Why can't we admit Windows' strengths?
Shoel D. Perelman
SLIP and think the reality of being able to unlimited number of things
at once without thinking about crashes is wonderful. Windows cannot
deliver this - at least not yet.
But - theres another side to my hard drive! I still have a live and
healthy DOS/Windows partition that I check into at least once every 2
days or so. I'll tell you why:
1) Software
I like to mess around with mixing music. I have seen NO decent wave
editing and mixing program for X/Linux yet. I've searched sunsite and
not seen anything useful and pretty. Therefore, I still have to go back
to Windows for this. Unfortunately, when I do I so my computer is
pretty much off limits to anything else, but thats where windows sucks.
Fact remains though.
2) Interface
I like Motif. It looks nice and feels nice. I actually like its pull
down 3D menus better than Windows's. Problems: 1) They're different in
every damn program!!!! Half the time I can't hit backspace when I make
a mistake typing in a URL in Netscape! (Don't flame me about fixing my
key tables.. Fact is I SHOULDNT HAVE TO DO STUFF LIKE THIS!) I know X
runs on many platforms which makes it difficult to have backspace work
everywhere... But it's still a problem. 2) Not all programs use MOTIF!
And the ones that do all seem to be slightly different in their
configuration.
SUMMARY: X has no standard interface. True, it's nice being able to
play with system.fvwmrc and tweak my system to be "perfect" but for most
people, THIS IS NOT useful. I've had to spend hours figuring out what
variable to change to make the border of my windows Blue, and thena
nother hours figuring out what number correstpons to the blue I like.
Yeah, there are programs that list them, but I should be able to pick it
straight from the program! (Like xfontsel-- same problem!)
I stay in Linux 90% of the time because 90% of my computer time is spent
using Internet and Linux support for internet is 100 times better than
all this Winsock shit. I can't deal with one Windows app crashing and
making me lose all my connections. But when I have to write a document,
use my soundblaster, or receive a fax and edit it, I still must go over
to Windows. SO: I think Linux's Kernel/ Memory Management/ Process
management is WONDERFUL, but MS WIndows's API, Common INterface and
software available cannot be ignored.
Whats the answer? For me, its have my 1 gigger split 500/500. I'm
waiting for a better solution.
Shoel Perelman
sdp...@acf4.nyu.edu
Joe Sloan
Shoel D. Perelman <sdp...@acf4.nyu.edu> wrote:
>I stay in Linux 90% of the time because 90% of my computer time is spent
>using Internet and Linux support for internet is 100 times better than
>all this Winsock shit. I can't deal with one Windows app crashing and
>making me lose all my connections. But when I have to write a document,
>use my soundblaster, or receive a fax and edit it, I still must go over
>to Windows. SO: I think Linux's Kernel/ Memory Management/ Process
>management is WONDERFUL, but MS WIndows's API, Common INterface and
>software available cannot be ignored.
You make some valid points, but I am very happy with what linux can do
with my soundblaster - workman, doom, vplay, xmix, nas -
What more could you ask for?
jjs
--
j...@wintermute.ucr.edu | We are using Linux daily
A linux machine! because a 486 | to UP our productivity -
is a terrible thing to waste! | - so UP yours!
Shoel Perelman
> You didn't mention the real reason that many computer people (like
> myself) secretly like Windows -- it provides great job security. All the
> users at my company believe that PC's running DOS/Windows are extremely
> fragile (true enough) and that only a highly trained professional (me ;))
> with near "magical"" powers can keep them operating. I'm a UNIX sys admin
> (among other things), and prefer to work with Linux on my desktop (I
> don't have as much patience, I guess), but Windows costs my company a lot
> of bucks, and a lot of the cost is my salary, so my objections to Windows
> are mostly philosophical rather than economic. I think this is why
> Windows has become such a hit with Computer Professionals and
> Hardware/Software manufacturers. If Windows hadn't introduced such
> inefficiencies into the computing environment, the computing industry
> would not be growing as fast as it is (IMO).
>
> Dennis
>
While Linux may run stabler for a longer time than Windoze, NOBODY is going
to tell me that Linux requires less hard computer knowledge and intuition
than windows! I've been playing with computers since '86 when I was 11
years old and using UNIX since '87... It took me about a month to really
get the hang of Linux and X-Windows. Just learning the entire directory
structure takes time! /usr/lib/X11/fvwm/system.fvwmrc vs. \WINDOWS\WIN.INI.
My dad can install a Windoze app. I even had some trouble compiling and
installing the new version of PINE on Linux. This is where the real problem
lies: open standards = weak standards.
Shoel Perelman
sdp...@acf4.nyu.edu
Jason Van Patten
: You make some valid points, but I am very happy with what linux can do
: with my soundblaster - workman, doom, vplay, xmix, nas -
: What more could you ask for?
Grrr. Every time I see arguments like this I _try_ not to post
anything. And every time, I fail, and end up posting. Why should today be
any different?
_YOU_ may be very happy with what Linux can do with your sound blaster,
but lots of people out there that are _really_ interested in sound (I'm one of
em) aren't. The programs you mentioned (We'll keep doom out of this) can not
_possibly_ compare to those that are available in DOS/Windoze or OS/2.
I've used every one of them, multiple times. I've given each one more
than a fair opportunity to convert me. None have been able to do it. Well,
I shouldn't mention Workman.. a CD player's a CD player.. so we'll count him
out too...
OK.. what more could I ask for? How about a _real_ X-Windowing based
Waveform player/recorder/editor? Yeah... _I_ want one. I can easily use the
command line to do it... but I don't want to. (Editting from the command line
is a bit tough) I want an app that will load up the wave and give me some sort
of representation of the sound. I want to be able to click-and-drag over the
representation so I can cut it into a clipboard, and paste it elsewhere.
Further, this program should _not_ try to load the entire wave into
memory. Scan it, represent it, move on to the next chunk. (I don't know how
it works, I just know that some players in Windoze and OS/2 do it. They
don't load the entire wave into memory. It hurts when you have a 40M song.)
The appearence should be appealing. 3-D is nice. Use Motif, Tcl, or
perhaps the Athena 3D widgets. Whichever. (I have Motif, so a dynamically
linked app isn't out of the question _for_me_).
You mentioned NAS, well, my experience with NAS tells me it's a joke.
They had some neat ideas in mind when they put together that entire package,
but the sound playing/recording/editing just isn't up to snuff, so to speak.
NAS is not a decent alternative in my book.
What am I doing about this? Other than bitching and wasting precious
bandwidth? Well, right now, I'm learning how to program in Motif... it's going
SLOOOWLY. Next on the agenda is to try and learn how to program a wave player.
WARNING: Don't read that as an announcement.. it'll probably never happen. I
hope someone can beat me to it. :)
Jason
--
Jason Van Patten | If at first you don't succeed, keep |
Clarkson University | on sucking till you do succeed. |
vanp...@craft.camp.clarkson.edu | - Curly Howard |
| (The Three Stooges) |
** Any opinions expressed here are actually
yours, you just don't know it, yet. **
Dennis Heltzel
: While Linux may run stabler for a longer time than Windoze, NOBODY is going
: to tell me that Linux requires less hard computer knowledge and intuition
: than windows! I've been playing with computers since '86 when I was 11
: years old and using UNIX since '87... It took me about a month to really
: get the hang of Linux and X-Windows. Just learning the entire directory
: structure takes time! /usr/lib/X11/fvwm/system.fvwmrc vs. \WINDOWS\WIN.INI.
: My dad can install a Windoze app. I even had some trouble compiling and
: installing the new version of PINE on Linux. This is where the real problem
: lies: open standards = weak standards.
I suppose it depends on your perspective, as I find Linux (and UNIX in
general), *much* easier to work with than Windows. I thinks it's the
apparently random GPF's and mysterious lockups that trouble me so much.
Even if a program locks up a terminal or "runs wild" under Linux, the
underlying system (and other programs) still functions. This robustness
is characteristic of UNIX, on the other hand, I can think of a lot of
characteristics of Windows, but robustness is hardly one of them!
Dennis
Mark Dobie
>1) Software
>I like to mess around with mixing music. I have seen NO decent wave
>editing and mixing program for X/Linux yet. I've searched sunsite and
>not seen anything useful and pretty. Therefore, I still have to go back
>to Windows for this.
This is true. There isn't much music software that works on linux. I
tried csound, and it feels like the aural equivalent of TeX :) Very
flexible, but a bit over the top for just playing around. I should take
the trouble to learn it properly though.
Sox is great for conversions and a few special effects. I was so
impressed I started writing a sound editor built on sox. It's still
underway.
What would be really good would be a decent midi sequencer. The only one
I found required a Roland interface.
>everywhere... But it's still a problem. 2) Not all programs use MOTIF!
>And the ones that do all seem to be slightly different in their
>configuration.
Not all programs use Motif because if they do they restrict their
audience to poeple who have the money or inclination to buy Motif, or to
poeple who can be bothered to fill their disk space with static
binaries.
As for variations between programs, it doesn't help that the Motif style
guide is a moving target and to write a *complete* application with any
toolkit is a lot of work.
>SUMMARY: X has no standard interface.
It was designed that way. The idea was not to force a particular look
and feel on people. If you want a standard interface you should buy a
desktop package. I don't know if any of the commercial ones are
available for Linux though.
>variable to change to make the border of my windows Blue, and thena
>nother hours figuring out what number correstpons to the blue I like.
>Yeah, there are programs that list them, but I should be able to pick it
>straight from the program! (Like xfontsel-- same problem!)
Actually I think it is better to have this outside application and in
the resource files. All we need is a way of graphically editing the
resource files - not a small problem, but I guess it could be done.
>to Windows. SO: I think Linux's Kernel/ Memory Management/ Process
>management is WONDERFUL, but MS WIndows's API, Common INterface and
>software available cannot be ignored.
Ummm...you like the MS windows API? As far as I'm concerned, the only
reason to look at the MS windows API is to implement WINE :) Motif does
provide some common interface elements, but I don't think it will ever
be very widespread in the Linux community.
Mark
--
Mark Dobie
M.R....@ecs.soton.ac.uk University of Southampton
http://diana.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~mrd/cv.html MS Windows? Linux and X!
Dan Newcombe
>1) Software
>I like to mess around with mixing music. I have seen NO decent wave
>editing and mixing program for X/Linux yet. I've searched sunsite and
>not seen anything useful and pretty. Therefore, I still have to go back
>to Windows for this. Unfortunately, when I do I so my computer is
>pretty much off limits to anything else, but thats where windows sucks.
I think I've heard of ONE for X that does that, but don't remember what. I
also use Windows for sound stuff - MIDI. No sequence that'll work for me
under Linux.
>I like Motif. It looks nice and feels nice. I actually like its pull
>down 3D menus better than Windows's. Problems: 1) They're different in
>every damn program!!!! Half the time I can't hit backspace when I make
Are you saying the menus are always the same under Windows?
>a mistake typing in a URL in Netscape! (Don't flame me about fixing my
>key tables.. Fact is I SHOULDNT HAVE TO DO STUFF LIKE THIS!) I know X
Matter of how you feel certain keys should function. ( I agree with you
though!!!)
>SUMMARY: X has no standard interface. True, it's nice being able to
>play with system.fvwmrc and tweak my system to be "perfect" but for most
>people, THIS IS NOT useful. I've had to spend hours figuring out what
>variable to change to make the border of my windows Blue, and thena
Hmmm...maybe you should have read the man page of fvwm. It explains all the
options in fvwmrc and would have saved you a LOT of time. The manuals ARE
useful.
>Yeah, there are programs that list them, but I should be able to pick it
>straight from the program! (Like xfontsel-- same problem!)
Then write one to do that. One of the problems you'll find (at least with
fvwm) is that you'll have to restart the Window Manager for a change to take
effect...slow.
>making me lose all my connections. But when I have to write a document,
>use my soundblaster, or receive a fax and edit it, I still must go over
>to Windows. SO: I think Linux's Kernel/ Memory Management/ Process
Maybe for the fax/edit, but everything else can be done under Linux.
-Dan
--
Dan Newcombe newc...@aa.csc.peachnet.edu
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"And the man in the mirror has sad eyes." -Marillion
Phil Howard
>While Linux may run stabler for a longer time than Windoze, NOBODY is going
>to tell me that Linux requires less hard computer knowledge and intuition
>than windows! I've been playing with computers since '86 when I was 11
>years old and using UNIX since '87... It took me about a month to really
>get the hang of Linux and X-Windows. Just learning the entire directory
>structure takes time! /usr/lib/X11/fvwm/system.fvwmrc vs. \WINDOWS\WIN.INI.
>My dad can install a Windoze app. I even had some trouble compiling and
>installing the new version of PINE on Linux. This is where the real problem
>lies: open standards = weak standards.
That's not true at all.
It is always more difficult to learn your second computer system no matter
which one it is. Your first system was learned with no particular urgent
expectations. You did learn it gradually, but you were happily using it
immediately because you didn't expect to do everything right off. When it
came time to learn the next system, your level of general computer awareness
was might higher and your expectations were so accordingly. If you learned
DOS/MS-Windows first, anything else was instantly measured compared to what
you already know how to do on DOS/MS-Windows. You can't bring yourself up
to the same level on UNIX/X-Windows in any short amount of time. Watch
someone else learn UNIX/X-Windows as their FIRST system and you'll see that
they don't learn it very fast either. Then watch another person learn
DOS/MS-Windows as their first system and it will be about the same.
After you have learned a few systems, the trend will turn around and you
can learn new ones even faster because you are already familiar with what
things are going to be different. For operating systems, however, there
just are not that many choices.
MS-Windows does have some advantages. One of them is that some basic
usefulness will exist for people who are not computer-sophisticates and
will stop their indulgent learning early, and just become a user. Linux
and UNIX doesn't win there. MS-Windows also has the advantage of a great
amount of commercial software and shareware available.
You never did connect how it is that an open standard must be a weak standard.
You didn't argue it at all or provide any logical connection. Here's your
second chance to go for it. Press "r" to reply (on most news programs).
Linux does win in many other areas. OS/2 even wins in some (and apparently
runs Windows itself in a virtual machine, giving you the familiarity ...
or in my case the confusion ... of Microsoft on an IBM system).
If you want me to pick all the nits about Windows and turn it into swiss
cheese, I could. But the Linux people really don't care much since they
know what they want to use. And the DOS/Windows people don't care much
since they, too, know what they want to use.
In your case, you apparently were motivated by something to learn something
new, then didn't. That could be a failure on your part. That failure could
also just be not giving it enough time. I'm STILL learning MS-Windows.
I'm even still learning some things about Linux every now and then.
--
Phil Howard KA9WGN | Absolutely no trees were killed to produce this sig.
Unix/Internet/Sys Admin | Well, OK, we had to tie one up and torture it. So.
CLR/Fast-Tax | However, this is not the only sig I have. My other
ph...@fasttax.com | one is even more important. It's name is P226.
Christopher B. Browne
Phil Howard <ph...@zeus.fasttax.com> wrote:
>MS-Windows does have some advantages. One of them is that some basic
>usefulness will exist for people who are not computer-sophisticates and
>will stop their indulgent learning early, and just become a user.
>Linux and UNIX doesn't win there.
Are you sure? I think Microsoft Windows tries its best to *hide* the
fact that it runs under MS-DOS, to the point of making it *harder* to
learn the underlying system. UNIX-based systems don't generally try
to mislead the user in that way.
In order to have any clue of what Windows is doing with your data files,
I think you really *need* to know quite a bit about MS-DOS. Likewise
to be able to do any troubleshooting when the unexpected happens. The
knowledge is avoidable if there is an "expert" around to support the
system, but that's merely passing the buck.
In order to competently run a MS-Windows system, there is need of being
"expert" on *two* sets of kludges. I don't think that's particularly
better than the UNIX situation. UNIX doesn't sell itself as something
that will allow you to run things as an "ignorant user." Microsoft
certainly markets Windows as something that's to be good for "ignorant
users." (Please, people, keep in mind that ignorant!=stupid.
Ignorant==unknowledgeable.)
I think it was Microsoft folks that once commented that the most
successful method of making products "user friendly" was the ploy of
putting a label on the box that says "New! User Friendly Software!"
> MS-Windows also has the advantage of a great
>amount of commercial software and shareware available.
True if you're talking about "canned applications;" unfortunately, there
are a whole lot of "me-too" Address Book applications. Of the 50000
programs, there are 8000 word processors, 1000 spreadsheets, 12000
"Personal Information Managers," and so forth. (Actually, this is more
true for MS-DOS than it is for Windows.)
The UNIX world doesn't have much shareware at all. Most of the software
that would typically be "shareware" is distributed completely freely as
source code.
--
Christopher Browne - cbb...@io.org
Fatal Error: Found [MS-Windows] System -> Repartitioning Disk for Linux...
Doug DeJulio
>which one it is. Your first system was learned with no particular urgent
>expectations. You did learn it gradually, but you were happily using it
>immediately because you didn't expect to do everything right off.
This varies from person to person.
I know people who grew up on science fiction who have much higher
expectations of what computers are capable of than is actually the
case. People like this spend a lot of time on their first computer
getting *frustrated* ("What do you MEAN scanning text has a high error
rate? Why?"), and learning the limitations of reality. On the second
round, their expectations are lower.
--
Doug DeJulio | R$+@$=W <-- sendmail.cf file
mailto:dd...@pitt.edu | {$/{{.+ <-- modem noise
http://www.pitt.edu/~ddj/ | !@#!@@! <-- Mr. Dithers swearing
Andreas Kostyrka ( yacc )
: Hmmm...maybe you should have read the man page of fvwm. It explains all the
: useful.
He tries to install a new software package, and doesn't even read the README
or INSTALL files !!! (And mand pages are not useful, is his deep belief!)
: >Yeah, there are programs that list them, but I should be able to pick it
: >straight from the program! (Like xfontsel-- same problem!)
: Then write one to do that. One of the problems you'll find (at least with
: fvwm) is that you'll have to restart the Window Manager for a change to take
: effect...slow.
: >making me lose all my connections. But when I have to write a document,
: >use my soundblaster, or receive a fax and edit it, I still must go over
: >to Windows. SO: I think Linux's Kernel/ Memory Management/ Process
: Maybe for the fax/edit, but everything else can be done under Linux.
So I'd say, that you can do all this stuff under Linux:
-) Soundblaster are supported in ther kernel, and there are some programs
for it, but I must admit, it's not a very important item to me: My SB is
old: 8bit mono!
-) fax support is quite acceptable, take your pick, I'm actually using
mgetty+sendfax, allowing me also for voice-mail. (And while writing some
shell scripts isn't that much fun, I want first see some Windoze software
that is that kind of flexible!) (Type a code, and my modem slips to
my university, so I can use my box from university! :) )
-) writing texts: There is TeX/LaTeX, and I personally must admit I don't have
any problems with LaTex, have been doing all the paperwork for the company
for about 12 months in TeX, but then again, I'm the boss, so I'm right
about software decissions :))))
But I must admit, that TeX, while being more powerful than WfW, doesn't look
that nice.
Andreas Kostyrka
Chris Bitmead
>While Linux may run stabler for a longer time than Windoze, NOBODY is going
>to tell me that Linux requires less hard computer knowledge and intuition
>than windows!
I think they're fairly similar. On the one hand Windows forces you to
fiddle around with himem drivers and config.sys and autoexec.bat. On the
other hand Unix encourages you to think about multiuser issues.
>I've been playing with computers since '86 when I was 11
>years old and using UNIX since '87... It took me about a month to really
>get the hang of Linux and X-Windows. Just learning the entire directory
>structure takes time! /usr/lib/X11/fvwm/system.fvwmrc vs. \WINDOWS\WIN.INI.
Why not use ~/.fvwmrc? That's less keystrokes than "\WINDOWS\WIN.INI".
Ah, I can hear you saying that ~/.fvwmrc only affects one user. Well that
assumes that you have chosen to set up multiple login accounts for various
users which you couldn't do under windows if you tried.
>My dad can install a Windoze app. I even had some trouble compiling and
>installing the new version of PINE on Linux.
Why on earth did you want to compile it yourself? In Windows land no-one
compiles their own apps, they wait for a vendor to release a binary.
You could have chosen to do the same thing and wait for a new binary
release.
>This is where the real problem
>lies: open standards = weak standards.
Proprietory standards = No standards at all.
--
Chris Bitmead
chr...@ind.tansu.com.au
Dan Newcombe
>expectations of what computers are capable of than is actually the
>case. People like this spend a lot of time on their first computer
>getting *frustrated* ("What do you MEAN scanning text has a high error
>rate? Why?"), and learning the limitations of reality. On the second
>round, their expectations are lower.
Oh...does that explain why voice recognition under Windows sucks? And
all along I thought it was Windows and not my high expectations :)
Interesting point though. It makes you think...
Look at Star Trek. Look how in TNG, DS9, and Voyager, they are always
routing this through that (and running level three diagnostics.)
To me this smells like 23rd century piping.
Yet another reason Linux is better than Windows - it's more Star Trek
like.
(Oh boy...I think I need to lay off sniffing the rubber cement :)
Bruce S. Tobin
: Good point, a friend of mine, who uses OS/2 & Win is also that kind of a lamer:
: He tries to install a new software package, and doesn't even read the README
: or INSTALL files !!! (And mand pages are not useful, is his deep belief!)
Why should he? If something needs doing, the install program should do
it. If a choice needs to be made, the install program should explain the
alternatives and allow the user to make the choice. If changes need to be
made to a preexisting file, the install program should display the proposed
changes and ask whether they are acceptable. README/INSTALL files are
unnecessary if the programmer has done his job.
Tim Smith
>: Why should he? If something needs doing, the install program should do
>: it. If a choice needs to be made, the install program should explain the
>: alternatives and allow the user to make the choice. If changes need to be
>: made to a preexisting file, the install program should display the proposed
>: changes and ask whether they are acceptable. README/INSTALL files are
>: unnecessary if the programmer has done his job.
>
>slower, because all the alternatives have to be coded into the program.
>NO THANK YOU.
Why should I care how big the install program is? I'm only going to run it
once per system install.
--Tim Smith
Christopher B. Browne
Dave Shuman <dsh...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Tim Smith (t...@u.washington.edu) wrote:
>> Why should I care how big the install program is? I'm only going to run it
>> once per system install.
>
>2. No program has yet achieved the inteligence of a human.
>3. People who are too lazy to RTFM are a pain in the a** to support!!!
4. If it tries to do "too much" for you, if you want to do something
unusual enough that the install program wasn't designed specifically
to do the job, you may be prevented from doing it altogether.
I'm involved with SAP installations, and it's a real bear. The
vendor has created a moderately extensive set of installation
utilities that do *not* cover all of the sorts of things one would
want to do when installing a new system. Turned into a couple of
40 hour weekends, trying to get around that.
Fortunately the install process is not *so* canned that you can't
go around it.
Gerry Snyder
>
>Tim Smith (t...@u.washington.edu) wrote:
>> In article <D4rzt...@kufis.ruhr.de>, Joerg Weber <ku...@kufis.ruhr.de> wrote:
>
>> >And software grows bigger and bigger and bigger and slower and slower and
>> >slower, because all the alternatives have to be coded into the program.
>> >NO THANK YOU.
>
>> once per system install.
>
>1. More code = more bug possibilities!!!
1a. More documentation = more documentation error possibilities!!!
>2. No program has yet achieved the inteligence of a human.
2a. No document has yet achieved the intelligence of a human.
>3. People who are too lazy to RTFM are a pain in the a** to support!!!
3a. Programmers who are too lazy to put a versatile installation process
in _commercial_ software are a pain in the a** during installation!!!
But then, Slackware has a pretty good installation package, so
easy installation is not limited to windows or to commercial s/w.
Gerry
Dave Shuman
1. More code = more bug possibilities!!!
2. No program has yet achieved the inteligence of a human.
3. People who are too lazy to RTFM are a pain in the a** to support!!!
I'm sure there are many more reasons why the current trend to target
software for idiots is disturbing to many who do care to RTFM.
My $00.02 - Dave S.
Joerg Weber
And software grows bigger and bigger and bigger and slower and slower and slower,
because all the alternatives have to be coded into the program.
NO THANK YOU.
--
Gruss
Joerg
( ku...@kufis.ruhr.de )
Dave Shuman
Gerald....@jpl.nasa.gov (Gerry Snyder) wrote:
> In article <dshumanD...@netcom.com>, dsh...@netcom.com (Dave Shuman) says:
> >
> >1. More code = more bug possibilities!!!
>
> 1a. More documentation = more documentation error possibilities!!!
>
> >2. No program has yet achieved the inteligence of a human.
>
> 2a. No document has yet achieved the intelligence of a human.
>
> >3. People who are too lazy to RTFM are a pain in the a** to support!!!
>
> 3a. Programmers who are too lazy to put a versatile installation process
> in _commercial_ software are a pain in the a** during installation!!!
>
>
> But then, Slackware has a pretty good installation package, so
> easy installation is not limited to windows or to commercial s/w.
>
which makes it easy *if* you know what you are doing. Unfortunately
many windows software installation procedures seem to assume the user
is rather ignorant, and therefore make too many decisions for the user.
My last $00.02!! Dave S.
Michael Bruce
I mean, is it really that tough to Read the manual? C'mon, M$ made its
unholy empire on the fact thsat win would install itself and be running
out of the box. Smart install, right? Wrong. Windows-from-the-box is
the ugliest implementation of an OS shell I've ever seen. ENTIRE ISSUES
of computer mags are devoted to fixing what a user guided install could
have prevented. Have you ever seen an "optimizing UNIX" issue of any
computer mags? I'm forced against my will to work with windows a great
deal of the time, and I spend most of it tweaking etc.. and it STILL runs
like a pregnant cow. The only good feature of windows is the "This will
end your windoze session" dialog. Gag me.
mab
Dan Pop
>Another argument for manually installing things, READMEs, INSTALLs, etc.
>is that it can be good to know what is being installed where and how. I
>have had bad experiences trying to un-Install Windows apps. And with
>Linux, and other UNICIES, lots of files get put all over the filesystem.
>It can be helpful to know where they went, should you need to remove
>them. (I won't even start on my symlink nightmares ;-)
Most Unices (including Linux) have utilities to install/uninstall packages.
For the stuff you took from the net, compiled and installed yourself,
the Makefile usually contains an "uninstall" target.
Dan
--
Dan Pop
CERN, CN Division
Email: dan...@cernapo.cern.ch
Mail: CERN - PPE, Bat. 31 R-004, CH-1211 Geneve 23, Switzerland
Mark van Hoeij
>Another argument for manually installing things, READMEs, INSTALLs, etc.
>is that it can be good to know what is being installed where and how. I
>have had bad experiences trying to un-Install Windows apps.
It works quite well if you do this:
install and configure windows
then: pkzip -r -p c:\windows.zip c:\windows\*.*
If the windows apps are messing up your windows directory, simply delete
c:\windows and unzip windows.zip
Regards,
Mark van Hoeij
jonathan hankins
Case in point, our school just bought 24 Gateway 486/66s. Out of the box,
they have a pile of Gateway propoganda loaded in Windows, weird PCI HDD
drivers that apparently have bugs (we have lost sectors on 5 disks so
far--physical damamge, tech support is stumped ;-), out of date CD
drivers, with updates included on a disk, etc, etc. For a school-friendly
system, these sure have been a pain.
-Jonathan
jonathan hankins
is that it can be good to know what is being installed where and how. I
Linux, and other UNICIES, lots of files get put all over the filesystem.
It can be helpful to know where they went, should you need to remove
them. (I won't even start on my symlink nightmares ;-)
-Jonathan
Darin Johnson
> install and configure windows
> then: pkzip -r -p c:\windows.zip c:\windows\*.*
Don't forget \windows\system as well! I'm amazed at the amount
of crap that various things create in Windows. None of them
seem to care and take a very cavalier approach to mucking with
your system. Shareware too, and it's worse since your generic
$50 uninstaller program won't have much shareware in its tables.
I found Myst odd too. It wanted me to upgrade my sound blaster
drivers. But my Myst disk is about 4 or 5 months older than my
sound blaster card. Yet neither of them indicate what the versions
are on the drivers, and three years from now, if I look at the Myst
readme, it will still say it has more current versions...
Oh well, it's not limited to Windows. One of the first things I
learned doing sysadmin under VMS is to never execute the customers
install script. And the same practice has saved many headaches
on UNIX as well.
--
Darin Johnson
djoh...@ucsd.edu
Where am I? In the village... What do you want? Information...
Steve McIntyre
Darin Johnson <djoh...@tartarus.ucsd.edu> wrote:
>> It works quite well if you do this:
>> install and configure windows
>> then: pkzip -r -p c:\windows.zip c:\windows\*.*
>
>Don't forget \windows\system as well!
Erm, doesn't pkzip -r -p also recurse into subdirectories? It did last
time I looked.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve McIntyre \\ <a href="http://club.eng.cam.ac.uk/~93sam/">me</a>
sam...@hermes.cam.ac.uk \\ ytalk: sam...@hammer.chu.cam.ac.uk
sam...@cyberspace.org \\ "Can't keep my eyes from the circling sky,
Room 47C, Churchill College,\\ Tongue-tied and twisted,
Cambridge, England CB3 0DS \\ Just an earth-bound misfit, I" (c) PF
^^ CURS Secretary 1994/95 ^^ \\ ** CUWoCS: Honorary Vice-Chair-Thing **