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

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

On 08/01/2018 08:57 PM, mike wrote:
On 8/1/2018 7:41 PM, Mayayana wrote:

snip

Very well said!

Hyperbole. And, if I didn't know better, I'd probably believe all of it.
Because it was well said.

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.

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 ..."


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!".

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).

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.

[...] 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.

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).


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).

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.

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...

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 ...


| 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?

[...]
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.

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).


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.

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.


--
|_|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

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

On 2018-08-02 04:41, 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.

Well, I'm using a Linux desktop, with a GUI, obviously, since many
years. Nothing to it.

I had guests in my house using my computer and not noticing it was not
Windows.

You prefer Windows? That's fine, use whatever you like and works for
you. But don't lie.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

In article
Nomen Nescio wrote:

In article
mike wrote:

On 8/1/2018 7:41 PM, Mayayana wrote:
"Anonymous" wrote

| This is really a very disappointing explanation of the various Linux
| systems. I am almost certain that you have never done more than
| installed a Linux GUI system, played with it for a short time,
| condemned it in you mind, and uninstalled it.

Twice I tried getting used to it and once I looked
into the feasibility of porting VB6 software using
WINE. Do I need to use it and like it in order to
assess it?
Linux just isn't a desktop. It's fine for a server,
but I don't need a server. What Windows offers is
universality and relative ease of use, coupled with
tools for people at all levels.

The last time I tried Linux was a few years ago. I
had a simple test: Set it up and use it without needing
command line and get a firewall that would be easy to
configure to control all outgoing and incoming communication.
As easy as Online Armor is on XP. Even those 2 simple
requirements were impossible to fulfill. The response from
Linux fans: Command line is better and you don't need
a firewall to block outgoing on Linux because it's not
unsafe like Windows. That's classic Linux fan logic: If
you want what we don't got then you're wrong.

| Debian alone has 32,000+
| free software programs available.

And iPhones have even more, don't they? But that
means nothing if I don't want any of them. Linux has
Firefox and TBird. For graphics there's GIMP, which is
still a rough, unfinished project after almost 25 years
of development. But most of the software I typically
use won't run on Linux. That's not the fault of Linux,
but it's the facts. 90+% of PCs run Windows. Software
is easier to write for Windows. So there's lots of
software for Windows. Example: RAW photo work.
Aftershot Pro is very reasonably priced. On Linux?
Last I saw there was only UFRaw, which wasn't much
good. Even for basic graphics I have lots of choices.
GIMP isn't one of them. Or rather, GIMP is a choice
on Windows but not one worth using.

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

| Those who have converted off of
| Windows have not found Linux to restrict their needs and uses for a
| computer.

That statement means nothing. I'd love to see
more people using Linux, because then maybe
developers would gradually make it more mainstream.
But it's just not happening. I don't know anyone
using Linux.

| The other Linux distributions make it easy to install some good
| programs right there in their interface.

That's what I *don't* want. If I moved to Linux
it would be to get free of busybody interference.
I don't want a system forcing file restrictions on
me. And I don't want a system with an applet
middleman to oversee software installs. I don't want
it calling home. I want it to work smoothly without
ever needing to call home.
Last time I tried Linux it was so intrusive about
file restrictions that I ended up making FAT32
partitions for storing files.

That's the problem I was talking about: Linux has
been going from half-built to Mac-style lockdown,
without ever reaching the sweet spot of Windows:
An OS that does what you want without needing
to learn a lot, but still allows almost any degree of
customization. Of course, Microsoft are working to
change that. But Linux and Mac are not worthy
substitutes. If you treat computer users as dumb
then your OS will be dumb.

| I am a software engineer and
| hated to have to re-learn how to use the Linux comandline. But there
| were many places on the web that explained how to install programs
| using the Linux comandline that were not in the GUI install interface.

That's fine if that's what you like. It's not
my preference. And it's not the preference
of the vast majority. To defend it and say
one can learn about it online is the classic
Linux defense, as I said above. There is no
defense for not having GUI options for virtually
anything you might want to do. It's been
relatively easy to achieve for over 20 years
now. But of course, it's easier on Windows,
because Microsoft want to encourage software
developers, so they make easy, RAD tools.

As far as I'm concerned, life's too short for
command line. I could also light my stove by
rubbing two sticks together. But why would I?
Command line simply isn't necessary in a properly
designed program. But most of what's on Linux
isn't properly designed. The emphasis is all on
functionality with none on usability.

In the rare cases where I need to do something
with command line, if I need to do it more than
once I'll probably write a script. For instance,
registering COM libraries. I can run a command
but since I do it occasionally I wrote a script
that works by just dropping the DLL onto the
script on my desktop. Why would I go to the trouble
of looking up and typing that command over and
over when I can use drag-drop?

What most Linux fans won't admit is that
command line is really a pointless fetish -- an
unwillingness to adapt. They want to light their
stove by rubbing sticks together because it makes
them feel like masters of arcane knowledge. Which
would be silly enough, but then they scorn others
who want to click a button rather than type out
an incantation.

Part of the problem there is also the culture. There
are too many unsocialized geeks who spend their
time either programming or playing childish computer
games. It's an adolescent culture. (Just look at
what gets top WINE support to see what the main
priorities are. A grown man playing video games is
a sad state of affairs.) Linux is not likely to ever be
a well designed system unless well-rounded people,
concerned with usability and productivity, decide
to polish it. And since there's no business case for
anyone doing that, it's not likely to happen.


Very well said!

I spent the day trying to get mint 19 installed and integrated
into a windows network. A LOT has changed in the last two
years...for the worse. Somebody decided to REMOVE the
GUI configuration utility for desktop sharing. dconf-editor
seems to have been reduced to useless.
I've got two deal-breaker issues and little interest in
spending large amounts of effort if they're just gonna keep
making it more confusing. You need to be a mind-reader to
configure linux.

Dood, I carry around a Mint persistent USB drive to test systems
when Windows won't boot. Never have a problem with it.

Bobbie Sellers wrote:

Well it sounds like no one writing has
any understanding of the GNU/Linux system and
its several Desktop Environments.

A two foot high stack of Linux installer DVDs
says you're wrong.

And explaining what has to change is pointless.
Nobody is listening.

Paul

On 2018-08-02 11:56, 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.

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 ..."

Right.

The reverse is also true.




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!".

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).


I have seen no need to block "outgoing" connections in my own machine,
though. I see the need to block rogue programs you don't trust, which
may be common with closed source software typical in Windows :-p


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.

Well, there are many people that program in/for Linux.


[...] 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.

Darktable.

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.

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).

Nothing stops them from also providing a Linux pay version of software.



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."

Right.


| [...]
| 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.

Right. Anybody can "prepare" software for Linux, even ourselves.


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).

It is one of those "Linux does things differently". I don't have to
download programs from a myriad of manufacturers. Someone collects the
software and I only have to click install on a single place. And I said
click, on a gui. I don't have to go hunting for updates, they just
happen automatically for everything with a single and easy to control
interface.

It is similar to what happens on Android: we get everything from the
play store, but there are other sources if you want them.



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).

It has always been so. Windows NTFS is as "intrusive" as Linux
filesystems are, since about two decades ago. But Windows users do not
notice that because they are always doing things as the Administrator.
It would be similar to using Linux as root: no restrictions.

The restrictions make a system safe.

I never use Windows as Administrator.




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).

It is an installation choice. Windows NT could be used as "user" since
decades. It is common on many enterprises to deny people the use of
their computers as administrators and to control/limit everything they do.


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.

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...

Right.

If people first contact with computers is Linux, that is what they find
easy, not Windows. It is just familiarity.



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 ...


| 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?

That's right.

If you don't use Linux, don't use it. Just don't make it harder for me.
When developing software, consider that other people use other platforms
they like, that's all I ask.



[...]
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...

Yep.



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.

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).

I hate having to configure complicated things by clicking on a lot of
menus and dialogs. It is much easier to me to simply edit a config file.
Much easier to deploy on another computer, just copy the config file.
Much easier to compare configurations to see what is different.

But there are tons of programs in Linux that you have to click away at
all the config, Windows style.


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.

The computer world developed thanks to games. We have powerful cheap
machines at homes thanks to the gamers. Don't despise them. Otherwise,
we would still be using AT class machines at a hundred megahertz clocks.

Word processors, calc sheets? They were developed for the enterprise,
they can pay expensive machines and software. We would not be able to
have those at home at the prices we do. Thanks to games and gamers. And
yes, most of them in MsDOS or Windows.

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.

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.

Yep.


--
Cheers, Carlos.

Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2018-08-02 11:56, Dan Purgert wrote:
Mayayana wrote:
"Anonymous" wrote
[...]
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).

It is an installation choice. Windows NT could be used as "user" since
decades. It is common on many enterprises to deny people the use of
their computers as administrators and to control/limit everything they do.

Definitely - I was looking more from the POV of a "consumer", rather
than from the business side.

In that regard, Linux treats "consumer" the same way that they treat
their "enterprise" setups -- that is, the USER account "dan" (or
"carlos" or whatever) is NEVER anything more than a simple user. In the
event that "dan" or "carlos" (the person) needs to administer the
machine for some reason, he would need to switch to the "root"
(administrator) account - either via a login direcly to tty (or issuing
the 'su' command at a prompt), or simply getting temporarily elevated
permissions (either from the 'sudo' command at a prompt, or whatever the
elevation control in the GUI is).


--
|_|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

"mike" wrote

|dconf-editor
| seems to have been reduced to useless.

[In Andy Rooney's voice]: And another
thing. Didya ever notice how they name
things with unhelpful, short, lowercase
names? All that bragging about command
line, yet people are trying to type as litle
as possible. "dconf" "ik" "rrb" (I made those
two up, but they sound like great tools with
very flexible command line options.

It's like the C++ folks, who mock case-
insensitive programming languages as being
childish, but then end up using all lower-case
variable names because it's too confusing to
use uppercase. So their code is "case-
insensitive", anyway. It's just harder to read
than other code.

On 01/08/18 22:04, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
On 08/01/2018 12:23 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/08/18 19:01, William Unruh wrote:
On 2018-08-01, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

There is nothing a fleet of dispatchable nuclear power plants cannot do
that cannot be done worse and more expensively and with higher carbon
emissions and more adverse environmental impact by adding intermittent
renewable energy.

The problem is that the manufacturers/operators of nuclear power
plants have proven
themselves incompetent at safety. Fukushima (lets put the emergency
power for water pumps in the basement). Chernobile (lets run tests and
override the emergeny failsafes). And the consequences of unsafe
operation are
pretty devestating. So yes, your statement is OK, but it is a bit
likethe
anti-greenouse crowd.
There is nothing that a bunch of coal fired plants cannot do more
cheaply than
any other source, until the consequences destroy civilisation.
Unfortunately
consequences, including those of incompetence, because incompetence
is a fixed
feature of the physica world, are things that need to be
taken into account in making decisions.

Oh dear.

Deaths at Chernobyl 50-70
Deaths at Three mile Island 0

Leaving aside chernobyl the other two incidents are a tribute to their
safety systems. Despite complete core meltdown the secondary
containment safety kept emissions so low that there was no public risk
at all.

Danger from CO2 emissions 0
..
No reactor of the chernobyl design is running today outside Russia


You have drunk the Left Koolaid, haven't you?

More deaths resulted for inappropriate response to Fukushima than from
the incident itself.

Â*Â*Â*Â*Part of the incompetence the previous poster cited.
And incompetence in design, and location were the beginning of
the failure.Â* Try a book called "BENDING ADVERSITY
Japan and the Art of Survival" by David Pilling from Penguin
Press in 2014.Â* It covers the losses and survivals from
the Fukashima incident and the tsunami among other things.


FUKUSHIMA is the normal western spelling

20,000 people died on account of the tsunami. Half a dozen died when
they were evacuated inappropriately. None died or will die from the
radiation release.


Â*Â*Â*Â*Radiation is not much but radioactive contamination is very
deadly and at least Thyroid cancer will be seen.

No. It wont be.

Not enough I-131 was released and the people were given prophylactic
iodine. It only lasts a few days and they had time to prepare.




Hot rubble from
the explosion floated through the air and water to the West Coast of
the USA.

Bull****.

Contamination at a low levels even in the Napa Valley wines.

So what?

At low levels. We can measure radioactivity about 10,000 times smaller
than it has any effect.


Â*Â*Â*Â*And I would want to check whether similar contaminants are
in Northern Hemisphere wines.


Why? Of course they are. At the odd part per billion.

I grew up in an era of air burst atomic weapons tests. And windscale.
The amount of radiation we were exposed to... - was one hndredth of
what we would be exposed to by living in e.g. Dartmoor, UK, which is
comfortably well above most of the area round Chernobyl and Pripyat and
Fukushima, Or indeed Ramsar in Iran, where background radiation is so
high that if it was down to a nuclear plant going titsup, all you
ecolefties would be screaming for evacuation of the entire region.

Statistically, cancer rates in Ramsar are somewhat below global average.



Â*Â*Â*Â*Left and Right politics don't enter into this.Â* Oh and if there
is no incompetence in the operation/design/location of the nuclear
plant then the coal plants will cause more illness and release more
radioactive contaminants.

Well yes. The rules for dealing with radioactive coal waste are far less
stringent.

Not that it poses any risk, either.

Once again you have fallen victim to a model which, like climate change
would be fine if the output of the model's predictions even came close
to matching reality. In the case of Nuclear power, a model was adopted
on the effects of nuclear radiation that was - in the absence of any
better knowledge at the time - as good as people could make reactors. In
short they said 'how good can you be on radiation release?' The boffins
told them and they wrote that in the rule book.

In the absence of knowledge they looked at a single dose of high level
radiation that was known - from e.g. Hiroshima etc - to kill say 50% of
the people and they drew a straight line down to zero radiation = zero %
chance of killing anyone.

And they based the regulations on that model. The LNR model. Linear No
Threshold.

For total lifetime dose recieved. Not for a single dose at a specific time.

And THAT is what the anti-nuclear fools are referring to when they say
'there is no safe level of radiation'. And THAT is what they use to
predict '250,000 cancer deaths' post Chernobyl.

Now we know (from cell studies done in the lab, and on account of things
like Fukushima and Ramsar) that radiation is about 100-1000 times less
dangerous than that rule implies, which is why after a couple of decades
250,000 people have *not* died of cancer post Chernobyl, and the
*actual* death toll stands at a round 58.

Cells do parity checking on the DNA. Like you might do on a digital
transmission channel. As long as the parity check is OK, the cell lives.
If not, it is killed. Only if both DNA strands are compromised
identically, does a potentially viable mutation happen.

This is why life grows up more or less cancer free in an environment
that is and always has been quite highly radioactive.

And as you will know from experience with noise in a digital data
transmission, below a certain noise level there are virtually no errors,
but as the noise level increases then you fairly sharply get to a point
where there is so much corruption that the signal doesn't get through.

So it is with radiation. Low level radiation spread over a long period
of time does almost no damage at all. Nor does it increase much with
increasing radiation levels. You need to be near lethal doses on single
occasions for it to have a marked effect on cancers. E.g. for
radiotherapy, where doses are applied that would kill you if they were
applied to the whole body - sieverts - the chance of an unrelated cancer
due to radiation is about 15% 15 years down the line.

LNR has been refuted. Cancer versus radiation levels is highly non
linear, and more dependent on peak dosage than average lifetime exposure.


So it bothers me not that we cam *detect* fallout from Fukushima worldwide.

Just hold a geiger counter next to a box of bananas or your own body.

It's not a sign of a problem, but a tribute to the engineers who can
build such sensitive equipment that they could tell what A-bomb had been
detonated and how along ago and of what power it would have been...

To date no one has died from Fukushima radiation., Not one single
person, and according to the best estimates no one ever will.

It is not a disaster. It was a cvery well contained core meltdown in an
old plant designed to meet a tsunami that was lower than the one it
experiences. So its primary mechanism for dealing with decay heat
worked, but after the batteries went flat, the diesels were flooded.

EVEN THEN it would have released less radiation IF the regulations had
allowed them to vent the hydrogen safely, instead of letting it build up
to explosive levels.

And EVEN THEN that vast majority of the radioactive materials were held
inside the secondary containments vessel, which did exactly what it was
designed to do, like at 3 Three mile Island.

And EVEN THEN when it became clear that in fact te spent fuel ponds
posed a greater hazard binging overfilled because nuclear POLITICS
decreed that the company couldn't recycle them or move them so they just
stockpiled them ON SITE, the Japanese engineers did a fantastic job of
containing the problems to very very low level release into an ocean
that already contains 4 billion tonnes of radioactive uranium, to which
what leaked out of Fuku is really truly a drop in the ocean.

The anti-nuclear politics made the situations far far worse than it ever
needed to be.

The people responsible should be brought to trial.

Â*Â*Â*Â*If a solar plant can be said to release contaminant mainly
these shade the ground under the panels/mirrors, which may cause
changes from direct sunlight vegetation to plants which appreciate a bit
of shade.


No plants 'appreciate a bit of shade'

Ive not seen many growing down a coal mine.

Te fact of the matter is that at the power densities available capturing
the out from a second hand unshielded fusion reactor 93 million miles
away that kills more people through dangerous radiation induced skin
cancer EVERY MONTH than the entire nuclear fleet in the world has killed
in its entire HISTORY...the environmental impact of wind and solar is
hundreds if not thousands of times greater than nuclear.

And don't get me started on nuclear waste. What DO you think we are all
made of? Nuclear waste. From supernovae and from stars.

And a lot of it is, for one reason or another, quite radioactive.

Cosmic rays produce radio potassium and radio carbon. It's in you, it's
in me.

The world has an estimated 8 billion or so tonnes of Uranium and lord
knows how much thorium, which over time both decay into quite active
daughter isotopes that then contribute to more background radiation.


And you are worried about a part per billion of waht? Radio caesium?
in some wine?


Â*Â*Â*Â*bliss



--
No Apple devices were knowingly used in the preparation of this post.

On 02/08/18 10:17, Nomen Nescio wrote:
In article
mike wrote:

On 8/1/2018 7:41 PM, Mayayana wrote:
"Anonymous" wrote

| This is really a very disappointing explanation of the various Linux
| systems. I am almost certain that you have never done more than
| installed a Linux GUI system, played with it for a short time,
| condemned it in you mind, and uninstalled it.

Twice I tried getting used to it and once I looked
into the feasibility of porting VB6 software using
WINE. Do I need to use it and like it in order to
assess it?
Linux just isn't a desktop. It's fine for a server,
but I don't need a server. What Windows offers is
universality and relative ease of use, coupled with
tools for people at all levels.

The last time I tried Linux was a few years ago. I
had a simple test: Set it up and use it without needing
command line and get a firewall that would be easy to
configure to control all outgoing and incoming communication.
As easy as Online Armor is on XP. Even those 2 simple
requirements were impossible to fulfill. The response from
Linux fans: Command line is better and you don't need
a firewall to block outgoing on Linux because it's not
unsafe like Windows. That's classic Linux fan logic: If
you want what we don't got then you're wrong.

| Debian alone has 32,000+
| free software programs available.

And iPhones have even more, don't they? But that
means nothing if I don't want any of them. Linux has
Firefox and TBird. For graphics there's GIMP, which is
still a rough, unfinished project after almost 25 years
of development. But most of the software I typically
use won't run on Linux. That's not the fault of Linux,
but it's the facts. 90+% of PCs run Windows. Software
is easier to write for Windows. So there's lots of
software for Windows. Example: RAW photo work.
Aftershot Pro is very reasonably priced. On Linux?
Last I saw there was only UFRaw, which wasn't much
good. Even for basic graphics I have lots of choices.
GIMP isn't one of them. Or rather, GIMP is a choice
on Windows but not one worth using.

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

| Those who have converted off of
| Windows have not found Linux to restrict their needs and uses for a
| computer.

That statement means nothing. I'd love to see
more people using Linux, because then maybe
developers would gradually make it more mainstream.
But it's just not happening. I don't know anyone
using Linux.

| The other Linux distributions make it easy to install some good
| programs right there in their interface.

That's what I *don't* want. If I moved to Linux
it would be to get free of busybody interference.
I don't want a system forcing file restrictions on
me. And I don't want a system with an applet
middleman to oversee software installs. I don't want
it calling home. I want it to work smoothly without
ever needing to call home.
Last time I tried Linux it was so intrusive about
file restrictions that I ended up making FAT32
partitions for storing files.

That's the problem I was talking about: Linux has
been going from half-built to Mac-style lockdown,
without ever reaching the sweet spot of Windows:
An OS that does what you want without needing
to learn a lot, but still allows almost any degree of
customization. Of course, Microsoft are working to
change that. But Linux and Mac are not worthy
substitutes. If you treat computer users as dumb
then your OS will be dumb.

| I am a software engineer and
| hated to have to re-learn how to use the Linux comandline. But there
| were many places on the web that explained how to install programs
| using the Linux comandline that were not in the GUI install interface.

That's fine if that's what you like. It's not
my preference. And it's not the preference
of the vast majority. To defend it and say
one can learn about it online is the classic
Linux defense, as I said above. There is no
defense for not having GUI options for virtually
anything you might want to do. It's been
relatively easy to achieve for over 20 years
now. But of course, it's easier on Windows,
because Microsoft want to encourage software
developers, so they make easy, RAD tools.

As far as I'm concerned, life's too short for
command line. I could also light my stove by
rubbing two sticks together. But why would I?
Command line simply isn't necessary in a properly
designed program. But most of what's on Linux
isn't properly designed. The emphasis is all on
functionality with none on usability.

In the rare cases where I need to do something
with command line, if I need to do it more than
once I'll probably write a script. For instance,
registering COM libraries. I can run a command
but since I do it occasionally I wrote a script
that works by just dropping the DLL onto the
script on my desktop. Why would I go to the trouble
of looking up and typing that command over and
over when I can use drag-drop?

What most Linux fans won't admit is that
command line is really a pointless fetish -- an
unwillingness to adapt. They want to light their
stove by rubbing sticks together because it makes
them feel like masters of arcane knowledge. Which
would be silly enough, but then they scorn others
who want to click a button rather than type out
an incantation.

Part of the problem there is also the culture. There
are too many unsocialized geeks who spend their
time either programming or playing childish computer
games. It's an adolescent culture. (Just look at
what gets top WINE support to see what the main
priorities are. A grown man playing video games is
a sad state of affairs.) Linux is not likely to ever be
a well designed system unless well-rounded people,
concerned with usability and productivity, decide
to polish it. And since there's no business case for
anyone doing that, it's not likely to happen.


Very well said!

I spent the day trying to get mint 19 installed and integrated
into a windows network. A LOT has changed in the last two
years...for the worse. Somebody decided to REMOVE the
GUI configuration utility for desktop sharing. dconf-editor
seems to have been reduced to useless.
I've got two deal-breaker issues and little interest in
spending large amounts of effort if they're just gonna keep
making it more confusing. You need to be a mind-reader to
configure linux.

Dood, I carry around a Mint persistent USB drive to test systems
when Windows won't boot. Never have a problem with it.

Mint 19 *boots* fine.

It's just that for no *good* reason a lot of stuff that worked, now
either doesn't work, or works in a completely different way.

Iyts mnot like E.g. CUPS where suddenly an acracne and virtually
unusable print system got not only a pretty face, but an easy way to
configure it together with a very easy way to add printers - te PPD
mechanism.


LP was pretty broken, and CUPS mostly fixed it.

Init was not broken and systemd broke parts of it.

I am sure in time things will stabilise, but right now the distros and
apps people are playing catchup.

And there is far too much change for changes sake. Too much emphasis on
eye candy not enough on stability, and ease of use.

--
Those who want slavery should have the grace to name it by its proper
name. They must face the full meaning of that which they are advocating
or condoning; the full, exact, specific meaning of collectivism, of its
logical implications, of the principles upon which it is based, and of
the ultimate consequences to which these principles will lead. They must
face it, then decide whether this is what they want or not.

Ayn Rand.

On 02/08/18 05:39, Anonymous wrote:
In article
"Mayayana" wrote:

"Anonymous" wrote

| This is really a very disappointing explanation of the various Linux
| systems. I am almost certain that you have never done more than
| installed a Linux GUI system, played with it for a short time,
| condemned it in you mind, and uninstalled it.

Twice I tried getting used to it and once I looked
into the feasibility of porting VB6 software using
WINE. Do I need to use it and like it in order to
assess it?
Linux just isn't a desktop. It's fine for a server,
but I don't need a server. What Windows offers is
universality and relative ease of use, coupled with
tools for people at all levels.

The last time I tried Linux was a few years ago. I
had a simple test: Set it up and use it without needing
command line and get a firewall that would be easy to
configure to control all outgoing and incoming communication.
As easy as Online Armor is on XP. Even those 2 simple
requirements were impossible to fulfill. The response from
Linux fans: Command line is better and you don't need
a firewall to block outgoing on Linux because it's not
unsafe like Windows. That's classic Linux fan logic: If
you want what we don't got then you're wrong.

| Debian alone has 32,000+
| free software programs available.

And iPhones have even more, don't they? But that
means nothing if I don't want any of them. Linux has
Firefox and TBird. For graphics there's GIMP, which is
still a rough, unfinished project after almost 25 years
of development. But most of the software I typically
use won't run on Linux. That's not the fault of Linux,
but it's the facts. 90+% of PCs run Windows. Software
is easier to write for Windows. So there's lots of
software for Windows. Example: RAW photo work.
Aftershot Pro is very reasonably priced. On Linux?
Last I saw there was only UFRaw, which wasn't much
good. Even for basic graphics I have lots of choices.
GIMP isn't one of them. Or rather, GIMP is a choice
on Windows but not one worth using.

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

| Those who have converted off of
| Windows have not found Linux to restrict their needs and uses for a
| computer.

That statement means nothing. I'd love to see
more people using Linux, because then maybe
developers would gradually make it more mainstream.
But it's just not happening. I don't know anyone
using Linux.

| The other Linux distributions make it easy to install some good
| programs right there in their interface.

That's what I *don't* want. If I moved to Linux
it would be to get free of busybody interference.
I don't want a system forcing file restrictions on
me. And I don't want a system with an applet
middleman to oversee software installs. I don't want
it calling home. I want it to work smoothly without
ever needing to call home.
Last time I tried Linux it was so intrusive about
file restrictions that I ended up making FAT32
partitions for storing files.

That's the problem I was talking about: Linux has
been going from half-built to Mac-style lockdown,
without ever reaching the sweet spot of Windows:
An OS that does what you want without needing
to learn a lot, but still allows almost any degree of
customization. Of course, Microsoft are working to
change that. But Linux and Mac are not worthy
substitutes. If you treat computer users as dumb
then your OS will be dumb.

| I am a software engineer and
| hated to have to re-learn how to use the Linux comandline. But there
| were many places on the web that explained how to install programs
| using the Linux comandline that were not in the GUI install interface.

That's fine if that's what you like. It's not
my preference. And it's not the preference
of the vast majority. To defend it and say
one can learn about it online is the classic
Linux defense, as I said above. There is no
defense for not having GUI options for virtually
anything you might want to do. It's been
relatively easy to achieve for over 20 years
now. But of course, it's easier on Windows,
because Microsoft want to encourage software
developers, so they make easy, RAD tools.

As far as I'm concerned, life's too short for
command line. I could also light my stove by
rubbing two sticks together. But why would I?
Command line simply isn't necessary in a properly
designed program. But most of what's on Linux
isn't properly designed. The emphasis is all on
functionality with none on usability.

In the rare cases where I need to do something
with command line, if I need to do it more than
once I'll probably write a script. For instance,
registering COM libraries. I can run a command
but since I do it occasionally I wrote a script
that works by just dropping the DLL onto the
script on my desktop. Why would I go to the trouble
of looking up and typing that command over and
over when I can use drag-drop?

What most Linux fans won't admit is that
command line is really a pointless fetish -- an
unwillingness to adapt. They want to light their
stove by rubbing sticks together because it makes
them feel like masters of arcane knowledge. Which
would be silly enough, but then they scorn others
who want to click a button rather than type out
an incantation.

Part of the problem there is also the culture. There
are too many unsocialized geeks who spend their
time either programming or playing childish computer
games. It's an adolescent culture. (Just look at
what gets top WINE support to see what the main
priorities are. A grown man playing video games is
a sad state of affairs.) Linux is not likely to ever be
a well designed system unless well-rounded people,
concerned with usability and productivity, decide
to polish it. And since there's no business case for
anyone doing that, it's not likely to happen.

Can we pleadse take the anonymous remailer echo chamber out of the list
of cross post targets?

--
I would rather have questions that cannot be answered...
....than to have answers that cannot be questioned

Richard Feynman

On 02/08/18 07:37, Chris wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/08/18 20:36, Chris wrote:

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.

Well mainly from half lifetime reading the damned thing. It is now
'politics in a lab coat' as the saying goes. And fearfully dumbed down
and badly written.




https://cen.acs.org/articles/91/web/...hs-Causes.html


No argument there as far as it goes.

Coal is dirty and kills people and creates a bit of sulphur polltion. I
am not going to even begin to say why CO2 is not a pollutant and lills
no one...but at some level even coal saves lives. Takle South Africa. It
nmeeds electrical power, it cant afford to buuild nukes and it has coal
sitting =under it in vast quantiotries. It should be building coal power
staions.

Because electricity SAVES lives.

In the end you have a cost of a human life element in your assumptions.,
For some people coal is a *cheaper* way to save lives than uranium.





--
"Nature does not give up the winter because people dislike the cold."

― Confucius

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. All of what
you said above is personal opinion and is either just wrong or borders
on it.
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.

--
Caver1