[News] Will Linux Be Fully-Absorbed Through Change?
Roy Schestowitz
leaving Open Source in a batter position, owing to modularity.
Is an HCI revolution just around the corner?
,----[ Quote ]
| Personal computing launched with the IBM PC. But popular computing
| - computing for the masses - launched with the modern WIMP (windows,
| icons, mouse, pointer) interface, which made computers usable by
| ordinary people. As popular computing has grown, the role of HCI
| (human-computer interaction) has increased.
`----
http://www.acmqueue.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=402&page=1
You might argue that people will be forced or compelled to move forward (e.g.
multiple workspaces), so the Linux transition will be a burden on par with
upgrade of an existing O/S. Small mobile devices are another example.
mark...@digiverse.net
Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> The assumption here is that desktops as we know them will morph/evolve,
> leaving Open Source in a batter position, owing to modularity.
Until the console becomes unnecessary for Linux use and maintenance,
it's no more than a wishful pipedream.
Kier
>
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> The assumption here is that desktops as we know them will morph/evolve,
>> leaving Open Source in a batter position, owing to modularity.
>
> Until the console becomes unnecessary for Linux use and maintenance,
> it's no more than a wishful pipedream.
>
In a number of distros, it pretty much is unnecessary already. But think
about this: if something breaks your Windows, how do you get it back? At
least with Linux, even if you can't get to the GUI, you can do something
to fix it, and it doesn't always require nearly as much expertise as some
people claim.
--
Kier
mark...@digiverse.net
Kier wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 01:51:36 -0700, markzoom wrote:
>
> >
> > Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> >> The assumption here is that desktops as we know them will morph/evolve,
> >> leaving Open Source in a batter position, owing to modularity.
> >
> > Until the console becomes unnecessary for Linux use and maintenance,
> > it's no more than a wishful pipedream.
> >
>
> In a number of distros, it pretty much is unnecessary already.
It's what they are aiming towards, which is good, but in practice it's
just not there yet.
> But think
> about this: if something breaks your Windows, how do you get it back?
I simply reinstall it and the apps. I can't remember the last time
windows broke, it's usually my *hardware* that fails (memory/mobo/hd)
and then any OS should be reinstalled anyway because it's likely been
corrupted. I back anything important onto CD, other puters or a
different HD.
>From what I read the upgrades are just as likely to break Linux, as is
installing new hardware and software. I'm sure that IF someone manages
to get it running and doesn't touch anything it's very stable, but in
the real world people change their setups and attach the latest gismos
(and try to install drivers for them).
Again I put to you, the vast majority of puter user will NEVER learn to
use a console, especially since this generation of users have never
even seen a console at all, never mind learnt it's syntax and commands.
You want to learn Esperanto to get a machine running again?
So until Linux can cope with and be completely maintained without the
command line, it'll just remain another throwback to windows 3.11.
without viruses, sorry. Until some ardent linuxers get that through
their heads, they'll just hold it back.
> At
> least with Linux, even if you can't get to the GUI, you can do something
> to fix it,
Quicker to reinstall, or it should be.
John Bailo
HCI revolution occurred in 1968 at Parc. We've been eating its fruit
ever since...but it hasn't changed much.
The real revolution is CCI and HHI, using the computing infrastructure
as the substrate.
Kier
>
> Kier wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 01:51:36 -0700, markzoom wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> >> The assumption here is that desktops as we know them will morph/evolve,
>> >> leaving Open Source in a batter position, owing to modularity.
>> >
>> > Until the console becomes unnecessary for Linux use and maintenance,
>> > it's no more than a wishful pipedream.
>> >
>>
>> In a number of distros, it pretty much is unnecessary already.
>
> It's what they are aiming towards, which is good, but in practice it's
> just not there yet.
>
>> But think
>> about this: if something breaks your Windows, how do you get it back?
>
> I simply reinstall it and the apps. I can't remember the last time
> windows broke, it's usually my *hardware* that fails (memory/mobo/hd)
> and then any OS should be reinstalled anyway because it's likely been
> corrupted. I back anything important onto CD, other puters or a
> different HD.
>>From what I read the upgrades are just as likely to break Linux, as is
> installing new hardware and software. I'm sure that IF someone manages
> to get it running and doesn't touch anything it's very stable, but in
> the real world people change their setups and attach the latest gismos
> (and try to install drivers for them).
Anyone doing that ought to be smart enough to use Linux. It's not rocket
science. Believe me, if it were, I wouldn't be doing it.
>
>
> Again I put to you, the vast majority of puter user will NEVER learn to
> use a console, especially since this generation of users have never
> even seen a console at all, never mind learnt it's syntax and commands.
> You want to learn Esperanto to get a machine running again?
It really isn't as obscure as that. But realy, it doesn't matter. I don't
want Linux to take over the entire world, just gather enough support to
make a few tasks easier, and make it slightly less hit-and-miss with
hardware.
In any case, many config files are plain text, which require far less
understanding
> So until Linux can cope with and be completely maintained without the
> command line, it'll just remain another throwback to windows 3.11.
> without viruses, sorry. Until some ardent linuxers get that through
> their heads, they'll just hold it back.
>
>> At
>> least with Linux, even if you can't get to the GUI, you can do something
>> to fix it,
>
> Quicker to reinstall, or it should be.
I wouldn't say that, no. Though of course it depends on the circumstances.
Sometimes things are fixable with a couple of commands (like the recent
Ubuntu/X.org problem). Reinstalling should be a last resort, not a first.
--
Kier
John Bailo
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> The assumption here is that desktops as we know them will morph/evolve,
>> leaving Open Source in a batter position, owing to modularity.
>
> Until the console becomes unnecessary for Linux use and maintenance,
> it's no more than a wishful pipedream.
Oh yeah, it's "just around the corner"...just like the "moving sidewalk"
they are building outside my apartment complex in Kent that will /whisk/
me away to downtown Seattle in minutes....
mark...@digiverse.net
It's not just a question of rocket science, it's a question of time and
inclination.
Most people find other stuff far more compelling (or necessary). Do you
really expect 98% of people to sit down and learn where to type
gi6gj.-*,flob-hdfgrx just so their stoopid gismos even function when
they have the choice ot to? Dream on.
>
> >
> >
> > Again I put to you, the vast majority of puter user will NEVER learn to
> > use a console, especially since this generation of users have never
> > even seen a console at all, never mind learnt it's syntax and commands.
> > You want to learn Esperanto to get a machine running again?
>
> It really isn't as obscure as that.
It's far, far more obscure than Esperanto.
> But realy, it doesn't matter.
(to you)
> I don't
> want Linux to take over the entire world, just gather enough support to
> make a few tasks easier, and make it slightly less hit-and-miss with
> hardware.
Bill loves ya'.
>
> In any case, many config files are plain text, which require far less
> understanding
Virtually nobody wants to have to read them, and so don't.
>
> > So until Linux can cope with and be completely maintained without the
> > command line, it'll just remain another throwback to windows 3.11.
> > without viruses, sorry. Until some ardent linuxers get that through
> > their heads, they'll just hold it back.
> >
> >> At
> >> least with Linux, even if you can't get to the GUI, you can do something
> >> to fix it,
> >
> > Quicker to reinstall, or it should be.
>
> I wouldn't say that, no. Though of course it depends on the circumstances.
> Sometimes things are fixable with a couple of commands (like the recent
> Ubuntu/X.org problem). Reinstalling should be a last resort, not a first.
Again you forget that most people are and always will be incapable or
unwilling to do that, they already don't have to.
>
> --
> Kier
Rick
> Kier wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 01:51:36 -0700, markzoom wrote:
>>
>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>> The assumption here is that desktops as we know them will morph/evolve,
>>>> leaving Open Source in a batter position, owing to modularity.
>>> Until the console becomes unnecessary for Linux use and maintenance,
>>> it's no more than a wishful pipedream.
>>>
>> In a number of distros, it pretty much is unnecessary already.
>
> It's what they are aiming towards, which is good, but in practice it's
> just not there yet.
How so?
>
>> But think
>> about this: if something breaks your Windows, how do you get it back?
>
> I simply reinstall it and the apps. I can't remember the last time
> windows broke, it's usually my *hardware* that fails (memory/mobo/hd)
> and then any OS should be reinstalled anyway because it's likely been
> corrupted. I back anything important onto CD, other puters or a
> different HD.
>>From what I read the upgrades are just as likely to break Linux, as is
> installing new hardware and software.
Read more up to date stuff.
> I'm sure that IF someone manages
> to get it running and doesn't touch anything it's very stable, but in
> the real world people change their setups and attach the latest gismos
> (and try to install drivers for them).
They do while running Linux, too.
>
>
> Again I put to you, the vast majority of puter user will NEVER learn to
> use a console, especially since this generation of users have never
> even seen a console at all, never mind learnt it's syntax and commands.
> You want to learn Esperanto to get a machine running again?
> So until Linux can cope with and be completely maintained without the
> command line, it'll just remain another throwback to windows 3.11.
> without viruses, sorry. Until some ardent linuxers get that through
> their heads, they'll just hold it back.
I don't remember -having- to resort to the command line for a long while
now.
>
>> At
>> least with Linux, even if you can't get to the GUI, you can do something
>> to fix it,
>
> Quicker to reinstall, or it should be.
It is quicker to reinstall than typing a few commands in a terminal? I
doubt that very much.
>
>> and it doesn't always require nearly as much expertise as some
>> people claim.
--
Rick
Rick
What makes you think they have to?
>
>>>
>>> Again I put to you, the vast majority of puter user will NEVER learn to
>>> use a console, especially since this generation of users have never
>>> even seen a console at all, never mind learnt it's syntax and commands.
>>> You want to learn Esperanto to get a machine running again?
>> It really isn't as obscure as that.
>
> It's far, far more obscure than Esperanto.
Actually, it isn't.
>
>> But realy, it doesn't matter.
>
> (to you)
>
>> I don't
>> want Linux to take over the entire world, just gather enough support to
>> make a few tasks easier, and make it slightly less hit-and-miss with
>> hardware.
>
> Bill loves ya'.
>
>> In any case, many config files are plain text, which require far less
>> understanding
>
> Virtually nobody wants to have to read them, and so don't.
And virtually no one needs to, on the desktop.
>
>>> So until Linux can cope with and be completely maintained without the
>>> command line, it'll just remain another throwback to windows 3.11.
>>> without viruses, sorry. Until some ardent linuxers get that through
>>> their heads, they'll just hold it back.
>>>
>>>> At
>>>> least with Linux, even if you can't get to the GUI, you can do something
>>>> to fix it,
>>> Quicker to reinstall, or it should be.
>> I wouldn't say that, no. Though of course it depends on the circumstances.
>> Sometimes things are fixable with a couple of commands (like the recent
>> Ubuntu/X.org problem). Reinstalling should be a last resort, not a first.
>
> Again you forget that most people are and always will be incapable or
> unwilling to do that, they already don't have to.
>
So, you are saying people should not be using tools they don't know how
to use?
--
Rick
mark...@digiverse.net
When something goes wrong that's what they are advised to do.
>
> >
> >>>
> >>> Again I put to you, the vast majority of puter user will NEVER learn to
> >>> use a console, especially since this generation of users have never
> >>> even seen a console at all, never mind learnt it's syntax and commands.
> >>> You want to learn Esperanto to get a machine running again?
> >> It really isn't as obscure as that.
> >
> > It's far, far more obscure than Esperanto.
>
> Actually, it isn't.
It absolutely is. Even if you manage to decipher the
abbreviation/acronym, you then ought to know what it does. People have
a life and already don't NEED to do this, get that through your thick
skull.
>
> >
> >> But realy, it doesn't matter.
> >
> > (to you)
> >
> >> I don't
> >> want Linux to take over the entire world, just gather enough support to
> >> make a few tasks easier, and make it slightly less hit-and-miss with
> >> hardware.
> >
> > Bill loves ya'.
> >
> >> In any case, many config files are plain text, which require far less
> >> understanding
> >
> > Virtually nobody wants to have to read them, and so don't.
>
> And virtually no one needs to, on the desktop.
There's no avoiding it when something doesn't work properly.
>
> >
> >>> So until Linux can cope with and be completely maintained without the
> >>> command line, it'll just remain another throwback to windows 3.11.
> >>> without viruses, sorry. Until some ardent linuxers get that through
> >>> their heads, they'll just hold it back.
> >>>
> >>>> At
> >>>> least with Linux, even if you can't get to the GUI, you can do something
> >>>> to fix it,
> >>> Quicker to reinstall, or it should be.
> >> I wouldn't say that, no. Though of course it depends on the circumstances.
> >> Sometimes things are fixable with a couple of commands (like the recent
> >> Ubuntu/X.org problem). Reinstalling should be a last resort, not a first.
> >
> > Again you forget that most people are and always will be incapable or
> > unwilling to do that, they already don't have to.
> >
> So, you are saying people should not be using tools they don't know how
> to use?
I'm saying that anyone who today expects people to use a console
language to maintain their desktop is deluded and living in the past.
>
> --
> Rick
mark...@digiverse.net
Rick wrote:
> mark...@digiverse.net wrote:
> > Kier wrote:
> >> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 01:51:36 -0700, markzoom wrote:
> >>
> >>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> >>>> The assumption here is that desktops as we know them will morph/evolve,
> >>>> leaving Open Source in a batter position, owing to modularity.
> >>> Until the console becomes unnecessary for Linux use and maintenance,
> >>> it's no more than a wishful pipedream.
> >>>
> >> In a number of distros, it pretty much is unnecessary already.
> >
> > It's what they are aiming towards, which is good, but in practice it's
> > just not there yet.
>
> How so?
I dare you to fix Linux problems without a console.
>
> >
> >> But think
> >> about this: if something breaks your Windows, how do you get it back?
> >
> > I simply reinstall it and the apps. I can't remember the last time
> > windows broke, it's usually my *hardware* that fails (memory/mobo/hd)
> > and then any OS should be reinstalled anyway because it's likely been
> > corrupted. I back anything important onto CD, other puters or a
> > different HD.
> >>From what I read the upgrades are just as likely to break Linux, as is
> > installing new hardware and software.
>
> Read more up to date stuff.
I read Linux forums. Check out the Suse and Ubuntu ones.
>
>
> > I'm sure that IF someone manages
> > to get it running and doesn't touch anything it's very stable, but in
> > the real world people change their setups and attach the latest gismos
> > (and try to install drivers for them).
>
> They do while running Linux, too.
Go check the forums and see what happens and how they're told to fix
it. Much of the software let loose is beta quality and below.
>
> >
> >
> > Again I put to you, the vast majority of puter user will NEVER learn to
> > use a console, especially since this generation of users have never
> > even seen a console at all, never mind learnt it's syntax and commands.
> > You want to learn Esperanto to get a machine running again?
> > So until Linux can cope with and be completely maintained without the
> > command line, it'll just remain another throwback to windows 3.11.
> > without viruses, sorry. Until some ardent linuxers get that through
> > their heads, they'll just hold it back.
>
> I don't remember -having- to resort to the command line for a long while
> now.
Good, things are progressing then, which Distro?
>
> >
> >> At
> >> least with Linux, even if you can't get to the GUI, you can do something
> >> to fix it,
> >
> > Quicker to reinstall, or it should be.
>
> It is quicker to reinstall than typing a few commands in a terminal? I
> doubt that very much.
It sure does if you don't know command language, syntax and what to
type.
I bet even you who already knows Linux spends time looking up what to
do, and making typos. It's also quite possible to fuck up things even
more.
Just wondering:
I don't know if this is possible already but say one has managed to get
Linux running fine. Is it now possible to quickly save the
configuration, drivers etc. to a CD (or CDRW) which one could use on a
full re-install (NOT just a restore)? That could be handy.
>
> >
> >> and it doesn't always require nearly as much expertise as some
> >> people claim.
I'm sure people say that about learning chinese too.
>
> --
> Rick
Peter Köhlmann
>
> Rick wrote:
>> mark...@digiverse.net wrote:
>> > Kier wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 01:51:36 -0700, markzoom wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> >>>> The assumption here is that desktops as we know them will
>> >>>> morph/evolve, leaving Open Source in a batter position, owing to
>> >>>> modularity.
>> >>> Until the console becomes unnecessary for Linux use and maintenance,
>> >>> it's no more than a wishful pipedream.
>> >>>
>> >> In a number of distros, it pretty much is unnecessary already.
>> >
>> > It's what they are aiming towards, which is good, but in practice it's
>> > just not there yet.
>>
>> How so?
>
> I dare you to fix Linux problems without a console.
>
What "linux problems"?
You are so awfully clear about those
>>
>> >
>> >> But think
>> >> about this: if something breaks your Windows, how do you get it back?
>> >
>> > I simply reinstall it and the apps. I can't remember the last time
>> > windows broke, it's usually my *hardware* that fails (memory/mobo/hd)
>> > and then any OS should be reinstalled anyway because it's likely been
>> > corrupted. I back anything important onto CD, other puters or a
>> > different HD.
>> >>From what I read the upgrades are just as likely to break Linux, as is
>> > installing new hardware and software.
>>
>> Read more up to date stuff.
>
> I read Linux forums. Check out the Suse and Ubuntu ones.
>
Your "reading comprehension" is as lacking as it was always
>>
>>
>> > I'm sure that IF someone manages
>> > to get it running and doesn't touch anything it's very stable, but in
>> > the real world people change their setups and attach the latest gismos
>> > (and try to install drivers for them).
>>
>> They do while running Linux, too.
>
> Go check the forums and see what happens and how they're told to fix
> it. Much of the software let loose is beta quality and below.
>
It is? Stop the press.
Now lets get a closer look at windows software. Much of it is less than
alpha quality.
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Again I put to you, the vast majority of puter user will NEVER learn to
>> > use a console, especially since this generation of users have never
>> > even seen a console at all, never mind learnt it's syntax and commands.
>> > You want to learn Esperanto to get a machine running again?
>> > So until Linux can cope with and be completely maintained without the
>> > command line, it'll just remain another throwback to windows 3.11.
>> > without viruses, sorry. Until some ardent linuxers get that through
>> > their heads, they'll just hold it back.
>>
>> I don't remember -having- to resort to the command line for a long while
>> now.
>
> Good, things are progressing then, which Distro?
>
Take your pick. As you are determined to badmouth linux, none will fit the
bill
>>
>> >
>> >> At
>> >> least with Linux, even if you can't get to the GUI, you can do
>> >> something to fix it,
>> >
>> > Quicker to reinstall, or it should be.
>>
>> It is quicker to reinstall than typing a few commands in a terminal? I
>> doubt that very much.
>
> It sure does if you don't know command language, syntax and what to
> type.
Well, if you are unable to read, nothing will help you
> I bet even you who already knows Linux spends time looking up what to
> do, and making typos. It's also quite possible to fuck up things even
> more.
>
Really? Pray tell, what adventures did you have?
> Just wondering:
> I don't know if this is possible already but say one has managed to get
> Linux running fine. Is it now possible to quickly save the
> configuration, drivers etc. to a CD (or CDRW) which one could use on a
> full re-install (NOT just a restore)? That could be handy.
Yes (actually, it has been for years)
--
Microsoft's Guide To System Design:
Let it get in YOUR way. The problem for your problem.
mark...@digiverse.net
Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> mark...@digiverse.net wrote:
>
> >
> > Rick wrote:
> >> mark...@digiverse.net wrote:
> >> > Kier wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 01:51:36 -0700, markzoom wrote:
> >> >>
Sorry KohlKopf, while I'm not happy with Linux I'm not even going to
bother arguing with a Micro$oft plant like you. Bill loves ya'.
Hadron Quark
> mark...@digiverse.net wrote:
>
>>
>> Rick wrote:
>>> mark...@digiverse.net wrote:
>>> > Kier wrote:
>>> >> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 01:51:36 -0700, markzoom wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>> >>>> The assumption here is that desktops as we know them will
>>> >>>> morph/evolve, leaving Open Source in a batter position, owing to
>>> >>>> modularity.
>>> >>> Until the console becomes unnecessary for Linux use and maintenance,
>>> >>> it's no more than a wishful pipedream.
>>> >>>
>>> >> In a number of distros, it pretty much is unnecessary already.
>>> >
>>> > It's what they are aiming towards, which is good, but in practice it's
>>> > just not there yet.
>>>
>>> How so?
>>
>> I dare you to fix Linux problems without a console.
>>
>
> What "linux problems"?
> You are so awfully clear about those
Head firmly in the sand and buttocks doing the talking again I see.
"What Linux problems"? LOL.
>
>>>
>>> >
>>> >> But think
>>> >> about this: if something breaks your Windows, how do you get it back?
>>> >
>>> > I simply reinstall it and the apps. I can't remember the last time
>>> > windows broke, it's usually my *hardware* that fails (memory/mobo/hd)
>>> > and then any OS should be reinstalled anyway because it's likely been
>>> > corrupted. I back anything important onto CD, other puters or a
>>> > different HD.
>>> >>From what I read the upgrades are just as likely to break Linux, as is
>>> > installing new hardware and software.
>>>
>>> Read more up to date stuff.
>>
>> I read Linux forums. Check out the Suse and Ubuntu ones.
>>
>
> Your "reading comprehension" is as lacking as it was always
Well so is everyone Else's because those forums are full of
problems. Don't light a match when you talk: you'll explode.
>
>>>
>>>
>>> > I'm sure that IF someone manages
>>> > to get it running and doesn't touch anything it's very stable, but in
>>> > the real world people change their setups and attach the latest gismos
>>> > (and try to install drivers for them).
>>>
>>> They do while running Linux, too.
>>
>> Go check the forums and see what happens and how they're told to fix
>> it. Much of the software let loose is beta quality and below.
>>
>
> It is? Stop the press.
> Now lets get a closer look at windows software. Much of it is less than
> alpha quality.
Cue the not so subtle subject shift.
>
>>>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Again I put to you, the vast majority of puter user will NEVER learn to
>>> > use a console, especially since this generation of users have never
>>> > even seen a console at all, never mind learnt it's syntax and commands.
>>> > You want to learn Esperanto to get a machine running again?
>>> > So until Linux can cope with and be completely maintained without the
>>> > command line, it'll just remain another throwback to windows 3.11.
>>> > without viruses, sorry. Until some ardent linuxers get that through
>>> > their heads, they'll just hold it back.
>>>
>>> I don't remember -having- to resort to the command line for a long while
>>> now.
>>
>> Good, things are progressing then, which Distro?
>>
>
> Take your pick. As you are determined to badmouth linux, none will fit the
> bill
He is badmouthing the need to use a console for Joe Public. Big
difference. If you pulled your head out of the sand and used your eyes
rather than your ring to read it would have been abundantly clear.
>
>>>
>>> >
>>> >> At
>>> >> least with Linux, even if you can't get to the GUI, you can do
>>> >> something to fix it,
>>> >
>>> > Quicker to reinstall, or it should be.
>>>
>>> It is quicker to reinstall than typing a few commands in a terminal? I
>>> doubt that very much.
>>
>> It sure does if you don't know command language, syntax and what to
>> type.
>
> Well, if you are unable to read, nothing will help you
What has reading got to do with learning bash or some such? Other than
the need to RTFM of course.
>
>> I bet even you who already knows Linux spends time looking up what to
>> do, and making typos. It's also quite possible to fuck up things even
>> more.
>>
>
> Really? Pray tell, what adventures did you have?
If you use "sudo" to perform a shell command and get that wrong you run
the risk of destroying your system. Simple really.
>
>> Just wondering:
>> I don't know if this is possible already but say one has managed to get
>> Linux running fine. Is it now possible to quickly save the
>> configuration, drivers etc. to a CD (or CDRW) which one could use on a
>> full re-install (NOT just a restore)? That could be handy.
>
> Yes (actually, it has been for years)
>
> --
> Microsoft's Guide To System Design:
> Let it get in YOUR way. The problem for your problem.
>
--
Peter Köhlmann
Good thing that you haven't even tried to answer
It would certainly have sounded even more ridiculous than this one
Should we dig up your last round in cola, "markzoom"?
You did sound very similar then. Bacteria have more intelligence
--
Microsoft: The company that made email dangerous
And web browsing. And viewing pictures. And...
Kier
>
> Kier wrote:
>
>> I don't
>> want Linux to take over the entire world, just gather enough support to
>> make a few tasks easier, and make it slightly less hit-and-miss with
>> hardware.
>
> Bill loves ya'.
>
Eh? Who's this Bill character, and why are you dragging him into this?
--
Kier
mark...@digiverse.net
Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> mark...@digiverse.net wrote:
>
> >
> > Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> >> mark...@digiverse.net wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Rick wrote:
> >> >> mark...@digiverse.net wrote:
> >> >> > Kier wrote:
> >> >> >> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 01:51:36 -0700, markzoom wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >
> > Sorry KohlKopf, while I'm not happy with Linux I'm not even going to
> > bother arguing with a Micro$oft plant like you. Bill loves ya'.
>
> Good thing that you haven't even tried to answer
> It would certainly have sounded even more ridiculous than this one
I'm not surprised you don't like my suggestion of a working
configuration backup on CD/RW to be used for a complete reinstall of
the OS after it's become corrupted.
You'd prefer people to just go back to windows.
>
> Should we dig up your last round in cola, "markzoom"?
> You did sound very similar then. Bacteria have more intelligence
I'm sure they have a more interesting life than you trolling Linux
groups for Micro$oft.
Hadron Quark
I did wonder if, like Roytoy & Mark, he is a reverse.advocate planted
by MS. If anyone was likely to put someone off Linux for life it's
Peter with his softly, softly Teutonic manners and caring approach to
noobs with Linux issues.
mark...@digiverse.net
I'm sure KohlKopf would'nt reinstall the OS after replacing duff memory
either.
>
> >
> >> I bet even you who already knows Linux spends time looking up what to
> >> do, and making typos. It's also quite possible to fuck up things even
> >> more.
> >>
> >
> > Really? Pray tell, what adventures did you have?
>
> If you use "sudo" to perform a shell command and get that wrong you run
> the risk of destroying your system. Simple really.
And another Linuxer puts the boot into Microsoft's KohlKopf troll.
>
> >
> >> Just wondering:
> >> I don't know if this is possible already but say one has managed to get
> >> Linux running fine. Is it now possible to quickly save the
> >> configuration, drivers etc. to a CD (or CDRW) which one could use on a
> >> full re-install (NOT just a restore)? That could be handy.
> >
> > Yes (actually, it has been for years)
Can it be done without using a console? Does it save the laborious
corrections made to the OS to get stuff working? Does it check if
hardware's been changed (like after a hardware failure) before applying
the settings ?
How about a boot option on startup that gives you the choice to detect
hardware changes (added or removed)? I'd rather have that than the OS
pretending it's plug and play and fucking itself up. (Ubuntu left me on
640x480 after changing to a BNC lead, later locked half way through
booting after I installed a new slave drive, didn't waste anymore time
with it)
mark...@digiverse.net
Microsoft is definately capable of such things. It only needs one or
two blokes with a few aliases trolling the Linux NGs, they'll easily
justify their M$ wages. Using the "flatfish" cliche label is a nice
trick to put people off Linux and it's residents.
It's a bit like the planting of fake conspiracy stories so they can be
publicly shot down and thereby discredit those that are on target.
Plenty of ploys available to dirty tricks departments.
Rick
By whom and in what situations?
>> >>> Again I put to you, the vast majority of puter user will NEVER learn
>> >>> to use a console, especially since this generation of users have
>> >>> never even seen a console at all, never mind learnt it's syntax and
>> >>> commands. You want to learn Esperanto to get a machine running
>> >>> again?
>> >> It really isn't as obscure as that.
>> >
>> > It's far, far more obscure than Esperanto.
>>
>> Actually, it isn't.
>
> It absolutely is.
Actually, it isn't.
> Even if you manage to decipher the abbreviation/acronym,
> you then ought to know what it does. People have a life and already don't
> NEED to do this, get that through your thick skull.
It seems you are the one with the thick skull.
>
>
>>
>> >> But realy, it doesn't matter.
>> >
>> > (to you)
>> >
>> >> I don't
>> >> want Linux to take over the entire world, just gather enough support
>> >> to make a few tasks easier, and make it slightly less hit-and-miss
>> >> with hardware.
>> >
>> > Bill loves ya'.
>> >
>> >> In any case, many config files are plain text, which require far less
>> >> understanding
>> >
>> > Virtually nobody wants to have to read them, and so don't.
>>
>> And virtually no one needs to, on the desktop.
>
> There's no avoiding it when something doesn't work properly.
Really? You've spouted of about re-installing. That isn't an option? And
how do you know there is 'no avoiding it when something doesn't work
properly' when you are not speaking of any specific problem?
>
>
>>
>> >>> So until Linux can cope with and be completely maintained without
>> >>> the command line, it'll just remain another throwback to windows
>> >>> 3.11. without viruses, sorry. Until some ardent linuxers get that
>> >>> through their heads, they'll just hold it back.
>> >>>
>> >>>> At
>> >>>> least with Linux, even if you can't get to the GUI, you can do
>> >>>> something to fix it,
>> >>> Quicker to reinstall, or it should be.
>> >> I wouldn't say that, no. Though of course it depends on the
>> >> circumstances. Sometimes things are fixable with a couple of commands
>> >> (like the recent Ubuntu/X.org problem). Reinstalling should be a last
>> >> resort, not a first.
>> >
>> > Again you forget that most people are and always will be incapable or
>> > unwilling to do that, they already don't have to.
>> >
>> So, you are saying people should not be using tools they don't know how
>> to use?
>
> I'm saying that anyone who today expects people to use a console language
> to maintain their desktop is deluded and living in the past.
>
Are you slow, stupid or dishonest, or all three?
You may now show how desktop users HAVE to use the console. Provide
specific examples, if you can.
DFS
> In a number of distros, it pretty much is unnecessary already. But
> think about this: if something breaks your Windows, how do you get it
> back?
Depends on what it is. Last week a power surge corrupted my user profile
(or a single file used with a Microsoft program called MMC). I couldn't
manage my server very well: couldn't get into the various Control Panel and
Admin/Services apps to do anything. I didn't know how to fix, but I hunted
a few minutes online, and found a couple fixes:
1) Start | Run | MMC | Add Snap-ins
2) Regsvr32 C:\WINDOWS\system32\msxml3.dll
The 2nd was easier, took about 10 seconds, and voila!
> At least with Linux, even if you can't get to the GUI, you can
> do something to fix it, and it doesn't always require nearly as much
> expertise as some people claim.
You're right: it doesn't require as much - it requires more than you think.
Exit totally out of your wm and edit xorg.conf to get mouse-wheel scrolling.
Let me know how it goes.
Rick
>
> Rick wrote:
>> mark...@digiverse.net wrote:
>> > Kier wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 01:51:36 -0700, markzoom wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> >>>> The assumption here is that desktops as we know them will
>> >>>> morph/evolve, leaving Open Source in a batter position, owing to
>> >>>> modularity.
>> >>> Until the console becomes unnecessary for Linux use and maintenance,
>> >>> it's no more than a wishful pipedream.
>> >>>
>> >> In a number of distros, it pretty much is unnecessary already.
>> >
>> > It's what they are aiming towards, which is good, but in practice it's
>> > just not there yet.
>>
>> How so?
>
> I dare you to fix Linux problems without a console.
Fine, fine. My TV app wouldn't display. I restarted X by logging out and
loging in. No console.
I installed a scanner. I used the GUI utility to do it. No console.
I change my firewall specs. I use the GUI. No console.
I install and remove apps... using the GUI.
I installed GoogleEarth. All GUI installation.
>
>
>>
>> >> But think
>> >> about this: if something breaks your Windows, how do you get it back?
>> >
>> > I simply reinstall it and the apps. I can't remember the last time
>> > windows broke, it's usually my *hardware* that fails (memory/mobo/hd)
>> > and then any OS should be reinstalled anyway because it's likely been
>> > corrupted. I back anything important onto CD, other puters or a
>> > different HD.
>> >>From what I read the upgrades are just as likely to break Linux, as is
>> > installing new hardware and software.
>>
>> Read more up to date stuff.
>
> I read Linux forums. Check out the Suse and Ubuntu ones.
I sue Suse 9.3.
>
>
>>
>> > I'm sure that IF someone manages
>> > to get it running and doesn't touch anything it's very stable, but in
>> > the real world people change their setups and attach the latest gismos
>> > (and try to install drivers for them).
>>
>> They do while running Linux, too.
>
> Go check the forums and see what happens and how they're told to fix it.
> Much of the software let loose is beta quality and below.
Fix what?
>> >
>> > Again I put to you, the vast majority of puter user will NEVER learn
>> > to use a console, especially since this generation of users have
>> > never even seen a console at all, never mind learnt it's syntax and
>> > commands. You want to learn Esperanto to get a machine running again?
>> > So until Linux can cope with and be completely maintained without the
>> > command line, it'll just remain another throwback to windows 3.11.
>> > without viruses, sorry. Until some ardent linuxers get that through
>> > their heads, they'll just hold it back.
>>
>> I don't remember -having- to resort to the command line for a long while
>> now.
>
> Good, things are progressing then, which Distro?
Suse 9.3
>> >> At
>> >> least with Linux, even if you can't get to the GUI, you can do
>> >> something to fix it,
>> >
>> > Quicker to reinstall, or it should be.
>>
>> It is quicker to reinstall than typing a few commands in a terminal? I
>> doubt that very much.
>
> It sure does if you don't know command language, syntax and what to type.
> I bet even you who already knows Linux spends time looking up what to do,
> and making typos. It's also quite possible to fuck up things even more.
I rarely use the console. When I do, it is almost always simply because I
can use the text commands faster than using the GUI.
>
> Just wondering:
> I don't know if this is possible already but say one has managed to get
> Linux running fine. Is it now possible to quickly save the configuration,
> drivers etc. to a CD (or CDRW) which one could use on a full re-install
> (NOT just a restore)? That could be handy.
>
>
>
>>
>> >> and it doesn't always require nearly as much expertise as some people
>> >> claim.
>
> I'm sure people say that about learning chinese too.
Your knowledge of Linux is extremely outmoded.
>
>
>> --
>> Rick
Have you considered configuring your newsreader to ignore signatures?
Linonut
> Depends on what it is. Last week a power surge corrupted my user profile
> (or a single file used with a Microsoft program called MMC). I couldn't
> manage my server very well: couldn't get into the various Control Panel and
> Admin/Services apps to do anything. I didn't know how to fix, but I hunted
> a few minutes online, and found a couple fixes:
>
> 1) Start | Run | MMC | Add Snap-ins
>
> 2) Regsvr32 C:\WINDOWS\system32\msxml3.dll
>
> The 2nd was easier, took about 10 seconds, and voila!
>
>> At least with Linux, even if you can't get to the GUI, you can
>> do something to fix it, and it doesn't always require nearly as much
>> expertise as some people claim.
>
> You're right: it doesn't require as much - it requires more than you think.
Not like the Regsvr32 option or the Add Snap-ins option, eh?
Seems to me like both you guys are assuming a certain amount of
experience, rather than the typical naivety of the consumer.
> Exit totally out of your wm and edit xorg.conf to get mouse-wheel scrolling.
You don't have to exit until you've done the edit in the comfort of your
window manager. Then Ctrl-Alt-Backspace and log back in.
> Let me know how it goes.
In GNU emacs: You can also use the wheel to scroll windows instead of
using the scroll bar or keyboard commands. To do so, turn on Mouse Wheel
global minor mode with the command M-x mouse-wheel-mode or by
customizing the option mouse-wheel-mode.
Or, for more general translation of mouse-wheel events to keyboard
events, how about imwheel? "man imwheel" explains how to do the above
edit.
I wonder if Linux has anything like the "moused" of FreeBSD.
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=moused&sektion=8
If manufacturers would start supporting X Windows you wouldn't have to
know this stuff.
But, since they don't, ya gotta Googoo for it.
--
I believe the technical term is "Oops!"
Kier
> Kier wrote:
>
>> In a number of distros, it pretty much is unnecessary already. But
>> think about this: if something breaks your Windows, how do you get it
>> back?
>
>
> Depends on what it is. Last week a power surge corrupted my user profile
> (or a single file used with a Microsoft program called MMC). I couldn't
> manage my server very well: couldn't get into the various Control Panel and
> Admin/Services apps to do anything. I didn't know how to fix, but I hunted
> a few minutes online, and found a couple fixes:
>
> 1) Start | Run | MMC | Add Snap-ins
>
> 2) Regsvr32 C:\WINDOWS\system32\msxml3.dll
>
> The 2nd was easier, took about 10 seconds, and voila!
Which is no different from many things a Linuxer has to do. So why do
Windows whiners keep moaning that users won't be able or willing to handle
Linux?
>
>
>
>
>> At least with Linux, even if you can't get to the GUI, you can
>> do something to fix it, and it doesn't always require nearly as much
>> expertise as some people claim.
>
> You're right: it doesn't require as much - it requires more than you think.
No, it doesn't always require more.
> Exit totally out of your wm and edit xorg.conf to get mouse-wheel scrolling.
> Let me know how it goes.
Why should I do that? My mouse wheel has always scrolled.
Why do you think it's hard to log out of the GUI?
--
Kier
mark...@digiverse.net
Linux helpers, in most situations.
>
> >> >>> Again I put to you, the vast majority of puter user will NEVER learn
> >> >>> to use a console, especially since this generation of users have
> >> >>> never even seen a console at all, never mind learnt it's syntax and
> >> >>> commands. You want to learn Esperanto to get a machine running
> >> >>> again?
> >> >> It really isn't as obscure as that.
> >> >
> >> > It's far, far more obscure than Esperanto.
> >>
> >> Actually, it isn't.
> >
> > It absolutely is.
>
> Actually, it isn't.
Of course it is, because even once the command is translated into
readable english, one still has to figure out what means. You have to
consult a dictionary AND an encyclopedia .
>
> > Even if you manage to decipher the abbreviation/acronym,
> > you then ought to know what it does. People have a life and already don't
> > NEED to do this, get that through your thick skull.
>
> It seems you are the one with the thick skull.
At least I can figure out why there are so few Linux users.
> >> >> But realy, it doesn't matter.
> >> >
> >> > (to you)
> >> >
> >> >> I don't
> >> >> want Linux to take over the entire world, just gather enough support
> >> >> to make a few tasks easier, and make it slightly less hit-and-miss
> >> >> with hardware.
> >> >
> >> > Bill loves ya'.
> >> >
> >> >> In any case, many config files are plain text, which require far less
> >> >> understanding
> >> >
> >> > Virtually nobody wants to have to read them, and so don't.
> >>
> >> And virtually no one needs to, on the desktop.
> >
> > There's no avoiding it when something doesn't work properly.
>
> Really? You've spouted of about re-installing. That isn't an option? And
> how do you know there is 'no avoiding it when something doesn't work
> properly' when you are not speaking of any specific problem?
You're not pretending that console use in maintaining Linux is
unnecessary?
> >> >>> So until Linux can cope with and be completely maintained without
> >> >>> the command line, it'll just remain another throwback to windows
> >> >>> 3.11. without viruses, sorry. Until some ardent linuxers get that
> >> >>> through their heads, they'll just hold it back.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> At
> >> >>>> least with Linux, even if you can't get to the GUI, you can do
> >> >>>> something to fix it,
> >> >>> Quicker to reinstall, or it should be.
> >> >> I wouldn't say that, no. Though of course it depends on the
> >> >> circumstances. Sometimes things are fixable with a couple of commands
> >> >> (like the recent Ubuntu/X.org problem). Reinstalling should be a last
> >> >> resort, not a first.
> >> >
> >> > Again you forget that most people are and always will be incapable or
> >> > unwilling to do that, they already don't have to.
> >> >
> >> So, you are saying people should not be using tools they don't know how
> >> to use?
> >
> > I'm saying that anyone who today expects people to use a console language
> > to maintain their desktop is deluded and living in the past.
> >
> Are you slow, stupid or dishonest, or all three?
I've got my eyes open.
>
> You may now show how desktop users HAVE to use the console.
??? Virtually every time something goes wrong.
> Provide
> specific examples, if you can.
I can do much better than that, I can tell you to never to open a
console again, then you'll see for yourself.
>
> --
> Rick
> <http://ricks-place.tripod.com/sound/2cents.wav>
mark...@digiverse.net
(Bit of a Freudian slip there.) I spent a week arsing with Suse 8.2 and
then dumped it, tried 10.1 and dumped it as it became obvious it's just
another Linux beta.
Seems they always make the same mistake: Fix some bugs from the last
release and then introduce new ones.
Dumped Ubuntu after it started nicely and then fucked up by not
detecting a couple of simple hardware changes (BNC monitor lead and
slave HD).
> >> > I'm sure that IF someone manages
> >> > to get it running and doesn't touch anything it's very stable, but in
> >> > the real world people change their setups and attach the latest gismos
> >> > (and try to install drivers for them).
> >>
> >> They do while running Linux, too.
> >
> > Go check the forums and see what happens and how they're told to fix it.
> > Much of the software let loose is beta quality and below.
>
> Fix what?
Pretty much anything that goes wrong.
>
> >> >
> >> > Again I put to you, the vast majority of puter user will NEVER learn
> >> > to use a console, especially since this generation of users have
> >> > never even seen a console at all, never mind learnt it's syntax and
> >> > commands. You want to learn Esperanto to get a machine running again?
> >> > So until Linux can cope with and be completely maintained without the
> >> > command line, it'll just remain another throwback to windows 3.11.
> >> > without viruses, sorry. Until some ardent linuxers get that through
> >> > their heads, they'll just hold it back.
> >>
> >> I don't remember -having- to resort to the command line for a long while
> >> now.
> >
> > Good, things are progressing then, which Distro?
>
> Suse 9.3
>
> >> >> At
> >> >> least with Linux, even if you can't get to the GUI, you can do
> >> >> something to fix it,
> >> >
> >> > Quicker to reinstall, or it should be.
> >>
> >> It is quicker to reinstall than typing a few commands in a terminal? I
> >> doubt that very much.
> >
> > It sure does if you don't know command language, syntax and what to type.
> > I bet even you who already knows Linux spends time looking up what to do,
> > and making typos. It's also quite possible to fuck up things even more.
>
> I rarely use the console. When I do, it is almost always simply because I
> can use the text commands faster than using the GUI.
Stop using them completely and see how long you'll last.
>
> >
> > Just wondering:
> > I don't know if this is possible already but say one has managed to get
> > Linux running fine. Is it now possible to quickly save the configuration,
> > drivers etc. to a CD (or CDRW) which one could use on a full re-install
> > (NOT just a restore)? That could be handy.
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> >> and it doesn't always require nearly as much expertise as some people
> >> >> claim.
> >
> > I'm sure people say that about learning chinese too.
>
> Your knowledge of Linux is extremely outmoded.
And I make sure it remains so. I load a distro, hit a hitch, look for
solutions and then wipe it as soon as it's obvious it can't be fixed
without typing piles of crap into consoles. I even give it a chance
first by typing such loads of crap just to install the Firefox plugins
(Ubuntu).
>
> >
> >
> >> --
> >> Rick
>
> Have you considered configuring your newsreader to ignore signatures?
Nope. I use google groups. Don't need to install a "newsreader".
>
> --
> Rick
> <http://ricks-place.tripod.com/sound/2cents.wav>
mark...@digiverse.net
Kier wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 18:03:12 -0400, DFS wrote:
>
> > Kier wrote:
> >
> >> In a number of distros, it pretty much is unnecessary already. But
> >> think about this: if something breaks your Windows, how do you get it
> >> back?
> >
> >
> > Depends on what it is. Last week a power surge corrupted my user profile
> > (or a single file used with a Microsoft program called MMC). I couldn't
> > manage my server very well: couldn't get into the various Control Panel and
> > Admin/Services apps to do anything. I didn't know how to fix, but I hunted
> > a few minutes online, and found a couple fixes:
> >
> > 1) Start | Run | MMC | Add Snap-ins
> >
> > 2) Regsvr32 C:\WINDOWS\system32\msxml3.dll
> >
> > The 2nd was easier, took about 10 seconds, and voila!
>
>
> Which is no different from many things a Linuxer has to do. So why do
> Windows whiners keep moaning that users won't be able or willing to handle
> Linux?
Because they can't and hence don't bother. I'd like to see the
statistics of how many who try Linux abandon it.
> >> At least with Linux, even if you can't get to the GUI, you can
> >> do something to fix it, and it doesn't always require nearly as much
> >> expertise as some people claim.
> >
> > You're right: it doesn't require as much - it requires more than you think.
>
> No, it doesn't always require more.
Staying with Linux does.
>
> > Exit totally out of your wm and edit xorg.conf to get mouse-wheel scrolling.
> > Let me know how it goes.
>
> Why should I do that? My mouse wheel has always scrolled.
>
> Why do you think it's hard to log out of the GUI?
Most people don't even know who "GUI" is.
>
> --
> Kier
Rick
What situations?
>
>
>> >> >>> Again I put to you, the vast majority of puter user will NEVER
>> >> >>> learn to use a console, especially since this generation of
>> >> >>> users have never even seen a console at all, never mind learnt
>> >> >>> it's syntax and commands. You want to learn Esperanto to get a
>> >> >>> machine running again?
>> >> >> It really isn't as obscure as that.
>> >> >
>> >> > It's far, far more obscure than Esperanto.
>> >>
>> >> Actually, it isn't.
>> >
>> > It absolutely is.
>>
>> Actually, it isn't.
>
> Of course it is, because even once the command is translated into readable
> english, one still has to figure out what means. You have to consult a
> dictionary AND an encyclopedia .
No, you don't.
>
>
>> > Even if you manage to decipher the abbreviation/acronym, you then
>> > ought to know what it does. People have a life and already don't NEED
>> > to do this, get that through your thick skull.
>>
>> It seems you are the one with the thick skull.
>
> At least I can figure out why there are so few Linux users.
It seems you can't.
>
>
>> >> >> But realy, it doesn't matter.
>> >> >
>> >> > (to you)
>> >> >
>> >> >> I don't
>> >> >> want Linux to take over the entire world, just gather enough
>> >> >> support to make a few tasks easier, and make it slightly less
>> >> >> hit-and-miss with hardware.
>> >> >
>> >> > Bill loves ya'.
>> >> >
>> >> >> In any case, many config files are plain text, which require far
>> >> >> less understanding
>> >> >
>> >> > Virtually nobody wants to have to read them, and so don't.
>> >>
>> >> And virtually no one needs to, on the desktop.
>> >
>> > There's no avoiding it when something doesn't work properly.
>>
>> Really? You've spouted of about re-installing. That isn't an option? And
>> how do you know there is 'no avoiding it when something doesn't work
>> properly' when you are not speaking of any specific problem?
>
> You're not pretending that console use in maintaining Linux is
> unnecessary?
You are not showing ANY examples of when it is.
>> >> >>> So until Linux can cope with and be completely maintained without
>> >> >>> the command line, it'll just remain another throwback to windows
>> >> >>> 3.11. without viruses, sorry. Until some ardent linuxers get that
>> >> >>> through their heads, they'll just hold it back.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>> At
>> >> >>>> least with Linux, even if you can't get to the GUI, you can do
>> >> >>>> something to fix it,
>> >> >>> Quicker to reinstall, or it should be.
>> >> >> I wouldn't say that, no. Though of course it depends on the
>> >> >> circumstances. Sometimes things are fixable with a couple of
>> >> >> commands (like the recent Ubuntu/X.org problem). Reinstalling
>> >> >> should be a last resort, not a first.
>> >> >
>> >> > Again you forget that most people are and always will be incapable
>> >> > or unwilling to do that, they already don't have to.
>> >> >
>> >> So, you are saying people should not be using tools they don't know
>> >> how to use?
>> >
>> > I'm saying that anyone who today expects people to use a console
>> > language to maintain their desktop is deluded and living in the past.
>> >
>> Are you slow, stupid or dishonest, or all three?
>
> I've got my eyes open.
... all three.
>
>
>> You may now show how desktop users HAVE to use the console.
>
> ??? Virtually every time something goes wrong.
You are incorrect.
>
>> Provide
>> specific examples, if you can.
>
> I can do much better than that, I can tell you to never to open a console
> again, then you'll see for yourself.
I have told you repeatedly that I have not HAD to open a console in a long
while.
>> --
>> Rick
>> <http://ricks-place.tripod.com/sound/2cents.wav>
.... I see you still can't configure your newsreader.
Rick
>
> Rick wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 12:29:14 -0700, markzoom wrote:
>>
>>
>> > Rick wrote:
>> >> mark...@digiverse.net wrote:
>> >> > Kier wrote:
>> >> >> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 01:51:36 -0700, markzoom wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> >> >>>> The assumption here is that desktops as we know them will
>> >> >>>> morph/evolve, leaving Open Source in a batter position, owing to
>> >> >>>> modularity.
>> >> >>> Until the console becomes unnecessary for Linux use and
>> >> >>> maintenance, it's no more than a wishful pipedream.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >> In a number of distros, it pretty much is unnecessary already.
>> >> >
>> >> > It's what they are aiming towards, which is good, but in practice
>> >> > it's just not there yet.
>> >>
>> >> How so?
>> >
>> > I dare you to fix Linux problems without a console.
>>
>> Fine, fine. My TV app wouldn't display. I restarted X by logging out and
>> loging in. No console.
>>
>> I installed a scanner. I used the GUI utility to do it. No console.
>>
>> I change my firewall specs. I use the GUI. No console.
>>
>> I install and remove apps... using the GUI.
>>
>> I installed GoogleEarth. All GUI installation.
... no retorts, I see.
>> >> >> But think
>> >> >> about this: if something breaks your Windows, how do you get it
>> >> >> back?
>> >> >
>> >> > I simply reinstall it and the apps. I can't remember the last time
>> >> > windows broke, it's usually my *hardware* that fails
>> >> > (memory/mobo/hd) and then any OS should be reinstalled anyway
>> >> > because it's likely been corrupted. I back anything important onto
>> >> > CD, other puters or a different HD.
>> >> >>From what I read the upgrades are just as likely to break Linux, as
>> >> >>is
>> >> > installing new hardware and software.
>> >>
>> >> Read more up to date stuff.
>> >
>> > I read Linux forums. Check out the Suse and Ubuntu ones.
>>
>> I sue Suse 9.3.
>
> (Bit of a Freudian slip there.)
No, losy typing.
> I spent a week arsing with Suse 8.2 and
> then dumped it, tried 10.1 and dumped it as it became obvious it's just
> another Linux beta.
Big deal. I dumped OS X and Windows for Linux.
> Seems they always make the same mistake: Fix some bugs from the last
> release and then introduce new ones.
Sounds like Apple and Microsoft, too. Ae you too stupid to realize no
complex software is perfect?
>
> Dumped Ubuntu after it started nicely and then fucked up by not detecting
> a couple of simple hardware changes (BNC monitor lead and slave HD).
why didn't you dump windows when it did the same?
>
>
>> >> > I'm sure that IF someone manages
>> >> > to get it running and doesn't touch anything it's very stable, but
>> >> > in the real world people change their setups and attach the latest
>> >> > gismos (and try to install drivers for them).
>> >>
>> >> They do while running Linux, too.
>> >
>> > Go check the forums and see what happens and how they're told to fix
>> > it. Much of the software let loose is beta quality and below.
>>
>> Fix what?
>
> Pretty much anything that goes wrong.
Like what?
Are you retarded? Again, for the terminally bigoted (you), I have rarely
HAD to use a console for a long time now.
>
>
>>
>> > Just wondering:
>> > I don't know if this is possible already but say one has managed to
>> > get Linux running fine. Is it now possible to quickly save the
>> > configuration, drivers etc. to a CD (or CDRW) which one could use on
>> > a full re-install (NOT just a restore)? That could be handy.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> >> and it doesn't always require nearly as much expertise as some
>> >> >> people claim.
>> >
>> > I'm sure people say that about learning chinese too.
>>
>> Your knowledge of Linux is extremely outmoded.
>
> And I make sure it remains so.
Thanks for admititing how ignorant You are. Now go educate yourself.
> I load a distro, hit a hitch, look for
> solutions and then wipe it as soon as it's obvious it can't be fixed
> without typing piles of crap into consoles. I even give it a chance first
> by typing such loads of crap just to install the Firefox plugins (Ubuntu).
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >> --
>> >> Rick
>>
>> Have you considered configuring your newsreader to ignore signatures?
>
> Nope. I use google groups. Don't need to install a "newsreader".
You... a bigoted wintroll...
(snip)
mark...@digiverse.net
The majority of them, go and check ANY Linux forum.
>
> >
> >
> >> >> >>> Again I put to you, the vast majority of puter user will NEVER
> >> >> >>> learn to use a console, especially since this generation of
> >> >> >>> users have never even seen a console at all, never mind learnt
> >> >> >>> it's syntax and commands. You want to learn Esperanto to get a
> >> >> >>> machine running again?
> >> >> >> It really isn't as obscure as that.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > It's far, far more obscure than Esperanto.
> >> >>
> >> >> Actually, it isn't.
> >> >
> >> > It absolutely is.
> >>
> >> Actually, it isn't.
> >
> > Of course it is, because even once the command is translated into readable
> > english, one still has to figure out what it means. You have to consult a
> > dictionary AND an encyclopedia .
>
> No, you don't.
You could of course select one of the various alleged fixes of a
problem at random and type them in (apparently even cut-paste sometimes
won't do) and hope you got the right one that won't bugger up something
else.
> >> > Even if you manage to decipher the abbreviation/acronym, you then
> >> > ought to know what it does. People have a life and already don't NEED
> >> > to do this, get that through your thick skull.
> >>
> >> It seems you are the one with the thick skull.
> >
> > At least I can figure out why there are so few Linux users.
>
> It seems you can't.
No doubt you think it's all because of unfair trade practices that
freebie OSs can't make headway against the M$ monopoly.
> >> >> >> But realy, it doesn't matter.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > (to you)
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> I don't
> >> >> >> want Linux to take over the entire world, just gather enough
> >> >> >> support to make a few tasks easier, and make it slightly less
> >> >> >> hit-and-miss with hardware.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Bill loves ya'.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> In any case, many config files are plain text, which require far
> >> >> >> less understanding
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Virtually nobody wants to have to read them, and so don't.
> >> >>
> >> >> And virtually no one needs to, on the desktop.
> >> >
> >> > There's no avoiding it when something doesn't work properly.
> >>
> >> Really? You've spouted of about re-installing. That isn't an option? And
> >> how do you know there is 'no avoiding it when something doesn't work
> >> properly' when you are not speaking of any specific problem?
> >
> > You're not pretending that console use in maintaining Linux is
> > unnecessary?
>
> You are not showing ANY examples of when it is.
Feast your eyes:
http://tinyurl.co.uk/f3xk
>
> >> >> >>> So until Linux can cope with and be completely maintained without
> >> >> >>> the command line, it'll just remain another throwback to windows
> >> >> >>> 3.11. without viruses, sorry. Until some ardent linuxers get that
> >> >> >>> through their heads, they'll just hold it back.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>> At
> >> >> >>>> least with Linux, even if you can't get to the GUI, you can do
> >> >> >>>> something to fix it,
> >> >> >>> Quicker to reinstall, or it should be.
> >> >> >> I wouldn't say that, no. Though of course it depends on the
> >> >> >> circumstances. Sometimes things are fixable with a couple of
> >> >> >> commands (like the recent Ubuntu/X.org problem). Reinstalling
> >> >> >> should be a last resort, not a first.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Again you forget that most people are and always will be incapable
> >> >> > or unwilling to do that, they already don't have to.
> >> >> >
> >> >> So, you are saying people should not be using tools they don't know
> >> >> how to use?
> >> >
> >> > I'm saying that anyone who today expects people to use a console
> >> > language to maintain their desktop is deluded and living in the past.
> >> >
> >> Are you slow, stupid or dishonest, or all three?
> >
> > I've got my eyes open.
>
> ... all three.
>
> >
> >
> >> You may now show how desktop users HAVE to use the console.
> >
> > ??? Virtually every time something goes wrong.
>
> You are incorrect.
Try getting it to install the Firefox plugins then, that's not even an
error.
>
> >
> >> Provide
> >> specific examples, if you can.
> >
> > I can do much better than that, I can tell you to never to open a console
> > again, then you'll see for yourself.
>
> I have told you repeatedly that I have not HAD to open a console in a long
> while.
I bet you HAD TO since you installed Suse.
I said in previous posts that Linux is probably fine IF you mange to
get it running (mostly through luck, and through picking the right
distro for your system) and don't touch anything.
What's stopping you from upgrading your Suse to 9.3 to 10.1 btw? Scared
it might break something instead of providing improved functionality?
>
> >> --
> >> Rick
> >> <http://ricks-place.tripod.com/sound/2cents.wav>
>
> .... I see you still can't configure your newsreader.
I have no reason to. Google groups is already configured for taking
part in tens of thousands of usenet groups.
>
> --
> Rick
> <http://ricks-place.tripod.com/sound/2cents.wav>
chrisv
>I did wonder if, like Roytoy & Mark, he is a reverse.advocate planted
>by MS. If anyone was likely to put someone off Linux for life it's
>Peter with his softly, softly Teutonic manners and caring approach to
>noobs with Linux issues.
Gee, that's now at least 4 people you've made that insinuation about,
Quark. Looks like your honesty is at about the same level as is the
average Wintroll's.
Rick
Give specific examples, jerk.
>
>>>
>>>>>>>>> Again I put to you, the vast majority of puter user will NEVER
>>>>>>>>> learn to use a console, especially since this generation of
>>>>>>>>> users have never even seen a console at all, never mind learnt
>>>>>>>>> it's syntax and commands. You want to learn Esperanto to get a
>>>>>>>>> machine running again?
>>>>>>>> It really isn't as obscure as that.
>>>>>>> It's far, far more obscure than Esperanto.
>>>>>> Actually, it isn't.
>>>>> It absolutely is.
>>>> Actually, it isn't.
>>> Of course it is, because even once the command is translated into readable
>>> english, one still has to figure out what it means. You have to consult a
>>> dictionary AND an encyclopedia .
>> No, you don't.
>
> You could of course select one of the various alleged fixes of a
> problem at random and type them in (apparently even cut-paste sometimes
> won't do) and hope you got the right one that won't bugger up something
> else.
Do you enjoy looking stupid?
>
>
>>>>> Even if you manage to decipher the abbreviation/acronym, you then
>>>>> ought to know what it does. People have a life and already don't NEED
>>>>> to do this, get that through your thick skull.
>>>> It seems you are the one with the thick skull.
>>> At least I can figure out why there are so few Linux users.
>> It seems you can't.
>
> No doubt you think it's all because of unfair trade practices that
> freebie OSs can't make headway against the M$ monopoly.
Microsoft's unfair business practices has stifled adoption of other
operating systems and applications.
>
>>>>>>>> But realy, it doesn't matter.
>>>>>>> (to you)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't
>>>>>>>> want Linux to take over the entire world, just gather enough
>>>>>>>> support to make a few tasks easier, and make it slightly less
>>>>>>>> hit-and-miss with hardware.
>>>>>>> Bill loves ya'.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In any case, many config files are plain text, which require far
>>>>>>>> less understanding
>>>>>>> Virtually nobody wants to have to read them, and so don't.
>>>>>> And virtually no one needs to, on the desktop.
>>>>> There's no avoiding it when something doesn't work properly.
>>>> Really? You've spouted of about re-installing. That isn't an option? And
>>>> how do you know there is 'no avoiding it when something doesn't work
>>>> properly' when you are not speaking of any specific problem?
>>> You're not pretending that console use in maintaining Linux is
>>> unnecessary?
>> You are not showing ANY examples of when it is.
>
> Feast your eyes:
> http://tinyurl.co.uk/f3xk
No. YOU give an examples. And AGAIN, I haven't HAD to resort to the
commandline for a long while now. And, BTW, there seem to be instances
where the commandline is required to fix things in windows.
I have never used the command line to install Firefox plugins, and yes,
I do use them.
>
>>>> Provide
>>>> specific examples, if you can.
>>> I can do much better than that, I can tell you to never to open a console
>>> again, then you'll see for yourself.
>> I have told you repeatedly that I have not HAD to open a console in a long
>> while.
>
> I bet you HAD TO since you installed Suse.
You lose your bet.
>
> I said in previous posts that Linux is probably fine IF you mange to
> get it running (mostly through luck, and through picking the right
> distro for your system) and don't touch anything.
>
> What's stopping you from upgrading your Suse to 9.3 to 10.1 btw?
No reason to upgrade. And I don't feel like doing a full /home backup.
The next time I upgrade, I will partition the hard drive so /home is on
a separate partiion. And yes, I will use GUI tools.
> Scared
> it might break something instead of providing improved functionality?
>
>
>>>> --
>>>> Rick
>>>> <http://ricks-place.tripod.com/sound/2cents.wav>
>> .... I see you still can't configure your newsreader.
>
> I have no reason to. Google groups is already configured for taking
> part in tens of thousands of usenet groups.
No.
>
>> --
>> Rick
>> <http://ricks-place.tripod.com/sound/2cents.wav>
>
You have a lousy news reader.
--
Rick
mark...@digiverse.net
I installed a BNC lead and Ubuntu fucked up, I installed a slave drive
and ubuntu crashed, I looked for an app that will do chat+voice+webcam
with MSN and there's no such thing in Linux. I had to install the
Firefox plugins by console. The scanner won't work on my "supported"
multifunction in Suse, in Suse 8.2 it took days of figuring console use
before I even got the printer side of it to work.
>
> >> >> >> But think
> >> >> >> about this: if something breaks your Windows, how do you get it
> >> >> >> back?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I simply reinstall it and the apps. I can't remember the last time
> >> >> > windows broke, it's usually my *hardware* that fails
> >> >> > (memory/mobo/hd) and then any OS should be reinstalled anyway
> >> >> > because it's likely been corrupted. I back anything important onto
> >> >> > CD, other puters or a different HD.
> >> >> >>From what I read the upgrades are just as likely to break Linux, as
> >> >> >>is
> >> >> > installing new hardware and software.
> >> >>
> >> >> Read more up to date stuff.
> >> >
> >> > I read Linux forums. Check out the Suse and Ubuntu ones.
> >>
> >> I sue Suse 9.3.
> >
> > (Bit of a Freudian slip there.)
>
> No, losy typing.
Tell it to console punchers.
>
> > I spent a week arsing with Suse 8.2 and
> > then dumped it, tried 10.1 and dumped it as it became obvious it's just
> > another Linux beta.
>
> Big deal. I dumped OS X and Windows for Linux.
Looking at your email addy I now doubt the veracity of anything you
post.
>
> > Seems they always make the same mistake: Fix some bugs from the last
> > release and then introduce new ones.
>
> Sounds like Apple and Microsoft, too. Ae you too stupid to realize no
> complex software is perfect?
The acid test is on how usable it is.
>
> >
> > Dumped Ubuntu after it started nicely and then fucked up by not detecting
> > a couple of simple hardware changes (BNC monitor lead and slave HD).
>
> why didn't you dump windows when it did the same?
Because It didn't fuck up. In Ubuntu there was no way to change the res
and refresh without a console because the only option left in the GUI
was 640x480 @ 32hz, and remained so after I plugged in the original
lead back in.
Ubuntu locked half way through boot when I plugged in the slave drive
and after I unplugged it.
>
> >
> >
> >> >> > I'm sure that IF someone manages
> >> >> > to get it running and doesn't touch anything it's very stable, but
> >> >> > in the real world people change their setups and attach the latest
> >> >> > gismos (and try to install drivers for them).
> >> >>
> >> >> They do while running Linux, too.
> >> >
> >> > Go check the forums and see what happens and how they're told to fix
> >> > it. Much of the software let loose is beta quality and below.
> >>
> >> Fix what?
> >
> > Pretty much anything that goes wrong.
>
> Like what?
http://tinyurl.co.uk/f3xk
(Also check the Ubuntu beginners forum, it won't load presently though)
> >> >> > Again I put to you, the vast majority of puter user will NEVER
> >> >> > learn to use a console, especially since this generation of users
> >> >> > have never even seen a console at all, never mind learnt it's
> >> >> > syntax and commands. You want to learn Esperanto to get a machine
> >> >> > running again? So until Linux can cope with and be completely
> >> >> > maintained without the command line, it'll just remain another
> >> >> > throwback to windows 3.11. without viruses, sorry. Until some
> >> >> > ardent linuxers get that through their heads, they'll just hold it
> >> >> > back.
> >> >>
> >> >> I don't remember -having- to resort to the command line for a long
> >> >> while now.
> >> >
> >> > Good, things are progressing then, which Distro?
> >>
> >> Suse 9.3
Not upgraded then?
> >>
> >> >> >> At
> >> >> >> least with Linux, even if you can't get to the GUI, you can do
> >> >> >> something to fix it,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Quicker to reinstall, or it should be.
> >> >>
> >> >> It is quicker to reinstall than typing a few commands in a terminal?
> >> >> I doubt that very much.
> >> >
> >> > It sure does if you don't know command language, syntax and what to
> >> > type. I bet even you who already knows Linux spends time looking up
> >> > what to do, and making typos. It's also quite possible to fuck up
> >> > things even more.
> >>
> >> I rarely use the console. When I do, it is almost always simply because
> >> I can use the text commands faster than using the GUI.
> >
> > Stop using them completely and see how long you'll last.
>
> Are you retarded? Again, for the terminally bigoted (you), I have rarely
> HAD to use a console for a long time now.
I'd love to watch you get everything running from Install without a
console.
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >> > Just wondering:
> >> > I don't know if this is possible already but say one has managed to
> >> > get Linux running fine. Is it now possible to quickly save the
> >> > configuration, drivers etc. to a CD (or CDRW) which one could use on
> >> > a full re-install (NOT just a restore)? That could be handy.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> >> and it doesn't always require nearly as much expertise as some
> >> >> >> people claim.
> >> >
> >> > I'm sure people say that about learning chinese too.
> >>
> >> Your knowledge of Linux is extremely outmoded.
> >
> > And I make sure it remains so.
>
> Thanks for admititing how ignorant You are. Now go educate yourself.
No. I refuse to waste more time learning Linux console use on principle
now.
I'm quite happy to just know how to program pic processors in PicBasic.
(Not available in Linux AFAIK, btw.)
>
> > I load a distro, hit a hitch, look for
> > solutions and then wipe it as soon as it's obvious it can't be fixed
> > without typing piles of crap into consoles. I even give it a chance first
> > by typing such loads of crap just to install the Firefox plugins (Ubuntu).
> >
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> --
> >> >> Rick
> >>
> >> Have you considered configuring your newsreader to ignore signatures?
> >
> > Nope. I use google groups. Don't need to install a "newsreader".
>
> You... a bigoted wintroll...
Funny, the main reason I even looked at Linux is to get away from M$,
what makes you think finding Linux even less usable means someone likes
windows, bigot?
Hadron Quark
> mark...@digiverse.net wrote:
>>
>> The majority of them, go and check ANY Linux forum.
>
> Give specific examples, jerk.
>
OK. And this is not even to rescue - its to get a bloody video driver
working. Or not working.
http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=239229
All need "sudo" of course - and god help if you get one of the deletes
slightly wrong.
And whats with the "Jerk"? You have issues Dick.
Rick
Where is the part about the commandline?
> I installed a slave drive and ubuntu crashed,
Where is the part about the commandline?
> I looked for an app that will do chat+voice+webcam
> with MSN and there's no such thing in Linux.
Where is the part about the commandline?
> I had to install the Firefox plugins by console.
Which plugin, and why do you think you need a console?
> The scanner won't work on my "supported"
> multifunction in Suse, in Suse 8.2 it took days of figuring console use
> before I even got the printer side of it to work.
'Maybe' it isn't supported officially in 8.2, maybe you need a higher
version of Suse, or SANE.
>
>>>>>>>> But think
>>>>>>>> about this: if something breaks your Windows, how do you get it
>>>>>>>> back?
>>>>>>> I simply reinstall it and the apps. I can't remember the last time
>>>>>>> windows broke, it's usually my *hardware* that fails
>>>>>>> (memory/mobo/hd) and then any OS should be reinstalled anyway
>>>>>>> because it's likely been corrupted. I back anything important onto
>>>>>>> CD, other puters or a different HD.
>>>>>>> >From what I read the upgrades are just as likely to break Linux, as
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> installing new hardware and software.
>>>>>> Read more up to date stuff.
>>>>> I read Linux forums. Check out the Suse and Ubuntu ones.
>>>> I sue Suse 9.3.
>>> (Bit of a Freudian slip there.)
>> No, losy typing.
>
> Tell it to console punchers.
No, I told you, jerk.
>
>>> I spent a week arsing with Suse 8.2 and
>>> then dumped it, tried 10.1 and dumped it as it became obvious it's just
>>> another Linux beta.
>> Big deal. I dumped OS X and Windows for Linux.
>
> Looking at your email addy I now doubt the veracity of anything you
> post.
I don't care what you doubt. I don't post my real email becasue I don't
want bots collecting it and spamming, which what happened to my main ISP
account.
>
>>> Seems they always make the same mistake: Fix some bugs from the last
>>> release and then introduce new ones.
>> Sounds like Apple and Microsoft, too. Ae you too stupid to realize no
>> complex software is perfect?
>
> The acid test is on how usable it is.
Linux is extremely usable. I use it every day for email, web surfing,
wp, sp, audio capture and editing, CD and DVD creation, to name a few.
>
>>> Dumped Ubuntu after it started nicely and then fucked up by not detecting
>>> a couple of simple hardware changes (BNC monitor lead and slave HD).
>> why didn't you dump windows when it did the same?
>
> Because It didn't fuck up. In Ubuntu there was no way to change the res
> and refresh without a console because the only option left in the GUI
> was 640x480 @ 32hz, and remained so after I plugged in the original
> lead back in.
> Ubuntu locked half way through boot when I plugged in the slave drive
> and after I unplugged it.
It sounds like you are having problems with your version of --Ubuntu--.
Ubuntu != Linux.
>
>>>
>>>>>>> I'm sure that IF someone manages
>>>>>>> to get it running and doesn't touch anything it's very stable, but
>>>>>>> in the real world people change their setups and attach the latest
>>>>>>> gismos (and try to install drivers for them).
>>>>>> They do while running Linux, too.
>>>>> Go check the forums and see what happens and how they're told to fix
>>>>> it. Much of the software let loose is beta quality and below.
>>>> Fix what?
>>> Pretty much anything that goes wrong.
>> Like what?
>
> http://tinyurl.co.uk/f3xk
> (Also check the Ubuntu beginners forum, it won't load presently though)
Ubuntu != Linux.
>
>>>>>>> Again I put to you, the vast majority of puter user will NEVER
>>>>>>> learn to use a console, especially since this generation of users
>>>>>>> have never even seen a console at all, never mind learnt it's
>>>>>>> syntax and commands. You want to learn Esperanto to get a machine
>>>>>>> running again? So until Linux can cope with and be completely
>>>>>>> maintained without the command line, it'll just remain another
>>>>>>> throwback to windows 3.11. without viruses, sorry. Until some
>>>>>>> ardent linuxers get that through their heads, they'll just hold it
>>>>>>> back.
>>>>>> I don't remember -having- to resort to the command line for a long
>>>>>> while now.
>>>>> Good, things are progressing then, which Distro?
>>>> Suse 9.3
>
> Not upgraded then?
No need, at the moment. I tried the last version of PCLinux OS and came
back to Suse 9.3.
>
>>>>>>>> At
>>>>>>>> least with Linux, even if you can't get to the GUI, you can do
>>>>>>>> something to fix it,
>>>>>>> Quicker to reinstall, or it should be.
>>>>>> It is quicker to reinstall than typing a few commands in a terminal?
>>>>>> I doubt that very much.
>>>>> It sure does if you don't know command language, syntax and what to
>>>>> type. I bet even you who already knows Linux spends time looking up
>>>>> what to do, and making typos. It's also quite possible to fuck up
>>>>> things even more.
>>>> I rarely use the console. When I do, it is almost always simply because
>>>> I can use the text commands faster than using the GUI.
>>> Stop using them completely and see how long you'll last.
>> Are you retarded? Again, for the terminally bigoted (you), I have rarely
>> HAD to use a console for a long time now.
>
> I'd love to watch you get everything running from Install without a
> console.
Well, that's what I did when I installed Suse 9.3. Do I use a console?
Yes. Do I HAVE to, no. There are GUI tools, but for some things, for me,
the console is faster.
>
>>>
>>>>> Just wondering:
>>>>> I don't know if this is possible already but say one has managed to
>>>>> get Linux running fine. Is it now possible to quickly save the
>>>>> configuration, drivers etc. to a CD (or CDRW) which one could use on
>>>>> a full re-install (NOT just a restore)? That could be handy.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and it doesn't always require nearly as much expertise as some
>>>>>>>> people claim.
>>>>> I'm sure people say that about learning chinese too.
>>>> Your knowledge of Linux is extremely outmoded.
>>> And I make sure it remains so.
>> Thanks for admititing how ignorant You are. Now go educate yourself.
>
> No. I refuse to waste more time learning Linux console use on principle
> now.
Now you are showing how stupid you are. which is different from ignorant.
> I'm quite happy to just know how to program pic processors in PicBasic.
> (Not available in Linux AFAIK, btw.)
Yes? So?
>
>>> I load a distro, hit a hitch, look for
>>> solutions and then wipe it as soon as it's obvious it can't be fixed
>>> without typing piles of crap into consoles. I even give it a chance first
>>> by typing such loads of crap just to install the Firefox plugins (Ubuntu).
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Rick
>>>> Have you considered configuring your newsreader to ignore signatures?
>>> Nope. I use google groups. Don't need to install a "newsreader".
>> You... a bigoted wintroll...
>
> Funny, the main reason I even looked at Linux is to get away from M$,
> what makes you think finding Linux even less usable means someone likes
> windows, bigot?
Your ststements show your bigotry, ignorance and stupidity.
(snip)
--
Rick
Rick
> Rick <no...@nomail.com> writes:
>
>> mark...@digiverse.net wrote:
>>> The majority of them, go and check ANY Linux forum.
>> Give specific examples, jerk.
>>
>
> OK. And this is not even to rescue - its to get a bloody video driver
> working. Or not working.
>
> http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=239229
>
> All need "sudo" of course - and god help if you get one of the deletes
> slightly wrong.
OK.. so --maybe-- installing a certain video card in a certain version
of Ubuntu might require resorting to the commandline. That doesn't mean
that you (everyone) HAS (all the time) to use the commandline, which is
what is being claimed.
>
> And whats with the "Jerk"?
He's being a jerk.
> You have issues Dick.
I might, but you certainly do, dick.
>
--
Rick
Linonut
> Because they can't and hence don't bother. I'd like to see the
> statistics of how many who try Linux abandon it.
Why does that matter? It is the final sum that matters, and it is
growing.
>> No, it doesn't always require more.
>
> Staying with Linux does.
Not for everybody. I find Linux, for the most part, much easier to use.
Much easier to upgrade.
Much easier to find tools that exactly fit my needs, without nagware.
> Most people don't even know who "GUI" is.
Zoom zoom.
Everyone knows the term GUI these days.
You don't get out much, do you?
--
"Tricorder readings indicate the presence of hot bitches, Captain."
Hadron Quark
But I dont Dick. I have surmountable problems. And if its Linux related,
it invariably needs sudo and the command line to fix it.
Grow up. Live in the real world. Linux is good : but its not God. The
difference is a single "o". Normally as in "o" shit : I need the command
line.
Linonut
Hadron is yet another in a long concatenation of idiots that sally forth
here to sow doubt or discord.
--
Reinvent yourself! -- Bill Gates
Rick
(snip)
>
> But I dont Dick. I have surmountable problems. And if its Linux related,
> it invariably needs sudo and the command line to fix it.
That is an out and out lie, and you know it. Or at least you should.
>
> Grow up. Live in the real world.
I do live in the real world. I use Linux in the real world.
> Linux is good : but its not God.
I never said or implied it was.
> The
> difference is a single "o". Normally as in "o" shit : I need the command
> line.
>
Go educate your self about modern Linux distributions.
--
Rick
mark...@digiverse.net
You just can't handle the fact that Linux can't be installed and
maintained without ever using a console (unless you've been impossibly
lucky). In Ubuntu alone you have to install the Firefox plugins with it
(Unless you want to be stuck with impaired functionality). You yourself
say that you "ALMOST" never have to use a console.
Sure, you don't HAVE to use one if you do very little on your puter and
your hardware happened to work first go. You don't even need an OS at
all if you just use your puter as a fan heater.
>
> > You have issues Dick.
>
> I might, but you certainly do, dick.
Care to list them?
>
> >
>
>
> --
> Rick
tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com
> The assumption here is that desktops as we know them will morph/evolve,
> leaving Open Source in a batter position, owing to modularity.
My worry is that the batter will seep into my keyboard and cause
problems when I'm hacking away at my command like applications...
Sorry, I couldn't resist. ;)
Thad
Hadron Quark
> Hadron Quark wrote:
> (snip)
>>
>> But I dont Dick. I have surmountable problems. And if its Linux related,
>> it invariably needs sudo and the command line to fix it.
>
> That is an out and out lie, and you know it. Or at least you should.
>
>>
>> Grow up. Live in the real world.
>
> I do live in the real world. I use Linux in the real world.
>
Yuo're a fucking idiot and I'm going to killfile you because you're
either as thick as two short planks or a troll and a liar.
>> Linux is good : but its not God.
>
> I never said or implied it was.
>
Sure you didnt.
>> The
>> difference is a single "o". Normally as in "o" shit : I need the command
>> line.
>>
>
> Go educate your self about modern Linux distributions.
>
I use them you condescending prick.
Bottom line : most Linux distros need the command line to fix
installation issues. To deny that is, well, ridiculous.
>
> --
> Rick
--
Hadron Quark
> Roy Schestowitz <newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>> The assumption here is that desktops as we know them will morph/evolve,
>> leaving Open Source in a batter position, owing to modularity.
Modularity? Do you know what that means? OSS SW invariably uses NO
modularity : dont confuse it for copying other peoples code - that is
not modularity.
>
> My worry is that the batter will seep into my keyboard and cause
> problems when I'm hacking away at my command like applications...
>
> Sorry, I couldn't resist. ;)
>
> Thad
>
--
Rick
> Rick <no...@nomail.com> writes:
>
>> Hadron Quark wrote:
>> (snip)
>>> But I dont Dick. I have surmountable problems. And if its Linux related,
>>> it invariably needs sudo and the command line to fix it.
>> That is an out and out lie, and you know it. Or at least you should.
>>
>>> Grow up. Live in the real world.
>> I do live in the real world. I use Linux in the real world.
>>
>
> Yuo're a fucking idiot and I'm going to killfile you because you're
> either as thick as two short planks or a troll and a liar.
... and the Wintroll runs away.
>
>>> Linux is good : but its not God.
>> I never said or implied it was.
>>
>
> Sure you didnt.
I didn't.
>
>>> The
>>> difference is a single "o". Normally as in "o" shit : I need the command
>>> line.
>>>
>> Go educate your self about modern Linux distributions.
>>
>
> I use them you condescending prick.
So do I, you bigoted schmuck.
>
> Bottom line : most Linux distros need the command line to fix
> installation issues. To deny that is, well, ridiculous.
>
Oh, well.
--
Rick
Rick
> Rick wrote:
>> Hadron Quark wrote:
>>> Rick <no...@nomail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> mark...@digiverse.net wrote:
>>>>> The majority of them, go and check ANY Linux forum.
>>>> Give specific examples, jerk.
>>>>
>>> OK. And this is not even to rescue - its to get a bloody video driver
>>> working. Or not working.
>>>
>>> http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=239229
>>>
>>> All need "sudo" of course - and god help if you get one of the deletes
>>> slightly wrong.
>> OK.. so --maybe-- installing a certain video card in a certain version
>> of Ubuntu might require resorting to the commandline. That doesn't mean
>> that you (everyone) HAS (all the time) to use the commandline, which is
>> what is being claimed.
>>
>>> And whats with the "Jerk"?
>> He's being a jerk.
>
> You just can't handle the fact that Linux can't be installed and
> maintained without ever using a console (unless you've been impossibly
> lucky).
I didn't say never. Learn to read.
> In Ubuntu alone you have to install the Firefox plugins with it
Well, you don't have to resort to the command line to install Firefox
plugins in Suse 9.3.
> (Unless you want to be stuck with impaired functionality). You yourself
> say that you "ALMOST" never have to use a console.
I said RARELY. And I don't remember the last time I HAD to resort to the
commandline.
> Sure, you don't HAVE to use one if you do very little on your puter and
> your hardware happened to work first go. You don't even need an OS at
> all if you just use your puter as a fan heater.
Again, go educate yourself about modern distros and GUI tools.
>
>
>>> You have issues Dick.
>> I might, but you certainly do, dick.
>
> Care to list them?
Well, you are woefully ignorant about modern Linux distros, for one, and
you won't learn about them for another.
--
Rick
William Poaster
I see (from a later reply to you) he gives *one* example, took him a while
to find it, eh!
<snip>
>>>>>>>>> But realy, it doesn't matter.
>>>>>>>> (to you)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't
>>>>>>>>> want Linux to take over the entire world, just gather enough
>>>>>>>>> support to make a few tasks easier, and make it slightly less
>>>>>>>>> hit-and-miss with hardware.
>>>>>>>> Bill loves ya'.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In any case, many config files are plain text, which require far
>>>>>>>>> less understanding
>>>>>>>> Virtually nobody wants to have to read them, and so don't.
>>>>>>> And virtually no one needs to, on the desktop.
>>>>>> There's no avoiding it when something doesn't work properly.
>>>>> Really? You've spouted of about re-installing. That isn't an option?
>>>>> And how do you know there is 'no avoiding it when something doesn't
>>>>> work properly' when you are not speaking of any specific problem?
>>>> You're not pretending that console use in maintaining Linux is
>>>> unnecessary?
>>> You are not showing ANY examples of when it is.
>>
>> Feast your eyes:
>> http://tinyurl.co.uk/f3xk
>
> No. YOU give an examples. And AGAIN, I haven't HAD to resort to the
> commandline for a long while now. And, BTW, there seem to be instances
> where the commandline is required to fix things in windows.
Nor have I. I can't recall the last time I had to use a command line.
Nor have I, not in SuSE.
>>>>> Provide
>>>>> specific examples, if you can.
>>>> I can do much better than that, I can tell you to never to open a
>>>> console again, then you'll see for yourself.
>>> I have told you repeatedly that I have not HAD to open a console in a
>>> long while.
>>
>> I bet you HAD TO since you installed Suse.
>
> You lose your bet.
I'll say!
>> I said in previous posts that Linux is probably fine IF you mange to get
>> it running (mostly through luck, and through picking the right distro
>> for your system) and don't touch anything.
>>
>> What's stopping you from upgrading your Suse to 9.3 to 10.1 btw?
>
> No reason to upgrade. And I don't feel like doing a full /home backup. The
> next time I upgrade, I will partition the hard drive so /home is on a
> separate partition. And yes, I will use GUI tools.
All my machines have a separate /home partition, so if I want to upgrade
to a later version, all my original settings, documents & folders are
still intact. :-)
<snip>
--
Linux is not a desktop OS for people
whose VCRs are still flashing "12:00".
That eliminates a lot of wintrolls then.
William Poaster
> Hadron Quark wrote:
> (snip)
>>
>> But I dont Dick. I have surmountable problems. And if its Linux related,
>> it invariably needs sudo and the command line to fix it.
>
> That is an out and out lie, and you know it. Or at least you should.
He doesn't use linux, he only parrots what Redmond has told him to say!
>> Grow up. Live in the real world.
>
> I do live in the real world. I use Linux in the real world.
Which is more than he does.
>> Linux is good : but its not God.
>
> I never said or implied it was.
>
>> The difference is a single "o". Normally as in "o" shit : I need the
>> command line.
>>
> Go educate your self about modern Linux distributions.
He's not intelligent enough to do that.
Mark Kent
Linonut <lin...@bone.com> espoused:
I hope that they get paid enough to make it worth their while; I
certainly wouldn't do what they have to do for free. It must be awful
for them.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
"Nuclear war would really set back cable."
- Ted Turner
mark...@digiverse.net
Well at least someone doesn't have to, provided you're not fibbing.
>
> > Sure, you don't HAVE to use one if you do very little on your puter and
> > your hardware happened to work first go. You don't even need an OS at
> > all if you just use your puter as a fan heater.
>
> Again, go educate yourself about modern distros and GUI tools.
Already did. Tried Suse 10.1 (also 6 and 8.2) and Ubuntu Dapper
(recommended to me on the Suse NG as the most suitable for noobs).
Both were unusable without command line fixes on my mundane spare
socket A system. XP working fine on it, mostly unattended install took
under 3.5 hours including my apps.
>
> >
> >
> >>> You have issues Dick.
> >> I might, but you certainly do, dick.
> >
> > Care to list them?
>
> Well, you are woefully ignorant about modern Linux distros, for one, and
> you won't learn about them for another.
As soon as it becomes obvious that they won't work properly without
fixing stuff in a console, they get wiped now, I don't even bother
wasting any more time on them.
>
>
> --
> Rick
tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com
>
> Modularity? Do you know what that means? OSS SW invariably uses NO
> modularity : dont confuse it for copying other peoples code - that is
> not modularity.
Yes, modularity. Open source software, particularly Linux, tends to
stick with the Unix philosophy of individual, loosely coupled components
intercommunicating via open standards. This is why you can run multiple
window managers and widget sets over X, run multiple shell programs on
ttys, use pipes to tie output from one app to the input for another,
you can replace the mail handler, web server, DB engine, news reader,
web browser, mail client, calendaring agent, or any number of other
components that use standard protocols with another similar component
and not break your system. You can trim your Linux box down to nothing
but a kernel and a single app that runs at boot (I've done that), or load
up to an ultra-desktop that has every open source program known. The
kernel supports loadable modules. Many applications use plugins to
allow for custom skins, visualization modules, or various codecs. Even
user authentication in Linux is done via a replaceable module (PAM).
It's really not surprising when you look at the huge, geographically
distributed groups that work on major open source projects. The only
way to make those sorts of projects work is to design in modularity
from the start, partitioning the work into logical functional groups
with well defined interconnects between them.
In contrast, proprietary software providers often vertically integrate
their offerings, making it more difficult to swap out one component with
a competitor's component.
So, modularity... yeah, we do that. :)
Thad
mark...@digiverse.net
William Poaster wrote:
> This message was posted on Usenet, NOT JLAforums, & on Thu, 31 Aug 2006
> 09:49:27 -0400, Rick wrote:
>
> > Hadron Quark wrote:
> > (snip)
> >>
> >> But I dont Dick. I have surmountable problems. And if its Linux related,
> >> it invariably needs sudo and the command line to fix it.
> >
> > That is an out and out lie, and you know it. Or at least you should.
>
> He doesn't use linux, he only parrots what Redmond has told him to say!
I don't know any "Redmond".
>
> >> Grow up. Live in the real world.
> >
> > I do live in the real world. I use Linux in the real world.
>
> Which is more than he does.
In the real world about 97% don't use Linux on their desktop, and I
learn why every time I try Linux. It's getting better but it's still
not there.
>
> >> Linux is good : but its not God.
> >
> > I never said or implied it was.
> >
> >> The difference is a single "o". Normally as in "o" shit : I need the
> >> command line.
> >>
> > Go educate your self about modern Linux distributions.
>
> He's not intelligent enough to do that.
Wrong. I refuse to use consoles on principle now. They're already
almost extinct on the modern desktop, why regress. I also use a "gas
lighter" (try one!) it sure beats rubbing sticks together.
William Poaster
> Hadron Quark wrote:
>> Rick <no...@nomail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Hadron Quark wrote:
>>> (snip)
>>>> But I dont Dick. I have surmountable problems. And if its Linux
>>>> related, it invariably needs sudo and the command line to fix it.
>>> That is an out and out lie, and you know it. Or at least you should.
>>>
>>>> Grow up. Live in the real world.
>>> I do live in the real world. I use Linux in the real world.
>>>
>>>
>> Yuo're a fucking idiot and I'm going to killfile you because you're
>> either as thick as two short planks or a troll and a liar.
>
> ... and the Wintroll runs away.
Killfiled by the Quack wintroll? You must be doing something right! <grin>
>>>> Linux is good : but its not God.
>>> I never said or implied it was.
>>>
>>>
>> Sure you didnt.
>
> I didn't.
>
>
>>>> The
>>>> difference is a single "o". Normally as in "o" shit : I need the
>>>> command line.
>>>>
>>> Go educate your self about modern Linux distributions.
>>>
>>>
>> I use them you condescending prick.
>
> So do I, you bigoted schmuck.
>
>
>> Bottom line : most Linux distros need the command line to fix
>> installation issues. To deny that is, well, ridiculous.
>>
>>
> Oh, well.
--
Rick
>
> William Poaster wrote:
>> This message was posted on Usenet, NOT JLAforums, & on Thu, 31 Aug 2006
>> 09:49:27 -0400, Rick wrote:
>>
>> > Hadron Quark wrote:
>> > (snip)
>> >>
>> >> But I dont Dick. I have surmountable problems. And if its Linux
>> >> related, it invariably needs sudo and the command line to fix it.
>> >
>> > That is an out and out lie, and you know it. Or at least you should.
>>
>> He doesn't use linux, he only parrots what Redmond has told him to say!
>
> I don't know any "Redmond".
Maybe you should look up where the corporate headquarters is located.
>
>
>> >> Grow up. Live in the real world.
>> >
>> > I do live in the real world. I use Linux in the real world.
>>
>> Which is more than he does.
>
> In the real world about 97% don't use Linux on their desktop, and I learn
> why every time I try Linux. It's getting better but it's still not there.
It's not there for some, it is there for others.
>
>
>> >> Linux is good : but its not God.
>> >
>> > I never said or implied it was.
>> >
>> >> The difference is a single "o". Normally as in "o" shit : I need the
>> >> command line.
>> >>
>> > Go educate your self about modern Linux distributions.
>>
>> He's not intelligent enough to do that.
>
> Wrong. I refuse to use consoles on principle now.
Then you also refuse to use the cmd box in windows.
> They're already almost
> extinct on the modern desktop, why regress.
Which explains why ther eis an ipconfig command in the cmd box of windows.
> I also use a "gas lighter"
> (try one!) it sure beats rubbing sticks together.
then.
Rick
Many people don't HAVE to.
>
>
>> > Sure, you don't HAVE to use one if you do very little on your puter
>> > and your hardware happened to work first go. You don't even need an OS
>> > at all if you just use your puter as a fan heater.
>>
>> Again, go educate yourself about modern distros and GUI tools.
>
> Already did. Tried Suse 10.1 (also 6 and 8.2) and Ubuntu Dapper
> (recommended to me on the Suse NG as the most suitable for noobs). Both
> were unusable without command line fixes on my mundane spare socket A
> system. XP working fine on it, mostly unattended install took under 3.5
> hours including my apps.
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >>> You have issues Dick.
>> >> I might, but you certainly do, dick.
>> >
>> > Care to list them?
>>
>> Well, you are woefully ignorant about modern Linux distros, for one, and
>> you won't learn about them for another.
>
> As soon as it becomes obvious that they won't work properly without fixing
> stuff in a console, they get wiped now, I don't even bother wasting any
> more time on them.
>
So, you don't waste time on windows which, at times, requires the command
line?
mark...@digiverse.net
Yup.
I just use the browse box next to it and click on the appropriate .exe
file now. I can see what else is there at the same time.
>
> > They're already almost
> > extinct on the modern desktop, why regress.
>
> Which explains why ther eis an ipconfig command in the cmd box of windows.
Never needed to use it.
DFS
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 18:03:12 -0400, DFS wrote:
>> Exit totally out of your wm and edit xorg.conf to get mouse-wheel
>> scrolling. Let me know how it goes.
>
> Why should I do that? My mouse wheel has always scrolled.
Pretend it doesn't.
> Why do you think it's hard to log out of the GUI?
Who said that?
I KNEW you would evade the challenge.
William Poaster
> Which explains why there is an ipconfig command in the cmd box of
> windows.
Which all goe s to show just how stupid he is. Even more when he tries to
reply to someone in who's kf he still resides from *last* time the idiot
was in here.
Kier
> Kier wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 18:03:12 -0400, DFS wrote:
>
>>> Exit totally out of your wm and edit xorg.conf to get mouse-wheel
>>> scrolling. Let me know how it goes.
>>
>> Why should I do that? My mouse wheel has always scrolled.
>
> Pretend it doesn't.
Why should I bother?
>
>
>> Why do you think it's hard to log out of the GUI?
>
> Who said that?
If it isn't, why are you making a big deal of it?
>
>
> I KNEW you would evade the challenge.
It was a bullshit challenge.
--
Kier
DFS
'Cause you can't handle it?
And you can't even make up a bullshit evasion.
Kier
I'm not evading. I don't dance to your bullshit tune.
--
Kier
Hadron Quark
> Hadron Quark <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Modularity? Do you know what that means? OSS SW invariably uses NO
>> modularity : dont confuse it for copying other peoples code - that is
>> not modularity.
>
> Yes, modularity. Open source software, particularly Linux, tends to
> stick with the Unix philosophy of individual, loosely coupled components
> intercommunicating via open standards. This is why you can run
> multiple
That is not modularity.
> window managers and widget sets over X, run multiple shell programs on
> ttys, use pipes to tie output from one app to the input for another,
> you can replace the mail handler, web server, DB engine, news reader,
> web browser, mail client, calendaring agent, or any number of other
Neither are they. Maybe its just vocabulary. You seem to know your
stuff, so we'll agree that we mean different things.
> components that use standard protocols with another similar component
> and not break your system. You can trim your Linux box down to nothing
> but a kernel and a single app that runs at boot (I've done that), or load
> up to an ultra-desktop that has every open source program known. The
> kernel supports loadable modules. Many applications use plugins to
> allow for custom skins, visualization modules, or various codecs. Even
> user authentication in Linux is done via a replaceable module (PAM).
>
> It's really not surprising when you look at the huge, geographically
> distributed groups that work on major open source projects. The only
> way to make those sorts of projects work is to design in modularity
> from the start, partitioning the work into logical functional groups
> with well defined interconnects between them.
>
> In contrast, proprietary software providers often vertically integrate
> their offerings, making it more difficult to swap out one component with
> a competitor's component.
>
> So, modularity... yeah, we do that. :)
>
> Thad
>
>
>
--
casioc...@gmail.com
mark...@digiverse.net wrote:
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> > The assumption here is that desktops as we know them will morph/evolve,
> > leaving Open Source in a batter position, owing to modularity.
>
> Until the console becomes unnecessary for Linux use and maintenance,
> it's no more than a wishful pipedream.
>
I hope that day never comes!
I was thinking about it yesterday or the day before. What if all this
drive into making linux newbie friendly leads to a whole GUI tyranny,
somewhat like how Microsoft got rid of DOS, not that DOS is anywhere
near as good as Unix, but still.
I hope the future will be that people will instead realise how all
those menues, icons, checkboxes and et cetera are just stupid over the
long term and care to learn the command line. I also hope that the
command line will evolve in the future to become some sort of AI
intelligent interface, without losing its simple nature.
mark...@digiverse.net
casioc...@gmail.com wrote:
> mark...@digiverse.net wrote:
> > Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> > > The assumption here is that desktops as we know them will morph/evolve,
> > > leaving Open Source in a batter position, owing to modularity.
> >
> > Until the console becomes unnecessary for Linux use and maintenance,
> > it's no more than a wishful pipedream.
> >
>
> I hope that day never comes!
>
> I was thinking about it yesterday or the day before. What if all this
> drive into making linux newbie friendly leads to a whole GUI tyranny,
> somewhat like how Microsoft got rid of DOS, not that DOS is anywhere
> near as good as Unix, but still.
>
> I hope the future will be that people will instead realise how all
> those menues, icons, checkboxes and et cetera are just stupid over the
> long term and care to learn the command line.
Sorry but it's simplicity and ease of use that is the essence of good
design and, after punchcards and patch wires, typing nonsense into a
terminal is the most laborious way of working with a computer.
> I also hope that the
> command line will evolve in the future to become some sort of AI
> intelligent interface, without losing its simple nature.
The command line is not simple, that's why hardly anyone uses it.
Gregory Shearman
>
> Rick wrote:
>> Hadron Quark wrote:
>> > Rick <no...@nomail.com> writes:
>> >
>> >> mark...@digiverse.net wrote:
>> >>> The majority of them, go and check ANY Linux forum.
>> >> Give specific examples, jerk.
>> >>
>> >
>> > OK. And this is not even to rescue - its to get a bloody video driver
>> > working. Or not working.
>> >
>> > http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=239229
>> >
>> > All need "sudo" of course - and god help if you get one of the deletes
>> > slightly wrong.
>>
>> OK.. so --maybe-- installing a certain video card in a certain version
>> of Ubuntu might require resorting to the commandline. That doesn't mean
>> that you (everyone) HAS (all the time) to use the commandline, which is
>> what is being claimed.
>>
>> >
>> > And whats with the "Jerk"?
>>
>> He's being a jerk.
>
> You just can't handle the fact that Linux can't be installed and
> maintained without ever using a console (unless you've been impossibly
> lucky). In Ubuntu alone you have to install the Firefox plugins with it
> (Unless you want to be stuck with impaired functionality). You yourself
> say that you "ALMOST" never have to use a console.
I use the console all the time. I also have a beatiful KDE desktop and 3D
graphics. I use gentoo and it is best installed using a console.
You probably can't handle the fact that you cannot use a console. Sad
really.
Hardware? Buy the right haardware for linux and you never have a problem.
--
Regards,
Gregory.
"Ding-a-ding-dang,My Dang-a-long ling-long"
mark...@digiverse.net
I have no problem programming pic microcontrollers. I have a real life
doing interesting things and I refuse to waste time regressing to an
archaic Dos-like command language.
>
> Hardware? Buy the right haardware for linux and you never have a problem.
Something else that noobes find out after wasting time.....
Gregory Shearman
> I hope the future will be that people will instead realise how all
> those menues, icons, checkboxes and et cetera are just stupid over the
> long term and care to learn the command line. I also hope that the
> command line will evolve in the future to become some sort of AI
> intelligent interface, without losing its simple nature.
$ tail /var/log/messages
How elegant is that? It's beautiful, succinct and almost English....
------------------
Language is what defines human beings. The commandline is language... it
defines humanity...
Tool using??? Point and click??? Chimpanzees can do that.
Gregory Shearman
Then don't... no one is chaining you to enjoy a commandline environment. I
use it because it is an extremely rapid way to configure my computer
workspace.
You don't have to do it. Linux works for me.
>> Hardware? Buy the right haardware for linux and you never have a problem.
>
> Something else that noobes find out after wasting time.....
Mistakes are for newbies to make. That's how important lessons are learned
and sometimes the journey is as enjoyable as the destination.
tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com
>
> Neither are they. Maybe its just vocabulary. You seem to know your
> stuff, so we'll agree that we mean different things.
Well, there is modularity within a single application and modularity
across a suite of applications. I talked mainly about the latter and
touched on the former (which is likely the one you are more interested
in). Modularity within individual programs is not universal in the
open source world and seems rather dependent on the size and popularity
of the application. For example, I've dug around in the source code of
the linux kernel, glibc, and mplayer and found them to be very modular.
The linux kernel is divided into distinct subtrees that are managed by
different groups of people with a well defined internal API for linking
the parts. Drivers are written as independent modules. Glibc is
similarly divided into sections and uses a layered approach to abstract
platform specific issues away from most of the code. Mplayer takes a
similar approach to abstract the encoding/decoding away from the display
and provides a pluggable system for adding codecs and ui components.
I've worked on a fair number of open source and closed source projects
and my gut feeling is that a large open source project will likely
be more modular that a similar sized closed source project if only
because the distributed nature of open source developers forces that
kind of discipline.
Cheers,
Thad
mark...@digiverse.net
OK, never mind. The next hardware I get wil be to run OSx. At least
they understand that a computer is just a fucking box most people have
no interest in learning the workings of.
Hadron Quark
> Hadron Quark <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Neither are they. Maybe its just vocabulary. You seem to know your
>> stuff, so we'll agree that we mean different things.
>
> Well, there is modularity within a single application and modularity
> across a suite of applications. I talked mainly about the latter and
> touched on the former (which is likely the one you are more interested
> in). Modularity within individual programs is not universal in the
> open source world and seems rather dependent on the size and popularity
> of the application. For example, I've dug around in the source code of
> the linux kernel, glibc, and mplayer and found them to be very modular.
> The linux kernel is divided into distinct subtrees that are managed by
> different groups of people with a well defined internal API for linking
> the parts. Drivers are written as independent modules. Glibc is
> similarly divided into sections and uses a layered approach to abstract
> platform specific issues away from most of the code. Mplayer takes a
> similar approach to abstract the encoding/decoding away from the display
> and provides a pluggable system for adding codecs and ui components.
Nearly all this is just best practice for any SW design. Would I call it
modularity. I suppose one could, at a push.
>
> I've worked on a fair number of open source and closed source projects
> and my gut feeling is that a large open source project will likely
> be more modular that a similar sized closed source project if only
> because the distributed nature of open source developers forces that
> kind of discipline.
I would agree to an extent.
At the end of the day, modules are could be either (a) a standalone
physical "executable" module such as a .ko which the kernel loads (b) a project
broken up into "sub modules" of sources with varying accountability and (c)
physical source files which are compiled and lined together to form an
exe/shared library/module.
I havent seen much modularity as I like to think about it in most OSS SW
other than the frameworks such Qt much must be so. And, of course, the kernel.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Thad
>
>
--
Hadron Quark
More fine advocacy from COLA & "Brain the size of a planet" Shearman. People who
like to concentrate on their work rather than memorizing obscure command
line options are "monkeys".
How many bullets can fit into one foot?
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Gregory.
> "Ding-a-ding-dang,My Dang-a-long ling-long"
--
Hadron Quark
Lets try that again:
I havent seen much modularity, as I like to think about it, in most OSS SW
other than the frameworks such as Qt which must be so. And, of course, the
kernel.
>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Thad
>>
>>
>
> --
--
Gregory Shearman
> Gregory Shearman <ZekeG...@netscape.net> writes:
>
>> casioc...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> I hope the future will be that people will instead realise how all
>>> those menues, icons, checkboxes and et cetera are just stupid over the
>>> long term and care to learn the command line. I also hope that the
>>> command line will evolve in the future to become some sort of AI
>>> intelligent interface, without losing its simple nature.
>>
>> $ tail /var/log/messages
>>
>> How elegant is that? It's beautiful, succinct and almost English....
>>
>> ------------------
>>
>> Language is what defines human beings. The commandline is language... it
>> defines humanity...
>>
>> Tool using??? Point and click??? Chimpanzees can do that.
>
> More fine advocacy from COLA & "Brain the size of a planet" Shearman.
> People who like to concentrate on their work rather than memorizing
> obscure command line options are "monkeys".
When commands are memorised you CAN concentrate on your work. Are you
suggesting that learning to navigate a gui is somehow easier than learning
a command or 2?
> How many bullets can fit into one foot?
You tell me.
BTW, my brain's not big, it's just efficient.
Gregory Shearman
>> Mistakes are for newbies to make. That's how important lessons are
>> learned and sometimes the journey is as enjoyable as the destination.
>
> OK, never mind. The next hardware I get wil be to run OSx. At least
> they understand that a computer is just a fucking box most people have
> no interest in learning the workings of.
Fine. Make your mistakes on OSx. It's your choice. If you don't want to do
the legwork to become proficient on Linux then go elsewhere.
William Poaster
02:16:19 +1000, Gregory Shearman wrote:
> mark...@digiverse.net wrote:
>
>>> Mistakes are for newbies to make. That's how important lessons are
>>> learned and sometimes the journey is as enjoyable as the destination.
>>
>> OK, never mind. The next hardware I get wil be to run OSx. At least they
>> understand that a computer is just a fucking box most people have no
>> interest in learning the workings of.
>
> Fine. Make your mistakes on OSx. It's your choice.
Maybe it will come with a spellchecker too.
> If you don't want to do the legwork to become proficient on Linux then
> go elsewhere.
--
mark...@digiverse.net
Gregory Shearman wrote:
> Hadron Quark wrote:
>
> > Gregory Shearman <ZekeG...@netscape.net> writes:
> >
> >> casioc...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >>> I hope the future will be that people will instead realise how all
> >>> those menues, icons, checkboxes and et cetera are just stupid over the
> >>> long term and care to learn the command line. I also hope that the
> >>> command line will evolve in the future to become some sort of AI
> >>> intelligent interface, without losing its simple nature.
> >>
> >> $ tail /var/log/messages
> >>
> >> How elegant is that? It's beautiful, succinct and almost English....
> >>
> >> ------------------
> >>
> >> Language is what defines human beings. The commandline is language... it
> >> defines humanity...
> >>
> >> Tool using??? Point and click??? Chimpanzees can do that.
> >
> > More fine advocacy from COLA & "Brain the size of a planet" Shearman.
> > People who like to concentrate on their work rather than memorizing
> > obscure command line options are "monkeys".
>
> When commands are memorised you CAN concentrate on your work.
(Ich glaube Du bist zu bloed um wie normale Leute denken zu koennen.
Memorise that. )
I doubt you do any work that doesn't have anything to do with software.
> Are you
> suggesting that learning to navigate a gui is somehow easier than learning
> a command or 2?
??? Of course it bloody is! You don't even have to look at the fucking
keyboard, just for a start, it doesn't even need to be in front of you.
Most people can only do one fingered typing. Here in GB half the
university graduates can't even spell properly.
>
> > How many bullets can fit into one foot?
>
> You tell me.
>
> BTW, my brain's not big, it's just efficient.
You don't know the meaning of the word.
mark...@digiverse.net
Gregory Shearman wrote:
> mark...@digiverse.net wrote:
>
> >> Mistakes are for newbies to make. That's how important lessons are
> >> learned and sometimes the journey is as enjoyable as the destination.
> >
> > OK, never mind. The next hardware I get wil be to run OSx. At least
> > they understand that a computer is just a fucking box most people have
> > no interest in learning the workings of.
>
> Fine. Make your mistakes on OSx. It's your choice. If you don't want to do
> the legwork to become proficient on Linux then go elsewhere.
Since you don't want Linux to be usable by anybody but a bunch of
boring admin knerds, virtually everyone who wants to get away from M$
has no other choice but Apple. So fuck you, incompetent twat.
mark...@digiverse.net
William Poaster wrote:
> This message was posted on Usenet, NOT JLAforums, & on Sat, 02 Sep 2006
> 02:16:19 +1000, Gregory Shearman wrote:
>
> > mark...@digiverse.net wrote:
> >
> >>> Mistakes are for newbies to make. That's how important lessons are
> >>> learned and sometimes the journey is as enjoyable as the destination.
> >>
> >> OK, never mind. The next hardware I get wil be to run OSx. At least they
> >> understand that a computer is just a fucking box most people have no
> >> interest in learning the workings of.
> >
> > Fine. Make your mistakes on OSx. It's your choice.
>
> Maybe it will come with a spellchecker too.
Like your Linux kommand kuntsoles do?
Rick
Even with GUIs the 'average users' still don't properly use and maintain
their computers.
mark...@digiverse.net
Exactly.
Linux is fine for the few that want to play with an OS, but until it's
designed for and usable by the masses it simply won't be used by the
masses, end of story.
The weakness of many Linux writers is that they can't/won't put
themselves into the position of those that simply don't care about
what's happening behind the screen.
As soon as stuff they don't want happens on the screen, most people
simply go away and do something else.
(I'm working on the generator part for a small wind turbine presently,
made with old hard drive magnets. Glad I wiped Ubuntu and got on with
that instead of trying to fix another Linux beta.)
>
> --
> Rick
> <http://ricks-place.tripod.com/sound/2cents.wav>
Rick
There is NO OS designed for the masses. AGAIN, try to get Joe Sixpak to
install a store bought version of windows and get everything working.
>
> The weakness of many Linux writers is that they can't/won't put themselves
> into the position of those that simply don't care about what's happening
> behind the screen.
>
> As soon as stuff they don't want happens on the screen, most people simply
> go away and do something else.
... just like windows.
>
> (I'm working on the generator part for a small wind turbine presently,
> made with old hard drive magnets. Glad I wiped Ubuntu and got on with
> that instead of trying to fix another Linux beta.)
You are clueless as to what betas are.
Kier
> Kier does this with every thread where he is challenged to actually
> produce something other than hot air.
Crawl back under your rock, flatty.
>
> Cue poaster etc to start backing up their comrade.
Hope you're not holding your breath, you might die waiting.
--
Kier
mark...@digiverse.net
Sure, Windows and Mac.
> AGAIN, try to get Joe Sixpak to
> install a store bought version of windows and get everything working.
Well they don't need to, the box they buy updates automatically.
The apps they buy or download are nicely presented so they have some
idea of what they're getting and self install and are running in a few
clicks. Most of them have relatively well written help sections.
The hardest thing for them is installing a new gadget.
Not wholly the fault of Linux there are few drivers for it but since a
noob can't even easily find out what does and doesn't work with his
particular version of a particular distro, he'll simply not bother with
Linux at all.
Gadget manufacturers can hardly be expected to test the dozens
(hundreds?) of different Linux distros, releases and configurations and
write drivers suitable for each and all.
>
> >
> > The weakness of many Linux writers is that they can't/won't put themselves
> > into the position of those that simply don't care about what's happening
> > behind the screen.
> >
> > As soon as stuff they don't want happens on the screen, most people simply
> > go away and do something else.
>
> ... just like windows.
They usually get a friend, relation or professional in to check it out
or pop it down to the puter shop, nobody would call in kreepy Linux
knerd, even if they knew one, especially women. If they really try to
fix it themselves it's certainly easier to do than Linux. Stacks of
legible info on the net.
>
> >
> > (I'm working on the generator part for a small wind turbine presently,
> > made with old hard drive magnets. Glad I wiped Ubuntu and got on with
> > that instead of trying to fix another Linux beta.)
>
> You are clueless as to what betas are.
I can build wind turbines, and fully automatic injection moulding
machines, and spark eroders including their electronics, and moulding
tools, all from scratch, amongst other things. I can also invent,
manufacture and market a gadget worldwide and now be semi-retired at
45.
So don't even try to tell me that I don't know what is and isn't fit
for market, epsecially when you can't even give it away.
As for Ubuntu, they're trying but unless something's fixable without a
console (especially since there's no one else to fix it for you) it'll
stay just as niche as the rest of desktop Linux.
Just to make sure again you got that:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
If Joe Sixpack/Bloggs's Linux box goes belly up, there isn't anyone
who'll fix it. If his Windows box breaks, he has loads of choices.
Ergo: For Joe Sixpack/Bloggs's Linux to survive it has to be such a
shit-hot OS that it'll fix itself AND/OR tell him exactly and clearly
which piece of hardware he has to replace and how, never mind not use
consoles.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> --
> Rick
> <http://ricks-place.tripod.com/sound/2cents.wav>
mark...@digiverse.net
markz...@digiverse.net wrote:
> Rick wrote:
> > On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 14:39:44 -0700, markzoom wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Rick wrote:
> > >> On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 02:33:45 -0700, markzoom wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> > casioc...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> >> mark...@digiverse.net wrote:
[snip]
> Just to make sure again you got that:
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> If Joe Sixpack/Bloggs's Linux box goes belly up, there isn't anyone
> who'll fix it. If his Windows box breaks, he has loads of choices.
>
> Ergo: For Joe Sixpack/Bloggs's Linux to survive it has to be such a
> shit-hot OS that it'll fix itself AND/OR tell him exactly and clearly
> which piece of hardware he has to replace and how, never mind not use
> consoles.
>
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
P.S.:
If some of his hardware is not compatible with Linux, he has to be
told automatically (on screen, if it works) which equivalents DO work,
and where he can definately buy them mail order cheap right now. (He's
sure not going to bother checking some hidden distro hardware
compatability database if he can even get online)
Anyone know of a mail order distributor that specialises in JUST
selling guaranteed Linux compatible hardware and peripherals? No? New
business for you! And a small way for a Linux distro to make some money
for advertising. (Nice chance to tell manufacturers you won't stock
their tat unless it's got Linux drivers too)
If Linux does take off like you claim, then manufacturers will $PAY$ to
have their name on the nice-guy list in a distro.
A quick google for "Linux shop" found this dinky and unfortunately
named one top of the list: http://www.geekstop.co.uk/ (the other top
ones mainly do just the CDs)
> > Rick
> > <http://ricks-place.tripod.com/sound/2cents.wav>
Rick
There is no OS that Joe Sixpak can install without help.
>
>> AGAIN, try to get Joe Sixpak to
>> install a store bought version of windows and get everything working.
>
> Well they don't need to,
Doesn't matter..
AGAIN, try to get Joe Sixpak to install a store bought version of windows
and get everything working. WOn't happen. Therefor, the OS is designed for
the masse.
> the box they buy updates automatically. The apps
> they buy or download are nicely presented so they have some idea of what
> they're getting and self install and are running in a few clicks. Most
> of them have relatively well written help sections. The hardest thing
> for them is installing a new gadget. Not wholly the fault of Linux there
> are few drivers for it but since a noob can't even easily find out what
> does and doesn't work with his particular version of a particular
> distro, he'll simply not bother with Linux at all. Gadget manufacturers
> can hardly be expected to test the dozens (hundreds?) of different Linux
> distros, releases and configurations and write drivers suitable for each
> and all.
.. you mean like nVidia?
>>
>>
>> > The weakness of many Linux writers is that they can't/won't put
>> > themselves into the position of those that simply don't care about
>> > what's happening behind the screen.
>> >
>> > As soon as stuff they don't want happens on the screen, most people
>> > simply go away and do something else.
>>
>> ... just like windows.
>
> They usually get a friend, relation or professional in to check it out
> or pop it down to the puter shop, nobody would call in kreepy Linux
> knerd, even if they knew one, especially women. If they really try to
> fix it themselves it's certainly easier to do than Linux. Stacks of
> legible info on the net.
.. and once again you show your stupidity and bigotry.
>
>
>
>> > (I'm working on the generator part for a small wind turbine
>> > presently, made with old hard drive magnets. Glad I wiped Ubuntu
>> > and got on with that instead of trying to fix another Linux beta.)
>>
>> You are clueless as to what betas are.
>
> I can build wind turbines, and fully automatic injection moulding
> machines, and spark eroders including their electronics, and moulding
> tools, all from scratch, amongst other things.
So what?
> I can also invent,
> manufacture and market a gadget worldwide and now be semi-retired at 45.
> So don't even try to tell me that I don't know what is and isn't fit for
> market, epsecially when you can't even give it away.
It's not our fault you can't give your stuff away.
>
> As for Ubuntu, they're trying but unless something's fixable without a
> console (especially since there's no one else to fix it for you) it'll
> stay just as niche as the rest of desktop Linux.
Look, jerk. Get off the console kick. It jsut shows how cluesless you are.
>
> Just to make sure again you got that:
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> If Joe Sixpack/Bloggs's Linux box goes belly up, there isn't anyone
> who'll fix it.
That's a lie.
> If his Windows box breaks, he has loads of choices.
... and none of them are him fixing his box.
>
> Ergo: For Joe Sixpack/Bloggs's Linux to survive it has to be such a
> shit-hot OS that it'll fix itself AND/OR tell him exactly and clearly
> which piece of hardware he has to replace and how, never mind not use
> consoles.
Why don't find a nice console TV and shove it up your ...
>
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>> --
>> Rick
>> <http://ricks-place.tripod.com/sound/2cents.wav>
^^^^^ I see you are still too stupid to configure software.
mark...@digiverse.net
Some of his slightly more capable chums can though.
>
> >
> >> AGAIN, try to get Joe Sixpak to
> >> install a store bought version of windows and get everything working.
> >
> > Well they don't need to,
>
> Doesn't matter..
> AGAIN, try to get Joe Sixpak to install a store bought version of windows
> and get everything working. WOn't happen. Therefor, the OS is designed for
> the masse.
>
> > the box they buy updates automatically. The apps
> > they buy or download are nicely presented so they have some idea of what
> > they're getting and self install and are running in a few clicks. Most
> > of them have relatively well written help sections. The hardest thing
> > for them is installing a new gadget. Not wholly the fault of Linux there
> > are few drivers for it but since a noob can't even easily find out what
> > does and doesn't work with his particular version of a particular
> > distro, he'll simply not bother with Linux at all. Gadget manufacturers
> > can hardly be expected to test the dozens (hundreds?) of different Linux
> > distros, releases and configurations and write drivers suitable for each
> > and all.
>
> .. you mean like nVidia?
I may be wrong but I think they design their cards for their fairly
universal drivers, not the other way around. In any case there is still
the occasional problem under Linux.
>
> >>
> >>
> >> > The weakness of many Linux writers is that they can't/won't put
> >> > themselves into the position of those that simply don't care about
> >> > what's happening behind the screen.
> >> >
> >> > As soon as stuff they don't want happens on the screen, most people
> >> > simply go away and do something else.
> >>
> >> ... just like windows.
> >
> > They usually get a friend, relation or professional in to check it out
> > or pop it down to the puter shop, nobody would call in a kreepy Linux
> > knerd, even if they knew one, especially women. If they really try to
> > fix it themselves it's certainly easier to do than Linux. Stacks of
> > legible info on the net.
>
> .. and once again you show your stupidity and bigotry.
And once again you fail to face reality . Only about 3% of Linux users
are said to be female, that means hardly any women even use Linux at
all. Figure the reasons.
> >> > (I'm working on the generator part for a small wind turbine
> >> > presently, made with old hard drive magnets. Glad I wiped Ubuntu
> >> > and got on with that instead of trying to fix another Linux beta.)
> >>
> >> You are clueless as to what betas are.
> >
> > I can build wind turbines, and fully automatic injection moulding
> > machines, and spark eroders including their electronics, and moulding
> > tools, all from scratch, amongst other things.
>
> So what?
I'm not half as clueless as you wish, "stupid bigot".
>
> > I can also invent,
> > manufacture and market a gadget worldwide and now be semi-retired at 45.
> > So don't even try to tell me that I don't know what is and isn't fit for
> > market, epsecially when you can't even give it away.
>
> It's not our fault you can't give your stuff away.
Hehehe, loser. My stuff sells fine, it's Linux that can't be given
away.
>
> >
> > As for Ubuntu, they're trying but unless something's fixable without a
> > console (especially since there's no one else to fix it for you) it'll
> > stay just as niche as the rest of desktop Linux.
>
> Look, jerk. Get off the console kick. It jsut shows how cluesless you are.
>
> >
> > Just to make sure again you got that:
> > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > If Joe Sixpack/Bloggs's Linux box goes belly up, there isn't anyone
> > who'll fix it.
>
> That's a lie.
No Lie. Joe doesn't know anyone who would fix his Linux box. Chances
are however he can get someone to put windows back on it.
>
> > If his Windows box breaks, he has loads of choices.
>
> ... and none of them are him fixing his box.
Him going to get it fixed is "him fixing it". He won't be able to find
anyone to fix a Linux box for him.
>
> >
> > Ergo: For Joe Sixpack/Bloggs's Linux to survive it has to be such a
> > shit-hot OS that it'll fix itself AND/OR tell him exactly and clearly
> > which piece of hardware he has to replace and how, never mind not use
> > consoles.
>
> Why don't find a nice console TV and shove it up your ...
Hehehe, yes, Joe Sixpack needs an OS that's as easy to use as a TV, he
can barely use windows.
>
> >
> > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >
> >> --
> >> Rick
> >> <http://ricks-place.tripod.com/sound/2cents.wav>
>
> ^^^^^ I see you are still too stupid to configure software.
I don't bother, I use google groups, Dipstick. You should be grateful I
didn't snip it.
>
> --
> Rick
> <http://ricks-place.tripod.com/sound/2cents.wav>
Rick
If they are capable of properly installing windows, they are capable of
installing linux.
>
>
>>
>> >> AGAIN, try to get Joe Sixpak to
>> >> install a store bought version of windows and get everything working.
>> >
>> > Well they don't need to,
>>
>> Doesn't matter..
>> AGAIN, try to get Joe Sixpak to install a store bought version of
>> windows and get everything working. WOn't happen. Therefor, the OS is
>> designed for the masse.
>>
>> > the box they buy updates automatically. The apps they buy or download
>> > are nicely presented so they have some idea of what they're getting
>> > and self install and are running in a few clicks. Most of them have
>> > relatively well written help sections. The hardest thing for them is
>> > installing a new gadget. Not wholly the fault of Linux there are few
>> > drivers for it but since a noob can't even easily find out what does
>> > and doesn't work with his particular version of a particular distro,
>> > he'll simply not bother with Linux at all. Gadget manufacturers can
>> > hardly be expected to test the dozens (hundreds?) of different Linux
>> > distros, releases and configurations and write drivers suitable for
>> > each and all.
>>
>> .. you mean like nVidia?
>
> I may be wrong but I think they design their cards for their fairly
> universal drivers, not the other way around. In any case there is still
> the occasional problem under Linux.
There is still the occasional problem under windows.
>> >>
>> >> > The weakness of many Linux writers is that they can't/won't put
>> >> > themselves into the position of those that simply don't care about
>> >> > what's happening behind the screen.
>> >> >
>> >> > As soon as stuff they don't want happens on the screen, most people
>> >> > simply go away and do something else.
>> >>
>> >> ... just like windows.
>> >
>> > They usually get a friend, relation or professional in to check it out
>> > or pop it down to the puter shop, nobody would call in a kreepy Linux
>> > knerd, even if they knew one, especially women. If they really try to
>> > fix it themselves it's certainly easier to do than Linux. Stacks of
>> > legible info on the net.
>>
>> .. and once again you show your stupidity and bigotry.
>
> And once again you fail to face reality .
Once again yo show you have no concept of reality.
> Only about 3% of Linux users are
> said to be female, that means hardly any women even use Linux at all.
> Figure the reasons.
.. and once again you show your stupidity and bigotry.
>
>
>> >> > (I'm working on the generator part for a small wind turbine
>> >> > presently, made with old hard drive magnets. Glad I wiped Ubuntu
>> >> > and got on with that instead of trying to fix another Linux beta.)
>> >>
>> >> You are clueless as to what betas are.
>> >
>> > I can build wind turbines, and fully automatic injection moulding
>> > machines, and spark eroders including their electronics, and moulding
>> > tools, all from scratch, amongst other things.
>>
>> So what?
>
> I'm not half as clueless as you wish, "stupid bigot".
You are probably many more times as clueless as I think, stupid bigot.
>
>
>> > I can also invent,
>> > manufacture and market a gadget worldwide and now be semi-retired at
>> > 45. So don't even try to tell me that I don't know what is and isn't
>> > fit for market, epsecially when you can't even give it away.
>>
>> It's not our fault you can't give your stuff away.
>
> Hehehe, loser. My stuff sells fine, it's Linux that can't be given away.
>
Hehehe, liar. Not only can it be given away, people buy it.
>
>>
>> > As for Ubuntu, they're trying but unless something's fixable without a
>> > console (especially since there's no one else to fix it for you) it'll
>> > stay just as niche as the rest of desktop Linux.
>>
>> Look, jerk. Get off the console kick. It just shows how clueless you
>> are.
>>
>>
>> > Just to make sure again you got that:
>> > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >
>> > If Joe Sixpack/Bloggs's Linux box goes belly up, there isn't anyone
>> > who'll fix it.
>>
>> That's a lie.
>
> No Lie. Joe doesn't know anyone who would fix his Linux box.
You don't know that.
> Chances are however he can get someone to put windows back on it.
If that person can properly put windows back on, that person is capable of
putting Linux back on.
>
>
>> > If his Windows box breaks, he has loads of choices.
>>
>> ... and none of them are him fixing his box.
>
> Him going to get it fixed is "him fixing it".
No, it isn't.
> He won't be able to find anyone to fix a Linux box for him.
You want that to be true. You need it to be true, but you have no idea if
it is remotely true.
>> > Ergo: For Joe Sixpack/Bloggs's Linux to survive it has to be such a
>> > shit-hot OS that it'll fix itself AND/OR tell him exactly and clearly
>> > which piece of hardware he has to replace and how, never mind not use
>> > consoles.
>>
>> Why don't find a nice console TV and shove it up your ...
>
> Hehehe, yes, Joe Sixpack needs an OS that's as easy to use as a TV, he can
> barely use windows.
... except Joe Sixpak is not capable of --maintaining-- windows properly,
which IS part of using it. And Joe Sixpak probably isn't capable of fully
utilizing moder TVs, just as he isn't capable of fuly utilizing modern
DVRs, VCRs and stereos.
>
>
>>
>> > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >
>> >
>> >> --
>> >> Rick
>> >> <http://ricks-place.tripod.com/sound/2cents.wav>
>>
>> ^^^^^ I see you are still too stupid to configure software.
>
> I don't bother, I use google groups, Dipstick. You should be grateful I
> didn't snip it.
Why do you trumpet your stupidity? sigs are SUPPOSED to be sniped in
replies, idiot.
(snip)
--
Rick
<http://ricks-place.tripod.com/sound/2cents.wav>
Linonut
>> Are you
>> suggesting that learning to navigate a gui is somehow easier than learning
>> a command or 2?
>
> ??? Of course it bloody is! You don't even have to look at the fucking
> keyboard, just for a start, it doesn't even need to be in front of you.
> Most people can only do one fingered typing. Here in GB half the
> university graduates can't even spell properly.
Every proficient computer user I've ever known could type as fast as
hell.
DFS
You just about have to be a touch typist to be a proficient programmer.
John A. Bailo
> You just about have to be a touch typist to be a proficient programmer.
How much CICS do you know?
Any DB2 experience? or RPG?
IBM is recruiting more people to man it's massive i5 rollout.
--
Texeme Construct
DFS
Is it over? Did i5 win?
mark...@digiverse.net
Not on the scale there is in Linux.
>
> >> >>
> >> >> > The weakness of many Linux writers is that they can't/won't put
> >> >> > themselves into the position of those that simply don't care about
> >> >> > what's happening behind the screen.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > As soon as stuff they don't want happens on the screen, most people
> >> >> > simply go away and do something else.
> >> >>
> >> >> ... just like windows.
> >> >
> >> > They usually get a friend, relation or professional in to check it out
> >> > or pop it down to the puter shop, nobody would call in a kreepy Linux
> >> > knerd, even if they knew one, especially women. If they really try to
> >> > fix it themselves it's certainly easier to do than Linux. Stacks of
> >> > legible info on the net.
> >>
> >> .. and once again you show your stupidity and bigotry.
> >
> > And once again you fail to face reality .
>
> Once again yo show you have no concept of reality.
Enlighten us with your little "reality" then.
>
> > Only about 3% of Linux users are
> > said to be female, that means hardly any women even use Linux at all.
> > Figure the reasons.
>
> .. and once again you show your stupidity and bigotry.
???
Explain to us how showing that virtually no women use Linux is "stupid
and bigoted" .
>
> >
> >
> >> >> > (I'm working on the generator part for a small wind turbine
> >> >> > presently, made with old hard drive magnets. Glad I wiped Ubuntu
> >> >> > and got on with that instead of trying to fix another Linux beta.)
> >> >>
> >> >> You are clueless as to what betas are.
> >> >
> >> > I can build wind turbines, and fully automatic injection moulding
> >> > machines, and spark eroders including their electronics, and moulding
> >> > tools, all from scratch, amongst other things.
> >>
> >> So what?
> >
> > I'm not half as clueless as you wish, "stupid bigot".
>
> You are probably many more times as clueless as I think, stupid bigot.
You've aready shown that you have trouble thinking at all, which is why
you don't tackle the content of posts, like the reality that virtually
no women use Linux.
So why do you think women don't use it?
> >> > I can also invent,
> >> > manufacture and market a gadget worldwide and now be semi-retired at
> >> > 45. So don't even try to tell me that I don't know what is and isn't
> >> > fit for market, epsecially when you can't even give it away.
> >>
> >> It's not our fault you can't give your stuff away.
> >
> > Hehehe, loser. My stuff sells fine, it's Linux that can't be given away.
> >
>
> Hehehe, liar. Not only can it be given away, people buy it.
Bwahahah! What was it again, 2%?
>
> >
> >>
> >> > As for Ubuntu, they're trying but unless something's fixable without a
> >> > console (especially since there's no one else to fix it for you) it'll
> >> > stay just as niche as the rest of desktop Linux.
> >>
> >> Look, jerk. Get off the console kick. It just shows how clueless you
> >> are.
> >>
> >>
> >> > Just to make sure again you got that:
> >> > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> >
> >> > If Joe Sixpack/Bloggs's Linux box goes belly up, there isn't anyone
> >> > who'll fix it.
> >>
> >> That's a lie.
> >
> > No Lie. Joe doesn't know anyone who would fix his Linux box.
>
> You don't know that.
Quite apart from actual meeting enough people (go try that) none of
whom use Linux, the statistics speak for themselves.
>
> > Chances are however he can get someone to put windows back on it.
>
> If that person can properly put windows back on, that person is capable of
> putting Linux back on.
Your assertion is a lie.
> >> > If his Windows box breaks, he has loads of choices.
> >>
> >> ... and none of them are him fixing his box.
> >
> > Him going to get it fixed is "him fixing it".
>
> No, it isn't.
Linux doesn't get fixed either way.
>
> > He won't be able to find anyone to fix a Linux box for him.
>
> You want that to be true. You need it to be true, but you have no idea if
> it is remotely true.
Not only do I know, but I'm also able to apply basic statistics and
demographics.
You seem to have difficulty just handling the fact that almost no
female computer users use Linux.
>
> >> > Ergo: For Joe Sixpack/Bloggs's Linux to survive it has to be such a
> >> > shit-hot OS that it'll fix itself AND/OR tell him exactly and clearly
> >> > which piece of hardware he has to replace and how, never mind not use
> >> > consoles.
> >>
> >> Why don't find a nice console TV and shove it up your ...
> >
> > Hehehe, yes, Joe Sixpack needs an OS that's as easy to use as a TV, he can
> > barely use windows.
>
> ... except Joe Sixpak is not capable of --maintaining-- windows properly,
> which IS part of using it.
IOW he's got no chance with Linux at all. The moment something goes
wrong it's the end of Linux on his box.
> And Joe Sixpak probably isn't capable of fully
> utilizing moder TVs, just as he isn't capable of fuly utilizing modern
> DVRs, VCRs and stereos.
He's quite capable of that, and using games consoles.
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >> > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> --
> >> >> Rick
> >> >> <http://ricks-place.tripod.com/sound/2cents.wav>
> >>
> >> ^^^^^ I see you are still too stupid to configure software.
> >
> > I don't bother, I use google groups, Dipstick. You should be grateful I
> > didn't snip it.
>
> Why do you trumpet your stupidity? sigs are SUPPOSED to be sniped in
> replies, idiot.
You don't even get around usenet much, do you.
Here's your sig twice, so you can tear your hair out if you have any
left.
> --
> Rick
> <http://ricks-place.tripod.com/sound/2cents.wav>
mark...@digiverse.net
Quite likely. Of course it hasn't crossed their narrow mind that most
people don't.
Mark Kent
Linonut <lin...@bone.com> espoused:
Quite - I can type very well, and never look at the keyboard because I
don't need to. A mouse is a nightmare, of course, as it takes your
hands off the keyboard, so you have to look again, or at the very least,
feel for the home keys to get back again - an amazing waste of time. I
guess Microsoft users have to learn to live with this. Must be awful.
If you want really efficient user access, then linux is certainly your
friend.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
I hate babies. They're so human.
-- H.H. Munro
Linonut
>> Every proficient computer user I've ever known could type as fast as
>> hell.
>
> Quite likely. Of course it hasn't crossed their narrow mind that most
> people don't.
That's why there's tab completion, the history command, and the bang (!)
operator.
readline() rocks so much I can't even blame Stallman for fully GPL'ing
this library item.
--
...and that is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped.