Slashdot Mirror


Windows 8 Features With Linux Antecedents

itwbennett writes "As details about new features in Windows 8 started to be discussed in the Building 8 blog and bandied about in Linux/Windows forums, Linux users were quick to chime in with a hearty 'Linux had that first' — even for things that were just a natural evolution, like native support for USB 3.0. So ask not 'did Linux have this first', but 'does Windows 8 do it better?'"

642 comments

  1. "Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Funny

    The Microsoft twist: No Linux distro does ISO mounting as easily as Windows 8, as it requires some command line trickery (or, again, third-party tools).

    Here's your "command line trickery" (once you've gotten superuser):

    mkdir -p /mnt/iso
    mount -o loop image.iso /mnt/iso

    Did you see that trickery? Someone call the pope, I'm well on my way to sainthood after that "miracle." Hahah that's funny though, this guy should see some of the command line paragraphs I've typed out for stuff like ffmpeg back in the day. I think the author doesn't understand that there are many linux machines that are servers or headless and many distros that love to leave you the option of not having to run a window manager. As a result, it's almost always up to you if you want to run a heavy GUI to execute two whole commands.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by MrEricSir · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Right, because there's absolutely nothing arcane or overly complex about having to open a terminal window, read a bunch of man pages, and then issue two commands with various flags just to mount a disk image.

      --
      There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    2. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Osgeld · · Score: 2

      hm I just right click and tell it mount

    3. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by jedidiah · · Score: 4, Informative

      I don't even do that. I just double click it.

      It sounds like someone needs to update their FUD playbook. They're at least 5 years behind the times.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    4. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by tscheez · · Score: 3

      What? I can mount an ISO in F14 and GNOME with a right click. How is that not easy?

      --
      Supplies!
    5. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Microlith · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Not for anyone who has bothered to learn how to use their computer. But then, that's just one way to do it on modern Linux distributions, which now simplify the process by letting you right click and mount the volume.

      And has since the days I was using Daemon Tools on Windows.

    6. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by gparent · · Score: 2

      Compare this to Right-Click -> Mount. Which is also available on some distros of Linux depending on DE and such.

      No, two lines of fucking arcane bullshit isn't ease of use. It's nerdy crap.

    7. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Or you could click on it in Gnome/Nautilus (and probably whatever file manager KDE uses), but don't let that get in your way of your rant.

    8. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by psychobudgie · · Score: 0

      Or even a single click in Nautilus. Heck, I can mount an ISO with a double click.

    9. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by sjames · · Score: 1

      It's certainly no more arcane than having to learn which squashed bug you have to click.

      On the other hand, I can just right click the iso in the GUI and open it with the archive manager as if it was a directory. It just depends of if you like GUI or command line.

      Bottom line, it doesn't matter if you prefer GUI or CLI, Linux has had it covered for years.

    10. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by s.petry · · Score: 2, Interesting

      KDE has build in point click for those to retarded to know the benefits of using the command line. I believe Gnome has an add on as well, but I hate Gnome so don't care if it does.

      Look, even Microsoft started realizing (15 years to late) the benefits and power of the command line vs. depending on a GUI for everything that's done. Hence they released "Power Shell".

      It is always refreshing to see an idiot fan boy that thinks it's hard to do things without a GUI though, so thanks for the laugh!

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    11. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Gaygirlie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      mkdir -p /mnt/iso
      mount -o loop image.iso /mnt/iso

      You kind of proved the author's point right there.

    12. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Hatta · · Score: 1, Insightful

      We all speak English. That's pretty fucking arcane and complex. "mount -o loop image.iso /mountpoint" isn't any more arcane and complex than "loopback mount this image here".

      And it's more convenient than using the GUI. Since you're managing files, you probably have a terminal open already. So it's really just a matter of typing the mount command. You don't even have to take your hands off the keyboard.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    13. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by gradinaruvasile · · Score: 1

      Actually i think gnome/nautilus has a right-click option for that or something similar. Also, no root access required if you use fuseiso. This fuseiso thingie can be used with thunar too (ex. "fuseiso -p %n ./contents-of-%n" as a custom right click option).

    14. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Microsoft twist: No Linux distro does ISO mounting as easily as Windows 8, as it requires some command line trickery (or, again, third-party tools).

      Errrr... I opened dolphin (KDE file manager), clicked on a .iso file, and I was readily browsing it....

      Blatant troll detected

    15. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Medievalist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Wow, that sounds hard! You have to do all that? Windows 8 must really suck!!!

      In modern linux distributions, if there's an ISO on the media, it appears the same as any other container object, except the icon's a shiny CD looking disc instead of a manila folder. You click on it like any other container object, say for example a folder or an archive file, and it opens.

      Why do you use windows if it makes you do all that crap?

    16. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by GreatBunzinni · · Score: 0

      Right, because there's absolutely nothing arcane or overly complex about having to open a terminal window,

      What? Running a program is "arcane or complex"?

      read a bunch of man pages

      Reading is "arcane or complex"?

      And no one needs to read man pages to learn how to use programs. This isn't 1994 anymore.

      , and then issue two commands with various flags

      those commands are "arcane or complex"?

      just to mount a disk image.

      You aren't exagerating or anything like that, are you?

      --
      Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
    17. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not for anyone who has bothered to learn how to use their computer.

      Learning to use your computer should *NOT* require knowledge of shell command flags. The very attitude that it should, is why its so bloody hard to hire good product people. Not coders, not sysadmins, people who actually get users and what they want. (Also explains the huge salary gap seen in the IT world)

    18. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by 0123456 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Linux requires root for too many things. You shouldn't need root to mount a file/device.

      So you're saying I should be able to plug in a USB stick with a setuid root shell on it, mount that without root permissions, and own your system with almost zero effort?

    19. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by localman57 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Heck, I can mount an ISO with a double click.

      Can somebody please tell me what ISO stands for? Everbody in in this thread keeps saying "I mounted this ISO...I mounted that ISO." I finally found out what you guys mean by "Mounting a MILF", and now you come up with some other mess of letters.

    20. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by galanom · · Score: 1

      Don't get it.
      At linux you use k3b or some other burning application.
      At Windows you need to download non-free Daemon tools

    21. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by geminidomino · · Score: 2

      That's really a horrible example, though.

      If Win 8 can handle ISO images half as simply as WinCDEmu (Open source, too), then it's kicking Linux's ass in that regard. Double-Click on ISO, mounted. Right Click->Eject, unmounted.

      Tilting at this particular windmill might not have been the best illustration.

      [0]which I won't be updating to, so fanboy accusations to /dev/null

    22. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by hawguy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Linux requires root for too many things. You shouldn't need root to mount a file/device. Only read (and optionally write) permissions on the file/device.

      In my linux desktop, my CD-ROM and USB devices automount when I plug them in, no root required, I don't even need to run a command, they just mount. And I can unmount them by clicking through my file manager. I can mount an ISO by right-clicking on it in my file manager. No root required.

      What mounts do you need root for? If it's something you need to do more than once, add it to fstab and add the "user" option.

    23. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that a lot of GUIs on Linux do it too.

    24. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Microsofties are always so funny. Did you learn nothing from your MSCE training? Good lord it's at least 100 multiple guess questions that costs over $ 1,000.00 (guaranteed at most locations) to pass.

      Before I get there, you can change the control in Linux to allow users to mount any thing from USB drives, to old DOS file systems. It's rather simple, though you won't find a GUI to make the change for you. Want a user to blow everything up? You can do that!

      Now to the point of why it's not a default in Linux. Even a Microsoft person should know that portable media is the easiest way of bringing malicious software on to your network, and it's second in use for exploits only to email (where Microsoft has done an exceptional job of auto-executing various file types without user knowledge.. hence thousands and thousands of exploits).

      In Microsoft land, you can change the policy to match Linux. It's a backward mentality though from those of us that realize that "user convenience" and "safety" often collide and sometimes the default should be "security".

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    25. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by miknix · · Score: 1

      Compare this to Right-Click -> Mount. Which is also available on some distros of Linux depending on DE and such.

      No, two lines of fucking arcane bullshit isn't ease of use. It's nerdy crap.

      It is not arcane or nerdy crap, it serves the purpose. Suppose you need to mount a iso file in a remote computer, which solution do you think its better?
      1) Use VNC (or X11 over SSH) to display your (Gnome/KDE/...) desktop and use the file browser to browse into the file and then right click it->mount?
      2) ssh into the remote host, type su, type "cd /path/to/file/dir; mkdir -p /mnt/iso; mount -o loop file.iso /mnt/iso" ?
      now good luck using solution 1 in a public place with low bandwidth...

      The conclusion you should draw from here is that GUI is not better than CLI, and vice-versa. Both have their use cases and if you want to be proficient you should use BOTH.

    26. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Gaygirlie · · Score: 1

      Being able to browse the contents of the .iso is not the same thing as mounting it; try to e.g. start an installation program from there when you've opened it in Dolphin and you'll quickly see why.

    27. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by inhuman_4 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Right, because there's absolutely nothing arcane or overly complex about having to open a terminal window, read a bunch of man pages, and then issue two commands with various flags just to mount a disk image.

      While yes it can be arcane to go through man pages to find out how to using things, I doubt many people do that anymore. If I need to know the command I go to google and type "Linux ${thing I want to do}" and get exactly what I need 90% of the time.

      However what I find stupid is having to run a gui to do the stupidest little thing. For example:

      Yesterday I had to print out quizzes for my students, I had 4 .doc versions of the quiz and needed 15 of each. On a gui I would have to this 4 times: 1) LibreOffice 2) Press Ctrl+P 3) Type in the number of copies. Opening LibreOffice/MS Office can be brutally slow on older machines.

      Or 1)Open terminal. 2) for i in quiz*.doc;do lp -n 15 $i;done. Now not many people would know how to do that and need to have the GUI to guide them. But for those of us who do know, not having the option of using a command line (especially for remote connections!) is dreadful. Why do I have to have so many GUIs, wizards, pop-ups, tips of the day, and other nonsense between me and the code that will send my stuff to the printer?

      And that is really the crux of the problem for me. It's not that the command line is better or the GUI is better. They each have their pros and cons. The problem is MS has crap command-line support, so when something is better done via command-line the option isn't there.

      MS is just adding insult to injury with their command line trickery comment. They claim the Win8 is better because you can mount ISOs from the GUI while on Linux you have to use the command line. Okay that is fair, but what about all of the windows versions currently available? You know, the ones where you just can't do it at all, command line or not?

    28. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 0

      Not for anyone who has bothered to learn how to use their computer.

      So, for over 90% of people who use Windows computers.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    29. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you even read past that sentence?

    30. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by smudj · · Score: 1

      Right, there is ONLY DaemonTools, nothing free at all oh, what about Virtual Clone Drive? MagicDisk? ISODisk? I haven't paid for an ISO mount tool for Windows yet.

    31. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by JohnnyMindcrime · · Score: 1

      Oh, I see... so, in other words, you emerged from your mother's womb with a gene-given instinct to be able to sit in front of a Windows PC and start using it, did you?

      Why do you "GUI is the only way" people seem to forget that your ability to use a computer well has a) been learnt over a period of time and, b) entirely down to what you are familiar with?

      I am sat here at home currently and I have two PCs running Linux and one running Windows. On the Linux PCs I have scripts and tools running that do batch jobs, backup jobs, mass file renames, automated Usenet searches and downloads. etc. etc. that if I *CAN* do them on Windows would take 10 times the amount of time to set up with a mouse and GUI.

      On my Windows PC, I have tools that I love like Tag&Rename, Media Monkey, IrfanView and a few others that let me do stuff with media and graphics files that would take me a while to work out how to do on Linux.

      Fortunately, I have stuff like SAMBA running so I can access files in either environment and work on them using the best tool in either OS that, for me, does the job I want to do best.

      Not all of us are command line zealots... if you don't like the command line then, please, go do it a way that's better for you - but don't diss what you clearly don't understand because find a repetitive task in a GUI and I can usually work out a command-line way of automating it, and with the time I save drink beer and be a lot happier than you clearly are.

      --
      Windows 10 is great - I used it to download Linux.
    32. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Why would I bother to have a terminal open when I can use something like Windows Explorer? Oh, right, you are using Linux and I am using Windows where I don't need to open a terminal for mundane tasks.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    33. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by tragedy · · Score: 1

      Well, the first line isn't even necessary if you've done it before, so only one line of "nerdy crap" is actually needed. If you have a terminal open and don't have some sort of crippling hand injury it's faster than the right-click option (although probably not faster than the double click option). Frankly, most of the time I use the mouse to do it these days unless I have to use a terminal (for example ssh'd into a remote box), but that doesn't lead me to deride it as "nerdy crap".

    34. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I actually agree that having to know about -o loop is kind of arcane, but the rest of it isn't. If you know what the OS is doing, at a 10,000 foot level, that whole command makes perfect sense.

      This idea that checkbuttons buried under 5 levels of GUI being less arcane than command lines is getting more and more nonsensical as the amount of configuration expands.

    35. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by lagartoflojo · · Score: 1

      On my PC running Fedora 16 & Gnome 3:

      1. Open the directory where the ISO file is.
      2. Double click it.
      3. ISO is mounted.

      No root required.

    36. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by mapfortu · · Score: 0, Informative

      That is exactly the problem with the CD mounting issue. From floppy drives to CD drives there's this problem of "autodetect" and "autorun". People do not know, or do not enjoy admitting it, but there are many possible exploits. Relevant exploits rely on hardware/bus/kernel combinations associated with "autodetect" and "autorun" of media in addition to the manufacturer of the media and the software used to format, create filesystems, and manage data on the media. Copy protection in the 5 1/4" days often relied on the manufacturer knowing more (often unpublished idiosyncratic circuitry details) about the sector/track/fs format in conjunction with chipset of the media drive and the data path across the bus, to the running kernel, and into allotted memory storage.

      Linux command line tools somewhat encourage the user to be aware of the vectors for autodetect and autorun exploits. Linux GUI desktop managers dumb down the issue. Windows, in the effort to appeal to a population which didn't know the difference, progressively buried the concepts of autodetect and autorun into deeper and deeper layers of OS and driver configuration.

      In all seriousness you are safe to fully expect that every single removable media, in some way, plays a part in a Big Brother (industry _and_ government) tracking and phone-home system.

      --
      any:every:99. find anyone and everyone who knows anything. 99 percent of all have been trained to know nothing about it.
    37. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by RCL · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That is why KDE and Gnome make this stuff easier. But there SHOULD be a way to do everything with shell commands, for users who are willing to learn them. Without that, I just don't have the feeling that I'm in control of the machine.

      BTW, Windows actually has plenty of command line tools (made by Microsoft) which allow you to script much more than one might think without ever touching the GUI. Too bad a lot of the said tools aren't included by default and need to be searched for in various * Kit packages from Microsoft.

    38. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by ewanm89 · · Score: 1

      And write permissions the mount point, in his case he does because he creates a new mount point in /mnt and /mnt is writable only by root as a such he needs root for that step, and as he doesn't change those permissions he then needs it to mount the image. But yeah, any user would know root alone is not what is needed for mount.

    39. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you have physical access, security is long gone.

    40. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by tscheez · · Score: 1

      But why would you want to do that? That's not usually how any software is distributed for Linux. Honestly, I can't think of the last time I had to mount an ISO for anything other than grabbing some .exe or .msi file to install on a windows instance somewhere. But that was quickly replaced with VMware's mount ISO option.

      --
      Supplies!
    41. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I kind of wonder if he was trolling, though. 'mkdir blahblah' isn't strictly necessary, so long as you have an empty directory handy (the '-p' flag shouldn't be necessary in any case). The '-o loop' part should also be unnecessary; mount is usually pretty good about figuring that stuff out on its own these days. I just do "sudo mount foo.iso bar" and it works just fine.

    42. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by RCL · · Score: 1

      We can either a) make all user mounts noexec by default b) get rid of setuid c) mix those two approaches by making user mounts executable, but ignoring dangerous flags.

    43. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by bmo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Right, because the command line is so unimportant that Microsoft came up with an entirely new command shell called PowerShell and OSX has full-on bash.

      You know, the two major OSes pointed at consumer idiots have powerful shells. Go figure.

      --
      BMO

    44. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Jorl17 · · Score: 2

      Like many have pointed out, if you get used to it and know it, it's intuitive. As an analogy, I have a friend who grew up with Linux, so whenever he reached Windows he had the same criticism, because he had to memorize all the clicks here and there, besides interpreting the arcane translations and dubious time estimates, etc, etc, etc.
      Furthermore, even though they are "3rd party", many simple applications do that with ease and without having to be tied up to a crappy monopolist OS.

      --
      Have you heard about SoylentNews?
    45. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Microlith · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Learning to use your computer should *NOT* require knowledge of shell command flags.

      It should if you want to be considered proficient. It shouldn't be required for basic day to day operations, as I noted. But go on, be an angry anonymous coward.

    46. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Jorl17 · · Score: 1

      More like the majority of the 90% of people that were forced to use and learn to use Windows computers. Much like you were forced to speak and understand your language, not others. The difference is that one of the things was free and constructive, while the other was mostly an attempt at getting in your pockets.

      --
      Have you heard about SoylentNews?
    47. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Microlith · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But when you want to do something more complex, that GUI won't help you. Instead it gets in the way. Of course, only in the Windows world are a functional GUI and functional CLI somehow mutually exclusive.

    48. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      its an image file for optical media, see other response for more detail

    49. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by spidercoz · · Score: 1
      International Standards Organization, specifically, this is ISO9660, the definition of a cd image.

      Or, you know, you could just FUCKING GOOGLE IT!

      Not knowing an answer is fine, not knowing how to find an answer is just pathetic, especially now when all the knowledge of the world is at your fingertips.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
    50. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He did! You haven't heard of the 'click' and 'select' command line programs?

        $ click --right -i image.iso | select 'mount' -o /mnt/iso

    51. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Johann+Lau · · Score: 4, Informative

      You can do the same thing in many Linux distros by just right-clicking an .iso file, or even just double-clicking it. So both you and the article are plain wrong.

    52. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Jorl17 · · Score: 2

      Exactly, much like you have to pay to use closed, inherently unsafe, monopolist and overly priced shitty OS with an ever more arcane API. The good thing about it is that it has been mostly the same API and mostly the same technique to force users to use that OS. If it weren't for that, then Windows would have died a long time ago.

      --
      Have you heard about SoylentNews?
    53. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Gaygirlie · · Score: 2

      I kind of wonder if he was trolling, though.

      Possibly. But then again, this being Slashdot and all it's likely he was entirely serious.

    54. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

      Awwwwwww. Did mommy drop you on your head a lot?

    55. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great, Linux entered the door first; now what has it done to go past the foyer? What this is telling me is microsoft is catching up, what is Linux doing (honestly, im interested in knowing) to differentiate itself?

    56. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Missing.Matter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      loopback mount this image here

      For most people, every word you said except "this" and "here" is gibberish.

      You don't even have to take your hands off the keyboard.

      For most people, the productivity bottleneck isn't the time spent moving hands to and from the keyboard; it's having to memorize 1000 commands to use the damn thing. rm, ls, cd, cp, grep, etc. and all their associated flags are not easy for most people. The one I get tripped up on the most is renaming a folder. I want to rename, so is it rn? No it's mv... but I'm not moving it so that's confusing. How about copying a directory? cp is for one file, I guess I need a flag for more, which was it again? and do I type the source first or the destination first? And what about naming conflicts? I guess if I want to deal with those I need to know some more flags...

      This is going to go through your head every time if you're anything but an expert. And guess what, not everyone wants to be an expert. People use computers as tools and GUIs help them do that more effectively. I don't need to know the inner workings of a drill, I just know I press the button and the bit turns. Likewise, I don't need to know all the features of cp or mv by memorizing the man page. I just click and drag or right click rename and I'm done.

    57. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by galanom · · Score: 1

      Ok smartass, if you spend your time learning about 10 windows iso mounting utilities, why not just learn to use "mount"?

      mount, k3b and gnome's equivalent are part of a default linux installation.
      In Windows I had to download them separately and then google for serial through half-porn sites.
      I had to do this for PowerDVD, WinRAR and a ton of other utilities. There might be some windows free utilities, but at the time I used windows (up until Win2000) these was the most common and most known.

    58. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Jorl17 · · Score: 1

      +1. Man pages are certainly useful and a big reference, but the internet and a pair of brain hemispheres helps you sort out anything. Really. I bet you can get results for "awk getting a third word" or "fourth word", etc...

      --
      Have you heard about SoylentNews?
    59. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by hawguy · · Score: 1

      Linux requires root for too many things. You shouldn't need root to mount a file/device.

      So you're saying I should be able to plug in a USB stick with a setuid root shell on it, mount that without root permissions, and own your system with almost zero effort?

      When my system automounts filesystems, it's mounted with the nosuid flag (which is the default when a user is given permission to mount a filesystem via the "user" flag in fstab - "suid" permission would have to be explicitly granted to enable it on a user mounted filesystem).

    60. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Windows 8 supports iso mounting by default.

    61. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by msheekhah · · Score: 1

      while most users would shit brix if told to do this, it's pretty cool that you can make an image file in the command line. in Mac OS X you can even make a dmg

      --
      Mark Anthony Collins
    62. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      Why bother?

      The whole article is basically crap. It's all "linux did it first, windows did it now, windows is automatically better".

      It reads like a microsoft press release.

      For Mr.EricSir's bullshit below, I point you to the fact that a bunch of apps already installed auto-mount ISO's already. You don't even need command line; it's merely a second option.

    63. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 2

      The point of the terminal is that you have all the commands for every program accessible in one location. The downfall is that you have to know the commands beforehand.

      There's actually a number of other reasons why the terminal works well. You can chain commands, you can express them without resorting to screenshots or ambiguous descriptions, scripting is easy, there's no gui overhead, and remote system access is dramatically simplified. Multitasking is sort of prevented but most people, including myself, would work better without it.

      What I'm interested in is how well Powershell's object-based architecture works. It seems like the best thing Microsoft could have done under the circumstances, but is there an advantage there? Has anyone here done any serious PS scripting? From what I understand there are constraints on what programs will accept as input, a tradeoff of flexibility for consistency and reliability I suppose. Is that something that linux should adopt?

      --
      Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
    64. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "No Linux distro does ISO mounting as easily as Windows 8"

      The writers of ISO Master may disagree.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    65. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      On most distros you click on an iso, it gets mounted... You also have the *option* of using the command line...
      OSX works the same way.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    66. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Kenja · · Score: 5, Funny

      Learning to use a computer should *NOT* require knowledge of mice and keyboards. The computer should know what I want it to do and just do it. I shouldn't even have to plug it in (electricity is dangerous!).

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    67. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by NoobixCube · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Learning to use your computer certainly SHOULD require familiarising yourself with your chosen platforms command line. The very idea that it shouldn't is why it'sso bloody rare to find an "average" user who knows how to do more than hit Play in iTunes. Not that it even involves the command line, do you know how many customers I have who don't know how to install software in Windows? This is simple, Computer Literacy 101 stuff. I learned how to use computers back when they were actually hard to use (though people who learned before I did, would probobaly look at my cosy DOS prompt and wish they'd learned there), these days there's no excuse for not having some basic and essential skills, yet every time I dare say we coddle the users, and that the problem is user education, NOT the programming and design, I'm told I'm being elitist. If a grown man with no intellectual disabilities couldn't work out how to use a spoon, and got cereal everywhere, would you blame the bowl, the spoon, the cereal, or him? I'd blame him just a bit, for not seeking out some user education. I'm sure a copy of Spoons for Dummies can't cost that much.

      --
      Admit it. You post strawman arguments as AC so you get modded Insightful for refuting them, rather than Troll
    68. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by negativeduck · · Score: 2

      Just jumping in here... I think the org poster had it write. Yes there are ways around Yes they can do it you can split the hairs of "well you *should* be able to do that" if you want. But this example and the large number of respondents as said is what really holds linux back. People in the linux community like to have a holier than thow attitude that's comparable to the mac users. Talk OS's and the guy who responds "I run linux" may have a smugness about them that you won't find with most windows users. It should be out of the gate right click "mount" that's it, no setup, no coding, no command line. That's a user experience. Sorry as a old school developer and linux user for a very long time I'm still urked at the smugness and the attitude that "if you don't know how to do it this way then you have no business doing it!". Just a thought

    69. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by xming · · Score: 1

      Your Linux seems really easy, I usually have to do mkdir -p /mnt/iso && modprobe loop && mount -o loop /this/is/really/a/long/path/LiveCD-2012.iso /mnt/iso But mine is one line shorter :p

    70. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Bert64 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As someone else already pointed out, you *can* use the gui to mount an iso if you want.

      If i was explaining to someone how to mount an iso, i would probably explain the command line way because its easier... Someone could simply cut+paste the command that were posted here, whereas explaining a gui is much harder in a textual or vocal setting.

      It's very important that both options be available, so that people can choose which method they want to use.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    71. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by JohnnyMindcrime · · Score: 1

      Might be of interest to you:

      cdemu

      It does ISO image mounting/dismounting in Daemon Tools kind of way, I use it on Gnome and it works well - though only the basic stuff, don't expect the same feature-set as in DT.

      --
      Windows 10 is great - I used it to download Linux.
    72. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by jopsen · · Score: 1

      Or you can extract it with whatever archive application that comes with gnome by default...

    73. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by gandhi_2 · · Score: 1

      Seriously? All I do is right-click the iso and select mount. I'm sure i could configure something for double-click if I felt like it.

      It has been that way for years.

    74. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Dishevel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I do not think you understand.
      I do not have to use the terminal.
      There is almost nothing I can not do in the GUI of Linux that you can do in the GUI of windows.
      The difference is that I can open up a terminal anytime I want and do shitloads more and do it faster.
      The terminal in most desktop distributions of Linux is not a mandatory monthly use tool.
      It is an added powerful feature.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    75. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone that has responded to this is completely missing the point. Anyone that knows what an .iso is isn't going to be turned off by mounting the thing. I mean - my mother doesn't know what it is and certainly wouldn't know how to mount one, whether it was command line or gui based.

      The point is that Win 8 now has a built-in way of mounting .iso files.

    76. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by neowolf · · Score: 1

      If the command line is so hard- why has Microsoft been slowly forcing sysadmins into it in more recent versions of Windows Server and other server products like Exchange. They are slowly killing the GUI, and allegedly plan to pull it altogether in the next few years. And really- the Linux commands given by eldavojohn are nothing compared to some of the ridiculous crap Microsoft has dreamed up in PowerShell.It is a nightmare compared to Linux.

      From what I've seen of Windows 8- I would WANT a command line to actually get anything constructive done.

    77. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Hatta · · Score: 2, Insightful

      For most people, the productivity bottleneck isn't the time spent moving hands to and from the keyboard; it's having to memorize 1000 commands to use the damn thing.

      You could say the same thing about the English language. If complexity was a barrier, we'd all be pointing and grunting. But it turns out that the human brain has evolved for language, because language is empowering. Learing shell syntax is similarly empowering.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    78. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What confuses me is: How do windows administrators and users keep track of things? We on Linux can audit all configurations and settings in version control as they are plain text files. The wonder that is diff has saved us countless hours in tracking changes and seeing were faults came from.

      Just something I wonder about.

    79. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by raynet · · Score: 2

      Noh, but you should be able to mount random USB stick and access any files on it and run any executables on it with your user rights and the OS should ask for admin password if more rights are needed.

      --
      - Raynet --> .
    80. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Linux requires root for too many things. You shouldn't need root to mount a file/device.

      So you're saying I should be able to plug in a USB stick with a setuid root shell on it, mount that without root permissions, and own your system with almost zero effort?

      If Autorun is good enough for people who run Windows, then it should be good enough for people who run Linux.

      See also the Sony root kit fiasco.

    81. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by B1oodAnge1 · · Score: 1

      The one I get tripped up on the most is renaming a folder. I want to rename, so is it rn? No it's mv... but I'm not moving it so that's confusing.

      You are moving the file to a new location, what once was /usr/bin/foo.ext is moved to /usr/bin/fubar.extension

      --
      RUGBYRUGBYRUGBY
    82. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      The difference is that if the GUI doesn't give you an option because the devs didn't think of it, the command line almost always will allow it. You can do trickery with the command line, GUIs so far do not allow any trickery and are designed to limit what the user can do.

    83. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 1

      I was going to mod you funny, but since I've already replied to an idiot let me just congratulate you on successfully applying Poe's law to Linux command line antics.

    84. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by gparent · · Score: 1

      So you're agreeing with me then? That is, don't pretend just because the CLI option exists and that you know it by heart from years of experience that the average user is going to prefer using it over a double-click.

      The remote thing doesn't even matter to this discussion, it's not like millions of Windows 8 users are going to ssh into their remote hosts... but yes if you really care, that's one use of the CLI out of many.

    85. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by kelemvor4 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Right, because the command line is so unimportant that Microsoft came up with an entirely new command shell called PowerShell and OSX has full-on bash.

      You know, the two major OSes pointed at consumer idiots have powerful shells. Go figure.

      -- BMO

      Optional for power users who want them, not required for simple tasks like mounting an image where a mouse click will do.

    86. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Culture20 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Learning to use your computer should *NOT* require knowledge of shell command flags.

      Yes it should. Whenever someone wants to do something ridiculously repetitive with say, OpenOffice - converting thousands of documents into pdfs, I show up with my "magical powers" and open a terminal window, and convert them all into pdfs. Because they don't bother to learn something simple (command line basics, or just %*&^ing Google), they would have either wasted hours of their time manually converting the docs, or wasted money hiring a person to manually convert the docs. As it is, I suppose they wasted a little money, because they had me do something they should have been able to do for themselves.

    87. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      If people can't use a command line then they have no right calling themselves geeks or techies. "Technophiles" maybe, but we all know technophile is yet another word for "don't know how it works on the inside". There are no GUIs that allow doing everything that a command line can.

    88. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by StikyPad · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To be fair, mount and its ilk are more complicated than they need to be. The flags and path should be optional, and the default behavior should be to detect the FS type where possible and mount in /mnt/volumename as read-only, creating the folder if necessary. This is the behavior that the majority of people want the majority of the time, and "mount image.iso" should accomplish that automatically. Commands without default behavior are like doorknobs that don't return to center because hey, *someone* might not want the door to latch after they close it. Conform to desired/expected functionality with as little user input as possible by default and let actual power users handle the corner cases.

    89. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      What is easier?
      Click Start button ; Click Control Panel; Click "User Accounts and Family Safety"; Click "User Accounts"; Click "Change Your Password"; enter old password; enter new password; click change.

      or

      Open terminal.
      type passwd
      enter old password
      enter new password

      You choose.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    90. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Stewie241 · · Score: 1

      And most users of those two operating systems know almost nothing about the shells.

    91. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by gparent · · Score: 1

      The right-click option is going to be slower, don't kid yourself. Unless you're in the same directory as the iso you're trying to mount and you have a very, very quick typing speed, right-clicking and pressing mount should take just about a second. Compare this with opening a terminal (no one ever has a terminal open except power users), typing the command, adding the flag, then typing two successive paths and there's just no contest. Even if you already have the terminal open, I think you're the one with the crippling injury if you right-click THAT slow (keep in mind that generally you'll be doing this with an ISO you just browsed to. We're not comparing clicking through file hiearchies to typing cd here).

    92. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Because the command line is vastly superior to something like Windows Explorer for file management. Suppose you want to delete everything from a directory that was created in the past 24 hours. How would you do that with Explorer? Or if you want to find all the TIFF files under a tree, and move them to a single directory? Or even just batch renaming? How do you do that with Explorer?

      But that's complex stuff. What if I just want to move a file from one folder to another. Unless the two folders share the same parent, I need two Explorer windows open, and I have to jockey their position around so I can drag & drop. That, or I have to find one of my folders in that hideous tree dialog on the left. If I'm lucky, I won't have to scroll it, but I usually do. With the CLI, it's one window, one command.

      Suppose I forget the full path of the directory I wanted to use. With a GUI, I have to open yet another window, move my hands to the keyboard to type my search query, and then grab the mouse again. With the CLI it's just another command, same window.

      The shell is so superior to the GUI for file management, that once you get used to it you can't go back. I install cygwin on every Windows PC I have to use simply so I don't have to use Explorer.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    93. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1

      Learning to use your computer should *NOT* require knowledge of shell command flags. The very attitude that it should, is why its so bloody hard to hire good product people. Not coders, not sysadmins, people who actually get users and what they want. (Also explains the huge salary gap seen in the IT world)

      Right, because the command line is so unimportant that Microsoft came up with an entirely new command shell called PowerShell and OSX has full-on bash

      The fact that they have decent command lines is completely irrelevant to requiring the use of said command lines for end users to do basic tasks.

      I can see why you didn't quote the post you were replying to, because it would have made your straw man incredibly obvious.

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    94. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by gparent · · Score: 1

      No why, did she do it to you? I'm so, so sorry.

    95. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by 0racle · · Score: 1

      Windows and OS X are also used by IT professionals, and so provide some tools professionals would use. Neither Windows or OS X ever expect their users to drop to a shell to do anything. While it is happening less and less, you will be told to drop to a shell at some point when you use Linux.

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    96. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's made for Sysadmins/ITPros, not end users. Powershell is all about automating.

    97. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by gparent · · Score: 1

      You're right, but we're not talking about an article titled "Windows 8 Features With Linux Antecedents for techies". Otherwise they would've brought up TeraCopy when talking about the copy dialog. :)

    98. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by localman57 · · Score: 5, Funny

      International Standards Organization, specifically, this is ISO9660, the definition of a cd image.

      Or, you know, you could just FUCKING GOOGLE IT!

      No way. The last time I did that, I almost got fired.

      Our SysAdmin: "Yeah, I mounted a MILF last night."

      Me:What's a MILF?

      Sysadmin: You don't know? It's uh...[pause]...I forget what it stands for, Mobile..Image..Something...Format. Fucking google it. It's an image type, so be sure to use Google Images. Also, we have udev set up so it won't mount automatically. You'll need root access. Google's closest equivalent is turning off safe search. So you'll want to do that too when you go looking. Then just look for "Mounting a MILF".

    99. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

      Linux requires root for too many things. You shouldn't need root to mount a file/device.

      So you're saying I should be able to plug in a USB stick with a setuid root shell on it, mount that without root permissions, and own your system with almost zero effort?

      He didn't say anything about permissions required to execute a program stored on the device. He said you shouldn't need root to mount the device (such as a USB stick in your example). You should be able to plug it in and it should work. If you want to run the herpes.exe or whatever might be on it, that's not part of the same process. Using a USB drive or a CD should require zero computer skills aside from sticking the thing in the drive right side up.

    100. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its exactly when trying to figure out how to do something you don't know how to do that Linux is at its most annoying. Gui makes learning faster. 2 clicks and check results. In Linux, you need to have at least 90% of the knowledge of a linux administrator to solve any problem... or you can beg for help on a public forum (and get flamed for not searching for the answer first (after you did search for it, but didn't find anything, because the forum's search engine is google-powered (and google tries too hard to 'interpret' your search (and I would totally use a different engine for all my searches if the alternatives weren't worse)))).

    101. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      I am using Windows where I don't need to open a terminal for mundane tasks.

      Check your IP address. Pretty mundane. I'll wait. Still waiting. You totally want to open up cmd and type ipconfig, but you're googling the name of the GUI version (if there is one). The first thing I open on the Windows machines I run is cmd (only because powershell isn't ubiquitous yet).

    102. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      ISO is the short name for International Organization for Standardization in general. In this context it's referring to a file (usually ending in .iso) which conforms to ISO9660, a specification for a CD-ROM filesystem. It's really a context-specific usage though -- in any other context ISO is usually referring to the International Organization for Standardization itself, not this particular spec, and other specs, which have far more wide-ranging applications, are usually referenced specifically by number and/or name.

    103. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Missing.Matter · · Score: 1

      Language is applicable every single day and absolutely crucial to my job, my social life, and every other aspect of my being. Shell syntax may be empowering to some, but it is hardly as pervasive in most people's lives to be as beneficial as a social language.

    104. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by gparent · · Score: 1

      But learning English is actually useful to most people, while learning shell is fucking useless. When you drive in to your garage, the mechanic doesn't laugh at you for not knowing how to undertake complex maintenance repair on your vehicle, he understands that you're paying for his services because you simply do not give a shit about learning something that is only useful to you about once a year.

    105. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by scubamage · · Score: 1

      Honestly, most full installs with a desktop will have the automounter enabled, so you shouldn't have to worry about doing this at all.

    106. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 1

      Not to mention if you are remoted into the system or making a script you might prefer the command line solution. Your not stuck learning how to do something with the flavour of the month shell and then have to learn a slightly different way of doing things next month when Ubuntu goes mainline with a different shell.

      Does anyone remember the marketing crap from back when Vista was in Beta? I seem to recall MS was talking about a new filesystem for that release too. Not sure what it was supposed to have but if it is similar to ReFS than the "they copied linux" charges might be moot in that area. MS thought of something long time ago, got distracted and finally got around to it.

      USB 3: don't really get the big deal. You had drivers from the people selling the thing to you. Sure it is more convenient if it comes with the OS but is it really a surprise that a mostly downloadable, open source (so ~0 switching cost) OS got a feature into production before the company that was in late stage testing of a boxed OS when the standard came out?

      Apple did little that was original over the years but executed better. I'll settle for Win8 doing Linux better if they can. Doesn't have to be open just has to be whatever has the best featureset for the 2-3 years I plan on keeping whatever new gadget I buy.

    107. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      How about copying a directory? cp is for one file, I guess I need a flag for more, which was it again?

      I don't trust recursive cp since it tends to work differently on different unices, usually screwing up permissions or ownership (despite flags to retain such)
      tar cf - . | (cd /newdir/ ; tar xvf - )

    108. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by scubamage · · Score: 1

      D'oh, just realized that we're talking iso mounting, and not disc mounting. Had a friday moment, nothing to see here, carry on :)

    109. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by gparent · · Score: 1

      So your Linux box automatically mounts any ISO on your hard drive, and if you cd to an .iso file, it changes directory to it as if it was mounted? Because we aren't talking about mounting CDs or DVDs here, Windows has been doing that for a lot of years already.

    110. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Missing.Matter · · Score: 1

      I get that. But that's not how my mind works. Personally I think of moving as going from one location to another, and in my mind, a location in the file system is a folder. Therefore by my logic moving a file is moving it from one folder to another, not moving it to the same folder with a different name. That's what tips me up.

    111. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ever use windows? if you did, you'd know about [windows-key]+F. That's how you do all those searches in explorer.

      batch remaing? get a batch rename utility. Difference between windows explorer and bash here: windows doesn't come bundled with the free utility you need to do batch renaming... and its faster and easier.

      moving an explorer window is SUCH A HASSLE compared to typing out long commands? I think you linux geeks just suck at using the mouse.

    112. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And no one needs to read man pages to learn how to use programs. This isn't 1994 anymore.

      You're right, I asked my grandma how to mount an iso the other day and she replied:

      Are you fucking serious? Everyone knows the first argument is the file, and the second argument is the directory. In fact, I didn't even google or read anything to know this, I knew when I was born!

      You're the one exaggerating, dumbshit. No one guesses commands, you feel that way because you've been a linux nerd for years.

    113. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by dowens81625 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Windows and Mac have done wonders to enable the inept, or rather the patented iNept masses.

    114. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by LifeWithJustin · · Score: 1

      While I do agree that CLI will always be more powerful than the GUI. I'm going to have to ask if you used Windows 7? And if you have I suggest you learn how to use it. Each of your questions you can now do straight from the Windows Explorer and it is very simple. As a side note you've been able to do batch renaming defaulty since Windows XP.

    115. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by sjames · · Score: 1

      Someone hasn't read TFA.

    116. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what you're saying is that Linux forces you to solve execution permissions with file access permissions?

    117. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 4, Informative

      Optional for power users who want them, not required for simple tasks like mounting an image where a mouse click will do.

      And that's the way it's been on almost any Linux distribution, for quite a while. On Ubuntu 10.04, I just right click on an ISO file and select the mount option. Then it appears as a new drive on the desktop. It works about the same, whether you're using a Gnome desktop, or KDE, or LXDE, or xfce. Probably also on other desktop environments or window managers, but those are the ones I'm familiar with.

      Of course, with Linux, you can ALSO do it via the command line. This is very useful on a headless (no GUI) machine, which Windows curiously lacks support for.

      --
      Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    118. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Thats right. Everything *MUST* be by hand, manually each time via means of a GUI. Why on earth would anyone want to automate anything using a computer of all things? Sheer madness.

    119. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by tragedy · · Score: 1

      I'm not kidding myself, and I do think the right click option is often slower, so your first sentence is perfectly in agreement with me (although it's obvious that was an error on your part from the rest of your post). Thing is, it's not a static, simple "right-clicking is faster" vs "typing is faster". For one things, I think you're underestimating how fast people who are used to typing these commands can type them. Then, of course the matter of starting point. Clearly if you're in a gui using mode, and the icon for the file is right there in front of you and you don't have a terminal open and in focus it's faster to right click since to use the terminal, you'd have to mouse click it open (unless you use keyboard shortcuts) or at least into focus first anyway. On the other hand, if you're already in a terminal and plan to stay there, you have to potentially minimize the terminal, then right click and open the iso, then use the mouse to bring the terminal back. This is all assuming that the iso file is right there on the desktop and easily found. If you know the file name and location of the ISO, you can, especially using tab completion, probably type it in faster than you can navigate to it visually by opening up a series of file navigator windows. Ditto if it's on the desktop and it's very cluttered so that you have to search for the icon. Also, it depends on what you want to do with the file afterwards. Lots of GUI methods of doing this stuff like to hide implementation details for "convenience". In other words, the actual mount point is frequently obfuscated somehow and you have to take additional steps to find it. If you don't need to know what the mount point is, that doesn't matter, but if you need to use it at the command line after, or navigate to it through some gui-based programs, you do need to know.

      Basically, there's a whole web of circumstances, many based on other personal preferences, that determine which method is "faster". And, of course, the unlimited resources assumed by GUI methods aren't always available. If you don't have a lot of bandwidth available, and you're ssh'd into a remote system rather than vnc'd knowing how to type the command is far, far faster than a method that simply isn't available. You're pretty much always better off if you know multiple ways to accomplish your goal and can choose the one that's best for your particular situation.

    120. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think anyone reasonable would argue that those shells are there under the expectation that regular users use them for things like mounting an iso.

      you can provide a shell that allows event scripting without the user having to default to it as a means of accomplishing OS tasks.

      --
      AC

    121. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by JBMcB · · Score: 3, Informative

      Suppose you want to delete everything from a directory that was created in the past 24 hours. How would you do that with Explorer?

      View by detail, sort by date, ctrl-down until the date changes. Or use the search-folder tool using date criteria.

      Or if you want to find all the TIFF files under a tree, and move them to a single directory?

      Organize-group by file type.

      Or even just batch renaming? How do you do that with Explorer?

      Yeah, you need a third party utility for that - or use the command line.

      The CLI is superior in some situations, but I find myself mostly using the UI for file management, mostly because I regularly have to move around arbitrary files in large file collections during development/debug work. For batch operations the CLI (or scripts) are usually superior.

      That, or I have to find one of my folders in that hideous tree dialog on the left.

      If your directories are laid out properly this isn't a big deal anymore.

      --
      My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
    122. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by stevenfuzz · · Score: 1

      No, it's easier. Period. Takes about 2 seconds to type. I didn't use terminals much until I became a pro developer about 10 years ago. Now it just seams crazy to me to do half the things with a mouse that you think are "modern".

    123. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Hatta · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Shell is as empowering in the computing domain as speech is empowering in the social domain.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    124. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by gparent · · Score: 1

      Okay, I'm going to admit I didn't read your entire post because we seem to agree. Unless you have incredible typing speeds or that for some reason you aren't starting with the .iso right in front of you (99% of normal users will start this way, either after a web browser download or a copy operation from a friend), double-click or right-click -> mount will be faster than terminal shenanigans.

      This, irrelevant of how fast some other operations can be when using command-line, is the point I maintain.

    125. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Once you learn the shell, you realize that you could have been solving problems with it every day all along. It's really not an esoteric skill at all. There's nothing particularly specialized about launching programs or copying files.

      Oh, and once you know how to solve those problems, people know somehow. They will bring their problems to you, and you will solve them in a line or two of shell. And this doesn't happen once or twice a year, but all the time.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    126. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I seem to recall MS was talking about a new filesystem for that release too

      They were talking about (soon scrapped) WinFS then, which is basically a rehash of BeOS's BeFS metadata storage and queries - a unified way to store and query info like a video's length, document's title/summary, photo tags an so on.

      ReFS is an actual FS with new features aimed at datacenters, we'll see what they'll make of it yet.

    127. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Missing.Matter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But we're not talking about people who need to be "empowered" in the computing domain. How does a bash shell help a baker? How does a shell help my lawyer, or my auto mechanic? How much of their jobs would really be made better, and by how much, if they were bash gurus?

    128. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean like you've been able to do in OS X ever since OS X came into existence?

    129. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by gparent · · Score: 2

      To me, learning the shell is useful because I spend a lot of time on my computer. For my roommates, learning the shell is a skill that they'll have to actively maintain just so that the one time they try and do something esoteric, it takes them 10 seconds less to do it. A complete waste of time.

    130. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      2) ssh into the remote host, type su, type "cd /path/to/file/dir; mkdir -p /mnt/iso; mount -o loop file.iso /mnt/iso" ?

      "cd /path/to/file/dir; mkdir -p /mnt/iso; mount -o loop file.iso /mnt/iso" is your root password?

    131. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by rjstanford · · Score: 1

      Yup. In much the same way that repainting your car is moving it from one color to another.

      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
    132. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Missing.Matter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wait... someone paid you to do something you are good at that they are not good at.... and you're pissed off about this? Isn't this the way society functions? I pay someone to bake my bread because I don't know how to do it and they are better at me. Does the baker turn around and say "Wow, what a fucking moron that guy is. Doesn't he see how easy it is to bake his own damn bread?" Why do geeks seem to be the only people with this attitude?

    133. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its people like you that make it so hard to like Linux in any way.

      Normally I'd make a 14 year old kid reference, but it really seem to be more like a neo-con/fox news type thing, where you only listen to what you want to hear and form a self reinforcing loop.

    134. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by elashish14 · · Score: 1

      I, for one, am very surprised that (to my knowledge, I'm an XFCE user) this isn't included in Gnome or KDE by default. This seems like a really basic functionality to me, though I haven't actually used a CD or ISO in years, I imagine there are many who do.

      --
      I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
    135. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by elashish14 · · Score: 1

      Well I have the perfect machine for you

      --
      I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
    136. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Medievalist · · Score: 1

      What's "cd to an iso file" mean? If I drag and drop the content of a CD to my hard drive linux asks me if I want an ISO or not, if I say yes the icon is round and shiny and if I say no it looks like a regular vanilla folder. Either way, you just click on the icon and it opens, but if you say ISO you can burn a new CD from that quicker.

      What is all this geeky talk? "cd?" Windows is too complicated for me, I have to use linux. I can't read manuals and stuff like you nerdy windows people.

    137. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Culture20 · · Score: 2

      Wait... someone paid you to do something you are good at that they are not good at.... and you're pissed off about this?

      I'm pissed that my job, which used to be less user-based, is slowly migrating into butt-wiping; something degrading and unnecessary. Would you be happy exploiting illiterate folk if you're the only one who knows how to read? Doesn't it make it worse when they refuse to try to read?

    138. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by PPH · · Score: 1

      Linux requires root for too many things.

      Windows delegates all of these functions to Russian/Chinese hackers.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    139. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by rev0lt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Considering the commands were about mounting an ISO file, why the hell would I want 1) mount to automatically detect a filesystem inside a file; 2) mount it as read-only on a predefined location? I actually sometimes use files as raw devices for writing (for example, if I need to demonstrate how ZFS resiliency works, a couple of files and mount allows me to quicly show how it works instead of having to use physical devices)?
      Every mainstream linux distro with gnome/kde will automagically mount a recognized device on a predefined location without any user intervention, and creating folders as necessary. I'm no expert, but not only Linux's udev seems to work quite well (and recognize a lot more filesystems than Windows), but automounter has been available for ages in almost all modern/relevant unix operating systems.

    140. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      almost any modern window manager on Linux lets you pin/on-top/send to back/snap edges/re-size to a half or quarter of the screen to a window with a click or two. or re-size and re-position with smart snapping edges.

      and its been doing this for almost 10years. the various open source gui took kits and X11 is far ahead of windows when it comes to _functional_...

      in windows if you have documentation in a window you want to refer to, or you want to scroll a list or window, or cycle through tabs, you just wheel. no need to click to bring to focus which might obscure the window in which youre trying to work .. ie input with the keyboard, forcing you to use in-optimal window arrangements and several steps before you can scroll then another series of steps to return to the original state... vs linux where you just reposition the cursor and wheel, type somemore.. _functional_ ROFLCOPTER !!111

    141. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Hatta · · Score: 1

      ever use windows? if you did, you'd know about [windows-key]+F. That's how you do all those searches in explorer.

      Still not as easy as typing 'locate '. And not anywhere near as capable. There's no regexp support for instance.

      batch remaing? get a batch rename utility. Difference between windows explorer and bash here: windows doesn't come bundled with the free utility you need to do batch renaming... and its faster and easier.

      The difference between windows and linux here is that linux empowers you to build your own utilities quickly and easily.

      moving an explorer window is SUCH A HASSLE compared to typing out long commands? I think you linux geeks just suck at using the mouse.

      You underestimate the detrimental effect context switches have on concentration. When I'm playing a game, sure I can use the mouse no problem. Whether it's an FPS or RTS, mousing isn't a difficult skill. But switching from typing to mousing over and over and over again really grates on one after a while.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    142. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by GreatBunzinni · · Score: 1

      Are you really trying to state that your definition of "arcane or complex" is "something that my grandma can't do"?

      --
      Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
    143. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The original post in this pissed me off enormously - the *point* of the "command line trickery" comment was rubbish like 'mount -o loop image.iso /mnt/iso'. Also the "once you've got superuser". This article is also not about servers, so all his comments about servers and headless machines are utterly irrelevant. (This would be avoided if he'd read the article and didn't feel his zealot's desire to rubbish everything that mentions Microsoft, but, alas, he's a Linux nerd on Slashdot, so he never reads articles and doesn't see anything more important in life than declaring anything that might be Microsoft-related as the devil's work. See yesterday's post about quitting a job because management have decided to "believe the FUD" and install Windows. Fucking HELL, grow the fuck up.)

      But, in addition to that anti-Linux freak rant, you're very much misrepresenting Linux here. I remember the days where I had to load USB modules into RAM in my .bashrc file to be able to use USB flash drives - and even then I still had to mount them manually. That was now roughly 10 years ago. These days I've not found a Linux distribution that won't automatically mount a CD/DVD when I insert it, and which won't automatically mount a USB stick.

      To tie the two parts of this post together, life really is a lot easier when you don't base your ego on your operating system. My desktop machine runs Vista - which is a grossly underrated operating system when it's running on the hardware it was designed for; MS deserve condemnation for their "Vista Ready" bullshit, but on kit that was roughly modern when Vista was released it's always worked a dream for me - while my laptops run OSX. My desktop also runs an older version of Ubuntu (10.10 I think), and one of my laptops runs Mint. I use RHEL 6 at work etc. etc. etc. None of this causes me any pain, except swapping between Apple's intelligent random arbitrary remapping of their motherfucking keyboards, and standard keyboards.

    144. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...converting thousands of documents into pdfs...

      Most people don't need to do this. Your average home computer user doesn't need to do batch processing. Some business users need to, and they need to learn how to use a command line - but >90% of computer users should be able to learn to use a computer with GUIs only.

    145. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Windows, in the effort to appeal to a population which didn't know the difference, progressively buried the concepts of autodetect and autorun into deeper and deeper layers of OS and driver configuration.

      To such an extent that when MS tried to give people an option to disable autorun, it didn't work because a deeper layer was really handling things.

    146. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by rev0lt · · Score: 1

      You can have GUI on a headless machine, so you don't really need to use the commandline, if you want. Even on "real" headless machines, such as those old servers with serial terminal connections and no real graphics card, you can run X on a framebuffer and forward the connection.
      That said, I've never seen a Windows-compatible machine that couldn't be managed remotely. Some manufacturers even include KVM funcionality on the machine, so you can actually manage the BIOS and such remotely (such as HP's iLO).

    147. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by rusty0101 · · Score: 1

      If I'm in a gui that I've opened the ISO in, why would you 'cd' anywhere?

      --
      You never know...
    148. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by makomk · · Score: 2

      There's various standard programs like pmount that do that for removable media already, but ISO mounting is a bit more obscure and quite often you genuinely do want to specify a specific directory where it should be mounted.

    149. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by rjstanford · · Score: 2

      Or 1)Open terminal. 2) for i in quiz*.doc;do lp -n 15 $i;done. Now not many people would know how to do that and need to have the GUI to guide them. But for those of us who do know, not having the option of using a command line (especially for remote connections!) is dreadful. Why do I have to have so many GUIs, wizards, pop-ups, tips of the day, and other nonsense between me and the code that will send my stuff to the printer?

      That's assuming, of course, that the lp command knows how to print a .doc format file. Its interesting to me though - that never used to be the case (its been a while since I've done command-line *nix printing though). How do you register a file format with the print daemon?

      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
    150. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by rev0lt · · Score: 1

      As a side note, the automated document conversion capabilities of OO are probably the most underrated feature of the suite. The only problem is the somewhat spotty documentation and a complex API (if you try to use it directly), but it is an absolute killer feature.

    151. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Where are the french fries I didn't ask for?!?

    152. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by makomk · · Score: 1

      If I recall correctly there's a subtle issue involving secure setuid Perl scripts, suidperl, and quirks of old Unix systems that mean even both noexec and ignoring SUID aren't sufficient.

    153. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      well I still use gnome2 so its just a matter of editing a file, I really wouldn't call that a limiting factor in nix land, windows on the other hand yea

    154. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Considering the commands were about mounting an ISO file, why the hell would I want 1) mount to automatically detect a filesystem inside a file; 2) mount it as read-only on a predefined location?

      Because that's what 99% of people who are mounting an ISO file need.

      I actually sometimes use files as raw devices for writing (for example, if I need to demonstrate how ZFS resiliency works, a couple of files and mount allows me to quicly show how it works instead of having to use physical devices)?

      For that kind of thing, you'd use additional parameters. His point was that the default should be to automatically do whatever is most reasonable for most users. If you know better, by all means, use your knowledge to specify the exact switches in advance.

    155. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by rev0lt · · Score: 1

      Everytime I try to use Windows search I give up. If you actually think the crappy Windows search is a match for unix-like utilities like find, I pitty you. And I actually use Windows as my primary desktop operating system and like it, but I almost don't use Windows Explorer (except when I need to browse a folder visually), but instead I use a program called Total Commander, that not only provides me with a familiar two-panel interface, but also allows for tabbed browsing.

    156. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by zarlino · · Score: 1

      I guess lp -n 15 quiz*.doc would have been enough.

      --
      Check out my cross-platform apps
    157. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or you could google it and copy the commands out of the first link, which is where I assume eldavojohn did...

      I mean, using -p to make a directory in /mnt ?

      Just cause someone decided to put removable devices in /media, doesn't mean that /mnt still doesn't exist in most distros.

    158. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Quit your job and do something you enjoy, like, I dunno, masturbating in public. I highly doubt you're qualified to do anything else and your customer skills are clearly non-existent if you're bitching about having to do your job because people ask you to do your fucking job.

      What's your problem? Are you "exploiting" "illiterate folk" because you're being paid to show them how to do something, or to do it for them? No, you're showing them how to do something, or doing it for them. I'm paid by the state to research physics. Should I feel I'm exploiting those fucking morons in government who don't know enough physics? Hahaha I'd love to see them find the matter power spectrum from an f(R,X,R_mu R^mu,...) gravity without me! Idiots!

    159. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Hatta · · Score: 1

      I'm going to have to ask if you used Windows 7? And if you have I suggest you learn how to use it.

      I've used it as a game launcher, and nothing else.

      Each of your questions you can now do straight from the Windows Explorer and it is very simple.

      How? I don't see how you can do conditional batch operations with a GUI, but I'd love to see it done.

      As a side note you've been able to do batch renaming defaulty since Windows XP.

      Sure, if all you want to do is number your files. Suppose you want to change "Artist/Album - Track.mp3" to "Artist - Album - Track.mp3"? What if you want to programatically rename files based on their contents? The batch rename function in XP is so limited as to be useless. I've NEVER wanted to rename my files in such a way that the XP renamer could handle it.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    160. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Missing.Matter · · Score: 1

      Or 1)Open terminal. 2) for i in quiz*.doc;do lp -n 15 $i;done.

      That sounds like a real time saver. Except that for most people who don't understand loops, variables, and programming in general, the time required to learn what all that actually means is orders of magnitude longer than it takes to press print 4 times.

      They claim the Win8 is better because you can mount ISOs from the GUI while on Linux you have to use the command line.

      Microsoft claimed nothing of the sort. I see Sandro Villinger of itworld saying that... but where is Microsoft making that claim?

    161. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by clodney · · Score: 1

      For most people, the productivity bottleneck isn't the time spent moving hands to and from the keyboard; it's having to memorize 1000 commands to use the damn thing.

      You could say the same thing about the English language. If complexity was a barrier, we'd all be pointing and grunting. But it turns out that the human brain has evolved for language, because language is empowering. Learing shell syntax is similarly empowering.

      But the human brain learns languages astonishingly well at an early age, and only with great difficulty later on. If you want to start teaching people shell scripts in the crib perhaps it will all be intuitive, but otherwise it is not a fair comparison. And I say that as someone who grew up in the command line era, and still uses one for repetitive tasks. But knowing shell syntax is not a merit badge, nor the secret handshake of a special club. It is a sign of someone who has learned the arcana of my profession because that has value to me. If you don't use a computer that intensively, I don't know why you should need to know a command line.

    162. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by AzN1337c0d3r · · Score: 1

      www.whatismyip.com

      Type that into the address bar under my taskbar of my Windows machine and I get my IP =P

    163. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by spidercoz · · Score: 1

      lol, well played, sir

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
    164. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Been doing it for 26+ years now - including dos garbage...
      Things I could do with 2 simple commands in UNIX took specially written c code on dos to do - essentially re-wrote the unix code to run on dos.... blech...

      So given a few more decades, Windows users might have what I had on UNIX back in 1986.

      With all the ways of tying commands together, there wasn't much of anything one couldn't do in shell land... Even those could be done through the use of awk and sed.

      It's humorous to see Windows developers chasing after ancient UNIX tech as though it were new...

    165. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by rev0lt · · Score: 1

      Suppose you have 3000 JPGs of pictures taken with a 10Mpx camera, and you need to find some photos you took of your friend with a blue shirt. Now browse the folder with Windows Explorer, and then with Gnome or Kde equivalent, and pray it won't crash. Or browse it via command line.
      If you're worried of the time you'll spend opening windows, you can memorize their keyboard shortcuts, or even define new ones yourself. Yes there's no real match for find, bourne shell scripting, grep with regex and a whole lot of other commands that blow away what would be a visually complex task, but you also have a whole lot of other operations you do better visually. Multimedia file browsing is one of them.

    166. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by clodney · · Score: 1

      The one I get tripped up on the most is renaming a folder. I want to rename, so is it rn? No it's mv... but I'm not moving it so that's confusing.

      You are moving the file to a new location, what once was /usr/bin/foo.ext is moved to /usr/bin/fubar.extension

      And yet, 99% of the world would say - "I am not moving it, it is still in /user/bin."

      The common conception is that a file has name (foo.ext), and a location (/usr/bin).
      With the notion of recycle/trash, nowadays you don't delete anything, you just rename it to the trash. A concept which doesn't bother us, but will seem completely strange to most people.

    167. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Windows mounts the drive automatically, thence no need for CLI tools at all.

    168. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Hi Steve, is that you?

    169. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by StikyPad · · Score: 3, Funny

      I actually sometimes use files as raw devices for writing (for example, if I need to demonstrate how ZFS resiliency works, a couple of files and mount allows me to quicly show how it works instead of having to use physical devices)?

      Thanks, I don't think I could find a better example of a corner case if I tried.

    170. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

      true that is arcane, but if you are using a gui in ubuntu all you have to do is right click on the iso and select 'mount image' in the drop down dialogue. arcane now?

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    171. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by rev0lt · · Score: 1

      If you double click on your network adapter, it will open a properties window with the current IP address, gateway, dns info, connection type, and more. The method is the same used by many Unix GUIs that have a panel for network administration.
      On the other hand, in Linux you actually use 2 commands on the commandline to get the same adapter information - ifconfig and ethertool. On BSDs (and maybe other Unixes), ifconfig will give you all the information you need.

    172. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, with Linux, you can ALSO do it via the command line. This is very useful on a headless (no GUI) machine, which Windows curiously lacks support for.

      Hmm... Maybe there is some meaning to the name 'Windows' after all...

      Nah, it's just MS, what would they know?!

    173. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Well if your goal is just to get paid, then working for idiots is a great way to make money. However the frustration can set in that you're not really advancing but just running in place.

      If we've got a society full of computer illiterates then the computing industry is not going to advance very fast, or else advance towards creating products for idiots. On the other hand if people can figure this stuff out for themselves without slowing down the productive people along the way then there would be more progress being made.

    174. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      So in other words it geekery "I'm better than thou" bullshit. this is something I've complained about for years but geeks never seem to get, having a GOOD UI, with real ease of use, this is NOT a bad thing folks! its not like a good UI would somehow make your precious Bash disappear, you could still start up in single user mode and bash away if that's what made you happy, it would just make your OS more accessible to more people. Wouldn't that be a good thing? Wouldn't that be nice? Or is FOSS just another clique with the whole "Us VS them" BS.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    175. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Wine. Plenty of windows games freak out unless they're properly mounted.

    176. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by rev0lt · · Score: 1

      So, if you can't memorize the basic commands (and given that DOS and command-line interfaces were all the rage a couple of decades ago, and everyone - from kids to old people - used them without a problem), I'd say you have far greater problems than a demanding operating system.

    177. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm afraid you'll get nowhere if you insist on following this "In the real world, this is what happens..." tack. In Slashdot land, the "real world" is actually "how basement-dwelling virgins who pretend to have girlfriends, and ex-basement dwellers who married a buck-toothed ex-basement dweller, think the world behaves". This gives rise to an 'entertaining' variety of posturing, bullshit and quarter-baked abuse.

    178. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by hairyfeet · · Score: 2

      Fallacy number 364- A program developed for a completely different purpose counts no matter what! In reality though PS is a SERVER program designed for SERVERS and used by these things called ADMINS that are actually paid real money to learn these things! Now I have been building and selling computers since before there ever was a Windows and you know what i've never seen? I've never seen powershell installed on a desktop and I've certainly never seen any OEM include it. but I've seen a ton of Linux distros that put bash right on the desktop or in the quicklaunch position, probably because they know you'll need it often.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    179. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Missing.Matter · · Score: 1

      Would you be happy exploiting illiterate folk if you're the only one who knows how to read? Doesn't it make it worse when they refuse to try to read?

      I would if their job involved reading. And likewise I am pissed off when I have to help my peers do things they should know how to do. But am I mad that the marketing or accounting departments don't have the knowhow to batch convert PDFs? No. Their job is to sell products and prepare financials. I was hired for my skillset, they were hired for theirs.

    180. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're really stupid. Don't post again.

    181. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      it's an Islamic Slut OfficeLady. They're all quiet and demure and veiled in public, but total ho-bags in the bed. By all means mount and ride one if one is receptive to you.

    182. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Grishnakh · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure mount already does do automatic filesystem detection when possible, and most distros already automatically mount stuff in /media. Read-only is a no-go, though; if someone plugs in a USB thumb drive, chances are good they'll want to write something to it. Obviously this doesn't apply to optical media.

    183. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by rev0lt · · Score: 1

      If you are using VNC over a slow link, you are doing it wrong. Try with FreeNX.

    184. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      No, it's the Gnome3 and Unity devs who are the reason for that.

    185. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      USB is something where the drivers should be built into the OS, not something you have to depend on a vendor for. And while it's no surprise that Linux got its USB3 drivers first due to its fast release cycle (esp. on the kernel itself), MS has no real excuse. There's nothing forcing them to wait until the next major OS release to pop in some extra drivers; they can easily include that in a service pack or even a downloadable patch like they do for security fixes. They didn't confine new IE releases to only major OS releases, did they? Nope, you can download later versions of IE (up to 8 IIRC) even for the now-ancient XP, instead of being stuck with the crappy IE version that came with it (6 IIRC).

      I should probably shut my mouth though; I could be giving them ideas and I don't really want them to get better.

    186. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by elashish14 · · Score: 1

      I have to say, for bulk file operations, nothing beats the command line. If you want to search for text in a bunch of files, there's not better way to do it. If you have data stored in a bunch of files and want to plot each one, you write a gnuplot script, go through each directory, plot it, return. Done. You want to convert all the files in a tree from jpg to png? Cake. Or converting video/audio formats, etc., etc.

      But another huge advantage of using the CLI which goes unmentioned is that I can do it all at once without needing to interfere. If I have to find all files with a dialogue and then delete them after, that requires my waiting between the find phase, the sort phase, and the delete phase. I know that to most users, stuff like that doesn't make a difference. But it puts me a lot more at ease when I can just have something go automatically without waiting for me to intervene at every intermediate step. Even a matter of not having to wait 10 seconds to complete the task makes me feel a lot better.

      --
      I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
    187. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by tragedy · · Score: 1

      Ultimately how fast any method will work depends mostly on the user. How organized they are and how well they remember commands and directory and filenames and how fast they type or how fast they are at picking out icons, etc. Also how willing they are to try different things since pretty much any process that someone knows well is "fast and easy" compared to a "slow and difficult" process that they don't know well.

    188. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by rev0lt · · Score: 1

      Actually, k3b and gnome's equivalent are part of some linux distributions, not all.
      Even mount itself is an external program, and may not be available at all (embedded/customized systems, etc).

    189. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by inhuman_4 · · Score: 1

      Or 1)Open terminal. 2) for i in quiz*.doc;do lp -n 15 $i;done. Now not many people would know how to do that and need to have the GUI to guide them. But for those of us who do know, not having the option of using a command line (especially for remote connections!) is dreadful.

      That sounds like a real time saver. Except that for most people who don't understand loops, variables, and programming in general, the time required to learn what all that actually means is orders of magnitude longer than it takes to press print 4 times.

      See how if you had just read the two sentences after what you quoted it all makes sense. Common buddy.

    190. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no such thing as a "folder". What the OP is referring to is a "directory", which is simply a named list of files. It's not a container. When you "mv" a file or subdirectory between two higher-level directory lists, the entry is simply erased on one list and written to the other. The file is NOT physically moved unless the mount points containing those lists refer to two different partitions.

      Although sometimes you need to move a list between partitions at the same time you are renaming it, for most people that's a rare operation compared to simply changing the name of the list or file, which does not in any way change its "location". In the eyes of the vast majority of modern day computer users, "mv" is an illogical and non-intuitive name for a renaming application. The fact that no one has ever bothered to hack together a "rn" command (or even a default alias with appropriate flags) is kind of curious.

    191. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait... someone paid you to do something you are good at that they are not good at.... and you're pissed off about this? Isn't this the way society functions? I pay someone to bake my bread because I don't know how to do it and they are better at me. Does the baker turn around and say "Wow, what a fucking moron that guy is. Doesn't he see how easy it is to bake his own damn bread?" Why do geeks seem to be the only people with this attitude?

      Missing Matter's post should be scored "5, Insightful".

    192. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      You know, the two major OSes pointed at consumer idiots have powerful shells. Go figure.

      And quite critically those two major OSes are designed in a way that 99.9% of the users don't ever need to open the said shells.

    193. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by jakuaii · · Score: 1

      Well, you are being sarcastic of course, but strictly speaking... you are right...

      Are not huge efforts put into alternative input devices, which should be "more direct" - like brain-computer interfaces, eye-computer interfaces, body-motion-computer interfaces etc?

      Yes, the computer should know what I want to do, and just do it. That's the whole point of this AI idea; if the computer can think itself (himself?), then you don't need to break everything up into step-by-step instructions.

      As for electricity: it's just because we don't know how to put the needed energy into the computer otherwise, in a more convenient way. Well, if the computer had adequate AI and a little chemical plant inside, it could forage for energy, just like humans... or, previous generations dreamed of putting atomic batteries inside, which would go for thousands of years...

    194. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by The+Askylist · · Score: 1

      moving an explorer window is SUCH A HASSLE compared to typing out long commands? I think you linux geeks just suck at using the mouse.

      It took me 6 months to get used to a bloody mouse back in 1988, you insensitive clod!

      Some of us used computers before GUIs were widespread...

    195. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by dmsetser · · Score: 1

      use powershell -
      1) Get-ChildItem | ?{$_.creationtime -gt '2/9/2012 1:43 PM' -and $_.creationtime -lt '2/10/2012 11:31 AM'} | Remove-Item -Confirm
      2) Get-ChildItem *.tif | %{Move-Item $_ .\subdirectory\}

      --
      65.0% slashdot pure
    196. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by hairyfeet · · Score: 2

      The difference and IMHO why Windows is worth the money is this...when something goes wrong in Windows you can fix it IN THE GUI and in Linux its bash or you're SOL, period. Driver for sound not working? Open up bash and type, screen resolution won't stick? open up bash and type, latest upgrade crapped all over your wireless card? open up bash and type. oh and you had damned well better be skilled enough to tweak said bash typing because the code you will be given WILL NOT WORK if you don't. that is because it is written for driver B, rev D, firmware H and you have Driver H, rev l, firmware q.

      The problem with Linux is that the terminal has become a crutch, nothing more. We don't have an option to change this? meh, let them fire up Bash. what if they have a problem? meh let 'em fire up Bash. Well what if I want to do... i told you they can open bash didn't I? We all know why this is, its because of what I call the "busted toilets" problem. Nobody wants to fixed the busted crapper because there is no pay involved and its all devs scratching their personal itches, so the shitter just don't get fixed. how many have launched a help file in Linux only to find a "to be done" there instead? Empty man pages, lists of arcane commands with ZERO explanation of what they actually do, you can pretend Windows and Linux are equal but they are nowhere close, in fact if I had to compare them I would say Linux is about where Windows was around Win98 because with both it was mostly stable but at the slightest hint of trouble its was back to CLI.

      I'm sure i'll get hate for daring to point that out but anyone not suffering from a perception bubble knows this is true. don't get me wrong in some cases it IS getting better, at least on initial install, but nobody seems to do the work to get beyond that point. hell go to any forum and you'll see them advocate having to do a clean install on upgrade which is what the Linux devs USED to make fun of Windows for, now they just accept it, why? Because to fix it would be long boring crappy thankless work that nobody wants to do, hence it don't get done.

      But mark my words, what we've seen with canonical cutting Kubuntu loose is just the tip of the iceberg, after they see that selling search and having Amazon MP3 referrals won't pay the bills eventually they'll cut Ubuntu loose too and go strictly servers like Red hat. If you want to make a desktop that can compete with Windows and OSX you need to spend serious money on the nasty jobs and without it they just don't get done. And THAT dear friend is why Linux can't compete with Windows, it isn't a conspiracy, it isn't that there is something wrong with the kernel, its that nobody will put in the millions needed to polish it up to that level and without money getting the developers focused on the bad jobs is like herding cats. they won't do the busted toilet jobs without money so they just won't get done, that's all.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    197. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Missing.Matter · · Score: 1

      You said you find it stupid to have to use a GUI to print 4 different documents. Yet most people would find it stupid to have to learn programming to print 4 documents. Besides you can print documents with windows powershell. I'm not sure what you're trying to argue.

    198. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by thegarbz · · Score: 1, Troll

      It should if you want to be considered proficient.

      Why? What is so damn bloody amazing about the CLI that means I'm not proficient if I can do the same task in a GUI? Why should I be considered proficient if I type "mkdir" as opposed to "right click > New Folder"? A basic example I know, but I can't think of a single thing I have done where I actually have needed to use the shell.

      Configuring network devices? Drivers? Installing software? Removing viruses? Getting into the gritty registry? Setting up windows from scratch? How about setting up a VPN and getting remote desktop connections?

      Hell the same can almost be said about Ubuntu and some other flavours of Linux these days. There's GUIs that mount / unmount filesystems and update fstab, control the startup of applications, configure your network devices, pretty much everything.

      Common mention one thing that you NEED to do from a command line which can't be achieved either natively in windows or with some program? Show me how non-proficient I am, and that challenge goes out to the nerds who modded you insightful too.

    199. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Missing.Matter · · Score: 1

      If we've got a society full of computer illiterates then the computing industry is not going to advance very fast, or else advance towards creating products for idiots.

      We have a society full of idiots. Did you know that 50% of the population has a double digit IQ? Have you actually ever taught anyone computer science? It's not something everyone is cracked out for. Besides, it pays to create products most people can use. Look at how well Apple is doing.

      Further, I don't know if your premise holds true, since the computing industry is and has been advancing at a spectacular pace despite most of the world being computer illiterate. In fact I would argue that the reason the computer industry advances at all is because computers are becoming more and more accessible to the common man. Do you remember when people predicted that computers would be a niche? That was a time when it took a team of scientists to turn the damn thing on. Of course something like that would have no potential. But what we have now are simple elegant devices that anyone can use.

    200. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Missing.Matter · · Score: 1

      The problem is there aren't a "few" and that you can hardly get very far with only a "few." With a GUI there's hardly anything I have to actually memorize. I can go into a program I haven't used in years, look at its menu structure and immediately figure out what commands and options are possible.

    201. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by rev0lt · · Score: 2

      And how conveniently you ignore most desktop Linux distros actually allow you to mount ISOs without recurring to the commandline or being a privileged user. But hey, don't let facts interfere with your rant against mount.

    202. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by westyvw · · Score: 1

      Yeah cause everyday users have a clue what an "image" is. Of those, most know that in many cases the image is just a zipped folder(s) and extract it and go from there.

    203. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Well, no, c'mon, let's not lose track of the fact that computers are *for* something, and computer administration is not an end in itself. Regular people sometimes need computers for specific non-IT-related tasks, and they shouldn't have to be sysadmins in order to do work on their computers.

      The issue is not how many obscure command line flags the user knows, but whether the user is able to get the job done, whatever that job may be.

      But if as an administrator you expect infrastructure management to be point-and-click mindless, you don't deserve the job.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    204. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 1

      Why on earth wouldn't you want them to get better? You can like something else all you want but better is better. Might even get better than whatever you like the best. If I like a Ferrari I at worst don't care if a Ford gets better that is until the Ford is better than my Ferrari. the competition has to get better it is a big motivator for innovation/adoption of what works.

      Your right about the could have been added between releases bit. Sucks to be MS, they'd have to test it against everything > XP. Might need different versions for each, potentially even different versions for service packs and 32 v 64 bit OS. Sucks. Probably an excuse to make it a "feature" of the next OS that will help sell it. Wait a year later and then release the Win 7 version of the driver. Never release the XP or Vista version because you want to force people to upgrade. That would be my guess how it will play out.

    205. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that won't work. If a file system is mounted by a non-root user, the ownership of setuid programs should appear as "anonymous" or "anybody" or "guest" or somesuch.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    206. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by rev0lt · · Score: 2

      The point is that not everyone uses mount the same way. Most modern linux distros with GUI usually allow the mounting of ISO files without recurring to the commandline, and they even create the appropriate temporary mountpoint folders as needed. Most users that are actually aware of mount funcionality probably don't need it to guess automagically the file format, but need it to be consistent and allow a certain degree of freedom.
      My ZFS example is a good one - automatic filesystem detection could expose the file volumes to corruption, and I use them on a mountpoint with enough available free space, so /mnt or /tmp is out of the question, and predefining folders is not that of a good idea (I actually use FreeBSD and not Linux, and usually have dozens of /dev mountpoints and dozens of nullfs mountpoints on each machine). If a user wants an automated dumber version of the mount command (instead of using the GUI options available), it is easy to create it as a shellscript of even as an alias command, so its a non-issue.

    207. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Well it depends if we're talking about the general population, or the population that managed to pass through the interview and screening process and is now supposed to know what they're doing. There's a difference between expecting my mother to use a command line and expecting a computing professional to know how to use one.

      And the advancement of computing has been slowing down in many ways. There are more products but they're fluffy products that offer a "user experience" rather than actual usefulness. Compare how much operating systems advanced between 1970 and 1979 compared to how much operating systems changed between 2000 and 2010.

    208. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by gparent · · Score: 1

      Why are you even talking about physical CDs? You're right, this is definitely way too complicated for you.

    209. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by gparent · · Score: 1

      I don't know, why would you?

    210. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if you heard someone say "I hired him to tie my shoelaces, because I find the formation of three dimensional shapes with linear string-like objects too hard"?

      You'd think "Wow, what a fucking moron that guy is." To geeks, knowing how to use the various BASH commands and what options to use, (or how to use $ man (command) or $ info) is on a par with shoelace tying.

      I'll use another analogy. When I was in the army, one of the first things they taught us was how to disassemble, clean, and reassemble an M16 rifle. They taught us this before they taught us to shoot them. It was heavily emphasized, even though the majority of soldiers will NOT routinely use the M16, or any other weapon, the vast majority of days. I got to talking one day to an Airman, (A US Air Force guy) about weapons training, and was shocked to learn that they don't train to clean or maintain their own weapons. Their "basic" training only has about a day or two devoted to what I would describe as "playing with the guns" before they got back to doing whatever it is they do in "basic". Someone else cleans the weapons for them, ensures they work, etc. To me as a soldier, that seemed really odd, how the hell are you a military person if you don't know how to clean and maintain your basic assigned weapon?

      The guy told me that if it ever comes to it, and he has to use a weapon such as the M16 in a combat situation, the worst has already pretty much happened, and he's screwed anyway.

      To an armorer, my knowledge of M16 operation and maintenance is like the Airman's. To a sniper, my knowledge of marksmanship is a joke, (much like the Airman's probably was).

      So you see, it all depends on point of view.

    211. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      It's amazing we got past the DOS era with the impossibility of command line operations.

    212. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      But that's not how my mind works.

      Why doesn't it work that way?

      and in my mind, a location in the file system is a folder.

      Files are locations in file systems. They're where the bytes are.

    213. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      The thing is though you can mount ISOs via the GUI in Linux too. There are few errors in the article including saying Ubuntu One came with Ubuntu 11. I've been using for ages on Ubuntu 10 and I believe I even had it with 9. With 9 you had to add it as I recall but it came with 10.

    214. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      should not... according to whom. If your old enough know you want to "mount" an "iso" then using minimal shell just to run a program should not be beyond you.

    215. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Ford's not in danger of becoming a monopoly, taking control of the roads, and preventing you from driving your Ferrari.

    216. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      Multitasking is sort of prevented but most people,

      Except that Unix has multiple consoles.

    217. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      I may be using ethertool, but I only have to type ifconfig.

    218. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      claims OTHER people copied them and tries to stop them from shipping their products.

      WTF are you talking about? The only times this has happened is when other people REALLY DID copy them. That's called "copyright infringement".

      MS sues people (companies actually) for not licensing their bogus, obvious patents. There's a world of difference.

    219. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by mikael · · Score: 1

      You haven't tried using some of the Live CD's that are available (Ubuntu Live CD) - there isn't a direct way of opening a terminal window even though the xterm executable is on disk. You have to create a empty file, start up emacs, run a shell command, then get the command line shell.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    220. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by s.petry · · Score: 1

      It's not that you "have to", but that you "can" which is the difference.

      Building a kickstart network, I have numerous ISO files. Every time I get a new version, I can either run windows and mount a new folder with the GUI, and of course I'm F%^&ked when I need something after a Z drive, or you can do what I do.

      Write a loop that lists the ISO files, creates directories and mounts them automagically. If I add a new ISO, the mount is made, and if I take one away, the mount goes away. It's called "dynamic support" which is something that Windows lacks. I have a fully automated kickstart network supporting netbsd, ubuntu, fedora, redhat, and freebsd. Of course it's a large corporate network and I get paid well to build environments like this. But these options are simply not available in Windows. Oh, and I'm pretty sure I make more than 3 times what a Microsoft admin makes.

      And now that I talked all technical you can go cry and pee yourself because you don't understand us Geeky people.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    221. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Missing.Matter · · Score: 1

      Why doesn't it work that way?

      Because I think in human spatial terms, not computer science terms. If I rename something, to me it is the same thing with a different name. If I move something, it is the same thing in a different place. But here we have an operation called move that renames a file and does not move it at all. That is not intuitive.

      Files are locations in file systems. They're where the bytes are.

      I knew someone would say this. Semantically, the file is the object of interest, and its location is in the folder. What I say, is "I want to rename the file", not "I want to move the bytes in the file to a new location". That's the whole problem with this. The user has to have an understanding of computer science to understand why the command is called move rather than rename to rename a file. This is not intuitive.

    222. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by loufoque · · Score: 1

      If you don't know these two commands or find them arcane, you probably shouldn't even be allowed to work with a computer.

    223. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Gui makes learning faster. 2 clicks and check results.

      You are an idiot. You are not learning by clicking, you are doing something that someone else learned and gave you a button to use. You have obviously never used Linux either, since you believe it's so user unfriendly.

      Funny thing is if you install Linux and actually tried to use it you would find it's just as easy to use as Windows for doing what ever it is you do on a computer (you can even watch pr0n on it!). In most cases it's easier. I have converted thousands of people to Linux in the last few years, and none have ever said it was harder to use than Windows. What it lacks however is Game support.

      People can't play the latest version of The Sims on their computer and rally miss those cartoons peeing themselves as they try to figure out how to get from the living room to the bathroom. That is the attraction to Windows.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    224. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Some of us actually make a living knowing how the shell works, and how code works, and what linking and debugging is, etc...

      Enjoy flipping them burgers Skippy!

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    225. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't it be neat if someone married the explorer/browser GUI and the command line? Imagine if you had a window with icons for files you could select and drag, and then seamlessly use BASH commands on... Picture a task you can do with the CLI, and do it through a GUI. You could even add a pulldown menu with all the commands, and tooltips on the commands to tell you what they do. You could have a window pop up with flags (and tooltips for what each flag does) and confirmation all in one.

      Someone should make this.

    226. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Idbar · · Score: 1

      I see you're trying to make a point in a ridiculous way.

      The more a device reaches consumers, the easier it needs to become. And you almost had a point until you talked about the electricity.

      See, not too long ago, a refrigerator required more maintenance than what not. Now, you just open and close the door. The freezer doesn't pile with ice, and you get water and ice right to your glass. That doesn't imply that you don't have to read the manual on how to install it, but operation is quite smooth and could be better if the fridge knew what I wanted and even interfaced with the rest of the kitchen to make my meal.

      But yes, it uses electricity and water, go figure.

    227. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by nzac · · Score: 1

      You can't get cheep windows VPSs probably due to the cost of windows license. I don't know why you would want to mount an ISO on a server with less than 256 MB of RAM but you could serve the content of an ISO from one if you somehow wanted to avoid extracting it.

      You are right that any "machine" with the RAM to meet windows requirements probably can handle a GUI.

    228. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Funny, I say the same thing regarding people that are to ashamed to post with an account that people could trace to a person.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    229. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are functional GUIs in Linuxland?

    230. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      Given that there is only one command to move/rename a file, what would you call it? You could always do

      cd /bin
      ln -s mv ren

    231. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by dryeo · · Score: 1

      I don't know Windows but with the GUI I'm used to batch renaming is pretty simple. I'll just quote the first part of the help,

      The "Rename objects" menu item allows you to rename many objects at once, using extended regular expressions ("batch renaming"). Note that simple wildcard expressions are not supported in this dialog.
      Batch renaming can be very useful if you have to rename many objects at once according to the same criteria -- for example, if you would like to rename all files ending in .JPEG to .jpg.

      And yes they're real regular expressions based on awk and egrep with GNU extensions
      The find is pretty powerful too. For MP3's you can find on such criteria as play time, bit rate, sample rate, channels, bits per sample, artist, album, year, comment, genre as well as normal things like object name, real name, creation time, modified time, last access time, delete time and so on.
      Being a good GUI it also allows opening a command prompt with a simple right click and the command prompt allows opening a GUI window or other object with the open command.
      Windows is a very dumbed down GUI and sadly too many Linux GUI's have tried to copy Windows.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    232. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ............or how about using the File Manager (ANY one of the latest Linux desktops), right click and open....?

      What command line trickery?

    233. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by kelemvor4 · · Score: 2

      You can't get cheep windows VPSs probably due to the cost of windows license. I don't know why you would want to mount an ISO on a server with less than 256 MB of RAM but you could serve the content of an ISO from one if you somehow wanted to avoid extracting it.

      You are right that any "machine" with the RAM to meet windows requirements probably can handle a GUI.

      When ram runs under $20 for your choice of brand in 4GB sticks I fail to find myself concerned with how much ram windows wants. It is one of the (if not the) cheapest components of a computer these days. Splurge and get yourself an 8GB upgrade for 40 bucks. May or may not be a surprise to you but Linux runs slicker than snot on a healthy amount of RAM as well.
      My source for pricing: http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007611%20600006067&IsNodeId=1&bop=And&Order=PRICE&PageSize=20

    234. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Rennt · · Score: 3, Informative

      Even in Windows land, it is the GUI that is optional. The shell is always there - you can poke at it through a GUI like some terminally obese person with a dialling wand, or you can just use it directly.

      Server 2008 doesn't even install a GUI by default.

    235. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Sancho · · Score: 1

      A computer language is vastly different from a natural language. Among other things, you can make mistakes in a natural language and still get your point across. In fact, almost no one uses "proper English" anymore. On a command line, very small mistakes are very meaningful. At best, a mistake means that your command doesn't work. At worst, you might destroy data.

      Also, the more you learn English, the easier it is to learn more of it. However command-line flags aren't always sensical. For example, there was a define you could use when installing a port on FreeBSD-- -DDISABLE_VULNERABILITIES. How wonderful it would be if that flag did what it says! What it actually does is disable a vulnerability database check, so that you can install a port with known vulnerabilities. The -g flag to ssh "allows remote hosts to connect to local forwarded ports,"--the flag chosen is almost meaningless semantically.

      But even when the flag makes a certain amount of sense, it can be different on different commands. For example, on BSD, cp -R copies recursively, while rm -r removes recursively. Sometimes, even commands from the same package will have dissimilar flags--for example, to specify the destination port for ssh (OpenSSH), you use -p. To specify it for scp, you use -P. While there are exceptions to English rules, they don't tend to make the language less understandable. When failing to abide by the exceptions, you are still understood.

    236. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by tepples · · Score: 1

      Or if you want to find all the TIFF files under a tree, and move them to a single directory?

      Organize-group by file type.

      Does this work within a tree of folders or only with the files directly in one folder?

      If your directories are laid out properly this isn't a big deal anymore.

      Good luck getting end users to take the time to read several pages to learn how to lay out directories properly. I have a family member who asks me to re-explain how to use her CD player every time she wants to use it. She forgets that the triangle pointed to the right means play.

    237. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by tepples · · Score: 1

      If you have physical access, security is long gone.

      How long will it take for movie studios and video game console manufacturers to realize this?

    238. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is very useful on a headless (no GUI) machine, which Windows curiously lacks support for.

      You mean like Server Core (since 2008)?
      Or PowerShell Remoting?
      How about Remote Server Admin Tools?

    239. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by galanom · · Score: 1

      1) Yeah, which? Gentoo? Arch? If you run those distros you are responsible for building your system. These distros are not for newbies.
      2) Mount is external? What did you smoke?

      If you are a newbie, pick Fedora, Ubuntu or something like that, a general distribution for the average Joe, not for hackers or scientists or other special purpose.

    240. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by ryanov · · Score: 1

      The difference and IMHO why Windows is worth the money is this...when something goes wrong in Windows you can fix it IN THE GUI and in Linux its bash or you're SOL, period. Driver for sound not working? Open up bash and type, screen resolution won't stick? open up bash and type, latest upgrade crapped all over your wireless card? open up bash and type. oh and you had damned well better be skilled enough to tweak said bash typing because the code you will be given WILL NOT WORK if you don't. that is because it is written for driver B, rev D, firmware H and you have Driver H, rev l, firmware q.

      Pure bullshit. If there's something REALLY wrong with Windows, fuck if you can fix it because it's totally unclear what the hell is wrong. I recently had a problem where .NET framework got screwed up during updates somehow. It kept telling me I needed an upgrade, but that the upgrade depended on something I didn't have installed (even though it was). That thing would not uninstall, because there was a dependency. I got odd DLL type errors, and the only fixes involved trying out some program that someone had written to gut the whole thing and start over. Virtually impossible to debug, no log files, no access to override what Windows wanted if you knew something needed to be done whether or not Windows would let it. Who ever heard of not being able to uninstall something with Linux? Now how many times have you ended up with a Windows install that's just "not quite right." It's almost always more worthwhile to blow it away and start over than it is to try to fix something. That's almost never the case with Linux.

    241. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by QuantumRiff · · Score: 1

      You do know you don't need to use ANY of those commands to use Linux, right? Just like windows, you can click. (for fun, try to explain to windows people why sometimes the CD is "D:" sometimes "E" and why sometimes, if they have a few drives, and a mapped network drive that is "low" like E or F, they can never see their USB drive they plug in..) How many times have you had to ponder if its rn or mv on your android phone or Tivo?

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    242. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by QuantumRiff · · Score: 0

      Except that he can do that to a machine on another continent with a 24.4kbs connection..

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    243. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by celtic_hackr · · Score: 1

      How the ... did this get modded insightful? Did MS take over /.?
      Or just the trolls?
      This whole article is a troll.
      The article this points to is the worst piece of trolldom, I've seen in a good many years. It's also been a good many years since I've seen any Linux distro that has a GUI desktop that requires mounting via "commandline trickery". I use the command line frequently to mount things in Linux ... on my desktopless, console only servers. Nowhere else.
      There wasn't a single fact about Linux in TFA that was true. Total FUD.

    244. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by ryanov · · Score: 1

      No, he doesn't laugh at you, but many of them will take your money if it's clear you don't know the difference between what they should be doing and what they are doing.

    245. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by atriusofbricia · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Well... since you didn't bother to limit it to only "simple user tasks".....

      for i in *
      do
      mv $i `echo $i | tr [:upper:] [:lower:]`
      done

      Done, all the files in that directory are now lower case. Can you do that with some GUI tool pulled off ZDNet or some other random place? Yes. Would it take you longer to find it, download it, virus scan it and figure out how to use it? Absolutely.

      The parent specifically said "if you want to be proficient" then you should learn the CLI. This is true.

      The parent also specifically said you shouldn't have to drop to a CLI for basic day to day activities. Did you even read the post you were replying to?

      Another example? Oh, okay.

      for i in `cat listofservers`
      do
      rdesktop (bunchofoptions) $i &
      done

      30 RDP sessions open and ready. It would work equally well with an actual list of servers instead of a handy text file laying about. A Linux/KDE specific example has all those 30 sessions grouped into tabbed windows of 5 each, windowshaded and placed where I want them on the desktop for rapid access.

      More?

      --
      I was raised on the command line, bitch

      "Nemo me impune lacesset"

    246. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by loneDreamer · · Score: 1

      What is all this obsession with should/shouldn't? A shell is a power tool. As such, it should not be required if you want your OS to be for normal humans.
      There is nothing particularly good about a step learning curve and a shell sucks at mostly all the human-computer interaction laws that you can come across (read Don Norman), including recognition v/s recall, using knowledge in the world, and many, many others.

      Linux is getting better, but IMHO too many simple tasks are still a matter of trying to use the GUI, fail miserably and open a console (welcome the 1960s). Then start reading forums wikis and other to find out WTF to do and then iterate over many solutions till one finally works. That is WORK, even more, it's not USEFUL WORK and it's clearly not the work that THE USER WANTS TO DO.

      That said, a power tool is "nice to have" and efficient for those who are familiar with it, so it probably deserves your time and you probably want to learn it. My point is those who say "bah, I can do that in my shell" or "it's your fault if you don't want to learn" are basically saying "yes, indeed, Linux is not for you, it's for me", and that is EXACTLY Microsoft's point.

    247. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For most people, the productivity bottleneck isn't the time spent moving hands to and from the keyboard; it's having to memorize 1000 commands to use the damn thing. rm, ls, cd, cp, grep, etc. and all their associated flags are not easy for most people. The one I get tripped up on the most is renaming a folder. I want to rename, so is it rn? No it's mv... but I'm not moving it so that's confusing. How about copying a directory? cp is for one file, I guess I need a flag for more,...

      Your confusion is a result of basic misunderstanding of computers. When you rename something, you really are moving it. Just because you only know of a UI that glossed over that fact, doesn't change the basic axioms of computing. Also, most end user computing environments gloss over commnad line wise too with aliases. When you copy, you are making a new location and filling its contents with something you already have.

      As for saving time, what exactly is your point? That remembering & doing a command to move one or more files is more complicated than using the UI? That is true for a few moves, but lets see if holds up for multiple files being moved and that may need automation. Also, about the keyboard thing. Most normal users (you may consider computer illiterates) waste time looking for what they want to do. Wheather it is via cmd or windows. Moving on the keyboard is nothing compared to placing the mouse where you need it to pull up the right commands or getting to a folder. This is why most people freak out about icons being moved around.

      For end user computing, command line memorization isn't required in any general OS.

    248. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      www.whatismyip.com

      Type that into the address bar under my taskbar of my Windows machine and I get my IP =P

      WRONG. You get your gateway's IP address.

    249. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Riiiight, because .NET is used by anybody, hell I haven't even bothered to install it since ATI replaced .NET with Visual C++ over a year and a half ago, its like Java. Oh and your problem? Took me all of three seconds with Google to find a Microsoft Fix it which involves a ...gasp! A Single button you push. No CLI, no tweaking shit, push the button and reboot. Tada! Now find a fix it for Linux if say, your broadcom worked and was crapped on during the GUI upgrade from 10.04 to 11. what you'll get is a pile of CLI which WILL HAVE TO BE TWEAKED because Linux is waaaay too God damned picky and every. single. thing has to be EXACT. So if the Bash CLI crap is for the broadcom 22.14x and you have the 22.16y you damned well better know it and fix it or you are SOL.;

      In the end numbers don't lie and even Asus, who started the netbook craze with Linux, well guess what? ASUS has given up most likely because of the amount support costs thanks to crap breaking. I'd bet my last buck that that is the reason that dell won't release their Linux sales figures because they are losing money on every sale since Dell has to Dell has to run their own repos because again you use normal repos? Its craploa on your drivers. That's right, even though they have a teeny tiny subset they can't even use the default repos without the distro crapping out. that's just sad dude.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    250. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by jalefkowit · · Score: 1

      Like many have pointed out, if you get used to it and know it, it's intuitive.

      Which is sort of the exact opposite of what the word "intuitive" means, but whatever.

    251. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Ahab's+compliments · · Score: 0

      The point of the terminal is that you have all the commands for every program accessible in one location. The downfall is that you have to know the commands beforehand.

      Great and concise summary of the terminal and why I might or might want to use it.

    252. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by anyanka · · Score: 1

      mix those two approaches by making user mounts executable, but ignoring dangerous flags.

      Also known as 'nosuid', which is the default for user mounts (at least with mount, together with 'nodev').

    253. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great analogy, as a computer would also take your money... Really no, at this point it really comes down to a skill most people will never use.

    254. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 1

      What parent post is describing is a century out of date.

      What anyone on any of the up to date Linux distros does when confronted with the need to do something that is not immediately obvious is to Google "How do I do this on Ubuntu [or whatever]? If it has to be done by a command line, some of the replies will say so, and also print exactly what needs to be entered.

      All the user needs to do is to learn how to open a terminal window and copy/paste the magic from the browser.

      So long as you can get to Google, you do not need the man pages.

      --
      Will
    255. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by mcrbids · · Score: 1

      And this is the part that drives me NUTS. Just because you can mount a loop back device with the command `mount -o loop /path/to/file.iso /mountpoint` doesn't mean that you HAVE to do it that way. KDE/Gnome have provided easy ways to mount ISO files for like EVER.

      But here's the truth: doing it the "double click the icon way" is the lesser way. While fine for users that just want to mount the image rather than burn to disc first, it's limited. It's the way that can't be scripted, it can't be automated as part of a server process that (in my case) I use to build install files of my software for OSX.

      Knowing the script form gives you power, a power similar to the written word - the power to have your ideas preserved and replicated for posterity. This isn't some goofy idea, it's reality for us programmer/hacker types. The things we do get replicated and spread broadly, thousands or millions can benefit from our ideas encoded.

      Want to double click? Go for it. Even mentioning the command line option is a fail for those that can't see the power of the next level.

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    256. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by nzac · · Score: 1

      I know RAM is cheep but so is a "time-share" CPU.
      I am talking about 5 dollar or less a month VPS. I think they average about 20 VMs a box that are more than capable as web/file servers with infrequent access, you can split CPU and Network usage between everyone but you can't split RAM. Powering RAM is not an insignificant either when you are talking profit margins.

    257. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      I am talking about 5 dollar or less a month VPS. I think they average about 20 VMs a box that are more than capable as web/file servers with infrequent access, you can split CPU and Network usage between everyone but you can't split RAM.

      A hypervisor that can't oversubscribe RAM is a hypervisor that's only doing half the job.

    258. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      There's nothing forcing them to wait until the next major OS release to pop in some extra drivers; they can easily include that in a service pack or even a downloadable patch like they do for security fixes.

      Pretty much guaranteed it will be in SP2. Major manufacturers (HP, Dell, et al) have only recently started including it onboard in their PCs.

      Drivers could be automatically downloadable today if the hardware manufacturers bothered to submit them to Microsoft. The facility has existed in the OS since Windows XP (maybe even 2000).

    259. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      The one I get tripped up on the most is renaming a folder. I want to rename, so is it rn? No it's mv... but I'm not moving it so that's confusing.

      Oh, the command for renaming is so terribly difficult to remember. It's rename .

      Copying recursively to get a directory and all its subdirectories is -r; and many distributions already alias -i to check for conflicts, so the user doesn't even have to care. From-To is the natural order, this isn't CPM, after all. So for all but sophisticated use, only one option needs to be remembered. And if the user is truly hopeless, there's always a file browser like dolphin, which (to my mind) is usually more difficult than command line. Does drag and drop copy or move?

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    260. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot: "Learn to read" for the windows users. Ohhh, that's a tough one!

    261. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Daniel+Phillips · · Score: 1

      To be fair, mount and its ilk are more complicated than they need to be. The flags and path should be optional...

      They are. It's called fstab, which comes from many years ago and is not broken. Plus there are hotplug ways of doing it that are just automagic. But the good old command line command better work and do what you expect or your system is in trouble.

      --
      Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
    262. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by AndGodSed · · Score: 3

      Hey.

      Ubuntu user here and right click on ISO and select "Open with archive mounter" and you're done.

      The writer of the article missed the boat completely there.

    263. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by AndGodSed · · Score: 1

      Right, example of a basic task that absolutely needs the command line in Linux?

    264. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Oh, next you will start asking "How many years you spend pissing on a toilet seat before someone told you to put it up?" That's just being Elitist! If people don't want to put up the seat, they shouldn't have to!

    265. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Pence128 · · Score: 1

      I just double clicked it.

      --
      404: sig not found.
    266. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by adolf · · Score: 1

      why the hell would I want 1) mount to automatically detect a filesystem inside a file

      Because it's Unix, and everything is a file.

    267. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by walshy007 · · Score: 1

      having a GOOD UI

      The _only_ intuitive interface is the nipple, everything else is learned. What people find to be good ui's is subjective depending on their prior learning and general background.

    268. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      This "command line trickery" to mount an ISO is complete pants. I use KDE and Opensuse. I've just put a OPENSUSE 12.1 ISO disk into my DVD drive, it then popped up a menu given a choice of actions, of which i chose to open it in Dolphin. I then when to the shell and types in "mount" to see what devices were mounted and .... "/dev/sr0 on /media/openSUSE-DVD-i586-Build0039 type iso9660" was the answer. I guess they copied the "Actions" menu from either Apple or Microsoft and i've been able to do this for years. I think the author of this "article" needs to go back and speak to people who have used Linux desktops.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    269. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Fri13 · · Score: 1

      On Unix, everything is a file. Were it then a device or just data file.

      Physical access is not needed so you can get a remote access to transfer a image or mount image from network location.

      The only stopping force there is the root access.

    270. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by B1oodAnge1 · · Score: 1

      Honestly this still doesn't make sense to me. I'm not being an asshole, I just am confused about how you would learn to think about it like that.

      I first learned to use computers with dos, and so I was originally accustomed to having 'move' and 'ren' but when I first used linux and the reasoning behind having only one command was explained to me (in a Linux for Dummies book I believe) it made perfect sense.

      The information is the focus, a movie, a book, a resume, whatever you have is information.
      That information is *in* a file, the file is in a directory, etc. etc.

      Maybe I was just born with an innate understanding of computer science. :-D

      --
      RUGBYRUGBYRUGBY
    271. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      its easier in KDE, just put a ISO disk into the DVD drive, KDE then pops up a menu giving you a choice of actions and you select one. There is nothing easier as its only one click (or double click if you've configured your desktop that way). --

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    272. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Requiem18th · · Score: 1

      That's not the problem, when he talked about "third-party tools" for mounting ISO files, he was refering to Gnome/KDE/XFCE/LXDE/ROX or essentially any modern desktop environment of the kinds that always come with all desktop distributions of Linux. All of them.

      In other words this ASSHOLE is comparing a bare linux environment to a whole Win8 stack and dismissing EVERY SINGLE desktop Linux, as criples that need third-party tools, ignoring that those "tools" are part of all standard distributions including configuration and support.

      THAT is the problem, that's the most decieving thing I seen from MS since the "Office Open" fiasco and that was quite a while ago.

      --
      But... the future refused to change.
    273. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Fri13 · · Score: 1

      Yeah... too bad that Linux is just a operating system and so on it does not have anykind user interface, only a interface for other software.

      Question is, what graphical user interface offers easy mounting (double click image to mount, double click again to umount) and it can be noticed there are many different kinds and some comes preinstalled in mainstream distributions to KDE and GNOME.

      You don't need operating system mentioned at all when thinking about the needed user action to mount thing, as it is graphical subsystem job.

    274. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Requiem18th · · Score: 1

      Or NOT. UHmm it seems this wasn't exactly MS's lie, but uh? TFA doesn't make it clear.

      --
      But... the future refused to change.
    275. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by benjymouse · · Score: 0

      ever use windows? if you did, you'd know about [windows-key]+F. That's how you do all those searches in explorer.

      Good point. I almost had forgotten about all those search options.

      batch remaing? get a batch rename utility. Difference between windows explorer and bash here: windows doesn't come bundled with the free utility you need to do batch renaming... and its faster and easier.

      Ahem. PowerShell is intrinsically part of Windows 7 / Server 2008R2, is available for XP, Server 2003, Vista and Server2008. For the two latter it is intrinsically part of the OS since SP1.

      Batch renaming in PowerShell: ls *.txt | ren -n {$_ -replace '.txt$','.text'}
       

      --
      Reading slashdot one-liner: (irm http://rss.slashdot.org/Slashdot/slashdot).rdf.item | fl title,desc*
    276. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Pence128 · · Score: 1

      Lets see if I can explain this to you, dipshit:

      create iso: drag and drop contents of cd. Select iso option.
      mount iso: double click on it.

      --
      404: sig not found.
    277. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by AndGodSed · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that also works hah.

      I just never needed to do this before, so I kinda did the natural thing.

      It _is_ the top option in the context menu, which is the default action for double-click.

    278. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by mdragan · · Score: 2

      Right, because there's absolutely nothing arcane or overly complex about having to open a terminal window, read a bunch of man pages, and then issue two commands with various flags just to mount a disk image.

      Learning to use your computer should *NOT* require knowledge of shell command flags.

      I call bullshit on these statements, for trying to skew reality to make their point.

      There are two use cases: 1. You don't have internet access and want to mount an ISO (very rare, almost impossible). In Windows your lost. In Linux you can do it if you have some knowledge (maybe requiring you to read some man pages). 2. You have internet access. In Window you google "open iso file with windows", find a page recommending some tool, go to their homepage or some downloading site (Softpedia), download the tool, install it, reboot (since it installs some low level drivers), and then figure out how to use that tool. In Linux you google "open iso file with linux", read the first two or three posts in a forum, open the terminal, and copy paste some commands.

      In no way is that as the parents described: no reading man pages if you have internet, no "knowledge of shell command flags", and, to me, it seems easier to do with Linux, with the exception that next time you need to mount an iso, in windows you already have the tool installed and probably remember how to use it, while in Linux you have to search for those commands again.

    279. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      pmount used to do something like this for removable media. Give it a removable disk (not internal disks or disk images, though), and it'd mount it under /media/volumename (or /media/serialnumber if it didn't have a volume name). Gnome and KDE both do the same thing using whatever the current infrastructure in Linux is (honestly, I lost track three or four years ago).

      In principle, it would not have been difficult to extend that to support disk images, but there are a number of security considerations you'd have to consider if you wanted to allow users to mount arbitrary disk images.

      The mount command isn't really for general use. It's designed for being able to precisely control what gets mounted where, what options it has, and so on. It can do all kinds of crazy stuff, like mounting raw disk images, parts of raw disk images, forcibly mounting something as the wrong filesystem (for something with a hybrid filesystem like ISO9660 + HFS), setting any possible option to the filesystem, you can mount network file shares, pagefile-backed RAM disks, re-mount a mounted volume with different options (such as making a volume read-only, or read-write), mount a section of the filesystem elsewhere in the filesystem (bind mounts), union mounts, and probably a load more.

      So, advanced features behind advanced interface, simple features behind simple (or invisible) interface. Check. That just leaves the use case of mounting a disk image.

      Is mounting a disk image REALLY the kind of thing a typical user is ever going to do? I doubt it. Why do you think Windows lacked that functionality for so long? Hardly anybody used it - just power users, who went out and installed (or bought) extra software to do it. Similar extra software is available for Linux, and is comparable to the Windows equivalents in nearly every way (except support for copy protection in games, of course).

      Although this isn't really mounting a disk image, Gnome (at least on Ubuntu) can open ISO images as an archive, and you can mess about with the contents from there. So you double-click on the disk image, it opens up, you can see all the files, open them, and whatever. It's not quite as seamless as actually mounting the ISO would have been, but it's a lot better than opening the ISO in an archiving program would have been on Windows (using WinRAR or 7Zip, for example). In KDE, as long as you're using KDE applications, opening ISO images as an archive is nearly seamless.

    280. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Baking bread would not only increase the time I spent on acquiring bread by hundreds of times, but it would also be more expensive because the bakery can afford to streamline the process for mass production, where as I cannot.
      Proficiency with computers is the exact opposite. It saves me time (I can do things faster) and money (I don't have to pay others to do various tasks for me).

    281. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not even that is required. If I double click an ISO it offers to burn it to CD. If I right click and choose archive mounter, it mounts it! I'm using Linux Mint.

    282. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    283. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Bert64 · · Score: 2

      IE releases *were* going to be tied to windows versions, the dedicated IE team was even disbanded at one point...
      It's only thanks to competition from firefox that they're bothering to update IE at all, otherwise IE8 would be "IE6 thats had minor tweaks to make it compatible with windows 7 and fit in graphically"...

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    284. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Penguin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well... since you didn't bother to limit it to only "simple user tasks".....

      for i in * do mv $i `echo $i | tr [:upper:] [:lower:]` done

      Done, all the files in that directory are now lower case.

      Except:

      • it fails with file names with spaces in them (which shouldn't be anything out of the blue)
      • it fails with file names beginning with "-"
      • it might overwrite in an unwanted way if two files exist with the same name but different case
      • it warns when file is already lowercase

      And that's just it. It's another case of "See how easy that was? Oh, we just need to add some quotes. Oh, and -- as an argument for mv. Oh, and -i as an argument for mv. But remember to put -i before --. Everybody knows that." - and yet you created a script that is a text book example of creating a fragile script.

      Great default settings are of utter importance and the whole list of the default tools is much influenced by historic (and backwards compatible) reasons. It still leads to different interesting design cases:

      • head and tail are extremely similar but have two different commands. GNU head can't even behave as tail with command switches.
      • most people would want to create soft links (as opposed to hard links) in their daily routine but still have to go through ln -s instead of a command just for soft links. That is not unlike the -o loop example in GP, as a case of "yeah, you should obviously know that".
      --
      - Peter Brodersen; professional nerd
    285. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by petman · · Score: 1

      I use Kubuntu, which is supposedly one of the most user-friendly distros available. As far as I can remember, it did not allow me to mount ISOs right of the bat. I had to install additional tools to get the functionality.

    286. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I learned how to use computers back when they were actually hard to use (though people who learned before I did, would probobaly look at my cosy DOS prompt and wish they'd learned there)

      I learned to use computers before DOS and have learned other people to use computers, both prior to DOS and after the introduction of DOS.

      Most computer user environments that predates MS/IBM DOS with a decade or less was actually easier to learn and use then MS/IBM DOS, at least those designed outside USA. The previous worst ones you could find (in wide use in Europe) was UNIX and CP/M, both considerably easier to use then early MS/IBM DOS. There was a lot of really easy to use BASIC or graphic (point and tap (touch screens was popular in the 1970s and early 80s) or point and shoot (pointing devices that read the scanline off the screen to know where they pointed)) environments for home computers, and if more computational power was needed, the then most popular mini computer (in Europe) was Norsk Data, with its really user friendly SINTRAN operating system (still the most user friendly/productive command line user interface ever made, especially its "Office" application (ND-NOTIS) is still unbeaten when it comes to being easy to learn and use, as well as increasing user productivity).

    287. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by dna_(c)(tm)(r) · · Score: 1

      Because that's what 99% of people who are mounting an ISO file need.

      No, the 99% you're talking about uses a GUI to burn the ISO to a CD or USB stick.

      The other 83% use it to build a new ISO image and do not like to select thousands of files by hand but prefer to use a single command for that. And that ISO file is not yet on a CD/DVD.

      And the other 1.32% just thinks typing commands is cooler than using a GUI. They mount and play their music/film from the CLI.

      For that kind of thing, you'd use additional parameters. His point was that the default should be to automatically do whatever is most reasonable for most users. If you know better, by all means, use your knowledge to specify the exact switches in advance.

      The point is, use your Gnome/Unity/KDE/Xfce/... GUI to pop in a DVD and wait for it to ask what to do with it then click on "play DVD" and start watching. If you need anything that is not standard usage (watch, copy,...) then use the CLI. So the default options you propose are probably exactly the opposite of what most CLI users want...

    288. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I learned to use computers before DOS and have learned other people to use computers."

      You should probably also have learned some English.

    289. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How much of their jobs would really be made better, and by how much, if they were bash gurus?

      Well, lawyers could better bash their clients bank balances and mechanics could better bash their clients cars.

    290. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry man, but this is FUD. Gnome nautilus file manager has a nice option to mount iso images with a right click and without opening a terminal. So what are you talking about?

    291. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because now everyone has a computer, but not everyone has a bread oven.
      Also... because a lot of people(usually pointy-haired bosses) think it's so easy to do basic elementary things with computers, that the specialists, doing specialised things with computers are overpriced.

      They haven't learned that making computers harder to use wouldn't help... Because everyone would still learn to do it, computers are too useful for people to abandon at this point.
      But it doesn't stop some knee-jerk reactions.

    292. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You will always need a shell for recovery. It doesn't matter what OS you are using. Linux is about freedom; that's the beauty of it. I guess that's why it also has a steep learning curve.

    293. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just mounted an .iso file in Ubuntu by right clicking it and choosing "Open With Archive Mounter" which gave me file system access.

      Alternatively, I could have right clicked it and chose "Open With Archive Manager" and had an alternative interface to the same file system.

      And if I want to mount it from a command line, I have the option to do so.

      What exactly is wrong with having a choice of using any one of several interfaces to accomplish a goal, anyhow?

    294. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by JonJ · · Score: 1

      It is included on GNOME and KDE by default. Unity does it as well.

      --
      -- Linux user #369862
    295. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Svartalf · · Score: 1

      And you don't even need command line trickery in Ubuntu or Mint at least. It's got gui click ISO mount support.

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    296. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh boo hoo.

      Put quotes around them. Put a fork in it, it's done.

      Use "-e" and that problem's gone.

      It might also cause cats and dogs to sleep together, mass hysteria and the beginning of the apocalypse. But it still does the job better than anything you've GUI'd.

      Oh, gosh, a windows user who gets "are you sure?" "are you really sure" "no, really, are you very certain here" whines about "it warns"..!

      And no, where is your GUI? It's very easy to say "that's wrong" when you don't have to pony up your method.

    297. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Tell me again how your example of needing to open 30 RDP sessions at once is even remotely related to a real use case for any more than probably a handful of system admins currently alive on this planet?

      Also for the former, yes I have a tool that does that on my computer. Its a simple mass file organiser but it accepts regex as well and won't break in many cases for file names like your example does. It also gives you fancy previews, feedback on the results, and can show a list of files before you break your directory structure. So on the off chance that you miss-type, yes I'd much rather search ZDNet and download a suitable program to do the job. I'll be done before you finish fixing any possible mess you may inadvertently create.

      The OP said to be "proficient" i.e. competent or skilled at using the computer you need to know your way around a CLI. That is bullshit. You may as well say that no user is every competent unless they know advanced use of scripting languages and be intimate with any of the thousand programs you could run your script through to generate some fancy result. I applaud your use of bash to quickly solve a problem but your way is not the way that many thousands of proficient computer users would solve the problem, which would be done without dropping into the CLI.

      This comes back to the same classic example of every CLI guru thinking that the equivalent of being a "proficient" driver on the road means you should also be able to completely disassemble and rebuilt your engine and program your own EMS as well as being an auto electrician while you're at it.

    298. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lawyers love Perl they have loads of case notes they need to organise. (Or at least I know of one particularly efficient one who does). Searching through large quantities of text is what they need.
      Mechanics to work optimally need to have some degree of computer knowledge these days. (The main dealers are the only ones with access to the idiot proof programs). The best mechanics using generic tools should be able to hack about and avoid having to send you to the main dealer and work out properly what is wrong. (Quite a few of the tools are likely to be not user friendly).
      People who think only one thing matters to them are generally mediocre at that one thing.

    299. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Svartalf · · Score: 1

      Fallacy number 365 - Presuming that because it's on the desktop or in a quicklaunch slot you're going to use it often.

      It's there because much of the user base until recently were unafraid of things bash and it was there for personal preference. I don't use it all that often, haven't for a long time now on Linux.

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    300. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Svartalf · · Score: 1

      You know...the problem with your line of reasoning is as follows...

      1. Failing with spaces is more of a problem with specifying the expression. It only takes a little more knowledge of how bash works to avoid that- and it's not any more complicated.

      2. Same with names beginning with "-" (and you should have your head examined if you've got anything like that...it's bad mojo in most OSes for that one...)

      3. Overwriting is unavoidable- and with the gui tool, it'd have as much of a chance of doing that as the bash script. Or...you'll be answering yes/no questions out the wazoo on that.

      4. Is fine.

      This is a textbook case of someone coming up with a hypothetical to try to prove their point- and they missed the point of it all trying to do it.

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    301. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by ryanov · · Score: 1

      I don't know why it's installed. Clearly something wanted it.

      That fix did not work, FYI. I found that too. Did not work on my machine. You are very quickly out of options if things don't work out on Windows.

    302. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by ryanov · · Score: 1

      The guy at Best Buy will surely take your money. And for your information, the car guy was not my analogy, I was merely pointing out that, yes, it does matter.

    303. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thing you should "obviously know" is that you can type "man mount" and get the manual for the mount command. and that manual should be fairly complete and detailed about what you can do with the mount command. IIRC, the gnu mount manual even includes something like three specific examples of mounting files as block devices.

    304. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then pick a better place than Best Buy. No one will go to best buy just to copy a few files faster with a shell script, they'll go for things that they probably wouldn't be able to solve themselves anyway without extensive training. I realize it's not your analogy, I'm pointing out that taking it further made it illogical.

    305. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can do the same thing in many Linux distros by just right-clicking an .iso file, or even just double-clicking it

      Hmm, I'm running Fedora 16. Double-clicking gives me an error dialog: "No burners currently available". Then it runs a program Xfburn.

      Right-clicking gives me the following options:
      Open with Xfburn
      Open with Other Application...
      Extract Here
      Extract To...
      Copy
      Cut
      Delete
      Rename...
      Properties...
      Applications >

      Why is the OP plain wrong again?

    306. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by gparent · · Score: 1

      You're insulting someone who does the same thing as you, idiot. If I were flipping burgers I wouldn't be arguing about usability on Slashdot. Go back to preschool.

    307. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by gparent · · Score: 1

      Physical CDs are completely unrelated to this you moron, we're talking about mounting an ISO via command-line versus GUI. Medievalist brought up the fact that Linux can automount physical CD drives which had nothing to do with the discussion, something you appear to be unable to grasp as well as you drool all over the keyboard in rage to call me a dipshit.

    308. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bullshit, on Ubuntu Linux you just double CLICK on iso to mount it!

    309. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I tried this February 10th, 2012 and I get "No burners are currently available"

    310. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by bat21 · · Score: 1

      Frankly, mounting an ISO in that manner is basic knowledge that any sysadmin knows. If you aren't a sysadmin or something of that nature (ignoring the fact that Linux DOES have features that allow ISO's to be one-click mounted graphically), why are you using a server OS? Try creating a gui for something like rsync. The reason it's such a great program is the amount of options you have; good luck trying to create a simple gui that allows them all to be used easily.

    311. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Jorl17 · · Score: 1

      I get what you're saying, but I disagree. It is intuitive in the sense that you do not need to read the manual for that specific application / feature, because you have learned to use other applications /features. So, yes, you get used to the way of thinking and not to a specific app, for which it then becomes intuitive.

      --
      Have you heard about SoylentNews?
    312. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does the baker turn around and say "Wow, what a fucking moron that guy is. Doesn't he see how easy it is to bake his own damn bread?" Why do geeks seem to be the only people with this attitude?

      As someone who is pretty proficient in the kitchen, and who has worked at a huge spectrum of jobs, I have to say, yes, the baker thinks you're a moron. Any job, once you are proficient at it, seems simple.

      Geeks aren't the only ones who think this way, almost every profession I've ever encountered, the folks who are good at what the do are bewildred that they get payed for something so simple as laying flooring, fixing dishwashers, changing oil, programming python, or rocket science.

    313. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      Check your IP address. Pretty mundane. I'll wait. Still waiting. You totally want to open up cmd and type ipconfig, but you're googling the name of the GUI version (if there is one).

      Wouldn't one right click the networking icon in the systray and select "status" or "information" or something like that?

    314. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      While that command will work for some file types, it won't for others. Probably depends on distro.

    315. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      Couldn't you find it in Unity's application listings? Or perhaps start it with an Alt+F2 run dialog?

    316. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by jmottram08 · · Score: 1

      Except i dont know how to do that already. What i do "know" is that somewhere in Word you can change cases. . . and sure enough, it took me 10 seconds to find, or about the same amount of time that it took you to type that -buggy- code.

      Yes, yours does all files in a directory. Whats the real world use case on that? Try instead mine where i can easily select text in a file to do it on. Real world applicability for wanting a paragraph, not a whole document or directory lower case? A LOT more. It also includes things like sentence case and all caps. Whats your code for that?

      Look, I get that programming is powerful, but its not always better or faster. For "power users" what is faster, a few clicks to their file then clicking the icon that looks like it changes cases (Aa) or banging out your limited code, including typing file paths?

    317. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

      in OpenSUSE there is "browse this iso".. though that's not exactly the same as mounting it.

    318. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, and that shellscript should be included in distros by default so people like me who dont use the mount command every fscking day dont have to remember the arcane switches for everything when all we want to fscking do is mount a goddam iso without running into 14 errors/complaints from the mount command and turning to the man page 27 times to remember what arguments and "options" are required to give it for it to perform its job.

      Until that shell script is included in distros by default, it is _not_ a non-issue. Linux isn't perfect, and pretending that it is only slows its progress down because people are too okay with the status quo. It is far better to be critical of it, then work to solve those problems so it actually is better and closer to being perfect. And if enough people did that, we would trump Windows very quickly and become a competitor to Mac OS X in regards to a GUI and we'd be better than OS X in regards to the command line interface.

      But hey, I'll let you live in your own little world where having to memorize the infinitely many quirks, options, and arguments to a huge number of commands is absolutely necessary to tell the damn thing to do its job. We built computers so we didn't have to think about all of the low level details, and people should be able to, but should shouldnt HAVE to. That was the point that whooshed a few miles over your head.

    319. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're assuming that, when something goes wrong in Windows, there is actually a fix. Due to the shrink-wrapped, proprietary, unobservable, undebuggable nature of the software (and most third-party software that runs on Windows), if something breaks, you simply can't fix it, much of the time. You have to wait until the next version of the software, and email/write/call/bribe the vendor, "Please, oh PLEEEEEASE Mr Boss Man, PLEASE fix my issue so I can continue to get on with my work!!!"

      So what do you do when a Windows update mysteriously "fails" to install? Half the time, there will either be no fix at all short of reinstalling Windows, and the other half of the time, there's some forum post on msdn social where some guy wrote a batch file, registry hack, or "Start -> Run -> type 'mssucks.cpl'" type workaround. All of those involve similar "messing with internals" to Linux, so there's no advantage there. And if it doesn't work, you're SOL.

      So what do you do when Nvidia pushes out a driver update that increases the performance of 99% of your apps by 30-50%, but the one app you really need every day causes you to get a BSOD? Well, you pretty much just have to resort to using an older driver and forego the performance benefits. You're SOL.

      So what do you do when your wireless card's driver has a bug that causes the mouse cursor to freeze for several seconds (true story; hello Ralink) each time it does a wireless probe? Oh, look, the vendor hasn't updated the driver since 2008; how cute. You're SOL.

      So what do you do when your NTFS filesystem is corrupted and chkdsk can't fix it? You boot up a Linux live CD and run recovery commands from ntfs-3g until you manage to recover your data, then you get on with life.

      Being able to fix things in Windows "IN THE GUI" (as you wrote) is entirely dependent upon the assumption that every problem you've ever had has been anticipated by Microsoft engineers years before the software was released (because the code is frozen and tested for months and months before it's pushed to production); and more than that, none of the Microsoft engineers know who you are or what your use case is, nor do they care.

      On the other hand, when things break on Linux, *YOU* can actively fix them, without waiting for anybody. With just some general competencies and skills -- not any specialized knowledge -- it is possible to fix an extremely wide range of problems while consulting only a few google searches or manpages, and without reinstalling. Using your brain for something other than vegetating to the sound of pop music ... what a concept.

    320. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by DaVince21 · · Score: 1

      Right-click > open with "gmountiso"

      The real problem is that ISO mounting isn't really an integrated experience. I also do mount -o loop, but right-clicking the ISO file itself would make things so much more convenient for me.

      I think some file browsers allow you to add custom commands like that (Nautilus?). Should be a nice addition.

      --
      I am not devoid of humor.
    321. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by DaVince21 · · Score: 1

      If changing mount is not an option, then quick symlinks to the right commands like a 'mountiso' would be nice. At least, when it comes to the command line. I know mounting isos using mount properly took me way too long.

      --
      I am not devoid of humor.
    322. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Server Core doesn't launch the desktop environment / shell explorer.exe.

      It still boots into a GUI with a console window, and other graphical programs still run. You can still change the display resolution to make more room for console windows and other programs.

    323. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by rev0lt · · Score: 1

      Not every file is mountable. In fact, very few files are actually mountable, so why should mount care for a fringe case?
      The "everything is a file" charade works well to explain the system to end-users. The reality is a bit different - everything can be accessed with a file-like interface. Raw block devices aren't usually files (but yes, in my example they are), they just can be accessed as one, and sometimes with limitations.

    324. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by rev0lt · · Score: 1

      You can create them easily either by using a shellscript or an alias command. Maybe it is a good idea for desktop-oriented distros to provide them, but then again if you build some sort of automation in top of those "custom commands", that automation will be distro-dependant.

    325. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by rev0lt · · Score: 1

      Not every distro installs a GUI by default. Even those that are install a GUI, not everyone of them uses gnome or kde. But hey you already know that.
      Linux is a kernel. Every single program you run is external. Even those who provide base funcionality and wrap syscalls on a text-based command, such as mount and many other part of the util-linux package.

    326. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by rev0lt · · Score: 1

      Actually, I believe most enterprise-grade VM systems already split RAM between systems, with some sort of deduplication technology. If pages are equal between VMs, the hypervisor will map them to the same page. Of course, operating systems already do some sort of this, with COW.

    327. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by rev0lt · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I also can't install Windows on my ALIX board. It's not compatible, as there's no graphics card. If you don't have enough RAM, it's not really compatible, is it?
      Also, when you buy cheap VPS you get wthat you pay for. A cheap, crappy and overscribed service. Why would you want to add windows to the mix?

    328. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by rev0lt · · Score: 1

      At least on CentOS, ifconfig won't show you the link connection speed.

    329. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by unl0rd · · Score: 1

      Because 'right click the ISO and select mount' is hard to explain. I do agree with the rest of your post, and understand that it is often easier to explain a command line process than where to click, just not this instance. I'm all for the command line, and think everyone should know what it is, how to get at it, and find out the right commands if needed. However, for most it's not always worth it. If one was to learn a specific command to do this or that, and didn't require it for 2-3 years or more, they aren't going to remember it. It's more reasonable to GUI it. If my car is scheduled for a timing belt change, I'm not going to teach myself how to do it, plus buy all the required tools so I can so it again in 10 years. Most don't even service their car out of the same fear/unknown/laziness as one not using the command line. Apologies for the clumped reply, the android browser really doesn't like /.

    330. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by nzac · · Score: 1

      Why would want windows on anything other than a desktop or a desktop server, let a lone an internet facing server?
      They exist because they work you don't need anything more.

      Not to mention the internet cap and speed would cost at least 100 times the monthly fee where I live.

    331. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      Nor on OpenSuSe 11.4. But using ethertool isn't going to help, as it isn't even in the repos. :-(

    332. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by leenks · · Score: 1

      Looked at the prices of RAM on VPS recently?

    333. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by atriusofbricia · · Score: 1

      Well... since you didn't bother to limit it to only "simple user tasks".....

      for i in *
      do
      mv $i `echo $i | tr [:upper:] [:lower:]`
      done

      Done, all the files in that directory are now lower case.

      Except:

      • it fails with file names with spaces in them (which shouldn't be anything out of the blue)
      • it fails with file names beginning with "-"
      • it might overwrite in an unwanted way if two files exist with the same name but different case
      • it warns when file is already lowercase

      And that's just it. It's another case of "See how easy that was? Oh, we just need to add some quotes. Oh, and -- as an argument for mv. Oh, and -i as an argument for mv. But remember to put -i before --. Everybody knows that." - and yet you created a script that is a text book example of creating a fragile script.

      Great default settings are of utter importance and the whole list of the default tools is much influenced by historic (and backwards compatible) reasons. It still leads to different interesting design cases:

      • head and tail are extremely similar but have two different commands. GNU head can't even behave as tail with command switches.
      • most people would want to create soft links (as opposed to hard links) in their daily routine but still have to go through ln -s instead of a command just for soft links. That is not unlike the -o loop example in GP, as a case of "yeah, you should obviously know that".

      Allow me to retort :)

      1. Obviously if spaces were known to be present, something one would surely check for, you'd quote the variables. Some people quote them by default and I knew that 'problem' existed with my example. However, I drew this from something I really did a couple of weeks ago and the problem didn't exist there.
      2. Only morons name files with leading '-'. Yes, I know people sometimes download files with them named like that but it is still a bloody stupid thing to do. That said, you're right. It would fail with such a relatively unusual corner case
      3. Yes, it might. That however is also a corner case and if it were a concern this probably wouldn't be the best approach.
      4. I hardly think extra output is a serious concern.

      The point to this example was not to give a tutorial on bash scripting or to cover every possible corner case. It was obviously to point out a not uncommon situation where a GUI only person would have to hunt down a program to perform what is in reality a very simple and quick task on the CLI.

      As to the rest....

      1. Head and Tail are only similar in that they both output text. I would think they're name would both indicate that they aren't exactly the same and probably perform different, albeit similar, functions. That said, why would you expect 'head' to have an option to behave like 'tail'?
      2. Fair enough on the -s... that said, I'm pretty sure that anyone who knows enough to be creating symlinks in the first place already knows the -s thing.
      --
      I was raised on the command line, bitch

      "Nemo me impune lacesset"

    334. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by atriusofbricia · · Score: 1

      Except i dont know how to do that already. What i do "know" is that somewhere in Word you can change cases. . . and sure enough, it took me 10 seconds to find, or about the same amount of time that it took you to type that -buggy- code.

      Yes, yours does all files in a directory. Whats the real world use case on that? Try instead mine where i can easily select text in a file to do it on. Real world applicability for wanting a paragraph, not a whole document or directory lower case? A LOT more. It also includes things like sentence case and all caps. Whats your code for that?

      Look, I get that programming is powerful, but its not always better or faster. For "power users" what is faster, a few clicks to their file then clicking the icon that looks like it changes cases (Aa) or banging out your limited code, including typing file paths?

      The real world use case on changing a large number of files name? Happens frequently. It isn't always name case. Sometimes it is switching underscores for spaces and the like. A similar version of the same code does that just as well.

      The example given wasn't text manipulation but file name manipulation. These would be two very different things. Are you going to use Word to perform a mass rename?

      And no, you don't have to type out any file paths. What gave you that idea? It seems you have no idea what I'm talking about and I'm afraid I can't help that.

      --
      I was raised on the command line, bitch

      "Nemo me impune lacesset"

    335. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by rev0lt · · Score: 1

      Does it have mii-tool?

    336. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 1

      Easy fix for the "duplicate" issue.
      for i in * do echo $i | tr [:upper:] [:lower:]; done | sort | uniq | grep -v "^1 " ||

      That line will spit out any name that appear twice. If any are found it will stop the next command from running. And yes, I did that almost entirely from memory.

    337. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 1

      Did you really just compare mass-renaming of files to common text editing? One is a something mostly used by server admins, the other is done by minimum wage secretaries. Not to mention his example was probably type out in less time that most office computers (that was your example, correct?) take to OPEN word. 2 more minutes and you could easily bullet-proof that code to accept anything short of unicode.

    338. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just right click on it and select the mount iso option.

      KDE 4.8/openSuSE 12.1

      PS: I also use Win 7 for work, but I still think KDE is easier & having package management for all your software just makes like easy. When is the last time you picked out a dozen different software titles for Windows and installed them simply by checking the box next to their name, knowing that they would always be kept up to date without you having to do anything?

      PSS: Cygwin doesn't count. Of course it has package management. Makes life a lot easier than the damn Windows RK "power shell".

    339. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      ATI graphics maybe? The only time I ever saw it was when someone installed an older ATI driver. As for how to fix your problem, did you try Revo uninstaller on high? frankly I've found that for the rare weird error like yours Revo on high will remove ALL the offending reg entries as well as any caches or leftover and you can then install it clean but frankly unless something asked for it I just wouldn't bother. Feel free to email with the error listed and I can probably walk you through a fix, again nearly all can be done by GUI and the worst I've ever had to do was send a customer a reg file and say "Go clicky clicky on this and reboot" which fixed it right up.

      That is the only way to fix a weird error I've encountered called "Windows says no device under sound" which is caused by the Windows sound server subsystem getting corrupted by some shitty drivers the OEMs use, especially the hacked Realtek drivers some OEMs hand out with their boards. That's why I tell folks "Do NOT use that disc that came with the board, I'm just giving it to you as a courtesy and a last resort, call me instead" and I send them links to the correct drivers. The only time I haven't found the ODMs drivers to be better is on mobiles like laptops, their OEM drivers are often customized for the system, for example the EEE ATI drivers will run a little cooler than the default AMD drivers even though the AMD drivers install and run fine, but the Asus customized drivers are designed to be a little more aggressive when it comes to power saving.

      But feel free to email me if you are still having the problem or want the sound server reg file, it works on anything from Win2K Pro to Win 7 X64, just clicky clicky and reboot. great little reg file to keep on your keyring thumbdrive just in case.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    340. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      rundll32.exe PrintUI.dll,PrintUIEntry /in /m "HP LaserJet 4300N" /n "Room-700-HP4300N" /if "%windir%\system32\ntprint.inf" /...... I forget the rest.

      To install a printer.

      That's easy?

    341. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by galanom · · Score: 1

      That's just theoretical. Windows also have a kernel, a boot loader, core utilities (scandisk, etc) and other utilities such as an unzipper, wordpad, notepad, games, etc.

      The matter is that one user can just install Ubuntu and it just works.
      And it will have installed by default a myriad of programs which otherwise you will need to buy one-by-one or search in porn-websites for warez.

    342. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by rev0lt · · Score: 1

      If I install Ubuntu, I'd still have to install a ton of programs that I use, that may or maybe not compatbile with that specific release. I like to install my software one-by-one. because I like to know what is in the system and what dependencies the packages have. Blindly installing stuff just because it's available on the repositories is a dumb idea.
      As for Windows, there are some tools available to create packages of most-used freely available software, such as http://ninite.com/. I can't vouch for warez in pornsites, as I tend to buy the commercial software that I use, but I don't really see the difference between buying for Windows or for Linux. The software still has to be installed, right?

    343. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by rev0lt · · Score: 1

      Ok, let me rephrase what I said - cheap VPS are probably more vulnerable securitywise, and mantained by a less skilled crew than a specialized provider. That translates to "I can't actually trust in any data in or out the VPS, because I don't know if they were hacked, or if they are even able to determine if they were or not". For you that may not be a problem, but for me it is.

    344. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by galanom · · Score: 1

      If you don't like pre-installed packages go for Arch or Gentoo (later needs to be compiled). There, everything is installed by hand. It's kinda extreme end however.

      As for commercial software, the only thing I've ever paid for in Linux is games.

    345. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by rev0lt · · Score: 1

      I've used Gentoo, but I'm not really into Linux. Almost all my unix machines are BSD (FreeBSD mostly), and I usually build everything from ports.

    346. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A user should not have to work for their computer, their computer should work for them.

    347. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by ryanov · · Score: 1

      I didn't know what Revo was, but I Google'd a little and see that it is a 3rd party uninstaller. Really, why should there need to be software that only exists because the operating system is so completely shitty at uninstalling software? And it's been that way for years -- there have pretty much always been third party uninstallers for Windows. In Revo's case, I imagine there is a free non-Pro version, but think about this for a second: a PAY product exists because so frequently you can't even cleanly delete shit from your computer, something that should be a basic function. I mean, just wow. I'm not trying to spread FUD or something, but doesn't that strike you as a little crazy to have to hunt for and maybe even buy software for that purpose? I completely understand this software being useful to someone who has to deal with Windows and must be able to fix problems like this, but for an end user it's unacceptable that it is ever needed. And the consequences for not doing something like that are ugly. I am VERY reluctant to install anything on Windows because I know that most of the shit I install is going to be around damn near forever and slow the machine down over the course of a year to the point where there's a noticeable difference between an install of the base OS and how the machine is running now. I have really never seen that on any other OS

      The .NET thing was awhile back. I think I eventually got it fixed after screwing around with it for hours and rebooting like 20 times. I can't remember what machine it was even, I just remember thinking "if this were Linux, I could have figured out in 5 mins why it wasn't working, or forcefully ripped out the problem software" Almost everything logs to all the same places, you can run a strace on something if you want to see what the heck it's doing, you can see what files something has open to figure out if one of them might be corrupt (or have a lock file that is stale or something)... and it's all built into the OS. For the times I can't figure something out, I Google it and it's almost always fine. And yes, I've spent a lot of time trying to get Linux drivers working right (in the past), but never the crazy type of shit where on Windows 98 some device would have the picture of a device with the yellow (!) icon over it where there was no further info to be had on what was wrong. In my experience, it's relatively easy to get Windows into a state where you just CAN'T do something no matter what, without hacking the registry or something. Like who ever heard of software failing to remove, really? On Linux it will tell you it is a bad idea to remove some package, but it will remove it if you insist with an override. I find far too frequently that there is no method to do what I want to do with Windows, or no way to find out what is wrong so that I can fix it because the information just is not provided.

      The mindset I see is that the Windows people run out and buy something when something isn't working or they need a new tool. With the Linux folks, generally there is a tool that does part of anything you'd ever need, and using several of them can basically get you what you want. Sometimes to be able to do that thing more than once, you write a script or a program... but the idea of paying for something that does not add functionality is completely foreign to me. Everything you need to use and maintain the base OS (eg. apart from software that is ancillary, like graphics editors, etc.) should be included already.

    348. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by galanom · · Score: 1

      Actually they say Gentoo portage is inspired by FreeBSD ports, but I haven't used the latter personally. ...

    349. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by adolf · · Score: 1

      Because it's Unix, and in Unix it's not supposed to care.

      In userland, as you seem to agree, it's just files. And mount is a userland tool. So mount should deal with files (not devices described in some other way), as far as the user is concerned.

      *shrug*

      The other way of doing things is like what Windows does, which while appearing simple, makes it very difficult or impossible to get anything out-of-the-ordinary done.

    350. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by nzac · · Score: 1

      Why does security matter? You just got way off topic. Yes i would only trust content off a low rent VPS if knew the guy but generally they are only good for static web pages.
      By the time security matters I would hope the system admin was more proficient at bash though ssh than with a laggy GUI.

      If you are using tested server scripts* without trying to do anything tricky can be as secure as anyone else. For example if you just wanted a FTP server you could set up a anon chrooted vsftpd server, secure ssh and set up a firewall to drop all other connections (these are well tested FOSS "industry" standard software that take no time to set up if you have done it before).

      * don't know the fully inclusive word for these

    351. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't care about shell help for lawyers. I just wish the lawyers we have for customers would learn how to use a friggin mouse. Smart people can be so stupid. I'm not here to hold the mouse. I here to fix a real problem on a computer not the problem with the operator's skill.

    352. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by WorBlux · · Score: 1

      The mountpoint is optional if it's already defined in fstab or mtab for a given device or file.

      Mount needs to be as complicated as it is, because it is the only utility used in Linux systems to mount drives and all those options are needed in the init process.

      The solution if probably to integrate udisk functionality into the right click menu file.

    353. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by deek · · Score: 1

      When something is wrong in Windows, often the fix is a tweak of registry entries and values. The regedit command may be a GUI program, and thus satisfy your assertion that you can fix things in the GUI, but I'd much rather use the Linux command line and associated man pages. At least commands and config files have a man page, unlike the items in the windows registry. I don't know what distribution you've used, but I rarely encounter an empty man page.

      I understand what you're trying to say. You can certainly fix more problems via the Windows GUI, than you can via the Linux GUI (Ubuntu being my reference). The problem is, a GUI system is quite complex, and more can go wrong with it. When the system craps itself, you'd better hope you can get low level interface access. That's what Linux allows, and what Windows generally does not. Windows 8 is learning from this, by requiring that all server apps must run without a GUI, and making the GUI modular, installable only if needed. I've sorely wished for this in the past, trying to fix Windows issues, frustrated when the GUI is misbehaving.

      I've rarely had driver issues with Linux, but certainly have with Windows. Let me tell you of the pain I went through trying to get wireless and usb3 running on Windows 7 on my laptop. The Intel Advanced-N 6200 wireless chipset would not work with drivers manually downloaded and installed directly from the Intel website. In contrast, both wireless and usb3 worked without hassle in Linux. In fact, I had to boot into Linux to download different drivers to try and fix the Windows system.

      I'm not sure what distribution you've used, but I've seen plenty of boring work done on the Debian system. And that's a completely open, volunteer based distribution. The busted toilet has been cleaned by volunteers. It may not be a pretty toilet, but it's clean, and it gets the job done.

      In summary, no one system is perfect. Anyone who says different is trying to sell you something.

    354. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by rev0lt · · Score: 1

      Why does security matter?

      For you, apparently, it doesn't.

      If you are using tested server scripts* without trying to do anything tricky can be as secure as anyone else. For example if you just wanted a FTP server you could set up a anon chrooted vsftpd server, secure ssh and set up a firewall to drop all other connections (these are well tested FOSS "industry" standard software that take no time to set up if you have done it before).

      I did not fully understood what you're trying to say, but I can tell you this - there's no way you can secure a VPS if their infrastructure was hacked and storage systems were exposed. And in many countries, you are legally responsible for any crime carried out using your VPS. So yes, I do care.

    355. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by rev0lt · · Score: 1

      In userland, as you seem to agree, it's just files. And mount is a userland tool. So mount should deal with files (not devices described in some other way), as far as the user is concerned.

      As I said, raw block devices aren't "plain old" files, but are accessed on a file-like manner. While mount is an external tool, it is a syscall wrapper, so the actual mounting/unmounting is done by the kernel, and not by "mount".

      If your file is a block device, yes, mount can handle it. If your file is a plain binary file (and you may have thousands of those on your computer), mount doesn't have to recognize it. Following the same philosophy, the "cd" command won't show you the contents of a text file, or fsck won't correct the xml structure of a document file.

    356. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by hantms · · Score: 1

      A GUI window manager is heavy? Really? This is 2012; it matters none for anything other than component servers in big clusters. Linux has to move beyond all this command line stuff. (And it is, to be fair) To the point that a fully functional Linux system is no lighter than a fully functional Windows 7 system, looking at RAM and CPU usage.

    357. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by kyrsjo · · Score: 1

      ... and you can always background tasks.

    358. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by benjymouse · · Score: 1

      What I'm interested in is how well Powershell's object-based architecture works. It seems like the best thing Microsoft could have done under the circumstances, but is there an advantage there? Has anyone here done any serious PS scripting? From what I understand there are constraints on what programs will accept as input, a tradeoff of flexibility for consistency and reliability I suppose. Is that something that linux should adopt?

      PowerShell works really, really well (and yes even as a developer I have done some serious PS scripting). The object-oriented pipes are a stroke of genius. But one has to rethink the concept of a "command". We are used to a command being something which reads and/or writes streams of text (or bytes). While such commands are still supported (they are adapted to become commands which read/write sequences of strings), PowerShell define a new command type called cmdlets.

      What is usually overlooked entirely when comparing to traditional shells is the fact that cmdlets are executed in-process and the objects being passed through the pipelines are actual memory objects, not serialized objects (although a serialization will happen automatically when using PowerShells remoting features). Why is this important? Because it allows developers to create PowerShell cmdlets for the actions of their application and readily use those cmdlets to implement a GUI.

      PowerShell is arguably a good fit for Windows, given that so much of the Windows API and 3rd party applications is exposed through object-oriented APIs (COM, .NET, WMI).

      I doubt a similar shell would gain traction in a *nix world where a common object-oriented model does not exist. It would be like playing LEGO without the bricks.

      --
      Reading slashdot one-liner: (irm http://rss.slashdot.org/Slashdot/slashdot).rdf.item | fl title,desc*
    359. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And your point is that these OSes have powerful shells for their consumers? Or for the admins in organizations where they centrally control these installations? Nobody claims a shell isn't needed but for your average consumer it does not help them.

    360. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by bmo · · Score: 1

      And your point is that these OSes have powerful shells for their consumers?

      Yes.

      --
      BMO

    361. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Medievalist · · Score: 1

      What are you ranting on about now?

      You make an ISO by dragging the content of a CD to your hard drive and answering ISO when linux asks you if you want one.

      You look at what is inside the ISO on your hard drive by clicking on it. It opens up just like a folder or a zip file.

      Why do you windows people make things so hard?

    362. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Acaeris · · Score: 1

      Or you could use the start menu's search tool to skip some of the clicking by going Start > enter 'account' > click 'Change Your Password'

      Or you can press Ctrl+Alt+Del and click 'Change a password'.

      I could make Linux look like the complicated one too by picking the longest route but in reality, for most people, there wont be a difference in the speed they could achieve something one vs. the other if they had equivalent knowledge of those OSes.

    363. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by gparent · · Score: 1

      Too obvious..

    364. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait. I'm a big CLI fan. I do stuff on the command line all the time. I joke that bash is my favorite programming language.

      Why the heck would any GUI file manager be missing a feature as basic as bulk rename which allows for much easier specification of the renaming, mainly due to allowing for easy previewing of the rename operation? Is there really any common file manager that can't do that (err.. other than Windows Explorer, of course; it's terrible)?

    365. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Medievalist · · Score: 1

      OK, but I like obvious. No "Tirckery" required.

      Which is why I use linux....

    366. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Bengie · · Score: 1

      "Compare how much operating systems advanced between 1970 and 1979 compared to how much operating systems changed between 2000 and 2010."

      2000 to 2010, many OSes gained *much* better scaling, lots of virtualization, and better power efficiency to name a few.

      If you think OS design has stagnated, you're not reading enough. There is A LOT going on, especially with scaling.

    367. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Virtualization was invented in the 70s.

    368. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by LifeWithJustin · · Score: 1

      Again, no arguments that CLI is superior to GUI. But you do seem like the kind of person that tells other they should learn to use their tools. So I just figured, I'd point out that you don't seem to know how to use Windows 7's basic functions.

      Suppose you want to delete everything from a directory that was created in the past 24 hours.

      Filter by date, just use the little check box that says in the last day. I know, very hard to use.

      Or if you want to find all the TIFF files under a tree, and move them to a single directory?

      This one is much harder, use the top right search, for TIFF, after the search, shouldn't take but a few seconds, ctrl+a, ctrl+x, and ctrl+p where you want them. Was that too much, should I slow down? Maybe you only wanted TIFF files that were between 100k and 1MB? Or maybe just the ones tagged with "Learn how to use your tools" just use the filter for that aswell.

      Or even just batch renaming

      Clearly you got me on this one. It is crappy, but you just mentioned batch renaming.

      Anyhow, enjoy your day.

    369. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by gparent · · Score: 1

      I meant the trolling... but you probably knew that.

    370. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're wrong.

    371. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      I just found etherape, which can display download speed graphically.

    372. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by rev0lt · · Score: 1

      That's the most unfortunate program name I've heard in a while :D
      The biggest advantage of ethertool and such is that is console-based, so easily integrated in scripts and such. Here's an output example of mii-tool:
      eth0: negotiated 100baseTx-FD flow-control, link ok eth1: negotiated 100baseTx-FD flow-control, link ok

    373. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by gparent · · Score: 1

      Well I'm sorry if you live like this, but I don't and I have a sane definition of 'the real world', where your girlfriend won't be an expert shell user just because she spent her time playing WoW in the basement.

    374. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by crutchy · · Score: 1

      because it would be impossible for someone to make a gui or a bash script for it if there was enough demand

    375. Re:"Linux Command Line Tirckery" HA! by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      I found wireshark/ethereal, which can be console based (tshark/tethereal). It does not give the connection speed.

  2. Common sense by HalAtWork · · Score: 2

    That goes for anything, but a more mature implementation will be more robust and so will the applications that support that implementation.

  3. Linux *Implemented* It First by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As details about new features in Windows 8 started to be discussed in the Building 8 blog and bandied about in Linux/Windows forums, Linux users were quick to chime in with a hearty 'Linux had that first' — even for things that were just a natural evolution, like native support for USB 3.0.

    Perhaps they're not jeering Windows for "copying" Linux so much as they are happy to show that the flexibility and community involvement in open source is starting to surpass those closed source equivalents? Isn't that what Windows used to gain so much marketshare? Supporting everything before everyone else?

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Linux *Implemented* It First by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      So Win7 doesn't have "native USB 3.0" support?

      That kind of sucks. Although it's not unprecedented.

      Microsoft needs to find some way to artificially drive demand for new versions of Windows.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    2. Re:Linux *Implemented* It First by Dahamma · · Score: 4, Interesting

      USB 3.0 works fine with Windows 7, you just have to install the drivers provided by the mobo/card manufacturer. Big deal...

    3. Re:Linux *Implemented* It First by eldorel · · Score: 1

      The drivers include an executable service on every usb3.0 capable system I have built.
      Ymmv.

      The service is actively running, and takes up ram and processor time even when idle.

      WIndows8, Linux, and MacOs all have native support, and don't need these services.

    4. Re:Linux *Implemented* It First by IronHalik · · Score: 1
      Also, it usually gets done by Windows Update in the background - so from user standpoint there's not much difference between native support and not. It's seamless.

      Just like my X-Fi sound blaster, being natively supported by linux 3.0. I need to manually reload the module every other wakeup from hibernation. That is of course, if I don't forget to take out the flash-drive from the port, because it breaks the wakeup completely, requiring me to do a hard reboot.

      Since were at reboot, GRUB 2.0 is kinda nice.

    5. Re:Linux *Implemented* It First by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its backwards compatibility kind of sucks though; it won't accept a Kinect on a USB3 port and causes Windows to freeze when attempting to use a Vuzix HMD webcam on a USB 3 port. Hopefully Windows 8 manages to correct this somehow.

    6. Re:Linux *Implemented* It First by Dahamma · · Score: 2

      That's a problem with a specific driver, though, not Windows 7. Just look it up - ASMedia USB3 drivers have that problem, but not all others...

    7. Re:Linux *Implemented* It First by TemporalBeing · · Score: 1

      As details about new features in Windows 8 started to be discussed in the Building 8 blog and bandied about in Linux/Windows forums, Linux users were quick to chime in with a hearty 'Linux had that first' — even for things that were just a natural evolution, like native support for USB 3.0.

      Perhaps they're not jeering Windows for "copying" Linux so much as they are happy to show that the flexibility and community involvement in open source is starting to surpass those closed source equivalents? Isn't that what Windows used to gain so much marketshare? Supporting everything before everyone else?

      Yes, Microsoft was always big to point out that kind of stuff. For USB3 though, all the manufacturers decided to ignore Windows until late in the game, and use Linux to develop the spec; a major first for Linux and a major problem for Microsoft. So MS got USB3 very late compared to the rest of the market. THis is just spin to try to make MS look good.

      --
      Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
    8. Re:Linux *Implemented* It First by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      It is apparently a big deal because people in here are making it out anything not handed to people on a silver platter is impossible to do.

    9. Re:Linux *Implemented* It First by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear retard, the kernel module for USB support takes ram and processor time.

    10. Re:Linux *Implemented* It First by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Isn't that why people run something like Windows?

      Isn't that supposed to be why Linux is so hard? There are too many gratuitous arcane details?

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    11. Re:Linux *Implemented* It First by BeardedChimp · · Score: 1

      USB 3.0 works fine with Windows 7, you just have to install the drivers provided by the mobo/card manufacturer. Big deal...

      That's a problem with a specific driver, though, not Windows 7. Just look it up - ASMedia USB3 drivers have that problem, but not all others...

      Erm, you mean in other words USB 3.0 doesn't work just fine with Windows 7?

    12. Re:Linux *Implemented* It First by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      No, that's idiotic, it's like saying "graphics doesn't work on Linux" because one video card driver has bugs.

      There are plenty of devices that don't work with Linux due to lack of driver support. Windows or Linux, who cares - it's the hardware manufacturer's problem for missing/crappy support, not the operating system's.

    13. Re:Linux *Implemented* It First by eldorel · · Score: 1

      Dear jackass,
      The kernel module is a subprocess of the existing hardware detection loop, and is only loaded when it's actually needed. The user-mode service is a separate loop that polls the hardware every 10ms or so, and as such is running at all times.

      So to use small words, kernel modules use resources while they are being used, and services are using resources at all times.

      Do I need to spell it out for you in any more detail?

  4. The real question is... by pwolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Does it really matter?

    1. Re:The real question is... by MMC+Monster · · Score: 1

      Of course it matters. Just like it matters when OS X does something better than Linux.

      It's not a zero-sum game. One OS doing something in a better way allows the other ones to copy that better way, making the world a better place for all.

      At least in a reality without design patents, of course. ;-)

      --
      Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
    2. Re:The real question is... by ortholattice · · Score: 1

      It matters because if it was released open source and free of patents, then it can't be patented. This is perhaps one of the greatest contributions of OSS in the current software patent environment.

  5. Meh. by zooblethorpe · · Score: 5, Informative

    I don't really see anything here worth the attention -- this really just looks like an attempt to generate traffic.

    Move along, nothing to see here.

    ...No, really. It's quite dull and profoundly uncontroversial.

    --
    "What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
    "A four-foot prune."
    1. Re:Meh. by Lando · · Score: 1

      Heh,
              It seems to me, according to the summary, that they are telling fanboys to ask different questions. Which is akin to telling religious folks that they should change their doctrine. Who really cares and even if someone does, do you really think fanboys will change?

      --
      /* TODO: Spawn child process, interest child in technology, have child write a new sig */
  6. So ask not '[D]oes Windows 8 do it better?', but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'who cares about Windows'?

    Linux works for me, and Microsoft is irrelevant.
    I really like the way things have turned out.

  7. ISO Mounting by Monkey+Angst · · Score: 5, Funny

    ISO Mounting

    It boggled my mind that even Windows 7 didn't have that. At my job, I'm the Mac tech and there are a couple of PC techs. When they're overbusy, I take some of their workload... had to do an install of Office on someone's machine, so I found a folder of ISOs on a network share, downloaded it, and...? Hmm. "I may be an idiot," I said to my colleagues, "but I can't figure out how to mount this ISO file." "Burn it," they said. "Why, how do you open it on a Mac?" "Uh... you double-click it."

    Talk about your long times coming.

    --
    stripShow - Where WordPress meets webcomics
    1. Re:ISO Mounting by sohmc · · Score: 1

      I like to say that I literally 'LOL'ed at this. I've said the same thing a number of times about things that are so easy either on a Mac or on Linux that is impossible to do natively on Windows.

      Will Windows 8 have virtual desktops? Seriously...this needs to native to Windows.

      --
      We don't live in Shouldland.
    2. Re:ISO Mounting by spire3661 · · Score: 2

      Your comment obviously means you have never used a Magic Mouse on Lion.

      --
      Good-bye
    3. Re:ISO Mounting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I support both Macs and PCs and I love the ISO mount feature. I never saw why Windows XP or Vista or 7 didn't include it -- until I stepped into the license administration role.
      I hate the ISO install feature. This is a corporate nightmare.
      "Hey, I need such-and-such software"
      "Here's the ISO. Just install it. The tech gave me the license."
      Then I get to come around and uninstall all the users' precious software because they don't have a license.
      HP's Radia works just fine, thank you.

    4. Re:ISO Mounting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ISO mounting and DVD burning were things that took a strangely long time to appear in Windows. I would drive me nuts moving from a Linux desktop to Windows environment, trying to find equivalent tools for handling discs. Or installing drivers or getting updates for non-OS software. There are some things Windows does very well, but a lot of admin tasks are so much easier on Linux.

    5. Re:ISO Mounting by Kenja · · Score: 1

      Or... plug which ever mouse you want into your Mac. But then perhaps the intricacies of the USB connection are beyond your comprehension.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    6. Re:ISO Mounting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Virtual Clone Drive has always worked fine for me.

    7. Re:ISO Mounting by AGMW · · Score: 1

      Go ahead and double click on your iso with your 1 button mouse.

      Back in the dim and distant past when I last used windows ("XP" I think it was called?) I seem to recall a Double Click entailed clicking one button twice. Don't tell me they subsequently changed that to one click from each button!

      --
      Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
      handmadehands.co.uk
    8. Re:ISO Mounting by emurphy42 · · Score: 1

      Not that you're necessarily wrong, but VirtuaWin works well and has for a while. Add the KvasdoPager plug-in to get a preview widget within the taskbar.

    9. Re:ISO Mounting by Meeni · · Score: 1

      Conversely mosaic window positioning from windows 7 needs to be stolen in mac and linux.

    10. Re:ISO Mounting by sakdoctor · · Score: 1

      You used the wrong joke fool. The correct reply was something to do with dragging the ISO to the recycle bin, or whatever it's called on the mac.

    11. Re:ISO Mounting by hawguy · · Score: 1

      Go ahead and double click on your iso with your 1 button mouse.

      What's difficult about double-clicking with a one-button mouse? Even on my 7 button mouse, when I double click I use only one button at a time.

    12. Re:ISO Mounting by hawguy · · Score: 1

      I support both Macs and PCs and I love the ISO mount feature. I never saw why Windows XP or Vista or 7 didn't include it -- until I stepped into the license administration role.
      I hate the ISO install feature. This is a corporate nightmare.
      "Hey, I need such-and-such software"
      "Here's the ISO. Just install it. The tech gave me the license."
      Then I get to come around and uninstall all the users' precious software because they don't have a license.
      HP's Radia works just fine, thank you.

      Why does ISO mounting make things any different.? Instead of saying "Here's the ISO. Just install it. The tech gave me the license", it becomes "Here's the ISO, burn it and install it". Or "Here's the CD-ROM, just install it".

    13. Re:ISO Mounting by LoudNoiseElitist · · Score: 1

      This.

      I get that it's nice to have it built into the system, but a lot of you guys are acting like it's just not available on Windows. It has been for a very, very long time thanks to third-party tools.

    14. Re:ISO Mounting by Korin43 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The one that really gets me is updating.

      On Windows:
          * Run Windows Update
          * Run a program that detects out-of-date software like FileHippo's update checker (or open all of your programs and see which ones annoy you)
          * Download each program's update individually
          * Run each of those (clicking through the damn wizard every time)
          * Reboot your machine
          * Watch as a "new update available" popup appears an hour later when you open a program

      On Linux, pick one of the following:
          * Click the update icon (Ubuntu, maybe other distros)
          * Run 'yum upgrade', 'aptitude update && aptitude upgrade' or 'pacman -Syu'

      "OMG Linux is so hard. You expect me to open a terminal and type two words??! It's much easier to spend an hour clicking 'Yes"!"

    15. Re:ISO Mounting by localman57 · · Score: 1

      perhaps the intricacies of the USB connection are beyond your comprehension.

      You'd be surprised...

      I often have to try two or three times to get a USB connector into my laptop; either it's upside down or I'm pushing it at a bad angle and it just won't go in.

      Source: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2173728&cid=36195154

    16. Re:ISO Mounting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well played... I was just about to write that.

      One internet for you.

    17. Re:ISO Mounting by sootman · · Score: 1

      Easy solution: turn on file sharing on the PC, connect to it from a Mac, find the ISO, double-click on it to mount it, set up the Mac's "Windows File Sharing" to share out the virtual volume (might have to edit smb.conf for that), then connect to that share from the PC. See? Simple! That's why MS doesn't bother to enable ISO mounting out of the box.

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    18. Re:ISO Mounting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mosaic window positioning? You mean that half-ass version of tiling that gets in the way? Get a real tiling wm, and be happy. I recommend Awesome for newcomers, after you use it a few months, read up on the other tiling options and see if any of them sound better...

    19. Re:ISO Mounting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem here isn't some technical feature. The problem is proprietary software.

    20. Re:ISO Mounting by vux984 · · Score: 2

      Hmm. "I may be an idiot," I said to my colleagues, "but I can't figure out how to mount this ISO file."

      This post seems fake to me. Even your average "mac tech" should have enough passing familiarity with windows to be able to figure this out.

      "Burn it," they said.

      This part is especially fake sounding. Where did you find a windows tech who didn't know how to deal with an iso file?

      Half the PCs out there come with some sort of 3rd party CD burning software that can deal with opening and extracting ISOs just fine.

      On the rest I usually just use 7zip portable to extract isos to a folder. Its what? an 8 second download that doesn't need to be installed.

      I agree I'm boggled that it wasn't built in in Windows Vista/7 as well, but its hardly like it was a hard problem to solve.

    21. Re:ISO Mounting by Hatta · · Score: 1

      That's your fault for giving your users the permissions to install software on your computers.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    22. Re:ISO Mounting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think a major part of the problem is though if MS added the ability earlier they would have ended up in another anti-trust because then companies like magicISO and Daemon-tools and hell even winzip would be at a disadvantage. Microsoft quit giving a shit about adding things that make people's lives easier once they started getting sued all the time. Most of the stuff like this that is in a Mac i swear is there just to be a symbolic middle finger to MS.

    23. Re:ISO Mounting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or if you're on a Mac, go get Moom (http://manytricks.com/moom/ - I am not affiliated with them, I promise, just a very happy user), and restore some sanity to your normal desktop.

    24. Re:ISO Mounting by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Go ahead and double click on your iso with your 1 button mouse.

      Back in the dim and distant past when I last used windows ("XP" I think it was called?) I seem to recall a Double Click entailed clicking one button twice. Don't tell me they subsequently changed that to one click from each button!

      That's a dual click.

    25. Re:ISO Mounting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would it need that when you have Daemon Tools, Virtual CloneDrive, ImDisk (free), and like a dozen other apps that do the same? If everything was included, people would then complain about "bloat" anyhow!

    26. Re:ISO Mounting by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      You didn't mention the best USB connection failure: USB connectors are the same width as RJ45's, so if you have an extra NIC close to the USB slots and are just poking blindly at the back of your computer, you can feel a nice snug insertion of the USB cable, only to find no response from the OS.

    27. Re:ISO Mounting by rev0lt · · Score: 1

      I've had my fair bit of problems with Windows update, but saying that Linux updating is better is absolutely hilarious. I've got problems ranging from completely fucking up gome and X, to buggy kernel ethernet drivers on a security update. Everyone I know that uses linux has had some kind of problem with updating.

    28. Re:ISO Mounting by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      I don't understand the update fetish. Why should it be up to the system or the user to update a program? If a program has such a short development cycle, or periodic bug fixes then it should update itself. And really most of the programs out there do and do so transparently to the user.

    29. Re:ISO Mounting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Windows 8 app store and CoApp (coapp.org) should help in this regard.

    30. Re:ISO Mounting by QuantumRiff · · Score: 1

      I bitch about that every single time I have to setup a windows box..
      not to mention:
      run windows update, install 32 updates
      Run again, install 4 updates
      run again, install 1 update #hey, look, must be done... lets just double check..
      run again, install 9 updates.. WTF? why not do them all in one pass?

      And my other pet peve. (I guess apt and yum has spoiled me)..
      get a new OEM laptop.. open control panel.. Click uninstall on program
      wait
      click uninstall on other
      wait
      click uninstall on other
      wait..
      repeat..
      same thing with installs.. why can't you install two programs at once?

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    31. Re:ISO Mounting by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Auto-update is a really bad idea. Updates are frequently broken or incompatible with other programs. In Windows, updates often try to happen when my battery is almost dead and I have to poweroff NOW, and am prevented from doing so. Best is to be notified of an update, and if it's a critical program wait a week or two to see if bug reports show up, before I risk my own computer. A manual yum update is simply not a significant burden compared to the advantage of control.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    32. Re:ISO Mounting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't KDE work in Windows? During installation, they should offer the user the choice of which desktop environment to use, just like they let you choose which browser to use.

    33. Re:ISO Mounting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, Windows lets you fully automate Windows Update. Why it needs you to give it a specific hour to install updates as opposed to "as soon as it's downloaded" is beyond me through.
      Unfortunately, this applies only to Microsoft software. For anything else, you are fresh out of luck. Better hope that your software has self updating built in.

      As for Linux, you don't have to type anything. Just setup automated updating in your GUI frontend and that's about all you need to. You don't even need to stop using software while it's updating. The entire process is completely transparent to the user in most cases.

    34. Re:ISO Mounting by Fri13 · · Score: 1

      [quote]This part is especially fake sounding. Where did you find a windows tech who didn't know how to deal with an iso file?[/quote]

      I would say... 1/3-2/3 of Windows tech persons don't even understand how to manage files well. All what they have learn and wanted is to click mouse here and there. And that is the reason why MS is bringing this ISO mounting to new windows, because it really needs to be much easier for Windows techs.

    35. Re:ISO Mounting by Fri13 · · Score: 1

      They are still on same danger... but there is one catch what many does not understand.

      Microsoft could do all kind software, as many or how well as they just want. But here is the catch.

      They can not pre-install it to Windows or even distribute with Windows disk.
      But they can offer it trough their web sites as post-install method by the user choosing. Like what Microsoft does with Windows Live Essentials.

      No one, can and say Microsoft could not made earlier a easier way to open a ISO files just with post install method by downloading it from microsoft.com (as long as Microsoft use same API's what are available for everyone else and not secret ones).

      Microsoft could have done all kind fancy software, to be installed by post install method. But they never actually do it for now anything else than for Live Essentials.

      But this new thing is that Microsoft knows it has a dominant market position on PC markets and it abuse it shamesly.
      Microsoft does not need to fight with others of popularity among PC users as over 99% of sold PC's comes preinstalled Windows (and you need to understand, PC is just a line of personal computers like Mac is line of personal computers).

      If we want situation to change, every PC needs to come with empty storage device. And every storage device (HDD and SSD) needs to be empty when sold. So to PC user to get a Windows to their PC, they need to buy a PC and separated Windows disk and install it by themselfs or buy a service so someone would install Windows for them.

      This would give a two benefits.

      1) People would learn that they are free to use their older Windows license and not to pay again from Windows license
      2) People would learn that there are alternativites for Windows, so Linux, FreeBSD and many other would get better change to be chosen by their features, not just by idealistic persons beliefs sotware needs to be open and free.

    36. Re:ISO Mounting by isCreeper($('Ssss')) · · Score: 1

      But you can fix it. I muck my box up at least once a month, but it's never bad enough that a reinstall is the only solution. Unless the shell or compiler get damaged, I can just rebuild everything, and have it running smoothly within a day or two. How do I fix my Windows install if explorer.exe breaks itself? Also, portage never forces me (or even asks me) to reboot. Never. It seems every time Windows updates itself, I have to tell it to shut up until I'm ready to reboot.

    37. Re:ISO Mounting by Junta · · Score: 1

      Because updating can be an unexpected burden on your system in terms of performance, because it may require the current application to be closed at a time that the user should get to pick, because an update has an unanticipated effect in an enterprise environment and the IT staff has to spot check it before deployment.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    38. Re:ISO Mounting by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      How is that different from manual updates in windows? Also you do have settings that will allow you to control when updates are installed. Such as at shutdown... as opposed to hibernate which is what your computer does when the battery dies.

    39. Re:ISO Mounting by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      because an update has an unanticipated effect in an enterprise environment and the IT staff has to spot check it before deployment.

      In the context of my reply, running "yum upgrade" would be probably worse still.

    40. Re:ISO Mounting by rev0lt · · Score: 1

      If you rebuild everything, you are doing a fancy reinstall. And if you actually use your computer for working, waiting a couple of days until you have your working environment back is not possible, and wasting hours correcting a procedure that should be done right anyway it's not my idea of fun.
      Explorer.exe is just a shell, you can replace it with whatever you want (you even have a blackbox version for windows). If your machine is really screwed up by Windows Update (never saw it happen and I've worked with hundreds of desktops on the last couple of years), you can just rollback any alterations made. It actually works quite well. As a last resource, you can pop your Windows CD and reinstall your operating system without losing any of your data or your configurations, so it's pretty much like any other Unix.
      The automatic reboot feature of Windows is absolutely annoying, but you can choose to not run it, and have the system notifty you of available updates. On the other hand, if your linux distro doesn't reboot after kernel upgrades, base library upgrades (such glibc, libjpg, libpng, libzip, perl, etc) that may be in use won't be refreshed in memory. Binary patching for running kernels seems to work, but AFAIK it's a 3rd party feature.

    41. Re:ISO Mounting by vux984 · · Score: 1

      I would say... 1/3-2/3 of Windows tech persons don't even understand how to manage files well

      IMO those aren't techs. Many people administering windows systems aren't techs... :p Ditto for macs.

      And that is the reason why MS is bringing this ISO mounting to new windows, because it really needs to be much easier for Windows techs.

      Not sure what you are trying to say here. Making it easier so its just a few mouse clicks makes it the same as Mac and Linux. I guess those techs must be even worse than windows techs then..

      I doubt that's your intended argument, but that's pretty much what you just argued.

    42. Re:ISO Mounting by Junta · · Score: 1

      I was getting the impression you were saying all applications should auto-update themselves without user interaction. With the 'yum update' scenario, user picks when they might have a disruption. If your browser stops working because it replaced itself mid-execution, that's worse than expecting something may go wrong.

      If you are saying that each application should prompt the users individually and each induce a UAC escalation, that's the very madness the parent poster was bemoaning in windows.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    43. Re:ISO Mounting by Noughmad · · Score: 1

      Yes, of course, that's what we really need. Everyone who wants to write any program ever must write the self-updating functionality into it. Then of course he/she must also provide binaries for every single OS in existance, so throw in several build servers and one webserver. That's what we really need, to ensure only large businesses can release software.

      And don't forget regular reminders. How could a poor soul use his computer if every program disturbs him/her with dialogs about updates, upgrades and mandatory reboots. And what happens if the free screensaver program they installed last month updates itself with a keylogger? No problem, they'll just install two more antivirus packages.

      There's also the whole idea behing distributions: to make sure programs work together. A Java update breaks your music player? Tough luck, their next update will be in a few months. No problem, you'll just wait with the Java update? Tough luck again, your browser just updated itself and won't work with the old Java. Centralized updates mean all those components will be updated at once, ensuring a smooth transition (with at most one reboot).

      So, in short, centralized updates benefit both developers and users. I really don't see why you would be opposed to them.

      --
      PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
    44. Re:ISO Mounting by Noughmad · · Score: 1

      I like to say that I literally 'LOL'ed at this. I've said the same thing a number of times about things that are so easy either on a Mac or on Linux that is impossible to do natively on Windows.

      Yes, there are many such features. However, despite wanting to bash Microsoft, I think I ought to point out something in their defense.

      As a monopolist, they are not allowed to include some functionality into their system, because it would unlawfully compete with other such products. Remember the lawsuits because they included a browser and a media player, which are both thing most people use and all competing OS's provide? They can't just add anything the want to Windows because they may face another lawsuit.
       

      --
      PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
    45. Re:ISO Mounting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah...no! Automatic updating is bad. A patch Tuesday update that hoses your system is not an uncommon occurrence. Or an update that changes something just before a deadline is due and you have to take precious time to figure out how to do (or in many cases fix) what changes? No thanks. I want complete control of when the system is updated.

    46. Re:ISO Mounting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      eats resources though. and directX apps barf on it.

      I have been using compiz and virtual desktops for 7 years without a hitch.
      what gives microsoft?

    47. Re:ISO Mounting by crutchy · · Score: 1

      my three year old daughter was "helping my pyewta" one day, and she plugged a network cable through an open pci card spot in the back of the case. i was hopeful when i turned it on afterward, but alas i didn't get any connection. she's so smart though.

    48. Re:ISO Mounting by crutchy · · Score: 1

      maybe you mean "workspaces" (in Gnome). i so wish windows had those (where i work i have no choice). unfortunately windows doesn't benefit from X.

    49. Re:ISO Mounting by crutchy · · Score: 1

      never had that problem. maybe you should avoid experimental and testing repos and stick with stable (if using Debian anyway)

    50. Re:ISO Mounting by crutchy · · Score: 1

      that's because windows software is often bloated, whereas linux offers a lot of cli tools or libs with optional gui layers (google "unix philosophy"). there are some nicely written windows tools out there, but they seem to be the exception rather than the norm, and microsoft isn't exactly a good software development role model.

  8. Not an unbiased comparison by lwriemen · · Score: 1

    Just look at the author's bio. Free advertising/advocacy has been going on in the computer magazines for as long as I can remember.

  9. "things that were just a natural evolution" by G3ckoG33k · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "things that were just a natural evolution"

    Try to tell that to the patent jerks at Apple, and Microsoft...

    Maybe someone like SCO will sue Microsoft for using the the USB protocol, even if Microsoft and Apple may have paid for using USB, and SCO doesn't even own the patents. This business is so litigious.

    1. Re:"things that were just a natural evolution" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In all fairness to SCO, they would never sue someone unless someone with deep pockets aka Microsoft... paid them to do so.

  10. WinGnomeShell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was working with a W8 for a startup with the same feats and a gui like it (not a metro app) and all if have to say W8 is shitty fail copy of Gnome Shell.

  11. A better question may be by marcosdumay · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And what will Linux do that Windows 8 doesn't when Win8 finally gets on the market?

    Or maybe:

    When will people start to care about paying for low quality products when hight quality ones are free?

    1. Re:A better question may be by Microlith · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When the producer of the low quality product has coerced the hardware vendors into making it exceedingly hard, if not impossible, to install the high quality one.

    2. Re:A better question may be by michrech · · Score: 2

      When will people start to care about paying for low quality products when hight quality ones are free?

      'People', like me, will start to care when the software we run (for me it's games) run *natively* under the freely available operating systems.

      THAT is one of the biggest issues preventing 'people' from migrating to Linux.

      --
      bork bork bork!
    3. Re:A better question may be by LoudNoiseElitist · · Score: 1

      "When will people start to care about paying for low quality products when hight quality ones are free?"

      I'm not really sure you've used Windows recently. Windows 7 is a hell of a lot more stable and usable on random hardware than some of the distros I've tried recently (namely Ubuntu and Fedora, although I blame Unity and Gnome 3). Not to mention I can run everything I need to get my work done out of the box with very little hassle.

      Look, I wish I could use Linux as my primary OS. I really do. Most of my work is done in a MinGW Bash shell. I use Git. I'd prefer to be using Linux. But at the end of the day, I have deadlines. And those deadlines don't give me time to screw with shit to get it working as smoothly as it does in Windows.

    4. Re:A better question may be by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      THAT is one of the biggest issues preventing 'people' from migrating to Linux.

      Yeah, the people who think they must have WhizzyWriter 2000 on their PC and couldn't possibly use the open source equivalent...

      Of course it won't run on Windows 8 for ARM either, or in the glorious future Metosexual interface on x86.

    5. Re:A better question may be by RCL · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Maybe if Linux was created by game developers... but currently, it's userbase are primarily Python-breathing geeks who like interpreted+GC'ed languages, don't care that much about performance on any particular machine and dread the thought of exposing direct access to raw hardware without introducing N layers of abstraction (preferably with network transparency).

    6. Re:A better question may be by kbielefe · · Score: 2

      Ah, the brilliant circular argument: I use windows because all my apps are windows apps. Good thing I learned English, because all the books I read are in English.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank.
    7. Re:A better question may be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "When will people start to care about paying for low quality products when hight quality ones are free?"

      I'm not really sure you've used Windows recently. Windows 7 is a hell of a lot more stable and usable on random hardware than some of the distros I've tried recently (namely Ubuntu and Fedora, although I blame Unity and Gnome 3). Not to mention I can run everything I need to get my work done out of the box with very little hassle.

      Look, I wish I could use Linux as my primary OS. I really do. Most of my work is done in a MinGW Bash shell. I use Git. I'd prefer to be using Linux. But at the end of the day, I have deadlines. And those deadlines don't give me time to screw with shit to get it working as smoothly as it does in Windows.

      Unity(ubuntu) is gnome3. Gnome-shell(fedora) is gnome3. Gnome3 is nothing more than a backend and API, get your facts straight.

    8. Re:A better question may be by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      And what will Linux do that Windows 8 doesn't when Win8 finally gets on the market?

      For one thing, I expect that, by the time Windows 8 finally gets on the market, Unity will already piss off all customers in their customer base, whereas Metro will still need a while to catch up with that. ~

    9. Re:A better question may be by rev0lt · · Score: 2

      Shure. Show me a photo editor that runs on Linux on a color-managed environment. Or where I can specify printer profiles for different papers supported by my expensive printer. Or a professional-grade video-editing suite that actually works (Smoke used to run on RedHat, but it seems there are no recent versions for Linux). Or a word processor that won't barf when you are editing a 10,000 page document. Or a graphical file manager with thumbnail visualization that actually works. Or a decent CAD suite (2D and 3D) with full AutoCad compatibility and plotter support. Or a professional-grade multitrack sound editing software that actually take advantage of expensive hardware. Or a DTP package with decent font hinting and rendering (Xara is very good, but not that compatible). And the list goes on and on and on.
      Shure, you can do all this stuff on OSX, if you want to pay the Apple tax. At least with Windows machines, you can install whatever you want if you're fed with it, including Linux. (For now).

    10. Re:A better question may be by qxcv · · Score: 2

      Or a word processor that won't barf when you are editing a 10,000 page document.

      I would suggest that you are "doing it wrong" if you have a 10, 000 page document in a word processor ;)
       
      You've got some good points, though. The lack of a decent CAD suite in particular is a major pain.

      --
      "The most dangerous enemy of a better solution is an existing codebase that is just good enough." -- Eric S. Raymond
    11. Re:A better question may be by tepples · · Score: 1

      And what will Linux do that Windows 8 doesn't when Win8 finally gets on the market?

      Support installing applications from unknown sources on devices with an ARM CPU.

    12. Re:A better question may be by tepples · · Score: 1

      I use windows because all my apps are windows apps.

      Likewise, some people buy a Wii because all their games are Wii games. People buy into platforms because the applications they want to run are exclusive to that platform and have no close substitutes.

    13. Re:A better question may be by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      You can do that with Debian for half a decade already.

    14. Re:A better question may be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what will Linux do that Windows 8 doesn't when Win8 finally gets on the market?

      Refuse to print anything?
      Ignore my monitor settings?
      Stop playing audio after an update?

      Oh wait, it already does all those things.

    15. Re:A better question may be by rev0lt · · Score: 1

      There are some cases when opening a 10,000 page document is needed/it's the easiest approach. Mail merge is one of them. But while I use Open/LibreOffice, I've had problems with hundred-megabyte documents of about 500 pages (books with pictures and diagrams), that are perfectly usable on MS Word.

    16. Re:A better question may be by walshy007 · · Score: 1

      Show me a photo editor that runs on Linux on a color-managed environment.

      Gimp has done colour management just fine for quite some time

      Or a professional-grade video-editing suite that actually works

      Cinelerra has been used on professional big budget movies before, however if that doesn't float your boat the lightworks linux port is just about stable.

      Or a decent CAD suite (2D and 3D) with full AutoCad compatibility and plotter support.

      Google is your friend.Linux is used in professional design environments you know. Can't vouch for autocad support but that is like asking for microsoft word support, not relating to the problem of creating documents or in this case designs.

      Or a word processor that won't barf when you are editing a 10,000 page document.

      Latex, as a side note, I haven't yet seen a version of microsoft word that doesn't die when you start hitting 20k+ pages.

      Or a professional-grade multitrack sound editing software that actually take advantage of expensive hardware.

      For mixing? Ardour. Everything is compartmentalized so you can have separate sequencers/synths/mixers etc. Personally I use rosegarden for sequencing, bristol/linuxsampler for synths and ardour for mixing and post processing. Jack is superior in this way to the audio systems that both os x and windows have, audio is just an arbitrary stream to the subsystem. Not to mention with modern kernels you can get far less latency.

      Most of the problems you've given are solved problems, if you have an engineering mindset. Linux has always been by technical people for technical people, that might be changing now with more typical end users flocking there however the more you know the more you can do. Nothing will replace domain specific knowledge.

    17. Re:A better question may be by rev0lt · · Score: 1

      Gimp has done colour management just fine for quite some time

      Gimp isn't by itself a color-managed environment. While it has basic (working) color profiling support since 2.4, you'd still need your monitor to be calibrated, your DE and probably graphic card drivers to be colormanagement-aware (Gnome is, to some extent), have your printer to fully use ICC profiles (the same ones you use on Gimp for softproofing), and being aware of eventual limitations when buying professional monitors (I really don't know how well a Linux DE behaves with a 10-bit monitor). And yes, being able to calibrate it all using the usual tools.

      Cinelerra has been used on professional big budget movies before, however if that doesn't float your boat the lightworks linux port is just about stable.

      Please name one big-budget movie that was edited with Cinelerra. Have you actually ever tried to use it? I had, and it is so far behind the curve that is more of a fancy transcoding tool than a non-linear video editor. You probably would be better trying to do video editing with Windows Movie Maker than with Cinelerra.

      Google is your friend.Linux is used in professional design environments you know. Can't vouch for autocad support but that is like asking for microsoft word support, not relating to the problem of creating documents or in this case designs.

      Varicad seems more of an alternative to SolidWorks than to AutoCad. When you need to project buildings, it is nice to have all the schematics (mechanical, electrical, pipelining, etc) under the same format/program. Not to mention actual timesavers such as Revit or Autocad Architectural suite. And how bad for your job can it be when you reply to a multi-million building proposal with a document that may barf because someone isn't using AutoCad.

      Or a word processor that won't barf when you are editing a 10,000 page document.

      Maybe Latex works fine (I have very little experience with it), but does a Latex WYSWIG editor works well with that many pages? And how about database integration? I don't know if Word dies at 20k pages (never tried past 15k), but I've used some linux-compatible alternatives (such as OO) that won't even get close to that number.

      Or a professional-grade multitrack sound editing software that actually take advantage of expensive hardware.

      Jack itself isn't a Linux technology, as it can be run on other unixes and both Windows and OSX. And while Ardour is an excellent program (from the little that I've used it), and probably is a good alternative to Adobe Audition and casual ProTools users, if you have specialized hardware, you'll have driver problems. I actually don't care much for latency problems, but they seem to be a recurring issue with Linux kernel, so I'd be conservative when declaring it "fixed".

      I'm sorry to inform you, there's no "engineering mindset" in using the wrong tool for the job. I call fiddling around system knobs and debugging drivers so the thing actually works just to not use a tried-and-true solution a waste of time, unless your job is actually engineering the system you're fiddling with. Shure, you can do everything I mentioned with Linux, given enough time, knowledge and patience. Maybe that makes sense for you, but I have actual work to do, so paying for a tool that will allow me to focus on my work and do it faster or effortlessly doesn't sound like a bad deal to me.

    18. Re:A better question may be by walshy007 · · Score: 1

      Jack itself isn't a Linux technology, as it can be run on other unixes and both Windows and OSX.

      Try using it for anything non trivial on either of those platforms, and you will see very nasty limitations. I have a friend who uses OS X and after porting a synth he particularly wanted that was jack only for him, discovered that the os x native midi stuff couldn't be fed to jack midi by any easy method. There goes all real utility for anything midi related.

      It was designed for linux, and os x and windows are an afterthought since linux stuff likes to be portable in general anyway.

      I actually don't care much for latency problems, but they seem to be a recurring issue with Linux kernel, so I'd be conservative when declaring it "fixed".

      My audio subsystem has been running with 6msec latency for the last three years, so I'd pretty much consider it fixed..

      if you have specialized hardware, you'll have driver problems.

      What specific hardware are you talking about? While I personally have only a limited amount of odd hardware (which worked out of the box) I've helped set up people with more esoteric setups and have yet to find anything that doesn't work. Most people only tend to use the custom hardware for multiple high quality audio inputs and just use an s/pdif interface at 96khz/24bit as a single output source, having all the mixing done on pc and s/pdif going to their receiver etc of choice.

      Maybe Latex works fine (I have very little experience with it), but does a Latex WYSWIG editor works well with that many pages? And how about database integration? I don't know if Word dies at 20k pages (never tried past 15k), but I've used some linux-compatible alternatives (such as OO) that won't even get close to that number.

      When you are writing with that many pages, you are in general writing something that will become a rather large book or reference material, typesetting matters (it does so even in small documents too). MS word is horrible at typesetting (not as bad as it used to be, but still pretty nasty) and is not used to typeset books for a reason.

      Also the use of latex allows people to focus on the content of their writing, as opposed to the formatting, it separates the two in such a way that later on you can adjust it if you so wish without having to go through the entire massive document.

      An overview of a few of the advantages of latex.

      In short, with large document writing you really don't want wysiwyg, it tends to destroy consistency and limit typesetting ability.

      Please name one big-budget movie that was edited with Cinelerra. Have you actually ever tried to use it? I had, and it is so far behind the curve that is more of a fancy transcoding tool than a non-linear video editor. You probably would be better trying to do video editing with Windows Movie Maker than with Cinelerra.

      In hindsight I was thinking of another linux video related item and not cinelerra, so I'll concede on this one. Last time I used it was in 2005 or so, and while I agree it was pretty nasty back then I had assumed it had progressed in some way. I'd imagine lightworks would fit the bill though regardless.

      I'm sorry to inform you, there's no "engineering mindset" in using the wrong tool for the job.

      Well why are you using word to try to make large high quality documents? even with any amount of hacking it cannot be made suitable for the purpose. My biggest problem with proprietary software is when you hit a problem it was not originally designed to handle. If software is designed as a set of discrete parts you can mix them in certain ways or add your own to achieve what you wish, and this is how oss stuff is made and evolves. When it is all an integrated untouchable lump this becomes an issue.

    19. Re:A better question may be by rev0lt · · Score: 1

      My audio subsystem has been running with 6msec latency for the last three years, so I'd pretty much consider it fixed..

      With a stock kernel? Or did you have to fiddle with the system until you got a working configuration?

      When you are writing with that many pages, you are in general writing something that will become a rather large book or reference material, typesetting matters (it does so even in small documents too). MS word is horrible at typesetting (not as bad as it used to be, but still pretty nasty) and is not used to typeset books for a reason.

      I'm sorry to disapoint you, but many publishers DO use MS Word. I do know Latex is the best choice for many scientific (with formulas/equations) documents and very popular in some fields, but it is by far a first choice to produce print-ready books. Also, it is very easy to export a Word document to a DTP publishing package with more advanced typesetting. As an extra, I can generate db-driven documents, such as mail notifications, that don't require that much typesetting precision, and easily train someone to do it.

      In hindsight I was thinking of another linux video related item and not cinelerra, so I'll concede on this one. Last time I used it was in 2005 or so, and while I agree it was pretty nasty back then I had assumed it had progressed in some way. I'd imagine lightworks would fit the bill though regardless.

      Yes, Linux is probably the first choice for rendering farms, storage/capture systems and even some custom developed modelling and editing software. But most modelling software, special effects and non-linear editing runs on OSX or Windows workstations.

      Well why are you using word to try to make large high quality documents? even with any amount of hacking it cannot be made suitable for the purpose. My biggest problem with proprietary software is when you hit a problem it was not originally designed to handle. If software is designed as a set of discrete parts you can mix them in certain ways or add your own to achieve what you wish, and this is how oss stuff is made and evolves. When it is all an integrated untouchable lump this becomes an issue.

      You assumed I was doing high-quality documents, I never told you that. And I can use Latex in other operating systems - in fact, Latex isn't even a "linux technology", as it can be run in virtually any unix operating system and Windows. Most programs you mentioned are "the only choice" for many kinds of work - in Windows you have a complete software ecosystem. If some program does have a bug, you can use a similar tool from other provider. That happened to me last week when Gimp rendered incorrectly a medium-size uncompressed TIFF - I used another program to do the editing I needed.
      OSS isn't better at handling unexpected problems than proprietary software. Having the source and a community only helps you if you have time to spend and the knowledge to fix it. If I need to do X, and there's a very good program to do X, I really don't care if it's oss or paid software, if it is the best tool for the job. I have no problem in using Linux if it is the right tool for the job, but for GUI desktop work, it rarely is. I work with OSS operating systems everyday (a bit of Linux, a lot of BSD), and I work with dozens of oss applications that are very good at what they do. When I develop software, I have a tendency to choose open environments and use oss libraries, if they are the right choice. But oss isn't the right choice everytime, and touting it as the ultimate solution is stupid.

    20. Re:A better question may be by walshy007 · · Score: 1

      With a stock kernel? Or did you have to fiddle with the system until you got a working configuration?

      Yes a stock kernel, and limits.conf was updated automatically when jack was installed to allow my user access to realtime threads, so when you don't have to do any fiddling yourself I'm not sure that could be counted as difficult.

      You assumed I was doing high-quality documents, I never told you that

      Well, I know if I were writing a 10k+ page document, I'd want to show a little pride in my work.

      in fact, Latex isn't even a "linux technology", as it can be run in virtually any unix operating system and Windows.

      This does not deter from the fact that linux can do the job of writing a 10k+ page document, which was the original thing being questioned.

      in Windows you have a complete software ecosystem. If some program does have a bug, you can use a similar tool from other provider.

      At the expense of learning a completely new system, which while may do what the other program doesn't, itself be unusable for tasks you typically used the other one for. The cost in fixing the bug with the first in time can often be less than the time to find and learn the new program.

      Give me a choice of five programs that between them do what I want for a specific task, but are closed and can die at any time, and a single one that does everything but a minor issue which I myself can fix, and I'll invest the time that would have been spent with the five programs fixing the one, and then everyone benefits from your use of time.

      If nothing at all exists for oss for a given task of course proprietary software is a more efficient use of time... but I've yet to really find something that fits that description.

    21. Re:A better question may be by rev0lt · · Score: 1

      Well, I know if I were writing a 10k+ page document, I'd want to show a little pride in my work.

      The pride should be the same regardless of document size. Try to do wyswig editing of a document that big with database integration or external resources on Linux. You can proclaim LaTex superior typesetting, but that doesn't mean it's "correct" (as an example, most kerning corrections are beautifiers and are usually applied to incorrectly designed fonts. Either that or every document composed up until the late eighties is wrong - including LaTex documents as well). But hey, I could also create the document in postscript with a text editor. Or create my own formatting language (it wouldn't be the first time).

      At the expense of learning a completely new system, which while may do what the other program doesn't, itself be unusable for tasks you typically used the other one for. The cost in fixing the bug with the first in time can often be less than the time to find and learn the new program.

      What completely new system? Most programs mimicks the most used interfaces and shortcuts! Even java applications don't look that bad. If you can pick up a 30-40Mb source tree that you know nothing of, and debug and correct a problem that may imply field-specific knowledge all by yourself faster than a person can pick a familiar interface, you must be some sort of genius. And then, go ahead, try to submit the patch to the project.

      Give me a choice of five programs that between them do what I want for a specific task, but are closed and can die at any time, and a single one that does everything but a minor issue which I myself can fix, and I'll invest the time that would have been spent with the five programs fixing the one, and then everyone benefits from your use of time.

      The biggest fallacy is that you usually don't have a "single one that does everything" in oss. Not even "one that does most of things". You usually have 3 or 4 competing, uncomplete and often bug-ridden applications to do the same basic tasks, and none that provides advanced tasks. And with field-specific applications, you're often way better off with a commercial product than with a community "hack" (with all respect for those who dedicated their time to develop). Just because it works and produces it doesn't mean it works well, or does its function correctly.

    22. Re:A better question may be by Noughmad · · Score: 1

      Or a word processor that won't barf when you are editing a 10,000 page document.

      I would suggest that you are "doing it wrong" if you have a 10, 000 page document in a word processor ;)

      I would suggest that the mere fact of having a 10k page document implies "doing it wrong".

      --
      PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
    23. Re:A better question may be by crutchy · · Score: 1

      a decent CAD suite (2D and 3D) with full AutoCad compatibility and plotter support

      google DraftSight by Dassault Systems (makers of Catia)

    24. Re:A better question may be by crutchy · · Score: 1

      DraftSight is compatible with AutoCAD dwg, and its developed by Dassault Systems (developers of Catia) so it should definitely be considered "professional grade".

      also, many of the 3D animated Hollywood blockbusters are produced and rendered using Linux

    25. Re:A better question may be by crutchy · · Score: 1

      The biggest fallacy is that you usually don't have a "single one that does everything" in oss. Not even "one that does most of things". You usually have 3 or 4 competing, uncomplete and often bug-ridden applications to do the same basic tasks, and none that provides advanced tasks. And with field-specific applications, you're often way better off with a commercial product than with a community "hack" (with all respect for those who dedicated their time to develop). Just because it works and produces it doesn't mean it works well, or does its function correctly.

      if i hadn't followed the thread i could have sworn you were talking about all the virus-infected, malware-prone, buggy, useless insecure shitware available on the internet for windows.

      all my linux apps come out of the distro's official secured package repository, so its as easy as opening synaptic, double-clicking whatever apps I want (nicely categorized and searchable) and click the "apply" button. dependencies are all sorted out for me, and i think the only packages i've ever downloaded off the unsecure interweb is draftsight and the latest version of adobe flash player (fucking youtube).

      i'm thankful not to have to worry about my machine being bogged down by antivirus and adware programs, having to trawl the web for drivers (such as ac'97) and basic programs like pdf readers (why the hell a pdf reader needs to be more than a couple of hundred kb is beyond me), and having to buy office and graphics packages separately and install them with CDs/DVDs. why is windows always so bloated and slow? people keep upgrading their hardware in an endless effort to achieve reasonable performance out of their existing programs, but when the programs "need" to be updated, they are full of even more bloat, and the vicious cycle continues ad infinitum. i get "old" computers for free because linux runs fine on them, but i do feel sorry for those poor suckers stuck with windows.

    26. Re:A better question may be by crutchy · · Score: 1

      it will even make you feel like a lazy idiot and a sore loser if you are one (and apparently you are)

    27. Re:A better question may be by rev0lt · · Score: 1

      all my linux apps come out of the distro's official secured packagerepository,

      Except when they don't (I actually use apps that usually aren't in the official repositories). Or when the repository isn't secure (remember the debian incident?). Or when you don't actually audit the code used to build the package, so you can't be shure the original svn/git/cvs/whatever can't be tainted.

      Repositories are just a way of distributing software over the internet/intranet. They make no assumption about quality of code, reliability of the application itself and integrity of the original code. And while you can rest assured in numbers (there were few incidents up until today), I'd suggest it's because it is quite difficult to detect tampering when you actually don't control the source code.

      i'm thankful not to have to worry about my machine being bogged down by antivirus and adware programs, having to trawl the web for drivers (such as ac'97) and basic programs like pdf readers (why the hell a pdf reader needs to be more than a couple of hundred kb is beyond me), and having to buy office and graphics packages separately and install them with CDs/DVDs. why is windows always so bloated and slow?

      Stop buying crappy hardware. And my Windows is actually faster than any recent linux distro I've tried, for desktop work. But hey, if you don't know how to use it, it's like everything else. Btw, a couple of hundred KB is smaller than the size of the PDF spec itself, so probably a pdf reader that small won't implement all the tiny bits. You don't even need a pdf viewer, you can use ImageMagick/GraphicsMagick and convert the document to jpg pages or png or whatever. Until you need to read a signed or encrypted document, like, you know, legal documents.

      i get "old" computers for free because linux runs fine on them, but i do feel sorry for those poor suckers stuck with windows.

      That's probably because people buy new computers because they need to do some actual work. I've had a ton of old computers that wouldn't run linux (8088, several 286, several 386, 486, Cyrix (486), Pentium 75/100, etc) . Go ahead, install your favourite distro on a 486DX with 4Mb of ram with X, and tell me how awesome your experience is.

      I find it funny that when I tell that the X-based Unix desktop sucks, I allways get those "windows is bloated blahblah" and "just do this and that and use this distro" and "what you really need is this and that". I've been casually trying linux since 1995, so yeah, I have a pretty good idea about what's available, and the pros and cons for my kind of work. Part of my job description is BSD systems administrator (and has been for the last 12 years), so I'm not new to the whole "unix parade". Operating systems are tools, all of them have strengths and weaknesses, and disregarding them just because "whoa I had a virus on my pc so linux is so awesome" is stupid. Btw, I use Windows since v2.6, and the last virus I got was around 1995 - and it was a DOS virus.

    28. Re:A better question may be by rev0lt · · Score: 1

      DraftSight is compatible with AutoCAD dwg, and its developed by Dassault Systems (developers of Catia) so it should definitely be considered "professional grade".

      There are a ton of DWG-compatible CAD programs out there. Until they have a bug, or aren't actually compatible with the latest version. And have you tried to hook them up with your plotter? Do you have all the options you need? Because I also know how to make a google search, tnx.

      also, many of the 3D animated Hollywood blockbusters are produced

      Show me 1 move where the main production/editing/postproduction is being run on linux. It would be a huge surprise, since the-facto standards are Avid and Discreet (now Autodesk) products. I'm not even aware of any special-effects suite for Linux. But yes, I've used CinePaint.

      and rendered using Linux

      Rendering isn't a desktop job. And saying a given cluster runs linux is meaningless. They also use/used freebsd clusters, Apple XServe clusters, SGI clusters, Sun clusters and many other operating systems. You know why? Because rendering is highly paralelizable, and your custom renderer can be developed in a way that can be run on almost any operating system with network support.

    29. Re:A better question may be by crutchy · · Score: 1
      http://news.softpedia.com/news/Hollywood-Loves-Linux-45571.shtml

      Because I also know how to make a google search

      apparently not

    30. Re:A better question may be by crutchy · · Score: 1

      Except when they don't

      that's like saying that windows doesn't get viruses except when it does. pretty meaningless. when repository packages flag insecure (hey, at least they are flagged), it is usually because the package index is out of date (gosh its hard to type "apt-get update").

      it is quite difficult to detect tampering when you actually don't control the source code

      you're right, but doesn't that make windows and windows software look even worse? at least there is a contingent of developers and power users (that do have access to the source code) looking after debian repositories. you can make all sorts of rediculous arguments against the security of debian stable repos, but you'll always manage to make windows and associated crapware look much worse for it.

      Stop buying crappy hardware

      ummm, maybe you missed the bit about me not having to buy hardware? i do work with free linux programs using free ex-windows hardware. i use a windows workstation at work (Autodesk Inventor mainly), but engineering data from out finite element package is uploaded to a intranet app developed and hosted on a linux server... again using second-hand hardware.

      That's probably because people buy new computers because they need to do some actual work.

      erm... i don't even think you really believe that do you? surely you can't be that ignorant. if you're gunna make dumb ass arguments like that, we aren't going to have much of a discussion

      Go ahead, install your favourite distro on a 486DX with 4Mb of ram with X, and tell me how awesome your experience is

      i bet you think you're smart, but i'm actually talking about pentium 4s with 512 Mb RAM or more. windows vista and 7 don't run on these, but the tasks that people normally do in windows that they can't do with this "older" hardware (even web browsing with XP with SP3 is notoriously slow on a pentium 4 if you're also running a virus monitoring program like AVG or Avast in the background).

      I use Windows since v2.6, and the last virus I got was around 1995 - and it was a DOS virus

      its funny how often i hear this sort of thing. unfortunately it doesn't tell me anything. do you visit porn sites or software crack sites? have you even connected your windows computer to the internet? my father went years without getting a windows virus, and he knows nothing about computers; and then one day he did and it crippled his system. that you have avoided them so far doesn't mean you won't get infected tomorrow. you can avoid viruses with windows, but with linux you don't have to.

      Operating systems are tools, all of them have strengths and weaknesses

      at least we agree on one thing

    31. Re:A better question may be by rev0lt · · Score: 1
      from the article:

      The Road to El Dorado, Antz, Chicken Run, Deep Blue Sea, Star Trek: Insurrection, Fantasia 2000, Men in Black, Hollow Man and many many more, were created with Linux software such as RAYZ, Maya or Shake.

      So, your basis is a 2007 article, vague on details. Well, some years had passed, and Shake was discontinued in 2009. And as renderfarms go, mentioning linux is meaningless, because the operating system itself isn't that relevant. You could have mentioned Inferno, Flame and Flare, that are probably the only special effects applications that are first-class citizens in Linux, but usually sold as an appliance. But most software used (Smoke, SoftImage, Maya, 3DS Max, Mudbox, Avid DS, Adobe After Effects, Houdini, etc) either doesn't have a linux version or is a second-class citizen on linux. Most of them require an approved hardware list and only run on RHES, so they're more close to linux-based appliances than to regular desktops. Go ahead, try to install them on your linux desktop. Oddly enough, most of the applications mentioned will run just fine on my windows desktop. But you know what's even funnier? People working with them on linux don't really care if it's linux or not, they use it because it provides the funcionality they need for their work. And every single one of them are closed-source patent-ridden applications, just like the ones you criticized on a previous post.

    32. Re:A better question may be by rev0lt · · Score: 1

      that's like saying that windows doesn't get viruses except when it does. pretty meaningless. when repository packages flag insecure (hey, at least they are flagged), it is usually because the package index is out of date (gosh its hard to type "apt-get update").

      Yes, because not only every conceivable software is installed using a repository, but also the repository mantainers can easily verify if a source package not maintained by them has no malicious code in it. It is a nice dream.

      you're right, but doesn't that make windows and windows software look even worse? at least there is a contingent of developers and power users (that do have access to the source code) looking after debian repositories. you can make all sorts of rediculous arguments against the security of debian stable repos, but you'll always manage to make windows and associated crapware look much worse for it.

      You may call it ridiculous, but it doesn't make them less real. And as far as windows goes, many desktop applications you run on linux are available on windows too. My point is that just because you use repositories, you think you are safe from malicious code or external threats. You're not.

      i bet you think you're smart, but i'm actually talking about pentium 4s with 512 Mb RAM or more. windows vista and 7 don't run on these, but the tasks that people normally do in windows that they can't do with this "older" hardware (even web browsing with XP with SP3 is notoriously slow on a pentium 4 if you're also running a virus monitoring program like AVG or Avast in the background).

      Why would you install a modern windows version on an old computer? I guess you aren't installing gnome3 or kde 3.7 on them also. I've actually used W7 on a p4 with 1GB and antivirus, and it isn't that bad. I can run many of the open-source desktop applications available for linux AND many of them available for windows. Also, why would I want an old P4 to run linux, if (where I live) the cost of electricity is high enough so an Atom mobo would pay itself by the end of an year?

      its funny how often i hear this sort of thing. unfortunately it doesn't tell me anything. do you visit porn sites or software crack sites? have you even connected your windows computer to the internet? my father went years without getting a windows virus, and he knows nothing about computers; and then one day he did and it crippled his system. that you have avoided them so far doesn't mean you won't get infected tomorrow. you can avoid viruses with windows, but with linux you don't have to.

      I can't tell you I do, because, you know, liability issues. But hypotetically, let's say yes. A lot. But most modern online threats aren't "viruses", and in that regard stock linux desktop also isn't that safe. The system itself is not easily compromised, but your personal data can be leaked when running a browser with the same uid as you, same as in windows. Do you run your browser as a separate unprivileged user? And how about csrf?

      People have different experiences using software. I'm not going to stop using the desktop applications that allow me to be productive just because someone on slashdot thinks I should be running linux. If/when they're available for linux (or BSD) shure, why not? I really don't care if to run a product X I need more ram - ram is dirt cheap, and my lowest spec desktop packs 4GB. I get a (more) uniform desktop experience, a clipboard that actually works with rich media, and the hability to run whatever I want, including many opensource apps. I also get usable vector fonts, more workable area per desktop, generally a better hardware support, and integrated encrypted remote access that actually works with slow connections. Shure, I don't have rdp exposed to the internet, all my systems have dedicated BSD firewalls to unsecure networks. What real advantage would a linux desktop give me over the setup I have now? Can you please elucidate me?

    33. Re:A better question may be by crutchy · · Score: 1

      not only every conceivable software is installed using a repository

      With access to almost 30,000 packages means there's a good chance that most of what I need is in there, but I have had to source a couple of programs from outside the repos. I just make sure they are from reputable providers (I don't use third party indexes).

      just because you use repositories, you think you are safe from malicious code or external threats

      they may not be completely impenetrable, but by comparison, security of windows software isn't even in the same league.

      Why would you install a modern windows version on an old computer?

      because you can use a modern up-to-date linux distro (yes, even with gnome3) on a P4 with 514 Mb RAM just fine. considering most computer users don't use their machines for anything that should be hardware-intensive, they are merely required to upgrade hardware because an up-to-date version of windows won't run on anything less.

      W7 on a p4 with 1GB and antivirus, and it isn't that bad

      i find that hard to believe, especially coming from someone who immediately before said "Why would you install a modern windows version on an old computer?", but OK. it would be interesting to see resource usage on such an installation.

      the cost of electricity is high enough so an Atom mobo would pay itself by the end of an year

      that's also hard to believe, especially since much of the time CPUs are idling. the difference in idle power between a P4 and an Atom is apparently in the order of 47 watts, so assuming you left you pyewta on 24/7, that's 1.128 kWh saving per day or 411.7 kWh per year, so at $0.20 per kWh (rough average from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_pricing), that would be a saving of $82 per year. I could probably get a low end mobo for that price, but I'd be hard pressed to get a decent CPU as well (plus compatible RAM). maybe you could though. if you're using windows you likely paid at least $400-$600 for a low end system with an OEM license (that's for a 32-bit system with 3-4Gb RAM running Windows 7 from Australia).

      most modern online threats aren't "viruses"

      viruses are a significant risk to windows computers. identity theft, phishing, email scams etc are a risk to all online computer users, but if you ask windows users what they worry about most as far as security goes, i bet viruses would be a fairly common response.

      your personal data can be leaked when running a browser with the same uid as you

      I would be interested to know how that's possible. I run iceweasel in private browsing mode so hackers could only gain data from one session, which is not to say they couldn't get my bank password in that session, but if a hacker can get around https and a presumably well-secured banking website (yeah I know what you're thinking but what does it have to do with Linux or Windows?), you're probably fucked no matter what OS you use.

      I know that NFS is prone to UID hacks, but you would have to be pretty dumb to open your NFS shares to the outside world. Not that it matters much, but I do some basic hardening like setting shells for every user except root and myself to /bin/false, using an iptables script, and that's on top of a NAT router with no ports forwarded etc.

      Do you run your browser as a separate unprivileged user?

      I don't think I need to do that, but if I suddenly felt the need to (I won't) I could set that up fairly easily. Can you do that on a Windows machine?

      how about csrf?

      what does that have to do with the operating system?

      I'm not going to stop using the desktop applications that allow me to be productive just because someone on

    34. Re:A better question may be by crutchy · · Score: 1
      you forgot The Matrix, Titanic, Gladiator, Superman Returns, What Dreams May Come, Cats and Dogs, Shrek, The Perfect Storm, Prince of Egypt

      regardless of the age of the article, since your original comment was

      Show me 1 move where the main production/editing/postproduction is being run on linux. It would be a huge surprise...

      you must be in shock

    35. Re:A better question may be by rev0lt · · Score: 1

      With access to almost 30,000 packages means there's a good chance that most of what I need is in there, but I have had to source a couple of programs from outside the repos. I just make sure they are from reputable providers (I don't use third party indexes).

      Show me a good photo editing suite that's not Gimp, but supports decent colormanagement, or a web-graphic oriented tool. Or more than one decent sound editor. Or a usable electronics simulation package with a decent GUI. And the list goes on and on and on.

      because you can use a modern up-to-date linux distro (yes, even with gnome3) on a P4 with 514 Mb RAM just fine. considering most computer users don't use their machines for anything that should be hardware-intensive, they are merely required to upgrade hardware because an up-to-date version of windows won't run on anything less.

      That's what you say. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but my experience diverges with what you said.

      i find that hard to believe, especially coming from someone who immediately before said "Why would you install a modern windows version on an old computer?", but OK. it would be interesting to see resource usage on such an installation.

      Aren't you the guy who just said "considering most computer users don't use their machines for anything that should be hardware-intensive"? Pick up one of those old machines you have and try it for yourself.

      that's also hard to believe, especially since much of the time CPUs are idling. the difference in idle power between a P4 and an Atom is apparently in the order of 47 watts, so assuming you left you pyewta on 24/7, that's 1.128 kWh saving per day or 411.7 kWh per year, so at $0.20 per kWh (rough average from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_pricing [wikipedia.org]), that would be a saving of $82 per year. I could probably get a low end mobo for that price, but I'd be hard pressed to get a decent CPU as well (plus compatible RAM). maybe you could though. if you're using windows you likely paid at least $400-$600 for a low end system with an OEM license (that's for a 32-bit system with 3-4Gb RAM running Windows 7 from Australia).

      I don't need you to believe it. I measured it. Again, you reply to _experimentation_ with "what you think". A dual-core atom board will cost you around 60 bucks (all-in-one, cpu included), and a stick of 2G of ram costs you around 20 bucks. It's not great, but it's up to par with a P4 2.0, with 64 bit support. And you assume windows licenses are a cost - they're not. My desktops are covered by the volume licensing of the company I work for.

      viruses are a significant risk to windows computers. identity theft, phishing, email scams etc are a risk to all online computer users, but if you ask windows users what they worry about most as far as security goes, i bet viruses would be a fairly common response.

      Stop living in the nineties. Most windows users can't distinguish between the pc and the printer, what do they know about viruses? Most of them don't even actually know what a virus is. Who cares what they say, and how is that relevant to facts?

      only because so much of it is sold, because of the very problem with windows software, and besides only idiots buy things because they are cheap.

      Stop pulling shit out of your ass. The manufacturing process became much much cheaper in the last 20 years. Have you ever ordered custom specification RAM from a memory factory? I Have. It's not that expensive.

    36. Re:A better question may be by rev0lt · · Score: 1

      What I read was an article about cluster technology in use and vague mentioning of "linux workstations". The fact that most software used isn't linux-friendly, and that some major products (like Somke) had their linux versions discontinued tells much more than your not-related-to-any-studio article. Also, if you see the making-of of some of the films you mention, you usually don't see linux workstations being used for major production - you see SGI, SUN (SUN gear was hugely popular some years ago), Windows and some OSX. Yeah, just because it runs X doesn't mean it's linux.
      Oh and the list you mentioned isn't right. The Matrix was rendered in a FreeBSD farm. Titanic is from 1997, so I'd like to see where you got that info. You mentioned some films released around the year 2000, that I also seriously doubt that they used linux for anything than renderfarms, if at all. SGI and SUN workstations were all the rage back then.

    37. Re:A better question may be by crutchy · · Score: 1

      whatever dude. sore loser

    38. Re:A better question may be by crutchy · · Score: 1

      Show me a good photo editing suite that's not Gimp, but supports decent colormanagement, or a web-graphic oriented tool. Or more than one decent sound editor. Or a usable electronics simulation package with a decent GUI. And the list goes on and on and on.

      why would anyone in their right mind not use Gimp? there are no doubt others, but many people (including myself) prefer Gimp. Why go looking for something else when you already have the best? There are entire categories for the other stuff you mention, including electronics software. By comparison, what comes with Windows? Erm... ms paint, notepad, media player. you're really starting to sound like a total douchebag moron.

      my experience diverges with what you said

      your experience has nothing to do with the experience of other windows users

      Aren't you the guy who just said "considering most computer users don't use their machines for anything that should be hardware-intensive"? Pick up one of those old machines you have and try it for yourself.

      are you brain dead? i do use P4 machines (I get them for free remember). your rambling didn't really make much sense with regard to the quote you were responding to, but its what i'm coming to expect. my comment was that most people don't do anything overly intensive (email, web browsing, etc), so much of the hardware requirements for windows boxes is for the OS itself.

      I measured it

      i call bs, but whatever.

      Most windows users can't distinguish between the pc and the printer, what do they know about viruses?

      windows users are quite familiar with viruses, because they are subjected to the dreaded "viruses scanner". they don't need to know anything about viruses to know that windows is a virus magnet. you are such an idiot.

      Have you ever ordered custom specification RAM from a memory factory?

      obviously you haven't. are you seriously trying to convince me that custom computer products are cheaper than mass produced products? you are completely fucking clueless, but at least you have provided some entertainment. i don't think i can be fucked discussing this with you more because i prefer a slightly more intelligent opponent, but good luck.

    39. Re:A better question may be by rev0lt · · Score: 1

      why would anyone in their right mind not use Gimp? there are no doubt others, but many people (including myself) prefer Gimp. Why go looking for something else when you already have the best? There are entire categories for the other stuff you mention, including electronics software. By comparison, what comes with Windows? Erm... ms paint, notepad, media player. you're really starting to sound like a total douchebag moron.

      Not only because Gimp has bugs and an all-over-the-place interface, but it is overkill for many tasks. On windows, I use Gimp, Paint.NET, Paint Shop Pro, Fireworks and Photoshop, all for different image-related tasks. If I need some non-GUI automation, I have GraphicsMagick on my storage server. It's irrelevant what software the OS comes with for this discussion, what matters are the options you have available.

      your experience has nothing to do with the experience of other windows users

      Are you on the right thread? When was this about "windows users" in general? But most windows users I have close to me wouln't be able to migrate to Linux, due to many of the problems I mentioned, starting with software availability for specific tasks.

      are you brain dead? i do use P4 machines (I get them for free remember). your rambling didn't really make much sense with regard to the quote you were responding to, but its what i'm coming to expect. my comment was that most people don't do anything overly intensive (email, web browsing, etc), so much of the hardware requirements for windows boxes is for the OS itself.

      Your browsing may not be overly intensive, but not everyone is like you. The percentage of real-world people that need computers to work on a daily basis that use them exclusively to write a letter, lightly browse the internet and read email is not that big.

      windows users are quite familiar with viruses, because they are subjected to the dreaded "viruses scanner". they don't need to know anything about viruses to know that windows is a virus magnet. you are such an idiot.

      Windows users are as familiarized to viruses as the general population is with tsunamis. Again, I'd suggest you interface with some real users, outside your family circle.

      obviously you haven't. are you seriously trying to convince me that custom computer products are cheaper than mass produced products? you are completely fucking clueless, but at least you have provided some entertainment. i don't think i can be fucked discussing this with you more because i prefer a slightly more intelligent opponent, but good luck.

      Where did I say it was cheaper? Can't you read? I said it wasn't that expensive. It was about 30% more expensive than regular branded memory for the same application.

      Stop shoving your "one size fits all" attitude down everybody's throat. If you have no real experience or insight to offer, go play with your toys and stop wasting my time.

    40. Re:A better question may be by rev0lt · · Score: 1

      That's an overly productive reply. But hey, don't let facts and your lack of actual EXPERIENCE interfere with your rant.

    41. Re:A better question may be by crutchy · · Score: 1

      you're wasting your own time trying to shovel your "one size fits all" attitude down my throat (however in vain). everything you've come back at me with is total horseshit. do you even use computers?

      at least if you're buying windows boxes, you're keeping Microsoft shareholders happy

      bye fucker

  12. Original Windows features by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Find a feature of Windows that doesn't have its origin in some other OS. Xerox Star, Mac OS, OS/2, NextStep, Linux...just try.

    About the only one is the Ribbon.

    (Also the Windows XP search doggie.)

    1. Re:Original Windows features by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BSoD?

    2. Re:Original Windows features by spidercoz · · Score: 1

      nope, unix kernel panic

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
    3. Re:Original Windows features by pbjones · · Score: 1

      Ribbon? a context sensitive Toolbox stuck below the menubar? I don't see anything new or original about a Toolbox, either linear or not. Just another reason to run Windoze apps in full screen mode all of the time.

      --
      There was an unknown error in the submission.
    4. Re:Original Windows features by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      Yeah.. Linux. Microsoft totally ripped off Linux..before Linux existed. You people crack me up.

    5. Re:Original Windows features by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The feature is called - "Creating a general purpose consumer OS that the majority of the world uses."

      But anyway... no windows user gives a fuck about any OS features. Any and all OS features can be implemented on any and all OS's either as kernel modules/drivers or UI plugins, etc.

      Linux users are filled with pride that some random developer checked in some code and used them as guinea pigs for testing just so that they can claim "Linux had it first". Well done. I am glad I don't suffer from brain damage like you.

    6. Re:Original Windows features by benjymouse · · Score: 1

      COM
      WMI

      --
      Reading slashdot one-liner: (irm http://rss.slashdot.org/Slashdot/slashdot).rdf.item | fl title,desc*
  13. For some values of "Better" by Medievalist · · Score: 1

    It's noticeably better at generating profit for Microsoft.

  14. Guesswork by millwall · · Score: 0

    Let's just say that Microsoft didn't do anything from scratch. While I did not dive deep into the file system drivers, I suspect that Microsoft looked very hard at some of the principles that worked years ago in both ZFS and then Btrfs and got the "inspiration" to develop something very similar.

    So why didn't you?

    Because you can't?

    So you're just guessing? Impressive!

  15. Ask Not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ask Not What Your Windows Can Do For You, Ask What Your Linux Can Do For Windows!

  16. ReFS... by magamiako1 · · Score: 1

    ZFS is a fantastic filesystem, most people who have used it are aware of it--but it has little widespread adoption outside of the Solaris and BSD communities due to licensing.

    BTRFS has yet to become the defacto file system in any linux distro today that I'm aware of, but it's well under way. That said, BTRFS will be a complete replacement for ext4, while ReFS is being phased in with a cautious approach (no system drives on ReFS).

    The filesystem thing is definitely a natural evolution, it's like saying features of ZFS were copied into BTRFS--of course they were--ZFS isn't widely adopted in the Linux world. Just like BTRFS won't be adopted in the Microsoft World.

    I'd love to see some performance numbers between the two, but I suspect ReFS will be a "try it and see how it works" thing first. I suspect it will do wonders for Home Servers, and I can't wait!

    1. Re:ReFS... by Gaygirlie · · Score: 1

      BTRFS has yet to become the defacto file system in any linux distro today that I'm aware of, but it's well under way. That said, BTRFS will be a complete replacement for ext4, while ReFS is being phased in with a cautious approach (no system drives on ReFS).

      I read somewhere that BTRFS would become the default on Fedora if there existed a stable, useable fsck-utility for it; as it is now if your BTRFS system becomes corrupted and doing full re-balancing of it doesn't fix the corruption, then there's quite little you can do about it. That is not to say BTRFS is unstable or anything, they're just playing their cards safe in waiting for such a utility to become available before making BTRFS the default FS.

      That said, I've been using BTRFS for about a year now and I'm quite happy with it. There is one niggle that I am not too happy about, but I believe that it'll be rectified sometime in the future if I just can manage to wait for it. The niggle is that I have compression enabled on the filesystem and sometimes BTRFS reports that there's hundreds of gigabytes free space left, but when I'm trying to write there I get disk full errors; it is fixable by doing complete re-balancing of the whole filesystem, but with 5 terabytes of disk space it takes god damn forever.

    2. Re:ReFS... by magamiako1 · · Score: 1

      I've been following the news on this stuff reasonably closely. I've been a big fan of ZFS for years and it's a shame that it never really made it outside of its IP-walled garden, as it could have become the defacto filesystem for Linux a long time ago.

      Nice note on btrfs, no fsck for it sucks :( Hopefully they fix that soon, which I'm sure they will.

      Even the designer of ext4 has gotten behind btrfs and says it is the future.

      Now begs the question, do you say "B T R F S?" or "BTree FS?" or "Butter FS"?

    3. Re:ReFS... by Gaygirlie · · Score: 1

      "Butter FS"?

      This :P

    4. Re:ReFS... by Hatta · · Score: 1

      I've been a big fan of ZFS for years and it's a shame that it never really made it outside of its IP-walled garden, as it could have become the defacto filesystem for Linux a long time ago.

      Wouldn't the high RAM requirements of ZFS make it a poor choice for a generic filesystem?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    5. Re:ReFS... by dmsetser · · Score: 1

      ReiserFS was great too. Too bad the idiot-savant killed his wife.

      --
      65.0% slashdot pure
    6. Re:ReFS... by Bengie · · Score: 1

      "IP-walled garden"

      ZFS is open source. The only real issue is the stick up GPL's ass about *having* to share everything.

      GPL is a bit too idealistic for my taste. I'm not saying it's bad, but extreme of any sort can't ever be "great". Personally, I like the BSD license. I would compare GPL to Steam's DRM. Non-obtrusive, but it's there. Not "truly" free.

      "Nice note on btrfs, no fsck for it sucks" ZFS has set the standard for an enterprise grade FS. If you need fsck, you're doing it wrong. Your FS should never be in an unstable state.

      BTW, I think Linux /GNU is great, I just think it could be better.....slightly...

  17. Immitation/Flattery by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I would have thought Linux users would be happy if MS borrowed their ideas- it makes the "mainstream" operating system more like the one they have chosen to use for themselves.

    Surely MS copying Linux can only be a good thing? No?

    I've heard MS is going to even start using a penguin as their logo too. ;)

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    1. Re:Immitation/Flattery by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 0

      Consider that GNOME, KDE, and several other IDE/Window managers took their look and feel directly from Windows.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    2. Re:Immitation/Flattery by Korin43 · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty happy about it. If Microsoft's package manager works reasonably well, then Windows will become significantly less painful to use. Unfortunately, it not clear if it will be useful in the general case, or if it's just going to be a slightly larger Windows Update + Gimmicky Toys.

    3. Re:Immitation/Flattery by JohnnyMindcrime · · Score: 2

      I started working on UNIX systems before I touched Windows (yes, I'm THAT old!) and the first GUI I used was Workbench on the Commodore Amiga.

      When the Amiga became "dead in the water" and I reluctantly went to PCs, I did struggle adjusting to the Windows 95 GUI, but then went through Windows 98 to Windows 2000 where I've stuck that "Windows Classic" look and feel ever since. I've found no reason to move my Windows computing beyond XP yet but I absolutely loathe the default XP desktop and didn't move from Windows 2000 until I discovered you could use Windows Classic in XP.

      And despite being a mainly Linux guy, I do like Windows Classic on XP and emulate it as closely as possible in Gnome - I don't care about eye candy and 3D desktops, CPU cycles are too important to waste.

      I could argue that Microsoft copied the Amiga Workbench look and feel to a degree when the whole look of Windows changed with Windows 95 - and one thing I've never understood is why a decent two-pane view in any file manager isn't the default - one of the best file managers I've ever worked with was Directory Opus on the Amiga which had the two-pane functionality from the word go and you didn't need to frig about positioning windows side by side like you do in Windows. At least in Nautilus on Gnome you can just press F3 and have that two-pane view.

      --
      Windows 10 is great - I used it to download Linux.
    4. Re:Immitation/Flattery by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

      They're just blatantly taking the ideas of others, then harp on and on and on about how they made everything better, once again. Not to mention the whole fleecing people thing. What's there to not resent?

    5. Re:Immitation/Flattery by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1
    6. Re:Immitation/Flattery by parkinglot777 · · Score: 2

      The problem is not the "borrow" thing. The real problem is that MS will eventually patent it, and then Linux will be out of luck in developing the similar feature!

    7. Re:Immitation/Flattery by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      Only if you read the article it's a bunch of fluff, only in the vaguest sense did MS borrow any ideas. A better file copy dialog.. seriously?

    8. Re:Immitation/Flattery by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      Only they haven't taken anything. That list is ridiculous.

    9. Re:Immitation/Flattery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They chose to leave it because it was behind there needs before now they have to come up with more does windows do that "excuses" for using there dang nerd hippy operating system

    10. Re:Immitation/Flattery by Daniel+Phillips · · Score: 1

      Surely MS copying Linux can only be a good thing? No?

      Sure it is. And Microsoft should just do the obvious thing and kill their creaky aging pile of hacks and run Linux, which is the real thing. Apple got that, they knew when to switch instead of fight. Microsoft is considerably more dense that way, and that's all right by me.

      --
      Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
    11. Re:Immitation/Flattery by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      And, you are just a fucking idiot. I said they copied the look and feel, and they did. I used them, and they looked just like Windows 95.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    12. Re:Immitation/Flattery by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

      that's the point. you only know that one comparison. click the link, cure the dumb.

    13. Re:Immitation/Flattery by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      I don't have to read wiki for something I lived, fuckwit.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
  18. Compare after the Patent report by s.petry · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Really, that's what is going to matter. M$ always does things their way, and to a Microsoftie they will always think it's the best. The problem with Microsoft is, and has been for a very long time, that they not only believe that they invented everything but also submit patent requests for everything. Of course with the mess that is our patent system, it's a challenge to get them revoked (Thank the BitLords for the Open Source Patent fighting squads!).

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  19. And worse, with random abbreviations by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2

    Things you mount aren't located in /mount, no it is /mnt. Ahh well that is so easy, I can't believe it didn't know that right off the top of my head!

    That's what makes the *NIX command line even worse as a tool (not saying the Windows command line is better, but you needn't use it) is that commands are all kinds of random abbreviations. You can't make the argument with a straight face that it is "intuitive" or people can "use commands that seem natural." You don't list directories, you ls them, you don't put user programs in "Programs" you put them in /usr and it isn't short for "user" it is short for "unix system resource" of course that isn't what it originally meant since it used to be where user stuff is that is a backronym.

    You really have to already know how to do what you want before you can do it. You can't stumble through things by looking through a list of menu options and finding the one that says what you want.

    1. Re:And worse, with random abbreviations by Jorl17 · · Score: 2

      While I understand your point of view, most of these things can be changed. Many of my user programs go in a ~/bin folder. I can have aliases for ls (in fact I do; I am ware that it still means that ls is the actual command). I rarely ever mount stuff at /mnt, just because it is a plain old directory, with no particular implications.
      Again, I kind of agree with you, but that isn't different to Windows. Your personal stuff is in the registry, in the My Documents folder (which has been changing name recently, besides splitting itself), in the Application Data folder (hidden and now split in three), in the Local Data folder (again, split in whatnot) and a bunch of other crap. It's mostly the same in these OSes -- what happens is that most of us got used to using Windows and learned their way of trying to think.

      --
      Have you heard about SoylentNews?
    2. Re:And worse, with random abbreviations by nightglider28 · · Score: 0

      That's what makes the *NIX command line even worse as a tool (not saying the Windows command line is better, but you needn't use it) is that commands are all kinds of random abbreviations.

      How the hell is mnt a random abbreviation for mount? Seems very logical to me. ls as the command to list files in a directory? I wonder where those letters came from.

      You really have to already know how to do what you want before you can do it. You can't stumble through things by looking through a list of menu options and finding the one that says what you want.

      Good thing, too. Rooting around trying to do something when you don't know what you're doing is a really bad idea, anyway.

      Sounds like you know a bit about how Linux works. It also sounds like you're bitter about learning.

    3. Re:And worse, with random abbreviations by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      And people have trouble with abbreviations since when?
      The amount of times i see "text" abbreviated as "txt", and all manner of others... Many of these random abbreviations come from the crude predecessor to windows, dos... which had an arbitrary limit on file name length and format.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    4. Re:And worse, with random abbreviations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you ever tried in MS-DOS/MS-Windows to make a folder called "con" ?

    5. Re:And worse, with random abbreviations by rjstanford · · Score: 1

      How the hell is mnt a random abbreviation for mount? Seems very logical to me. ls as the command to list files in a directory? I wonder where those letters came from.

      That's because you're used to it. Let's take mount->mnt. Aha! Remove the vowels. So... ls must be... Hmm.. LiST - no, that doesn't work. They're both easily learnable, but they're far from intuitive and, actually, quite random. Just historically consistent, if you've been using *NIX boxen for a while.

      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
    6. Re:And worse, with random abbreviations by Missing.Matter · · Score: 1

      How the hell is mnt a random abbreviation for mount? Seems very logical to me. ls as the command to list files in a directory? I wonder where those letters came from.

      And what about rename? It's rn right? or is it rnme? No... it's mv... because when I want to rename something the first thing I think is moving it to the same place with a different name. There are dozens of examples like this

      Good thing, too. Rooting around trying to do something when you don't know what you're doing is a really bad idea, anyway.

      It's also the easiest way to learn, and the way I learned pretty much everything I know. It feeds right into my exploratory nature... much different than a manual with a list of commands and flags. How exciting!

    7. Re:And worse, with random abbreviations by nightglider28 · · Score: 1

      I am used to it, and given a basic definition of random, these commands are not. I will concede they're not always intuitive but they're not nearly as far-fetched as the op was attempting to convey.

    8. Re:And worse, with random abbreviations by nightglider28 · · Score: 1

      And what about rename? It's rn right? or is it rnme? No... it's mv... because when I want to rename something the first thing I think is moving it to the same place with a different name. There are dozens of examples like this

      As I said to the other person. I never used the word intuitive. I described them as logical.

      It's also the easiest way to learn, and the way I learned pretty much everything I know. It feeds right into my exploratory nature... much different than a manual with a list of commands and flags. How exciting!

      So did you open up a terminal and start typing in random commands hoping you were giving the right one?

    9. Re:And worse, with random abbreviations by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      ls as the command to list files in a directory? I wonder where those letters came from.

      Those letters come from "List Segments". That was the command used on MULTICS machines to look at segments in the computer's memory (it didn't really have files, per se). UNIX copied the convention. Not a good example.

      With any decent Linux file manager, you can stumble through things by looking through a list of menu options, just like in Windows. The two really aren't that different in practice for non-expert users, just the conventions are different (no stupid "C:" and other drive letters) and software package management is far superior in Linux.

    10. Re:And worse, with random abbreviations by loufoque · · Score: 1

      Things you mount aren't located in /mount, no it is /mnt. Ahh well that is so easy, I can't believe it didn't know that right off the top of my head!

      You're free to mount things anywhere you want on your filesystem.
      I personally use /media, since that's what most distributions tend to use for hard disk drives.

    11. Re:And worse, with random abbreviations by jalefkowit · · Score: 1

      That's what makes the *NIX command line even worse as a tool (not saying the Windows command line is better, but you needn't use it) is that commands are all kinds of random abbreviations.

      They are abbreviations, but they aren't random. Neal Stephenson explained the "why" of this in his essay In the Beginning Was The Command Line :

      Note the obsessive use of abbreviations and avoidance of capital letters; this is a system invented by people to whom repetitive stress disorder is what black lung is to miners. Long names get worn down to three-letter nubbins, like stones smoothed by a river.

    12. Re:And worse, with random abbreviations by nightglider28 · · Score: 1

      Sorry I wasn't clear, but that was sarcasm. I did not however, know about this, so thank you for educating me. :)

    13. Re:And worse, with random abbreviations by Acaeris · · Score: 1

      Well, Windows (at least Vista and 7) sees user stuff as being in C:\users\[username]\ Programs are in C:\Program Files (admittedly this on x64 Windows this and ‘Program Files (x86)’ can confuse people). Although I do get annoyed at applications that default to installing outside this folder only to find that the same app on other OS's adheres to the folder conventions of that OS >_<.

      The documents folder is a bit of an oddity as on XP it’s name was relative to which user was logged in (It was seen as My Documents or [username]’s Documents). Now though it’s just ‘Documents’. And the registry has always been a massive pain in the backside.

      Speaking of confusing folders and Windows though, I still get confused about which is which when it comes to System, System32 and SysWOW64. Logic should say that they are the 16bit, 32bit and 64bit stuff respectively but no... SysWOW64 is for the 32 bit stuff and System32 is for the 64 bit stuff o_O

      (Note: I know why the Windows folders are the way they are. That doesn't make it any less confusing)

  20. Re:Virtual desktops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Windows has had virtual desktops for a long, long time.

    It's part of the SysInternals suite, free download from Microsoft.

  21. Oh, really? by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 0

    That simple huh?

    mount: Could not find any loop device.

    --
    There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    1. Re:Oh, really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're using a desktop environment under Linux that hasn't already had a right-click option to mount ISO files for years, then you're not the best standard by which to measure "ease of use."

  22. What bugs me is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... the fact that Microsoft can take good ideas from the open source community, and it's fine. But when the open source community does something remotely like Microsoft, the lawyers come out, and someone using that open source software ends up paying Microsoft royalties.

    Seriously, I hope this doesn't turn into tablet manufacturers paying royalties for using free software that looks like Windows 8, which got some of it's look from free software.

    Unity? That Looks Like Metro! Pause-able file operations? We do that! Pay Up!

    1. Re:What bugs me is... by Osgeld · · Score: 0

      do you have any real examples? (ps even TFA states that the metro ui has been around for 5 years)

    2. Re:What bugs me is... by cadeon · · Score: 2

      HTC and Samsung are known to be paying Microsoft royalties for the devices they sell with Android.

      AC is pointing out that something similar could happen if Microsoft patented ideas it gleaned from the open source community. An "Embrace, Extend, Patent, Profit" modus, if you will.

    3. Re:What bugs me is... by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      yea but those royalties are for (some stupid patents I will grant you that) things that have existed on windows mobile platforms in the past, the ac is worried that they are going to grandfather it in which I doubt

  23. "ISO is taken from the ISO 9660 file system" by MisterSquid · · Score: 4, Informative

    Can somebody please tell me what ISO stands for?

    The name ISO is taken from the ISO 9660 file system used with CD-ROM media, but what is known as an ISO image might also contain a UDF (ISO/IEC 13346) file system or a DVD or Blu-ray Disc (BD) image.

    --
    blog
  24. Open source advocates react to the hubris by daboochmeister · · Score: 1

    Most of the people who react to MS's "borrowing" of ideas have no issue whatsoever with MS using the ideas ... it's the way that MS portrays itself as the epitome of innovation, as if it invented the ideas. The level of hubris it takes to create the various MS marketing campaigns inflicted on us over the years is ... staggering.

    In my experience, on a one-on-one basis, most of the technical staff at MS don't display this attitude (most - i've met a couple of exceptions). But as a corporate whole, the level of disingenuousness is ... well, repulsive, and arguably unethical.

    --
    "Ahh! I see you're in that indeterminate Schrodinger state where - oh, uh ... never mind." Dave Bucci
    1. Re:Open source advocates react to the hubris by JohnnyMindcrime · · Score: 1

      Not that I have a problem with anyone being a Windows, Linux or whatever user, but calling someone an "Open Source advocate" doesn't actually mean very much since there's probably as much Open Source software available for Windows as there is for Linux (and those overpriced computers named after Autumn-ripening fruit products).

      Just saying...

      --
      Windows 10 is great - I used it to download Linux.
    2. Re:Open source advocates react to the hubris by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      Do you have any examples of this or are you just making stuff up? I'm sure Microsoft is really out there touting their amazing innovation for making obvious enhancements to the file copy dialog.

  25. Wrong Question by Malibee · · Score: 2

    There's no question that companies like Microsoft borrow good ideas from F/OSS, and often improve upon them. This is not a bad thing in and of itself: borrowing good ideas is a central tenant of F/OSS. The important question is, how much of the improved idea does Microsoft let F/OSS borrow back? For example, will the Gnome project get sued if they incorporated elements of Windows 8's file copy dialog into Nautilus?

  26. First Windows without DOJ Intervention? by ZeroSerenity · · Score: 1

    If my info is correct, this is the first major OS for Microsoft that isn't tied down by the DOJ. This being the case, things like an ISO mounter may have been restricted. I have the feeling this isn't the end of MS stuffing the OS with more goodies it feels would be nice rather than stuffing it with goodies that it feels it can get away with without the DOJ breathing down it's neck.

    --
    For those who seek perfection there can be no rest on this side of the grave.
  27. Effing QUACK QUACK Says Gaties. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh Please, glorifying Windows over Linux? ... pauses and counts to 100....... because of easier use? ..... pauses again counts to 100.... I'm sorry to say "If it Looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, than WHAT THE F___?" Windows will always be windows. You can make it act like any other type of distro/OS. You can even make it look like others. But the crappy file system setup, The horrible dependencies that only windows can understand. The ease of virus/trojan/maleware creation using VB or VIM any other coding and a DLL creator, makes windows a typical icon of how American Society is. Paper thin veneer with lots of amenities, But the minute someone pokes a hole in the paper. (referring to viruses) It tatters and frays into nothing (slowing down, corrupted files etc). Please. For the love of GOD. Stop trying to make windows like other OS'. Windows does have it's merits, and when they try to steal others ideas and incorporate it under the guise of "Easier to Use". only demonstrates the desperation of Windows losing customers to Ubuntu/Redhat/Debian/BSD. Let's face it, those of you who are familiar with linux, and who are educated in the use of commands. Know that windows pales in the light of Linux in the sense of security, stability, and dependability.

  28. So finally... by toby · · Score: 1

    Could this be the year of Windows 8 on the desktop??

    --
    you had me at #!
    1. Re:So finally... by JohnnyMindcrime · · Score: 2

      You may laugh but I suspect there's a lot more in your one-liner than you realise...

      I think the PC desktops and laptops do have a while to go yet but they're certainly on the decline as Joe Sixpack's main computing device in the house and Microsoft currently have very little to offer in the portable device arena, which are mostly ARM-based CPUs. Therefore Windows 8 is targeted primarily at ARM devices and Microsoft will be hoping that people will want to use similar environments on both PCs and portables, and therefore also upgrade to Windows 8 PCs as well.

      Windows 7 has been a success story but over a much longer period than XP was a success story and it's a clear demonstration that a lot of Windows users aren't going to "just" upgrade to Windows 8 like they have done with previous upgrades.

      Another thing to bear in mind is that with Windows Vista and 7, Microsoft was able to play the "unavailable for Windows XP" hand with DirectX and Internet Explorer versions - but these days PC games manufacture has slowed considerably (unless you look at indie titles which probably aren't too bothered about state-of-the-art DirectX and graphics in most cases) and IE is slowly dying away anyway.

      Yes, as long as PC desktops and laptops survive, Microsoft will find some way of making Windows 8 successful (unless they shoot themselves in the foot with it like they did with Vista) but they definitely have an uphill struggle to get it there.

      --
      Windows 10 is great - I used it to download Linux.
  29. Does Windows do it better than Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Luke: Is the dark side stronger?
    Yoda: No, no. Quicker, easier, more seductive it is but not stronger.

  30. Simpsons did it! by cod3r_ · · Score: 0

    Simpsons did it before linux.

  31. The big guys have always been inspired by FOSS ... by Qbertino · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... and vice versa.

    Quite a few features on the Mac OS X UI are directly lifted from Enlightenment and similar projects. Enlightenment was the first UI emphasizing beauty and, for instance, had first spikes into OpenGL support about 10 years ago. They also were the the first to introduce the 'brushed metal' look throughout an entire UI. That all was back in the day when Mac OS 9 still looked like a souped up Windows 3.1 in a few places.

    The new system settings tray introduced in Windows XP is a direct copy of the KDE settings layout of the time - which at the time also was a first. As where the Frog Design UI element designs.

    All this is quite natural though, and can be taken for granted.

    To be honest, I wouldn't take a professional UI designer serious, if he *weren't* intimately familiar with the various alternatives outside of mainstream OSes and UIs.

    My 2 cents.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
  32. No. Windows is never never better. by whitelabrat · · Score: 0

    WTF? Are we having a serious debate about a Microsoft product on /.?

    Let me fix this quick. Microsoft sucks. Don't forget that.

  33. Articles like this are the problem, not Microsoft by caywen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's not like Microsoft said, "hey, we invented an easy way to mount ISO's. Take THAT Linux! wait, you already have that? Oh well, our way is superior!"

    It's more like Microsoft said, "Hey, we made ISO's easy to mount."

    The rest of the crap comes from those who make a living trying to instigate fights between users in both camps.

  34. Re:arcane by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 1

    This sequence of events is the very definition of arcane, might as well be in place of the definition. Originally, it meant requiring secret information, such as incantations where you need to know someone who knows it in order to learn it. More typically, it is used to mean something hidden or mysterious, or not immediately available. Roughly speaking, of course.

    Regardless of whether it's man pages or something on an internet page, you have to find the command, understand which command line flags are right for you, and possibly replace parts of the command with things specific to your distribution. That can get complicated, depending on whether you found a website for your distro.

    You would be much better off making the point that these things are not required in modern distributions, or that people who use the command line a lot are probably going to be able to cope. And if it's something you already know then it's not suddenly "non-arcane" knowledge - you have just been initiated to the group that knows it.

  35. MS could have saved a lot of time by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 0

    And just put a windows desktop over the top of a Linux install. UI is the one thing MS does well and something the Linux community will never quite get right. Under the hood however MS will never get away from their chewing gum and binder twine approach to systems support and development. There could have been a better mix here.

    --
    Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
    1. Re:MS could have saved a lot of time by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, only Windows Server is technical awesome on almost every level. It's not perfect for every scenario, but neither is Linux. 'course I'm spoiled and work in a corporation with easy/cheap access to it.

    2. Re:MS could have saved a lot of time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh really? Looks like we have a OS kernel expert here. I will have fun humiliating you. Tell me what you know about NT design and what don't you like about it? Be specific.

  36. Why not more evidence in article? by fluor2 · · Score: 1

    The article seem to only indicate borrowed stuff. But where's the images from Ubuntu and other OSes that proves similarity? For me, as a Windows user, I cannot relate to a lot of what this article try to prove.

    1. Re:Why not more evidence in article? by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      Theses aren't features that will benefit much from screenshots.
      Like the "Windows on the Go": Look at your screen. Now look at the flash drive in your USB port. That's what Windows on the Go looks like.
      Linux's LiveUSB: Look at a screenshot of a Linux deskop. Now look at that same flash drive.

    2. Re:Why not more evidence in article? by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      Like I couldn't put DOS on a USB stick as soon as USB boot support was added. Linux didn't really innovate anything amazing there either. And you've been able to create bootable Live-Windows USB sticks for ages and ages.

  37. Re:Virtual desktops by Bert64 · · Score: 1

    And because it's very rarely used, most apps aren't written to expect it to be there and can cause all manner of compatibility problems.
    It's also a pretty crude hack, it minimises all your apps when you switch desktop and on a slow machine or under load you can see it doing so.
    Similarly, because its not installed by default chances are on a random machine your expected to use and on which your not allowed to install apps (eg the average corporate workstation) you cant use it.

    --
    http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  38. Re:The big guys have always been inspired by FOSS by JohnnyMindcrime · · Score: 1

    I'm sure I read somewhere that the Microsoft's first TCP/IP stack that they included as an upgrade for Windows For Workgroups 3.11 was essentially the Open Source BSD TCP/IP stack - not an issue because that's what it's there for, as long as licensing restrictions are adhered to.

    --
    Windows 10 is great - I used it to download Linux.
  39. why make a big deal about USB? by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    It seems like some thing that any OS has useing divers and don't you still need chipset / vender drivers on some systems anyways?

    1. Re:why make a big deal about USB? by TemporalBeing · · Score: 1

      It seems like some thing that any OS has useing divers and don't you still need chipset / vender drivers on some systems anyways?

      They do it to try to spin the fact that the hardware vendors ignored Windows when developing USB3 initially; so Windows got the drivers a lot later than Linux did - something Microsoft doesn't want to admit, so they are trying to spin it in their favor.

      --
      Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
    2. Re:why make a big deal about USB? by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, they're really worried about Linux taking over their desktop market. 2012 - the year of linux on the desktop, amirite?

    3. Re:why make a big deal about USB? by TemporalBeing · · Score: 1

      Yeah, they're really worried about Linux taking over their desktop market. 2012 - the year of linux on the desktop, amirite?

      It has nothing to do with desktop market or anything that way, and everything to do with what people are going to be developing for - developer mindshare. And the fact that the USB3 guys did Linux first is a big issue as it means they are losing significant developer mindshare. It also increases the odds that Linux will be supported before Windows in more and more hardware - which increases the potential of users (desktop, server, etc.) moving away from Windows as it is one less reason for people to stay on Windows. However, this is a slow process. USB3 was first in that respect; but it'll have to start picking up with other devices more and more to really start the curve that Microsoft is really worried about in that respect.

      So it's an indirect thing, not a direct thing. And one that generally takes time.

      That said, more and more devices are starting to see parallel support with Windows direct from the manufacturers at the time of product release, even if they are not advertising it as such. (E.g. Wireless, Printers, Scanners, etc.)

      --
      Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
  40. for the umpteenth time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if you don't patent your inventions, they get taken

    Teh result is that the entire FS world winds up working for MS

    Kinda makes you feel , well, a little dumb , no ?

    also means that FS will never win, cause all the good features will get taken

    but, you can't argue with zealots - facts are sort of irrelevant

  41. Command line power comes from pipes and speed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The command line is powerful mostly for 2 reasons:
    1) Speed. If there are a huge number of options it's quicker to type them than go finding them on an interface. (Part of the problem is those interfaces keep fucking changing though and that is the fault of idiot UI designers who have to move everything every release to pretend they are relevant. Classic example is firefox).

    2) Pipes: You can pipe input from one file to another. To do the equivalent on a GUI you'd have to have a separate GUI to do the piping. With the command line it's easy and quick to take the output from one program, especially when it works with text, and pass it on to the next.

    Mounting a fucking disk volume is about as idiotic an example as I can think of for where a GUI would be most useful. Common options do not vary enough and there's no piping involved. It also takes a hell of a lot more time and key presses to type a mount command than to right click on a folder or device and then click mount.

  42. Re:Articles like this are the problem, not Microso by Brian+Feldman · · Score: 1

    Definitely. "Oh noes, operating systems attempt to implement feature parity." Yawn.

    --
    Brian Fundakowski Feldman
  43. Does ms windows still exists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...I always thought windows was abandonware

  44. Re:The big guys have always been inspired by FOSS by H0p313ss · · Score: 3

    Quite a few features on the Mac OS X UI are directly lifted from Enlightenment and similar projects.

    Actually, I think you'll find that Enlightenment "lifted" features from NeXTSTEP, which significantly predates E. OSX is really just the latest and greatest flavor of NeXTSTEP.

    --
    XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
  45. Re:Virtual desktops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    X has had virtual desktops since about 1988, and integrated into the Solbourne window manager (swm) in 1990.

    Windows has not had virtual desktops very long by comparison.

  46. Professor Chaos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LINUX DID IT, LINUX DID IT

  47. Big deal by Barlo_Mung_42 · · Score: 1

    M$ has deep pockets and can pay an army of devs to actually do a better job at implementing and testing features that Linux has had for years. Whoop Tee Doo, look at them with their fancy QA staff.

    Wake me when they add tabs to explorer.

    1. Re:Big deal by Daniel+Phillips · · Score: 1

      If history is anything to go by, Microsoft will pay an army of devs to email each other jokes, watch Youtube videos and try to pin that dread U10 on the next guy over.

      --
      Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
    2. Re:Big deal by CodeReign · · Score: 1

      Wake me when they add tabs to explorer.

      I'd settle for SFTP support in explorer.

  48. Haven't seen anything in Windows 8 yet. by rusty0101 · · Score: 1

    Hard for me to judge which platform gets this right. However having run various flavors of Ubuntu over the past few years, and nothing more recent in Windows than Windows 7, I can't tell you whether Windows 8 does a better job of things or not.

    Some time _after_ I can pick up a copy of Windows 8, or get a PC with Windows 8 on it, can I judge.

    As a point of comparison, Microsoft was giving a reasonably large number of indications that Windows 7 was going to come with a wonderful new file system available to either replace or run along side of NTFS, but by the time they went gold had decided that the file system wasn't ready for production. I'm not suggesting that Linux gets every file system it deploys right first time. Just noting that until Microsoft has released, rather than the 'pre-beta' edition that can be downloaded by developers, you can't rely on what you see in the 'pre-beta' showing up in final release. If you think you can, ask WordPerfect about that.

    --
    You never know...
  49. Concerning for Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it just me or does "social media integration" and "cloud integration" sound like terrible ideas for OSs from the get-go?
    Something about my static, tangible desktop being intimate with online services (the internet being the poster-boy for abstraction and change) really eats at me.

  50. OS X had OpenGL graphics since 2002 by toby · · Score: 2

    OS X has had hardware accelerated Quartz, "Quartz Extreme" since 10.2 Jaguar, available August 2002, so close enough to 10 years.

    And yeah, as another replier notes, NEXTSTEP had hardware accelerated blitting in the 1980s. The window manager on a NeXT Cube is not noticeably less snappy moving windows around than a Mac of today.

    --
    you had me at #!
  51. Obligatory Star Trek by istartedi · · Score: 1
    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  52. Chasing a moving target by Daniel+Phillips · · Score: 1

    Microsoft has been chasing Linux Kernel features for years and is not getting any closer to catching up. The latest wannabe project is "me too" ReFS, an obvious imitation of Btrfs. Even the name is similar (at least Redmond came up with an equivalently forgettable one). And by the way, watch for patent troll Netapp to take an interest.

    --
    Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
    1. Re:Chasing a moving target by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh.. yeah.. Linux sucked *so* bad that the NSA basically had to come out and say... guys this is a piece of shit.. let us create SE Linux so that it can come on par with features that NT had since the start. Also brtfs was developed by Oracle. Funny how all the features you cheerleaders like to brag about were created outside of the kernel group to bring Linux on par with the superior NT design. Read the NT design documents and I challenge you to come up with a single UNIX feature that is even remotely comparable with NT.

    2. Re:Chasing a moving target by Daniel+Phillips · · Score: 1

      Also brtfs was developed by Oracle. Funny how all the features you cheerleaders like to brag about were created outside of the kernel group to bring Linux on par with the superior NT design.

      You're an idiot. Chris Mason is member of the Linux kernel community going back long before Ellison took an interest, who frankly came a little late to the party and still does not quite get what's going on.

      --
      Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
    3. Re:Chasing a moving target by Daniel+Phillips · · Score: 1

      And by the way I'd done a lot more than read the NT docs. NT (aka VMS2) is a respectable if mundane kernel that trails Linux in features by a long country mile and the gap is getting wider.

      --
      Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
    4. Re:Chasing a moving target by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yawn.. more babble. Stop hiding behind some vague hand waving. Lets get down to brass tacks. Name a single useful feature of Linux that is not present in NT. You will fail.

    5. Re:Chasing a moving target by Daniel+Phillips · · Score: 1

      Speaking of hiding, asshole.

      vmsplice.

      --
      Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
    6. Re:Chasing a moving target by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So.. of all the things you picked I/O APIs. Linux did not even *HAVE* full asynchronous I/O support till 2.6. NT had that since the begining (actually all I/O in NT is async, and it also had completion ports (advanced async io) since NT3.5). Talk about being "ahead".

      So lets talk about vmsplice. Haha.. First off.. I thought I asked for features not security bugs. Exposing a kernel buffer in user space. Yeah that totally makes sense. But hey .. this is Linux we're talking about.. the developers keep adding new kernel exploits in every single release. I'm not complaining though... Linux kernel bugs help me everytime I have to root my android phone. Its too easy. I'm glad that NT does *not* have such a retarded "feature". But the point here is the ability to avoid copying around data. Hmm... Zero Copy APIs...sounds a lot like the TransmitFile & TransmitPackets APIs from decades old NT.. oops.. by golly ! It sure is. Once again.. strangely Linx is so "ahead" of Windows. lol..

      I understand its hard being a cheerleader dude. :(

    7. Re:Chasing a moving target by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOLerz...what kind of slithering slimefuck underbelly are you anyway?

    8. Re:Chasing a moving target by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOLerz makes you sound like a mental defective. If you're a Linux cheerleader you might just be one though.

      And.. wow.. slithering slimefuck underbelly. I am mildly curious that you made it out to be a question as to what kind I am. I am unaware of any subcategorization. But even so, its a bit presumtuous for you to assume I am one in the first place. What if I was simply slithering but not slimy, or what if I was slimy but not slithering?

      What further surprised me is the zero search results from Google.

      http://www.google.com/search?&q=slithering+slimefuck+underbelly

  53. Re:Virtual desktops by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

    Why does an app need to "expect" multiple desktops? What compatibility problems?

    Even if it is a crude hack, is it worse than not having it?

    I can't use LaTeX on the computers at work, either, but you'll get my laptop copy when you pry my cold, dead hands off it.

  54. Nautilus Extension can do it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I missing something here.
    In Nautilus, right click in the .iso file and click in mount file. Also, if the .iso file is a movie you can play it in the same way. i installed that extension in my first year of Linux. However; for my curious test I prefer CLI. But something easier than that?

  55. What's a volume name? by tepples · · Score: 1

    and mount in /mnt/volumename

    Do all file systems necessarily include a volume name? If the filename, what should the system do if the user mounts two different images with the same file name in different folders

    1. Re:What's a volume name? by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Do all file systems necessarily include a volume name? If the filename, what should the system do if the user mounts two different images with the same file name in different folders

      Most filesystems do encode a volume name inside them, and this dates back to the DOS days where the volume name is just a special file in the FAT root directory. I'm sure ext* does the same as well.If not, the mounter uses the filename.

      As for what happens if the directory used already exists for another filesystem already mounted, a suffix is added. E.g., USBDISK, USBDISK1, USBDISK2, etc.

      It happens on Linux, on OS X, etc. And it's a more common problem than you may think especially with dead fileservers and such.

  56. Not a member of Administrators by tepples · · Score: 1

    do you know how many customers I have who don't know how to install software in Windows? This is simple, Computer Literacy 101 stuff.

    Having learned Windows on a user account with no administrative privileges will do that to you.

  57. MOD DOWN -1: TROLL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MOD "And worse, with random abbreviations" DOWN -1: TROLL. The post basically is a rehash of the same complaint people have had about *NIX since the early days of DOS. Waaaaah... it's too hard... waaaaah, I can't remember that "ls" means "list files". I can remember that "dir" or "list" or whatever is the command to give me a catalog of files in a directory, but I can't remember the shorter command "ls". Waaaaah... I can't learn, learning's too hard! Waaaah.

    Oh, BTW, they're not random. If ls were hxzfyb, then it would be random. If the cd command were u8t[bm it would be random. ls is LiSt files. rm is ReMove. mv is MoVe. cd is Change Directory. chmod is Change MODe. ln is LiNk. mkdir (which I wondered why it's not md) is MaKe DIRectory.

    Everyone who knows anything about *NIX knows that UNIX was written by computer experts, for computer users, who at the time were generally also computer experts. Now any idiot can afford a computer, and many own them, without knowing the first damned thing about them. It is these people who are the greatest beneficiaries of the GUI. If it is really that hard, why not pick out what words you'd like to do what, and use the "alias" command. Learn that one command, and just do something like...

    $_alias filelist ls
    $_alias changedirectory cd
    $_alias makenewdirectory mkdir
    $_alias destroyfile rm
    $_alias terminateprocess 'kill -9'
    $_alias givemealistofprocessescurrentlyrunning ps
    $_alias givemealistofprocessescurrentlyrunningforallusersonthiscomputer 'ps -a'

    Or... just learn the abbreviations which make doing things faster, instead of whining and crying that you don't like where the OS keeps its files. Once the system is installed, up, and running, you never have to go there anyway most days. Unless you're a hacker, you're probably like me... you log-in using a non-privileged account, you never leave /home/(username) and you do what you need to do, just as if you're running Windows, only without a dime going to Redmond. ...and it's a beautiful thing.

  58. Where can I try a Linux laptop? by tepples · · Score: 1
    Apart from the patent problem that Grishnakh mentioned:

    As long as the courts keep them from forcing you to pay the MS tax on a new system that you don't even want Windows on I'm fine with them being dominant.

    In the past year, I haven't seen a single store in Fort Wayne, Indiana, selling computers with GNU/Linux that I can walk up to and try. All I see are Windows and Mac OS X. There used to be a couple GNU/Linux netbooks, but the only Linux computers one can find in stores anymore are Android tablets, and even those are licensed by Microsoft. Does System76 even have a showroom?

    1. Re:Where can I try a Linux laptop? by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      In the past year, I haven't seen a single store in Fort Wayne, Indiana, selling computers with GNU/Linux that I can walk up to and try.

      Sounds like a business opportunity, if all that pent-up demand for of-the-shelf Linux machines you believe exists actually does.

  59. Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Linux of course being the paragon of originality, starting life as a clone of Unix with its GNU reimplementation of the userland.

    If you freetards are so butthurt about evil Microsoft "stealing" your ideas why don't you patent it all. We all know how much you like patents, right?

    It's even more telling that despite implementing many of these technologies first, Linux is still perceived as the underdog because the FOSS software community was so self-absorbed it never managed to get its shit together to make its technical advantages useful to real people in the real world (where the sun shines). It always takes MS or Apple to make all these great ideas relevant and accessible to people for whom computing is not a hobby/religion/job.

  60. Drag file into Command Prompt by tepples · · Score: 1

    Windows can do some of this: dragging a file into an open Command Prompt window pastes its path. The feature worked in Windows 2000 and XP and was removed from Windows Vista for unspecified "security reasons" but (thankfully) restored in Windows 7.

    1. Re:Drag file into Command Prompt by rdnetto · · Score: 1

      Gnome 2 and KDE do that as well. Better, in fact - the Windows command prompt can't handle filenames with non-ASCII characters like kanji.

      --
      Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.
  61. Windows had MANY things first: Some examples... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Completion ports, & kernel level multithreading (SMP needs them)... for starters.

    * I posted about this here, YEARS ago CIRCA 2005... -> http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=160290&cid=13419053

    PERTINENT TECHNICAL QUOTE EXCERPTS:

    "However, much of what's improved in Linux now since 1993 or so? Imitation of Windows stuff... e.g.-> NT based OS' use I/O completion ports which beats the HELL out of the old Linux/Unix model of SELECT for process & thread scheduling!

    Sure, for threadwork, it's improved too! NTPL (original) &/or NPGT (from IBM) for Linux improving on the earlier LinuxThreads libraries helps, but largely?

    Still imitation of what's always been BETTER on Windows NT-based Os - I/O Completion ports!

    E.G. -> Early on, circa 1994-1996, LinuxThreads, if you used say, ps or top? Would show a MAD FLOOD of processes & forks, vs. threads, showing SOMETHING was wrong right there if the tools for monitoring this had problems with it!

    Also, on LinuxThreads? ThreadCreation was MAD EXPENSIVE, SLOW, as well as context switching being the same... This is, iirc, 8-10x less expensive now on Linux and thus because of all of the above!

    (with Plug-n-Play being on Linux which I am sure ALL network folks love vs. jumper throwing or pin hat shortouts mounts)

    Linux is now, imo, truly SMP & enterprise ready... more features is why, features they saw in NT-based Os', which Linux truly needed!"

    ---

    ("Read 'em, & Weep", penguins... lol!)

    APK

    P.S.=> Still... in then end? Hey : Everyone's "stealing ideas" from someone (look @ BSD's IP stack all over the place for instance) & face it, there's VERY LITTLE ORIGINAL THOUGHT, but... when a science is ready? It can't help but make the next discovery (and many folks will make it @ once practically) - quoting "The Final Exam's" Main Character from THE OUTER LIMITS, Seth, on that one!

    So, in the end, though I do feel sorry for WHOEVER originated ideas in the 1st place? We ALL (meaning the true inventor) gain!

    That's right - stuff just keeps getting better & better (I want you to all think back only a couple decades ago or so, before widespread GUI usage for example... sure, THEN? Computer HAD to be "the province of nerds":

    Only they'd clot their brain with 1000's of commands + their switchwork (me being one of them to this day, lol, as are we all here no doubt)!

    Perhaps, this is a sign of intelligence (for the "well-balanced nerd/geek" that is - more cranial capacity to do that AND juggle a "real life" too!))...

    ... apk

  62. What open source equivalent? by tepples · · Score: 1

    'People', like me, will start to care when the software we run (for me it's games) run *natively* under the freely available operating systems.

    use the open source equivalent

    A lot of popular games for Windows or game consoles don't have a close substitute distributed as free software. What's the Free counterpart to Animal Crossing, Call of Duty, Portal, or Street Fighter? Or any of these?

  63. Re:Articles like this are the problem, not Microso by mathfeel · · Score: 1

    It's not like Microsoft said, "hey, we invented an easy way to mount ISO's. Take THAT Linux! wait, you already have that? Oh well, our way is superior!"

    It's more like Microsoft said, "Hey, we made ISO's easy to mount."

    The rest of the crap comes from those who make a living trying to instigate fights between users in both camps.

    More importantly, why are people arguing for the advantages of Windows over Linux when comparing desktop features? Last I check, MS's desktop competitor is OSX. We who uses Linux desktop daily knows that much of the "Linux desktop is too hard to use" is utter crap, but why is MS fanboy trying to raise this FUD? It is not like when their desktop users finally become fed up, they will switch to Linux en mass. At this point it is more likely OSX.

    Where Windows is competing with Linux, on the servers, high-performance, etc, if you can't effing fire up a terminal to do simple task like this, get your hand off my expensive hardware!!!

    --
    The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the 'social sciences' is: some do, some don't
  64. Windows will never be better than a linux box. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because linux does not have to cater to retards.
    When Average windows users start writing a bash script to thwart a DoS attack.
    Let me know.
    Props to this guy in a pinch.
    http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/back-dead-simple-bash-complex-ddos

    #! /bin/bash
    while [ 1 ] ;
      do
      for ip in `lsof -ni | grep httpd | grep -iv listen | awk '{print $8
    }' | cut -d : -f 2 | sort | uniq | sed s/"http->"//` ;
      # the line above gets the list of all connections and connection
    attempts, and produces a list of uniq IPs
      # and iterates through the list
        do
            noconns=`lsof -ni | grep $ip | wc -l`;
            # This finds how many connections there are from this particular IP address
            echo $ip : $noconns ;
            if [ "$noconns" -gt "10" ] ;
            # if there are more than 10 connections established or connecting
    from this IP
            then
                # echo More;
                # echo `date` "$ip has $noconns connections. Total connections
    to prod spider: `lsof -ni | grep httpd | grep -iv listen | wc -l`" >> /var/log/Ddos/Ddos.log
                # to keep track of the IPs uncomment the above two lines and
    make sure you can write to the appropriate place
                iptables -I INPUT -s $ip -p tcp -j REJECT --reject-with tcp-reset
                # for these connections, add an iptables statement to send
    resets on any packets recieved
            else
                    # echo Less;
            fi;
        done
    sleep 60
    done

    Linux rules.

    1. Re:Windows will never be better than a linux box. by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      Because linux does not have to cater to retards.
      When Average windows users start writing a bash script to thwart a DoS attack.
      Let me know.
      Props to this guy in a pinch.

      Why give props to "this guy", if he's just doing what an average Linux user would do?
      By your logic, any user (Linux or otherwise) that hasn't already done this himself is a retard.
      Considering you posted his code and not your own, I wonder which of the two you are ;)

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  65. troll post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obvious troll is obvious

  66. ISO mounting as 'easily` as Windows 8? by dgharmon · · Score: 1

    "In Windows 8, Microsoft finally introduces mount ISO files .. No Linux distro does ISO mounting as easily as Windows 8, as it requires some command line trickery (or, again, third-party tools)".

    LIke, the local Ubuntu ISO shows in /media, just like it always has, like every other ISO I've ever plugged in.

    "Windows To Go allows (enterprise) users to create a bootable Windows 8 environment on a USB 2.0/3.0 flash drive".

    I've had this for over the past year. I wonder when Microsoft is going to come after me looking for licensing revenue for their 'innovation`?

    --
    AccountKiller
  67. Do not feed the trolls by allo · · Score: 1

    sad, that slashdot reposts such a stupid blog-entry.

  68. Re:Articles like this are the problem, not Microso by Fri13 · · Score: 1

    Same thing is with Microsoft (or new Linux fans) when Apple release new version of OS X or iOS. Apple does say that new feature is a new thing for _their_ users. But when they specifically mock Microsoft, they really mentions it, like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-2C2gb6ws8

    There are group of amateurs and fans who check both sides (Microsoft and Apple) and build up a war between them without even understanding what and how Microsoft and Apple say things.

    But, there is a point, if world largest companies comes up and say "We invented this" and such "invention" is known and in wide use in Open Source world, it is not wise to say so. Better thing is to say where the idea came, or at least check what others are doing and say "We added same feature what those users have enjoyed".

  69. No! No! You're all missing the point! by itsdapead · · Score: 1

    Read the TFA:

    Once mounted, a new drive letter appears in Windows Explorer that represents the virtual CD/DVD ROM

    Your command line won't do that... and Aunty May isn't going to want to do su; cd /; mkdir A: B: C: D: ...etc. and then write a script to find the next free letter (and fail gracefully if they all got used when she connected to the company network). Even though lots of Linux distros have a click-n-drool mechanism for mounting ISOs I bet none of them will create a new drive letter for the volume!

    Linux will never take off until all the godless commie nerds writing it forget about the temptations of the Unix file system and implement proper drive letters like every professional operating system since CP/M. Honest god-fearin' People need to know the difference between a device and a directory - or we'll all be doomed. I mean, look at the disgusting terminology: "mount point" for pity's sake! Its the work of the Devil!!!

    --
    In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
  70. I came in... by DarkXale · · Score: 1

    I came in and expected World War 3. I left after receiving world war 3.

  71. You're all stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A computer should do exactly what I want with 0 user interaction for it to be proficient. I am now building a computer that has two buttons. One is a power button, the other is a porn button. The more you hit the porn button the more sick stuff you find. I'm already planning for build V2.0 buttonless, where all you have to do is wave your genitals at the machine.

  72. What distro and what type of updates? by Junta · · Score: 1

    So I'd say that if using Gentoo or Fedora those are believable outcomes. I'd also say if doing 'major' updates to Ubuntu I believe it. If you are running strictly Debian stable, Ubuntu LTS, RHEL/CentOS, or SuSE Enterprise, I've never heard of that going on there. Given Microsoft's technology cycle, the 'enterprise' editions are more comparable in terms of how long they have to get it right. The every-six-month releases do not provide an ample opportunity to get it as polished as the much longer release cycles.

    However, amongst Linux enthusiasts (which proportionally is a lot more of the Linux world than Windows) those releases are boring and there are always new and shiny toys that are beyond your reach if you stick to the 'stable' releases. Hence more users trend toward bleeding edge and grumble when the consequences of that bite them.

    I use the boring distros in a ton of places and Fedora on my laptop. My laptop does all manner of unfortunate things to me that my actual important servers never do by virtue of my choices. I recognize that as a price I pay to work with the technology.

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  73. Walk into a store and try a product by tepples · · Score: 1

    But the advantage of Android (and soon WOA) over Debian is that I can walk into a store and try a product that runs Android (or soon WOA).

    1. Re:Walk into a store and try a product by crutchy · · Score: 1

      problem is if you haven't learned how to install it, you may be screwed when it breaks

  74. Windows 8 Does it Better! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Random, unwanted reboots and crashes!

    Raping your wallet.

    Using way too much system resources....

  75. Given enough time and money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You now the old adage:

    "Given enough time and given enough money, Microsoft will eventually reinvent Unix."

  76. Will Microsoft sue the Linux community? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will Microsoft sue the Linux community for anticipating their so-called inventions?

  77. better yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    why windoze when linux will do it for free?

  78. Re:Articles like this are the problem, not Microso by hantms · · Score: 1

    Exactly. It's a little bit ironic also, when the topic is "Linux users were quick to chime in with a hearty 'Linux had that first'", atmittedly not very slashdot-worthy material, but guess what: 576 comments from Linux users saying "Linux had it first", "Linux does it better" and "Command lines are the best things ever."

    Ironic. Please, you're better than that. Don't sound like you want to be the Amish of the digital age.

    The topic is WINDOWS EIGHT.

    Yes, Linux has most cool things first, because they throw new versions over the wall every six months. That's great for enthusiasts, really it is.

    And meanwhile the biggest Linux distro is working very hard, as we speak, to ready a Start-button type functioanlity that doubles as search and a way to start applications by beginning to type the first couple of characters. Windows 7 had that, VISTA had that, but you all just thought 'Meh, it's just the Windows 95 Start Button'. And now you're busting your butts to get this one in before the end of April.

  79. Re:Articles like this are the problem, not Microso by hantms · · Score: 1

    Reply to self, heh. :) As the topic is Windows (8) versus how things work on Linux, and how Linux is better, the following:

    Looking at the Ubuntu Unity Start Button (what happens when you hit the Windows/Super key), you can now start typing a couple characters to do stuff or search for stuff. But in Windows, this feature:

    - LEARNS which applications are started most often, so when you start typing 'C - A - L' it knows I'm most likely goint to start LibreOffice Calc, not the built-in calculator.
    - It HIGHLIGHTS the top choice so I know what will happen when I hit ENTER.
    - If I want the second choice, all I need to do is hit the down-arrow to move to the next hit. In Unity, you need to go 'Down' and then 'Right'. 50% more effort! ;)
    - I can SEARCH from the same box. Facebook gets that. Google gets that. Microsoft clearly got it as far back as when they were working on Vista which is before some of you were born. And not only does it find files, it can find just about anything including e-mails, contacts, etc. In Unity I need to first select my 'lens'. And wven with the File lens selected, it STILL doesn't search when I hit enter, there's a separate search interface hidden in a menu in the Nautilus window. and when I say hidden, I really mean hidden these days, as Unitiy picks the worst of the Mac and Windows worlds by using a global application menu rusted solid in the top of the screen BUT ALSO hides it so I don't see it and don't know where I'm moving my mouse to. And get this, there's a separate lens to select/search for music files. Really? Why do I need to select this first, can't I just start typing 'bob marley' and let the GUI figure out it's not an Excel file?
    - The start button (yes, I know, it'll be a page soon) serves as a SINGLE place to start. The smug jokes (since 1995) was that also 'shut down' was located there. But guess what, in Unity I need to wonder if I should go to the Unity launcher button, or the cog-wheel icon in the top-right of the screen where there are many things like system settings (the control panel; don't get me started), software updates, 'displays'. (really, can't it just turn it on when I plug in a projector like Windows does), and 'startup applications' (why is that there and not in the system settings / control panel? Why are half the appearance & behavior settings hidden either in Nautilus preferences or in some configuration tool that isn't even installed by default (Compiz Setrings Manager, which by the way manager more than just Compiz basics but also everything that can be configured about the whole Unity interface.)

    Anyway, note that this is not an anti Unity rant, as clearly Gnome 2 was a prehistoric interface. It worked well and was stable and predictable, but it's time to move on. Eventually Unity (And Gnome 3) will get it right.

  80. CLI + GUI = Winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The CLI and GUI have their strong and weakpoints...
    The best Interface would be a mix of the two...

    Ubuntu's Unity is already trying...With HUD Menus.
    My chips are with Canonical, by now...

  81. Windows 8 is more of the same by Cherubim1 · · Score: 1

    Windows 8 is just more of the same insecure bloatware from Microsoft. Only those with padlocked minds and no respect for their freedoms would choose an OS by this convicted monopolist.

  82. you have a point. by Medievalist · · Score: 1

    But really, the entire topic's just a troll.

    CLIs are for typists and computer experts. GUIs are for artists and computing beginners. Saying one is better than the other is like complaining that your bicycle is a terrible race car; it's pointless.

    1. Re:you have a point. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly, pointing out that it takes one command if you use an expert interface is meaningless...

  83. Toss on being C-2 Orange Book secure rated too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject-line above: Windows NT-based OS had THAT going for them too, before Linux did as well as what I posted in my init. post parent to this addendum to it -> http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2665343&cid=39002491

    (Afaik? There's an HP-UX variant that is "B" rated, & NO Operating System that's "commercially available to the mainstream masses" etc., is "A" rated... but, then again? I haven't checked on this, in decades so, please - do NOT "quote me" on that trivia!)

    * :)

    APK

    P.S.=> There's things I know that Linux had OR did 1st though, such as doing what http.sys does in Windows, which used to be done in the Ring 3/RPL 3/Usermode layer, but is NOW done @ RPL 0/Ring 0/Kernelmode in more modern Windows variants (post 2000/post IIS5, iirc), for better performance for things like kernelmode caching (& NOW, no performance penalty for switching to usermode), & queueing said requests etc./et al...

    That came along w/ WinSock2 (a more "multimedia ready" net in essence vs. earlier WinSock) & for IIS6 onwards & yes - That stuff was done in Linux BEFORE NT-based OS had it... apk

  84. Re:So ask not '[D]oes Windows 8 do it better?', bu by crutchy · · Score: 1

    me too, but its nice to hear when things are getting tougher for the good folks at redmond