And Bittorrent is about saving bandwidth in EXACTLY this circumstance. Now, a whole bunch of people are going to download a 400MB file. But, who cares? Its "legitimate" use of bandwidth. Bittorent is not really a "P2P" protocol, ok? The only replacement for Bittorrent in this case is MASSIVE bandwidth. Bittorrent does not have "searching" provisions. It does not allow access to arbitrary files (everything needs seeding) -- at least the version I use. Bittorrent is sort of like "ftp" with a bandwidth magnifier attached, and less browsing.
"Windows has been around in its' current incarnation for 11 years now"
So, you are comparing Windows 95 to Windows XP? Let's do that.
"During the course of that 11 years it has remained decently consistent in its' interface and has provided a reliable mechanism to do tasks (keyboard shortcuts, cut and paste, etc)."
Please compare Windows 95 and Windows XP. I guess you could use "decently consistent" for a sufficiently low value of consistent.
FYI, there ARE no alternate distributions of Windows. So comparing the variability of Linux GUI to Windows is a complete canard. Let's take a popular distribution of Linux (singular) and compare that to Windows. Fedora Core 5 to Windows XP. And, yes, I know that Fedora Core gets updated more frequently. On the other hand, Microsoft has thousands of developers focussed on Windows.
Fedora Core 5 uses a two level selection for programs (category/program, vs. XPs default 4 level). Menu items do not simply disappear of their own accord. When updating a Redhat 9 (RHEL) system or user, menus and GUI retain the "look and feel" that user is acustomed to. Desktop behaviour is programmable "out of the box" -- supporting old time users (like me) who prefer focus follows cursor, etc. Application location transparency supported, and not just as a high-end feature. Integration into heterogenous networks is supported, including yp and hesiod. This is integrated into the login system. Automounter and pam for user location transparency. Underlying graphics engine supported across multiple vendors, as is the overlaid GUI (Redhat, SUN, IBM, etc.). It is possible to switch from Intel/Fedora Core 5 to a SUN workstation with ease.
Fedora Core 5 is program oriented -- Windows XP tries to be task oriented. Which is better? For a PDA, I prefer task, but for general computing I prefer program. Which is why I turn on the "classic" interface in XP (and thank the goddess that the option is there).
Why doesn't Windows XP support X, NIS, Hesiod, NFS? I find this very annoying. I have to enable samba because XP just doesn't have "it". (the integration factor). And, why does XP natter INCESSANTLY (sp?) about things like "you don't have an anti-virus program"? It wasn't at ALL obvious how to turn that off. (I did it, but I have no idea how -- and how would I get that warning back?)
Enough Windows bashing; time for some props. Office works like a dream. Third party programs -- its a mixed bag (an example -- the HP LaserJet 3015 drivers. To get these to "scan to computer" using the front panel, you need a special driver. Loading that driver results in a "Handle not valid" dialog box, interesting that it comes up on both Windows 98se and Windows XP (and on two separate computers). Both from the driver set supplied on the CD, and from the downloaded drivers from HP. Since XP doesn't complain, I presume that these are "signed" drivers and have gone through Microsoft certification. On 98SE, they crash the machine in 3 days. On XP they don't crash, but that silly dialog prevents XP from booting all the way though. Most strange -- even with this flaw, the 3015 works just fine.). The holy programs: XP, IE,.NET, OFFICE, OUTLOOK, Media Player are a joy to use together. They go together with incredible fit and finish. Add in the Microsoft dev IDE -- you never have to leave. It is truly amazing what a single vendor can do (not necessarily for function, but for integration.)
As always, YMMV (and don't presume I am a "Windows Hater" -- I own Microsoft shares. But, I was a Staff Engineer at SUN for years, which explains my bias for "usability").
"It does mean that the user would need a valid windows license, but they come with all computers now."
That license does NOT grant the right to run Windows on any other system.
But, on a different note. There are different points of view. The first is that the "Operating System" is simply a resource manager. Its goal is to maximize utilization of your computer. From this point of view, Linux is already superior to Windows.
Another point of view is that the "Operating System" is central to your (enjoyable) use of the computer. That it presents and correlates information, and integrates applications. From this point of view Windows is superior to Linux.
What is a "newbie"? If it is someone who interacts "lightly" with a computer, and only does email and web surfing, Linux is probably a better choice. If it is someone who uses programs in a "non-integrated" way, Linux is a better choice.
Only if that "newbie" uses multiple programs and expects them to integrate in the Windows way, Windows would be the better choice. But that person would no longer be a "newbie". As to "config file problem" -- I have 22 years of computer experience, and I don't know my way around the "Windows Registry". It makes no sense to me. And, to boot, I have been unable to install Windows XP on some pretty plain hardware. I would say that Linux is easier to install and manage. I guess I'm not that mythical "newbie".
You are dead on in your observation that simply emulating Windows isn't the right direction. Not because Windows is a "bad" experience. Simply because the super-tight integration costs a lot. In security. In trying to customize. In maintainance.
"Crazy package dependencies". Interesting, the same finger can be pointed at Microsoft. For instance, I purchased a program "DVD Ripper". It claimed on the box to run on Windows 98 up to Windows XP. I installed it -- it is missing "something.dll" (not sure of the exact thing). Now, that would be a crazy package dependency. Especially as I really don't have time (or the desire) to dig though OTHER peoples computers to find what is missing. Or "warez" sites. Available in binary only, naturally. I should be so stupid as to actually download a random binary, from a site I don't trust...
"bi-daily system updates". Well then, don't do it! Or, choose a "Linux" that is stable.
1 - The distributed packages work TOGETHER. 2 - I like SysV startup scripts. 3 - I don't want to rebuild EVERYTHING on a Pentium Pro 200. 4 - I want everything I will need for a server ON THE CDs. I don't have unlimited bandwidth. 5 - I don't want problems building the occasional program (snobol4, squeak, etc.). 6 - Most of my customers use RHEL.
I actually like Slackware; but those are my reasons. So, label me clueless.
Not that you need this information now -- but at some point.
Two X "helper" applications: x2x and xmove. x2x allows you to send input events to another X server (to answer your other question - the X server is the thing that drives the display, the X client is that application that wants to display.).
x2x is useful for "multi-head" displays, where each of the displays is driven by a separate X server. Your mouse and keyboard can be directed at any of the X servers.
xmove is a "psuedo-server". Using xmove you can move the client windows to another X server. That's the one you want (assuming very long running X programs). But, xmove is rarely needed. Under Unix, the "desktop" isn't particularly needed. If you want an X application, simply launch it from a terminal. For example, GUI administration of user accounts under Redhat 9 is "redhat-config-users".
Generally, open SSH (port 25) to your remote machine; ssh can tunnel X (and VNC). So, if you REALLY need to see the local display, use ssh (with the appropriate ports tunneled), and run the vnc root server. You can then run a vnc client. In other words, you don't need to run the vnc server unless your really need it.
Under Windows, cygwin provides a decent set of (unix) tools, including an X server. One of the first things I install on Windows boxes that I need to use. A warning about cygwin -- don't judge Unix/Linux performance based on it. fork() is used extensively in Unix software, because on that platform, it's cheap. On Windows the cygwin implementation is dog slow. Which means things like the bash shell are slow. Very slow.
I hope that this information is useful to you at some point.
Ok, I need to ask (but I feel a major "paradigm crash" coming)...
What is wrong with X? Why are you bothering with RDP. VNC is slow compared to X, sure, so we use X when we can, right? And, lbx over ssh for slow connections. VNC for looking at a desktop for support reasons, sure, but to actually run applications? Major suckage. RDP does perform a bit better than VNC for Windows hosts because it is more "Windows aware". VNC is GUI neutral, and cannot apply the same optimizations. The other way around? I suspect VNC wins. Given that there are RDP clients for Unix platforms, RDP becomes viable for Windows host to Unix client (although I just use VNC for simplicity).
As to games - go buy an Xbox (whatever). Anyway, VMware will support "directx" in their workstation product soon (currently support is experimental). I suppose that will take care of games as well.
Anyway, you are probably right -- not ready for a platform change.
But, I use a Palm m505 now. Why? Mostly size. Color screen is almost not relevant (well, there is one application that I find it useful in - EasyCalc graphing calculator, where I can plot multiple functions, each with its own color.). I could lose the colour.
Speed? The m505 is a 32Mhz 68000, its slower than the Newton. Still gets the job done, and the battery life is good.
Handwriting? I initially thought that the lack of cursive, and graffiti was going to be a killer. Surprisingly, it only took a couple of days to become proficient with grafiti.
Organizer? Here, the Newton wins. Hands down. All information is magically correlated in a Newton. The palm is to... um... "application oriented". It does have cross application search, but it isn't as good. You also have to be IN the application to do something. No random scrawling of instructions, with the knowledge that the PDA will take care of it.
Connectivity? the palm wins (at least with stock Linux distributions).
In conclusion, I use the m505 for its size and linux connectivity (out-of-the-box). If a Newton device were released that brought the size down to m505, and had an "open connectivity" kit for standard linux apps (openoffice), I would switch. Oh -- one more thing. The "IR" feature would have to be standard and be able to beam contacts, notes, etc. to and from my phone (which my m505 does).
The Samsung Q1? Not even in the same league. It won't fit into my "manbag". Its battery life is WAY too short. And its a remarkably poor interface for doing quick PDA things. I don't need fancy, I need super-quick reliable interactions. Even the m505 fails here - it takes SECONDS to jump from calculator to address book. Blech. The Newton was superior. If I need to tell someone "please slow down, my PDA isn't keeping up", or have the urge to capture on scrap paper first, the PDA has failed. The only delay with the Newton was the handwriting recognition -- and the model I had didn't allow deferred recognition.
My perfect PDA:
- palm m505 form factor - 8+ hours battery life - newton style software - linux connectivity - very fast recognizer, perhaps deferred recognition - sd slot expansion (two slots) - wifi and/or bluetooth and IR (compatible) - vibration
An interesting joke, clickclickdrone. FYI, the Newton would not have made those kinds of mistakes! It used a combination of strategies, including dictionary lookup. "rock5" would not have been found in the dictionary, so "rocks" would have been chosen. Same thing for "reallg". Interestingly, if the Newton recognizer would have come up with your sample, it would have fixed it into the correct sentence.
Of course, it may have gotten the context completely wrong, "have" may be "haven", "haste", "nave", whatever, because grammar was not incorporated.
Also, Newton tried to be a "personal assistant" -- so it tried to interpret what you had written as instructions. Famously, it was elvis centric: asking it where elvis was would bring up the world map, with an elvis sighting. This, coupled with the context issue, could make for funny results.
And now you know the source of the Newton joke "What is two plus two?".
And, I'll go just a bit further (being a "tech layoff" survivor). Companies can outsource; why can't we?
If the cable operator in San Francisco offers, say, $5 per month less than Chicago, why can't we subscribe to SF, and place-shift? Isn't that pretty much the same as "outsourcing"?
You are overlooking what is going on. In fact, copyright law ALLOWS me to make a copy, if making that copy is necessary to the process of making use of the information.
Consider if that is not the case in a digital world. A copy of the information is made when reading from a CD or DVD, that, in turn has to be converted to be display. An Analog signal is not present on the CD or DVD.
If there was no dispensation to copy the material to make use of it, copyright would be violated by simply playing the CD or DVD.
That is a "ludicrous" result (and yet some people have been prosecuted for making such an illicit copy -- of licensed material. There is precedent here.)
So, you are allowed to copy, if that copying is in the ordinary use of the material. I will now attest that my TV tuner is a digitizer attached to a computer; and further that my normal use of cable tv is to record the shows temporarily, and then to play them back on a playback device when I choose to.
Again, this was upheld, and precedent is set. This would be "distributing to myself". The fact that this can also be used to "distribute to others" has no bearing on the argument.
Of course, the cable provider could attempt to "license" material -- but, remember, boys and girls, the backhoe solution!
So, I am contracting for a LARGE company. And, guess what? I am doing a Linux project. The eventual target is embedded, but we are going through Linux for now.
I need, and have, a desktop Intel Linux, and a desktop PowerPC Linux box.
I *also* have a Windows XP box -- why? simply to run XP, to run Outlook, and any specific web applications. But, hey, its not MY nickel. I even run the XP box in a "semi-headless" state, and use VNC to access it. That's for my convenience (and ends up saving the company a couple of bucks).
Still -- "active x" and other technologies like it are platform lock-ins. Sure, go ahead and use them. Understand that you will have to support a certain percentage of users with rather difficult configurations. Hey, I am platform agnostic. The company CONTRACTED me to do Linux work. Its not my choice. And, if the Windows box is separate from the Linux box (which it is) and I have to retype material (which, thankfully, I don't, because VNC works, and I can even set up an FTP server on the Linux box -- no admin permissions on the Windows side, you know) -- well, I bill for all my time.
I guess it works for the people here; and it works (for some value of work) for me. I think its funny, keeping a box around (multi-Ghz, and gigs of RAM, a standard developers box) to just run Outlook, IE, and MS Office. But, hey, its a platform, what can you say?
Where I live (Toronto), I have two choices: Bell DSL or Rogers Cable for "high-speed" service.
Cost -- about the same ($45/month + tax). Rogers keeps "boosting" the d/l speed (now they claim 5 or 6Mbps AFAIK). Rogers wants me to BUY my own DOCSIS modem, and will offer "Extreme" speed. Upload is 128kbps (reasonably reliable, 256kbps is claimed). Which is ok; I can finally stream music from home to work.
However, Rogers has a draconian AUP. No servers, no how. I did talk to them, and they "ok'd" (unofficially) a limited inbound mail service, and ssh (as long as the bandwidth consumed is below their radar (they have never complained). I still don't like the AUP, and would like faster outbound speed. Also, Rogers no longer offers Usenet.
The other alternative is Bell DSL. These pedants drop bother outbound and INBOUND port 25. Making the issue moot. I would need to subscribe to a mail redirector service, which completely negates any price advantage they have. Not even moving to "business class" service solves this -- the only "free" email would have a "sympatico.ca" (whatever) domain.
So I use the Rogers service. Since the DOCSIS modem is attached straight to the cable, I prefer to "rent" the modem, and I don't get the Extreme service. Upload is limited (and, because I access the songs via http/https protocol) and not allowed according the terms of the AUP. Inbound email is ALSO not allowed by the AUP. I do these things anyway, but my connection is at the sufferance of Rogers.
Couple that with a data cap of 60GB a month, and I would say service in my area sucks (not that I use 60GB a month, but I signed up to an "unlimited" service, with Usenet).
All I can say is "it does work, and it meets my needs". I just feel annoyed. Its good that other places get faster connections; mostly I just want a better and more understanding company to deal with (I would like to be able to negotiate port blocking, data caps, services).
Again, I am *not* a Windows expert. I would boot Knoppix from CD, and run:
badblocks/dev/hda
This will read the drive, and report any bad blocks. In Linux, the results of this can be fed to the make file system utility, which can then skip using those areas (for really bad areas).
Did you do a "surface scan" under Windows? (I believe the default is a file scan).
This means that there is a bad spot on your drive. You are sitting on a "timebomb". Run SMART tests and see if that gives more information (it should give a log of the failure).
The drive stills needs to be recertified. And, above all else, BACK IT UP. Most of the drive vendor recertification diagnostic utilities will overwrite the drive, destroying its data anyway (did I mention BACKUP?).
The "OS" here is not material -- your DRIVE is failing.
Now, if you have a backup, reinstalling should be a breeze. Any reasonable backup utility will let you restore to a different media size. I am not a Windows Backup Expert; but I do know that Windows 98 came with a backup utility that created backup sets over the network -- I imagine that (and a boot floppy) should do the trick. I don't really know, because all data on my machines is network mounted anyway, to RAID5 storage. And, the Windows installations are in virtual machines anyway (except for one machine, which is a complete "destructo" box, anyway). Which I do because I don't ever have the time to "reinstall" Windows, and I am not a Windows Certified Anything (so I can't/won't troubleshoot problems -- I take "reboot/re-install" as the primary resolution to problems with Windows).
I cannot emphasize enough the need to recertify or trash that drive. Its like ignoring strange sounds out of your card. Hard disks are sensitive mechanical things.
I would say "flash evidence" -- the kind that is destroyed before it's evidence, and then the lack is evidence of evidence...
And then my head explodes in a flash.
Let me TRY to make sense of this...
SCO claims that, even though no evidence of direct copying can be presented, SCO material in the way of CONCEPTS and METHODS made their way into Linux. To ensure that this CANNOT happen, IBM may have (or did), order Unix, AIX, Dynix removed from machines. The existence of this source code may have (somehow) proven that the CONCEPT or METHOD were migrated to Linux (how? it must have been test code on AIX or Dynix to evaluate the CONCEPT or METHOD -- otherwise it would be much clearer). Of course, IBM did the correct thing to mitigate any damages; but, based on the migration (somehow) of the CONCEPTS and METHODS, removing this code (obviously never released) broke the chain of thought, and is thus "egregious" destruction of evidence. Sorry, destruction of evidence of a thought process.
All I have to say is: WHY THE FUCK IS FORBES BOTHERING TO REPORT THIS?!?
#1 BACK UP ALL YOUR DATA. This is normally a sign of a failing drive.
#2 Download and burn a bootable CD of you hard drive vendors diagnostic kit.
#3 Run it, and "recertify" your drive. May take a couple of hours (and, you may just want to dumpster the drive, if your time is valuable). If the drive does not certify, discard it.
#4 Boot your system with Knoppix, or another recovery Linux system. Issue the command: "dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/hda" (replace hda with hdb, hdc, hdd, etc. depending on which hard drive it is).
#5 Run Linux partitioning tool "fdisk/dev/hda". You *will* get a complaint about an improper partition table, which is ok. Partition, and write the new partition table.
#5b Alternatively, boot a Linux installation CD, and load Linux. Ignore warnings about "improper partitioning", and choose to have the partition table replaced.
The IMPORTANT steps are 1 to 3. If the partition table cannot be manipulated, it is an almost sure sign your drive is heading south.
Given that I have relinquished "right-of-way" and have been forced to give property rights to the telcos and cable companies...
Fair access to the telco and cable network becomes a right. Or do I have to regurgitate the "backhoe argument". In a nutshell, I get access or the telco/cable company looses the "property right". In the tradition of the accidental backhoe accident. Now, for this civil disobedience, I am willing to pay my fine (someone backhoed a fiber here a couple of days ago -- and disrupted Blackberry service for most of Canada for a day).
The "wire companies" were given a natural monopoly, and, in exchange, were forced to provide equal access. That battle was fought 30 years ago (there was a time when you couldn't plug your own phones into the phone network). "Network Neutrality" won back then, and the principles on which it won haven't changed.
X "natively" does support more than three buttons. AFAIR (and, its been a while since I've worked on the X server input section), the limit is 128 buttons.
I ALSO prefer Mozilla. And here's the main reason. The navigation bar where you type stuff in - in Mozilla, it respects ^U as field clear. I haven't figured out HOW to make Firefox do the same. Its always "focus, home, shift-end, optional delete, type new". Given that I prefer focus follows mouse, I would like to simply mouse to the entry field, ^U and type the new URL. Firefox insists that a ^U directed at the URL entry field should bring up page source!
On the other hand, I *can* live with it. The itch is not too mighty yet. But, if some knows a "Unix Friendly Firefox Extension", let me know.
Actually, software RAID is an advantage, performance-wise.
The old-time "big-ticket" was checksum calculation, but that is now an "also-ran". Distributing the i/o? Software can do it as well as hardware.
Both hardware and software have to be familiar with the blocking factor.
Where software wins is that it can be aware of, and skip reading to fill blocks if the block has never been used (or is not PRESENTLY in use). Which hardware RAID controllers cannot avoid doing.
The idea is to tie the RAID more tightly into the filesystem.
As to lower speed drives -- did you count the heads? Each is active at the same time. Yes, an individual i/o would complete faster with 10k or 15k spin, but the total throughput is based on the number of heads. For RAID5, reading multiple blocks will give you pretty much all the read performance you can stomach.
Write performance for an individual write operation would be improved; but generally application buffering deals with it. The tradeoff is number of heads, spin rate, and heat. The right balance? For you, write performance up, and, keeping heat constant, number of heads down (I presume that you are dealing with transactional loads, with commits). For me? tends to go the other way (my workload is general storage, with a bit of database).
But, the point is that the machine is NOT ON THE NET. Whatever is on the Ubuntu CD is it. Also, the added programs were being hand carried via USB key. The gp poster KNOWS what to do -- it is just very difficult to get there in any sane way.
The "ubuntu" way falls way WAY flat in that circumstance. As do RPMs (to a lesser extent).
You rely on your network connection more than you think you do...
Slashdot Mirror
And Bittorrent is about saving bandwidth in EXACTLY this circumstance. Now, a whole bunch of people are going to download a 400MB file. But, who cares? Its "legitimate" use of bandwidth. Bittorent is not really a "P2P" protocol, ok? The only replacement for Bittorrent in this case is MASSIVE bandwidth. Bittorrent does not have "searching" provisions. It does not allow access to arbitrary files (everything needs seeding) -- at least the version I use. Bittorrent is sort of like "ftp" with a bandwidth magnifier attached, and less browsing.
It IS the tool for the job here.
Ratboy.
"Windows has been around in its' current incarnation for 11 years now"
.NET, OFFICE, OUTLOOK, Media Player are a joy to use together. They go together with incredible fit and finish. Add in the Microsoft dev IDE -- you never have to leave. It is truly amazing what a single vendor can do (not necessarily for function, but for integration.)
So, you are comparing Windows 95 to Windows XP? Let's do that.
"During the course of that 11 years it has remained decently consistent in its' interface and has provided a reliable mechanism to do tasks (keyboard shortcuts, cut and paste, etc)."
Please compare Windows 95 and Windows XP. I guess you could use "decently consistent" for a sufficiently low value of consistent.
FYI, there ARE no alternate distributions of Windows. So comparing the variability of Linux GUI to Windows is a complete canard. Let's take a popular distribution of Linux (singular) and compare that to Windows. Fedora Core 5 to Windows XP. And, yes, I know that Fedora Core gets updated more frequently. On the other hand, Microsoft has thousands of developers focussed on Windows.
Fedora Core 5 uses a two level selection for programs (category/program, vs. XPs default 4 level). Menu items do not simply disappear of their own accord. When updating a Redhat 9 (RHEL) system or user, menus and GUI retain the "look and feel" that user is acustomed to. Desktop behaviour is programmable "out of the box" -- supporting old time users (like me) who prefer focus follows cursor, etc. Application location transparency supported, and not just as a high-end feature. Integration into heterogenous networks is supported, including yp and hesiod. This is integrated into the login system. Automounter and pam for user location transparency. Underlying graphics engine supported across multiple vendors, as is the overlaid GUI (Redhat, SUN, IBM, etc.). It is possible to switch from Intel/Fedora Core 5 to a SUN workstation with ease.
Fedora Core 5 is program oriented -- Windows XP tries to be task oriented. Which is better? For a PDA, I prefer task, but for general computing I prefer program. Which is why I turn on the "classic" interface in XP (and thank the goddess that the option is there).
Why doesn't Windows XP support X, NIS, Hesiod, NFS? I find this very annoying. I have to enable samba because XP just doesn't have "it". (the integration factor). And, why does XP natter INCESSANTLY (sp?) about things like "you don't have an anti-virus program"? It wasn't at ALL obvious how to turn that off. (I did it, but I have no idea how -- and how would I get that warning back?)
Enough Windows bashing; time for some props. Office works like a dream. Third party programs -- its a mixed bag (an example -- the HP LaserJet 3015 drivers. To get these to "scan to computer" using the front panel, you need a special driver. Loading that driver results in a "Handle not valid" dialog box, interesting that it comes up on both Windows 98se and Windows XP (and on two separate computers). Both from the driver set supplied on the CD, and from the downloaded drivers from HP. Since XP doesn't complain, I presume that these are "signed" drivers and have gone through Microsoft certification. On 98SE, they crash the machine in 3 days. On XP they don't crash, but that silly dialog prevents XP from booting all the way though. Most strange -- even with this flaw, the 3015 works just fine.). The holy programs: XP, IE,
As always, YMMV (and don't presume I am a "Windows Hater" -- I own Microsoft shares. But, I was a Staff Engineer at SUN for years, which explains my bias for "usability").
Ratboy
"It does mean that the user would need a valid windows license, but they come with all computers now."
That license does NOT grant the right to run Windows on any other system.
But, on a different note. There are different points of view. The first is that the "Operating System" is simply a resource manager. Its goal is to maximize utilization of your computer. From this point of view, Linux is already superior to Windows.
Another point of view is that the "Operating System" is central to your (enjoyable) use of the computer. That it presents and correlates information, and integrates applications. From this point of view Windows is superior to Linux.
What is a "newbie"? If it is someone who interacts "lightly" with a computer, and only does email and web surfing, Linux is probably a better choice. If it is someone who uses programs in a "non-integrated" way, Linux is a better choice.
Only if that "newbie" uses multiple programs and expects them to integrate in the Windows way, Windows would be the better choice. But that person would no longer be a "newbie". As to "config file problem" -- I have 22 years of computer experience, and I don't know my way around the "Windows Registry". It makes no sense to me. And, to boot, I have been unable to install Windows XP on some pretty plain hardware. I would say that Linux is easier to install and manage. I guess I'm not that mythical "newbie".
You are dead on in your observation that simply emulating Windows isn't the right direction. Not because Windows is a "bad" experience. Simply because the super-tight integration costs a lot. In security. In trying to customize. In maintainance.
"Crazy package dependencies". Interesting, the same finger can be pointed at Microsoft. For instance, I purchased a program "DVD Ripper". It claimed on the box to run on Windows 98 up to Windows XP. I installed it -- it is missing "something.dll" (not sure of the exact thing). Now, that would be a crazy package dependency. Especially as I really don't have time (or the desire) to dig though OTHER peoples computers to find what is missing. Or "warez" sites. Available in binary only, naturally. I should be so stupid as to actually download a random binary, from a site I don't trust...
"bi-daily system updates". Well then, don't do it! Or, choose a "Linux" that is stable.
As always, YMMV
Ratboy
Yes, being an old-time Solaris guy, I like SysV.
Yes, Slack uses BSD inits... Which I am not fond of. What I like about Slack is its simplicity. It reminds me of using BSD 2 on a VAX. Nostalgic.
As always, YMMV,
I remain... clueless.
Ratboy.
I guess I am clueless.
Reasons I prefer "Redhat".
1 - The distributed packages work TOGETHER.
2 - I like SysV startup scripts.
3 - I don't want to rebuild EVERYTHING on a Pentium Pro 200.
4 - I want everything I will need for a server ON THE CDs. I don't have unlimited bandwidth.
5 - I don't want problems building the occasional program (snobol4, squeak, etc.).
6 - Most of my customers use RHEL.
I actually like Slackware; but those are my reasons. So, label me clueless.
YMMV
Ratboy
FYI
Not that you need this information now -- but at some point.
Two X "helper" applications: x2x and xmove. x2x allows you to send input events to another X server (to answer your other question - the X server is the thing that drives the display, the X client is that application that wants to display.).
x2x is useful for "multi-head" displays, where each of the displays is driven by a separate X server. Your mouse and keyboard can be directed at any of the X servers.
xmove is a "psuedo-server". Using xmove you can move the client windows to another X server. That's the one you want (assuming very long running X programs). But, xmove is rarely needed. Under Unix, the "desktop" isn't particularly needed. If you want an X application, simply launch it from a terminal. For example, GUI administration of user accounts under Redhat 9 is "redhat-config-users".
Generally, open SSH (port 25) to your remote machine; ssh can tunnel X (and VNC). So, if you REALLY need to see the local display, use ssh (with the appropriate ports tunneled), and run the vnc root server. You can then run a vnc client. In other words, you don't need to run the vnc server unless your really need it.
Under Windows, cygwin provides a decent set of (unix) tools, including an X server. One of the first things I install on Windows boxes that I need to use. A warning about cygwin -- don't judge Unix/Linux performance based on it. fork() is used extensively in Unix software, because on that platform, it's cheap. On Windows the cygwin implementation is dog slow. Which means things like the bash shell are slow. Very slow.
I hope that this information is useful to you at some point.
As always, YMMV
Ratboy.
Ok, I need to ask (but I feel a major "paradigm crash" coming)...
What is wrong with X? Why are you bothering with RDP. VNC is slow compared to X, sure, so we use X when we can, right? And, lbx over ssh for slow connections. VNC for looking at a desktop for support reasons, sure, but to actually run applications? Major suckage. RDP does perform a bit better than VNC for Windows hosts because it is more "Windows aware". VNC is GUI neutral, and cannot apply the same optimizations. The other way around? I suspect VNC wins. Given that there are RDP clients for Unix platforms, RDP becomes viable for Windows host to Unix client (although I just use VNC for simplicity).
As to games - go buy an Xbox (whatever). Anyway, VMware will support "directx" in their workstation product soon (currently support is experimental). I suppose that will take care of games as well.
Anyway, you are probably right -- not ready for a platform change.
YMMV
Ratboy
I really liked my Newton.
But, I use a Palm m505 now. Why? Mostly size. Color screen is almost not relevant (well, there is one application that I find it useful in - EasyCalc graphing calculator, where I can plot multiple functions, each with its own color.). I could lose the colour.
Speed? The m505 is a 32Mhz 68000, its slower than the Newton. Still gets the job done, and the battery life is good.
Handwriting? I initially thought that the lack of cursive, and graffiti was going to be a killer. Surprisingly, it only took a couple of days to become proficient with grafiti.
Organizer? Here, the Newton wins. Hands down. All information is magically correlated in a Newton. The palm is to... um... "application oriented". It does have cross application search, but it isn't as good. You also have to be IN the application to do something. No random scrawling of instructions, with the knowledge that the PDA will take care of it.
Connectivity? the palm wins (at least with stock Linux distributions).
In conclusion, I use the m505 for its size and linux connectivity (out-of-the-box). If a Newton device were released that brought the size down to m505, and had an "open connectivity" kit for standard linux apps (openoffice), I would switch. Oh -- one more thing. The "IR" feature would have to be standard and be able to beam contacts, notes, etc. to and from my phone (which my m505 does).
The Samsung Q1? Not even in the same league. It won't fit into my "manbag". Its battery life is WAY too short. And its a remarkably poor interface for doing quick PDA things. I don't need fancy, I need super-quick reliable interactions. Even the m505 fails here - it takes SECONDS to jump from calculator to address book. Blech. The Newton was superior. If I need to tell someone "please slow down, my PDA isn't keeping up", or have the urge to capture on scrap paper first, the PDA has failed. The only delay with the Newton was the handwriting recognition -- and the model I had didn't allow deferred recognition.
My perfect PDA:
- palm m505 form factor
- 8+ hours battery life
- newton style software
- linux connectivity
- very fast recognizer, perhaps deferred recognition
- sd slot expansion (two slots)
- wifi and/or bluetooth and IR (compatible)
- vibration
</rant>
Ratboy.
An interesting joke, clickclickdrone. FYI, the Newton would not have made those kinds of mistakes!
It used a combination of strategies, including dictionary lookup. "rock5" would not have been found in the dictionary, so "rocks" would have been chosen. Same thing for "reallg". Interestingly, if the Newton recognizer would have come up with your sample, it would have fixed it into the correct sentence.
Of course, it may have gotten the context completely wrong, "have" may be "haven", "haste", "nave", whatever, because grammar was not incorporated.
Also, Newton tried to be a "personal assistant" -- so it tried to interpret what you had written as instructions. Famously, it was elvis centric: asking it where elvis was would bring up the world map, with an elvis sighting. This, coupled with the context issue, could make for funny results.
And now you know the source of the Newton joke "What is two plus two?".
Ratboy
Unfortunately, I am not that up on US law (being Canadian). In Canada, C-42 allows that explicitly.
Sorry for the misunderstanding -- its been a few years since I've looked at US Copyright.
Ratboy.
Thank you.
And, I'll go just a bit further (being a "tech layoff" survivor). Companies can outsource; why can't we?
If the cable operator in San Francisco offers, say, $5 per month less than Chicago, why can't we subscribe to SF, and place-shift? Isn't that pretty much the same as "outsourcing"?
Ratboy
Stubear
You are overlooking what is going on. In fact, copyright law ALLOWS me to make a copy, if making that copy is necessary to the process of making use of the information.
Consider if that is not the case in a digital world. A copy of the information is made when reading from a CD or DVD, that, in turn has to be converted to be display. An Analog signal is not present on the CD or DVD.
If there was no dispensation to copy the material to make use of it, copyright would be violated by simply playing the CD or DVD.
That is a "ludicrous" result (and yet some people have been prosecuted for making such an illicit copy -- of licensed material. There is precedent here.)
So, you are allowed to copy, if that copying is in the ordinary use of the material. I will now attest that my TV tuner is a digitizer attached to a computer; and further that my normal use of cable tv is to record the shows temporarily, and then to play them back on a playback device when I choose to.
Again, this was upheld, and precedent is set. This would be "distributing to myself". The fact that this can also be used to "distribute to others" has no bearing on the argument.
Of course, the cable provider could attempt to "license" material -- but, remember, boys and girls, the backhoe solution!
YMMV
Ratboy.
So, I am contracting for a LARGE company. And, guess what? I am doing a Linux project. The eventual target is embedded, but we are going through Linux for now.
I need, and have, a desktop Intel Linux, and a desktop PowerPC Linux box.
I *also* have a Windows XP box -- why? simply to run XP, to run Outlook, and any specific web applications. But, hey, its not MY nickel. I even run the XP box in a "semi-headless" state, and use VNC to access it. That's for my convenience (and ends up saving the company a couple of bucks).
Still -- "active x" and other technologies like it are platform lock-ins. Sure, go ahead and use them. Understand that you will have to support a certain percentage of users with rather difficult configurations. Hey, I am platform agnostic. The company CONTRACTED me to do Linux work. Its not my choice. And, if the Windows box is separate from the Linux box (which it is) and I have to retype material (which, thankfully, I don't, because VNC works, and I can even set up an FTP server on the Linux box -- no admin permissions on the Windows side, you know) -- well, I bill for all my time.
I guess it works for the people here; and it works (for some value of work) for me. I think its funny, keeping a box around (multi-Ghz, and gigs of RAM, a standard developers box) to just run Outlook, IE, and MS Office. But, hey, its a platform, what can you say?
Ratboy
Where I live (Toronto), I have two choices: Bell DSL or Rogers Cable for "high-speed" service.
Cost -- about the same ($45/month + tax). Rogers keeps "boosting" the d/l speed (now they claim 5 or 6Mbps AFAIK). Rogers wants me to BUY my own DOCSIS modem, and will offer "Extreme" speed. Upload is 128kbps (reasonably reliable, 256kbps is claimed). Which is ok; I can finally stream music from home to work.
However, Rogers has a draconian AUP. No servers, no how. I did talk to them, and they "ok'd" (unofficially) a limited inbound mail service, and ssh (as long as the bandwidth consumed is below their radar (they have never complained). I still don't like the AUP, and would like faster outbound speed. Also, Rogers no longer offers Usenet.
The other alternative is Bell DSL. These pedants drop bother outbound and INBOUND port 25. Making the issue moot. I would need to subscribe to a mail redirector service, which completely negates any price advantage they have. Not even moving to "business class" service solves this -- the only "free" email would have a "sympatico.ca" (whatever) domain.
So I use the Rogers service. Since the DOCSIS modem is attached straight to the cable, I prefer to "rent" the modem, and I don't get the Extreme service. Upload is limited (and, because I access the songs via http/https protocol) and not allowed according the terms of the AUP. Inbound email is ALSO not allowed by the AUP. I do these things anyway, but my connection is at the sufferance of Rogers.
Couple that with a data cap of 60GB a month, and I would say service in my area sucks (not that I use 60GB a month, but I signed up to an "unlimited" service, with Usenet).
All I can say is "it does work, and it meets my needs". I just feel annoyed. Its good that other places get faster connections; mostly I just want a better and more understanding company to deal with (I would like to be able to negotiate port blocking, data caps, services).
YMMV
Ratboy.
Again, I am *not* a Windows expert. I would boot Knoppix from CD, and run:
/dev/hda
badblocks
This will read the drive, and report any bad blocks. In Linux, the results of this can be fed to the make file system utility, which can then skip using those areas (for really bad areas).
Did you do a "surface scan" under Windows? (I believe the default is a file scan).
Ratboy.
This means that there is a bad spot on your drive. You are sitting on a "timebomb". Run SMART tests and see if that gives more information (it should give a log of the failure).
The drive stills needs to be recertified. And, above all else, BACK IT UP. Most of the drive vendor recertification diagnostic utilities will overwrite the drive, destroying its data anyway (did I mention BACKUP?).
The "OS" here is not material -- your DRIVE is failing.
Now, if you have a backup, reinstalling should be a breeze. Any reasonable backup utility will let you restore to a different media size. I am not a Windows Backup Expert; but I do know that Windows 98 came with a backup utility that created backup sets over the network -- I imagine that (and a boot floppy) should do the trick. I don't really know, because all data on my machines is network mounted anyway, to RAID5 storage. And, the Windows installations are in virtual machines anyway (except for one machine, which is a complete "destructo" box, anyway). Which I do because I don't ever have the time to "reinstall" Windows, and I am not a Windows Certified Anything (so I can't/won't troubleshoot problems -- I take "reboot/re-install" as the primary resolution to problems with Windows).
I cannot emphasize enough the need to recertify or trash that drive. Its like ignoring strange sounds out of your card. Hard disks are sensitive mechanical things.
As always, YMMV -- this is just advice
Ratboy.
I would say "flash evidence" -- the kind that is destroyed before it's evidence, and then the lack is evidence of evidence...
And then my head explodes in a flash.
Let me TRY to make sense of this...
SCO claims that, even though no evidence of direct copying can be presented, SCO material in the way of CONCEPTS and METHODS made their way into Linux. To ensure that this CANNOT happen, IBM may have (or did), order Unix, AIX, Dynix removed from machines. The existence of this source code may have (somehow) proven that the CONCEPT or METHOD were migrated to Linux (how? it must have been test code on AIX or Dynix to evaluate the CONCEPT or METHOD -- otherwise it would be much clearer). Of course, IBM did the correct thing to mitigate any damages; but, based on the migration (somehow) of the CONCEPTS and METHODS, removing this code (obviously never released) broke the chain of thought, and is thus "egregious" destruction of evidence. Sorry, destruction of evidence of a thought process.
All I have to say is: WHY THE FUCK IS FORBES BOTHERING TO REPORT THIS?!?
Ratboy.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, Yeah, yeah, yeah
There; I guess its ok, because its satire.
Ratboy
And now for something completely different: the Public Domain! Dum dum dum duuuum, Dum dum dum Duuuum.
How to do it...
/dev/hda". You *will* get a complaint about an improper partition table, which is ok. Partition, and write the new partition table.
Assuming partition tables are "fubar".
#1 BACK UP ALL YOUR DATA. This is normally a sign of a failing drive.
#2 Download and burn a bootable CD of you hard drive vendors diagnostic kit.
#3 Run it, and "recertify" your drive. May take a couple of hours (and, you may just want to dumpster the drive, if your time is valuable). If the drive does not certify, discard it.
#4 Boot your system with Knoppix, or another recovery Linux system. Issue the command: "dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/hda" (replace hda with hdb, hdc, hdd, etc. depending on which hard drive it is).
#5 Run Linux partitioning tool "fdisk
#5b Alternatively, boot a Linux installation CD, and load Linux. Ignore warnings about "improper partitioning", and choose to have the partition table replaced.
The IMPORTANT steps are 1 to 3. If the partition table cannot be manipulated, it is an almost sure sign your drive is heading south.
Ratboy
Given that I have relinquished "right-of-way" and have been forced to give property rights to the telcos and cable companies...
Fair access to the telco and cable network becomes a right. Or do I have to regurgitate the "backhoe argument". In a nutshell, I get access or the telco/cable company looses the "property right". In the tradition of the accidental backhoe accident. Now, for this civil disobedience, I am willing to pay my fine (someone backhoed a fiber here a couple of days ago -- and disrupted Blackberry service for most of Canada for a day).
The "wire companies" were given a natural monopoly, and, in exchange, were forced to provide equal access. That battle was fought 30 years ago (there was a time when you couldn't plug your own phones into the phone network). "Network Neutrality" won back then, and the principles on which it won haven't changed.
Ratboy
X "natively" does support more than three buttons. AFAIR (and, its been a while since I've worked on the X server input section), the limit is 128 buttons.
Ratboy.
^L -- thank you. It highlights the entire field. Not quite what ^U does, but it will do.
And, as a bonus, it is a "home row" function.
I'll put that into my "finger memory".
Thanks again.
Ratboy.
Ctrl-+/- (keypad) works. Anyway...
I ALSO prefer Mozilla. And here's the main reason. The navigation bar where you type stuff in - in Mozilla, it respects ^U as field clear. I haven't figured out HOW to make Firefox do the same. Its always "focus, home, shift-end, optional delete, type new". Given that I prefer focus follows mouse, I would like to simply mouse to the entry field, ^U and type the new URL. Firefox insists that a ^U directed at the URL entry field should bring up page source!
On the other hand, I *can* live with it. The itch is not too mighty yet. But, if some knows a "Unix Friendly Firefox Extension", let me know.
Ratboy.
Actually, software RAID is an advantage, performance-wise.
The old-time "big-ticket" was checksum calculation, but that is now an "also-ran". Distributing the i/o? Software can do it as well as hardware.
Both hardware and software have to be familiar with the blocking factor.
Where software wins is that it can be aware of, and skip reading to fill blocks if the block has never been used (or is not PRESENTLY in use). Which hardware RAID controllers cannot avoid doing.
The idea is to tie the RAID more tightly into the filesystem.
As to lower speed drives -- did you count the heads? Each is active at the same time. Yes, an individual i/o would complete faster with 10k or 15k spin, but the total throughput is based on the number of heads. For RAID5, reading multiple blocks will give you pretty much all the read performance you can stomach.
Write performance for an individual write operation would be improved; but generally application buffering deals with it. The tradeoff is number of heads, spin rate, and heat. The right balance? For you, write performance up, and, keeping heat constant, number of heads down (I presume that you are dealing with transactional loads, with commits). For me? tends to go the other way (my workload is general storage, with a bit of database).
As always, YMMV
Ratboy
Of course it seems unlikely...
But, the point is that the machine is NOT ON THE NET. Whatever is on the Ubuntu CD is it. Also, the added programs were being hand carried via USB key. The gp poster KNOWS what to do -- it is just very difficult to get there in any sane way.
The "ubuntu" way falls way WAY flat in that circumstance. As do RPMs (to a lesser extent).
You rely on your network connection more than you think you do...
Ratboy.