I've also filtered any personally identifiable information, and as much irrelevant crud as I could identify, but you'll have to appreciate that with over 36 thousand lines - I'm bound to have missed something.
Here's the full log, containing all events of the above "operation" types:
Indeed there are 81 entries for "Enum" alone, another 13 for "drivers", and a total of 1,062 entries for "HKCU" (Current User). All searches were done with "grep -i" (case insensitive).
Here's some more stats:
RegCreateKey: 3,429 times RegDeleteKey: 405 times RegSetValue: 972 times RegDeleteValue: 62 times
And some people wonder why Windows is so slow; wastes so much resources; and becomes so unstable and filled with orphaned crud over time. With this much overcomplexity, and such an incompetent; chaotic; amateurish design ... is it any wonder? How anything manages to work under Windows at /all/ is a miracle of good fortune, especially hardware drivers.
Just a reminder:
[quote] "there are *ZERO* registry entries added for the driver, because it's entirely done by windows during hardware detection." ~ Fuddie [quote]
.---- | "At the time, I thought C was the most elegant language and Java | the most practical one. That point of view lasted for maybe two | weeks after initial exposure to Lisp." ~ Constantine Vetoshev `----
> [quote] > "there are *ZERO* registry entries added for the driver, because it's > entirely done by windows during hardware detection." ~ Fuddie > [quote]
> I've also filtered any personally identifiable information, and as much > irrelevant crud as I could identify, but you'll have to appreciate that > with over 36 thousand lines - I'm bound to have missed something.
> Here's the full log, containing all events of the above "operation" types:
> Indeed there are 81 entries for "Enum" alone, another 13 for "drivers", > and a total of 1,062 entries for "HKCU" (Current User). All searches > were done with "grep -i" (case insensitive).
> Here's some more stats:
> RegCreateKey: 3,429 times > RegDeleteKey: 405 times > RegSetValue: 972 times > RegDeleteValue: 62 times
> And some people wonder why Windows is so slow; wastes so much resources; > and becomes so unstable and filled with orphaned crud over time. With > this much overcomplexity, and such an incompetent; chaotic; amateurish > design ... is it any wonder? How anything manages to work under Windows > at /all/ is a miracle of good fortune, especially hardware drivers.
> Just a reminder:
> [quote] > "there are *ZERO* registry entries added for the driver, because it's > entirely done by windows during hardware detection." ~ Fuddie > [quote]
That is incredible. I knew installing hardware in windows was slow and unecessarily so, but I had no idea of the magnitude. That is just wierd...
> On 2008-11-24, Homer <use...@slated.org> wrote: >> First the context:
>> [quote] >> "there are *ZERO* registry entries added for the driver, because it's >> entirely done by windows during hardware detection." ~ Fuddie >> [quote]
>> [quote] >> "there are *ZERO* registry entries added for the driver, because it's >> entirely done by windows during hardware detection." ~ Fuddie >> [quote]
> That is incredible. I knew installing hardware in windows was slow and > unecessarily so, but I had no idea of the magnitude. That is just > wierd...
Looks like the Explorer team doesn't communicate with the Setup team and the WinLogon team, the Wrapper team, the rundll32 team, the regsvr32 team, the verclsid team; and the Hewlett-Packard Windows printer driver team doesn't talk to any of them.
-- In case it's not obvious, any solution to this problem that introduces a dependency on Java is profoundly uninteresting to me. In fact, my indifference to that could only be described as "sexual" in intensity. -- Jamie Zawinski
On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 22:35:24 +0000, Homer wrote: > First the context:
> [quote] > "there are *ZERO* registry entries added for the driver, because it's > entirely done by windows during hardware detection." ~ Fuddie > [quote]
No, that's only part of the context. The rest of the context is that we're talking about a Digital Camera driver, not a printer driver. Further, the context is specifically for the driver, not the additional software included (you can install the driver without the software).
Finally, this is pre-hardware detection. Obviously registry entries are created by the hardware wizard once the hardware is detected and installed, but the *REAL* context of the thread is what happens before that.
> Just a reminder:
> [quote] > "there are *ZERO* registry entries added for the driver, because it's > entirely done by windows during hardware detection." ~ Fuddie > [quote]
Stop lying, Homer. You have entirely changed the context of the discussion.
Sandeep Kumar wrote: > Try fixing CUPS when it takes a crap. > Not easy at all.
Depending on the problem, you can just delete the config files and reconfigure. If needed, also reinstall the packages. This has solved almost all my CUPS problem in minutes. In the few occasions I had to debug the printing problems that reconfiguring/reinstalling did not solve was related to buggy drivers that caused problems (e.g. incorrectly detecting out-of-paper state and not continuing after paper was supplied).
We know he's a professional Windows programmer, so the chances are he just has a Linux box at home to practice his l337 "ls" skills.
-- "It explains a lot. I've not heard of anyone I know, anywhere, buying XP, and I've not seen it sold whilst I've been in any shops." comp.os.linux.advocacy - where they put the lunacy in advocacy
> We know he's a professional Windows programmer, so the chances are he > just has a Linux box at home to practice his l337 "ls" skills.
I don't know. I just think that "problems" are over exaggerated by both sides here in COLA. Generally speaking... the computers simply work provided that the user setting them up has some idea of what they're doing.
>> We know he's a professional Windows programmer, so the chances are he >> just has a Linux box at home to practice his l337 "ls" skills.
> I don't know. I just think that "problems" are over exaggerated by both > sides here in COLA. Generally speaking... the computers simply work > provided that the user setting them up has some idea of what they're > doing.
Well, if that "some idea" means not using certain things because they simply do not work with that HW then fair enough. Example : I gave up on ATI Video cards and moved to evil NVidia. Why? Because the ATI OpenGL driver installation was a joke.
But Koehlmann and co are a waste of space in this "share and share alike" OSS/Linux world. Why? Because they are no help to anyone since anyone with an issue is called a "liar" and told that it "works for me".
-- "Don't like Linux.. don't use it. Simple." -- Rick <n...@nomail.com> in comp.os.linux.advocacy, alt.os.windows-xp
>> Let my think when I had the last time problems with CUPS. >> Oh, now I remember. Never
> You kidding, dumbkopf? Day after day you come up with these stupid > samples of one.
You mean that using linux for more than 10 years and *never* having had any problems with CUPS, across a wide variety of distros, is a sample of one? So the other linux boxen I installed, but don't run myself, don't count?
Idiot -- I say you need to visit Clues 'R' Us. They are having a special on slightly used clues.
>>>> On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 01:30:15 +0000, Cork Soaker wrote:
>>>>> Homer wrote: >>>>>> First the context:
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>> Yes, a failure during an Installshield setup leaves a bloody awful mess >>>>> to clean up.
>>>>> However, I don't see how this advocates Linux? >>>> Try fixing CUPS when it takes a crap. >>>> Not easy at all. >>> Let my think when I had the last time problems with CUPS. >>> Oh, now I remember. Never >> Sounds like it was the same time that I had my last printing problem with >> Windows.
> I'm beginning to think Peter doesn't even use Linux. He never had a > problem with his video card, never with CUPs etc etc.
>>>>> On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 01:30:15 +0000, Cork Soaker wrote:
>>>>>> Homer wrote: >>>>>>> First the context:
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>> Yes, a failure during an Installshield setup leaves a bloody awful mess >>>>>> to clean up.
>>>>>> However, I don't see how this advocates Linux? >>>>> Try fixing CUPS when it takes a crap. >>>>> Not easy at all. >>>> Let my think when I had the last time problems with CUPS. >>>> Oh, now I remember. Never >>> Sounds like it was the same time that I had my last printing >>> problem with Windows.
>> I'm beginning to think Peter doesn't even use Linux. He never had a >> problem with his video card, never with CUPs etc etc.
>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 01:30:15 +0000, Cork Soaker wrote:
>>>>>>> Homer wrote: >>>>>>>> First the context:
>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>> Yes, a failure during an Installshield setup leaves a bloody awful mess >>>>>>> to clean up.
>>>>>>> However, I don't see how this advocates Linux? >>>>>> Try fixing CUPS when it takes a crap. >>>>>> Not easy at all. >>>>> Let my think when I had the last time problems with CUPS. >>>>> Oh, now I remember. Never >>>> Sounds like it was the same time that I had my last printing >>>> problem with Windows. >>> I'm beginning to think Peter doesn't even use Linux. He never had a >>> problem with his video card, never with CUPs etc etc.
On 2008-11-28, Peter Köhlmann <peter.koehlm...@arcor.de> wrote:
> DFS wrote:
>> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>> Let my think when I had the last time problems with CUPS. >>> Oh, now I remember. Never
>> You kidding, dumbkopf? Day after day you come up with these stupid >> samples of one.
> You mean that using linux for more than 10 years and *never* having had any > problems with CUPS, across a wide variety of distros, is a sample of one? > So the other linux boxen I installed, but don't run myself, don't count?
CUPS was the saviour of printing on Linux. I remember the shitfight printing was on linux before CUPS and I thank those developers from the bottom of my heart.
> On 2008-11-28, Peter Köhlmann <peter.koehlm...@arcor.de> wrote: >> DFS wrote:
>>> Peter K ann wrote:
>>>> Let my think when I had the last time problems with CUPS. >>>> Oh, now I remember. Never
>>> You kidding, dumbkopf? Day after day you come up with these stupid >>> samples of one.
>> You mean that using linux for more than 10 years and *never* having had any >> problems with CUPS, across a wide variety of distros, is a sample of one? >> So the other linux boxen I installed, but don't run myself, don't count?
> CUPS was the saviour of printing on Linux. I remember the shitfight > printing was on linux before CUPS and I thank those developers from the > bottom of my heart.
> > On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 01:30:15 +0000, Cork Soaker wrote:
> >> Homer wrote: > >>> First the context:
> >> <snip>
> >> Yes, a failure during an Installshield setup leaves a bloody awful mess > >> to clean up.
> >> However, I don't see how this advocates Linux?
> > Try fixing CUPS when it takes a crap. > > Not easy at all.
> Let my think when I had the last time problems with CUPS. > Oh, now I remember. Never > -- > Any idiot can run XP. And usually does.
I've had minor problems with CUPS, mostly because at home my printer is actually attached to another machine with an older version thereof. I think part of it is authorization-related as well; my laptop in particular I've not authorized to use my LAN yet (DHCP and all that), and I've not set it all up.
These sorts of things I generally expect; the actual printing part works very well -- when it works.
CUPS has the additional property of talking to Microsoft print servers, at least here at $EMPLOYER; the main drawback is that I have to put my username-password in as part of the print specification -- and change it every 3 months.
Of course, I might print once every month, so as concerns go, it's not exactly high priority. ;-)
I'm not all that thrilled with the HTML interface (or with HTML in general, really), but as interfaces go it's generally easy to use and does what's needed.
It's a lot simpler than "lprng" -- which presumably is deprecated by now -- or Microsoft's print interfaces, presumably.
> On Nov 28, 4:31 am, Peter Köhlmann <peter.koehlm...@arcor.de> wrote: >> flatfish (Sandeep Kumar) nymshifted:
>> > On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 01:30:15 +0000, Cork Soaker wrote:
>> >> Homer wrote: >> >>> First the context:
>> >> <snip>
>> >> Yes, a failure during an Installshield setup leaves a bloody awful mess >> >> to clean up.
>> >> However, I don't see how this advocates Linux?
>> > Try fixing CUPS when it takes a crap. >> > Not easy at all.
>> Let my think when I had the last time problems with CUPS. >> Oh, now I remember. Never >> -- >> Any idiot can run XP. And usually does.
> I've had minor problems with CUPS, mostly because at > home my printer is actually attached to another machine > with an older version thereof. I think part of it is > authorization-related as well; my laptop in particular > I've not authorized to use my LAN yet (DHCP and all that), > and I've not set it all up.
I've had none. I've also had no problems since I dumped Canon and went for HP.
> I'm not all that thrilled with the HTML interface (or with HTML in > general, really), but as interfaces go it's generally easy to use and
I think the web interface is ugly, clunky and not so easy to navigate. It hasn't really interfered with controlling the printer.
> does what's needed.
God, I hope so. What a fucking monstrosity.
> now -- or Microsoft's print interfaces, presumably.
|
