The typical Windows user would start looking in the desktop properties. On a Mac it's in control panels. On Windows it's in control panel. On Linux it's in/etc/X11/XF86Config. Granted there may be a gui app installed in that particular distribution, but can you guarantee that if you move to a different distro? The consistency is not there.
Ummm...I would call the same file to edit on every system pretty consistent. And I can even telnet in and change it remotely. Or run it through a perl script to automate the whole mess for me as a sysadmin in charge of hundreds of systems.
You *should* learn the text files, as they are what give you the flexibility and predictability needed to properly configure a system. The GUI config stuff in linux can definitely hose your system, so I generally stay away from it.
forced my local cablemodem ISP out of business. With the original, I got 512K both directions. Not wanting to be a comcast customer, nor have my service interrupted while they figured out how to change the infrastructure, I stayed with my old ISP who now offers DSL instead. Unfortunately, being governed by sprint, I am now paying the same amount, but being capped outbound at 128K. I still get 512 down, however. I haven't had the chance to test my servers much yet, but it seems to be OK. I hate that I'm paying the same amount for less bandwidth though.
What about the preference to disable "Open on Load?" I've been using it, but it is not in the GUI. I don't want to disable the ability for javascript to open a new window, since there are sites that make legitimate use of it. What I *DO* want to disable is the ability for the bastards to open another window on opening or leaving their site.
The past few nightlies, and also 0.9.7 now kill all the text in the UI (back, forward, etc buttons) after one run. Oddly enough, running as root here is fine. Could be a number of things. *sigh*. I really wish they'd stop breaking things that once worked.
For FPS gameplay, UT r00x. It's quirky to set-up though, and seems to leak memory (There's no reason a machine with 256MB, and little else running should swap when running this game!)
I hope the singleplayer Wolfenstein comes out for linux soon. I'm not buying it until it does!
Other than that, the OS itself is a beautiful game! My favorite 'game' is windowmaker, rox-filer, and useful little perl and sh scripts to tie it all together!
Break the code into re-usable modules (or objects if you go another route besides perl, or even if you do, if you like that sort of pain), each programmer responsible for his own set (ie layout, calculation, database, etc)
I don't see why he should care anymore. Doesn't he do all of his own production and distribution with Paisley Park studios? In other words, it's all his own. He doesn't need an organization like the RIAA. Good for him.
But if you need to produce a document, spreadsheet or presentation, you're still likely to be able to do it faster and better by sticking with the Microsoft devil you know.""
Bullshit. Anybody who creates documents/reports for a living wants the computer to do all of the work of formatting/typesetting for them. Unix has ALWAYS shined at this (troff, nroff, LaTeX, etc.) In a windows word processor not only do you have to do the formatting yourself, but also you have to fight with what the word processor thinks is best, along with the crappy interface that cannot be tailored to the way you work, and the instability (which is getting better, but far from where it needs to be).
And for your resume or quick note/letter, or quick spreadsheet star office works beautifully. And (although they do) no business should EVER be using spreadsheets for day-to-day information gathering, storage, and retrieval, especially if they share that data! That's what a database server is for, and again, a Unix solution shines here.
And for printing, we now have cups. Very powerful and flexible.
If you were starting your own business and standardized on Linux as a platform, what accounting package would you use and why?"
I'd write my own using MySQL, and HTML::Embperl.
If it's your own business, and you want to do things right, your software should be written to match your way of doing business. Computers exist to make the procesess better. If you taylor the software to the processes (no canned 'solutions' for business running stuff), you can focus on what it is you are actually selling, as opposed to figuring out 'how do I do that with this software?' For anything I'd run myself, I could write the code in a couple of days, and the fact that you can look at the stuff using nothing more than a browser is a big plus, especially as you grow and have people other than yourself interacting with your data.
Remember the Cyberporn story Time magazine ran in 1995? A bunch of us on alt.internet.media-coverage who work in the press fumed and fumed about that story. After much discussion, and many complaints from others who fumed that we were taking over the newsgroup, we decided to form The Internet Press Guild as a resource to mainstream press people who got an Internet beat without knowing much about it. So far, nothing as bad as the infamous "Rimm Job" has hit the mainstream press since we started.
That article alone I attribute to much of the fall of what was the Internet that I had known. It seems that since that thing published, all the newsgroups, chatrooms, web pages, etc just went to hell wrt signal/noise ratio.
I remember swearing a lot about the damned thing (the article). I'm glad that somebody with a voice actually did something about it!
The problem with this is it takes MUCH LONGER to write the documentation than it does to write the original software!!
I have a lot of little utilities, probably very useful to the public, that I've written for myself here, but to release them to the public would take a lot of time in code cleanup and documentation that I simply do not have.
I've tried to release some of the better stuff, but documenting and making things not crash and be secure is a very time-consuming and boring task.
Out of curiosity, does Apache::DBI suffer from this as well? I use Apache::DBI for my persistent database connections, and believe that it simply uses the number of sessions apache is configured for (ie, one persistent db connection per apache process), and the server itself will block people when that limit is set.
And I get to see all the CGI errors, right there on my browser. Very nice.
The first thing you do on a production server is KILL THE ABILITY TO DISPLAY ERROR MESSAGES FROM YOUR SCRIPT ON THE END USER'S DISPLAY!
I know you can do this with Embedded perl. Not sure what these guys are using, but seems like the same behavior HTML::Embperl exhibits before configuring it not to.
Not to mention the fact that the default behavior of mozilla will be to NOT go probing for favicon.ico on every web site it hits (as IE does...go look at some apache logs some time). Mozilla supports this that way, if you explicitly enable it through an undocumented prefs.js entry, but also does it the proper way with tags.
No OS can run Windows apps better than Windows itself.
Before windoze95, OS/2 did, in fact, run windows applications much better than windows itself did.
If one day somebody were to write a good windows workalike, I have no doubt that windows software would run better on it too. The problem is the architecture itself probably doesn't lend itself well to this.
Care to back this up? Have you used the alternatives? In case you missed it, here is what Moz has that is lacking in IE:
Best CSS2 Compliance out there. IE totally screws up my CSS2 compliant web page. Mozilla, Konqueror, Opera render it properly.
Tabbed browsing. Open separate windows, or open tabs within an existing window. Great feature for browsing slashdot, keeping similar stuff together in one window with tabs while browsing other stuff in a separate window
Full control over what javascript functions/objects/features are allowed to execute on a per-site basis. You can even globally kill the popup on page load bullshit (the only real reason I've found to disable javascript so far)
Cookie management on a per-site basis
Image management on a per site basis. Allow/disallow images, stop animated gifs, etc.
Site navigation bar for sites that use that old forgotten tag (like slashdot). This is very cool and useful.
Proper implementation of a 'favicon' that, get this, uses ANY SUPPORTED IMAGE FORMAT, not that M$ specific.ico crap. Use a PNG and you can use alpha channels. Imagine that.
FAST rendering engine. Much better than IE (especially in recent builds!) This is VERY significant for modem users who have to sit and wait for IE to figure out what is in a table before rendering it, while moz's engine pops it up as it comes down. Slashdot renders here in under a second.
Those are just some of the highlights of why mozilla is the better browser and quite frankly, blows away IE, even as prerelease software
I really don't think end-users have any need to configure a network security product. People who do need to set these up judge them based on their maintainability, configurability, and suitability to task.
Believe it or not, in many cases a CLI interface is MUCH easier to deal with than a GUI. In addition, most GUI's for security products are simply pretty interfaces to the text-based back ends, and may or may not be up to date with all of the capabilities of the CLI tools (always developed first). The GUI can, and will, screw things up (trust me on this...I used to test and certifiy commercial firewall/vpn products for a living, and have seen every interface under the sun and can name some very big well-known companies whose GUI would totally hose the firewall/VPN config under certain conditions, but the CLI tools would work just fine)
The GUI adds tons of complexity to the programmer's job, just for an INTERFACE! This time can be much better spent on writing and improving the tool itself. Why do you think so many linux GUI tools are simply interfaces to existing text tools? The guys writing the actual TOOL spend their time on that, and somebody else decides to write a different interface to it. No problems there.
was the crossposting flamewars between a.p.t.e and a.d.t.e (alt.destroy.the.earth). The pavers just wanted everything turned to asphalt for their driving pleasure, while the destroyers seemed to be much more creative in finding ways to totally obliterate the planet. Every now and then they'd start arguing. Very amusing. And then alt.devilbunnies would somehow get in the middle of it and things just went wierd from there:)
Slashdot Mirror
You *should* learn the text files, as they are what give you the flexibility and predictability needed to properly configure a system. The GUI config stuff in linux can definitely hose your system, so I generally stay away from it.
forced my local cablemodem ISP out of business. With the original, I got 512K both directions. Not wanting to be a comcast customer, nor have my service interrupted while they figured out how to change the infrastructure, I stayed with my old ISP who now offers DSL instead. Unfortunately, being governed by sprint, I am now paying the same amount, but being capped outbound at 128K. I still get 512 down, however. I haven't had the chance to test my servers much yet, but it seems to be OK. I hate that I'm paying the same amount for less bandwidth though.
Seeing as that 2600 page does an auto redirect to the real ford page. Not cool. Ranks right up there with spammers who forge their addresses.
Will this preference make it to the GUI?
Too bad they introduced 3172 new ones, and broke 1586 things that worked before though. </not entirely sarcasm>
The past few nightlies, and also 0.9.7 now kill all the text in the UI (back, forward, etc buttons) after one run. Oddly enough, running as root here is fine. Could be a number of things. *sigh*. I really wish they'd stop breaking things that once worked.
I hope the singleplayer Wolfenstein comes out for linux soon. I'm not buying it until it does!
Other than that, the OS itself is a beautiful game! My favorite 'game' is windowmaker, rox-filer, and useful little perl and sh scripts to tie it all together!
Break the code into re-usable modules (or objects if you go another route besides perl, or even if you do, if you like that sort of pain), each programmer responsible for his own set (ie layout, calculation, database, etc)
I don't see why he should care anymore. Doesn't he do all of his own production and distribution with Paisley Park studios? In other words, it's all his own. He doesn't need an organization like the RIAA. Good for him.
Bullshit. Anybody who creates documents/reports for a living wants the computer to do all of the work of formatting/typesetting for them. Unix has ALWAYS shined at this (troff, nroff, LaTeX, etc.) In a windows word processor not only do you have to do the formatting yourself, but also you have to fight with what the word processor thinks is best, along with the crappy interface that cannot be tailored to the way you work, and the instability (which is getting better, but far from where it needs to be).
And for your resume or quick note/letter, or quick spreadsheet star office works beautifully. And (although they do) no business should EVER be using spreadsheets for day-to-day information gathering, storage, and retrieval, especially if they share that data! That's what a database server is for, and again, a Unix solution shines here.
And for printing, we now have cups. Very powerful and flexible.
So what was this guy's point again?
NTFS is based upon, and indeed written by the same guy IIRC, OS/2's HPFS.
You would name a file MyFile, and it would show up as MyFile, but you could find/select it using mYfIlE, if you wanted.
I'd write my own using MySQL, and HTML::Embperl.
If it's your own business, and you want to do things right, your software should be written to match your way of doing business. Computers exist to make the procesess better. If you taylor the software to the processes (no canned 'solutions' for business running stuff), you can focus on what it is you are actually selling, as opposed to figuring out 'how do I do that with this software?' For anything I'd run myself, I could write the code in a couple of days, and the fact that you can look at the stuff using nothing more than a browser is a big plus, especially as you grow and have people other than yourself interacting with your data.
That article alone I attribute to much of the fall of what was the Internet that I had known. It seems that since that thing published, all the newsgroups, chatrooms, web pages, etc just went to hell wrt signal/noise ratio.
I remember swearing a lot about the damned thing (the article). I'm glad that somebody with a voice actually did something about it!
I have a lot of little utilities, probably very useful to the public, that I've written for myself here, but to release them to the public would take a lot of time in code cleanup and documentation that I simply do not have.
I've tried to release some of the better stuff, but documenting and making things not crash and be secure is a very time-consuming and boring task.
Out of curiosity, does Apache::DBI suffer from this as well? I use Apache::DBI for my persistent database connections, and believe that it simply uses the number of sessions apache is configured for (ie, one persistent db connection per apache process), and the server itself will block people when that limit is set.
Ok, so I didn't read the error messages :) They need to configure PHP not to display errors on the end user's browser.
And I get to see all the CGI errors, right there on my browser. Very nice.
The first thing you do on a production server is KILL THE ABILITY TO DISPLAY ERROR MESSAGES FROM YOUR SCRIPT ON THE END USER'S DISPLAY!
I know you can do this with Embedded perl. Not sure what these guys are using, but seems like the same behavior HTML::Embperl exhibits before configuring it not to.
Not to mention the fact that the default behavior of mozilla will be to NOT go probing for favicon.ico on every web site it hits (as IE does...go look at some apache logs some time). Mozilla supports this that way, if you explicitly enable it through an undocumented prefs.js entry, but also does it the proper way with tags.
Duh. no. I 'built' it with Vi, using the w3c documentation on CSS.
Before windoze95, OS/2 did, in fact, run windows applications much better than windows itself did.
If one day somebody were to write a good windows workalike, I have no doubt that windows software would run better on it too. The problem is the architecture itself probably doesn't lend itself well to this.
Care to back this up? Have you used the alternatives? In case you missed it, here is what Moz has that is lacking in IE:
Those are just some of the highlights of why mozilla is the better browser and quite frankly, blows away IE, even as prerelease software
I really don't think end-users have any need to configure a network security product. People who do need to set these up judge them based on their maintainability, configurability, and suitability to task.
Believe it or not, in many cases a CLI interface is MUCH easier to deal with than a GUI. In addition, most GUI's for security products are simply pretty interfaces to the text-based back ends, and may or may not be up to date with all of the capabilities of the CLI tools (always developed first). The GUI can, and will, screw things up (trust me on this...I used to test and certifiy commercial firewall/vpn products for a living, and have seen every interface under the sun and can name some very big well-known companies whose GUI would totally hose the firewall/VPN config under certain conditions, but the CLI tools would work just fine)
The GUI adds tons of complexity to the programmer's job, just for an INTERFACE! This time can be much better spent on writing and improving the tool itself. Why do you think so many linux GUI tools are simply interfaces to existing text tools? The guys writing the actual TOOL spend their time on that, and somebody else decides to write a different interface to it. No problems there.
I had even toyed with the idea of writing my own web interface, pretty blinky lights on the box itself, etc. and selling these things myself.
was the crossposting flamewars between a.p.t.e and a.d.t.e (alt.destroy.the.earth). The pavers just wanted everything turned to asphalt for their driving pleasure, while the destroyers seemed to be much more creative in finding ways to totally obliterate the planet. Every now and then they'd start arguing. Very amusing. And then alt.devilbunnies would somehow get in the middle of it and things just went wierd from there :)