Slashdot Mirror


New Way To Grade Decay of Computer Installations

skojt writes: "I saw this link in Dr Dobb's Journal (the paper edition) about the behaviour of a slowly decaying computer installation. It refers to a Windows installation, but as the author writes, 'But there will shortly be ports to Linux, Mac OS X, and other Unices; we are confident these OSes are just as prone.'"

217 of 534 comments (clear)

  1. Decayed Windows Installation? by sllort · · Score: 5, Funny

    Just graph the Kb size of the registry...

    1. Re:Decayed Windows Installation? by acceleriter · · Score: 2, Funny

      I was thinking it was more like the Heaviside step function--zero until you install Windows, one thereafter.

      --

      CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.

    2. Re:Decayed Windows Installation? by Com2Kid · · Score: 2

      Feh;

      My registery was at 50k entries just in the user programs area of it, ick. I had to reformat at around that point, I was at the "can just barly boot into 800x600 16 color mode" stage that the article mentions. . . .

      Luckily a simple Win2K install overtop fixed everything. :-D

      But yah, machines do get a bit cruddy, admitidly it was kinda my own fault for, err, installing a few hundred *cough* *cough* applications on that particular machine, though it was NOT my fault that not all of them had decently working uninstall programs.

      All the darned spyware doesn't help either, that stuff doesn't /want/ to uninstall itself. :( Ever. . . .

      Then there are the demo programs that purposly leave parts of themselves behind in the registery when uninstalled just to make sure that you do not do the whole entire "Uninstall 30day trial, reinstall, use for 30 more days" thing. . . . Ick.

    3. Re:Decayed Windows Installation? by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 3, Informative

      FYI: An install of MSFT Visual Studio adds 4 MB to the windows9x registry.

    4. Re:Decayed Windows Installation? by stux · · Score: 2

      Hate to tell you this... but in the 16 years I've been using macs or so I've never had to format and reinstall due to a decaying operating system ;)

      Mind you, I've had to reinstall Win95/98 many times due to decay...

      In all fairness though, I still haven't really had a decay problem with Win2k

      --

      ---
      Live Long & Prosper \\//_
      CYA STUX =`B^) 'da Captain,
      Jedi & Last *-fytr
    5. Re:Decayed Windows Installation? by kiwimate · · Score: 2

      I know it's not really the same thing, but it kind of is. Um.

      How often do you rebuild the desktop on your Macs? (Very nice of them to give that option as a built-in part of the OS, I must say.) From The Essential Mac:

      The desktop is part of your computer's internal filing system. The desktop information is actually stored in two invisible desktop files (Desktop DB and Desktop DF). The Desktop file/database holds all the information necessary to associate each file with the application that created it. It lets the system know what application should be launched when you open a given file and what icons it should display where. Depending on its size each application has one or more representatives in the desktop file. As applications and files move on and off your hard disk, the Desktop file must keep track of all this relocation -- that can leave the Desktop file bloated and it can become corrupted. Every so often it's necessary to start with a clean slate. You do that by rebuilding the desktop.

    6. Re:Decayed Windows Installation? by purpledinoz · · Score: 3, Funny

      The problem is you guys don't know how to use Windows properly. Here's a list of things you should do: (My Windows runs perfectly after I followed these rules)
      1. Take out any peripherals you don't need (ie - Sound Card, NIC, Modem, CD-ROM, Floppy Drive). Less drivers to install means windows doesn't have to think too much.
      2. Use WordPad instead of Word. Or better yet, use a pen and paper, it'll lessen the likelyhood of Windows crashing.
      3. Use a pen and paper instead of Excel.
      4. Use transparencies instead of Powerpoint.
      5. You shouldn't need FrontPage since you shouldn't even connect to the Internet. See Rule 7.
      6. Don't install anything after a fresh install of Windows.
      7. Never connect to the Internet. Don't let Windows phone home so it can download more bugs.
      8. Reboot every 30 min.
      9. Reformat and re-install often. Don't bother paying Microsoft support to tell you to re-install. I'm telling you for free.
      10. Leave your computer off, unplug it, and put it back into the box it came in. This will reduce the frequency of unexpected errors generated by Windows.

    7. Re:Decayed Windows Installation? by pmz · · Score: 2

      FYI: An install of MSFT Visual Studio adds 4 MB to the windows9x registry.

      I wonder what Office adds. Recently, my Windows box decided it was tired of its drive letters and remapped D: (for no good reason). Of course the Registry doesn't have regular expressions nor global replace, so I had to manually update hundreds, perhaps even a thousand, entries just for Office alone.

      I really despise Windows. At least with UNIX, all the time I spend fighting it is time spent actually learning something. With Windows, time spent fighting it is just time wasted.

    8. Re:Decayed Windows Installation? by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 2
      "I wonder what Office adds. Recently, my Windows box decided it was tired of its drive letters and remapped D: (for no good reason). Of course the Registry doesn't have regular expressions nor global replace, so I had to manually update hundreds, perhaps even a thousand, entries just for Office alone."

      It would have been much faster to resintall and point the installer to the same directory. You would not have lost your configurations. Furthermore, in Win2k you can mount a directory to a drive letter as well. Also I beliebe Lavasoft has an 'advanced' registry editor freeware prog called 'reghance.' I have not used it but that could help you.

      "I really despise Windows. At least with UNIX, all the time I spend fighting it is time spent actually learning something. With Windows, time spent fighting it is just time wasted."

      I've just taken a 5 minute break from fighting all morning with the MSFT SQL Jet Engine in access 97. It wants refuses to run a query because the string in my HAVING statement is not in an aggregate function as well. I feel your pain.

    9. Re:Decayed Windows Installation? by stux · · Score: 2

      Actually, the desktop file is mainly used to track applications, application icon associations (ie BNDLs), and file comments.

      It does not track file locations

      I generally don't rebuild it... when I was using Classic MacOS I probably rebuilt it no more than once a year... but in reality, I never really rebuilt it because when I did my HD upgrade thing (ie, insert new HD, select all of one hd, drag to the other) that would have a side effect of rebuilding the desktop.

      Zapping the PRAM and Rebuilding the desktop are not actually really required, and aren't normally the solution to most problems :)

      Rebuilding the desktop is only really the solution when you have a file association problem (generic icons etc) and PRAM is really only the solution when you have AppleTalk problems :)

      --

      ---
      Live Long & Prosper \\//_
      CYA STUX =`B^) 'da Captain,
      Jedi & Last *-fytr
    10. Re:Decayed Windows Installation? by stux · · Score: 2



      Anyway, rebuilding the desktop is definately not in the same class of problems as windows decay... I suppose you could put it in the same class as "registery optimizing", but then again, how many windows users do that (and how many mac users actually rebuild there desktops)

      Also, failing to rebuild the desktop will have hardly any effect long term on a macs performance... otherwise your mac would do it automatically every x changes or x days etc

      --

      ---
      Live Long & Prosper \\//_
      CYA STUX =`B^) 'da Captain,
      Jedi & Last *-fytr
  2. Windows? Try Linux... by blackula · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I contend that Linux is more prone to installation decay... Just think about all the buildup of dependencies that happens, and those that remain even after the program that depends on them is removed.

    1. Re:Windows? Try Linux... by The+World+Will+End · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's why you use a package manager.

      If you use rpm, then use checkinstall, it will generate rpms out of tar.gz easily, you run it instead of "make install"

      --
      Man, with his flaming pyre, has conquered the wayward breezes.
    2. Re:Windows? Try Linux... by smartin · · Score: 2

      In a word, no. I have never had any form if o/s decay in the 7 or 8 years i've been running Linux on all my machines. This is with active installing and upgrading of packages.

      Windows decays in a matter of days, hours sometimes with little more than turning the machine on and off.

      --
      The difference between Canada and the USA is that in Canada healthcare is a right and gun ownership is a privilege.
    3. Re:Windows? Try Linux... by Afrosheen · · Score: 2

      If he's using the ancient ext2 filesystem, yes, this is a possibility. You have to realize that these days, reiserfs and ext3 are the new defaults. They both journal and both are very well behaved if you kill the power unexpectedly. A fsck under reiser takes seconds (sometimes less) which is alot different than the ext2 of old. Keep up with the times friend.

    4. Re:Windows? Try Linux... by Metrol · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Three differnet Linux distros I tried to get to liking. Each and every time, "portinstall" on FreeBSD keeps me going back to it.

      I really am glad to see Gentoo starting to implement a similar system. Having that ports tree enables me to keep my system up to date, without lingering dependencies, and without having to go racing out to buy the latest CD.

      Personally, I think the distros like the fact that RPM is such a piece of crap as it ensures that buying a new CD is FAR easier than just upgrading what you have from the Net.

      --
      The line must be drawn here. This far. No further.
  3. Slashdot Effect by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 3, Funny

    Post a link to your server on Slashdot. That'll decay you really quick.

    --
    Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
    1. Re:Slashdot Effect by reflexreaction · · Score: 2

      The New Adventures of Verity Stob

      Dr. Dobb's Journal August 2002

      Verity is the pseudonym of a programmer based in the UK. She can be contacted at VerityStob@ddj.com.

      Verity Stob has developed a new tool that will help you make rapid diagnoses of sick PCs. A rolling computer gathers "cruft." When you spot a class interface that is no longer used by any client, but that nobody dare delete, that's cruft. It is also the word "seperate," added to a spellchecker's private dictionary in a moment of careless haste, and now waiting for a suitably important document. Cruft is the cruel corruption and confusion inevitably wrought by time upon all petty efforts of humankind. There.

      At Laboratoires Stob, we have been working on the cruft crisis for a while. Recalling the maxim "to control a problem you must first measure it," we have devised a suitable metric, an index of cruftidity. Our first version, presented below, is based on a typical PC installation running Windows 2000. But there will shortly be ports to Linux, Mac OS X, and other Unices; we are confident these OSes are just as prone.

      We would like to acknowledge our debt, in the construction of this instrument, to Rear- Admiral Sir Francis Beaufort. His 1805 scale of windspeeds ("Insurance Claim Force 8. Description on land: Tile blown off roof falls onto litigious neighbour's Toyota Shiny") is as valid and useful today as it ever was. Enough preamble.

      Cruft Force 0. Virgin. Description: The "Connect to the Internet" shortcut is still on the desktop, and the "How to use Windows" dialog appears at logon. Menu animations and the various event-based sound effects -- even the dreaded Microsoft Sound -- seem cheerful and amusing. Likewise, a clandestine installation of the Blue Screen Of Death screensaver (complete with simulated reboot, natch) from the Sysinternals web site is hilarious. Compilers run crisply, and report only sensible, easily resolved errors. There are just nine directories off C:\.

      Filled with the enthusiasm that goes with having a brand new machine, the user resolves to stick to the new-fangled security-conscious temp directory buried deep somewhere below Documents and Settings.

      Cruft Force 1. New. Description: User has taken time to rename cutesy desktop icons incorporating the first person singular possessive pronoun.

      Twice, the mouse cursor has done that poltergeist trick where, with the actual mouse stationary, it drifts three inches due east and then stops. For no reason at all. Works fine afterwards though. Brrrrrrr.

      Cruft Force 2. Comfortable. Description: User has now got around to resetting Explorer so that "web content in folders" is suppressed. Something has made a C:\TEMP directory in the proper place unasked, for which mercy the user guiltily feels grateful.

      A strange entry is found in the System event log: MRxSmb: The redirector was unable to initialise security context or query context attributes. Assiduous googling of the key phrases, up web site and down newsgroup, establishes that, although many have wondered, nobody knows what this means.

      Cruft Force 3. Lived-in. Description: One time in seven when the user starts Word or other Office 2000 app, instead of running, it pretends it is installing itself for the first time and starts a setup program.

      Directory count in C:\ up to 17, and something has pooed a Paradox lock control file there, too.

      Cruft Force 4. Middle-aged. Description: Amount of time from screen showing "real" Windows background to the logon box appearing is >30 seconds. Sometimes cannot "browse" other machines on LAN.

      Get first real BSOD. Uninstall jokey screen saver, replace with SETI.

      An extra disk of huge capacity has been installed. CD-ROM moves from drive F: to drive [:

      Cruft Force 5. Worn out. Description: Some time after bootup, always get a dialog "A service has failed to start - BLT300." What is BLT300? Nobody knows. Although one can manually remove/disable this service, it always reappears two or three reboots later.

      If one double-clicks a document icon, Word takes 4 minutes 30 seconds to start up. But it still works fine if started as a program. Somebody opines that this is due to misconfigured DDE. Or the Mars-Jupiter cusp.

      Cruft Force 6. Limping. Description: [Delphi|Visual Basic|Java] suddenly remembers a trial shareware component -- deleted six months ago because it was rubbish -- and refuses to compile anything until it is reinstated.

      "Web content in folders" Explorer setting switches itself back on unbidden. "Setup" programs start crashing while unpacking their own decompression DLLs.

      Cruft Force 7. Wounded. Description: No longer able to logon using original account as the system freezes, so must logon as "Verity2" or similar.

      There are now nine items in BOOT.INI: the original W2K starter, a brace of two- entries-each NT4s (one Turkish), a Windows 98, and three assorted Linuxen. Left to start up by itself, the machine chooses a broken installation of SUSE and halts with a kernel panic.

      Cruft Force 8. Decrepit. Description: A virus checker is installed at the insistence of IT. This actually improves performance, apparently violating Newton's laws.

      Blue Screens Of Death are served daily. The SETI screen saver, like ET himself, encounters difficulty calling home and despairing during an overnight run creates 312 copies of its icon in an (impressively expanded) system tray that fills half the screen.

      Successful connections to the LAN are very rare.

      Cruft Force 9. Putrefaction. Description: Can only see the 32-GB D:\ partition -- the one which has all the source code on it -- at every third boot. Directory count in C:\ up to 93, partly because some [one/thing] has put a complete (but non- working) installation of the Eudora e-mail client in the root.

      Starting Control Panel shows rolling torch animation. The applet icons never appear.

      Cruft Force 10.Expiry. Description: Machine only runs in Safe mode at 16-color 800×600, and even then for about a minute and a half before BSODing. Attempts to start an app are rewarded with a dialog "No font list found."

      Ordinary dodges, such as reformatting the hard disk(s) and starting again, are ineffective. Cruft has soaked into the very fabric of the machine, and it should be disposed of safely at a government-approved facility. There it will be encased in cruft-resistant glass and buried in a residential district.

      --

      We had to destroy the sig to save the sig.
  4. no karma whoring...here's the story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Redundant

    Dr. Dobb's Journal August 2002
    Verity is the pseudonym of a programmer based in the UK. She can be contacted at VerityStob@ddj.com.

    Verity Stob has developed a new tool that will help you make rapid diagnoses of sick PCs. A rolling computer gathers "cruft." When you spot a class interface that is no longer used by any client, but that nobody dare delete, that's cruft. It is also the word "seperate," added to a spellchecker's private dictionary in a moment of careless haste, and now waiting for a suitably important document. Cruft is the cruel corruption and confusion inevitably wrought by time upon all petty efforts of humankind. There.

    At Laboratoires Stob, we have been working on the cruft crisis for a while. Recalling the maxim "to control a problem you must first measure it," we have devised a suitable metric, an index of cruftidity. Our first version, presented below, is based on a typical PC installation running Windows 2000. But there will shortly be ports to Linux, Mac OS X, and other Unices; we are confident these OSes are just as prone.

    We would like to acknowledge our debt, in the construction of this instrument, to Rear-Admiral Sir Francis Beaufort. His 1805 scale of windspeeds ("Insurance Claim Force 8. Description on land: Tile blown off roof falls onto litigious neighbour's Toyota Shiny") is as valid and useful today as it ever was. Enough preamble.

    Cruft Force 0. Virgin. Description: The "Connect to the Internet" shortcut is still on the desktop, and the "How to use Windows" dialog appears at logon. Menu animations and the various event-based sound effects -- even the dreaded Microsoft Sound -- seem cheerful and amusing. Likewise, a clandestine installation of the Blue Screen Of Death screensaver (complete with simulated reboot, natch) from the Sysinternals web site is hilarious. Compilers run crisply, and report only sensible, easily resolved errors. There are just nine directories off C:\.

    Filled with the enthusiasm that goes with having a brand new machine, the user resolves to stick to the new-fangled security-conscious temp directory buried deep somewhere below Documents and Settings.

    Cruft Force 1. New. Description: User has taken time to rename cutesy desktop icons incorporating the first person singular possessive pronoun.

    Twice, the mouse cursor has done that poltergeist trick where, with the actual mouse stationary, it drifts three inches due east and then stops. For no reason at all. Works fine afterwards though. Brrrrrrr.

    Cruft Force 2. Comfortable. Description: User has now got around to resetting Explorer so that "web content in folders" is suppressed. Something has made a C:\TEMP directory in the proper place unasked, for which mercy the user guiltily feels grateful.

    A strange entry is found in the System event log: MRxSmb: The redirector was unable to initialise security context or query context attributes. Assiduous googling of the key phrases, up web site and down newsgroup, establishes that, although many have wondered, nobody knows what this means.

    Cruft Force 3. Lived-in. Description: One time in seven when the user starts Word or other Office 2000 app, instead of running, it pretends it is installing itself for the first time and starts a setup program.

    Directory count in C:\ up to 17, and something has pooed a Paradox lock control file there, too.

    Cruft Force 4. Middle-aged. Description: Amount of time from screen showing "real" Windows background to the logon box appearing is >30 seconds. Sometimes cannot "browse" other machines on LAN.

    Get first real BSOD. Uninstall jokey screen saver, replace with SETI.

    An extra disk of huge capacity has been installed. CD-ROM moves from drive F: to drive [:

    Cruft Force 5. Worn out. Description: Some time after bootup, always get a dialog "A service has failed to start - BLT300." What is BLT300? Nobody knows. Although one can manually remove/disable this service, it always reappears two or three reboots later.

    If one double-clicks a document icon, Word takes 4 minutes 30 seconds to start up. But it still works fine if started as a program. Somebody opines that this is due to misconfigured DDE. Or the Mars-Jupiter cusp.

    Cruft Force 6. Limping. Description: [Delphi|Visual Basic|Java] suddenly remembers a trial shareware component -- deleted six months ago because it was rubbish -- and refuses to compile anything until it is reinstated.

    "Web content in folders" Explorer setting switches itself back on unbidden. "Setup" programs start crashing while unpacking their own decompression DLLs.

    Cruft Force 7. Wounded. Description: No longer able to logon using original account as the system freezes, so must logon as "Verity2" or similar.

    There are now nine items in BOOT.INI: the original W2K starter, a brace of two-entries-each NT4s (one Turkish), a Windows 98, and three assorted Linuxen. Left to start up by itself, the machine chooses a broken installation of SUSE and halts with a kernel panic.

    Cruft Force 8. Decrepit. Description: A virus checker is installed at the insistence of IT. This actually improves performance, apparently violating Newton's laws.

    Blue Screens Of Death are served daily. The SETI screen saver, like ET himself, encounters difficulty calling home and despairing during an overnight run creates 312 copies of its icon in an (impressively expanded) system tray that fills half the screen.

    Successful connections to the LAN are very rare.

    Cruft Force 9. Putrefaction. Description: Can only see the 32-GB D:\ partition -- the one which has all the source code on it -- at every third boot. Directory count in C:\ up to 93, partly because some [one/thing] has put a complete (but non-working) installation of the Eudora e-mail client in the root.

    Starting Control Panel shows rolling torch animation. The applet icons never appear.

    Cruft Force 10. Expiry. Description: Machine only runs in Safe mode at 16-color 800×600, and even then for about a minute and a half before BSODing. Attempts to start an app are rewarded with a dialog "No font list found."

    Ordinary dodges, such as reformatting the hard disk(s) and starting again, are ineffective. Cruft has soaked into the very fabric of the machine, and it should be disposed of safely at a government-approved facility. There it will be encased in cruft-resistant glass and buried in a residential district.

    DDJ

  5. From the article, a question answered... by Idarubicin · · Score: 5, Funny
    "A service has failed to start - BLT300." What is BLT300? Nobody knows.

    Obviously, BLT300 is part of a new strategic alliance between Microsoft and Subway. In addition to having that wretched "Connect to the Internet" shortcut, Microsoft is now trying to influence the user's choice of submarine sandwich.

    Fight back. Install new open source RedHot Club Sandwich Service instead.

    --
    ~Idarubicin
  6. Windows decay by laserjet · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Based purely on my own experience, Windows does decay quite a bit faster than Linux - but I don't think it's mainly the OS's fault:

    It's mainly the users and the applications. There are so MANY applications for Windows out there that want to put an icon on your descktop, in your system tray, in your start menu, etc. It is no wonder when the decay takes place. All these applications do their own thing to Windows.

    Then, on top of that, you have many, many, many bad installers. They remove some files, sure, but rarely do they get rid of everything, including registry entries.

    Linux has a bit different type of users, and most of the software made for linux is by people who hate "Take-over-your-system-ware" sofware. It also doesn't have the central registry system like Windows. Sure it will have it's problems, but right now it does not. More users and more bad or poorly written apps will cause bloat and decay.

    So, as usual, we must blaim the users and the applications for software decay for the most part. The OS should do some cleanup as well, but gone are the days when uninstalling mean deleting the directory it was installed to.

    --
    Moon Macrosystems. Sun's biggest competitor.
    1. Re:Windows decay by ender81b · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Give microsoft some credit though, things have gotten temporarily better in Win2k . I can now have a win2k install for about 1 year before needing to format-whipe-reinstall. The longest I ever lasted with 95 was about 2 months, 98 I think I got to 5 months one time.

      You point out there are many bad installers that leave stuff scattered across the registry, this is quite true. Of course linux has the nice problem of scatter-componets-across-10,000 directorys. I use linux as a server platform instead of a desktop platform for precisely this reason. I can *never* find all the parts of some installs and I despise when a program places itself into 4-5 different directorys.

      gone are the days when uninstalling mean deleting the directory it was installed to.

      Haven't used OS X have we? =) Honestly this is one area where the mac shines. To uninstall something all you have to do is drap-drop into the trash can. Nice and easy.

    2. Re:Windows decay by jonathan_atkinson · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Sure it will have it's problems, but right now it does not. More users and more bad or poorly written apps will cause bloat and decay.

      I agree; which is part of the reason I quit using Mandrake and rolled my own LFS system. Anything I'm not sure about I make install to /opt/whatever, then add the /opt/whatever/lib path to ld.so.conf. This way I can check out new apps, and if they don't make the grade, I just rm -rf the whole directory. My whole system has stayed pretty clean this way.

      --Jon

      --
      Cleanstick.org: Dumb weblog about nothing
    3. Re:Windows decay by digitalsushi · · Score: 2

      Thinking back to the 109kb exe I ran the other night on Kazaa, and how happy it seemed that I had a LAN at home here, running without apparently doing anything other than flashing my screen for a moment, makes me realize, aside from me being a moron, is that I am dually livid that tonight is the night that both computers decided to "decay". And I just realized how much faster the servers are at work, given that I just spend the past 22 minutes asking a black and white monitor why it couldnt copy 2.2 gig any faster than that. Oh, its going to be a long, long night.

      --
      slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
    4. Re:Windows decay by quark2universe · · Score: 2

      Those damn users! If it weren't for them, the OS would be infinitely fast. Of course there would be no-one to verify it.

      --

      Believe in things of which no person has ever learned
    5. Re:Windows decay by ArsonSmith · · Score: 2

      This sounds really cool. Then if it does make the grade just reinstal to the location of your choice (eg / /opt or /usr/local)

      Great idea. Why didn't I think of something this simple?

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    6. Re:Windows decay by Darth_Burrito · · Score: 2

      One of the major problems I've encountered with windows is the whole dll hell thing. Even if you have an adequate uninstaller, sometimes windows will just not let things go. For instance, the command to unregister a dll is regsvr32 /u my.dll . Windows will always tell you the unregister succeeded. However, if something is using the dll at the time (like a webserver), then it hasn't really been unregistered.

      Doing development on 2K, we sometimes had situations where we would unregister a dll and type library and delete them ... only to find out Windows had secretly moved them to the winnt\system32 directory and reregistered them there. It was not uncommon for me to open up OLE View and see a couple instances of the same object pointing to a not in use file I'd already unregistered about a dozen times. You'd periodically reach a point where the only way to get things to work would be to search through the registry manually removing all references to your dlls.

    7. Re:Windows decay by MsGeek · · Score: 2

      Let's see...Win2K lasts about a year, you are correct, sir...however, I have had better luck with 9x than you. I have had a 98SE install up and running for a year before doing the reformat-reinstall mambo, and even with 95 I would usually give it six months before giving it its mandatory enema.

      Linux? Had an install of Slack going for two years straight before sending the computer off to live with a friend. Never updated it, mind you...it just kept going and going like the Eveready rabbit.

      Of course, I was never doing uptime pissing contests with any of my machines...I always shut down computers when not in use. I live in California. A friend's machine that was thrown 6 feet across a room by the Northridge quake survived because it was shut down, while another friend's BBS machine that was up during the quake lost all its hard drives.

      I'm going to have to set up one of my machines to run 24/7...I'm going to have to figure out how to secure it against quake damage. And I don't mean games, folks. ;-)

      --
      Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
    8. Re:Windows decay by DennyK · · Score: 2

      I never did understand why so many people have to format+reinstall every X months on Windows. My copy of Windows 98 (first edition, too!) has been running for close to two years now. I've installed tons of crap and removed tons of crap (usually by half-assed methods, too), run half a dozen P2P programs at one time or another, downloaded...err...full-featured demonstrations of popular software from...um...questionable sources, and generally treated the thing like shit for those two years. (Hell, it has my entire Windows 95 install from my previous machine lying around in a backup folder on the C: drive somewhere...) Yet it's still running almost as well as the day I installed it. There's been some slowdown, but certainly not nearly enough for me to want to wipe the whole thing and start over. Crashes are relatively infrequent, and 85-90% of them are software bugs in applications. Moz dies every now and again, Netscape4 chokes on crappy Javascript, Pegasus occasionally eats a much-too-big mail folder, Q3+Urban Terror locks up when connecting to some servers. All of 'em are known bugs in the software, not symptoms of a dying OS. The only time I see a BSOD is very occasionally when shutting down the machine with a whole bunch of stuff open, and that only started after I switched to DSL and installed a PPPoE client. There's also a video glitch that shows up occasionally at boot time when the network logon appears, but that's been happening since the Ethernet card was first installed, and in fact, it actually happens less that it used to these days.

      So...what is it about my computer that makes it keep ticking long past the point when others have to throw up their hands and pull out their Windows CDs and boot disks? It certainly can't be anything I'm doing...I'm worse at cleaning my computer than I am at cleaning house, and believe me, that's pretty damn bad... ;) Does my computer just like me? Do I have a special magic aura that keeps it running when I'm around? Does Windows 98 become immune to cruft after ingesting massive amounts of it? I dunno. All I know is this thing keeps humming along, with an occasional hiccup now and then, no matter what I throw at it. I'm not even sure I remember where my Windows CD is... ;)

      In all seriousness...anyone have any ideas why it keeps on ticking?

      DennyK

    9. Re:Windows decay by ender81b · · Score: 2

      Luck of the draw I would say. Usually a windows installation if used (important, a win installation that just runs one thing over and over and nothing is installed on it will last forever) will start to degrade pretty seriously after a few months, within a year it will become unusable.

      I would say you are just lucky.

    10. Re:Windows decay by stux · · Score: 2

      Heh...

      Yes... although it will require restarts every month or so...

      A Win98 machine is simple incapable of staying up for more than a month or so :)

      --

      ---
      Live Long & Prosper \\//_
      CYA STUX =`B^) 'da Captain,
      Jedi & Last *-fytr
    11. Re:Windows decay by Lumpy · · Score: 2

      You are very very close to target.

      Many people say that Linux fails because it has very few high quality apps for it. Well Microsoft has no more High quality apps than Linux, BSA or Mac. Many many apps are crappily written that upon install trash the registry, throw tons of dll's and other files in the WinNT or Windows directory that do not need to be there, and then start throwing other files and symlinks all over the place (many into the startup folders... Our app is better than anything ... you MUST run it all the time!) Microsoft based OS's suffer from really crappy software apps. There are really lazy/bad programmers out there... and it's just easier to hide the fact that a program is crappily written under windows because you can HIDE it easier.

      At work I support several critical apps. salesminder, cablescan, tapscan, novar, and a couple of other sales and billing apps along with production systems like scala and nexxus. they all are horribly written, are so full of bugs that they will crash the printing subsystems and even some of the critical system DLL's on a regular basis. Cablescan has become mature where it doesnt crash so the company that makes it replaced it with a new product called OmegaC which is the worst written software app I have ever seen.... so the cycle continues...

      it's not the OS's fault. It's the horribly written software out there.. If you look very closely at the apps you will see that they are the reason for decay.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  7. What is it with media players? by SIGFPE · · Score: 4

    Quicktime, Windows Media, RealWhatever. They always appear in the task bar and the little icon tray thing at the bottom right. No matter how many times I try to remove the startup items it's guaranteed they will have returned on reboot. Aarrgghh! They even have Control Panel entries. This is software at its most rude and obnoxious. Why does RealWhateverItsCalledThisTime need a goddamned 'Start Center'? What's so special about low quality streamed audio and video that ot needs this special treatment? If every application did this I'd need a 3rd monitor for all the itty bitty icons. No wonder I need 2Gb of RAM!

    --
    -- SIGFPE
    1. Re:What is it with media players? by puppet10 · · Score: 2

      Start --> Accessories --> System Tools --> System Information

      From the Tools menu select System Configuration Utility and then choose what starts and what doesn't.

      YMMV, this can mess up a system if you don't know what you're doing. Most likely you can turn stuff back on if you have problems though.

      (Alternate way - Run... msconfig)

      --
      -------- This space intentionally left blank --------
    2. Re:What is it with media players? by SIGFPE · · Score: 2

      I thought it was hitting swap that was killing my wife's 64MB W2K installation. So I installed another 256MB and it still takes many minutes to boot. God knows what it's doing on boot. I managed to delete the RealCrap stuff and a few other startup items but it still takes ages to boot. We'd use hibernation if it didn't crash 50% of the time. I can't face reinstalling again from scratch - it took 5 iterations to install originally because of HP using all sorts of unusual devices for which there weren't drivers - as well as spontaneous lockups during the installation itself. Arrrggghhh!

      --
      -- SIGFPE
    3. Re:What is it with media players? by Spy+Hunter · · Score: 2

      Here is what you do: Start->Run, type "msconfig" [without the quotes], press OK. Click the "Startup" tab, uncheck EVERY SINGLE BOX. [it is nearly impossible for you to break your system in this manner, none of the listed programs are required for Windows to boot up, even the important sounding ones like taskmon, so go crazy!] Now close out and reboot. Congratulations! You have successfully un-bloated your Windows installation! If you find that your keyboard volume buttons don't work or you are missing some other feature, do some investigation and find out which program provides the service you want, and only check its box. This simple procedure solves 99% of Windows slowness problems, and foils many adware programs and junkware like RealPlayer.

      --
      main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
    4. Re:What is it with media players? by scm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Defrag the disk, then go to sysinternals.com and get the registry defrager and defrag the registry. Does wonders for windows start up time. You can use the same tool to defrag those swap files too.

      Not always effective, but it's easier than a full reinstall.

      Microsoft used to distribute a registry cleaner which I would also recommend, but for some reason MS pulled it.

    5. Re:What is it with media players? by SIGFPE · · Score: 2
      Search for files or folders named:
      msconfig.exe
      Look in:
      Local Harddrives (C:)
      Search is complete.

      And I remember using msconfig once upon a time.

      --
      -- SIGFPE
    6. Re:What is it with media players? by Darth_Burrito · · Score: 3, Informative

      Real Player has a "feature" which allows it to protect the extensions associated to it against other programs like Media Player and Winamp which I believe have a similar "features". With Real Player I think it is turned on by default. Basically, it is not enough to register a file type with Winamp, you must also unregister it with RealPlayer through their settings wizard... or find someway to kill their scheduler. Here is an excerpt from a RP help file...

      "Ask": During installation RealOne Player will ask you for permission to become the default media player for media types that may be assigned to other programs on your computer. Using a feature called Scheduler, RealOne Player will periodically check to ensure that your media playback preferences have not been overridden by another program, even when RealOne Player is not in use. Any media type that you have assigned to RealOne Player will be reclaimed automatically when another program attempts to override your choices.

      For example, if another program decided for you that it should be your default media player for a given media type, RealOne Player would silently and automatically correct the change to protect your original choice. If you wish to change the media types that you have associated with the RealOne Player you can follow these steps: On the Tools menu, select 'Preferences', 'Media Types', then select the media types you want RealOne Player to be associated with. Select the "OK" button to save your changes.

      You can configure the Scheduler to operate only when RealOne Player is in use by following these steps: On the Tools menu, select 'Preferences', 'Connection', 'Internet Settings', then select "Only perform automatic services while RealOne Player is in use". Select the "Yes" button when the confirmation dialog appears.

      Please Note: We will always reassociate media types with RealOne Player that are unique to RealNetworks' products and cannot be played by other applications (such as RealAudio and RealVideo).

    7. Re:What is it with media players? by Spy+Hunter · · Score: 2

      My XP Pro machine includes msconfig. It might be because I upgraded from Win98 instead of installing from scratch, but it does appear to be a different version with more features than the Win98 one.

      --
      main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
    8. Re:What is it with media players? by Spy+Hunter · · Score: 2

      Nope! You can't disable the launching of explorer through this dialog, explorer is always launched as the shell no matter what you uncheck. Also, systray.exe, curiously enough, doesn't seem to affect the workings of the system tray. If you don't believe me, Ctrl-Alt-Del and kill it and see. I have a feeling it might be connected to the volume icon in the system tray, but I forget if I ever verified that suspicion. Anyways, Windows works fine without it.

      --
      main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
  8. Dependancy hell perhaps but... by sterno · · Score: 3, Informative

    While Linux is prone to falling into dependancy hell, it doesn't suffer from the same performance degradation that you get in windows. In windows, you seem to have to periodically re-install everything just to get your system to load in a reasonable amount of time. You might get into a dependancy nightmare in Linux when trying to install something new, but the system performance doesn't seem to suffer from cruft related degradation.

    I've found in my Linux experience that if I try be experimental and cutting edge, I end up, eventually, getting into situations where it becomes a major nightmare to upgrade. On the other hand, if I leave my system relatively stock, tools like red-carpet, up2date, or apt-get, do a pretty damn good job of hiding the dependancy hell from me.

    All things considered, I'd rather have it become a pain to install piece of software then to have it be easy and slowly cause my system to become unusable for no apparent reason.

    --
    This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
    1. Re:Dependancy hell perhaps but... by shyster · · Score: 2
      While Linux is prone to falling into dependancy hell, it doesn't suffer from the same performance degradation that you get in windows. In windows, you seem to have to periodically re-install everything just to get your system to load in a reasonable amount of time.

      I'm honestly amazed at how many *nix people out there have very few clues when it comes to tweaking/maintaining/fixing Windows.

      For some reason, they can search for 3 days for that elusive X setting, but they can't figure out how to make a bootlog and figure out what takes Windows so long to boot. Or they fancy themselves kernel hackers, but can't clean up their registry (OID's you say? Simple, just search for the name of the app in the Uninstall portion, that will give you the correct OID). They can reverse engineer a device driver, then code one in ASM language, but they can't figure out msconfig.

      And, of course, I'm exagerrating a bit. Kernel hackers and the like are more than competent to maintain Windows, but they prefer Linux....I just find it odd that most *nix guys are tolerant of the hurdles they must jump through with *nix, but clueless and intolerant of Windows' similiar hurdles.

      Oh, and to keep it on topic, Safe Mode is 640x480 in 16 colors...not 800x600.

    2. Re:Dependancy hell perhaps but... by shyster · · Score: 2
      Of course we can't figure that out. It is supposed to be difficult! If it was supposed to be easy, why would M$ have chosen to place the bootlog in a hidden file?

      Hmmm...let's see, press F8 on startup and select Bootlog. then open bootlog.txt. Yup, that's difficult all right.

      There's two type of Windows users. There's the computer illiterate users who would be confused by a bootlog.txt file (and that's why it's hidden) and the (hopefully) computer savvy users that should be able to find a hidden file...or have configured their shell to show hidden files. I'll leave it up to you to decide which camp you fall in.

    3. Re:Dependancy hell perhaps but... by shyster · · Score: 2
      and i suppose we are just supposed to be born with the knowledge that pressing F8 will bring up this menu. admittedly they placed a nice little line at the start of 2000 (havent looked at XP) but if you are running another win version do we just guess at it or what....

      Ummm...it's in the Windows Help file. And in your Windows manual. And plastered all over the web. And accessible via MS's Knowledge Base. And...need I go on?

  9. More levels. . . by Aerog · · Score: 4, Funny

    Cruft Force 8.5 Larry Flynt. OS has now filled its system drive partition, thereby reaching more than 3 times its original install. Web browsers will not download files more than 640k, swap file now resides permanently on F: yet C: still has less than 1MB space, all non-essential portions have been removed to a "Temp C: Files" directory on F:, essential system files are beginning to be moved to the temp files, windows/inf is the first target to be moved when an install is needed. Writes random data to HD for fun, windows/sysbackup deleted at regular intervals in order to keep registry errors at bay, more porn than most porn sites.

    Now I have a 10gb system drive and win2k. Only disk errors can slow me down now!

    --

    - Relativistic? That's barely Newtonian!
  10. Mirror by kawaichan · · Score: 2
    --

    kawai
  11. bsod, etc. by Sebastopol · · Score: 2

    I've never seen a BSOD on Win2k. Anybody know how to generate one? Does it even revert back to EGA text mode if there is a fault of some sort?

    Otherwise, +1 funny article. It invites the question, is it even possible to make a system that won't decay over time, or at least allow a method for repair? Or is that simply impossible. I would think that removing the registry and reverting back to dos-link inifiles (.rc files) would be a start.

    --
    https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
    1. Re:bsod, etc. by laserjet · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I see BSOD's on Win2k all the time, Win2k Pro and Win2k Server/ Advanced Server. There are a couple of easy ways to do it if you search on Google, but when I see it, it is because of my own doing (i.e. not following directions).

      I have seen Win2k BSOD when explorer froze, when I plugged in 75 hard disks at once (JBODs), and when working the IO really hard as well.

      Still, it is better than NT, but still not perfect.

      --
      Moon Macrosystems. Sun's biggest competitor.
    2. Re:bsod, etc. by 13Echo · · Score: 2

      It's framebuffer, like the startup screen. And it is blue, but is different than the 9x BSOD. bost often it is a result of a hardware failure, but still can occur as a result of general Windows behavior. It isn't *nearly* as bad as 9x, but in my experience, still crashes more than any Unix system that I have used.

    3. Re:bsod, etc. by EvanED · · Score: 2

      Actually, I believe Win2K just reboots. That's what XP does at least if something happens that would previously have made a BSOD. (You can turn off the auto-reboot, but I don't know what happens then.)

      This is according to a C|Net article and a couple times when Win2K rebooted on me.

    4. Re:bsod, etc. by OpenMind(tm) · · Score: 2

      One of the easiest ways is to yank a CD out of the drive that it was expecting to be in there for a little while yet. I think this is mainly an issue when running DirectX games and such. It is a recoverable BSOD, but useful if you do want to see one.

    5. Re:bsod, etc. by npietraniec · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe if it was relatively easy. I don't know of a MS kernel mailing list. Besides, if I'm paying more for the damn thing, I would expect it to be a little more stable than the one put together by voulenteers

    6. Re:bsod, etc. by mark-t · · Score: 2
      I get them fairly regularly... Almost always at bootup, even after what appeared to be a normal shutdown, but every once in a while I get them at other times. Usually I get a grievance about something obtuse like bad_pool_caller, but one that's been cropping up every once in a while was a corrupt beep.sys (requiring me to restore that one file and then reboot), causing a BSOD (or whatever it's called now) on system startup.

      God only knows why this happens... I've scanned my system for virii, but none show up. You know, if I could only get printing on my wife's printer working properly from my machine under Linux, I'd never even have occasion to be in Windows in the first place.

    7. Re:bsod, etc. by TheAwfulTruth · · Score: 2

      IE and other programs make heavy use of harware video accelleration when doing scrolling and can easily cause a BSOD of a bad video driver.

      Of the few BSODs I've seen on my own or other windows machines running 2k and XP here. They have all been caused by #1) Video driver bug. #2) Sound driver bug. #3) Network card driver bug. Using name brand equipment in those areas decreases the chance of a BSOD (Stop) by dozens of times. I've seen 1 or two a year on my various machines over the last two years. And that's from always upgrading my drivers and occasionally wishing I hadn't. Always hardware related.

      I also once had a motherboard go "bad" in some exotic way that was causing a daily BSOD on one of my 98 machines years ago for about a week before I replaced it.

      A BSOD is the Kernel detecting that a driver running in priveldged space is doing something very bad and is halting to protect the system. Similar to Linux BSOD (BLACK screen of death, or Kernel Panic). The people here that run their Linux boxes who know what they are doing and the people that run the windows machines that know what they are doing see the BSOD on their respective machines about the same frequency. Maybe once or twice a year per machine.

      Those that don't know what they are doing and are installing and uninstalling everything they get their hands on have much less stable machines, both Windows and Linux (As well as our Mac people!)

      --
      Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!
    8. Re:bsod, etc. by snilloc · · Score: 2
      Of course different flavors of Windows have different BSODs, but how the heck can you say 9x has no BSOD?!

      1) It is a blue screen.
      2) The blue screen means that something big has died.

      I say these two things qualify a BSOD. (Dare I also say that the term "BSOD" gained its popularity through the frequency and annoyance of the Windows 9x blue error screens.) But let's examine your other points.

      Unrecoverable? Sorta. Most 9x BSODs I've encountered do mean that a hard reboot is in order. However, I've had some that "recovered" back to Windows, sometimes even enough to save my work and restart normally.

      As for not being useful for diagnosing a problem, this is also wrong, though the BSOD info isn't as verbose as the NT BSOD. If something specific is wrong (as opposed to general Windows9x cruft), you now have some idea as to what your Google search should be. I recently uncovered an ASPI layer fuckup that was causing the computer to crash upon attaching a digital camera via USB. (Damn you, Adaptec!)

      (Have I just been trolled? This could be a first!)

    9. Re:bsod, etc. by Quietust · · Score: 2

      Actually, that's one from Windows NT 4.0.
      The Windows 2000 stop screen looks a bit more like this (but white text on blue background):

      *** STOP: 0x000000CE (0xC0000005,0x804F3606,0x00000000,0x00000000)
      MODE_EXCEPTION_NOT_HANDLED
      *** Address 804F3606 base at 80400000, DateStamp 3ad77869 - ntoskrnl.exe

      Beginning dump of physical memory
      Physical memory dump complete.
      Contact your administrator or technical support group for further assistance.

      Atleast that's what mine have always looked like under Windows 2000 Professional (in the rare event that the system actually does STOP)...

      --
      * Q
      P.S. If you don't get this note, let me know and I'll write you another.
    10. Re:bsod, etc. by pmz · · Score: 2

      Besides, if I'm paying more for the damn thing, I would expect it to be a little more stable than the one put together by voulenteers

      Uh, have you ever worked on commercial software?

      Linux and the free BSDs are not bound to marketing departments, tight budgets, irresponsible deadlines, and high turnover. Nearly all commercial software, including Windows, is dominated by these things.

      Unlike hardware, in software you do not often get what you pay for.

    11. Re:bsod, etc. by npietraniec · · Score: 2

      Linux and the free BSDs are not bound to marketing departments, tight budgets, irresponsible deadlines, and high turnover.

      Looks like you got my point... That's why I use Linux :)

  12. Re:Just as prone? by foonf · · Score: 2

    It happens differently, and maybe not as fast, but it does happen. Of course user error is usually at fault (that would explain the extra copy of freetype I had installed in /usr/local that the pango configure script didn't like...)

    But then if you leave Windows 2000 (yeah, the article wasn't really talking about 9x, which is in a whole different league...) in its default state it doesn't crash that much either.

    And I have had badly misconfigured linux boxen that have stayed up for months anyway. The ability to successfully forward packets and occasionally serve a web page without crashing does not equate to a lack of cruft.

    --

    "(Man) tries to live his own life as if he were telling a story. But you have to choose: live or tell." --Sartre
  13. Cruft from the get-go by jamienk · · Score: 2, Insightful
    The article implies that a brand-spanking new PC with Windows is cruft-free, e.g., The "Connect to the Internet" shortcut is still on the desktop, and the "How to use Windows" dialog appears at logon...

    But these things are CRUFT! And there's MORE in a "virgin" Windows box:

    • MS Messenger is running in the tray -- asking you sign up for Passport when you 1st log on
    • Windows Media Player is crippled so you can't make good MP3s (or on XP even download and use som other MP3 making software)
    • OEMs install dozens of bullshit programs, many of which launch on boot-up and leave their menus all over the screen
    • A bunch of crap litters the "Send to" right-click menu
    • MS Media player acts like some weird-ass app with no menu, no window, etc...

    It takes a LONG time to get things cleaned up and usable. You used to be able to just wipe the disk and install Windows from scratch, but more and more OEMs are not allowing thins, only giving you some crappy RESTORE disks...

    1. Re:Cruft from the get-go by jamienk · · Score: 2

      Right, I got "insightful" more for an early MS-bashing post than anything else ;)

      But the default install of Windows is not clean, it is cluttered with CRUFT dictated by MS and OEM interests, not users needs.

      Some of the stuff is just MS trying to make things easy for dummies. But a LOT of stuff is dictated by their politics. Red Hat doesn't install chkconfig because they figure "dummies" will have no need for it. MS cripples XP and tries to make you sign up for this and that and use their apps over competitors.

      I Recently got a VAIO laptop with XP, and it was a nightmare getting it to let me rip a CD to good quality MP3s. Many of the 3rd party apps I downloaded complained about Windows missing some thing or other... Why would MS want to make this so difficult? Maybe to make us use MS-only ASF...?

      I found it very difficult to turn off MS Messenger -- You can't just exit it and it's not in the startup menu -- you have to start it, go to preferences, flip through all the tabs, and uncheck "start automatically". Why should this program bypass the normal way that apps auto-start on bootup? ...maybe because of AOL...?

      The sign-on to Passport was done in such a way as to make me think that it was part of the registration process -- and XP warned me that if I didn't register, my computer would stop working.

      Etc.

      In sum: Windows bad. Windows very very bad.

    2. Re:Cruft from the get-go by foobar104 · · Score: 2

      How sane is it to have a service that transmits plain text passwords turned on by default?

      "It's not whether you're paranoid, Lenny. It's whether you're paranoid enough."

    3. Re:Cruft from the get-go by foobar104 · · Score: 2

      In sum: Windows bad. Windows very very bad.

      Going for another "+1, Insightful," are we? ;-)

      I don't disagree with you in principle, but I do think you have a different definition of "clean" than is really workable under these circumstances. I consider "clean" to be the configuration under which the system has been tested by the vendor. Microsoft wants you to have a Passport account. They want you to have MSN Messenger running in the background all the time. And so on. These are part of the default-- and tested, probably-- configuration of the OS. You don't like them; I don't like them. But that's how Microsoft intends for them to be.

      So I define a "clean" installation of Windows XP as being one in which MSN Messenger is running in the background. Sucks, but there it is.

      You, on the other hand, seem to define it as being the minimal system that can do what you need it to do. I don't think that's wrong, per se, but I do think that it's not a particularly useful viewpoint when talking about operating systems like XP.

      And as for ripping a CD to MP3... what are you thinking? Get thee to an Apple store right now and equip yourself with a Mac, and just use iTunes. Problem solved. ;-)

    4. Re:Cruft from the get-go by gilroy · · Score: 2
      Blockquoth the poster:
      How insane is it that Red Hat decided to ship the OS with telnet access off by default? What good is a server if you can't telnet into it? Are they expecting me to sit down in front of the damn thing?
      I don't think this is an oversight. I think it's a security issue... isn't telnetd insecure? (Disclaimer: I've been a Unix user from time to time but not a gearhead or guru. I just know what I spot on the Net.) I seem to remember some distro getting hauled across the coals exactly because it came with telnetd on by default...
    5. Re:Cruft from the get-go by foobar104 · · Score: 2

      As I said elsewhere, that sort of decision is either good or bad depending on circumstances. If you want to put a freshly installed Red Hat box on the Internet, no firewall or anything, just bareback, then I guess having telnetd off makes a lot of sense. Under my circumstances-- on a secure LAN behind a couple of layers of firewall-- having it off was a royal pain in the ass, and made no sense.

      I should have been more clear about this, because you're the second or third person to post a "correction" about it: decisions about default OS configurations will only make sense some of the time. The fact that the original poster didn't like MSN Messenger doesn't necessarily mean Microsoft was wrong to include it by default, but rather that the poster's needs differed from what Microsoft was prepared to provide by default.

    6. Re:Cruft from the get-go by jafac · · Score: 2

      The really sucky bit is DELL servers -
      You HAVE to install their version of WIndows. You can't just take a straight out of the box WIndows install, and add the vendor-specific drivers one by one. Something always gets fucked up along the way. Interrupt or IO port conflicts. But pop in the "bend over for mister Dell" CD, and it installs just fine. All the extra crap that Dell wants you to have on your PC so that it's properly "branded" - as if looking at the Dell logo on the BIOS screen and the front of the box isn't enough to remind you the brand of machine you're using.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    7. Re:Cruft from the get-go by foobar104 · · Score: 2

      Because I don't want to have to dig up a monitor and keyboard and sit on the cold tile floor of a machine room every time I want to use the machine.

      Duh.

    8. Re:Cruft from the get-go by foobar104 · · Score: 2

      Telnet is built in to Windows. So I can sit down at any machine in the building and telnet to my servers in the lab. This is a good thing.

      Sorry to burst your bubble, bud, but no system administrator worth his salt discards a perfectly good tool in favor of a more trendy one without a good reason. You use what works best, and in that environment, telnet worked best.

      Security and convenience are inversely proportional. Finding the right balance is a big part of a system administrator's job.

      It seems like you're not a very good system administrator.

    9. Re:Cruft from the get-go by gilroy · · Score: 2
      Blockquoth the poster:
      As I said elsewhere, that sort of decision is either good or bad depending on circumstances.
      Fair enough and quite the right attitude about it. But that hardly makes Red Hat "insane" for making the choice they did. It had a certain logic to it, and I certainly feel that defaults should be set (a) to maximize security and minimize the coneqeuence of a click-through install (even though we know no one ever does that :) ) and (b) secondary to this, cause the least inconvenience to the most users.
    10. Re:Cruft from the get-go by foobar104 · · Score: 2

      Man did everybody have their sarcasm filters installed over the weekend or something? Or, to quote Aliens, "Did IQs drop sharply while I was away?" ;-)

      For the record, the part about Red Hat being insane for not enabling telnet was meant only to illustrate my point that various decisions make sense only under specific circumstances. Under other circumstances, those otherwise perfectly reasonable decisions seem completely nuts.

      Like my decision to be facetious in my comment. That seemed like a good idea at the time....

    11. Re:Cruft from the get-go by crucini · · Score: 2
      Sorry to burst your bubble, bud, but no system administrator worth his salt discards a perfectly good tool in favor of a more trendy one without a good reason.
      This condescension is unwarranted. You are receiving a helpful warning from your peers and would do well to consider it.
      SSH has been around for quite a while. It's not trendy. Even the people I know who have little interest in security have shut off telnet on their servers. I know that there are shops that haven't realized the level of risk yet and still allow telnet and the r* services. They may have a painful wakeup call. How hard would it be to get one of your users (behind the firewall) to run an arbitrary executable? As a virus, a greeting card, or an animation?
      Anyhow, putty is a great Windows ssh/telnet client. It's download/installation is fast enough that it may make sense to install it rather than using the (very bad) Windows telnet client.
    12. Re:Cruft from the get-go by foobar104 · · Score: 2

      I was condescending only in direct relation to the condescension I was given.

      I stand by my statement: there's no reason at all to throw away telnet in an environment where the added security of ssh is unnecessary. You're just going to have to take my word that it's unnecessary, because I don't feel like getting into a pissing contest over it.

  14. Well... by RinkSpringer · · Score: 3, Informative

    ...the upside of an open-source OS is that you can browse through the source and figure out *why* it is messing itself up... :) And most likely, fix it while you're at it.

    That's the power of open source.

    1. Re:Well... by rizzuh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Really! Dude, we've like never heard this before!

      Free Software is powerful in many ways, but the idea that you, yourself, can go in and fix decay is kind of silly.

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but all OSes rely on abstraction. Abstraction relies on a bit of bloat.

      Any OS is going to decay over time without micromanagment. Windows will probably decay even if you're the strictest of system operators because it tries to hide everything from the user. Even if we did have the source to Windows, the FIX would be not including so many useless programs.

      Open Source code doesn't solve everything.

    2. Re:Well... by crucini · · Score: 2
      Any OS is going to decay over time without micromanagment.
      My experience with Linux has been the opposite. Everything continues to work exactly as it did. Nothing takes longer to start than it once did; no application tries to reinstall itself when started. Determining the cause of this difference is complicated, but observing the fact is simple. Have you observed decay in Linux? If so, what kind?
  15. Next month, in Doctor Dobbs' Journal: by Hobart · · Score: 4, Funny
    Building websites for magazines that can survive the "Slashdot Effect"
    --
    o/~ Join us now and share the software ...
  16. Sounds like code rot to me by smoondog · · Score: 2

    Code Rot - The spontaneous process by which unmaintained code slowly ceases to function properly. Also see entropy and decay.

    No surprise here. Coders like to change things, API's, software, system registries, etc. Unfortunately, they are often unable to clean up after themselves properly.

    -Sean

  17. Please mod parent up by Slashamatic · · Score: 2
    The poster isn't chasing Karma, but those browsing at +1 may miss this. It is hillarious and so true.

    The main issue with Windows and their apps has been the hideous version control. It has improved since 2K/XP but trying to chase whether a DLL is really needed or not is interesting. Those apps sharing DLLs that install their own versions caus endless fun.

  18. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  19. Re:Just as prone? by MrResistor · · Score: 2, Redundant

    Read the article, it's not what you think.

    Interestingly, the author has decided a virgin install of Windows, complete with Welcome to Windows dialog, stupid Windows music, and Connect to the Internet icon, is cruft-free.

    --
    Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
  20. Re:Just as prone? by Zen+Mastuh · · Score: 2

    That's funny--mine always required a couple of reboots a day.

    --
    "What is the sound of one belly slapping?"
  21. Yup, I have... by sterno · · Score: 2

    Looks just like a BSOD on NT. With some games I find that I'll get a BSOD at least once and sometimes more per night. I havet to assume it's the video driver, but no number of software upgrades have fixed it. So it crashes and i wish I could play the games on linux.

    --
    This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
  22. Plug, plug by Phexro · · Score: 5, Informative

    Use Debian. I'm not saying that it's immune to cruft, but the fact that they have close to 9000 packages which all comply with the Debian Policy (as well as the FHS) means that everything plays nice together, and if it doesn't, it's a bug. There's even a tool called Cruft, which will locate cruft on your system.

    1. Re:Plug, plug by gregbaker · · Score: 2
      I recently did a fresh reinstall of my Debian system after about 4 years of heavy use and a lot of package installs/purges. In that time, I probably tried a dozens of window managers, games, office suites and other stuff.

      I was finding that I had a lot of cruft in /etc. This was partially files that didn't need to be there, but also files that I had edited manually, so dpkg and friends wouldn't manage them any more. I decided on a fresh reinstall and to restore only files that I really knew I wanted manual control over. It's worked out quite well.

      The thing that really differentiates Unix from Windows in this respect is that you can actually fix cruft problems in a meaningful way. Do a ps aux and see what's running and check the /etc/rc* files for stuff that shouldn't be there. That will take care of cruft-related performance problems.

      Having an aesthetically pleasing /etc is another matter. :-)

    2. Re:Plug, plug by millette · · Score: 2, Funny

      I installed Cruft with the os, maybe 9 months ago. I never figured what it does, so it's simply been occupying space on my hd. Now if only there was a simple program to get rid of this old junk I'm not using anymore!

    3. Re:Plug, plug by John+Hasler · · Score: 2

      I never figured what [cruft] does

      It reports the differences (if any) between what is actually on your system and what the package management system thinks is there.

      if only there was a simple program to get rid of
      this old junk I'm not using anymore!

      Have you tried
      'apt-get remove --purge packagename'>?

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  23. Sure... by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 2

    ...just turn it on!

  24. Somebody must have spent more than a year... by NotoriousQ · · Score: 2

    studying this.

    But really, all Win users I know who know what they are doing typically reinstall every 6-12 months to avoid this. All sheep will call tech support, which will tell them to place "Dell recovery disk" into the cd-rom tray. Anyway, the win machines I manage, (my family's) do not go far past level 5, and then only due to gator / growing registry. Pretty much as soon as explorer starts crashing / freezing continously (which happens way before daily bsod, but just as damaging) it is time to reinstall.

    Now about linux......
    I have been a linux user for about 2 years...The first year I did not have much of a clue -- so cruft was a huge problem...It is called installing newer version of gtk while running debian stable and not using a .deb....ouch....

    A year ago....still learning, I started using slack....and did all my own management....I did get cruft is /usr/share and /usr/lib ... but I knew what I had installed ... and I felt comfortable deleting quite a few files from there...but most of them were used anyway.....
    furthermore....about the only thing that changes in linux, when you have crap in the libs, is that ld.cache is huge, and wasted space on the drive.....but it does not seem to alter performance a bit..or I have not noticed it at all. It simply is not loaded into ram...compare to windows, and you know that the speed of the machine is inversely proportional to the size of the registry.

    But back to cruft on linux -- there are lessons I learned from running my system, and seeing others.

    1. Use a package manager or keep a log of everything installed. Package manager is preferable if it does a decent job. I think both rpm and apt/dpkg do a very decent job, with rare and fixable corruptions. Gentoo portage seems to be excellent also...but I need time to verify....
    Slack and LFS users....keep track of your installs....preferably of each file...To do this use depot / some other organizing tool that keeps everything separate.

    2 Install only the stuff you need, uninstall the rest. Do not get carried away with maybe I will use this...If you stop using it and never plan to come back, remove it immediately

    3. Do not ever do make install....if you compile straight from source (portage exempt) then make install will kill your hd space and make it very difficult to uninstall...If you are the only user who runs this app then try running it in your home / some other designated directory. Perhaps create a designated directory, and do a chroot install, and then create symlinks. (BTW depot does this for you, so use it if you do this often)

    The only real exemption from this is the kernel, glibc, standard utils, compiler, and package manager....everything else must be kept clean

    And remember the advantage of linux is that you can control cruft, while in windows cruft controls the computer

    --
    badness 10000
  25. Sigh... by sheldon · · Score: 2

    Windows Media Player is crippled so you can't make good MP3s (or on XP even download and use som other MP3 making software)

    WMP makes perfectly good WMA files, if you want MP3 then you can either purchase an encoder for it(about $10) or buy a third party product like say Musicmatch(about $30). I run Musicmatch on XP and don't have any issues with this, so it's unclear to me why you are claiming I cannot do this.

    I'm going to guess you're one of these people who has never used XP but is convinced it is worse than Win98.

    1. Re:Sigh... by sheldon · · Score: 2

      Or you could just turn off DRM like I do.

      I prefer encoding with Windows Media Player because they don't use CDDB and their data is more reliable as a result. It appears to come directly from the label rather than be hand entered by 12 year olds.

  26. In RedHat linux... by WetCat · · Score: 2

    decay can easily be measured as a result of
    rpm -Va | wc -l
    (check all packages and count lines of mistakes)
    In my case its value on my working horse notebook
    is 26644,
    on moderately used server it's 25535
    On new machine it should be near 0...
    BTW What command do you have on Debian machines to check all packages?

    1. Re:In RedHat linux... by Jeffrey+Baker · · Score: 2

      dpkg -l

  27. System clutter as a function of users by kryonD · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think it's a bit premature for us linux advocates to say it is immune to this. While a package manager certainly does help reduce dependancy issues, I don't think it addresses the physical issues.

    First and foremost to consider is that there is no such think as a O(1) search algorithm("read 'Big Oh of one' for the non computer scientists in the crowd: notation used to measure the efficiency of an algorithm). The ammount of time required to search a list will always be a function of its size.

    As the user base of Linux grows, so will the demand and supply of software. slowly, but surely, /usr/* will start to get quite fat with binaries and their required libraries. Everytime one of those apps are called, it will take additional time to find the binary itself, then tack on the additional latency produced by the libraries having to be located and loaded into memory and the rusult will unavoidably be the visual degrade in performance.

    Plus as more and more non computer literate people start using Linux, we will have to ensure that the software to support installing and upgrading packages on the system is user-proof, or other problems will result.

    Unless someone can win a Nobell prize or Fields medal for finding a O(1) search, I'm afraid the above article is correct. ...

    --
    I've dirtied my hands writing poetry, for the sake of seduction; that is, for the sake of a useful cause. --Dostoevsky
    1. Re:System clutter as a function of users by Nindalf · · Score: 2

      Advanced search algorithms such as hashing are rarely covered in an intro course. (I've never heard of it)

      Good grief! Did you go to Bovine University? Hash tables easily fit within the ten most commonly used data structures. They take all of 30 seconds to explain, and in my experience are usually introduced in the same breath as lists and trees.

      Also, you've never heard of sequential hashing (no linked lists)? Or perfect hashing (hideously, monstrously expensive to add keys, but one-step look-up every time)?

      You don't understand this stuff at all, so don't spew official-looking equations you pulled out your ass and say things like "I also don't want a beginning CS student to read this and be taken astray."

      Your speed analysis is completely off-base. The average list length in a hash table is not related to the total number of elements, but the ratio of the number of elements to the size of the table (the base table, in linked hashes). Normal practice is to expand and rebuild the table when it starts getting full, to keep that ratio under a chosen threshold, and keep the hash look-ups in constant average time.

      That's right. Hash look-ups run within a constant speed, regardless of entry count, except for rare anomalies (which remain rare regardless of entry count). That's why we go to the trouble of using them. Big-O is inappropriate to express that, because it's for worst-case scenarios or impossibly worse, as is little-o which is only for the worst-case (hash tables are actually o(N)... just like a linked list; in case everything hashes to the wrong key). But log has absolutely nothing at all to do with the performance of a remotely conventional hash implementation.

      Your original raised concern (that more files in the usr hierarchy will noticeably slow down Linux) is utter garbage, as is your reasoning behind it, and your "debunking" of the sensible objection. In my experience, most desktop Linux installations have far more software installed than Windows installations, because of the vast amounts of free software clamoring for a space on your hard drive. The major exceptions are warez kiddies, who keep everything they care about on CD-Rs and wipe their systems about every second month.

      Play "false authority" somewhere else, ignoramus.

    2. Re:System clutter as a function of users by bluGill · · Score: 2

      A hash table can be created many ways. A simple way to create a O(1) hash table is to make sure there is a spot for each entry in the table, and there are no collisions. In most cases that means there are many blank spaces in your table, but if searching a structure is very common, (and your hash function is cheap) it might be worth the memory loss. In most cases you use a smaller table, and search a small list. It is also possible to make your hash table expandable, so that if any list gets byond some length you build a new table with more room. and split yoru lists, which costs a lot of time, but again is worth it if searching is done often.

      Remember though, pre-mature optimization is the root of all evil. Even if you end up with a O(N^2) search algorythm due to some stupidity, if you don't search very often it is not worth fixing. (It also isn't worth fixing if the search is in the middle of a O(N!) algorythm)

  28. Re:BSOD by man_ls · · Score: 3, Informative

    Either a botched upgrade to the kernel itself, or a hardware glitch (Video driver isn't right...SCSI controller craps out...drive fails while in use...NIC unseated during installation of cable...) have been the only problems I've seen.

    When I had low-quality (I mean LOW quality) video hardware, I got IRQL_NOT_LESS_OR_EQUAL errors while playing games all the time, but with the upgrade to a brand new GeForce3, there have been no problems.

    Win2K seems to have gotten software stability down pretty well.

  29. Keeping MacOS and Linux, esp. debian, clean by stere0 · · Score: 4, Informative

    I used to keep my macs working for 3-4 months before having to reinstall the whole shebang. I only reinstalled Mac OS X once since october. Macs are quite easy to keep clean, after some time you know where "cruft" accumulates. If anyone's interested, Alladin sells a product called Spring Cleaning, which I don't use. I clean my mac by hand. Seriously, on Mac OS X the only messy places are ~/Library and /Library. If you put your personal mess in your home folder, that is.

    My Gnu/Linux distro of choice is Debian. If you use debian, you know how quickly apt installs those libraries. Have a look at deborphan, which "finds 'orphaned' packages on your system. It determines which packages have no other packages depending on their installation, and shows you a list of these packages. It is most useful when finding libraries, but it can be used on packages in all sections". I run apt-get remove `deborphan` about once a month.

    Another great tool for the Gnu/Linux user is cruft, which, as the name says, tries to find the cruft on your system. It generates many false positives (e.g. /vmlinux), so use with many grep and caution :-).

    Which tools do you guys use to keep your system clean?

    --
    Trollem mirabilem hanc subnotationis exigiutas non caperet
  30. Re:Just as prone? by tb3 · · Score: 2

    There was a technical reason for that. The environment variables needed to be refreshed :)

    --

    www.lucernesys.comHorizon: Calendar-based personal finance

  31. never decay - VMWare non-persistant by reverse+flow+reactor · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You can get a windows install to never decay:

    1) install favorite OS as the host system.

    2) install VMWare

    3) install windows as a guest OS. Flavor to taste.

    4) set the Guest OS drive to non-persistant. Set you home directory to a share form the Host OS.

    5) reboot the guest OS as needed. Everytime you reboot, the system is restored from the image stored on the Host OS. Crap does not stay unless you tell it to stay.

    or for slightly different purposes, install the OS and tailor it as you like it. Image partition. Reimage the drive when there is too much fluff and bloat hanging around.

    --

    The significant problems we face cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them. -Einstein

  32. Windows decays because... by g4dget · · Score: 4, Informative
    Windows decays because its package management and system resource databases suck. Sorry, but there is no more polite word for it. The registry is a prime example of those gee-whiz solutions ("why don't we put all this information into a 'real' database") that looks neat but just doesn't work well in practice; Microsoft seems susceptible to implementing those kinds of systems.

    MacOS's preferred installation method ("drag-and-drop") doesn't suffer quite from the same problems as Windows. It's clean, simple, and easy to understand, and it doesn't leave junk all over the disk in mysterious places. But some applications install differently, and there is no single software update mechanism. Still, so far, OSX is holding up well on my systems, showing no signs of decay. But maintaining applications at the latest versions is a significant amount of work compared to Linux.

    For Linux distributions, it depends on the installation and update method. Debian systems can be updated for years without "decay". In fact, I haven't seen one "decay" yet, either ones that are updated regularly or ones that aren't. Because all packages come from a single source, they are all integrated, cross-checked, and tested together, a luxury that neither Windows nor MacOS have.

    The fact that, in Linux, each program has its own configuration files, often one system-wide one and one in the user's home directories, also makes Linux enormously more robust. There is no single point of failure and if some program's defaults get corrupted, it's trivial to fix and trivial to tell users how to fix it ("rm .foobar" and you should be fine).

    1. Re:Windows decays because... by foobar104 · · Score: 2

      Still, so far, OSX is holding up well on my systems, showing no signs of decay.

      For my two cents, Mac OS X may have its own form of decay, but it doesn't seem to affect the operation of the system the way Windows decay does. On my Mac I have quite a bit of cruft-- an installation of PostgreSQL that I no longer use and haven't bothered to disable or remove is a good example. But I never notice it unless I'm looking for disk space.

      I took a month-long vacation from work in May. In April, all was well. When I came back at the end of May, suddenly it was taking about fifteen seconds to open Acrobat. Previously, it would pop right open. That's a mystery to me. I've never had anything like that happen on any of my Macs.

  33. Privilages Helps quite a bit by peterdaly · · Score: 2

    When software of Linux can be installed as a user account, rather than root I usually do that. Many end user applications don't require root access for install if you don't run the default "make install". After I start getting "cruft", I add a new user, and start using my workstation as that user, reinstalling software as needed.

    Servers don't have as much installed application (or they should not), so cruft is not as much of an issue.

    I am on my third user account on Linux laptop workstation. My first account has a gnome config from hell, thanks to a few too many hard poweroffs. Gnome works fine as other users, I don't know how to fix it for that account. My second account just become to cluttered with crap, and I found it easier to create another account rather than clean up.

    Each time I switch, I login with my origional user id, with my home dir mapped to whatever my current account is. chmod the other homes so I can still access them as needed and everything works great.

    It's an easy way to bring a desktop workstation back to life. BTW - I use kde now, and it doesn't seem to have the same 'cruft' problems I had under gnome. Gnome would lock the station solid on my, forcing hard power cycles. Each time my envirnment would get worse.

    -Pete

  34. This is no surprise. by Dthoma · · Score: 4, Funny
    Cruft is a fact of life. It exists within everything, even real life. The only reason people notice it with computers is because computers demand 100% accuracy and require perfect install/uninstall techniques. Cruft/bit rot/software rot/deprecation is guaranteed to occur eventually despite the best efforts of coders and users because the physical conditions under which computers work are imperfect. Remember the last time you spilled a sugary drink on your keyboard? Or accidentally ripped the power cord out of the back of the machine whilst it was busy defragging?

    The only way to eliminate cruft (or whatever you want to call it) is to make computers into machines which can function just as well under imperfect physical conditions. A book is still functional, even if you partially break the spine and remove the cover. Fitting lots of failsafes and/or restricting the freedom of installation programs should help reduce cruft. When was the last time satellite control modules suffered from cruft? Or the machines which work our nuclear power stations?

    Uninstallers tend to not bother removing everything because some of the old program components may be being used by some other program. The obvious solution would be to stop all programs using each other, but there are two problems with this:

    1. You can't force all programmers to not rely upon other components which may or may not exist
    2. All programs will have to come bundled with EVERYTHING they need.

    So this policy would be unenforceable, and would require much, much bigger hard disk drives. The only obvious solution to his problem would be to stop making the programs integrate themselves into the system so well, so they can be removed with a simple 'rmdir'.

    Someone has already mentioned entropy and decay as a cause of cruft, but if it plays such a big part in it, why will a computer still function fine if you leave it in a cupboard for a decade, blow the dust off it, and plug it back in? The reason is that entropy is caused by crappy coding, crappy operating systems, crappy users, crappy physics and crappy integration. Until these three things cease to exist (not likely), then cruft will continue to occur. I don't think anyone could be expected to keep track of the things a 6-year-old PC has to keep track of:

    Uninstaller: Duh! I think I'll randomly leave behind 7 files, due to the 0.02% chance they might be used by some other shite program!

    OS: Duh! I think I'll randomly fragment the hard disk drive, and fuck up the file system!

    User: Duh! I think I'll randomly install the first software I happen to catch my eye on, and install it wherever it's most convenient!

    Physical environment: Duh! I think I'll randomly deposit dust on the surface of the motherboard and the hard disks!

    Integration: Duh! I think I'll randomly use DLLs from other programs, but not say which!

    At the end of the day, it comes down to a balance between convenience and simplicity. Convenience occurs when everything promises to install itself, and to latch onto everything else. This goes wrong because a program simply can't know where and how to install itself to avoid cruft. Simplicity occurs when everything on a PC is in its own self-contained bundle, interacting as little as possible with everything else. This goes wrong because a program has no way of efficiently obtaining data from other hardware or software.

    And in case you were wondering, my computer's at cruft force 3 - Lived-in. Surprising, considering it's a 2 year old Windows machine.

    --

    Note to M1-ers: a curt but otherwise insightful message is not "Flamebait" or "Troll".

    1. Re:This is no surprise. by Rysc · · Score: 2

      There's a simple way around this DLL Hell problem. One could make a simple database (need not be a real DB, just a text file) in which DLLs are listed. When a program installs and needs a DLL, it searches the DB for the DLL name and version it requires. If it doesn't find them, it adds the full path to the one it installs itself. Either way, it then adds the full path to its own name associated with the DLL of the correct version. This means "X:\Cool\Program.exe relies on C:\Windoews\System\rnmdllnm.dll". The uninstaller would simply remove the name of the program from that list (but never the DLL reference). A simple OS utility could periodically scan the list and delete all DLLs which don't claim to be relied on by any app.

      This is a little expensive, and would require a basically impossible amount of cooporation among developers ("It's just a stupid shareware app I wrote, I don't need to mention it uses DLL X, everyone ha that.") but it's a workable solution. The same sort of thing would solve Linux shared library problems, or MacOS9 extensions issues.

      In the comercial world it might be impossible to get everyone to use this method, but in the OSS world it could be doable. Thanks to package mannagement, it's less necessary, but I think it would still be worthwhile.

      --
      I want my Cowboyneal
  35. never seen the phemon on Redhat by e40 · · Score: 2

    I have, however, had packages that would not install because of a failed dependency. I'm guessing that rpm was saving me from installation decay by not installing the packages.

  36. Just make an image. by Fuzzums · · Score: 2

    Norton Ghost will do.
    the image of my 'vergin' Win98 {yeah, yeah, I know, butI don't need fancy, keep 98 'clean' and it will work nicely) , with some software will fit nicely on one cd.

    The only problem is I installed several 'important' applications and some crap, but I forgot to make a new image.

    So when I reinstall the image I have to figure out the changes, reinstall the security updates, hope I find an old realplayer without banners and ask around for that cute small game.

    Ofcource with the proper maintenance working with images is DEVINE. A clean installation in 15 minutes.

    --
    Privacy is terrorism.
    1. Re:Just make an image. by reverse+flow+reactor · · Score: 3, Informative

      disk images are great for most applications, and I used a simple image for quite some time. But the best parts about vmware are two-fold:

      1) you can store multiple different images and boot them as you please

      2) the little message when you shut down the virtual machine: "Commit changes to disk?". If you liked a softwrae package you installed, you just say yes. If you don't like it, say no. You don't have to update the image you made, as it just did.

      Mind you, vmware and the host OS do take up system resources. In some cases, you want the guest OS to have as many resources as possible, and the disk image is the better solution. Or you are run a public computer lab and every monring the computers load the latest image from the server and boot that

      --

      The significant problems we face cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them. -Einstein

  37. I now have proof! by twoslice · · Score: 2, Funny

    Finally! Sientific pruf that me sucky windows computer is the fiend behind me bad grammmer, atrocoius speling, and my woeful lack of productivity in my office - Cruft Force 5.

    It is a good thing that my is boss is an el' cheapo. His computer is on Cruft force 10 and refuses to repalce it. So with mine at Cruft Force 5 I look like an absolute genius to him!

    --

    From excellent karma to terible karma with a single +5 funny post...
  38. About time to reinstall XP by bogie · · Score: 2

    I use XP one of my machines and although its held up longer than any other MS desktop OS, I now at the 7 month mark am thinking about a reinstall. Explorer restarts every once in a while and dumps all of my systray programs. Its still very functional, but I can tell a few more random app install/uninstalls and I might start sliding down that slippery slope. Of course everyone see's those strange generic registry unloaded/driver failed errors, troubleshoots for a few hours, then realizes why bother? It seems to be running O.K.

    I don't completely blame MS for this, but there is no doubting this type of problem is rampant for any power user who tries to push a MS operating system hard.

    Of course the opposite is true as well. One of my clients runs just 98 and Office and never installed any other apps, and they almost never have any crashes.

    But then again, what's the point of an OS if you can't install and uninstall whatever you want?

    --
    If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
  39. There is no such thing. by FreeLinux · · Score: 2

    As per Microsoft. There are no "Blue Screens Of Death" in Windows 2000.

    There are however, "Stop Screens" These are completely different and should not be confused with BSOD.

    Yea, right.

  40. Unix cruft by Patrick · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Unix and Linux, even Debian, accumulate cruft.

    ls -ld ~/.* | wc -l

    Dot files. Loads of them. Four from RealPlayer, six from Gnome, five from Pine, three from Sawfish, and three NFS lock files, among a total of 140 entries.

    Good thing Linux doesn't have a registry. It might get cluttered.

    --Patrick

  41. Just graph the fragmention .... by oliverthered · · Score: 2

    There are a few apps out there to defragment and rebuild the registry
    which brings it upto speedish again.

    all in all the registry as an idea isn't too bad. but like every database it needs tuning and maintaining.

    --
    thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    1. Re: Just graph the fragmention .... by g4dget · · Score: 2
      all in all the registry as an idea isn't too bad. but like every database it needs tuning and maintaining.

      So, let's see: if it gets corrupted, you are in big trouble, applications like regedit take forever to search through it, and it needs regular tuning and maintenance. And as a system manager, I have a hell of a time trying to express simple concepts like "take the configuration of sshd from this machine and put it on that other machine" with the registry. So, what again is "not too bad" about it? I can't think of one feature resulting from putting everything into a single database that I as a user or system manager would care about.

    2. Re: Just graph the fragmention .... by Moridineas · · Score: 2

      How exactly does a directory of text files get corrupted?

      How does a binary file get corrupted? Same way any file gets corrupted. hardware errors are one way. Can you think of any more?

      Is finding something in the registry faster than grepping files in /etc?

      Maybe not, but it sure beats searching /etc, subdirectories, user home directories, /usr/local/etc, and other similar locations.

      Is exporting some keys easier than copying a directory from /etc

      Yeah, I think so. You can use registory files to make selective changes. Sure, you could use patch or something, but I do think this way is very easy.

      I'll take text files any day...

      That's of course the great thing about choice and competition. The windows world moved away from where the unix world is today since windows 3.1 (registy might have existed before then). I for one am glad that there are no longer a million .ini files sitting around.

    3. Re: Just graph the fragmention .... by dillon_rinker · · Score: 2

      I as a user or system manager would care about.

      What's your point, bub? The thing was implemented to make things easier for PROGRAMMERS. There are two types of people, as far as MS is concerned - users who like GUIs and baubles and shiny things, and programmers, who like pain and domination. The intermediate types - sysadmins - don't enter the equation...what else explains the dearth of command line utilities included with NT?

    4. Re: Just graph the fragmention .... by g4dget · · Score: 2
      likewise if your /etc directory got corrupted, you'd be in trouble

      You would be. But unlike the Windows registry, which in practice gets corrupted with some regularity, /etc just does not usually get corrupted. That's because people put a lot of effort into making the file system bulletproof.

      I searched through my registory for a non-existent string just now in 1 minute and 2 seconds.

      Wow, imagine that. Compared to 0.016 seconds for grepping through the files in /etc, or 0.162 seconds for grepping through the whole tree under /etc, I'd say that is "forever".

      That's really unfortunate--maybe you should try to do some more learning in the windows world, this is an incredibly easy thing to do. Open regedit, find SSH settings, right click on the directory side the key, select "export". Copy this file to the new machine, double click, you're done.

      So, basically, you are saying that your procedure for moving application settings under Windows is: click around in regedit guessing what keys might or might not belong to an application (most Windows programs don't document that), export it somehow, drag and drop it onto the other machine (let's hope it exports its file systems), log in there, and then add it back in with regedit on that side. Then you cross your fingers hoping you didn't make something inconsistent in the registry. And you think that's some way to manage systems?

      What do you do in UNIX? You look at the manual page for the documented location of the configuration file and copy it with "scp /etc/something root@remote:/etc/something". That takes a few seconds, before your first search through the registry has even finished.

      What do you mean by "system manager"? I'm assuming you mean managing a single system, becasue the knowledge level and ignorance here is shameful for any kind of system administrator.

      How very amusing. Let your and my technical comments speak for themselves.

      You miss .ini hell (or in the unix world have a billion files in the /etc dircetory).

      .INI hell was a consequence of a couple of poor design decisions with .INI files, among them that .INI files often held configuration information for multiple users. Putting everything into a single file makes things worse, not better.

    5. Re: Just graph the fragmention .... by homer_ca · · Score: 3, Informative

      Storing the configs in lots of little .ini files or conf files in /etc is more robust and fail safe than 2 huge registry files. Let's say the computer has a hard poweroff, maybe from a power outage or a hard lockup from buggy drivers. Despite claims of NTFS being journaled, there will be filesystem corruption. which brings out 2 big problems with the registry:

      - All the eggs in one basket: With .ini and config files, only a few files are likely to be open at one time and likely to be corrupted. This limits the damage. With the registry files you're outta luck if restore from .bak files doesn't work. Admittedly I haven't seen many such errors on Win2K, but Win95 was a crapshoot every time you installed a new driver.

      - Opacity of binary config files: With a text config file you can go look at the files reported to be damaged, and it's pretty obvious if they're corrupt; they'd be truncated or garbled. Filesystem corruption happens a sector at a time. What can you do with the registry assuming the system even boots up.

    6. Re: Just graph the fragmention .... by g4dget · · Score: 2
      How does a binary file get corrupted? Same way any file gets corrupted. hardware errors are one way. Can you think of any more?

      For the registry, there are plenty. For example, if the file system fills up during some registry operations, you're in deep trouble. With separate text files in /etc, that's not a problem: maybe the one file you were writing gets truncated (easy to diagnose and fix), but the others are never touched. You also get separate permissions for each set of settings, and you can use standard file system tools. The file system is a secure, concurrent, multi-user, hierarchical, distributed database, something the registry tries to be but fails at miserably.

      Maybe not, but it sure beats searching /etc, subdirectories, user home directories, /usr/local/etc, and other similar locations.

      Quite to the contrary. The separate storage locations of user settings and system settings in the UNIX way is one of the big advantages over the registry, as is the fact that you can use standard commands like "grep -Irs mykey /etc" to search. As a system manager, all you have to be concerned with is /etc and /var. Users automatically get their settings everywhere they log on because of file sharing. Windows, in contrast, first blends everything together and then has complicated schemes for distributing user settings again. It's something worthy of Rube Goldberg. It would be funny if it didn't make the lives of thousands of system managers miserable.

      That's of course the great thing about choice and competition. The windows world moved away from where the unix world is today since windows 3.1 (registy might have existed before then). I for one am glad that there are no longer a million .ini files sitting around.

      The UNIX world tried registry databases before Windows 3.1 was even around and it was the same adminstrative nightmare as the Windows registry. Sticking all configuration information into a single database is just a bad idea. Windows is just so backwards that Windows administrators don't realize it yet.

    7. Re: Just graph the fragmention .... by Moridineas · · Score: 2

      You would be. But unlike the Windows registry, which in practice gets corrupted with some regularity, /etc just does not usually get corrupted. That's because people put a lot of effort into making the file system bulletproof.

      Do you have actual evidence about this? I'm not saying this in a jerkass way, but rather, I've been running windows since 3.1, and have only once had a registry corruption--when I had some ram go bad, and it was able to restore from an automatic backup when I got in new ram. (this was in win98 I believe).

      Wow, imagine that. Compared to 0.016 seconds for grepping through the files in /etc, or 0.162 seconds for grepping through the whole tree under /etc, I'd say that is "forever".

      It's all relative, but I do acknowledge the point that searching the registry can be slow. Again, I imagine the total time of grepping through /etc /usr/local/etc maybe /var /opt /home, etc. isn't too much different if you're "blind" looking for something. In addition there's one thing you ignore, and that's the different file formats of unix config files. For instance, apache and sendmail could hardly be more different. Registry gives a unified interface.

      So, basically, you are saying that your procedure for moving application settings under Windows is: click around in regedit guessing what keys might or might not belong to an application (most Windows programs don't document that), export it somehow, drag and drop it onto the other machine (let's hope it exports its file systems), log in there, and then add it back in with regedit on that side. Then you cross your fingers hoping you didn't make something inconsistent in the registry. And you think that's some way to manage systems?

      There's no "more or less" to it, I documented the steps in few sentences; you obfuscated it. The points you do make though--for one, you face similar inconsistencies with config files in unix. In addition, regedit can, as I mentioned, do remote connections, ie, I can do your scp equivalent directly via regedit.
      It's also generally not so hard to find application keys. You face the same problems in unix with badly behaved apps. This isn't a problem with the OS, but the app.

      How very amusing. Let your and my technical comments speak for themselves.

      Indeed.

    8. Re: Just graph the fragmention .... by Moridineas · · Score: 2

      For the registry, there are plenty. For example, if the file system fills up during some registry operations, you're in deep trouble. With separate text files in /etc, that's not a problem: maybe the one file you were writing gets truncated (easy to diagnose and fix), but the others are never touched.

      Well, you're in trouble in any OS if you run out of diskspace and start trying to write new data. Generally, AFAIK, the registry in windows keeps "empty" space in the registry files, in case of just this situation.

      You also get separate permissions for each set of settings, and you can use standard file system tools. The file system is a secure, concurrent, multi-user, hierarchical, distributed database, something the registry tries to be but fails at miserably.

      The registry has permissions in it--it's how for instance normal users can't changed priviled settings. Secondly, you throw out lots of keywords saying the registry files at them all--how so?

    9. Re: Just graph the fragmention .... by Moridineas · · Score: 2

      Forgot to address the rest, sorry.

      Quite to the contrary. The separate storage locations of user settings and system settings in the UNIX way is one of the big advantages over the registry, as is the fact that you can use standard commands like "grep -Irs mykey /etc" to search. As a system manager, all you have to be concerned with is /etc and /var. Users automatically get their settings everywhere they log on because of file sharing. Windows, in contrast, first blends everything together and then has complicated schemes for distributing user settings again. It's something worthy of Rube Goldberg. It would be funny if it didn't make the lives of thousands of system managers miserable.

      It's true win95/98 approach to multi-user registry sucks, the situation isn't the same in the 2k/xp. For instance recently I migrated to roaming profiles in samba. Thanks to the way hkey_user works, all the same settings transfer over. I'm not saying there aren't any troubles here (I don't know--I've never run into any), but it's worked fine for me.

      The UNIX world tried registry databases before Windows 3.1 was even around and it was the same adminstrative nightmare as the Windows registry.

      Really? That's interesting, I didn't know that, what was it called? The only somewhat similar thing I know of is Netinfo from NeXT and at present Mac OSX. I like your last line where you call windows backwards and insult windows administrators. This isn't a holy war, though the term zealot certaintly applies to many OS advocates (where OS = {Open Source, Operating System}).

    10. Re: Just graph the fragmention .... by evilpenguin · · Score: 2

      In Windows, moving an application folder from one drive to another drive can render the system more or less completely unusable. In *nix this is not so, although the app itself may fail because, like the registry, config files are not self updating.

      Oddly, the only system I know that got this right (and I don't know every OS, maybe BeOS and/or QNX do this too) was OS/2, which would update configuration files for any filesystem change. Of course, we all know what happened to OS/2.

      My big gripe with the registry is that it is, in effect, a meta-filesystem, but the commands and procedures that affect the filesystem do not modify or update the meta-filesystem.

      The registry was not invented for programmers, it was invented to hide configuration from users. Users started to complain about big, ugly, hard to figure out INI files. Was the solution to make configuration files easier? No! It was to more or less remove them from the user's field of view.

      Microsoft doesn't want people to know what is on their computers or how computers work. Someone who knows these things who does not work for Microsoft is a potential competitor, and we simply cannot have that! (Okay, I admit this last paragraph went right over the brink... But I stand by the rest of it...)

    11. Re: Just graph the fragmention .... by Metrol · · Score: 2

      Registry gives a unified interface.

      Unified, and without any documentation within that interface as to what any of those settings actually mean. Can't remark things out for testing. Best of all, and this really is the kicker... no GUI, no fixie!

      Here in FreeBSD land, the kernel itself could have gone bad, and you can STILL get in and tweak on the configuration. One really good IRQ conflict in Windows and there's no tweaking on anything.

      --
      The line must be drawn here. This far. No further.
    12. Re: Just graph the fragmention .... by Moridineas · · Score: 2

      Unified, and without any documentation within that interface as to what any of those settings actually mean. Can't remark things out for testing. Best of all, and this really is the kicker... no GUI, no fixie!

      There are actually command lines tool for bnacking up/restoring the registry, as well as repairing, compressing, scanning, etc it. You are correct though in that if these don't work, you're fuxored. As for your comment about IRQ conflict--I don't understand. IRQ conflicts generally just make the conflicting hardware not work correctly. Moreover, since the days of ACPI (FreeBSD-5/Current supports ACPI) it's not really a big deal.

    13. Re: Just graph the fragmention .... by Moridineas · · Score: 2

      In Windows, moving an application folder from one drive to another drive can render the system more or less completely unusable. In *nix this is not so, although the app itself may fail because, like the registry, config files are not self updating.

      Try moving /bin to /hoobookie and let me know how your boot goes. AS for your example of moving an appliation folder to kill windows, I'm not sure how this would happen--got an example? What if in nix/bsd you moved a library that, say, gnome was linked to, and you nomrally booted graphically--the system would fail to boot normally there, right?

    14. Re: Just graph the fragmention .... by evilpenguin · · Score: 2

      Sure. Move Office.

      I never suggested that I ought to be able to move C:\WINDOWS. But I ought to be able to move the folder I installed a word processor in. Try it with your Windows box. I dares ya!

      Also, try moving my /bin dir without being logged in as root.

      Now try moving C:\WINDOWS. Maybe on NT family versions installed on NTFS you can't do this unless you are Administrator, but I'm not prepared to bet on it. I know you can do it anytime on any FAT partition, and I know you can do it anytime on any Wintendo (ME, 98, 95) system.

      The question isn't whether it is possible to mess up a system. The question is whether doing something one might reasonably expect to be able to do should mess up the system.

    15. Re: Just graph the fragmention .... by SerpentMage · · Score: 2

      OK so instead of getting your head lopped off you get get bitten often in little bits. Piranas use the little often bits. And in either case you still end up dying.

      Configuration information is just as ugly in LINUX as it is in Windows. Once I tried to figure out how certain things get set and I learned that LINUX now dynamically generates things. And what I tried to change were my networking settings, but not just the DNS, but card type, etc, etc...

      --

      "You can't make a race horse of a pig"
      "No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
    16. Re: Just graph the fragmention .... by clare-ents · · Score: 2

      Quick question, suppose you want to keep track of system configuration changes using a source control management system - e.g. cvs. How do you do that on Windows? It's easy on unix machines.

      --
      Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. (Einstein)
    17. Re: Just graph the fragmention .... by jaavaaguru · · Score: 2

      secure

      It is one file. If someone gains access to it, they gain access to all the information in it - not very secure. With the "multiple small files" approach, some files could be read-only, meaning that nobody within the operating system (except root/Administrator) could write to them. You could even mount / and /etc on a disk that is read-only at a hardware level, giving guranteed protection. Try doing this with a Windows registry.

      concurrent, multi-user

      Again, it is just one file. It has one file handle. Without using mmap() or the like, it can be written to by only one process. This problem doesn't occurr with multiple files. It's not so much a problem as Windows was never intended to be a multi-user system anyway. hierarchical, distributed database

      If you have the slightest clue what this means, you'll know the Registry concept falls very far short of it.

    18. Re: Just graph the fragmention .... by jaavaaguru · · Score: 2

      I've moved /usr/local/staroffice/ before - i orignally installed it on another drive. This doesn't work for Office 2000, although for Office 97, Word and Excel still worked after moving. If you suggest moving my /bin directory (the place where operating system commands are kept), then you should try moving C:\WINNT\ and see what happens. Oh, "It won't let me move it", I hear you say. Hmmm, while logged in as my on my *nix box, I can't move /bin either. Try writing an app that runs with System priviledges on Windows, that moves C:\WINNT\, then reboot.

    19. Re: Just graph the fragmention .... by Beliskner · · Score: 2
      ? I can't think of one feature resulting from putting everything into a single database that I as a user or system manager would care about
      I'm thinking... Ah, move the configuration for everything installed by a simple default Redhat installation to another machine - lilo.conf, sshd conf, ftp confs, aliases, mount scripts, KDE backgrounds, GIMP conf, StarOffice confs and preferences, Gnome backgrounds and confs with Enlightenment WM preferences, etc. I bet ya it'll take more than a few hours.
      --
      A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?
    20. Re: Just graph the fragmention .... by Beliskner · · Score: 2
      How exactly does a directory of text files get corrupted? Is finding something in the registry faster than grepping files in /etc?
      < Some app >
      ./ make install
      Perl error - require root privileges to install this application
      login root yada yada
      /. make install
      Perl error - line 22525 command failed due to lock contention: "exec cp -r install/newlib/gcc/* /lib/gcc-lib" was unsuccesful

      Face it - the registry and a bunch of text files are simply 2 ways of laying out the same old data, both systems have advantages and disadvantages.

      --
      A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?
    21. Re: Just graph the fragmention .... by Beliskner · · Score: 2

      Scanregw.exe backs up the windows registry daily, which is a very powerful recovery feature. If one of the admins on the night shift comes up to me in the morning and says, "Hey dude something's gone wrong, I was editing .ini files in /etc/ and then another admin telnetted in from home and adjusted the same files as me, I saw some sort of warning but I was half asleep so I clicked it away. I don't remember what .ini files got corrupted, so I was looking through all of them modifying them but then I realised one of them might be the lilo.conf file just before I changed the MBR with lilo, too late. Oops."

      --
      A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?
    22. Re: Just graph the fragmention .... by Moridineas · · Score: 2

      Sure. Move Office.

      I never suggested that I ought to be able to move C:\WINDOWS. But I ought to be able to move the folder I installed a word processor in. Try it with your Windows box. I dares ya!

      First point--I beleive you can move the System Folder in MacOS and have it still function. Secondly, I took your challenge, and moved my c:\progam files\microsoft office\ to c:\program files\microsoft office23423482--first thing that happens is that a warning pops up saying "this could break stuff, are you sure you want to do this" (not verbatim). I then rebooted. No error messages. I try to start word, it starts an installer and asks me to insert the CD, which I don't have at the moment, so I cancel. I then move the folder back. Now trying to start word, it starts fine. That seems ok to me. I'm not sure what would have happen had I had the CD.

      try moving my /bin dir without being logged in as root.

      Try moving windows as a regular user under an NTFS system. It shouldn't work (I don't use NTFS).

      You do make a good point though, in general windows is easier to fuxor than unix. This is a lot different in windows2k/xp though.

    23. Re: Just graph the fragmention .... by Moridineas · · Score: 2

      Try writing an app that runs with System priviledges on Windows, that moves C:\WINNT\, then reboot.

      What's your point? Try writing an app that runs with suid priviledges on Unix, that movies /bin, then reboot.

    24. Re: Just graph the fragmention .... by g4dget · · Score: 2
      The registry has permissions in it--it's how for instance normal users can't changed priviled settings. Secondly, you throw out lots of keywords saying the registry [fails] at them all--how so?

      I'm not saying that it fails at them all. I'm saying that Windows uses a buggy, slow, special purpose database that requires separate tools to manipulate it. UNIX uses the same database it uses for many other purposes: the file system. That means you don't need special tools, performance is great, and it gets tested and beaten on much more than the registry code.

    25. Re: Just graph the fragmention .... by g4dget · · Score: 2
      Apparently you don't realise the user and system settings are in completely different 'hive files' (user hives are in the user directories, while the system hives are in the system directory) in the Windows registry. The user interface may make it appear to be a single unit, but it actually comprises multiple files.

      You're right about the registry consisting of several files, but however it is split into file, it doesn't seem to be sufficient to let people log into arbitrary NT machines without some additional registry magic.

      The main differences versus UNIX are that the registry is not text, so although it is far more efficient to query than text files, it is also much more difficult to use,

      That's the theory. In practice, searching through the registry is hundreds of times slower than grepping through /etc. My /etc contains 14Mbytes of stuff. Grepping through that takes 0.086sec (the magic of the file system cache), and I can use whatever tool I like (grep, agrep, perl). Try searching through a 14Mbyte Windows registry for a key.

      Also, why optimize something that really is not a performance bottleneck for anything? Reading text configuration files has never been a problem on UNIX; if the configuration is really complex, they just cache a binary version of it (like sendmail).

      and the fact that hives are not split per application (which is I think the major flaw).

      Splitting it into per-application would be good. But I think using text is good, too, and using file system protections as well. Once you do these three things, you basically have the "UNIX registry"--a directory tree of text files.

    26. Re: Just graph the fragmention .... by g4dget · · Score: 2
      Really? That's interesting, I didn't know that, what was it called?

      IBM's AIX has using it for a lot of configuration information for many years, but I'm not sure when they started. Several large BSD installations used binary configuration databases (special purpose hacks) in the early 1980s when BSD was just catching on.

      I like your last line where you call windows backwards and insult windows administrators. This isn't a holy war, though the term zealot certaintly applies to many OS advocates (where OS = {Open Source, Operating System}).

      I just get tired of Windows folks telling the UNIX community that they are backwards. Many of the things that are being advertised on Windows as nifty new features are things people tried in UNIX many years ago and discarded as more trouble than they were worth. The good thing about UNIX and Linux is that it's an ecology of ideas--people try things and if they don't work well, they discard them. With Windows, if Microsoft decides to put something in, either because they don't know any better or because it suits their business folks, it sticks, no matter how stupid or inconvenient it may be for users.

    27. Re: Just graph the fragmention .... by g4dget · · Score: 2
      Permissions can also be assigned to certain branches and keys of the registry to restrict access. Plus it's a database file, as long as no more than one process is accessing the same record, concurrent use can and does happen. Sorry none of your argument holds up.

      Yes, it is a database, but it's a single-purpose database with few tools available for it, so it's not very good. Compare that to using the file system, which has enormous numbers of tools for it out of the box (well, on UNIX, not on Windows) and is one of the most tested and debugged parts of any OS.

    28. Re: Just graph the fragmention .... by el_chicano · · Score: 2
      If one of the admins on the night shift comes up to me in the morning and says, "Hey dude something's gone wrong, I was editing .ini files in /etc/ and then another admin telnetted in from home
      Why are the admins dicking around with files in /etc on a production server?

      And pray tell, why is TELNET running on your production server?
      and adjusted the same files as me, I saw some sort of warning but I was half asleep so I clicked it away.
      It is bad enough that the admins are using telnet to dick around with the ini files but SLEEPY admins at that?

      If you don't mind me asking, but where do you work at?

      For my personal "Do Not Apply For Work At" list...
      I don't remember what .ini files got corrupted, so I was looking through all of them modifying them
      Hmmm... how about using the time/date stamp? ls -lrt
      but then I realised one of them might be the lilo.conf file just before I changed the MBR with lilo, too late. Oops."
      Why are you messing with boot files on a production server?

      Hey dude, here is a clue: unlike your servers running Windows, you don't have to reboot your Linux servers every day!
      --
      A man who wants nothing is invincible
    29. Re: Just graph the fragmention .... by Moridineas · · Score: 2

      Try looking at the parent comment before being sarcastic.

      Yeah I know, I was the one that posted that.

  42. Cruft Level 11! by Valgar · · Score: 5, Funny

    I dub my SunPCI Win2k install as running at cruft force 11 "Undead"

    It shouldn't run, it shouldn't even boot into safe mode, but some odd digital alchemy has occured that has resulted in some necromantic miracle, resulting in a cantankerous, yet unkillable install of Windows.

    1. Re:Cruft Level 11! by ameoba · · Score: 2

      I remember my dad (completely ignorant of anything computro related) had a machine with win95 OSR2 running on it. It had been up for over 5 years on the original install and was still stable. Even more remarkably, every majoy component of the system (HDD, CPU, RAM, mobo, vid card, modem) had been replaced at one time or another. He'd gotten several viruses & cleaned them up. He kept installing and uninstalling software.

      ...and it just wouldn't die.

      --
      my sig's at the bottom of the page.
    2. Re:Cruft Level 11! by pmz · · Score: 2

      I've since deleted my SunPCI's HD image but I once installed three spyware laden P2P file stealing programs on it in one day.

      Nothing like a hardware sandbox for programs you don't trust.


      SunPCi is really slick for this. I even run the sunpci command su-ed to a powerless user account. Windows can read but it can't write to my home directory, so I can actually run Windows without the paranoia that typically comes with it.

    3. Re:Cruft Level 11! by ameoba · · Score: 2

      Format the new drive with system files then do a DOS boot and xcopy all files (including hidden ones) from old drive to the new.

      Alternately, you could use something like Norton Ghost.

      --
      my sig's at the bottom of the page.
  43. Re:How about tools!? by foobar104 · · Score: 2

    Yeah, I know about the telnet-isn't-secure thing, but that wasn't really my point. Under the conditions in which I was operating, having telnet running was not only appropriate, it was essential. Under other conditions, it wouldn't be a good idea. My point is that you can't draw conclusions about what the default installation ought to be from your own particular circumstances.

    And as to networking: tell me about it. I once thought I would be clever and just bring a server up in DHCP, then change it to a static IP address later. Was that a pain in the ass. There are a lot of good things about Linux, but helpful documentation is not one of them.

    I'm sure that a dozen people are going to slam me for saying this, but the process of adding a static default route to a Red Hat 7.1 system is not an easy one to figure out.

  44. They left out my favorite by DaveWood · · Score: 2, Funny

    On a Windows 98 machine I administered, one aspect of its decay was that several keys on the keyboard stopped working ("e" being the biggest loss, if I recall correctly).

    No, not a hardware problem. I tested different keyboards and they all exhibited the same behavior. And when the OS was wiped and Win2k was installed, no more problem.

    There was nothing strange installed that I could find, AV software was up to date and apparently functioning... Very funny one.

  45. Real Player is a Great Example by 0xA · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I have this big time beef with Real One Player (free version). I make a point of cleaning my startup items out whenever some stupid thing like Real's Start Center gets in there. That is anoying enough but Real has taken it to a new level.

    On my XP box Real One put "eventsvc.exe" in the run key of my registry, I removed it. Every time I run Real One it puts it back. This thing is even more anoying than the start center, it just sits in the background until another app steals one of it's file associations. It then pops up a little box saying "this app has stolen my media type". The box has two options, "OK" and "remind me later", there isn't even an X in the corner to close it, you have to use alt + F4. If you don't say OK and this stupid thing is running it will pester you again every 15 minutes or so. You have to kill the process and then remove it from the registry (or use msconfig).

    This IMO is the worst kind of cruft. Maybe I want to use Winamp for MPEG 1 audio! Please fuck off!

    This piece of junk just sits in the background sucking up a couple megs of ram and using some cpu time when it needs to check that nothing else is moving in on it's turff. The fact that I am playing WC3 when it decides to do this, isn't relevant, Real must protect thier position as the number one most anoying piece of shit in existence. God only know how many memory leaks and all round crappy code is contained in this thing.

    Real guys, last time I checked it was still My Computer. Leave your bullshit at the door.

    1. Re:Real Player is a Great Example by ckedge · · Score: 2


      Yup, ever since I created my latest box, I have steadfastly refused to put in Real and Quicktime. God help me if in a weak moment I give in.

      BTW: For your situation, try replacing the exe with a dummy benign exe.

      I believe a little Sun Tzu is appropriate:

      - "What the ancients called a clever fighter is one who not only wins, but excels in winning with ease"
      - "All warfare is based on deception"!

    2. Re:Real Player is a Great Example by leuk_he · · Score: 2

      Real guys, last time I checked it was still My Computer. Leave your bullshit at the door.

      Are you sure? did you read all the EULA's? And since it is "free" (as in beer) software you can not expect it to work correct. It is provided as is. (No, i am not working for realsoftware, i am just a "don;t touch it" user).

  46. Who would want to *install* cruft? by Bitmanhome · · Score: 3, Funny

    So is Debian the only OS where you can actually install cruft?

    --
    Not that this wasn't entirely predictable.
  47. Re:BSOD by marick · · Score: 2

    Actually, my linux (RedHat 7.3) installation will freeze occasionally. I find that it freezes when RealPlayer + many other things are running at once. (I think RealPlayer doesn't play nice with resources, but I'm just guessing.)

    Has anybody else seen this behavior before, and if so, what was the cause? My computer is so stable otherwise...

  48. Maybe, maybe not by Restil · · Score: 4, Informative

    Linux MAY be prone to SOME of these problems, but I'm willing to trust that the great majority of what causes windows systems to go nuts on a regular basis simply won't affect linux, not because its immune, but because its not used in the same way.

    First of all, I'm willing to take at face value the fact that a 2K/XP system running only well supported, stable drivers on stable hardware running only a small set of vital application programs will be unlikely to encounter any serious problems. I have no personal evidence to support this, but a few people I know swear by it, so I'm willing to accept it under these conditions.

    However, 2K/XP might have gotten it right, but it took MS 20 someodd years to get around to getting it right. And it requires a fairly new computer to be useful. Win 95 runs great on old (read: CHEAP) hardware as far as performance goes, but it has serious stability problems. If I want to run a 7 year old version of Linux, I'm willing to bet
    that the last release in the 1.0.x series is just
    as stable in a production environment as the latest 2.4.x release is. Sure, it might not be
    as feature packed, and might not have the extensive driver support, but if it serves the purposes I require, it will work flawlessly.

    As for drivers, Windows virgin installs come with a set of drivers for a lot of legacy hardware. If your system is a couple years older than the version of Windows you're installing, it probably has the drivers for all your hardware. For any other hardware, you'll have to use vendor supplied drivers. If these drivers are unstable, Windows can misbehave, and it wouldn't necessarily be the fault of Windows. Certainly Linux must have the same problem, right?

    The simple fact of the matter, those who support Linux tend to support the same software methodology. The drivers, like the kernel, are all open sourced. They're heavily peer reviewed, and those that are integrated into the kernel are solid. And if bugs are found, they're fixed. If the original programmer doesn't/can't/won't fix it himself, there are countless others who can. In many/most cases, the drivers aren't even written/produced by the manufactuerers of the hardware, but by kernel hackers, on their own time. These guys have no interest in being first to the market. They have no desire to play the "just get it working, we can fix it later" game. Their only interest is in releasing solid, efficient code, becuase if they don't, they know someone else will be tearing it apart.

    Therefore, the drivers used on linux systems tend to be rock solid. So you have a rock solid kernel and drivers. Now for the applications.
    Applications for linux based operating systems tend not to overwrite system libraries with their own versions. General purpose applications are not generally run as root. The worst a normal user can do on a linux box by running buggy applications is to cause it to crash. Certainly, he can send the machine into thrashing or fill up the hard disk, but there are ways the administrator can restrict the type of activities that cause such outcomes. 2K/XP have methods to prevent these same problems, but many of the problems involved with installing misbehaving applications simply shouldn't be a problem in the first place.

    As for adding cruft to the operating system, my linux box has the same number of directories off of / as it did the day I installed it, with three extras added for each mounted HD on the system. My /home directory has one directory for every user on the system. My personal home directory, as I suspect others might be as well, is an organizational nightmare. But all that "cruft" is isolated. I know where the mess is, and I know only where the mess is. I don't have /etc, /bin, and other important directories littered with files that have no business being there. And no rogue application is likely to change that fact. Sure, an application program might add a directory to /usr/local and leave a large bloated mess under there, but if I decide later that I want to remove it, I can do a recursive delete of one directory and its gone. There aren't any mystery registry values that are going to cause me fits the next time I boot the system. There might be some entires in /etc/rc or crontab, but they won't hurt anything and can be removed later as they're discovered.

    I suppose its possible that a poorly managed linux box can cause massive problems, just as a perfectly managed windows box might work flawlessly. But all I can say is this. It's been 154 days since my last power failure, and my linux server has been up for 154 days. None of my windows boxes have that track record.

    -Restil

    --
    Play with my webcams and lights here
    1. Re:Maybe, maybe not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
      [Windows] 2K/XP might have gotten it right, but it took MS 20 someodd years to get around to getting it right.

      Those who are relatively new to the microcomputer field often have this attitude. Without historical knowledge of the PC architecture to provide the context, the architecture of Windows 9x is indeed baffling. Put into context, however, it makes perfect sense.

      The single most important thing to understand is that the '386 was the first 'modern' x86 processor, which is to say the first one capable of running a 32-bit, virtual-machine OS. The reason NT/2000/XP and PC UNIX are stable is that each process runs in a virtual machine, and the hardware allows the OS to decide precisely what that process can and cannot do.

      Older, pre-386 PCs simply lacked the hardware to support a virtual-machine OS. If you look at the 8086, there were no restricted modes of operation (i.e. everything ran in 'kernel mode'), and nor was there any memory-management hardware (i.e. no virtual memory, nothing to prevent processes stomping all over each others' memory).

      MS-DOS and Windows were written for these old, pre-386 PCs. More importantly, virtually all software for MS-DOS and Windows was written with the assumption that it could do anything it wished with the hardware (because it could).

      In the late 1980s, modern RISC chips and the '386 were taking off, offering the prospect of micros capable of running real OSes (which had previously required expensive minis). Microsoft therefore began developing a new OS for these systems. Originally called NT OS/2, it had become Windows NT by the time it was released in 1993 (the OS/2 API could be swapped for a Windows-like one because the OS kernel had been designed to support multiple OS personalities). With NT, Microsoft had a minicomputer-class OS for 386 and RISC micros, theoretically ending the reliability problems of the PC. However, because PC software had been written expecting direct hardware access, it in many cases didn't work, or worked poorly, in a virtual machine on NT, where the OS was trapping these attempts to access the hardware and converting them to system calls (with the OS ultimately dealing with the hardware).

      The nub of it is that much of the installed base of PC software eith didn't work, or didn't work well enough, on NT. The solution to this was a compromise: Windows 95. Windows 95 sacrificed robustness for compatibility, allowing most old software to run reasonably well -- but if you allow software to do things like access hardware, reliability immediately goes out the window, and this isn't because the OS is 'buggy'. At the same time, Windows 95 offered a subset of the NT Win32 API, which developers could use to write new software for both OSes.

      Windows 95 was always an interim solution, from its inception to the ultimate triumph of NT in Windows XP, but it was essential to keep the installed base of DOS/Windows users (unlike, say, Apple, Microsoft would never consider throwing away an installed base for the sake of 'architectural purity'). Through the years, Win32 was expanded with APIs like DirectX, to allow games (the most stubborn 'we own the hardware' software) to be ported to NT, in addition to 'compatibility modes' to simulate older versions of the OS, and all manner of things designed to make as much old software as possible work with it.

      With most software now written for Win32 instead of the PC hardware, NT/XP is able to finally replace 9x. It's still imperfect with respect to running legacy software, but it's good enough that the market will accept it. A loss of the ability to run a small amount of legacy software is an acceptable exchange for a robust system.

      At the end of the day, Microsoft had a robust OS for the PC in 1993, which isn't too long after the requisite hardware became popular. The next decade or so was spent weaning PC developers off of direct-hardware-access and onto that system.

  49. Cruft can be keep in check with some work. by bedessen · · Score: 4, Informative

    I decided to build a new system some time in the fall of 2000, but prior to that I had been running the original Windows 95 install that I did some time in mid 1996. There were some hardware upgrades, sure, but I never resorted to reinstalling. My systems are highly customized, I like to set everything just the way I like it. So to me a reinstall is not something I do lightly. The system was not unstable at all, it was quite a workhorse. Sure, every now and then it would have a lockup of some sort, but we're talking once every few weeks. Now that I run win2k it's very rare indeed.

    You can manage the cruft in windows. It's not impossible, even if you install/uninstall a lot of stuff. The important things are to know what's running (task list, services, run at startup, etc) and to get to know the registry. You must babysit for poor installation programs. Often they will add crap to startup, or icons on the desktop, or other weird things, which I would always delete. You also have to help some of them wipe their ass when you uninstall, as a lot of them leave junk behind. You have to be willing to go into the Windows system directory and examine questionable DLLs. There a lot of tools to help with this. I recommend everyone who is interested go to www.sysinternals.com. There you will find programs such as REGMON and FILEMON which show you every registry access or file access in realtime, with the ability to filter. Also very useful is LISTDLLS which shows you which DLLs are loaded by every process in memory. If there is a file that's locked you can often find out who is using in with this program. The 2k resource kit has a free utility called Dependancy Walker which will show you the library dependancies of any .EXE, sort of like ldd. You must also be familiar with certain areas of the registry, such as the part where stuff is loaded on boot, the "pending file rename" section, the section where apps install their preferences, etc.

    I find a lot of times when I use someone else's windows machine I am appauled by the amount of crap they have loaded, and most of the time aren't aware of it. Programs that load stuff on startup without being very clear about it and asking you first really peeve me. I patrol the startup folder+registry entries very strictly, and keep the task list small.

    You of course have to make sure your hardware is stable and you have to go through the process of finding a driver combination that is suitable. It can be very frustrating to mess with crap drivers and a ton of strange BIOS settings. But if you stick with it you can eventually find a combination that is bulletproof and will yield stability. If you don't put in the effort to do this, though, you will forever be messing with strange crashes.

    It can be done, but it is not for the faint of heart.

    1. Re:Cruft can be keep in check with some work. by Seekerofknowledge · · Score: 2, Funny

      I completely agree. I will admit that I like win2k (gasp!), as for me it has always been extremely stable. Just like any other windows version it can succumb to the cruft mentioned in the article, but it does not have to be that way. Everything you talked about (manually cleaning the registry, deleting files/dirs left behind by lazy uninstall progs) goes a long way in keeping your system running. I participate in this kind of housecleaning and it definitely pays off. Every icon in the systray and task that is running is one that I ask for. My box is virtually never off and has gone many months without a reboot, and I don't think I have ever had a bsod with it in the year and half I've had it. All of the problems that other people talk about with windows versions rarely ever occur to me.

      And it's all thanks to this gestapo-like control over your own computer. It is just like owning a car. Sure you could driver around on flat tires with worn belts and 6000 mile-old oil, with puke stains in the interior and an inch of bird crap on the windshield, but you shouldn't expect it to fix and clean itself or run and be anywhere near as (seemingly) perfect as the day you bought it.

      It takes effort as the parent poster said, and that's all there it to it.

  50. the real story by oliverthered · · Score: 2

    That's a level 7 i think,

    anyhows for a level 5.....

    some fonts were installed,
    XFS go a little unhappy
    x failed to start because it couldn't find it's default font.
    and kept resporning

    --
    thank God the internet isn't a human right.
  51. It's the OIDs that do it by God!+Awful · · Score: 2

    Before long OIDs became popular, I could manually go in and clean up the registry. Now I don't have a hope in hell. Still, I find that most OS's do just fine as long as you don't frig with them. I've had one PC running NT4 for 4 years now and it still mostly works, except the APM suspend BSODs one time in 3 and I have to follow a convoluted series of steps whenever I use PPPoE. The secret is to just leave it alone. Don't install new software that you don't need and don't mess with the system configuration unless you write down every single thing you change.

    My Linux box has different problems, but plenty of cruft. I have some scripts that I run every now and then to clean up the mess. The lib/modules directory got messed up the day I installed it, and I still can't replicate some of the modules I need so I have to manually install some old ones. Such is life.

    -a

    1. Re:It's the OIDs that do it by God!+Awful · · Score: 2

      Not if I have a custom-built kernel. Having all those configuration options is great, but a lot of them don't compile or don't work with other options. Since I couldn't replicate a set of configuration options that worked I had to use some modules that were compiled for a different kernel.

      -a

    2. Re:It's the OIDs that do it by God!+Awful · · Score: 2

      Sadly, no. The penultimate kernel I built had would never work correctly on my machine. A coworker had the exact same computer, so I just used a copy of his kernel. It didn't have all the options I needed so I was forever trying to improve upon it. I tried to build the kernel using his .config file, but the modules wouldn't build. Getting tech support from him is like pulling teeth so I just gave up. A couple of months ago, I finally built a working kernel myself. I had to hand edit the makefiles and patch up some compile and link errors in the kernel source... I really wasn't expecting that. This one I do have the .config for.

      -a

    3. Re:It's the OIDs that do it by God!+Awful · · Score: 2

      Well mine's an x86, but it's also a laptop. For some reason, Toshiba laptops have problems. I still have to start the ethernet drivers manually. And I can't run it without framebuffer support, but I get all sorts of garbage on the screen.

      -a

  52. Random freezes. by Christopher+Thomas · · Score: 2

    Actually, my linux (RedHat 7.3) installation will freeze occasionally. I find that it freezes when RealPlayer + many other things are running at once. (I think RealPlayer doesn't play nice with resources, but I'm just guessing.)

    Has anybody else seen this behavior before, and if so, what was the cause? My computer is so stable otherwise.


    There are doubtless many, many things that could cause this to happen. But the one that's been doing it for me has been heat.

    Nice, hot weather, nice, hot processor, nice, hot video card, not-so-nice noises from the CPU fan that's on it's last legs and is varying speed erratically. And now I get freezes playing graphics-intensive games under W2K or playing MP3s under Linux.

    Time to replace that CPU fan.

    YMMV.

  53. My solution... by Junta · · Score: 2

    emerge clean.

    Poof.

    Seriously, if one makes strict use of package management and thinks carefully about the apps they install, the entropy of the system tends not to increase. Back when I ran redhat, it was usually easier to get the source tarball and compile, resulting in /usr/local having high entropy. Now I use gentoo, and I have yet to go outside portage for a package. Now the problem of /home entropy remains....

    My WinXP install also is pretty streamlined, only what I want. I oversee it like a hawk and think carefully about upgrades and changes to the system. With this regimen, it holds up well, though I rarely use it (maybe that also has something to do with it...). Now where you really run into this problem is on systems of casual users who don't care until it's too late. They have a temporary need, they install an app forever. They see something nifty, they install it without a second thought, without a second thought to resident programs loaded...

    In short, any platform can show 'decay' over installed time, but its more a fault of the usage pattern rather than the platform itself. Any reasonable platform will give you the freedom to do what you want, even if the ultimate result is shooting yourself in the foot with your performance and functionality...

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  54. Mac OS 9 by Phroggy · · Score: 4, Informative

    Certainly a system that has been in use for a long period of time can become less stable due to increased complexity as new software is added. However, the real question is, how easy is it to clean up the mess and return to a smoothly running system, without reinstalling the entire operating system?

    The problem with Windows is the Registry. Practically nobody, including Microsoft's own programmers, knows exactly what to clean up in the Registry to get the system running as good as new, without breaking something important. In Mac OS, however, it's really quite simple. Granted, you do have to have an understanding of how the system works, so I wouldn't expect a novice to know how to do this intuitively, but I'd expect far less of a Windows user.

    The most obvious thing is the Desktop file (actually a couple of files now). This is the closest thing the Mac OS has to a Registry, and it's not close at all. Every six months or so, reboot while holding the Command and Option keys (technically, you just have to hold the keys while the Finder is loading) and it will ask if you want to rebuild the Desktop file for each mounted volume (filesystem). A couple minutes later, good as new.

    The next thing is extensions and control panels. Perhaps you've downloaded some cheezy shareware thing that's conflicting with some other cheezy shareware thing. Open the Extensions Manager, and have a look. Usually you can easily identify where most things came from; if you don't recognize something, you can turn it off, reboot, and see what happens. You can create multiple extension sets to experiment with if you want.

    Finally, preferences. Some app misbehaving? Trash the Preferences file. Everything reverts to defaults, but nothing is really broken.

    And of course, if you want to uninstall an app, usually you just need to trash the folder the app is in. Sometimes it may come with control panels or extensions; just trash those too (they're easy to identify). If you want to be thorough, trash the prefs too, although it won't hurt to leave 'em.

    I have yet to see anything easier to maintain.

    --
    $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
    $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    1. Re:Mac OS 9 by tbmaddux · · Score: 3, Interesting
      ... how easy is it to clean up the mess and return to a smoothly running system, without reinstalling the entire operating system?

      MacOS X in theory is easier still than MacOS 9, with its application "packages" containing all you need to throw away. Plus maybe some files in the Preferences folder, but they're harmless. With Carbon apps (esp. games) that support MacOS 9 it's a little more complicated.

      The extensions management you mention is a little more difficult than you imply, but it's not nigh-impossible to do by hand like the Windows Registry is. A trick you didn't mention is to use the MacOS file labels (colors) on known-good extensions, which makes it easier to find newly inserted or modified items.

      Techtool is an excellent utility for zapping the PRAM (a trick you missed) as well as for rebuilding the desktop. DiskWarrior cleans up cruft in your directory structure (HFS/HFS+).

      When I was stuck using Windows machines at work, I made frequent use of RegClean, Norton Utilities, and scanreg /fix to keep things livable. Often the same registry errors would return over and over again. Like a mold.

      To sum up, I preferred MacOS 9 when I was using it, but MacOS X is so much better still.

      --
      Can't you see that everyone is buying station wagons?
  55. Dont know what you're all doing wrong by digitalsushi · · Score: 2, Funny

    Dont know what you're all doing wrong, cause the OS on my Win95 CD has been fine for 7 years. Jeez.

    --
    slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
  56. Cruftarama by stor · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Hello all.

    I don't tend to run windows but my friends do and I've noticed an alarming trend: proliferation of adware.

    I know a lot of you will be saying "well duh" but I don't run Windows' desktops much. I run Linux as a desktop/workstation OS and I administer Linux and W2K servers. Windows, to me, is a shell for running Warcraft 3 and Operation FlashPoint 8)

    An alarming amount of windows software (especially "shareware" or "freeware") installs all sorts of annoying adware. Popups, animations, banners: cpu-wasting, flashing, scrolling, dancing cruft. Think of a website with really annoying advertising methods and then think "What if my destop randomly did that" and you'll get an idea of what it's like.

    During installation of these adware-containing programs you probably wouldn't realise that your computer is about to be seriously cruftified.

    The adware is usually embedded in .dlls.

    There's special programs you can download for windows that just try to remove/disable as much adware from the OS as they can.

    I must say I don't miss windows one iota. I know with a bit of hacking I'd be able to disable any adware "suprises" but I think I'd pop a vein in my forehead before long.

    Cheers
    Andy

    --
    "Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"
  57. Battling Windows Cruft? by DudemanX · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You just need the right tools... Many people have already mentioned the wonderous tools over at Sysinternals, but no one's mentioned any of the stuff writen by some finish dude named Jouni Vuorio. Over at his site there's a really nice set of power tools with a registry cleaner, powerful file manager, and remote admin capabilities. While this set of tools is curently in beta I've never had a problem on my home Win2K desktop. On the other hand, I won't use beta software on production machines at work so I just use his stand alone RegCleaner which even when set to "Auto clean" and "Extra powerful" has yet to damage the registry on any PC I've used it on. It has even fixed a few PC's which would only boot into safe-mode. They're not open source, but they're definatly free as in beer. Try 'em out, I think you'll be as pleased as I am.

  58. Re:To get rid of them... by SIGFPE · · Score: 2

    So msconfig is in W98, not in W2K and in WXP. Damn!

    --
    -- SIGFPE
  59. Install a Creative Labs product - Re:bsod, etc. by Malc · · Score: 2

    Get a Sound Blaster Live! and install the Creative Labs drivers on you SMP Win2K machine. Guaranteed to crash on a regular basis - especially if you play Quake 3.

    I've seen Win2K crash a lot - these days it's generally to do with Mozilla consuming too many graphics resources (my machine starts having problems redrawing windows, and then I get a BSOD with a stop in nv_disp.dll).

  60. that's very easy by Ender+Ryan · · Score: 2
    You'll find that the becomes very easy as you get more familiar with your Linux system.

    Most of the time, as long as you are installing into the same prefix the package was previously installed into, you don't have to remove the old files. Occasionally filenames change, but it really turns out to not be too much of a problem. Individual packages vary of course. For instance, Mozilla should not be installed over top of a previous installation.

    For libraries, it's usually better to install over top of the old install, and ldconfig will update all the symlinks, and programs linked against the previous version will continue to use the previous version(of course, that varies package to package as well).

    Then of course there are some things that it's easier to keep in it's own separate place, such as gnome or kde. I put them in /opt/gnome, /opt/gnome2, and /opt/kde. /usr/local/gnome(etc.) would be good too. That also allows you to keep different versions of gnome/kde on your machine and test/switch versions at will.

    Basically, as long as you know what you're doing, it's quite simple really.

    --
    Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
  61. You're missing the point... by GammaStorm · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The majority of these comments seems to infer 2 basic things in regard to the article:

    1. The user of the machine is either competant or cares about the state of the machine. (ie. comments about how easy it is to keep it clean/organized/know what's going on)

    2. Assumes that every computer on the planet has an IT department standing behind it who knows what it's doing.

    I take care of hundreds of networks for a living and the last thing I want to do when I get home is to fart around with my own boxes. My boxes are probably at Force +13 on the F*'d up scale, but as long as they work and my data is backed up I don't care. I might have some time in January to set them back up.

    The point is, while there are lots of perfect little computer housekeepers here, in my experience, this article hits it right on the Windows Key. Personally I can't believe people have time to type through all the laughing.

    If you guys have time could you come over and clean up my mess? I'll leave the door open.

  62. Re:Slackware + source tarballs = ZERO decay by crucini · · Score: 2

    First try 'make uninstall' - if the Makefile has an uninstall package that will work. Or try 'make -n install', meaning "pretend to make install". This will usually show where the files went.
    But neither is really needed because when you install the new version of the app (make install) it will overwrite the old files.

  63. Re:Windows? Try Linux...or learning a little by johnlcallaway · · Score: 4, Informative

    Most cruft can be attributed to users who do not take the time to learn about their computers and what it takes to maintain them. How many people go out and buy a new hard drive when they run out of disk space instead of going through the add/remove programs in Windows, RPM manager in Linux, or wander through all directories and check for things no longer needed.

    I have lived with 10GB for two years now just by pruning cruft whenever I get less than 300MB free. I would love to spend $100 on 80GB, but that would only lead to more cruft.

    Linux/Unix does hold one bit over Windows, there is no single directory that becomes crufted. (Please ... I know everything falls off of slash ... work with me here...) How big is your WinNT directory?? Mine is 1.24GB, and contains 9,191 files. That is 12% of my hard drive space, and 10% of all files, including my p0rn! Linux/Unix doesn't put all of its eggs into one basket, making it a little easier to prune the cruft that builds up, or at least a little less dangerous.

    Face it, unless you and I are willing to spend many hours pruning the cruft on a regular basis, it is often easier to delete and rebuild. Oh yeah ... another thing Linux/Unix has in its favor. If I put all the user directories on a separate partition, I don't lose all my settings when I reinstall Linux.

    Bad registry...evil registry...corrupted registry...

    --
    I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
  64. scatter-componets-across-10,000 directorys by crucini · · Score: 4, Informative
    Of course linux has the nice problem of scatter-componets-across-10,000 directorys. I use linux as a server platform instead of a desktop platform for precisely this reason. I can *never* find all the parts of some installs and I despise when a program places itself into 4-5 different directorys.
    If you installed from RPM, rpm -qlp some.rpm. If you installed from source, try make -n install.
    1. Re:scatter-componets-across-10,000 directorys by ishark · · Score: 2
      If you installed from source, try make -n install.

      Even better (much better), search for "checkinstall", a small utility which runs make install for you, keeps track of files installed and generates a nice RPM/deb/slack package for it.
      Of course the dependencies are messed up (you can't guess them all...), but when you remove the package you're sure that you remove all the files which were installed.

  65. Unix can have have more cruft than Windows. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Especially if you get in the habit of compiling programs from source without a package. I don't mean compiling deb or rpm source packages, or source that can generate a package too. I mean where you just download the tgz and do a "./configure && make && make install". Those generate true cruft.

    However, I think that even though Unix can have more cruft, its also easier to get rid of it. Windows, and especially Windows XP, has the registry which can easily load up. Who knows what the hell needs what. Especially when you've uninstalled programs that don't like to remove registry entries. Windows XP will even protect itself with backup copies of the registry and you can only remove some files in a special way other wise XP will just replace the removed or user-replaced file with its own backup. It has backups of backups too.

    Anyway, since Unix generally doesn't have a registry (for better or worse) it also easier to remove the cruft. If you strictly follow your distributions packaging system, cruft in Unix should be fairly low because you have a way to track the cruft.

    Debian (and maybe RH too) has a way to reduce cruft even further. If you modify files after installation of a package, you can have it rebuild that package with your changes included.

    Debian rules and Red Hat drools!

  66. Re:Just as prone? by shyster · · Score: 2
    If we are going to bring up single-instance as an example of the norm, I believe mine supports far more than yours does, as what I have is almost impossible for *anyone* who uses IE/Outlook to maintain for longer than a year.

    Let me be the first to call bullshit. I use both IE and Outlook on Win98 and Win2K, and have had machines that run fine for 3 years with reinstalling. That includes installing pretty much everything I can get my hands on, uninstalling 3/4 of that, etc., etc. Just because you know how to maintain a Linux system, doesn't mean there aren't some of us that know how to maintain a Windows system. It's just a different knowledge set.

  67. Re:Just as prone? by shyster · · Score: 2
    I don't know what MS says about it, but my recommendation is 40 hours for Windows 95 or 20 hours for Windows 98, and then reboot. Divide those numbers in half for every instant messaging client or p2p filesharing thingy you have installed, and then divide them in half again if you don't know exactly what's running out of the various Run registry entries. I don't know Me well enough to assign a figure for it here.

    I'll go with that...though it's much easier to tell users to reboot every day than every 40 hours. And, on my own system, or ones that I administer full time, they can easily run a week or more without reboots.

    As for Windows ME, my figure would be to reboot it immediately. Then keep rebooting until your hard drive crashes, then buy a new one with another OS.

  68. Re:Just as prone? by Dyolf+Knip · · Score: 2

    Not to mention Explorer's 'View as Webpage'! After getting rid of the Welcome screen and deleting extraneous desktop crap, that's the very first thing I turn off.

    --
    Dyolf Knip
  69. Re:What does the Debian policy offer over Windows? by rusty0101 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Being accepted as a Debian package means that your package does follow the Debian policy. That means that there are over 9000 packages where the developer was concerned enough about the policy to follow through with what put you to sleep.

    The dselect, apt-get, dpkg, gnome-apt, installers do just what you are asking a package installer to do. When you build a package, using Make, or other software building applications that support Debian packages, your package does identify what files are needed, what independently developed packages are required. It also handles uninstall very well.

    Is it perfect? Nope. But in comparison to Windows software installers, it is light years ahead.

    Of course BSD users will brag about how their installer works for any platform that has a C compiler... and that there exists drivers for the hardware... Sounds like a really lousy way to be set up to uninstall software later, but I am not judging the system, I don't use it.

    -Rusty

    --
    You never know...
  70. WinXP - cruft force 4 on install by Mandelbrute · · Score: 2
    How many times do you want to crash during installation today? Is it the three month old video card or the three month old motherboard the problem - there's no other hardware - wait the printer is turned on.

    Hmm, five minutes after install EXPLORER.EXE has crashed, at least "cmd" can still be run.

    Hmm, back to NT4 or wait for the sixth service pack, the one that brings XP up to the standard of CP/M.

    It's a pity that they didn't just put a GUI on VMS and sell that.

  71. user mode linux by asteinberg · · Score: 2, Informative
    But there will shortly be ports to Linux, Mac OS X, and other Unices; we are confident these OSes are just as prone.

    Aside from all the other comments made in defense of these other OSes here, most of which I wholeheartedly agree with, I'd also like to point out that I think this is something that User Mode Linux will help to avoid. UML makes it a bit safer to play around with installing software that could potentially add cruft. You can have a UML file that has programs you're experimenting with, and then once you're confident that the programs work well and that you won't later decide that you don't need them, install them to your main Linux installation.

    --
    The first ever Ultimate Frisbee video game: here (now
  72. Don't use it! by uradu · · Score: 2

    I refuse to use Real Player and the free Quicktime player precisely because of their annoying nag nature. Quicktime is particularly bad because it asks you if you want to upgrade EVERY SINGLE TIME you play a file or stream.

    1. Re:Don't use it! by bnenning · · Score: 3, Informative
      Quicktime is particularly bad because it asks you if you want to upgrade EVERY SINGLE TIME you play a file or stream.

      That is a pain. But there's a 30 second workaround: set your clock forward many years, launch the QuickTime player, click "Later", quit, and reset your clock. It won't bother you again as long as the time is earlier than what you set it to.

      --
      How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
    2. Re:Don't use it! by irony+nazi · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Another 30 second workaround is: Support the software by purchasing it!! It's amazing how effective it is. Since I purchased quicktime pro, it hasn't nagged me once when I started. This super-secret method also enables some super-secret features. For example, now I can save Quicktime in Mpeg or DV formats! I can cut and crop movies and parts of movies or even combine movies.

      Doing this with software such as Quicktime is also rebellious, as it sends the word to Apple that *hey your software is worthwhile to me*. It states that *I don't succumb to predatory bundle-it-with-the-OS techniques* and most importantly *I support capitalism and the free market*.

      Do you get to do that by playing with the calendar?

      --

      Bringing irony to the Slash-masses
    3. Re:Don't use it! by uradu · · Score: 2

      Thanks, that's a great tip. However, I seem to be getting by just fine without using Quicktime at all, so I think I'll stick to that. Besides, it seems that MPEG-4 will have a bright future all by itself, and there will be plenty of non-Apple choices for players.

  73. Re:What does the Debian policy offer over Windows? by John+Hasler · · Score: 3, Informative


    And all it does so far as I can tell is tell an
    application designer how to play nice with
    everyone else.

    No. It tells a Debian maintainer who chooses to add an application (of which he is not usually the designer) to the archive what he _must_ do.

    Until operating systems have a generic installer

    Debian has one.

    and application designers don't have to do any
    more tell this installer "here are my files, i
    need to store this config info, and these are my
    dependncies, do what you will"

    That is what the Debian package management system does. It is the job of the Debian maintainer, not the program author, to package the program so that it complies with Debian policy and functions properly with the package management system. Familiarity with Debian policy is one of the requirements for becoming a Debian maintainer.

    let the one who knows the details be the one to
    handle them.

    That would be the Debian maintainer. There are about a thousand of us.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  74. Re:Just as prone? by Afrosheen · · Score: 2

    I'll second that. I keep 98 on my machine for the occasional 'game that winex can't handle yet' and the install is about 8 months old now. It's a record-holder at this point because 6 months is usually it's turning point, the point at which it goes to hell very quickly. I think the 8 month record is due to the fact that I only boot into windows twice a month or so. Tried de-crufting the registry with a variety of tools to no avail. It's latest surprise is not recognizing/seeing my usb Microsoft Sidewinder gamepad. Thank god a modprobe sidewinder is all it needs under linux.

  75. COM registry pollution is worst by uradu · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The utter dependence on the registry for all things COM is what makes Windows more fragile than most other systems. After several months or years of installing, uninstalling and updating software, the registry is full of dangling CLSIDs, type libraries, ProgIDs etc. Worse, the versioning system can get completely screwed up with several generations of ActiveX DLLs co-existing and periodically getting re-registered by their respective parent apps. VB developers have a particularly nasty experience, since by default VB re-generates all the CLSIDs of COM objects each time a project is built, without usually bothering to clean up the previous ones. So over time the CLSID subtree is littered with orphaned COM class debris.

    Right now my work system (W2K) most of the time takes forever to pop up the context menu on files in Windows Explorer. It didn't always do it, but I can't really identify a major change to the system that precipitated that. No doubt some of the shell extensions that are being activated each time are looking for "stuff" that they're either not finding, are being slowed down by other components that they're relying on, or experiencing some other type of timeout. The menu can take 30 seconds or more to pop up. Similarly, some types of file operations take equally long: deleting a file from within Windows Explorer can take over half a minute, half of that time waiting for the confirmation dialog, the other half waiting for the "deleting file" animation dialog to quit. These are all most likely COM related problems that could probably easily be fixed--if you know what you're looking for. Unfortunately, a trace on registry operations during a context menu popup generates so much output as to be virtually useless.

    Things like these all add up to make the Windows user experience increasingly frustrating with advancing time, particularly because of the seeming intractability of the problems. The new .NET architecture promises to eliminate much of this mess, since class installation and activation is FS based like Java, and not registry-based like COM. Only time will tell if it turns out being any better, though.

    1. Re:COM registry pollution is worst by uradu · · Score: 2

      > You could try doing a search for regclean

      I run regclean regularly, but that won't fix this problem.

  76. Why I'm like that... by sterno · · Score: 2

    I think the thing is that a lot of the obscure hacking that tends to happen in Unix and Linux is derrived from trying to push it's limits. We take the time to deal with these things because we actually have the opportunity to do so.
    To illustrate my point, let's assume I'm having a problem with the video under windows versus a problem with video under linux. The symptom in both systems is the same, sporadic system crashes. So let's see what happens when I go try to solve my problem.

    I search on-line and find out that there's a known problem with the video card. I find out that, for windows, the newest driver is expected to be released in a few weeks that will fix this problem. So, I wait a few weeks, get the new driver, and get on with life.

    Now, under Linux I find out the same thing, that there's a bug and it's expected to be fixed in the newest release of the driver. The difference though is that, if I'm willing to put the work in, I can download a patch for this problem and recompile the driver. So rather than being out of luck for a few weeks, I'm only out of luck for how long it takes me to implement the fix.

    I think that this environment promotes an attitude that encourages noodling with things to get them to work. Under windows, we are trained to try CTRL+ALT+DEL, then download a fix pack. Nobody is encourage to get into the guts of the thing even if it's possible. In windows, every effort is made to discourage hacking on the system.

    --
    This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
  77. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  78. True but..... by dmaxwell · · Score: 2

    You've just kicked the legs out from under one of Windows' biggest talking points...that is sooooo easy. In a way I suppose it is. Anyone can manage to use a Windows machine for a year or so before the quirks become highly annoying. Getting out of that jam without losing a buncha stuff is far from easy for nontechnical users. Keeping it from becoming highly annoying is well.....highly annoying.

    Oh well, if I had mod points I would have modded you up for the link to sysinternals and your lucid description of those utilities. I have to maintain Windows machines at work and appreciate anything that makes it less of a trial.

  79. Re:Just as prone? by MrResistor · · Score: 2

    That's the worst! After spending some time in KDE where I never needed to doubleclick, I thought that would be cool in Windows, too. It lasted about a day, and that's just because I'm stuborn.

    --
    Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
  80. Re:bsod, MS crash reports, and cruft by deranged+unix+nut · · Score: 2

    Through the use of crash reports, Microsoft's next service packs and OS should withstand much more cruft without crashing. It might run slowly, but the only excuse for un-fixed crashes is a lack of knowledge.

    Microsoft has already released a number of hotfixes for issues that were discovered because of the crash reports that users have submitted.

    Microsoft is also using the reports to identify 3rd party drivers and other software that causes crashes. Microsoft *does* fix anything that causes a crash in NT/2k/XP that they know about...this is their way of finding out why end users experience crashes.

    That's the problem with cruft, it is hard to reproduce it in a controlled environment, but because developers usually need to understand what causes the problem, they want all testing to happen in controlled environments. Crash reports give developers enough information to know where to look for the problem and they give managers the big stick of "This problem has hit 100 users" so they can justify the programmer spending the time needed to understand and fix the problem.

  81. Unix wasn't meant for re-configuration by darqchild · · Score: 2, Informative

    It's true that {Li,U}nix machines do build up cruft. I have 4 machines running 24/7.

    Machine 1: DHCP/DNS/NIS/SYSLOG server for my lan. This has been sitting at CF1 for 3 years. I log into it about once every 2 months, to add or remove a user.

    Machine 2: Firewall and mail/http/ftp server. This probably was at a CF 3 after 2 years, up until last week when i moved from redhat 5.2 to slackware 8.0. It's seen a fair bit of tweaking, and frobbing, and i'm not disappointed. After all, windows has a CF 4 out of the box.

    Machine 3: My Laptop. It's at my girlfriend's apartment, I'm not sure but it's probably at CF3 or 4, but it's running a late model redhat distro, which comes with the cruft pre-installed

    Machine 4: My Desktop. My poor desktop. It gets a full reinstall every 6 months. What can i say? Unix was designed to be configured and left alone. Not somthing I can do (well, i could but it's no fun) When my machine reaches CF 5 it's an excuse to finally upgrade to the latest release of my favorite distro of the week.

    --
    What? Me? Worry?
  82. Re:Windows? Try Linux...or learning a little by zerocool^ · · Score: 2

    Most cruft can be attributed to users who do not take the time to learn about their computers and what it takes to maintain them.

    This statement is flamebait, pure and simple. And it's not even troll tuesday.

    I have a friend who, every night, takes 3 DVD's, rips them, and sets up a queue in Gordion Knot to compress them to CD size. Then he wakes up in the morning and does it with 3 more. He has a connection at blockbuster. So while everyone else's computer is sitting idle, or running dnetc, his is slamming DVD's.

    Downside? He re-installs once a week.
    He starts with a fresh install of windows XP, NTFS formatted. But, I don't care what the OS is, if it has a journalised filesystem, or if it runs a disk cleanup utility in the background, when you slam 12 gigs on, in the form of three VOB file that are 4 gigs EACH, then wipe it off, TWICE a day, there is NO operating system that handles that well. That's punishment that no filesystem was designed to take, or at least no file system that can take that and still run windows and Gordion Knot. After a week of that (which would be 168 GB, in 4GB files, added then deleted to the filesystem, not to mention temp files created while compressing), the computer churns to a halt when trying to do anything requiring moderate disk access.

    I don't think your statement is intended to do anything except karma whoring. There are extreme circumstances in every case, and it's obvious that you, and everyone else on slashdot know this.

    ~Will

    --
    sig?
  83. A Windows guru answers... by SlashChick · · Score: 2

    I'll give you the quick answers to your questions. First of all, you should know that properly maintained Windows 2000 and XP systems are absolutely rock-solid, provided that you do basic system maintenance, have good hardware, and use drivers that are signed and that work with your product.

    I don't claim Windows 9x products. In fact, I reformat those computers and put 2000 or XP on instead. :P

    "For instance, can you look at a Windows process listing and be able to explain what every process is and what it's for?"

    In a word, yes. You have to be able to do this to pick out viruses (and sneaky bastards like that RealOne bullshit.)

    "Also, are there any diagnostic tools?"

    Yes. They range from standard ping/nslookup to third-party programs that will do just about anything you can on *nix. Check out a package called NetScanTools for all the TCP-dumping, port-sniffing goodness. (I'm too lazy to Google.) Also, for more fun/cool things like virtual desktops, changing system preferences, etc., check out the Windows XP Power Toys (put out by Microsoft.)

    "Does Windows log noteworthy events somewhere like the Unix syslog? If so, where is it?"

    Event Viewer. In 2000/XP, go to Control Panel -> Administrative Tools -> Event Viewer. Works just like /var/log/messages.

    "If I do figure out what is going wrong, what do I do about it?"

    You hit the Microsoft knowledge base. This is really one of the most underrated tools in Microsoft-land. However, it has pretty much any obscure bug/feature you would want documented, including registry hacks, etc. Can't find it? Go bug Microsoft tech support. They're usually quite helpful if they sense that you're not a luddite.

    I am a Windows guru. I like being a Windows guru. Several of my friends are Windows gurus. We're the ones who maintain Windows networks, bash people who think that since Windows 98 sucks that all Windows versions must suck, and find it ironic that so many people bash MCSEs because they know a stupid one. (Yep, it happens, folks. There are several million stupid college graduates out there, too, but that doesn't mean that college degrees are worthless.) Yeah, I think MCSE can and should be more stringent. But that doesn't mean the cert itself is a bad idea.

    Knowing Windows is an easier job than knowing UNIX, for sure. But it's not the cakewalk some geeks seem to think it is. Having used both Windows and Linux on the desktop, I can honestly say I vastly prefer Windows. Servers are another story, but then again I don't claim to be an Exchange guru. ;)

    1. Re:A Windows guru answers... by shyster · · Score: 2
      Okay, let's take a few common processes. What are they for/what do they do... csrss.exe. lsass.exe. each instance of svchost.exe. You'll probably find most people who are pretty decent Windows sysadmins do not know. (And in the case of svchost, you can't even tell unless you go and install extra software).?

      CSRSS.EXE is the user mode portion of the OS. LSASS.EXE is a security server. It authenticates the user on logon, and creates a token for that authentication. SVCHOST.EXE is used to host services, of course. It hosts DLL files and runs them as services. Tlist can tell you what services are running with svchost.exe.

      And if somebody didn't know that, they could easily head over to support.microsoft.com and find the info.

  84. Re:Windows? Try Linux...or learning a little by troc · · Score: 2

    I have a mate who does the same thing every night with an Apple laptop running OSX and an external firewire drive.

    He doesn't seem to have any problems with speed or stability and the machine had an uptime of a few weeks (has to reboot for the odd install) - including being put to sleep etc to go to work.

    I recently checked the thing and it was as happy as a lark

    Troc

    --
    Troc's dubious podcast and blog: http://www.trocnet.net
  85. i am at cruft force 4 by leuk_he · · Score: 2

    Cruft Force 4. Middle-aged. Description: Amount of time from screen showing "real" Windows background to the logon box appearing is >30 seconds.
    running windows 2000 (upgraded NT4.0)this is not even a bad thing on a pentium 350.

    Sometimes cannot "browse" other machines on LAN.
    The "other" machine is windows 98 and had to be tuned on AFTER the windows 2000 machine.
    Get first real BSOD.
    Due to some flakey "connextant" modem driver. If it get "speech" instead of dailtone i get a real BSOD.

    The USB mouse still needs the PS/2 mouse, or i get a BSOD after hibernation.

    Uninstall jokey screen saver, replace with SETI.
    I am a dutch power cow, and have dnetc installed.

    An extra disk of huge capacity has been installed.
    8 GB did not cut it, a 40 GB 7200 rpm driver is added.
    CD-ROM moves from drive F: to drive [:,
    cd is at f,g,h , and after that is a m: hard disk partition.

    But this is still manageable. I was at cruft force 5 in the NT4.0 age. But I managed to clean up networking under windows 2000.

    I still have not decided if i buy a new PC if i going to move the current installiton to it or make it a brand new XP "cruft force 1" system. I think my current cruft force is very workable, as long a new user is not put in front of it.

  86. It's not that hard. by CheeseCow · · Score: 2, Insightful

    At work I have a Windows 2k box. I don't have admin rights to it, but I have installed as much un-needed stuff as possible. I like lots of little meters and media players on my desktop. And guess what, there is NO cruft in it. If I don't start all those crufty programs, it is almost as good as new. And that's a PII 350, 64MB box.

    It is all the experimental programs that the "Power Users" download, that lead to the accelerated decay. Because most tested applications clean up after themselves.

    And all those registry-bashing Linux people. God damn, from what I read over at gnome.org, there is some sort of GNOME-registry, which "everyone" agreed was a "good thing". The thing with the Windows registry is all the dumb programmers, IE Creative, who loaded ALL their mixer settings into this, it was a whopping 3 MB! And when the "clean" registry from Microsft was below 1 MB(Win95), then that was a huge degradement. But if you know what you are doing, it is not harder to do some cleanning in the Windows registry than removing unwanted files from a Linux system.

    And on top of that, Windows XP comes with a feature called "System restore", which allows you to get back all those settings that worked so well, including the registry. OK, I've only used it once, and it may not be the "best" tool there is, but it is certainly better than nothing.

  87. Re:Windows? Try Linux...or learning a little by mgv · · Score: 2

    After a week of that (which would be 168 GB, in 4GB files, added then deleted to the filesystem, not to mention temp files created while compressing), the computer churns to a halt when trying to do anything requiring moderate disk access.

    Probably fragments the swap file. Try configuring the swapfile as a fixed size right after the install (Set max and minimum size to the same values)

    Also, partition off a large segment of your disk for the data files alone. Between this and fixing the swapfile on the disk (Possibly on its own disk) should stop system degredation.

    Michael

    --
    There is no cryptographic solution to the problem where the intended receiver and the attacker are the same entity.
  88. Re:Just as prone? by gimpboy · · Score: 2

    in the core of the OS? dos was the core of windows xx pre 95. windows 3.1 probably ran on dos 6.0 at the latest. i must admit that dos 6.22 was and is my favorite microsoft operating system. is it possible you were thinking about windows nt 3.x?

    --
    -- john
  89. There's only one problem with that: by uradu · · Score: 2

    I would be supporting Apple. I have no more love or admiration for Apple than I have for Microsoft, and since using Quicktime is avoidable, that's precisely what I'm doing.

    1. Re:There's only one problem with that: by irony+nazi · · Score: 2
      Not supporting Apple is okay. That's also saying *I support capitalism and a free market*. I just think that work-arounds and copyright infringement don't support anything except the idea that p2p file sharing is bad.

      Yes, I know that setting the date ahead and then back isn't really copyright infringement, but you're still getting an improved version of a product that you aren't supposed to have, without paying for it.

      --

      Bringing irony to the Slash-masses
  90. Re:BSOD by _xeno_ · · Score: 2, Informative
    I can reliably generate a IRQL_NOT_LESS_OR_EQUAL by quitting a game that used IPX. It's quite annoying, really, because if I ever want to play StarCraft multiplayer, I know I'm in for a reboot. For added fun, playing Diablo II over Battle.net also means random IRQL_NOT_LESS_OR_EQUAL popping up.

    It seems to be a bug with something that Blizzard is doing because I am yet to BSOD my system on anything but Blizzard games. When StarCraft caused the system to BSOD, I figured it was a problem with the IPX drivers, but since Diablo II can do it on Battle.net, I'm beginning to doubt that. (I've also seen Java manage to reboot my machine randomly - hasn't happened recently, but some how Cocoon managed to reboot my Windows machine with the 1.3 JDK. Don't ask how, it just did...)

    I'd guess I have network card issues, something's probably wrong with my LinkSys card drivers ("Works with Linux! Download drivers from our website! Uh, you aren't planning on using the Ethernet for Internet access, right?" - later versions of their driver disk come with Linux drivers, and Linux kernel 2.4.x have the appropriate drivers, but Linux 2.2.x at the time I got the card didn't - meaning a quick boot to Windows before I could get Linux up and running...)

    Other than randomly rebooting with JDK 1.3 and the occasional multiplayer Blizzard game BSODing me, Win2k's been rock solid. Although I use Mozilla as my browser, solving the "Explorer bringing the system down" liability that Win2k has. (Mostly when some page causes IE to start chewing threw resources, or when some app manages to crash the Explorer desktop instance and it gets screwed up when it's autorestarted.)

    My only beef is that I rarely get "unkillable" processes - processes that Windows claims are being debugged. Ah well - I can deal with it.

    It's better than my current Linux Gnome 2 install, which steadfastly refuses to use any window manager except twm... I'll get around to fixing it eventually, but since I mostly use my desktop for games and Java development, I really don't find myself wanting to go back to Linux. Sorry guys...

    --
    You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
  91. keeping Windows from getting crufty by Lxy · · Score: 2

    I searched high and low for a solution to crufy Windows, and I believe this may be it. It's a decent set of instructions to get Windows running completely off of a CDR. It uses a ramdisk for its write purposes , and of course all changes are lost when you reboot.

    Once you have the CD to your liking, you can escape the cruft of Windows.

    --

    There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
    :wq
  92. you missed my point by oliverthered · · Score: 2

    I didn't say the microsoft registry was a good implementation.
    But a centralised database with journalling rollback and propper commits is a very good place to store you system settings.
    It's easy to index in an efficient manner
    You can run scripts to check for bad stuff
    Evrythging is where it's ment to be and easy to find.
    An if you using a fully fleged DB then you can do a lot more with the configuration.

    --
    thank God the internet isn't a human right.
  93. Re: your sig by MrResistor · · Score: 2

    The big difference here is the motives of the people involved. Under capitalism, I exploit you because I think I know what's best for me. Under communism, I exploit you because I think I know what's best for you.

    Yeah, that's the theory, anyway.

    You know what the difference between theory and practice is, don't you? In theory there is no difference.

    In reality the only difference between Capitalism and Communism is the path to power: In Capitalism one gains power through private industry, while in Communism one gains power through government service.

    --
    Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
  94. Don't Blame Microsoft, Blame everybody else by Felinoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Typical. Can't anybody admit a defect in Windows with out clamming it's universal or blamming the users.

    Universal:
    Over the years thies problems have not surfaced in other operating systems.

    Users:
    Mac Os has the same kind of users as Windows and Linux actually shares the same userbase.

    Only a precentage of Linux users don't like 'take over' software..

    Also Ms Dos itself never degraded.

    Just look at how each defect happends in Windows and how other operating systems work and you'll see thies problems are unique to Windows or at least not normal.

    Stop blamming the users for using features Microsoft included.
    Stop blamming "the nature of computers"
    Put the blame where it belongs....
    Poor design...

    More over most problems could be fixed easly if Microsoft would just stop making excuses.

    --
    I don't actually exist.
  95. Re:Windows? Try Linux...or learning a little by zerocool^ · · Score: 2

    Yeah, I told him to make a data partition, but he apparantly is lazy or something. I think his excuse is he likes to start clean. Makes him feel fresh or something.

    ~Will

    --
    sig?
  96. Re:Windows? Try Linux...or learning a little by zerocool^ · · Score: 2

    Right on both counts. First, this isn't a server. It's a homebrew computer, built with OEM parts bought from pricewatch. Not the highest quality stuff, but the hard drive is a Maxtor 7200 RPM 30 GB. But the machine wasn't built (hardware wise) to take that punishment.

    And it could be an OS bug, or a problem with NTFS. As another reply to my post pointed out, it could be a badly fragmented swap file.

    ~Will

    --
    sig?
  97. Re:Windows? Try Linux...or learning a little by zerocool^ · · Score: 2

    My point wasn't that no machine can handle it. But I doubt that a credit card company is using a sub-$800 machine to hold their databases of terabytes. My point also wasn't Linux V Windows, but rather that my parent claimed that people's OS's start to slow down because they're stupid. That is a flamebait statement.

    Will

    --
    sig?
  98. wonk wonk wonk by Nindalf · · Score: 2

    if I create 200 files that all start with myapplicationdataset and then have a 3 digit number attached, most hash designs will result in a single list

    Let me repeat: you do not understand hashing. One characteristic feature of a good hash function is that similar inputs do not result in identical outputs.

    What you just claimed about hashing reveals about the same level of understanding as saying, "having rolled a 1, you're probably going to roll a 2 next," about dice.

    I'm not going to waste any more of my time correcting all your mistakes one by one. Go read something by Knuth, and please stop trying to "build" computer scientists. I'd feel safer hearing of lemurs building nuclear power plants.