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

On 02/08/18 11:41, Carlos E.R. wrote:
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.

Well strictly linux is a kernel, upon which a desktop may be constructed :-)

I ditched windows about 2005. when Gnome/debian got to be better than
win98 *for what I wanted to do*.

I'd been running lunux servers a lot before that.

I switched to Mint because I was fed up with the latest code noit being
avialable under debian 'stable'

And I like MATE a lot. Tried xfce and cinnamon, but mate has the best
balance *for me*.



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

― Confucius

On 02/08/18 12:55, Mayayana wrote:
"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.

Well you obviously did not grow up in the days of 300 baud teletypes


No one is braggiong about 'command line' thoiugh, si I dont know why you
made that up.


It's like the C++ folks, who mock case-
insensitive programming languages as being
childish,

Straw man. They dont.

but then end up using all lower-case
variable names because it's too confusing to
use uppercase.

NoItsNot.ThyeHaveAPerfectlyGoodWayToMakleVariableN amesWithoutSpaces.

So their code is "case-
insensitive", anyway. It's just harder to read
than other code.

Oh golly. poor little you.




--
"What do you think about Gay Marriage?"
"I don't."
"Don't what?"
"Think about Gay Marriage."

"Carlos E.R." wrote

| 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
|
Yes, that's exactly the response I got: You
don't need that. I consider it a good way to
protect against possible malware. There are millions
of people running spambots who wouldn't if they
had a good firewall. I also use it, increasingly, as
a way to block ill-behaved software. Far too much
of it now wants to call home, or elsewhere.

You don't need to use an outgoing firewall. That's
fine if that's what you like. But that's not a reason
why I shouldn't want one. As long as Linux requires
people to partake of a philosophy it won't be popular.

| [...] 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.
|
Ah! And they even have a Windows version! Great
find. Oh, wait. After some looking around it turns out
the Windows version is "pre-alpha development
snapshot for 64 bit Windows". But they're delighted to
offer such great progress. How Gnu OSS of them.

https://www.darktable.org/2017/08/da...e-for-windows/

And if they ever finish the product they'll want to
copy all my RAWs into their database to work on them?
Que? I know I'm in for problems when every second
sentence contains the word "workflow". This is for Linux,
yet they're designing it for people who don't know how
to use a filesystem?

| 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.
|
No. But the lack of market will stop most people.
Linux has a very small user base for productivity
software. And if someone offers a commercial
product there's a good chance someone else will
copy it to offer a free version. Not to mention
all the people who will be angry that a "turncoat"
is trying to charge for software on Linux.

|
| 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.
|
Windows is going more toward the Linux model.
Or rather, Windows is going more toward offering
only the corporate workstation product. Admin
is no longer really Admin, just as root is no longer
really root. Last I saw, I had to dig and find sudo
before I could be free on Linux. Similarly, if you
want to be real Admin on Win7+ you have to sign
on with the pre-set Administrator account. Both
make people jump through hoops to control the
system. Windows is used by hundreds of millions
of people, yet basic tasks often require finding
"secret tweaks". In Microsoft's defense, setting up
slight obstacles does provide a way to give IT people
control without causing problems for non-tech people.

But, there are mitigations. On XP, security has to
be set up if desired, rather than being imposed. On
Win7 one can turn down "user account control" to
achieve a fairly reasonable control over the
system without ninny wanings. ("Alert! Alert! Do you
really want to do what you just did! ID please!")

| The restrictions make a system safe.
|
| I never use Windows as Administrator.

Again, that's fine if it's what you prefer. I don't
like any kiddie gates. I don't care what your
opinion is of that. Why is it that I have more
choice on Windows than on a free, OSS product?

On 02/08/18 13:17, Caver1 wrote:
On 08/01/2018 10:41 PM, Mayayana wrote:
"Anonymous" wrote

|Â* This is really a very disappointing explanation of the various Linux
| systems.Â* 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.

Â*Â* 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?
Â*Â* 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.

Â*Â*Â* 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.

Â*Â* 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.

Â*Â*Â* 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.

Â*Â*Â* 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.

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

Â*Â*Â* 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.Â* 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.

Â*Â* 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.

Â*Â* 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.

Â*Â* 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?

Â*Â*Â* 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.

Â*Â*Â* 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.


GUIEverythibg is as limiting as CommanndLineEverything


I canbt do CAD without a Gui, but frankly for usenet, its actually a
disadvantage. Some day I will get a textaul linux newsreader going


--
"When one man dies it's a tragedy. When thousands die it's statistics."

Josef Stalin

On 02/08/18 13:26, Mayayana wrote:
"Carlos E.R." wrote

| 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
|
Yes, that's exactly the response I got: You
don't need that. I consider it a good way to
protect against possible malware. There are millions
of people running spambots who wouldn't if they
had a good firewall. I also use it, increasingly, as
a way to block ill-behaved software. Far too much
of it now wants to call home, or elsewhere.

You don't need to use an outgoing firewall. That's
fine if that's what you like. But that's not a reason
why I shouldn't want one. As long as Linux requires
people to partake of a philosophy it won't be popular.

| [...] 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.
|
Ah! And they even have a Windows version! Great
find. Oh, wait. After some looking around it turns out
the Windows version is "pre-alpha development
snapshot for 64 bit Windows". But they're delighted to
offer such great progress. How Gnu OSS of them.

https://www.darktable.org/2017/08/da...e-for-windows/

And if they ever finish the product they'll want to
copy all my RAWs into their database to work on them?
Que? I know I'm in for problems when every second
sentence contains the word "workflow". This is for Linux,
yet they're designing it for people who don't know how
to use a filesystem?

| 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.
|
No. But the lack of market will stop most people.
Linux has a very small user base for productivity
software. And if someone offers a commercial
product there's a good chance someone else will
copy it to offer a free version. Not to mention
all the people who will be angry that a "turncoat"
is trying to charge for software on Linux.

|
| 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.
|
Windows is going more toward the Linux model.
Or rather, Windows is going more toward offering
only the corporate workstation product. Admin
is no longer really Admin, just as root is no longer
really root. Last I saw, I had to dig and find sudo
before I could be free on Linux. Similarly, if you
want to be real Admin on Win7+ you have to sign
on with the pre-set Administrator account. Both
make people jump through hoops to control the
system. Windows is used by hundreds of millions
of people, yet basic tasks often require finding
"secret tweaks". In Microsoft's defense, setting up
slight obstacles does provide a way to give IT people
control without causing problems for non-tech people.

But, there are mitigations. On XP, security has to
be set up if desired, rather than being imposed. On
Win7 one can turn down "user account control" to
achieve a fairly reasonable control over the
system without ninny wanings. ("Alert! Alert! Do you
really want to do what you just did! ID please!")

| The restrictions make a system safe.
|
| I never use Windows as Administrator.

Again, that's fine if it's what you prefer. I don't
like any kiddie gates. I don't care what your
opinion is of that. Why is it that I have more
choice on Windows than on a free, OSS product?


Bceasue you are deluded.

You dont. You can run a single user liunux as root if you want.
I prefdr not to as it reminds me that I am filddling with how my pc
works, raher than simply using it, when I become 'root'




--
"I am inclined to tell the truth and dislike people who lie consistently.
This makes me unfit for the company of people of a Left persuasion, and
all women"

Mayayana wrote:
"Carlos E.R." wrote

| 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
|
Yes, that's exactly the response I got: You
don't need that. I consider it a good way to
protect against possible malware. There are millions
of people running spambots who wouldn't if they
had a good firewall. I also use it, increasingly, as
a way to block ill-behaved software. Far too much
of it now wants to call home, or elsewhere.

Ah, I block all that mess at my edge -- lot simpler (IMO) doing it all
in one place, than on every machine I own.

Note that machines that actively leave (laptops sometimes), yeah, they
get more localized attention.


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

On 2018-08-02 13:45, Dan Purgert wrote:
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).

It is the same in Windows - only that it is not the culture to do so.

All my Windows systems are setup that way: an administrator account that
I only use for admin work and a plain user account in which I do my things.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

"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 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!".
|
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.
I see it differently: I don't want to have to do a
valve job every time I drive to the store. I want to
be able to customize my car, but I don't want to
have to customize it or finish building it.

| 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. One of the
reasons that GUI is so prevalent on Windows is
because it's easy to code. To a great extent,
GUI building is drag/drop. 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. 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.

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.

| | 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.

| 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".


| 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).
|

Yes, Windows is becoming more that way. But there
are pretty good workarounds. Part of the reason Vista
got such a bad rep was because MS didn't provide an
option to turn off the ninny warnings. (And Vista/7 is
bloated/overproduced.... And there was the Intel 915
chipset scandal.... And there was the fact that Vista
was rushed out the door after they wasted 4 years
diddling with an attempt to make Windows run on top
of a mega-bloated .Net wrapper... But what people saw
was mostly those irritating prompts whenever they tried
to do anything with a file.)

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.

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. 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.

| 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 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.

|
| 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.
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.

| 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.

| 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.
|

Haven't I been delineating the differences? You
just don't agree with my conclusions. With Eric Raymond
it's the same. He's concerned about how to develop
software *from the developer's point of view*. It's
Linux as a workshop full of greasemonkeys. It's why
everything is half-finished and frequently released....
Let me know when you get around to buttons,
a stable, long-term support cycle, and a business
case.

On 2018-08-02 14:26, Mayayana wrote:
"Carlos E.R." wrote

| 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
|
Yes, that's exactly the response I got: You
don't need that. I consider it a good way to
protect against possible malware. There are millions
of people running spambots who wouldn't if they
had a good firewall. I also use it, increasingly, as
a way to block ill-behaved software. Far too much
of it now wants to call home, or elsewhere.


But there is no ill behaved software in Linux. No malware. No spambots,
unless you want to. No software that calls home :-)

Of course you can do it, but it is not common and few people know how to
do it, in the typical support forum. And if they do, you will not like
the explanation, anyway :-p


You don't need to use an outgoing firewall. That's
fine if that's what you like. But that's not a reason
why I shouldn't want one. As long as Linux requires
people to partake of a philosophy it won't be popular.

I will not try to convince you to use Linux :-)

It is popular enough for me.



| [...] 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.
|
Ah! And they even have a Windows version! Great
find. Oh, wait. After some looking around it turns out
the Windows version is "pre-alpha development
snapshot for 64 bit Windows". But they're delighted to
offer such great progress. How Gnu OSS of them.

https://www.darktable.org/2017/08/da...e-for-windows/

And if they ever finish the product they'll want to
copy all my RAWs into their database to work on them?

Huh? I don't follow that.

Que? I know I'm in for problems when every second
sentence contains the word "workflow". This is for Linux,
yet they're designing it for people who don't know how
to use a filesystem?

Huh? I don't follow that.



| 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.
|
No. But the lack of market will stop most people.
Linux has a very small user base for productivity
software. And if someone offers a commercial
product there's a good chance someone else will
copy it to offer a free version. Not to mention
all the people who will be angry that a "turncoat"
is trying to charge for software on Linux.

It is rather the other way: after waiting for XYZ to be ported and not
getting it, we create our own application, and publish it free :-)




| 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.
|
Windows is going more toward the Linux model.
Or rather, Windows is going more toward offering
only the corporate workstation product. Admin
is no longer really Admin, just as root is no longer
really root.

I don't use sudo. Root is root. You do not need to use Ubuntu, there are
others ;-)

Last I saw, I had to dig and find sudo
before I could be free on Linux. Similarly, if you
want to be real Admin on Win7+ you have to sign
on with the pre-set Administrator account. Both
make people jump through hoops to control the
system. Windows is used by hundreds of millions
of people, yet basic tasks often require finding
"secret tweaks".

Ah, yes. Secrecy is part of it.


In Microsoft's defense, setting up
slight obstacles does provide a way to give IT people
control without causing problems for non-tech people.

But, there are mitigations. On XP, security has to
be set up if desired, rather than being imposed. On
Win7 one can turn down "user account control" to
achieve a fairly reasonable control over the
system without ninny wanings. ("Alert! Alert! Do you
really want to do what you just did! ID please!")

| The restrictions make a system safe.
|
| I never use Windows as Administrator.

Again, that's fine if it's what you prefer. I don't
like any kiddie gates. I don't care what your
opinion is of that. Why is it that I have more
choice on Windows than on a free, OSS product?

You are free to shoot your won foot, if you wish. I'm also free not to
tell you how.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2018-08-02 14:42, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 02/08/18 13:17, Caver1 wrote:
On 08/01/2018 10:41 PM, Mayayana wrote:
"Anonymous" wrote

|Â* This is really a very disappointing explanation of the various Linux
| systems.Â* 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.

Â*Â* 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?
Â*Â* 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.

Â*Â*Â* 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.

Â*Â* 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.

Â*Â*Â* 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.

Â*Â*Â* 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.

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

Â*Â*Â* 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.Â* 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.

Â*Â* 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.

Â*Â* 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.

Â*Â* 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?

Â*Â*Â* 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.

Â*Â*Â* 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.


GUIEverythibg is as limiting as CommanndLineEverything


I canbt do CAD without a Gui, but frankly for usenet, its actually a
disadvantage. Some day I will get a textaul linux newsreader going

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


--
Cheers, Carlos.

"Carlos E.R." wrote

| I don't use sudo. Root is root. You do not need to use Ubuntu, there are
| others ;-)
|

I've never tried Ubuntu. Mandrake/Mandriva and Suse.
Mainly because they seemed to have the best software
selection. Root was not root. Sudo was root. and they
did a dastardly good job of hiding it.

| Again, that's fine if it's what you prefer. I don't
| like any kiddie gates. I don't care what your
| opinion is of that. Why is it that I have more
| choice on Windows than on a free, OSS product?
|
| You are free to shoot your won foot, if you wish. I'm also free not to
| tell you how.
|
Yes. You're doing a good job of detailing the
reasons not to use Linux. I may as well step
aside and let you do your salespitch. You keep
making my points for me, in more colorful ways
than I do.

On 2018-08-02 15:22, 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.

I know people that are unable to install simple Windows software, or do
trivial things like copying the photos from camera to computer to "empty
the camera" and call a friend.



| 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!".
|
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.

I have not compiled anything in years - except software I created myself.

I see it differently: I don't want to have to do a
valve job every time I drive to the store. I want to
be able to customize my car, but I don't want to
have to customize it or finish building it.

Then don't. It is easy!


| 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. One of the
reasons that GUI is so prevalent on Windows is
because it's easy to code. To a great extent,
GUI building is drag/drop. 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. 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.

Well, there is Lazarus, for example.



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.

| | 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.

Well, if you want it easy, you use other people work. If you want no
intermediaries, do it yourself. You have all the choices.



| 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".


I don't call "installing software" be "calling home". Calling home is
what an application does after being installed, when it calls its maker
to tell data about me.

All software, including in Windows, has to be downloaded from somewhere
and installed. Nobody gives you floppies today.



| 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).
|

Yes, Windows is becoming more that way. But there
are pretty good workarounds. Part of the reason Vista
got such a bad rep was because MS didn't provide an
option to turn off the ninny warnings. (And Vista/7 is
bloated/overproduced.... And there was the Intel 915
chipset scandal.... And there was the fact that Vista
was rushed out the door after they wasted 4 years
diddling with an attempt to make Windows run on top
of a mega-bloated .Net wrapper... But what people saw
was mostly those irritating prompts whenever they tried
to do anything with a file.)

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.

Then have it your way.


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. 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.

| 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 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.

Not to me :-p

I simply use the cursor to find the previous time I used that command
and hit enter to run it again.

And we have several "explorers" at your disposal.



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.

Then create the button! Or the icon, or whatever.



|
| 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?

Build cities. Fly planes.

It's childish. And it's basically a "filthy" habit in the
sense that it encourages meanness and insensitivity.
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.



--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2018-08-02 15:48, Mayayana wrote:
"Carlos E.R." wrote

| I don't use sudo. Root is root. You do not need to use Ubuntu, there are
| others ;-)
|

I've never tried Ubuntu. Mandrake/Mandriva and Suse.
Mainly because they seemed to have the best software
selection. Root was not root. Sudo was root. and they
did a dastardly good job of hiding it.

Not in SUSE. Root is root.


| Again, that's fine if it's what you prefer. I don't
| like any kiddie gates. I don't care what your
| opinion is of that. Why is it that I have more
| choice on Windows than on a free, OSS product?
|
| You are free to shoot your won foot, if you wish. I'm also free not to
| tell you how.
|
Yes. You're doing a good job of detailing the
reasons not to use Linux. I may as well step
aside and let you do your salespitch. You keep
making my points for me, in more colorful ways
than I do.

I never try to convince people to use Linux. Just don't try to convince
me to use Windows :-p

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2018-08-02 16:14, Wolf K wrote:
On 2018-08-02 01:51, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
[...]
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Everyone seems to think that the version
of Linux they downloaded or otherwise obtained
is just like every other distribution.

Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*They are not.Â* Each has its strengths
and weaknesses.
[...]

Exactly. And you need to know what they are, and how they fit your
expected uses of the machine in order to find the one that suits you.

Which is a royal pain in the ass.

In short, this freedom to choose is not a strength, it's a weakness. It
represents an utter failure to understand the market for _personal_
devices.

It is actually very easy: choose the distribution for which you have
local support :-)

Unless you are the expert.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

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 .

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!".
|
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.

| 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 .

[...] 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".


|
| 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 .


--
|_|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