Re: The PC industry is heading for collapse

[Gene Wirchenko]

On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 15:36:31 -0600, JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet>
wrote:

[snip]

> So there isn't an easy peasy spoon fed version for you.
>
> That's a packaging problem.

Also, PR. You mention the point in denigrating language. I and
others do not want to jump through hoops to use software. Chris
Condon stated it very well in
http://dumbentia.com/pdflib/moregeeky.pdf

> If you were able to get past the "difficulty" of compiling it
>yourself, you could be the one to provide it for everyone else.
>There might even be a bleeding edge PPA already available for this
>app.

*If*.

He described going through a long seqeuence and it still failing.
What a waste of time.

Maybe. If one does not know about it -- and you apparently do
not either -- it is of no benefit.

> None of that really has anything to do with "DLL Hell" though.

It has plenty. Both are nasty situations. DLL Hell seems to be
less of a problem.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[JEDIDIAH]

On 2012-01-24, Gene Wirchenko <ge...@ocis.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 15:36:31 -0600, JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet>
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> So there isn't an easy peasy spoon fed version for you.
>>
>> That's a packaging problem.
>
> Also, PR. You mention the point in denigrating language. I and
> others do not want to jump through hoops to use software. Chris

Building your own source isn't that hard really.

It's just "intimidating".

You're either motivated or not. If you "can't be bothered", then
the "denigrating rhetoric" is entirely appropriate. You are unwilling
to bother. You could even be a bit of a local hero if you chose to be.
It's not that hard.

You just have to bother.

[deletia]

Although chances are that this thing already has that PPA. If your
whining is terribly relevant, the "problem" is probably already solved.

--

It is not true that Microsoft doesn't innovate.

They brought us the email virus.

In my Atari days, such a notion would have |||
been considered a complete absurdity. / | \

[J G Miller]

On Tuesday, January 24th, 2012, 10:11:50 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote:

> Building your own source isn't that hard really.

True.

> It's just "intimidating".

It is the downloading all of the development packages that are needed,
and possibly custom building from source more up to date library
packages that is the more daunting task.

But once you have done it once, and hopefully set up shell scripts
to automate the process of detar, compile, build, install, and stow,
then building the latest version from source (as it is released)
becomes rather easy.

> You're either motivated or not.

That is indeed the root of the problem -- most people cannot be "bothered".

[JEDIDIAH]

On 2012-01-24, J G Miller <mil...@yoyo.ORG> wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 24th, 2012, 10:11:50 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
>> Building your own source isn't that hard really.
>
> True.
>
>> It's just "intimidating".
>
> It is the downloading all of the development packages that are needed,

apt-get install <what-configure-just-bombed-on>.*dev

Repeat as needed until configure stops complaining.

[deletia]

It works pretty well for this particular app.

--
Apple: because TRANS.TBL is an mp3 file. It really is! |||
/ | \

[J G Miller]

On Tuesday, January 24th, 2012, at 12:30:32h -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote:

> On 2012-01-24, J G Miller <mil...@yoyo.ORG> wrote:
>> On Tuesday, January 24th, 2012, 10:11:50 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>

>> It is the downloading all of the development packages that are needed,
>
> apt-get install <what-configure-just-bombed-on>.*dev

Done that many times. But for the newbie it can be intimidating.

Best to have installed apt-file, so that one can do

apt-file search library/header_file.h

to get the name of the development package,

since the usual error message from the (pre)compiler is

cannot find file library/header_file.h included in file ...

and often times one needs to do

apt-get install sometimes_not_the_generic_library_name-{some_Debian_number}-dev

> It works pretty well for this particular app.

Yes and once you have the dev files installed, future revisions
usually can be compiled without any further dev package installations
because apt-get upgrade takes care of keeping them up to date.

Talking of custom version software, for those that are interested,
Clementine 1.0.1 was released late last month.

[Gene Wirchenko]

On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 10:11:50 -0600, JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet>
wrote:

>On 2012-01-24, Gene Wirchenko <ge...@ocis.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 15:36:31 -0600, JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet>
>> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> So there isn't an easy peasy spoon fed version for you.
>>>
>>> That's a packaging problem.
>>
>> Also, PR. You mention the point in denigrating language. I and
>> others do not want to jump through hoops to use software. Chris
>
> Building your own source isn't that hard really.
>
> It's just "intimidating".
>
> You're either motivated or not. If you "can't be bothered", then
>the "denigrating rhetoric" is entirely appropriate. You are unwilling
>to bother. You could even be a bit of a local hero if you chose to be.
>It's not that hard.
>
> You just have to bother.

What was described was not a simple process, nor did it work.

>[deletia]
>
> Although chances are that this thing already has that PPA. If your
>whining is terribly relevant, the "problem" is probably already solved.

This attitude costs LINUX considerably. I do not want to
associate with someone who when I bring up an issue about a program
not working automatically calls it whining.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[JEDIDIAH]

On 2012-01-24, J G Miller <mil...@yoyo.ORG> wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 24th, 2012, at 12:30:32h -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
>> On 2012-01-24, J G Miller <mil...@yoyo.ORG> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, January 24th, 2012, 10:11:50 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>>
>
>>> It is the downloading all of the development packages that are needed,
>>
>> apt-get install <what-configure-just-bombed-on>.*dev
>
> Done that many times. But for the newbie it can be intimidating.

The main thing is being willing to explore and experiment.

The nature of the UI really doesn't matter. The same mental block
will also cause GUIs to be less than useful.

>
> Best to have installed apt-file, so that one can do
>
> apt-file search library/header_file.h
>
> to get the name of the development package,
>
> since the usual error message from the (pre)compiler is
>
> cannot find file library/header_file.h included in file ...

That's only the case if the developer didn't bother with a good
configure script. Even then, the header file usually has the same
name as the relevant library. Also great for feeding the package
manager (with wildcards).

>
> and often times one needs to do
>
> apt-get install sometimes_not_the_generic_library_name-{some_Debian_number}-dev

If you run into a strange corner case, there's also Google. You don't
even have to know the distro tools that well.

>
>> It works pretty well for this particular app.
>
> Yes and once you have the dev files installed, future revisions
> usually can be compiled without any further dev package installations
> because apt-get upgrade takes care of keeping them up to date.
>
> Talking of custom version software, for those that are interested,
> Clementine 1.0.1 was released late last month.

[John Hasler]

Gene Wirchenko writes:
> This attitude costs LINUX considerably.

You evidently labor under the delusion that LINUX is some sort of a
business entity with costs and revenues and a mandate for growth.

It isn't. Your complaints are not going to cause the sales department
to become concerned about the loss of customers. It is just going to
cause people to killfile you. You see, we don't actually care whether
or not you use Linux.

> I do not want to associate with someone who when I bring up an issue
> about a program not working automatically calls it whining.

If you have a question ask it. If you see something you think needs
doing do it.
--
John Hasler
jha...@newsguy.com
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA

[The Natural Philosopher]

Gene Wirchenko wrote:

>
> This attitude costs LINUX considerably.

How can it cost linux considerably when Linux is no a company and has
never made a cent out of anything?

[JEDIDIAH]

On 2012-01-24, Gene Wirchenko <ge...@ocis.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 10:11:50 -0600, JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet>
> wrote:
>
>>On 2012-01-24, Gene Wirchenko <ge...@ocis.net> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 15:36:31 -0600, JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>> So there isn't an easy peasy spoon fed version for you.
>>>>
>>>> That's a packaging problem.
>>>
>>> Also, PR. You mention the point in denigrating language. I and
>>> others do not want to jump through hoops to use software. Chris
>>
>> Building your own source isn't that hard really.
>>
>> It's just "intimidating".
>>
>> You're either motivated or not. If you "can't be bothered", then
>>the "denigrating rhetoric" is entirely appropriate. You are unwilling
>>to bother. You could even be a bit of a local hero if you chose to be.
>>It's not that hard.
>>
>> You just have to bother.
>
> What was described was not a simple process, nor did it work.

Run the usual build commands.

Resolve dependencies with your package manager.

Both of those are very effectively automated if the developer made a
good build script and the developer did just that in this instance. I had
this thing built within 10 minutes of it occuring to me to try.

>
>>[deletia]
>>
>> Although chances are that this thing already has that PPA. If your
>>whining is terribly relevant, the "problem" is probably already solved.
>
> This attitude costs LINUX considerably. I do not want to

What? That Linux won't be considered the default option for helpless
idiots? That's not such a problem really.

[deletia]

The value of Linux is that it provides powerful tools. It's not some
canned product. Encouraging people to think of it as such is not ultimately
productive. When it comes to packaging, individual developers that are
giving you something for free don't have to pander to you in particular.
Someone else can do that final bit.

It's Free Software. YOU could even be the person that does that part.

A far better criticism would be that not enough people are "stepping up".

[Rod Speed]

JEDIDIAH wrote
> Gene Wirchenko <ge...@ocis.net> wrote
>> JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote
>>> Gene Wirchenko <ge...@ocis.net> wrote
>>>> JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote

>>>>> So there isn't an easy peasy spoon fed version for you.

It clearly wasnt that easy to go further than that either.

>>>>> That's a packaging problem.

>>>> Also, PR. You mention the point in denigrating language. I and
>>>> others do not want to jump through hoops to use software.

>>> Building your own source isn't that hard really.

>>> It's just "intimidating".

Its clearly more than that for the OP.

>>> You're either motivated or not.

The OP clearly is motivated. And failed anyway.

>>> If you "can't be bothered",

The OP clearly can be.

>>> then the "denigrating rhetoric" is entirely appropriate. You are unwilling to bother.

The OP clearly is.

>>> You could even be a bit of a local hero if you chose to be. It's not that hard.

>>> You just have to bother.

The OP clearly did, for days.

>> What was described was not a simple process, nor did it work.

> Run the usual build commands.

> Resolve dependencies with your package manager.

> Both of those are very effectively automated if the developer made
> a good build script and the developer did just that in this instance.

Clearly didnt work for the OP.

> I had this thing built within 10 minutes of it occuring to me to try.

Bet it wasnt with what the OP started with.

>>> Although chances are that this thing already has that PPA. If your
>>> whining is terribly relevant, the "problem" is probably already solved.

>> This attitude costs LINUX considerably.

> What? That Linux won't be considered the default option for helpless idiots?

The OP is nothing of the sort.

> That's not such a problem really.

> [deletia]

> The value of Linux is that it provides powerful tools. It's not some canned product.

The OP never expected it to be. He failed anyway.

> Encouraging people to think of it as such is not ultimately productive.
> When it comes to packaging, individual developers that are giving you
> something for free don't have to pander to you in particular. Someone
> else can do that final bit.

> It's Free Software. YOU could even be the person that does that part.

It shouldnt be necessary if it is properly implemented.

> A far better criticism would be that not enough people are "stepping up".

Nope, it would be much better if they didnt have to do that.

[Peter Flass]

On 1/24/2012 4:04 PM, John Hasler wrote:
> Gene Wirchenko writes:
>> This attitude costs LINUX considerably.
>
> You evidently labor under the delusion that LINUX is some sort of a
> business entity with costs and revenues and a mandate for growth.

I think those of us who like Linux and/or hate microsoft, often the same
people, would like to see Linux grow and become more mainstream. If
someone has a complaint or criticism, it would be wise to at least
understand what they're complaining about.

>
> It isn't. Your complaints are not going to cause the sales department
> to become concerned about the loss of customers. It is just going to
> cause people to killfile you. You see, we don't actually care whether
> or not you use Linux.

Which is unfortunately why most statistics I've seen show Linux stuck at
around 1% while Mac OS has *grown* more than that in a year.

>
>> I do not want to associate with someone who when I bring up an issue
>> about a program not working automatically calls it whining.
>
> If you have a question ask it. If you see something you think needs
> doing do it.

First of all, many people have other things to do than muck with
operating systems. I like to play, and have built a kernel or two, but
my time is too valuable to spend re-inventing the wheel. Second, lots
and lots of people have no interest or ability in that direction, and it
would be nice to get them onboard too.

[Peter Flass]

On 1/24/2012 5:48 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:

This is x-posted to comp.os.linux.setup. It appears that a lot of
people there are zealots and don't want to listen to anyone who isn't a
member of the cult. They're like people with their fingers in their
ears humming and chanting "yah, yah, yah, can't hear you."

At first I wondered where the attacks were coming from all saying pretty
much the same thing in the same words, but now I see.

[Gene Wirchenko]

On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:04:38 -0600, John Hasler <jha...@newsguy.com>
wrote:

>Gene Wirchenko writes:
>> This attitude costs LINUX considerably.
>
>You evidently labor under the delusion that LINUX is some sort of a
>business entity with costs and revenues and a mandate for growth.
>
>It isn't. Your complaints are not going to cause the sales department
>to become concerned about the loss of customers. It is just going to
>cause people to killfile you. You see, we don't actually care whether
>or not you use Linux.

Most of us understand a reference such as mine to being to the
LINUX community in general. If I have the choice of two environments,
one which contain people who work at being unpleasant, I will tend to
pick the other one.

>> I do not want to associate with someone who when I bring up an issue
>> about a program not working automatically calls it whining.
>
>If you have a question ask it. If you see something you think needs
>doing do it.

If I do not already know a system, I might not even know that
there is a question, never mind that I should ask it. Nor will I
necessarily know how to frame the question. This means that the time
to come up to speed is a lot longer. That is a cost that can result
in something else being chosen.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[Gene Wirchenko]

Very easily. People can avoid an environment where they are
treated unpleasantly.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[Walter Bushell]

In article <slrnjhud9...@nomad.mishnet>,

JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

>
> The value of Linux is that it provides powerful tools. It's not some
> canned product. Encouraging people to think of it as such is not ultimately
> productive. When it comes to packaging, individual developers that are
> giving you something for free don't have to pander to you in particular.
> Someone else can do that final bit.
>
> It's Free Software. YOU could even be the person that does that part.
>
> A far better criticism would be that not enough people are "stepping up".

That kind of work is not in most people's core competency nor should it
be anymore than designing and building automobile engines should be.
Somebody who is a graphic designer or scientific researcher should not
be required to be a computer maven and they won't be in general. Life is
too short. The development of tools is best left to those who specialize
in tool building. Anyway people whose focus is elsewhere, won't in
general develop Linux wise, as the market shows.

--
It is the nature of the human species to reject what is true but unpleasant
and to embrace what is obviously false but comforting. -- H. L. Mencken

[Bernd Felsche]

Gene Wirchenko <ge...@ocis.net> wrote:
>The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>Gene Wirchenko wrote:

>>> This attitude costs LINUX considerably.

>>How can it cost linux considerably when Linux is no a company and has
>>never made a cent out of anything?

> Very easily. People can avoid an environment where they are
>treated unpleasantly.

Oh really? What about New York? ;-)
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | For every complex problem there is an
X against HTML mail | answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
/ \ and postings | --HL Mencken

[Dave Garland]

On 1/24/2012 10:37 PM, Bernd Felsche wrote:

> Gene Wirchenko <ge...@ocis.net> wrote:

>> People can avoid an environment where they are
>> treated unpleasantly.
>
> Oh really? What about New York? ;-)

I suspect that most of us, including you (to judge by your sig), are
pretty successful at avoiding New York.

Dave

[The Natural Philosopher]

Peter Flass wrote:
> On 1/24/2012 4:04 PM, John Hasler wrote:
>> Gene Wirchenko writes:
>>> This attitude costs LINUX considerably.
>>
>> You evidently labor under the delusion that LINUX is some sort of a
>> business entity with costs and revenues and a mandate for growth.
>
> I think those of us who like Linux and/or hate microsoft, often the same
> people, would like to see Linux grow and become more mainstream. If
> someone has a complaint or criticism, it would be wise to at least
> understand what they're complaining about.
>
>>
>> It isn't. Your complaints are not going to cause the sales department
>> to become concerned about the loss of customers. It is just going to
>> cause people to killfile you. You see, we don't actually care whether
>> or not you use Linux.
>
> Which is unfortunately why most statistics I've seen show Linux stuck at
> around 1% while Mac OS has *grown* more than that in a year.
>

with android outselling DomesDOS? I think not..

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 19:26:09 -0500
Peter Flass <Peter...@Yahoo.com> wrote:

> Which is unfortunately why most statistics I've seen show Linux stuck at
> around 1% while Mac OS has *grown* more than that in a year.

I don't really see the unfortunately part of that - I use Linux
(x86, ARM and Mips), DragonflyBSD, Windows XP and MacOS X for various
purposes. I really don't care how popular an OS is when I choose it for a
task, as long as it is in active development (which requires enough
popularity among *developers*). I care about what applications it supports
and what it provides (for example DragonflyBSD is there for the HAMMER
filesystem, Linux is on my workstation for the Nvidia support, Windows XP
is there for games).

Oh and of course the less popular an OS is the fewer people
attempting to exploit weaknesses in it. If Linux ever were to become as
popular as Windows it would be exploited widely.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

Yes, but how does that hurt Linux (given that it is already popular
enough to attract hordes of developers including large numbers of paid
developers).

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

On 25 Jan 2012 13:02:09 GMT
Huge <Hu...@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:

> On 2012-01-25, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:
>
> > Oh and of course the less popular an OS is the fewer people
> > attempting to exploit weaknesses in it. If Linux ever were to become as
> > popular as Windows it would be exploited widely.
>

> I disagree. Although Linux only has a miserable share of desktops, it
> is everywhere in the server space. And the targets there are very much
> higher value than getting the average Joe luser into a botnet. Your
> bank runs Linux, your stockbroker runs Linux, your utilities run
> Linux.

It is indeed everywhere in server space, but those installations
are for the most part professionally managed, stripped of unnecessary
services, have tightly constrained connectivity and offer very little (if
any) scope for social engineering. Even Windows servers are hard to attack
compared to domestic PCs.

It's also not clear that they are higher value targets, a botnet
provides services that can be (and are) sold repeatedly. Attacking a bank,
stockbroker or utility is a direct one-off attack that may yield profit but
isn't something to sell.

[J G Miller]

On Wednesday, January 25th, 2012, at 13:36:32h +0000,

Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:

> Even Windows servers are hard to attack compared to domestic PCs.

But servers are still attacked and frequently the method is independent
of the OS but uses methods at the application level eg SQL injection.

[JEDIDIAH]

On 2012-01-25, Peter Flass <Peter...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 1/24/2012 5:48 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
> This is x-posted to comp.os.linux.setup. It appears that a lot of
> people there are zealots and don't want to listen to anyone who isn't a
> member of the cult. They're like people with their fingers in their

Not every cult expects you to be illiterate, dependent, and helpless.

[JEDIDIAH]

On 2012-01-25, Peter Flass <Peter...@Yahoo.com> wrote:

> On 1/24/2012 4:04 PM, John Hasler wrote:
>> Gene Wirchenko writes:
>>> This attitude costs LINUX considerably.
>>
>> You evidently labor under the delusion that LINUX is some sort of a
>> business entity with costs and revenues and a mandate for growth.
>
> I think those of us who like Linux and/or hate microsoft, often the same
> people, would like to see Linux grow and become more mainstream. If
> someone has a complaint or criticism, it would be wise to at least
> understand what they're complaining about.

Given enough interest, "bleeding edge" stuff is backported.

Barring that or the willingness to build stuff yourself, you can
always upgrade your distribution. The pre-canned solution for this
particular "problem" is actually available.

>
>>
>> It isn't. Your complaints are not going to cause the sales department
>> to become concerned about the loss of customers. It is just going to
>> cause people to killfile you. You see, we don't actually care whether
>> or not you use Linux.
>
> Which is unfortunately why most statistics I've seen show Linux stuck at
> around 1% while Mac OS has *grown* more than that in a year.

They have ads, special stores, and classes for dealing with iTunes.

If you want to be treated like a helpless idiot, there are people out
there more than willing to take your money. If you aren't paying for the
priveledge, don't expect that type of treatment.

[John Hasler]

Ahem A Rivet's Shot writes:
> It is indeed everywhere in server space, but those installations are
> for the most part professionally managed, stripped of unnecessary
> services, have tightly constrained connectivity and offer very little
> (if any) scope for social engineering.

They are high-value targets and are still often cracked (usually via
buggy applications such as Wordpress). Linux desktops, however, are of
no more value to crackers than Windows desktops and would require
special malware. Thus the crackers don't bother with them.

I do think that Linux is intrinsically more resistant to malware than
Windows, but I also think that it is primarily obscurity that protects
us against attempted attacks on our desktops. In the server world, of
course, Linux is not obscure at all.

[JEDIDIAH]

On 2012-01-25, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> In article <slrnjhud9...@nomad.mishnet>,
> JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>
>>
>> The value of Linux is that it provides powerful tools. It's not some
>> canned product. Encouraging people to think of it as such is not ultimately
>> productive. When it comes to packaging, individual developers that are
>> giving you something for free don't have to pander to you in particular.
>> Someone else can do that final bit.
>>
>> It's Free Software. YOU could even be the person that does that part.
>>
>> A far better criticism would be that not enough people are "stepping up".
>
> That kind of work is not in most people's core competency nor should it

It's really not that hard.

It's just about the easiest sort of thing that comes under the heading
of "development". Also, only one person has to be willing to step up and
everyone else that has an interest can benefit.

It doesn't have to be the original developer. That guy can concentrate
on the really hard parts and keep improving the application rather than being
distracted with packaging issues.

> be anymore than designing and building automobile engines should be.

It's not remotely comparable and such implications are mindless
anti-intellectual fear mongering. There is no value in keeping people
helpless and afraid.

There are other platforms for that.

[JEDIDIAH]

On 2012-01-25, Gene Wirchenko <ge...@ocis.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:04:38 -0600, John Hasler <jha...@newsguy.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Gene Wirchenko writes:
>>> This attitude costs LINUX considerably.
>>
>>You evidently labor under the delusion that LINUX is some sort of a
>>business entity with costs and revenues and a mandate for growth.
>>
>>It isn't. Your complaints are not going to cause the sales department
>>to become concerned about the loss of customers. It is just going to
>>cause people to killfile you. You see, we don't actually care whether
>>or not you use Linux.
>
> Most of us understand a reference such as mine to being to the
> LINUX community in general. If I have the choice of two environments,
> one which contain people who work at being unpleasant, I will tend to
> pick the other one.

So you are more concerned with appearances rather than functionality.

There's a product made with you in mind.

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 09:58:26 -0600
John Hasler <jha...@newsguy.com> wrote:

> Ahem A Rivet's Shot writes:
> > It is indeed everywhere in server space, but those installations are
> > for the most part professionally managed, stripped of unnecessary
> > services, have tightly constrained connectivity and offer very little
> > (if any) scope for social engineering.
>
> They are high-value targets and are still often cracked (usually via
> buggy applications such as Wordpress).

In other words the applications are cracked not the OS.

> I do think that Linux is intrinsically more resistant to malware than
> Windows,

Indeed it is - but it's not invulnerable.

> but I also think that it is primarily obscurity that protects
> us against attempted attacks on our desktops.

Rarity rather than obscurity I think.

> In the server world, of
> course, Linux is not obscure at all.

However the server world is rather smaller than the desktop world,
but probably rather bigger than the linux desktop world.

[J G Miller]

On Wednesday, January 25th, 2012, at 10:15:50h -0600, JEDIDIAH declare:

> There is no value in keeping people helpless and afraid.

The stockholders or Apple Incorporated and Micro$loth Incorporated
would beg to differ ;)

[Doug Freyburger]

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>
>> This attitude costs LINUX considerably.

True when it comes to support on UseNet for free distributions. In
fact unmoderated UseNet has that problem far worse than Linux.
Surprise, the existance of Linux was first posted on unmoderated UseNet.
Oh wait, given the history that should come as no surprise at all.

So ask yourself - Have you ever gotten such an attitude when you opened
a ticket with the for profit help desk for a commercially supported
distro?

> How can it cost linux considerably when Linux is no a company and has
> never made a cent out of anything?

If you think no one makes a cent off Linux you've never read postings on
this group, you've never contacted any of the for profit distro
companies, you've never been or employed a Linux consultant, you've
never hired or taken a job doing Linux. In other words your statement
about the money part is nonsense.

Thing is the companies that do make money on Linux don't have that
attitude. They can't. There are other Linux distros to move to and
other versions of UNIX to move to.

[Charlie Gibbs]

In article <jfn3m8$k00$3...@dont-email.me>, mil...@yoyo.ORG (J G Miller)
writes:

> On Tuesday, January 24th, 2012, at 12:30:32h -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
>> On 2012-01-24, J G Miller <mil...@yoyo.ORG> wrote:
>>
>>> It is the downloading all of the development packages that are needed,
>>
>> apt-get install <what-configure-just-bombed-on>.*dev
>
> Done that many times. But for the newbie it can be intimidating.
>
> Best to have installed apt-file, so that one can do
>
> apt-file search library/header_file.h
>
> to get the name of the development package,
>
> since the usual error message from the (pre)compiler is
>
> cannot find file library/header_file.h included in file ...
>
> and often times one needs to do
>
> apt-get install
> sometimes_not_the_generic_library_name-{some_Debian_number}-dev
>
>> It works pretty well for this particular app.

Note the inconsistency here. Most people mention installing foo-dev.
That didn't work - in this case it wanted foo.dev (period instead
of hyphen). <grumble...> Anyway, that did the trick - I got the
application built.

--
/~\ cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

[Charlie Gibbs]

In article <87liows...@thumper.dhh.gt.org>, jha...@newsguy.com
(John Hasler) writes:

> Gene Wirchenko writes:
>
>> This attitude costs LINUX considerably.
>

> You evidently labor under the delusion that LINUX is some sort of a
> business entity with costs and revenues and a mandate for growth.

Not all costs are monetary. There's also time - and reputation.

[John Hasler]

Steve O'Hara-Smith writes:
> However the server world is rather smaller than the desktop world...

But much, much more valuable to crackers. A single cracked Linux server
can be used to infect millions of Windows desktops with spam-sending,
password-collecting malware. A single cracked Linux desktop can't do
anything one of those infected Windows machines can't do.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Huge wrote:

> On 2012-01-25, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:
>
>> Oh and of course the less popular an OS is the fewer people
>> attempting to exploit weaknesses in it. If Linux ever were to become as
>> popular as Windows it would be exploited widely.
>

> I disagree. Although Linux only has a miserable share of desktops, it
> is everywhere in the server space. And the targets there are very much
> higher value than getting the average Joe luser into a botnet. Your
> bank runs Linux, your stockbroker runs Linux, your utilities run
> Linux.
>
>

Your router and your phone probably run Linux or something very similar.
And next year your TV will too.

[The Natural Philosopher]

its fairly obscure if you dont use app level tools with security holes
in them.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Doug Freyburger wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>>
>>> This attitude costs LINUX considerably.
>
> True when it comes to support on UseNet for free distributions. In
> fact unmoderated UseNet has that problem far worse than Linux.
> Surprise, the existance of Linux was first posted on unmoderated UseNet.
> Oh wait, given the history that should come as no surprise at all.
>
> So ask yourself - Have you ever gotten such an attitude when you opened
> a ticket with the for profit help desk for a commercially supported
> distro?
>
>> How can it cost linux considerably when Linux is no a company and has
>> never made a cent out of anything?
>
> If you think no one makes a cent off Linux

Adroit move of the goalpost to set up a straw man.

I never said that. YOU said that. I said 'Linux is not a company, and
has never made a cent'

Linux is not a company and no entity calling itself Linux has ever made
a cent.

Anyone can make money out of something that is free.

In fact the world of commdodities does that all the time.

Kellogs makes money out of sunlight, via corn and cornflakes, but
sunlight is free at the point of delivery.

BHP Billiton makes money out of coal and iron, which is free at the
point of mining.

Its all about the value add, of getting it to the customer in the way he
wants it, not about the 'product' or commodity in its own right.

you've never read postings on
> this group, you've never contacted any of the for profit distro
> companies, you've never been or employed a Linux consultant, you've
> never hired or taken a job doing Linux. In other words your statement
> about the money part is nonsense.
>

No I have done ALL of those things.

It does not make my statement nonsense, it merely shows you to be an
ignorant twat.

> Thing is the companies that do make money on Linux

That are not called LInux (tm)

> don't have that
> attitude. They can't. There are other Linux distros to move to and
> other versions of UNIX to move to.

IO the OP wanted to take out a Fedfiora or redhat license and get tech
support, he was free to do so. His complaint was that a FREE distro did
NOT provide him with a commercial level of support!!

Well fuck me sideways

Whoda thunk that?

[JEDIDIAH]

On 2012-01-25, Charlie Gibbs <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
> In article <jfn3m8$k00$3...@dont-email.me>, mil...@yoyo.ORG (J G Miller)
> writes:
>
>> On Tuesday, January 24th, 2012, at 12:30:32h -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>
>>> On 2012-01-24, J G Miller <mil...@yoyo.ORG> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It is the downloading all of the development packages that are needed,
>>>
>>> apt-get install <what-configure-just-bombed-on>.*dev
>>
>> Done that many times. But for the newbie it can be intimidating.
>>
>> Best to have installed apt-file, so that one can do
>>
>> apt-file search library/header_file.h
>>
>> to get the name of the development package,
>>
>> since the usual error message from the (pre)compiler is
>>
>> cannot find file library/header_file.h included in file ...
>>
>> and often times one needs to do
>>
>> apt-get install
>> sometimes_not_the_generic_library_name-{some_Debian_number}-dev
>>
>>> It works pretty well for this particular app.
>
> Note the inconsistency here. Most people mention installing foo-dev.

That's why I like wildcards and regular expressions. You can
attempt things that are a little less precise. Chances are the
results will have what you are a looking for.

Something like "foo.*dev" usually does the trick.

> That didn't work - in this case it wanted foo.dev (period instead
> of hyphen). <grumble...> Anyway, that did the trick - I got the
> application built.
>


--

[Rod Speed]

The Natural Philosopher wrote
> Huge wrote

>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote

>>> Oh and of course the less popular an OS is the fewer people
>>> attempting to exploit weaknesses in it. If Linux ever were to
>>> become as popular as Windows it would be exploited widely.

>> I disagree. Although Linux only has a miserable share of desktops, it is everywhere in the server space. And the
>> targets there are very
>> much higher value than getting the average Joe luser into a botnet.
>> Your bank runs Linux, your stockbroker runs Linux, your utilities run Linux.

> Your router and your phone probably run Linux

Nope.

> or something very similar.

Nope. Nothing like it, actually.

> And next year your TV will too.

Nope, because I wont be replacing the current one which doesnt.

[J G Miller]

On Wednesday, January 25th, 2012, at 18:05:24h +0000,

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> And next year your TV will too.

Recent Samsung and SONY televisions already do.

And believe it or not, for the Samsung record TV program to USB disk
facility, the firmware first creates an XFS file system on the USB disk
device.

Most annoyingly if you use the TV's Samsung media player to play back
audio, video, or image files (and not the recorded TV program files)
it will only recognize FAT/NTFS file systems on the external USB disk.

A ploy by Samsung to force consumers to buy more than one USB disk????

[sellers]

No they want you to buy big USB flash drives. These come with
such a standard format. Your Linux machine can read and write on those
file systems as well. At least ´til now. Microsoft may try to prevent
it though.

bliss

[Rod Speed]

J G Miller wrote

More likely just another poor design choice.

[J G Miller]

On Wednesday, January 25th, 2012, at 11:54:28h -0800, Sellers explained:

> On 01/25/2012 11:37 AM, J G Miller wrote:
>> On Wednesday, January 25th, 2012, at 18:05:24h +0000, The Natural
>> Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> And next year your TV will too.
>>
>> Recent Samsung and SONY televisions already do.
>>
>> And believe it or not, for the Samsung record TV program to USB disk
>> facility, the firmware first creates an XFS file system on the USB disk
>> device.
>>
>> Most annoyingly if you use the TV's Samsung media player to play back
>> audio, video, or image files (and not the recorded TV program files) it
>> will only recognize FAT/NTFS file systems on the external USB disk.
>>
>> A ploy by Samsung to force consumers to buy more than one USB disk????
>
> No they want you to buy big USB flash drives. These come with
> such a standard format.

To which standard format are you referring?

[Ben Pfaff]

J G Miller <mil...@yoyo.ORG> writes:

> And believe it or not, for the Samsung record TV program to USB disk
> facility, the firmware first creates an XFS file system on the USB disk
> device.

This seems like an odd choice of file system. I've never heard
of embedded OSes using XFS. What motivates it?
--
Ben Pfaff
http://benpfaff.org

[Charlie Gibbs]

In article <jfpbjq$s4m$1...@dont-email.me>, mil...@yoyo.ORG (J G Miller)
writes:

So would parts of the U.S. government.

[J G Miller]

On Wednesday, January 25th, 2012, at 13:41:23h -0800, Ben Pfaff wrote:

> This seems like an odd choice of file system. I've never heard of
> embedded OSes using XFS. What motivates it?

My guess is that it is because it is a file system NOT supported on
Windoze and is not a file system that is obvious to many Linux users.

The other factor is that XFS does not need fsck-ing after N mounts
and there are other advantages for big files.

So politically and technically XFS was a good choice over NTFS and ext3.

It should be pointed out that the video files recorded by a Samsung
TV can only be played back on the same tv because of DRB restrictions
tied to the ID of the mainboard in the Samsung TV.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Morten Reistad wrote:
> In article <jfolum$tjf$3...@news.albasani.net>,
> The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Peter Flass wrote:
>>> On 1/24/2012 4:04 PM, John Hasler wrote:

>>>> Gene Wirchenko writes:
>>>>> This attitude costs LINUX considerably.
>

>>>> You evidently labor under the delusion that LINUX is some sort of a
>>>> business entity with costs and revenues and a mandate for growth.

>>> I think those of us who like Linux and/or hate microsoft, often the same
>>> people, would like to see Linux grow and become more mainstream. If
>>> someone has a complaint or criticism, it would be wise to at least
>>> understand what they're complaining about.

>>>
>>>> It isn't. Your complaints are not going to cause the sales department
>>>> to become concerned about the loss of customers. It is just going to
>>>> cause people to killfile you. You see, we don't actually care whether
>>>> or not you use Linux.

>>> Which is unfortunately why most statistics I've seen show Linux stuck at
>>> around 1% while Mac OS has *grown* more than that in a year.
>
> The desktop, the ossified platform for mail with umpteen attachments,
> version hell for documents, excel sheets with hidden databases and
> programs written by non-programmers, spam hell and a wasteland of
> bad powerpoint is surely dominated, and grossly mismanaged, by
> Microsoft; but they have gotten themselves a monopoly, one they
> manage expertly with strong arm muscling in the market they know so
> well.
>
> But, Instead of worrying about market share, they have to worry about
> market size. The desktop market is saturated, and there are no paths
> for growth anywhere. It is all stuck in a stifling monopoly.
>
> All they can do is milk this market for licenses for "new" stuff.
> They should be able to push ~350 million a year, including the
> upgrades.
>
> Meanwhile, _all_ the other segments are booming. There are two big
> differences; all of them are vertically integrated, and all of them
> sell appliances, not platforms. The IT worldview is dead, the embedded
> worldview is winning.
>
Indeed. When was the last time you bought a general purpose vehicle
instead of a mike, a town car and a RV?

Hardware is so friggin cheap it is not worth making it general purpose
for MOST people.



> And Linux systems arrive _everywhere_. In your TV, GPS, car, fridge,
> alarm, sex toy, and places we won't even imagine. Linux "sales"
> is skyrocketing, but they are difficult to estimte. My guess was
> that Linux overtook Windows sometime late 2009, computed backwards
> from sales figures of components.
>

I'd say earlier for all *nix systems. Basically its the de facto OS of
choice when you HAVE a choice. And now it can run on the most
lightweight of platforms..well nots not on a PIC yet..but you now what I
mean..




> Again, Microsoft sells systems in upgrade leaps, and has a ca 3
> year cycle for these sales. In a successful year they may migrate
> half a billion systems forward and collect licenses, but on average
> thwy are pretty stuck at ca 350 million licenses.
>
> I stick my head out and guess that this year we will see 1 billion
> new linuxes for the first time. Android alone will deliver 200 million++.
> The TVs, GPSes, cars, are all markets in the 100m+ bracket, and there
> are several tens of markets in the 40m+ sales, like alarms, PLSes,cameras,
> etc etc. 40 m linux systems, that is.
>
> They are all below the radar.

Yup.

>
> My sources "inside the Tornado" in Gangdong(sp?) tell that it is all
> about Linux now. 5:1. And it is all about devices.
>

sounds right.

> The "1%" is just myopia. Half of that 1% are probably the development
> of the billion new penguins.
>
> -- mrr
>
> Just in : ARM plans to sell 8B cores this year. 1 billion Linux systems
> may be a gross unerestimate.
>

Well a lot of them will be running more lightweight OSes

BUT even so...

Microsnot has won a war on the corporate desktop, to realise that the
corporate desktop wasn't ultimately where the future lay...

Now, lets remember back to the IBM PC, and IBM who won the battle for
the corporate mainframe..and then suddenly the corporate mainframe
wasn't the place to be.

I have a desktop because I do desktoppy things. Things that need a big
screen and are best done sitting down in a dedicated place.

I am in a shrinking minority.

But corporate mainframes didn't die, they just stopped being all there was.

Desktops wont die either, but, arguably most rubbish users who care not
what their appliance runs, will be on something *nixish whether it be
apple flavoured BSD or smelling strongly of penguin.

Let's face it, if you have to start again, who in their right minds
would pick Windows?

That blows Microsoft completely out of the consumer market, and makes
them increasingly dependent on the corporate desktop, but thats likely
to shrink too - users will - as they did with PCs - say 'we want our
corporate cloud services (running increasingly on virtualised servers,
and often on Linux) to reflect how we use our I-bollocks, and so
corporate apps will go server side with access 'apps' for corporate
appliances, and only the jerks in IT and the creatives with 36" screens
will need a 'desktop'..

And the IT guys are probably already on Linux of some sort....then you
have to ask yourself, how long before the heavyweight desktop apps bite
the bullet and go Linux too.

OK open office is as bad as word/excel/powerpoint, but ITS NO WORSE.
Adobe, or Quark decide that its time to support Linux as well as OSX and
'winders', and some of the better CAD/CAM programs, well then, the tide
will turn.

I see it as a fork..the noddy programs - the $50 'Windows' programs will
migrate to android, or simply be online services on a rented out basis.
as that is where the 'noddy' users are. The heavyweights - the $1000+
programs, have a choice coming: Right now its Windows, but for how long?

[The Natural Philosopher]

Morten Reistad wrote:
> In article <jfo29l$ot4$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Dave Garland <dave.g...@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>> On 1/24/2012 10:37 PM, Bernd Felsche wrote:
>>> Gene Wirchenko <ge...@ocis.net> wrote:
>>>> People can avoid an environment where they are
>>>> treated unpleasantly.
>>> Oh really? What about New York? ;-)
>> I suspect that most of us, including you (to judge by your sig), are
>> pretty successful at avoiding New York.
>
> I have no problem avoiding New York. Totally avoiding New Yoysey is more
> tricky, though. Plane connectuns from this bit of rightopondia
> tends to converge in Newark.
>

Golly. Last time I managed to go via Atlanta.

Or direct to W coast.

> But New York is not that bad, in small doses. Like twice a
> decade or so.
>

Its OK, but not for the *whole* weekend.

> -- mrr
>

[Gene Wirchenko]

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 10:08:50 -0600, JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet>
wrote:

>On 2012-01-25, Gene Wirchenko <ge...@ocis.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:04:38 -0600, John Hasler <jha...@newsguy.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Gene Wirchenko writes:
>>>> This attitude costs LINUX considerably.
>>>
>>>You evidently labor under the delusion that LINUX is some sort of a
>>>business entity with costs and revenues and a mandate for growth.
>>>
>>>It isn't. Your complaints are not going to cause the sales department
>>>to become concerned about the loss of customers. It is just going to
>>>cause people to killfile you. You see, we don't actually care whether
>>>or not you use Linux.
>>
>> Most of us understand a reference such as mine to being to the
>> LINUX community in general. If I have the choice of two environments,
>> one which contain people who work at being unpleasant, I will tend to
>> pick the other one.
>
> So you are more concerned with appearances rather than functionality.

No. I prefer the functionality of being able to get good answers
without a bunch of antagonism being thrown at me. The know-it-all
appearance of the antagonistic, I can quite do without.

> There's a product made with you in mind.

That is good marketing.

Your backbiting is a way to discourage use of LINUX. Why would I
want to associate with such people?

Are you going to make another swipe at me? Does it make you feel
big when you do it?

I ask for courtesy. You do not seem able to manage that.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[Gene Wirchenko]

On 25 Jan 12 08:28:36 -0800, "Charlie Gibbs" <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <87liows...@thumper.dhh.gt.org>, jha...@newsguy.com
>(John Hasler) writes:
>
>> Gene Wirchenko writes:
>>
>>> This attitude costs LINUX considerably.
>>
>> You evidently labor under the delusion that LINUX is some sort of a
>> business entity with costs and revenues and a mandate for growth.
>
>Not all costs are monetary. There's also time - and reputation.

Thanks for mentioning that, Charlie. It is so obvious to me that
I sometimes forget that some people think that cost equals how much
money.

Sicnerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[Gene Wirchenko]

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:20:23 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
<ste...@eircom.net> wrote:

>On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 19:51:09 -0800
>Gene Wirchenko <ge...@ocis.net> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 22:20:44 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
>> <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>>
>> >Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>>
>> >> This attitude costs LINUX considerably.
>>

>> >How can it cost linux considerably when Linux is no a company and has
>> >never made a cent out of anything?
>>

>> Very easily. People can avoid an environment where they are
>> treated unpleasantly.
>
> Yes, but how does that hurt Linux (given that it is already popular
>enough to attract hordes of developers including large numbers of paid
>developers).

Isn't there a joke that every year since <some time> was supposed
to be the year of the Linux desktop? Ever wonder why it has not
happened? Linux could be much more successful.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[Gene Wirchenko]

On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 16:48:09 -0600, JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet>
wrote:

>On 2012-01-24, Gene Wirchenko <ge...@ocis.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 10:11:50 -0600, JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet>
>> wrote:

[snip]

>>> Although chances are that this thing already has that PPA. If your
>>>whining is terribly relevant, the "problem" is probably already solved.
>>
>> This attitude costs LINUX considerably. I do not want to
>
> What? That Linux won't be considered the default option for helpless
>idiots? That's not such a problem really.

I am not one, but I do not like being called one. I will,
therefore, pass. I expect that there are others with similar
preferences.

>[deletia]
>
> The value of Linux is that it provides powerful tools. It's not some
>canned product. Encouraging people to think of it as such is not ultimately
>productive. When it comes to packaging, individual developers that are
>giving you something for free don't have to pander to you in particular.

Being polite is not pandering.

>Someone else can do that final bit.

That final bit that you dismiss could be the bit that stops Linux
from use in an area. There is an old nursery rhyme:

For Want of a Nail

For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For want of a horse the rider was lost.
For want of a rider the message was lost.
For want of a message the battle was lost.
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.

> It's Free Software. YOU could even be the person that does that part.

Or I could stay where people have better manners.

> A far better criticism would be that not enough people are "stepping up".

Why aren't they? I do not want to get into the morass of
insults. You might ask yourself how many others get turned off by
your attitude.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[sellers]

On 01/25/2012 01:41 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> J G Miller<mil...@yoyo.ORG> writes:
>
>> And believe it or not, for the Samsung record TV program to USB disk
>> facility, the firmware first creates an XFS file system on the USB disk
>> device.
>
> This seems like an odd choice of file system. I've never heard
> of embedded OSes using XFS. What motivates it?

if it is going to be recording TV shows then
it would seem that a file system that deals well with very
large files would be best, no?
XFS has been touted for this sort of file for some
time.

bliss

[Bob Martin]

in 533449 20120125 130209 Huge <Hu...@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:

>On 2012-01-25, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:
>
>> Oh and of course the less popular an OS is the fewer people
>> attempting to exploit weaknesses in it. If Linux ever were to become as
>> popular as Windows it would be exploited widely.
>
>I disagree. Although Linux only has a miserable share of desktops, it
>is everywhere in the server space. And the targets there are very much
>higher value than getting the average Joe luser into a botnet. Your
>bank runs Linux, your stockbroker runs Linux, your utilities run
>Linux.

Don't forget over 90% of supercomputers.

[Bernd Felsche]

The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

It has been for over a year.

Booting is far too slow IMNSHO. Takes about 5 seconds from standby.
EPG (Digital TV) takes almost 3 seconds to pop up. Also way too
slow. This is mot a matter of lack of CPU grunt. It's a matter of
designing software to be responsive to the user.

Software designers for embedded systems can make legitimate
assumptions about the hardware that generic (Linux) developers can't.
Understanding how the hardware works is key to making a responsive
system.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | For every complex problem there is an
X against HTML mail | answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
/ \ and postings | --HL Mencken

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 18:05:24 +0000

The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Indeed my router, phone and TV (an LG a few years old now) have been
running Linux for some years now. My TV is pretty much immune to being
hacked due to lacking a network connection or any means to install
software, the router and phone expose very few interfaces to the outside
world.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 17:44:49 -0800

Gene Wirchenko <ge...@ocis.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:20:23 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
> <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 19:51:09 -0800
> >Gene Wirchenko <ge...@ocis.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 22:20:44 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
> >> <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> >>
> >> >> This attitude costs LINUX considerably.
> >>
> >> >How can it cost linux considerably when Linux is no a company and has
> >> >never made a cent out of anything?
> >>
> >> Very easily. People can avoid an environment where they are
> >> treated unpleasantly.
> >
> > Yes, but how does that hurt Linux (given that it is already
> > popular
> >enough to attract hordes of developers including large numbers of paid
> >developers).
>
> Isn't there a joke that every year since <some time> was supposed
> to be the year of the Linux desktop? Ever wonder why it has not
> happened? Linux could be much more successful.

Indeed there is such a joke, and perhaps Linux (or some Linux
distro) could become as popular as Windows, but really what would be the
benefit to Linux of doing this ?

[Rod Speed]

Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote
> Gene Wirchenko <ge...@ocis.net> wrote

>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote

>>> Gene Wirchenko <ge...@ocis.net> wrote

>>>> The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote
>>>>> Gene Wirchenko wrote:

>>>>>> This attitude costs LINUX considerably.

>>>>> How can it cost linux considerably when Linux is no a
>>>>> company and has never made a cent out of anything?

>>>> Very easily. People can avoid an environment where they are treated unpleasantly.

>>> Yes, but how does that hurt Linux (given that it is already popular
>>> enough to attract hordes of developers including large numbers of
>>> paid developers).

>> Isn't there a joke that every year since <some time> was
>> supposed to be the year of the Linux desktop? Ever wonder
>> why it has not happened? Linux could be much more successful.

> Indeed there is such a joke, and perhaps Linux (or some Linux
> distro) could become as popular as Windows, but really what
> would be the benefit to Linux of doing this ?

Oh, just a few completely worthless fripperys like those who produce
apps worth using would ensure that they were just as easy to install
on it as it is with Win. Useful hardware in spades.

Nothing of any value at all to someone like the OP.

[Peter Flass]

On 1/25/2012 8:09 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
> Golly. Last time I managed to go via Atlanta.

*There's* an improvement. Last time I had to go *to* Atlanta I
seriously considered going to (mumble) in Kentucky and renting a car to
drive to Atlanta, just to avoid the airport. Their security screening
is by far the worst I've seen, and it seems like an hour to an
hour-and-a-half just standing in line.

[Peter Flass]

On 1/25/2012 8:38 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>
> Your backbiting is a way to discourage use of LINUX. Why would I
> want to associate with such people?
>

I think that's the idea. God forbid Linux becomes mainstream and is
used by everyone's old granny and Aunt Jane, instead of being reserved
only for the illuminati.

[Peter Flass]

On 1/25/2012 5:00 PM, Morten Reistad wrote:
>
> The desktop, the ossified platform for mail with umpteen attachments,
> version hell for documents, excel sheets with hidden databases and
> programs written by non-programmers, spam hell and a wasteland of
> bad powerpoint is surely dominated, and grossly mismanaged, by
> Microsoft; but they have gotten themselves a monopoly, one they
> manage expertly with strong arm muscling in the market they know so
> well.

But...but there's no *reason* for this. I run the same browser, email,
"office" software, and what have you on my Linux system as windows.
Hint: it doesn't come from microsoft. One of these days I'll spend some
time learning Gimp, and won't need photoshop on 'doze any more either.
...

>
> And Linux systems arrive _everywhere_. In your TV, GPS, car, fridge,
> alarm, sex toy, and places we won't even imagine. Linux "sales"
> is skyrocketing, but they are difficult to estimte. My guess was
> that Linux overtook Windows sometime late 2009, computed backwards
> from sales figures of components.

In most cases these aren't thought of as "computers", or treated like
computers. They're the ultimate appliance, and the final dream of a lot
of people from years past. It's great that Linux has this market sewed
up - I wouldn't want my phone to BSOD in the middle of a call, but it's
the desktop (and laptop) ecosystem I want to see changed.

[Peter Flass]

On 1/26/2012 6:56 AM, Morten Reistad wrote:
>
> The MMU sales are an important clue. Linux, Unix and Windows need
> full MMUs, but systems like Symbian, beos, qnx, etc can live with
> only rudimentary MMU support. Using a MMU is a clue that the machine
> is runnint a "real os". So, subtract windows, windows mobile, apple
> mach from the MMU sales, and you should have a remainder that pretty
> much matches the Linux/UNIX installations.

What doesn't come with an MMU these days? OK, maybe Coldfire (=680x0),
anything else?

[Peter Flass]

On 1/25/2012 8:07 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
> Indeed. When was the last time you bought a general purpose vehicle
> instead of a mike, a town car and a RV?
>
> Hardware is so friggin cheap it is not worth making it general purpose
> for MOST people.

I disagree. It isn't about money necessarily, it's about space. One
reason smartphones are so popular ia they they fill the niche of a
phone, camera, email device, gameboy, ipod, tv, etc. all in one small
package.

As another example, look at the proliferation of kitchen gadgets. How
many kitches have room for, not only the usual toaster, blender and
coffee maker, but also an espresso machine, bread maker, countertop
convection oven, pizza cooker, etc. You have to really decide what's
important to you and pare down to stuff you use all the time.

[Peter Flass]

On 1/26/2012 4:54 AM, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>
> Indeed my router, phone and TV (an LG a few years old now) have been
> running Linux for some years now. My TV is pretty much immune to being
> hacked due to lacking a network connection or any means to install
> software, the router and phone expose very few interfaces to the outside
> world.
>

How is this? Leaving aside the fact that TV programming is now
delivered via a network, if you're cable, how about data updates? I
have a DVR that downloads the program guide from the network, and
receives software updates over the network, all automatically. I assume
(hope) that my cable provider has the TV side firewalled, but it's the
same cable that Is moving these usenet bits right now, and I assume the
same protocols.

[David Brown]

The great majority of processor cores sold do not have an MMU - they are
in microcontrollers. Many of these run /real/ operating systems, though
not general purpose or "user" operating systems like Linux, Windows, etc.

[JEDIDIAH]

On 2012-01-26, Gene Wirchenko <ge...@ocis.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 10:08:50 -0600, JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet>
> wrote:
>
>>On 2012-01-25, Gene Wirchenko <ge...@ocis.net> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:04:38 -0600, John Hasler <jha...@newsguy.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Gene Wirchenko writes:
>>>>> This attitude costs LINUX considerably.
>>>>
>>>>You evidently labor under the delusion that LINUX is some sort of a
>>>>business entity with costs and revenues and a mandate for growth.
>>>>
>>>>It isn't. Your complaints are not going to cause the sales department
>>>>to become concerned about the loss of customers. It is just going to
>>>>cause people to killfile you. You see, we don't actually care whether
>>>>or not you use Linux.
>>>
>>> Most of us understand a reference such as mine to being to the
>>> LINUX community in general. If I have the choice of two environments,
>>> one which contain people who work at being unpleasant, I will tend to
>>> pick the other one.
>>
>> So you are more concerned with appearances rather than functionality.
>
> No. I prefer the functionality of being able to get good answers
> without a bunch of antagonism being thrown at me. The know-it-all

Good luck with that.

[deletia]

I have found the more "pretty" platforms in this regard problematic.

--

cat /dev/video0 > tivo-sucks.mpg & |||
mplayer tivo-sucks.mpg / | \

[JEDIDIAH]

Hardware is cheap but quite often not up to the task you want to put
it to. "Cheap ARM hardware" is a great example of this. Add to that the
software such hardware usually gets bundled with and you have a lot of
people going out of their way to "jailbreak" these things.

[deletia]

Smart TV? That's an oxymoron like military intelligence.

[JEDIDIAH]

On 2012-01-25, J G Miller <mil...@yoyo.ORG> wrote:

> On Wednesday, January 25th, 2012, at 13:41:23h -0800, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>
>> This seems like an odd choice of file system. I've never heard of
>> embedded OSes using XFS. What motivates it?
>

> My guess is that it is because it is a file system NOT supported on
> Windoze and is not a file system that is obvious to many Linux users.
>
> The other factor is that XFS does not need fsck-ing after N mounts

You can turn that off easily enough. That's hardly a reason to avoid
ext3. Although you are stuck with what is for most people an unsupported
alien filesystem either way.

[deletia]

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 08:47:59 -0500
Peter Flass <Peter...@Yahoo.com> wrote:

> On 1/26/2012 4:54 AM, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> >
> > Indeed my router, phone and TV (an LG a few years old now) have
> > been running Linux for some years now. My TV is pretty much immune to
> > being hacked due to lacking a network connection or any means to install
> > software, the router and phone expose very few interfaces to the outside
> > world.
> >
>
> How is this? Leaving aside the fact that TV programming is now
> delivered via a network, if you're cable, how about data updates?

My TV is connected to a Sky box, a PS3, and a Wii, the programming
is on the Sky box not the TV. The Sky box might get hacked, I'm hard
put to imagine why anyone would want to and it would be difficult because
the only way in would be to usurp the encrypted stream from the satellite.

[JEDIDIAH]

On 2012-01-26, Peter Flass <Peter...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 1/25/2012 8:38 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>>
>> Your backbiting is a way to discourage use of LINUX. Why would I
>> want to associate with such people?

This isn't about "associating with people".

This is about using a device that suits your requirements.

>>
>
> I think that's the idea. God forbid Linux becomes mainstream and is
> used by everyone's old granny and Aunt Jane, instead of being reserved
> only for the illuminati.

Why should I care if helpless demanding ninnies use Linux?

Companies that want to pander to that crowd can have that bother.

[JEDIDIAH]

Already got that.

If you are here to imply otherwise then you are just a troll and you
belong in one of the *.advocacy groups with the other helpful person that's
offering suggestions to "fix Linux".

[JEDIDIAH]

On 2012-01-26, Gene Wirchenko <ge...@ocis.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 16:48:09 -0600, JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet>
> wrote:
>
>>On 2012-01-24, Gene Wirchenko <ge...@ocis.net> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 10:11:50 -0600, JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet>
>>> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>>> Although chances are that this thing already has that PPA. If your
>>>>whining is terribly relevant, the "problem" is probably already solved.
>>>
>>> This attitude costs LINUX considerably. I do not want to
>>
>> What? That Linux won't be considered the default option for helpless
>>idiots? That's not such a problem really.
>
> I am not one, but I do not like being called one. I will,
> therefore, pass. I expect that there are others with similar
> preferences.

Then stop being a whiney stupid bitch and just go already.

[JEDIDIAH]

On 2012-01-26, sellers <bliss-...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> On 01/25/2012 01:41 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>> J G Miller<mil...@yoyo.ORG> writes:
>>
>>> And believe it or not, for the Samsung record TV program to USB disk
>>> facility, the firmware first creates an XFS file system on the USB disk
>>> device.
>>
>> This seems like an odd choice of file system. I've never heard
>> of embedded OSes using XFS. What motivates it?
>
> if it is going to be recording TV shows then
> it would seem that a file system that deals well with very
> large files would be best, no?

I think I already tried using xfs for this very purpose and
ended up going back to ext3. Some sort of major data loss would
have been involved in me dumping it and going back to ext3.

Might have been awhile though.

[deletia]

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Peter Flass <Peter...@Yahoo.com> writes:

> On 1/25/2012 5:00 PM, Morten Reistad wrote:
>>
>> The desktop, the ossified platform for mail with umpteen attachments,
>> version hell for documents, excel sheets with hidden databases and
>> programs written by non-programmers, spam hell and a wasteland of
>> bad powerpoint is surely dominated, and grossly mismanaged, by
>> Microsoft; but they have gotten themselves a monopoly, one they
>> manage expertly with strong arm muscling in the market they know so
>> well.
>
> But...but there's no *reason* for this. I run the same browser,
> email, "office" software, and what have you on my Linux system as
> windows. Hint: it doesn't come from microsoft. One of these days I'll
> spend some time learning Gimp, and won't need photoshop on 'doze any
> more either.

Maybe; if you're doing only simple things as one-shot tasks in simple
ways. The workflows that are the mainstream for all photographers I
know that can't be done in GIMP, unfortunately. Adjustment layers
(including 16-bit channels) with layer masks are necessary for the
lossless editing workflows that most pundits and users like.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

[Bernard Peek]

On 26/01/12 15:38, JEDIDIAH wrote:

>> Oh, just a few completely worthless fripperys like those who produce
>> apps worth using would ensure that they were just as easy to install
>> on it as it is with Win. Useful hardware in spades.
>
> Already got that.
>
> If you are here to imply otherwise then you are just a troll and you
> belong in one of the *.advocacy groups with the other helpful person that's
> offering suggestions to "fix Linux".
>

We're not just trying to fix Linux, we are trying to fix the borked
developers too.


--
Bernard Peek
b...@shrdlu.com

[sellers]

We senior Illuminati are very happy to have Linux. But we are
nobodyś Aunt Jane or Granny. Well some of us may be aunties or grannies
but they keep it quiet, just like we keep the membership lists off line.

bliss(hag of Eris)

[sellers]

More employment as Linux supporting organizations deploy
enlarged support services. of course millions are champing at the
bit to do consumer support for Linux(or anything else).

bliss

[J G Miller]

On Thursday, January 26th, 2012, at 09:21:18h -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote:

> Although you are stuck with what is for most people an unsupported
> alien filesystem either way.

As I explained, for political reasons, they want it to be an
unsupported alien filesystem, as an *additional* security by
obscurity hurdle to DRM encryption of the files.

[J G Miller]

On Thursday, January 26th, 2012, at 09:25:25h -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote:

> Smart TV? That's an oxymoron like military intelligence.

Smart TV is just a marketing term for the capability of a TV
or TV related device (eg BluRay player) to be able to run
Internet connecting applications.

Instead of connecting the computer to the TV, the "computer"
has now been put in the TV, and most often runs GNU/Linux.

It is a further development in the death of linear broadcast TV.

More advertising funds are now spent on the Internet than
on commercial TV as far as I am aware.

[JEDIDIAH]

Anyone can do this.

It doesn't have to be on the developer who really probably should be
spending more time on the actual app rather than generic packaging issues.

This is Free Software and not some proprietary application developed
in secret and kept hidden. Any motivated power user can re-package an app
for some set of underserved users. Many do just this.

There is nothing stopping you from fixing this.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:20:23 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
> <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 19:51:09 -0800
>> Gene Wirchenko <ge...@ocis.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 22:20:44 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
>>> <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>>>>> This attitude costs LINUX considerably.
>>>> How can it cost linux considerably when Linux is no a company and has
>>>> never made a cent out of anything?
>>> Very easily. People can avoid an environment where they are
>>> treated unpleasantly.
>> Yes, but how does that hurt Linux (given that it is already popular
>> enough to attract hordes of developers including large numbers of paid
>> developers).
>
> Isn't there a joke that every year since <some time> was supposed
> to be the year of the Linux desktop? Ever wonder why it has not
> happened? Linux could be much more successful.
>

No that was unix and minicomputers. In fact what happened was year after
year more *nix systems were installed and less 'minicomputers' and
other OSes. Then *nix invaded a little corner of the desktop. Then *nix
got into android, and OSX. And now *nix is on PCs as well. As Linux.

*nix isn't winning. It has in fact WON ALREADY.

The only place ANY OTHER operating system still exists* is fanboy
domestic appliances and the corporate desktop. And that is only through
sheer inertia.

the argument isn't about the OS. Only Microsoft still has something that
isn't *nix under the hood.

The argument is about the application layers and the GUI. But as Gnome
has shown, its a piece of relative piss to make a GUI that looks and
feels pretty Windows like. So that's no real distinction either.

Finally it boils down to nothing more than whether 'there's an app for
that'.

There are more apps for Windows than for anything else. At the moment.
Which makes it a safe, if very expensive choice, if you don't know what
apps you really want.

But for how much longer?



* and specialist RTOS and Cisco IOS in specialist places.



> Sincerely,
>
> Gene Wirchenko

[Peter Flass]

On 1/26/2012 11:03 AM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> Peter Flass<Peter...@Yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> On 1/25/2012 5:00 PM, Morten Reistad wrote:
>>>
>>> The desktop, the ossified platform for mail with umpteen attachments,
>>> version hell for documents, excel sheets with hidden databases and
>>> programs written by non-programmers, spam hell and a wasteland of
>>> bad powerpoint is surely dominated, and grossly mismanaged, by
>>> Microsoft; but they have gotten themselves a monopoly, one they
>>> manage expertly with strong arm muscling in the market they know so
>>> well.
>>
>> But...but there's no *reason* for this. I run the same browser,
>> email, "office" software, and what have you on my Linux system as
>> windows. Hint: it doesn't come from microsoft. One of these days I'll
>> spend some time learning Gimp, and won't need photoshop on 'doze any
>> more either.
>
> Maybe; if you're doing only simple things as one-shot tasks in simple
> ways. The workflows that are the mainstream for all photographers I
> know that can't be done in GIMP, unfortunately. Adjustment layers
> (including 16-bit channels) with layer masks are necessary for the
> lossless editing workflows that most pundits and users like.

Like I said, I have yet to try to do my limited amount of photo editing
in Gimp, and I'm sure my requirements aren't stringent. I *do* put
quite a bit of strain on a word processor, wanting documents that look
"just so", and I've found OpenOffice to be better at this than "word."

Most of my other applications stuff is casual use.

[The Natural Philosopher]

The GIMP is OK for most basic editing stuff.
It handles very large graphics a LOT worse than photopaint in Corel
suite on half the RAM tho. And its user interface sucks big time..BUT if
you are doing the same thing to a succession of images so you now what
needs to be done with what keystrokes its capable enough.

Lets say that the Gimp now means I only fire up Corel photopaint for 10%
of the time I used to...

But I keep a manky old XP VM going for that 10%, and for Rhino CAD and
Corel draw, and IE6. I love IE6. its so bad if a website works with IE6
it works with anything.

Those are the ONLY windows programs I have used in over a year now.

And if they were available on Linux even for Real Money (TM) I would put
them on there.

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 09:38:24 -0600
JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

> On 2012-01-26, Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote

> >> Indeed there is such a joke, and perhaps Linux (or some Linux
> >> distro) could become as popular as Windows, but really what
> >> would be the benefit to Linux of doing this ?
> >
> > Oh, just a few completely worthless fripperys like those who produce
> > apps worth using would ensure that they were just as easy to install
> > on it as it is with Win. Useful hardware in spades.
>
> Already got that.
>
> If you are here to imply otherwise then you are just a troll and you
> belong in one of the *.advocacy groups with the other helpful person
> that's offering suggestions to "fix Linux".

Jedidiah meet Speedo a long term troll who has taken up residence
in a.f.c., you may want to add him to your killfile.

[Raymond Wiker]

You're assuming that "JEDIDIAH" is a representative specimen of
competent Linux users. I have my doubts that he's even competent.

[Rod Speed]

Peter Flass wrote

> The Natural Philosopher wrote

>> Indeed. When was the last time you bought a general purpose vehicle instead of a mike, a town car and a RV?

>> Hardware is so friggin cheap it is not worth making it general
>> purpose for MOST people.

> I disagree. It isn't about money necessarily, it's about space. One
> reason smartphones are so popular ia they they fill the niche of a phone, camera, email device, gameboy, ipod, tv,
> etc. all in one small package.

Yep.

> As another example, look at the proliferation of kitchen gadgets. How
> many kitches have room for, not only the usual toaster, blender and
> coffee maker, but also an espresso machine, bread maker, countertop
> convection oven, pizza cooker, etc. You have to really decide what's
> important to you and pare down to stuff you use all the time.

Dunno, most dont appear to operate like that and few dont update
their kitchen occassionally.

[Rod Speed]

JEDIDIAH wrote

Nope. Otherwise the OP who did want to use a Linux
platform wouldnt have had the problem he did.

It shouldnt take days for someone like him to do what he wanted to do.

<reams of your attempt at insults any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>

[Rod Speed]

J G Miller wrote

> JEDIDIAH wrote

>> Smart TV? That's an oxymoron like military intelligence.

> Smart TV is just a marketing term for the capability
> of a TV or TV related device (eg BluRay player) to
> be able to run Internet connecting applications.

> Instead of connecting the computer to the TV, the "computer"
> has now been put in the TV, and most often runs GNU/Linux.

Yes.

> It is a further development in the death of linear broadcast TV.

Doubt it will die any decade soon.

> More advertising funds are now spent on the Internet than
> on commercial TV as far as I am aware.

Dont believe that.

[JEDIDIAH]

I suspect that it has more to do with Microsoft related patent
issues. xfs or any of the other Linux/Unix filesystems may represent
a suitable modern filesystem that won't then become something that
Microsoft can use as an excuse for patent trolling.

Other appliance vendors have had problems in this regard.

[JEDIDIAH]

At least I am competent enough not to lay generic packaging issues
at the feet of the original developer.

[Rod Speed]

For as long as you keep seeing what the OP saw.

[Rod Speed]

JEDIDIAH wrote

> J G Miller <mil...@yoyo.ORG> wrote

>> JEDIDIAH wrote

>>> Although you are stuck with what is for most
>>> people an unsupported alien filesystem either way.

>> As I explained, for political reasons, they want it to be an
>> unsupported alien filesystem, as an *additional* security by
>> obscurity hurdle to DRM encryption of the files.

> I suspect that it has more to do with Microsoft related patent issues.

Nope, because the OP did say that they do support the MS formats
when playing video files, and wondered why they choose to use a
completely different file system for stuff the TV records itself.

> xfs or any of the other Linux/Unix filesystems may represent
> a suitable modern filesystem that won't then become something
> that Microsoft can use as an excuse for patent trolling.

They still can, because that TV will play media on drives with those formats.

> Other appliance vendors have had problems in this regard.

But that cant be the reason in this particular case.