Code" available for Linux. Although, I've
never touched it. Realistically the programs I write are entirely CLI
or "Terminal User Interface" (e.g. using ncurses libraries), rather than
graphical.

But then a lot of the work I do is SSH'd into machines, so working
purely with text (and text-based menus) is somewhat more intuitive for
me.

Also, it's nice not having to take my hands off the keyboard .

That's the problem. People who write code and configure linux distros
are not empathetic and completely clueless to
the mindset of the average computer USER. They like it that way
and actively resist changing it.

Users want a RESULT. They want to know what time the movie starts
or where can I get a pizza or where can I buy sox or how many teaspoons
in a cup or play me a song...

They don't give a rat's ass about HOW it happens. They want the RESULT
with the least effort. Their computer is not a hobby. It's a tool
to make their life easier. That's why smart phones are popular.
How many do you think ever though about HOW Alexa works?
They want an appliance. Linux is well suited for making appliances,
as long as you don't ask the user to configure it.

[...] I've dabbled a bit with C++
but mostly use VB6. Like Windows, it allows me to be
as high or low level as the task calls for.

Comparatively, I don't think anything in Windows lets you get quite as
"low-level" as the linux CLI does (although the NEW windows CLI -- um,
powershell, I think? -- does lean more that way).

I can write
software that will "just work" on virtually every
existing Windows machine. And it's fun because
I've got conveniences like drag-drop GUI building,
intellisense menus for objects, good bug info, etc.
Both VC++ and VB (as well as .Net, I assume) offer
very simple GUI building.

Yeah, I mean, if you need drag&drop ... I guess VB has that going for
it.

The "intellisense" thing always annoyed me - especially when using a few
variables with similar names (e.g. pos_x and pos_y ... and yeah, I know
that you can use x_pos and y_pos ... ). A lot of IDEs do have that
though, so I wouldn't really call that a point in "Windows' favor" so
much as the chosen IDE.


I did once try a VB6 replacement for Linux, called
Gambas.

It's garbage. 'nuff said

[...]
| | 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 think you may have read that wrong. I said interference.
In other words, I have no complaints with any GUI. What
I don't want is a middleman that has me picking the software
I want and then goes online to get it and set it up. I don't
want anything needing to go online. And I don't want anything
changing the system config on me.

Indeed, I did. In that case, download the *deb (or *rpm) file for the
package yourself, and install it (and its dependencies, if any) by hand.

Although, that being said, I recall more than a few MSIs that depended
on various .NET versions going out and downloading whatever version was
necessary if the system didn't already have it.


| 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".
|
Exactly. Yes. You may trust it to be safe and stable.
I don't want invisible network activity and I certainly
don't want that activity changing my system. I don't
want "web installs".

So then you only install software that's obtained via physical media
that doesn't touch the Windows registry? No downloaded software
whatsoever then?

| 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).
|

[...]

On the other hand, Linux is supposed to be the system
where I can have it my way. There's no sense jumping
from the frying pan into the fire.

Dunno what you mean here ... I mean, it takes a single command to change
the permissions anywhere on the system (NOTE - as with Windows, there
are some things that you SHOULD NOT mess with if you want the system to
remain usable).


This keeps getting back to the same idea: To me
freedom and good design means I have options to
set things up the way I like, without needing a lot
of expertise or sweat to do it. Freedom in the Linux
world means that if you don't like how it works you're
free to rewrite the product and recompile.

Or alter the permission bits on the file / directory, in case of the
filesystem example we've been working with.

I don't
want to have to master Linux in order to remove
file restrictions. I want a clear control, like the Windows
UAC control. So I can go online and search for
"stop file restrictions Windows" and immediately find an
article somewhere that says, "Piece of cake. Just slide
the UAC control to the bottom." That's not a complete
solution, but it's a big help. It stops the nags and
restrictions on all but some system files.

Which files / directories are we specifically talking about? Linux is
a bit more "spread out" than Windows, with "system files" being in
multiple places, as opposed to primarily C:\Windows:

- /bin - "base install" binaries, stuff like ls, rm, cd, and so on.
- /sbin - "system" binaries, stuff like e2fsck, depmod, ip, and so on.
- /usr/bin and /usr/local/bin - "user installed" binaries, stuff like
7zip, a2ps, or other programs that aren't required for a "basic"
minimal system.
- /usr/sbin and /usr/local/sbin - "user installed sytem" binaries,
generally wrappers that make the raw /sbin programs easier to use
such as adduser or deluser.
- /etc - global program configuration. For non-daemonized programs
(e.g. your shell), a config file in $HOME can override these.


| 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.
|

That's true. A lot of work goes into getting comfortable
and competent. Far more work than should be necessary.
In that sense I'm demanding of another option: I don't
want to spend months getting competent.

The hardest part is letting go of "in Windows, I ... ". Once you get
over that hurdle, it's significantly easier to get comfortable.

Basic competency can probably be had in a few days ... say 2 weeks on
the long end. Sure, you'll probably still have various instances of
"man, I just did this 2 days ago"; but a lot of that comes down to how
fast you are at picking things up.

I mean, if you're the type who can only start your web-browser because
it's the fifth icon in the third column ... it's going to be a bit
harder



| 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?
|

Because if I'm going to need that command numerous
times then it makes more sense to use mouse clicks.
That's why Windows has Explorer. It makes no sense
to copy a file via command line if one doesn't have to.

It's interesting that we keep saying the same
things but from different points of view. I say, "I had
to do this 5 times. It's time to have a button to do
the job." You say, "Who needs buttons? I don't mind
typing." You say it isn't broken. I say it isn't finished.

There's nothing stopping you from drag & drop in a file explorer. All
I'm saying is that there's benefits to both, and that most of the guys
writing graphical programs want to do "new and interesting things" more
than simply rehashing the 'groups' command (although most DEs have that
built in...).

It's usually not the "simple" cases that the CLI really shines though -
but the slightly-annoying ones, such as "I want to move this jumbled
mess of pictures from this directory into subdirectories based on file
extension".

Can't disagree, but the GUI always works. You don't need a manual.
It IS the manual. It has all the options available for THIS EXACT
version of the program/distro/version. Tooltips can help you navigate
the choices.

With the command line, you have to hope that the manpage matches the
version you have and hope you understand the options and what to
type and if you need to google it, you're hopelessly lost because
everything you find relates to some other version in some other
distro of some unspecified vintage with unspecified support libraries.
God help you if you're dyslexic and you need to CORRECTLY type a
50 character pathname with a dozen options...don't forget the 'sudo'.

As for moving pictures, totalcommander has a rich set of GUI tools
for doing stuff like that.





|
| 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.
|

Trying to kill cops, crash cars and shoot aliens?
It's childish. And it's basically a "filthy" habit in the
sense that it encourages meanness and insensitivity.

Not really. It's not real.

I mean, I can go play a full season in Madden, and never get any better
at coaching football (not that I'd want to either). Same goes for
flying a spaceship or shooting Nazis.

There's no way around that. But I know geeks feel
strongly otherwise. Periodically there are articles
on Slashdot about some research that claims to
prove violent games either do or don't make people
more violent. And the debate over it gets very heated.

Debates on slashdot often do, although the culture there has gone
downhill even from 5 years ago. It's not really a great source of
things.


| 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.
|

That's not the point. without a business case the work
won't be done. Peoples' only motivation is to code what
they need or to impress their peers. A business case means
you're trying to give the customer what they need and want.

Talk to RedHat then. They're huge on making business cases for things
no one wants, such as systemd.

[...]
Let me know when you get around to buttons,
a stable, long-term support cycle, and a business
case.

You mean like Ubuntu's 5 year release cycles? Or Debian's ... however
long... stable release cycle? As for buttons, I like XFCE; other people
like MATE or Cinnamon. Then there are some crazies who like KDE .

In article
"Mayayana" wrote:

"Ant" wrote

|
| I've used a firewall since Win98. The first time I
| remember anything trying to phone home without asking
| was Norton System Works. I was installing it for a
| friend. (Maybe 2005-ish?) The firewall told me it was
| trying to go out. The Norton install never said so. It
| just paused for a long time -- a minute or more -- and
| then finally gave up and carried on the install.
|
| Do you remember what process it was? MSI file? Setup? If so, then it is
| probably checking its digital signed files to be sure the files are
| valid.

I think this predated MSIs and signed files. I only
remember that it was an install CD. It was Norton
trying to go out, but I don't remember noticing
whether there was omore than one Norton process
running.

It's possible that it just wanted to check for
updates, but I find it creepy that software would
be designed to take that liberty and even hide
what's doing.

| I also block with firewalls since I don't like these phoning home
| without my permissions.
|

Nice to know I'm not the only one. I remember
in '99 Microsoft was caught checking registration
entries in the Registry, probably via ActiveX in IE,
when people logged into Windows Update. There was
outrage. MS promised to stop. Now it's more likely
that people will just whine slightly when MS reboots
their system, changes system files, and moves their
data to the cloud. That's not even getting into the
spyware issue.

Correct, it was a later development.

However, IIRC, there was another reason, the one reason everything boils
down to - $$$. VHS was cheaper.

In article , mike
wrote:


But then a lot of the work I do is SSH'd into machines, so working
purely with text (and text-based menus) is somewhat more intuitive for
me.

Also, it's nice not having to take my hands off the keyboard .

That's the problem. People who write code and configure linux distros
are not empathetic and completely clueless to
the mindset of the average computer USER. They like it that way
and actively resist changing it.

Users want a RESULT. They want to know what time the movie starts
or where can I get a pizza or where can I buy sox or how many teaspoons
in a cup or play me a song...

They don't give a rat's ass about HOW it happens. They want the RESULT
with the least effort. Their computer is not a hobby. It's a tool
to make their life easier. That's why smart phones are popular.
How many do you think ever though about HOW Alexa works?
They want an appliance. Linux is well suited for making appliances,
as long as you don't ask the user to configure it.

+1

In article
mike wrote:

On 8/2/2018 7:45 AM, Dan Purgert wrote:
Mayayana wrote:
"Dan Purgert" wrote

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

Yes, to some extent. With any computer
there's a lot to learn. The metaphors of file
folders and desktop are not intuitive. But
Windows is designed to be usable. And
Microsoft pressured developers a long time
ago to go along with that approach: Build
a 1-click installer, make menus that reflect
Windows File, Edit, view, etc. Never require
hand-editing config files or using command line.

The "app store" approach used by Linux is considerably more "one-click"
for installation than *msi files .

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.

The menubars tend to follow that paradigm for Linux things as well.

[...]
| 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!".

Have at it indeed...
Start with a hundred public libraries full of books.
Drag them all to the same plot of land.
Take all the card catalogs and jumble them up together
and make a big pile. Shuffle the pile periodically for good
measure.
That's the linux equivalent of figgering out what to do and how
to do it. Sure, it's in there somewhere! Good luck finding it.
|
I guess that's one way to look at it. If you
consider it freedom to have no easy config GUI
and to edit/compile the software you use, then
the typical finished product on Windows could be
as frustrating as Apple's custom screws and
resin-embedded hardware.

It really depends on what you mean by "easy config GUI". I mean, a lot
of the tools in the past 2-3 years have gotten GUI frontends, and a lot
of the DEs have had pretty straightforward GUI config options for
longer.
I wish I could remember the distro...I'd reinstall it...but you could
click the start-menu-adjacent box, click system settings and there
was an icon for desktop sharing that brought up a GUI that just worked.
I couldn't find anything even close in current versions of mint or zorin,
both of which used to be my favorites for ease of use...behind puppy.

| 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.
|
| 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.
|
To be honest, I don't know much about Linux
options. But I'd be surprised if Linux has anything
as sophisticated as Visual Studio.

Pretty sure that MS made "VS: Code" available for Linux. Although, I've
never touched it. Realistically the programs I write are entirely CLI
or "Terminal User Interface" (e.g. using ncurses libraries), rather than
graphical.

But then a lot of the work I do is SSH'd into machines, so working
purely with text (and text-based menus) is somewhat more intuitive for
me.

Also, it's nice not having to take my hands off the keyboard .

That's the problem. People who write code and configure linux distros
are not empathetic and completely clueless to
the mindset of the average computer USER. They like it that way
and actively resist changing it.

Users want a RESULT. They want to know what time the movie starts
or where can I get a pizza or where can I buy sox or how many teaspoons
in a cup or play me a song...

They don't give a rat's ass about HOW it happens. They want the RESULT
with the least effort. Their computer is not a hobby. It's a tool
to make their life easier. That's why smart phones are popular.
How many do you think ever though about HOW Alexa works?
They want an appliance. Linux is well suited for making appliances,
as long as you don't ask the user to configure it.

[...] I've dabbled a bit with C++
but mostly use VB6. Like Windows, it allows me to be
as high or low level as the task calls for.

Comparatively, I don't think anything in Windows lets you get quite as
"low-level" as the linux CLI does (although the NEW windows CLI -- um,
powershell, I think? -- does lean more that way).

I can write
software that will "just work" on virtually every
existing Windows machine. And it's fun because
I've got conveniences like drag-drop GUI building,
intellisense menus for objects, good bug info, etc.
Both VC++ and VB (as well as .Net, I assume) offer
very simple GUI building.

Yeah, I mean, if you need drag&drop ... I guess VB has that going for
it.

The "intellisense" thing always annoyed me - especially when using a few
variables with similar names (e.g. pos_x and pos_y ... and yeah, I know
that you can use x_pos and y_pos ... ). A lot of IDEs do have that
though, so I wouldn't really call that a point in "Windows' favor" so
much as the chosen IDE.


I did once try a VB6 replacement for Linux, called
Gambas.

It's garbage. 'nuff said

[...]
| | 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 think you may have read that wrong. I said interference.
In other words, I have no complaints with any GUI. What
I don't want is a middleman that has me picking the software
I want and then goes online to get it and set it up. I don't
want anything needing to go online. And I don't want anything
changing the system config on me.

Indeed, I did. In that case, download the *deb (or *rpm) file for the
package yourself, and install it (and its dependencies, if any) by hand.

Although, that being said, I recall more than a few MSIs that depended
on various .NET versions going out and downloading whatever version was
necessary if the system didn't already have it.


| 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".
|
Exactly. Yes. You may trust it to be safe and stable.
I don't want invisible network activity and I certainly
don't want that activity changing my system. I don't
want "web installs".

So then you only install software that's obtained via physical media
that doesn't touch the Windows registry? No downloaded software
whatsoever then?

| 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).
|

[...]

On the other hand, Linux is supposed to be the system
where I can have it my way. There's no sense jumping
from the frying pan into the fire.

Dunno what you mean here ... I mean, it takes a single command to change
the permissions anywhere on the system (NOTE - as with Windows, there
are some things that you SHOULD NOT mess with if you want the system to
remain usable).


This keeps getting back to the same idea: To me
freedom and good design means I have options to
set things up the way I like, without needing a lot
of expertise or sweat to do it. Freedom in the Linux
world means that if you don't like how it works you're
free to rewrite the product and recompile.

Or alter the permission bits on the file / directory, in case of the
filesystem example we've been working with.

I don't
want to have to master Linux in order to remove
file restrictions. I want a clear control, like the Windows
UAC control. So I can go online and search for
"stop file restrictions Windows" and immediately find an
article somewhere that says, "Piece of cake. Just slide
the UAC control to the bottom." That's not a complete
solution, but it's a big help. It stops the nags and
restrictions on all but some system files.

Which files / directories are we specifically talking about? Linux is
a bit more "spread out" than Windows, with "system files" being in
multiple places, as opposed to primarily C:\Windows:

- /bin - "base install" binaries, stuff like ls, rm, cd, and so on.
- /sbin - "system" binaries, stuff like e2fsck, depmod, ip, and so on.
- /usr/bin and /usr/local/bin - "user installed" binaries, stuff like
7zip, a2ps, or other programs that aren't required for a "basic"
minimal system.
- /usr/sbin and /usr/local/sbin - "user installed sytem" binaries,
generally wrappers that make the raw /sbin programs easier to use
such as adduser or deluser.
- /etc - global program configuration. For non-daemonized programs
(e.g. your shell), a config file in $HOME can override these.


| 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.
|

That's true. A lot of work goes into getting comfortable
and competent. Far more work than should be necessary.
In that sense I'm demanding of another option: I don't
want to spend months getting competent.

The hardest part is letting go of "in Windows, I ... ". Once you get
over that hurdle, it's significantly easier to get comfortable.

Basic competency can probably be had in a few days ... say 2 weeks on
the long end. Sure, you'll probably still have various instances of
"man, I just did this 2 days ago"; but a lot of that comes down to how
fast you are at picking things up.

I mean, if you're the type who can only start your web-browser because
it's the fifth icon in the third column ... it's going to be a bit
harder



| 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?
|

Because if I'm going to need that command numerous
times then it makes more sense to use mouse clicks.
That's why Windows has Explorer. It makes no sense
to copy a file via command line if one doesn't have to.

It's interesting that we keep saying the same
things but from different points of view. I say, "I had
to do this 5 times. It's time to have a button to do
the job." You say, "Who needs buttons? I don't mind
typing." You say it isn't broken. I say it isn't finished.

There's nothing stopping you from drag & drop in a file explorer. All
I'm saying is that there's benefits to both, and that most of the guys
writing graphical programs want to do "new and interesting things" more
than simply rehashing the 'groups' command (although most DEs have that
built in...).

It's usually not the "simple" cases that the CLI really shines though -
but the slightly-annoying ones, such as "I want to move this jumbled
mess of pictures from this directory into subdirectories based on file
extension".

Can't disagree, but the GUI always works. You don't need a manual.
It IS the manual. It has all the options available for THIS EXACT
version of the program/distro/version. Tooltips can help you navigate
the choices.

With the command line, you have to hope that the manpage matches the
version you have and hope you understand the options and what to
type and if you need to google it, you're hopelessly lost because
everything you find relates to some other version in some other
distro of some unspecified vintage with unspecified support libraries.
God help you if you're dyslexic and you need to CORRECTLY type a
50 character pathname with a dozen options...don't forget the 'sudo'.

As for moving pictures, totalcommander has a rich set of GUI tools
for doing stuff like that.





|
| 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.
|

Trying to kill cops, crash cars and shoot aliens?
It's childish. And it's basically a "filthy" habit in the
sense that it encourages meanness and insensitivity.

Not really. It's not real.

I mean, I can go play a full season in Madden, and never get any better
at coaching football (not that I'd want to either). Same goes for
flying a spaceship or shooting Nazis.

There's no way around that. But I know geeks feel
strongly otherwise. Periodically there are articles
on Slashdot about some research that claims to
prove violent games either do or don't make people
more violent. And the debate over it gets very heated.

Debates on slashdot often do, although the culture there has gone
downhill even from 5 years ago. It's not really a great source of
things.


| 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.
|

That's not the point. without a business case the work
won't be done. Peoples' only motivation is to code what
they need or to impress their peers. A business case means
you're trying to give the customer what they need and want.

Talk to RedHat then. They're huge on making business cases for things
no one wants, such as systemd.

[...]
Let me know when you get around to buttons,
a stable, long-term support cycle, and a business
case.

You mean like Ubuntu's 5 year release cycles? Or Debian's ... however
long... stable release cycle? As for buttons, I like XFCE; other people
like MATE or Cinnamon. Then there are some crazies who like KDE .