Not to start another flame war, but...

"b...@yahoo.com" <b...@yahoo.com> writes:
> usually some bizarre entry in a config file needs to changed,

As opposed to Windows, where lots of stuff just can't be changed if it
doesn't do what you want.

> Windows may be crappy/buggy/inefficient

A good reason to run Linux ;-)

> but at least it works

In my personal experience, my Linux machines are more reliable than my
Windows machines.  And this includes my wife and kids using a blend of
each on a daily basis.

And my Linux DVD player has a "menu" button that *always* brings you
to the menu, even if the DVD author doesn't want you to skip the
commercials.

Even my furnace runs Linux :-)

b...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I guess I'll never understand the attraction of linux, guys I know
> will spend all afternoon just to get something to start up, usually
> some bizarre entry in a config file needs to changed, Windows may be
> crappy/buggy/inefficient but at least it works


That is an understandable sentiment.

For me, the investment in time to get a Linux system functional to the 
degree needed for all aspects of my work and home use is tremendous, 
often taking months to fully iron out everything.  The effort tapers off 
somewhat exponentially from full-time for the first couple days, to 
hours a day for the first week or two, to a few hours here and there as 
items of lesser importance need to be resolved.

Once I am done I tend not to upgrade until I replace the hardware.  I 
keep my work and personal (home) PCs on about a 3 year replacement schedule.

So that means about 2.75 years of almost zero maintenance operation.

One benefit for me is that the up front investment is less painful than 
the distributed pain of lost work and chronic frustration of dealing 
with a marginally stable OS.  Plus the initial investment has some 
intellectual fulfillment value as I learn new things in the process, and 
at least there is usually a solution.  Thus, there is a systematic 
process of discovery and the attendant pleasure in solving the problem.

With an unstable buggy system, there is no solution.  You just have to 
live with it.  So the time is urinated away gradually, but with each 
loss, there is no attendant reward or satisfaction.

The other benefits are that I really like the Linux file system concept, 
and the multiple desktops really hooked me a long time ago.  I started 
using Linux as my primary OS in 1996.  This was brought about by a 
permanently psychologically damaging experience with Windows, in which a 
large amount of work was lost despite making backups, as Windows 
annihilated both my main hard drive AND the floppy drive backup.  8 out 
of 40 hours lost, the whole thing would have been gone had I not also 
been backing up to a 2nd hard drive.

It's been Linux ever since and never again have I had a similar 
experience.  My workhorse applications like Eagle can run all day 
without crashing, for months on end.  I have had about 2-3 Eagle crashes 
I think, in the past 8 years.

Unfortunately I must use some Windows programs, so I use VMware. 
Interestingly, Windows tends to run better in VMware than on native 
hardware.


-- 
Good day!

____________________________________
CRC
c...@BOGUSsbcglobal.net
NOTE, delete texts: "REMOVETHIS" and
"BOGUS" from email address to reply.

On 25 Aug 2008 18:45:58 -0400, DJ Delorie <d...@delorie.com> wrote:

>Not to start another flame war, but...

>"b...@yahoo.com" <b...@yahoo.com> writes:
>> usually some bizarre entry in a config file needs to changed,

>As opposed to Windows, where lots of stuff just can't be changed if it
>doesn't do what you want.

>> Windows may be crappy/buggy/inefficient

>A good reason to run Linux ;-)

>> but at least it works

>In my personal experience, my Linux machines are more reliable than my
>Windows machines.  And this includes my wife and kids using a blend of
>each on a daily basis.

>And my Linux DVD player has a "menu" button that *always* brings you
>to the menu, even if the DVD author doesn't want you to skip the
>commercials.

>Even my furnace runs Linux :-)

And linux doesn't have those maddening delays and lockups that windows has where
the desktop will freeze, or be unable to display stuff like the
desktop/new/folder command in under 10 seconds.  

On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 08:45:13 -0700, Chris Carlen
<c...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>Chris H wrote:
>> In message 
>> <f...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, 
>> steve <b...@yahoo.com> writes
>>> On Aug 3, 1:27 pm, "Alt Beer" <exam...@example.com> wrote:
>>>> "Blackwater" <b...@barrk.net> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> news:4...@news.east.earthlink.net...
>>>>
>>>> > Is there any hope ? Something I've missed ? Winders ? Linux ?
>>>> > Address of the "Society For The Prevention of Software Rip-Offs" ???
>>>>
>>>> CIRCAD Version 5 (OmniGlyph)http://www.holophase.com/index.html
>>>> One of the easiest to learn.  I was laying out boards after a few mins.
>>>> Logical user interface.  Eagle V4 it drives me nuts, tried it several 
>>>> times
>>>> and gave up each time.  The user manual and tutorial also crap.
>>>
>>> I had the same experience with Eagle, too bad they can't offer an
>>> optional front end that follows the windows standard (for us folks
>>> that prefer window applications).
>>>
>>> Using Eagle is like driving in England on the other side of the rode
>>> while standing on my head with a mirror as my only view of road, I
>>> really have no interest in learning how to do that.
>
>
>Heh heh.  I have always used Eagle on Linux, and found no confusion.  I 
>think this is due to the fact that just about every program on Linux is 
>written with a different GUI toolkit.  You never even know when 
>double-click vs. a single-click will make something happen.  So you 
>learn to be flexible.  The result is that something as subtle as Eagle's 
>inconsistency with standard Windoze apps. grammar easily goes unnoticed.
>
>What's even more fun is when the same app. changes GUI toolkits from one 
>version to another.  That seems to have happened with OpenOffice, now 
>using the KDE dialog boxes.  On my newest Linux machines it seems every 
>program has a different file dialog compared to my older Linux version. 
>  Completely ridiculous.  But, at least it's not Windoze.

You seem to have a different take on it.
  

In article <x...@delorie.com>, d...@delorie.com says...
> 
> Not to start another flame war, but...
> 
> "b...@yahoo.com" <b...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > usually some bizarre entry in a config file needs to changed,
> 
> As opposed to Windows, where lots of stuff just can't be changed if it
> doesn't do what you want.
> 
> > Windows may be crappy/buggy/inefficient
> 
> A good reason to run Linux ;-)
> 
> > but at least it works
> 
> In my personal experience, my Linux machines are more reliable than my
> Windows machines.  And this includes my wife and kids using a blend of
> each on a daily basis.


> 
> And my Linux DVD player has a "menu" button that *always* brings you
> to the menu, even if the DVD author doesn't want you to skip the
> commercials.
> 
I hope it does so in reasonably prompt fashion.
I think my Motorola cable box/DVR runs embedded linux.  It regularly 
gets so far behind (15-30 seconds) in processing commands from the 
remote control that it's usually best to simply walk away for a few 
minutes until it catches up!
> Even my furnace runs Linux :-)
> 
Cool---but hopefully not when it's supposed to be warm!

Mark Borgerson

On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 14:04:20 -0500, AZ Nomad
<a...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote:

>On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 09:49:35 -0700, Joel Koltner <z...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>"Michael N. Moran" <m...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message 
>>news:%aBsk.16396$k...@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>>> Like the registry, which is *so* much better ;)
>
>>It's better than the *NIX approach in that there are standard tools and APIs 
>>for creating, editing, and saving individual entries, branchs, etc.  Is it 
>>great?  No.  But I haven't seen any "great" answers to the problem -- storing 
>>configuration settings is such a general problem that there really aren't any 
>>great one-size-fits-all solutions, I expect.
>
>>> Fortunately, the Windoze registry is intuitive *and* robust.
>
>>Actually, yes -- the arrangement is reasonably intuitive, and it keeps backup 
>>copies of itself around to provide some degree of robustness.  (And as with 
>>*NIX text configuration files, you can certainly make as many manual backups 
>>as you feel like.)
>
>>> As opposed to the years that it took Mirco$oft to figure out
>>> how to do preemptive multi-tasking?
>
>>No one considered Windows 3.1/95/98 to be in the same class of operating 
>>systems as *NIX, you know. :-)  That started with Windows NT, which had plenty 
>>of "real OS" programmers on the team (including David Cutler, who had done 
>>plenty of VMS development... and one might argue he learned from many of his 
>>mistakes there? :-) ).
>
>Oh yeah, and if it gets corrupted, you lose your entire system.  
>Fucking wonderful.

Since MSwin 2000 the tools are reasonably reliable, though well short
of good.  One of the biggest problems is doofii getting into the
registry with regedit and mangling their system (often without
protecting themselves nor learning diddly from their misadventures).
  

AZ Nomad wrote:

>Oh yeah, and if it gets corrupted, you lose your entire system.  
>Fucking wonderful.

Do the smart thing.  Set up an automated backup system that does
a full unattended restore with one command.  then try it on a 
new blank hard disk.  If I lose my entire sytem (Windows and Linux
partitions both hosed) I can be up and running in less time than 
it takes to get a cup of coffee.

-- 
Guy Macon
<http://www.GuyMacon.com/>;

AZ Nomad wrote:

>And linux doesn't have those maddening delays and lockups that windows has where
>the desktop will freeze, or be unable to display stuff like the
>desktop/new/folder command in under 10 seconds.  

Perhaps it's just me, but i expect a quad-core 3GHz machine to
be able to keep up with my typing as well as my Commodore 128 does.  

-- 
Guy Macon
<http://www.GuyMacon.com/>;

Joel Koltner wrote:
> "Michael N. Moran" <m...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message 
> news:%aBsk.16396$k...@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>> Like the registry, which is *so* much better ;)
> 
> It's better than the *NIX approach in that there are standard tools and APIs 
> for creating, editing, and saving individual entries, branchs, etc.  Is it 
> great?  No.  But I haven't seen any "great" answers to the problem -- storing 
> configuration settings is such a general problem that there really aren't any 
> great one-size-fits-all solutions, I expect.
> 

There *are* standard tools for viewing and editing *nix configuration 
files - any text editor will do the job.  And of course you can use any 
other programs that work on text files - backups can be simple copies, 
comparisons are done with "diff", version control can be done with 
subversion or any other tool you like, etc.  Copying configuration 
between two computers is just the same as copying any other two files.

Although there are no official standards for /etc configuration files 
(or user configuration files in hidden directories or files in the home 
directory), there are a number of conventions that are used regularly. 
For example, lines starting with # are almost invariably comment lines. 
  Programs with larger configurations have their own directory under 
/etc, while smaller configurations have a simple /etc/prog.conf file. 
Programs that need hierarchical settings typically use an apache-style 
configuration format.

You are correct that there are no one-size-fits-all solutions.  That's 
why on *nix, appropriate sizes are used as needed, unlike the windows 
registry.

Oh, and one more thing - *nix configuration files are almost always well 
documented.  How much windows software comes with documentation for the 
registry settings?

There is certainly room for improvement in *nix configuration files - a 
little more consistency would not do any harm.  And while some default 
configuration files come with clear comments allowing you to make simple 
changes without R'ing TFM, others are much less obvious.  But the *nix 
system is still decades more advanced than the windows registry - the 
move away from .ini files (which had a nice consistent syntax, but had 
no good way of storing hierarchical data) was a big step backwards.

>> Fortunately, the Windoze registry is intuitive *and* robust.
> 
> Actually, yes -- the arrangement is reasonably intuitive, and it keeps backup 
> copies of itself around to provide some degree of robustness.  (And as with 
> *NIX text configuration files, you can certainly make as many manual backups 
> as you feel like.)
> 

"Some degree of robustness" - yes, the backups can help a bit, unless 
things have gone badly wrong.  Then your windows installation is hosed. 
  You can't keep backups externally - there is no way to restore the 
registry using a live boot CD if it gets trashed.  I know that a *nix 
system can be made unbootable if one of the critical /etc files gets 
corrupted - but these critical files are much smaller, and much more 
rarely modified than the windows registry.  Simple probability gives a 
much greater chance of the immense registry files (it's all stored in 
three files, IIRC) getting corrupted.  And if necessary, you can fix a 
50-line text file by hand using a boot CD - with the binary format 
registry file of tens of MB, you have no chance.


I have a W2K installation on a PC that got its registry corrupted - no 
amount of "repair" from the installation CD helped.  The registry is so 
fubar that the W2K installation disk refuses even to install a fresh 
windows installation to the partition (same directory or another directory).


>> As opposed to the years that it took Mirco$oft to figure out
>> how to do preemptive multi-tasking?
> 
> No one considered Windows 3.1/95/98 to be in the same class of operating 
> systems as *NIX, you know. :-)  That started with Windows NT, which had plenty 
> of "real OS" programmers on the team (including David Cutler, who had done 
> plenty of VMS development... and one might argue he learned from many of his 
> mistakes there? :-) ).
> 

No, one might not argue that.  One might argue that he tried to make NT 
modular and layered, with proper separation of tasks (the gui, screen 
drivers, and kernel were all isolated), with multi-platform support and 
source code that was independent of details like bit-size and 
endianness, and planned support for alternative APIs (Win32, OS/2, and 
posix were all to be considered equals).  This was NT 3.51.  *All* these 
solid design decisions were thrown out step by step through NT 4.0, W2K, 
XP, and Vista (against Dave Cutler's recommendations, I believe).



> I wouldn't argue that Microsoft is particularly good at innovation... but they 
> are good at noticing what's becoming popular in the market and then copying 
> those features for their own OS.
> 

They are certainly good at making the appearance of their software nice. 
  And they are good at making the easy stuff easy (for users).  But they 
are *not* good at the engineering and plumbing that lies underneath.

> Perhaps it's just me, but i expect a quad-core 3GHz machine to
> be able to keep up with my typing as well as my Commodore 128 does.  

That's just you :-)

-- 
Boo