Actually, it almost seems to be a trend. Corel is releasing their print system API stuff in the LGPL. I'm shocked. Maybe they've figured out that its just easier to use already existing already liked liscences. Whatever. It definitely means they are playing nice, and some of my worries for the future are going away. Maybe this is the start of the end of "our companies slightly different open source liscence, which really isn't open". Let's hope.
Nope, sorry. I did that and even disabled the CDROM drivers via the system manager, checked the config.sys, autoexec.bat, and all the windows setup files via sysedit and commented out all info regarding the CDROM, even ventured in to the registry. Still crashed. The only thing that worked was going in to CMOS and disabling that IDE bus. I stand by my words: windows sucks.
I've been building systems a long time, and used windows and linux a long time also. What you say has a _small_ kernel of truth, but even if I sound like a Linux zealot: Windows really does suck worse than you're trying to say. It just isn't robust. For instance, my brother has a nice system, top of the line, non buggy hardware and software. His CDROM drive just broke. Windows just couldn't handle that. It sits there frozen trying to access the hard drive every time you click on start, open explorer, or just randomly. That isn't robust. In Linux, it would just time out, and you wouldn't have any more problems. Unix in general and Linux in particular just has a more robust and sound philosophy and architecture. Every operating system can have buggy software etc., but Linux more gracefully recovers or avoids them altogether. In other words, a well configured and lucky windows system can be mostly stable, and an average Linux system is almost always very stable.
I'm a grad student at University of Oregon, department of Geological Sciences, and I took a fluid mechanics course from a guy named Michael Manga. As part of his research, I think he already figured this out. He has an article on his research with a side note about the beer I believe. Even has a really nice picture of Guiness.
Sorry Aussies, but I think it's too late by a number of years!
Linux has several properties which make it difficult to write documentation:
1) Linux changes so quickly that documentation is quickly out of date after it is written.
2) There is so much choice in the Linux world that we have alot to write doumentation for.
For instance, I was leafing through my SuSE manual today. In the beginning they more or less have a section explaining this, and asks us to be patient. I began thinking about it as I read. They had many sections explaining how to do things at different levels (newbie -> advanced disk partitioning for instance). And they didn't even cover things like "how to use kde, or gnome", which is where most newbies will spend their time. Windows on the other hand can throw alot of money at "here is how to use the one and only version of our file manager".
The nature of Linux makes it hard! Maybe distributions can concentrate their documentation on how to use default installations, and leave the rest to us? I dunno. Difficult topic.
Alot of this isn't true any more. Maybe you should look around. I just installed the brand new SuSE 6.3 and have the following to report in response to your points (please keep in mind that I haven't had as much experience with other GUI installs, but I pretty much think RH, as well as Corel and Caldera are probably similar):
> 2.We need MANY MORE translations
SuSE covers a heck of alot of translations, documentation included. I've found that SuSE might be a little more carefull though, as sometimes I get windows popping up in German!
> 4.Installers need better "back-stepping".
The new SuSE 6.3 had a "next" and "back" option the whole way. You could go change whatever. I think most of the other GUI installs do too.
> 5.There needs to be optional "automagic" configurations. One-button installation
I don't know about the others, but SuSE had an automagic one that would do pretty much everything, list what it was going to do, and then ask if it was O.K.
> 8.Documentation should be in hypertext format.
SuSE has that too. I think RH does as well??
> 9.X configuration is -still- the worst part.
The SuSE install automatically detected and set up the X part all by its little lonesome. Even if not, the sax window configurator usually works great.
> 10.PPP is not as friendly as it could be.
PPP was set up in about 5 minutes with YAST. I've had _much_ more trouble under windows. Works great. Configuring the pnp modem first though.... I only did that fast because I already knew how.
I sort of liked this idea, and hadn't thought of it before. I went and checked it out. I Just created 3 or so more optimal modelines for my config. Here's how:
0) Go find the.inf files for your video card and your monitor. I found mine under my windows/inf directory for win98. 1) look in your video card inf file. For instance, mine is called "nv4agp.inf", for an nvidia agp TNT. There should be some similar lines to:
These are the vertical refresh available for your video card at 8bpp, at resolution 1152/864. By going over to the microsoft site, I was able to determine that any higher color depths that don't have a listing default to the same thing for a lower color depth, for instance, i think the following more or less blank line means that for 16bpp the vert sync rate is the same as 8bpp:
HKR,"MODES\16\1152,864"
2) Now look at the.inf file for your monitor. Mine is a 19" Hitachi CM751, it was under "monitors6.inf". Just grep around till you find it. There should be a line towards the bottom with something like:
I _think_ that means that my highest resolution supported by my monitor would be 1600x1200, my horizontal sync frequencies are 30-94 and 50-160 (this is atually correct, as stated in my manual).
3) Now you know manufacturer specified vertical frequencies for your video card, and the maximum vertical and horizontal frequencies for your monitor. Now use this information in one of the autoconfigure utilities such as "modeline", or that web page mentioned in the original article. The web page seemed easiest and worked best for me. I just plugged into the web page the resolution I wanted, and then kept feeding it higher and higher vertical frequencies as per my video card inf file until I maxed out my monitors horizontal refresh range. Be careful not to plug any vertiacal frequency past the vertical range of your monitor that you found in your monitor inf file. Similarly, make sure that the figured mode line doesn't go over the horizontal frequency either (the web page reported what the horizontal freq was for the calculated mode line but the "modeline" utility didn't, so you have to do it yourself. go look in the video tuning howto).
Seems to me that it would be easy enough for installation programs to do this for you from windows inf files if you have funky configuration. If _windows_ can do it, linux should be able to. All the info is right there!
CAVEATS!!!: You can burn out your monitor if you overdrive it. Don't do it if you're scared of doing so. I've been messing around with this stuff for a while. Also, when I tried to push my monitor to the highest limits of what it was supposed to do, it usually doesn't do what its supposed to. For instance, I usually had to settle for a vertical refresh of 85 instead of 100, even though my monitor and vid card are supposed to be able to do it. Your mileage may vary.
In the recent past,/. has had several interesting articles:
1) Netscape for Linux blows. If we don't get a decent browser, we may well "loose the war" on the dekstop, whatever the heck that means. 2) Mozilla is constantly late. 3) There seems to be a rabidity in the expectation and support of Mozilla. 4) There is a bevy of _other_ browsers being produced for Linux, or already exist.
For instance, what about Opera?? To quote from the Nov 20th posting on the Opera page:
"As Opera for Linux development leader, I'm looking very forward to releasing an early beta within the next 4-6 weeks. This doesn't mean that it will be a perfect product. It simply means that I'm trying to make all of our prospective Linux users happy. I feel confident that the high level of stability we have come to expect from Opera will shine through. Linux users will soon have a choice!"
A couple thoughts: If Opera for Linux is good, or some other browsers pull through (like the KDE konqueror), will we all stop caring as much? Should we care as much? Will open source development on Mozilla diminish? Should it diminish? Survival of the fittest, ya know.
It would be nice to have an open source browser, but we sure have used a commercial one (Netscape) for a long time now. What if konqueror or one of the others pulls through? It seems we all want to put our eggs in the Netscape basket. It would seem embarassing for Open Source if Mozilla failed I suppose, but is that a good enough reason for the rabid support of Mozilla? I think history would bare out a different story. Mozilla may be a bump in the open source road, where companies learn to interface with the open source community. Don't get me wrong, I wish Mozilla all the success in the world, and they may eventually get it really right, but it seems we are all being myopic. Maybe we should try to look down the road a little bit. I believe in the concept of OSS development. Just because one project fails, doesn't mean the whole world is going to turn around and say "Just kidding! We knew all this stuff would fail. Let's stop supporting it now." If Moz fails, we'll survive, Microsoft will still get its, Linux will be happy, and we'll all be surfin' fools.
Anyway, just some blathering. I'll be quiet now.;-)
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, it almost seems to be a trend. Corel is releasing their print system API stuff in the LGPL. I'm shocked. Maybe they've figured out that its just easier to use already existing already liked liscences. Whatever. It definitely means they are playing nice, and some of my worries for the future are going away. Maybe this is the start of the end of "our companies slightly different open source liscence, which really isn't open". Let's hope.
Nope, sorry. I did that and even disabled the CDROM drivers via the system manager, checked the config.sys, autoexec.bat, and all the windows setup files via sysedit and commented out all info regarding the CDROM, even ventured in to the registry. Still crashed. The only thing that worked was going in to CMOS and disabling that IDE bus. I stand by my words: windows sucks.
I've been building systems a long time, and used windows and linux a long time also. What you say has a _small_ kernel of truth, but even if I sound like a Linux zealot: Windows really does suck worse than you're trying to say. It just isn't robust. For instance, my brother has a nice system, top of the line, non buggy hardware and software. His CDROM drive just broke. Windows just couldn't handle that. It sits there frozen trying to access the hard drive every time you click on start, open explorer, or just randomly. That isn't robust. In Linux, it would just time out, and you wouldn't have any more problems. Unix in general and Linux in particular just has a more robust and sound philosophy and architecture. Every operating system can have buggy software etc., but Linux more gracefully recovers or avoids them altogether. In other words, a well configured and lucky windows system can be mostly stable, and an average Linux system is almost always very stable.
Hello all,
I'm a grad student at University of Oregon,
department of Geological Sciences,
and I took a fluid mechanics course from
a guy named Michael Manga. As part of
his research, I think he already figured
this out. He has an article on his research
with a side note about the beer I believe.
Even has a really nice picture of Guiness.
Sorry Aussies, but I think it's too late
by a number of years!
Linux has several properties which make it difficult to write documentation:
1) Linux changes so quickly that documentation is quickly out of date after it is written.
2) There is so much choice in the Linux world that we have alot to write doumentation for.
For instance, I was leafing through my SuSE manual today. In the beginning they more or less have a section explaining this, and asks us to be patient. I began thinking about it as I read. They had many sections explaining how to do things at different levels (newbie -> advanced disk partitioning for instance). And they didn't even cover things like "how to use kde, or gnome", which is where most newbies will spend their time. Windows on the other hand can throw alot of money at "here is how to use the one and only version of our file manager".
The nature of Linux makes it hard! Maybe distributions can concentrate their documentation on how to use default installations, and leave the rest to us? I dunno. Difficult topic.
Alot of this isn't true any more. Maybe you should look around. I just installed the brand new SuSE 6.3 and have the following to report in response to your points (please keep in mind that I haven't had as much experience with other GUI installs, but I pretty much think RH, as well as Corel and Caldera are probably similar):
> 2.We need MANY MORE translations
SuSE covers a heck of alot of translations, documentation included. I've found that SuSE might be a little more carefull though, as sometimes I get windows popping up in German!
> 4.Installers need better "back-stepping".
The new SuSE 6.3 had a "next" and "back" option the whole way. You could go change whatever. I think most of the other GUI installs do too.
> 5.There needs to be optional "automagic" configurations. One-button installation
I don't know about the others, but SuSE had an automagic one that would do pretty much everything, list what it was going to do, and then ask if it was O.K.
> 8.Documentation should be in hypertext format.
SuSE has that too. I think RH does as well??
> 9.X configuration is -still- the worst part.
The SuSE install automatically detected and set up the X part all by its little lonesome. Even if not, the sax window configurator usually works great.
> 10.PPP is not as friendly as it could be.
PPP was set up in about 5 minutes with YAST. I've had _much_ more trouble under windows. Works great. Configuring the pnp modem first though.... I only did that fast because I already knew how.
I sort of liked this idea, and hadn't thought of it before. I went and checked it out. I Just created 3 or so more optimal modelines for my config. Here's how:
.inf files for your video card and your monitor. I found mine under my windows/inf directory for win98.
0 ,140,144,150"
.inf file for your monitor. Mine is a 19" Hitachi CM751, it was under "monitors6.inf". Just grep around till you find it. There should be a line towards the bottom with something like:
0 .0,+,+"
0) Go find the
1) look in your video card inf file. For instance, mine is called "nv4agp.inf", for an nvidia agp TNT. There should be some similar lines to:
HKR,"MODES\8\1152,864",,,"60,70,72,75,85,100,12
These are the vertical refresh available for your video card at 8bpp, at resolution 1152/864. By going over to the microsoft site, I was able to determine that any higher color depths that don't have a listing default to the same thing for a lower color depth, for instance, i think the following more or less blank line means that for 16bpp the vert sync rate is the same as 8bpp:
HKR,"MODES\16\1152,864"
2) Now look at the
[CM751.AddReg]
HKR,"MODES\1600,1200",Mode1,,"30.0-94.0,50.0-16
I _think_ that means that my highest resolution supported by my monitor would be 1600x1200, my horizontal sync frequencies are 30-94 and 50-160 (this is atually correct, as stated in my manual).
3) Now you know manufacturer specified vertical frequencies for your video card, and the maximum vertical and horizontal frequencies for your monitor. Now use this information in one of the autoconfigure utilities such as "modeline", or that web page mentioned in the original article. The web page seemed easiest and worked best for me. I just plugged into the web page the resolution I wanted, and then kept feeding it higher and higher vertical frequencies as per my video card inf file until I maxed out my monitors horizontal refresh range. Be careful not to plug any vertiacal frequency past the vertical range of your monitor that you found in your monitor inf file. Similarly, make sure that the figured mode line doesn't go over the horizontal frequency either (the web page reported what the horizontal freq was for the calculated mode line but the "modeline" utility didn't, so you have to do it yourself. go look in the video tuning howto).
Seems to me that it would be easy enough for installation programs to do this for you from windows inf files if you have funky configuration. If _windows_ can do it, linux should be able to. All the info is right there!
CAVEATS!!!: You can burn out your monitor if you overdrive it. Don't do it if you're scared of doing so. I've been messing around with this stuff for a while. Also, when I tried to push my monitor to the highest limits of what it was supposed to do, it usually doesn't do what its supposed to. For instance, I usually had to settle for a vertical refresh of 85 instead of 100, even though my monitor and vid card are supposed to be able to do it. Your mileage may vary.
In the recent past, /. has had several interesting articles:
;-)
1) Netscape for Linux blows. If we don't get a decent browser, we may well "loose the war" on the dekstop, whatever the heck that means.
2) Mozilla is constantly late.
3) There seems to be a rabidity in the expectation and support of Mozilla.
4) There is a bevy of _other_ browsers being produced for Linux, or already exist.
For instance, what about Opera?? To quote from the Nov 20th posting on the Opera page:
"As Opera for Linux development leader, I'm looking very forward to releasing an early beta within the next 4-6 weeks. This doesn't mean that it will be a perfect product. It simply means that I'm trying to make all of our prospective Linux users happy. I feel confident that the high level of stability we have come to expect from Opera will shine through. Linux users will soon have a choice!"
A couple thoughts: If Opera for Linux is good, or some other browsers pull through (like the KDE konqueror), will we all stop caring as much? Should we care as much? Will open source development on Mozilla diminish? Should it diminish? Survival of the fittest, ya know.
It would be nice to have an open source browser, but we sure have used a commercial one (Netscape) for a long time now. What if konqueror or one of the others pulls through? It seems we all want to put our eggs in the Netscape basket. It would seem embarassing for Open Source if Mozilla failed I suppose, but is that a good enough reason for the rabid support of Mozilla? I think history would bare out a different story. Mozilla may be a bump in the open source road, where companies learn to interface with the open source community. Don't get me wrong, I wish Mozilla all the success in the world, and they may eventually get it really right, but it seems we are all being myopic. Maybe we should try to look down the road a little bit. I believe in the concept of OSS development. Just because one project fails, doesn't mean the whole world is going to turn around and say "Just kidding! We knew all this stuff would fail. Let's stop supporting it now." If Moz fails, we'll survive, Microsoft will still get its, Linux will be happy, and we'll all be surfin' fools.
Anyway, just some blathering. I'll be quiet now.