Linux-Advocacy Digest #688, Volume #27 Fri, 14 Jul 00 22:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Anyone here developing for Linux? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (T. Max Devlin)
I tried to install both W2K and Linux last night... ("Jeff Hummer")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Anyone here developing for Linux?
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 01:04:20 GMT
Halloo-
I'm bored so I thought I'd try this out as a topic. Hopefully it'll
degenerate into a QT vs GTK+ war...
I'm currently having a blast coding an IDE for the X-window environment
using GTK+. I'm getting things done a lot quicker than I thought I
would, especially considering that I was used to the VB/VC++/BC++B
paint-your-own-GUI before this. Most of the problems I've had are of
the documentation variety, and I expect those'll only improve with
time. I'm using the GNome/GTK+ Programming Bible, and one annoyance
I've found is that the methodology changes from time-to-time depending
on the topic being covered -- they resort to global variables a little
too often, and sometimes build a GTK+ application to illustrate one
widget's uses and build a GNome application to illustrate another
widget's uses -- and there isn't really a full-featured practical
application (eg: an MDI notepad) that's broken down for the reader.
I've found it's best to have as many different sources available on a
given widget to figure out how best to go about building it, which is
probably the way to go anyway, but it's a little disappointing that I
haven't found an authoritative source on GTK+ that's well written (yet).
I've also looked into GLADE, but in the end, I have a feeling I'm going
to try to code my own widget-builder, probably something a little
closer to how Visual Basic does it.
Anyone else care to share? How's KDevelop? Anyone holding their breath
for Kylix? Or a Linux version of C#? Java? Perl? Python? TckTk?
-ws
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 21:32:35 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>Actually after reading all of this, and I know I am going to regret
>getting into this mess, I think ya'll agree on most points and are
>instead picking at each others choice of words.
That's why I call these things "conceptual glitches". It really is a
HUGE point that I'm trying to make. Its just it only gets revealed once
you've picked away enough of the crust for it to be noticed. And a lot
of that sounds like I'm just disagreeing with your words, when I'm
really disagreeing with *the reason you chose those words*, which I will
admit to maintaining a certain declarative capability concerning, since
I study and watch people declaring pretty much the same words in many
different circumstances and then get paid to figure out what they mean.
I'll try to be more encouraging, though. Thanks for the heads-up. I'll
try not to make you regret it. (No fair if anyone says 'too late'.)
>I offer my experience;
>
>Windows 98SE can be quite stable IF and ONLY IF, careful selection of
>hardware and software is considered. This includes inter-operability
>of the programs, in essence the ability to co-exist peacefully without
>stepping on each others toes so to speak.
I guess the argument that the hardware that is closest to the
development and all would *have* to be less problematic, huh? Certainly
some. But I always remember how many times its the *new* thing that
breaks stuff, as in the newest new "standard" technology.
Co-existance of programs as a design feature is vital, yes. Too bad
none of the OS or the Microsoft apps follow it.
>My DAW is a prime example of this method. It runs Win98SE and has
>never crashed. Not once, not ever.
OK. What, precisely, is "SE". And how many applications have you
installed since you got it?
I am pretty convinced that "registry rot" is the absolute A-#1 cause of
Windows "random crashes". Even when the registry is perfect it screws
up horribly.
>Reason is simple, I did my homework and purchased software and
>hardware that works together well. I do not subscribe to the "driver
>of the month club" and only upgrade drivers if there is a performance
>gain or some strange bug that maybe I have seen. I don't upgrade just
>for the heck of it, or because it's the latest and greatest.
>I don't install and de-install programs all the time and I run
>regclean and various virus checkers (Standalone) regularly.
Once a stable Windows instance is in place on stable hardware and the
software installed, so long as no software or hardware is changed or
added, it will continue to be stable. I can agree with that. "Most of
the time". :-)
>The reality though is that most systems are not like mine. They have
>crap/random hardware chosen for price instead of quality and they are
>subjected to a myriad of programs being installed and de-installed all
>the time. Just the plugins that just about every web page requires is
>enough to set things off kilter.
Precisely. And there's no limit to the effect. There's people
replacing video cards because the new IE broke their display. Its a
nightmare.
>My home systems are a prime example. They BSOD on a regular basis due
>to all the crap the kids are loading on them.
>I don't give them the care they need, and frankly why should I have
>to?
That's the point. You have them, you don't "give them care". Who says
they need them? If they're stable crashing, they're still stable,
right? As long as you can work around it; PCs are flexible. There's no
"Admin Police" who are going to show up and chastise you for not
figuring out what's causing random failures or anything, is there?
I've known people to swear in public that their Windows doesn't have any
problems at all, and they've never crashed. And then I remind them of
the three or four things they do to avoid the things they do know crash
it, and forget and crash again on a routine basis. Somehow, when
talking to others "never crash" means "in a way I don't know how to get
around now". People who say their system works great. And I ask them
"do these error messages come up every time you restart?" And they say,
"Yea, and sometimes when I'm using Word, it does another one. I click
past them."
>In this case, the user is left with a system that over time will
>render itself useless and they will, like good soldiers, re-install
>from their image CD and the process will start all over again.
Bingo. Welcome to 'you can avoid problems' - the real world version.
>The sad part is they think this is normal. What if you had to replace
>all the capacitors in your TV every 3 years?
You'd replace the TV every three years.
>This needs to be fixed.
Well, it can't be fixed unless you understand it, that my first general
rule of troubleshooting. Second is that you can't assume you already
know. We know why that sounds stupid, I think, but nevertheless, it
still exists. Ignorant users are willing to put up with it, obviously,
though we wouldn't if we didn't have to. That might indicate that new
users have to, so they don't have a choice. So why does Windows require
re-installing every six to eighteen months, by nature?
I say "by nature" because to say "by design" indicates it is an
intentional thing. And I suspect it is not. I think its adaptation.
If Windows had to be reinstalled any more often, perhaps nobody *would*
accept it. Six months is *just* enough time for a user to forget how
much configuration time they're going to lose when they have to start
over. But why wouldn't it go longer? That would certainly improve the
value of the product, and even if we recognize that the market didn't
cause the monopoly, it did allow it to form and continue to exist.
My hypothesis is that it roughly shows a relationship between
Microsoft's business plans and Moore's Law. Apparently, there is a
certain efficiency to re-installing every six months, rather than having
to bear the cost of a real OS. (That could be the cost to the monopoly,
which would be intolerable, or the cost to a user, which requires
learning, and is almost as intolerable.) I've remarked myself that
there is a certain value in NOT going to great lengths to determine the
actual cause of a failure, and that includes non-Windows systems. When
I first started working with some Unix software guys (system post-sales
engineers, they do product installs and configuration), they found it
very difficult to *not* follow a problem all the way to its root cause,
but to simply take the most efficient way of correcting the result and
moving on. The churn rate of software development, I think, has a lot
to do with this, and I think it is valuable to maintain such a "gripe
hunting threshold" even in open source systems. If you don't know the
cause of a problem, it makes sense to avoid the cause if you're stuck
with "most likely" scenarios.
>And BTW the same thing applies to Linux, in a different manner though.
>If you check the HCL and purchase hardware that works, you will have a
>smooth road. If not, it could range from mildly frustrating to
>downright unusable.
Simple reference to a certification list seems a bit insufficient to me.
But I suppose its all we've got, at the moment at least.
>So what's the answer?
>
>Is Windows stable?
>
>It all depends on how it is managed, and I think we all agree this
>type of management should NOT be necessary, but it is a fact of life
>that it is.
No, it doesn't depend on how its managed. It depends on whether you can
avoid a random failure. Nathan is right in that regard; there are steps
you can take to broaden your chances of avoiding a random failure. I
know he's going to hate me for saying almost precisely what he said that
started our exchange. But the fact remains, that's all you're doing.
You're not avoiding the *cause* of the failure, which is that Windows is
crappy software. You're just avoiding the failure, or rather, the
results, and only on a wish and a prayer at that, unless you're lucky
enough to live or work in a static environment. Not that I'd call that
lucky.
Hope for your time. Thanks, it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
[A corporation which does not wish to be identified]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "Jeff Hummer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: I tried to install both W2K and Linux last night...
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 01:46:19 GMT
Here's some irony for you. A knowledgeable friend and I installed both
Windows 2000 and Gentus Linux 6.2 on an HDD last night. Windows took 5.5
hours to install and it still crashes during boot, despite much tweaking at
the command line level. This is supposed to be easy?
On the other hand, at 12:30 A.M., we inserted the Linux CD and began
installing. Twenty minutes later I was seeing GNOME for the first time, and
it works beautifully. I still don't know what to do with it, but I can't
wait to learn!
I'm converted.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 21:47:35 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 16:35:20 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>>>The user can't control CPU scheduling manually. That isn't an option.
>>>The choice is either to let the apps do (CMT) it or let the OS do it
>>>(PMT), and the OS is much more qualified.
>>
>>Not the scheduling, no, but the weighting, preference, or priority of
>>scheduling. My theory is that with CMT, the market handles whether the
>>end result is valid and useful, and with PMT, it was the engineer who
>>insists CMT is 'stupid' and ridicules people who question that tenet.
>
>What is your fixation with "the engineer" (who is this guy?) anyway?
Specialists of all types and varieties, who view things from a
specialists' perspective. I'm a generalist, and to me they look
clueless, because they are, outside their specialties, for the most
part.
>The market has decided, and we've basically shown CMT the door.
No, CMT has capitulated, as its not worth arguing about. ;-)
If it was a market decision thing, it wouldn't have been around for a
decade.
>>>There's no way to write an app that is "friendly" under all conditions
>>>in a CMT system.
>>
>>Yes, I'm sure there is, you just haven't figured it out, yet. ;-)
>
>No, there isn't. How can an app know whether to take 50% or 10% or 5%
>of the CPU's time?
>
>How can you not see this?
I am completely blind, that's how. It just looks like an assumption, to
me. But then, I couldn't have invented CSMA/CD, either. I can just
tell you why it swept the world like a storm.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 21:50:34 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said ZnU in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>No. First, as has been said many times, it is impossible to make a CMT
>app that behaves as it should. Moreover, in most cases it is simply
>insane to thing a user can just abandon a particular app and switch to
>another.
I think you're blowing smoke. In the first case, Mac may have had lots
of apps that you say don't behave "as it should", but it was a
successful platform. In the second case, I 'abandon' one app and switch
to another on a dime, a thousand times a day. But maybe you're just
saying "you need all your apps to be working all the time", though CMT
doesn't prevent that any more effectively than PMT does, outside the
horror-story case of an app that doesn't yield.
>> and with PMT, it was the engineer
>> who insists CMT is 'stupid' and ridicules people who question that
>> tenet.
>
>Obviously it is the engineer who decides which system is superior. The
>end user isn't qualified.
[snip]
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 21:55:00 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said void in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 21:46:45 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Quoting void from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 13 Jul 2000 03:13:04 GMT
>>>
>>>You haven't been overstating the case so much as you've been just plain
>>>wrong.
>>
>>Thank you. Please to explain this to me; I am not a eingeneer.
>>(Sorry, just having a bit of fun; this ain't a troll.)
>
>That's a project for more than one afternoon. If you're serious, I'll
>start by giving you a reading list. Let me know.
No, you won't friggen' start with any friggen' reading list. You'll
explain it, or you won't. Sounds like you won't. I don't need to
become an expert; I need some dweeb with an IQ better than his gas
mileage to explain it quickly and efficiently so that I might continue
the discussion. If it is a project for more than twenty or thirty
minutes, you're just not able to handle it, and you should admit it.
No, nothing is simple. Until you understand it, and I thought you
understood it. I'm willing to take your word for it; I'm not some
engineer who's going to insist that every individual thing you say is
not only wrong but ludicrously wrong until you can convince me
otherwise. Just choke it out, for Christ's sake.
Geez.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 21:57:32 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Christopher Smith in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>Given you are arguing from a position of complete, utter and blatant
>ignorance in this entire discussion, I find that paragraph somewhat amusing.
Hey Chris; what does the number 53.7 Microseconds mean in Internet
connectivity, and how is it relevant to this discussion? If you can
give me a half decent guess, even if you're wrong, I'll consider that
you might possibly be competent to begin to suggest whether I am
"utterly ignorant". I'm not a system dweeb, no, if that's what you
mean. I don't limit myself to one specialty.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 22:00:15 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said John Sanders in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> [deletia]
>> Tell me, because I'm not really that familiar with this bit, how would a
>> user that wanted to tell their computer "I want this to speed up" do it,
>> and how would the computer know when that was no longer necessary. How
>> would a user say "I want this app to have a higher priority every time I
>> start it." If these are easily understood and manipulated controls,
>> than half of my argument disappears.
>
> man rtprio.
Well, if you check the headers, you'll find that's not incredibly
informative at the moment. Perhaps you could, I don't know, pretend to
understand language, and explain what of value or substance is in
rtprio's man page, and how it relates to my comments?
I mean, even something as simple as "the rtprio command does all the
stuff you want, Max. It can ...." and proceed to explain in, I don't
know, English?
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 22:05:03 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>You are aware there is massive redundancy in the Internet, aren't you?
>That's what routers are for. What's your point?
Apparently, my point is that you don't really understand the Internet,
from my perspective. Routers are for massive redundancy? I suppose
your talking about "route around failure" algorithms for route protocols
like RIP and OSPF and such. Do you realize this is the least used and
most problematic part about the Internet in its current manifestation?
Would you believe me if I told you? Would you believe me if I explained
it to you? Would you believe me if I demonstrated it and had the
agreement of engineers at all major carriers, and several alternative?
No, you wouldn't believe me. A lot of people wouldn't. Is that why
they pay me to explain it, do you suppose?
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
