It's better when it was already installed with the distro - and in (I must really sound like a employee by now, but I'm not) SuSE you do just that:
1) Open config-menu (right beside K-menu): 1 click 2) select for example install software -> games -> arcade -> penguin command: 2nd click 3) insert root password 4) insert DVD/CD if needed (I actually copy the DVD to the harddrive) and wait ~30 seconds Wow that was hard. The whole procedure included only 2 clicks and inserting the root password. Sorry, but I don't know how it can become any easier and more comfortable than that. [...] Alternatively you can of course use a packet manager to install more than just one package at a time. [...] Wow that was hard. The whole procedure included only 2 clicks and inserting the root password. Sorry, but I don't know how it can become any easier and more comfortable than that.
How many users do you know that install windows software by opening my computer, control panel, add/remove programs, add new program, browse to the installer executable (Is it install.exe or setup.exe on this CD? There are both. Or maybe autorun.exe? Or ar.exe?), clicking ok, going through the install process, closing out of add/remove programs, control panel, and my computer? How many insert the CD and wait for the first thing that pops up?
From a very high-level (or newbie-ish) perspective, software is added by to the computer in windows by bringing the two into contact. It is not usually added to the computer by instructing the computer to absorb the software. Also, do you see an add/remove programs entry for msvcrt.dll or hal.dll in windows? No. Do you see an rpm for glibc under linux? Yes. Even in a gui package manager? Yes. Two easy changes can be made to make conversion from windows easier without making life harder for more experienced users:
1. Hide system packages by default. Joe average doesn't know or care about glibc. When he wants to remove a program, he wants to see entries for the seven or eight big app packs that he uses, not hundreds of entries for things he doesn't care about.
2. Make software installation work by selecting the software, not the software installer. It doesn't matter that that would be implemented by creating an association between files of type (package format) and the installer program to handle double clicks. It just matters that the user not have to go the "add/remove programs, install software route.
We have too many distros.
No we don't. First, all distros are compatible.
Install an apache rpm on a debian system, startup scripts and all. No tweaking.
Run a binary from a distro that's still using last year's libwhatever on a distro that uses the incompatible this year's libwhatever.
Then people have no problems choosing computers from many different vendors and also don't have problems choosing from many different vendors for thousands of other markets, why should the operation systems market be any different?
Two markets: Non-free computer hardware and software markets need competition to keep prices down and proprietary/monopoly products out.
Free software (including OS software) does not need competition to keep prices down and proprietary systems out. Competition among free software products divides the user, developer, and support base.
All commercial distros except RedHat install KDE by default so they look quite similar. The only differences are config stuff
Newbie overall (but intermediate KDE) users cannot jump into GNOME and do everything exactly the same way. The opposite is also true. Config files are important.
but that's different between Windows versions, too.
Yes, there are incompatibilities between versions of windows but they're nowhere near as bad for most popular software packages. If they were, how could XP have become so widespread so quickly? People are pretty docile when it comes to options on new computers, but if Joe's favorite app just won't work on the new PC, he takes it back to the store.
Just look at 3D-modelling: These machines are operated by artists, not computer geeks, yet Linux (even the mediocre RedHat) made big inroads in this market and can already be called the standard - every new movie is created on Linux workstations.
In those environments, choosing linux over other windows or unix can save a bundle and greatly increase performance. The average computer buyer thinks windows comes "free" with his computer and only really needs raw performance when it comes to games, which is not one of GNU/Linux's strong points.
Linux needs not change at all. [...] Linux itself is already able to do everything needed. [...] Linux itself is ready for the home market. [etc]
Linux is ready, although it's not absolutely perfect in every way. GNU/Linux distros are not quite ready yet.
I think Linux will go a similar route as WindowsNT, which also was used in businesses long before it was used at home.
I know two people who use Windows NT at home and they're both old, male computer geeks with degrees in tech fields. The rest use 98SE, 2000, or XP -- the ones that are less stable but with good UIs.
In countries where RedHat doesn't scare away users, Linux desktop market share is already somewhere between 5% and 15%, at least in newsgroups. (In US-newsgroups, Linux is nonexistant, usually below 2% - thank you, RedHat) If you don't believe me, just do some statistics for a few newsgroups, this is what I did. (non-technical newsgroups only, of course)
Joe non-technical user doesn't know about newsgroups anymore. They're just not hot stuff like the www and instant messaging. I'm not saying nobody knows about them or that news dying by any means -- only that newsgroups are not a random sample of the population at all.
GNU/Linux distros have improved a great deal but I maintain they're still not a satisfactory windows replacement in many important areas.
Correct, but that's because of the software library, not because of Linux itself.
IDE-SCSI for cd burning. USB support. Interruptable kernel mode code. ATA133. DRI/DRM. Software libraries wouldn't work without kernel support for hardware. I agree with you though, GNU/Linux has improved a great deal due to leaps and bounds in userland software development.
RedHat is not Linux, please acknowledge that already.
RedHat is not Linux. RedHat is not GNU/Linux. RedHat contributes to Linux and is a part of the set of GNU/Linux distros. GNU/Linux distros need to improve to be widely accepted desktop OSs.
Isn't this the first option to set? (And yes, I also use dvorak).
Yes, after you finish reading through the info in the bootloader and typing out your "linux a=b c=d" line.
Realise that Windows doesn't even recognise linux partitions as there much less attempt to resize them. And don't get me started on the Windows boot loader.
Being like windows isn't the goal. Getting a toehold in a market that is dominated by windows is.
Set up mount points and a swap partition because the system won't configure available space in a sane way automatically ~ frustration +3
Ease of use, exactly what you want. Pick one.
Choose 'custom' from the workstation/server/custom menu, and select package groups that I think I'll need.
See above action.
The kind of ease of use that is needed on a desktop OS and getting exactly what you want are not necessarily mutually exclusive in a well-designed system.
A decent set of automatic defaults for partitions would be very little trouble to implement, and a non-bloated default install would alleviate the need to dive into individual package selection.
Realize that package management systems under linux...
Realise that windows doesn't actually have a package management system.
Installshield? Add/remove programs? Superpimp? They work just fine. Sure, sometimes they leave stuff behind, but they're many many times more user friendly than (for instance) gnorpm. If you define a package management system as one where mostly system code is executed during package installation, then windows didn't have one in the past. Now it does: MSI. It's not the most beautiful file format, but it works and it's easy. Double-click.
Realize that even though linux has reached version 2.4 and redhat's distro has been around for so many years, no one has ever considered that long, fast-scrolling startup text barfed out by the kernel scares away users who "can't read the error messages fast enough to keep up" and instead replaced them with a progress bar by default, while still making advanced startup an option ~ frustration
Realise that hiding the messages would piss the vast majority of your users off.
Possibly. That's why an advanced startup option is needed.
Make an educated guess that even if package management system developers could put aside their egos, develop a decent universal package system, and get every distro to use it that it would still force me to use the console ~ frustration +9
Realise that "One size fits all" means that everyone is equally pissed off with it.
Other than the fact that the windows package management system often leaves stuff behind on uninstall, name three things that a novice user thinks are wrong with it that a gnu/linux package managemnt system does right with a graphical tool.
Realize the reason why the interface feels so uncomfortable: my wheel mouse doesn't work ~ frustration +11
Wonder why you are using a version of Redhat that is over two years old. Consider the possibility that the user didn't pay attention during the install.
Hang out in #linuxhelp. People still ask questions about mouse wheels with the latest distros.
the mainstream public doesn't care about the install taking less than a Gig.
I know. That was actually one of my personal pet peeves (that the install is over 1GB, not that the public doesn't care that the install is over 1GB). However, just because they're unaware that install size is important (beyond that it should be, at a maximum, less than the size of their entire hard drive) doesn't mean it doesn't matter. The smaller the install, the more likely the tiny partition they create from what's left of their windows free space will be adequate. Not everyone has a second hard drive in their computer that's not being used. But that logic can only take you so far -- the size reduction has to stop at some point. I guess what I'm saying is that the default install comes with too much stuff, and there's a particular quality that, in my experience, many many windows converts posess that can be taken advantage of in order to make the creation of a lighter distro easier: When confronted with a computer lacking a particular piece of software and a software installation CD, most users are at home inserting the CD and clicking next a few times until the software is there. Combining a thinner distro with a software installation system that is a serious competitor to installshield or MSI in terms of user interface would be, in my opinion, a great improvement.
on one hand you talk about newbie-friendlyness, then you require ultra-l33t and useless features.
I don't think the two are mutually exclusive, but I don't remember requiring any ultra-l33t and useless features either. I don't think a smaller default install, a less cluttered program menu, and a lack of useles (to the average user) startup messages qualify as ultra-l33t or useless.
Well, nobody expected newbies being able to install WinNT4, so what's the point?
That's an easy one. If distro maintainers want to convert a bunch of windows users, gnu/linux needs to be easier to install than NT4. That's the point. Most mainstream distros are partly there, but partly better than NT4 isn't all that impressive to a newbie.
We have several distros just as we have several computer makers. Just like people can choose what computer they will buy they can also choose what distro they use.
We have too many distros. The more computer makers there are, the better it is for consumers (up to a point). It means competition in price, competition in customer service, and competition in quality. Of course, the fact that the average computer user doesn't know the difference between Intel and AMD dulls this competition a bit - why bother to make a product better when the user won't notice and the money could be better spent on marketing? However, and this is the key point, all computers sold by major manufacturers (meaning full computer systems including speakers and a monitor) go through pretty much the same process when they get to a user's home:
-Unpack it. -Plug in the color coded connectors according to the manual, and plug it into an outlet. -Turn it on. -See the start button, taskbar, and desktop. -Insert user action here.
There is no deviation, with the possible exception that there may be a newer version of windows on the new computer than on the old one. Competition among computer manufacturers is good.
On the other hand, competition among multiple distros (once they number more than, say, 2 or 3) is a terrible thing. They all try to "innovate" or play to a particular ideology, but all they end up changing is the stuff that should be the same everywhere. Destkop environments, the location of init scripts, etc... If those things and a few others remained contant from distro to distro, users could hop from their new gnu/linux install at home to their brand new gnu/linux at work without having to re-learn basic skills. If there were only one filesystem layout and standard set of base software, app developers could spend a lot more time developing apps and a lot less time compiling binaries and packaging them in a million different formats for a million different distros.
GNU/Linux distros are availabe free for download. Developers of OSS are not getting paid what their commercial counterparts are receiving on the whole. Competition does not increase quality nearly as much as it does when _physical goods_ are being _sold_ -- it divides the user and developer base.
Why this double standard?
GNU/Linux needs to be better than windows if it's to be accepted as a mainstream desktop OS.
Windows kept crashing and now I'm so used to multiple desktops, Unix-style copy paste and real 3-mouse button support that the Windows GUI appears to me as the archaic, primitive GUI it is. I'm twice as productive on Linux than on Windows. Hell, I always have about 50 windows open, Window's GUI just can't handle that, even with their measly 4-desktop extension.
Those are all good arguments and things about gnu/linux that don't need much more refinement, if any. I'm not saying gnu/linux has no positive points (It most certainly does!), just that some areas are lacking. The stability argument doesn't hold up any more, though. Yes, gnu/linux is still much more stable than even a well-maintained windows installation, but with windows 2000 and xp (yuck) stability has improved to the point where _desktop_ users aren't going to demand much more. Yes, there are certainly a lot of computers out there still running older versions of windows, but we're talking about new offerings here. The fact is, windows 2000/xp can now (most of the time) last the eight hours from startup to shutdown without crashing. Now that users have preemptive multitasking and protected memory, they have as much "stability" as they need. Those users never wanted or needed multi-day, multi-week, or multi-month uptimes in a desktop OS.
3 years ago, it was exactly as you described. But today, no. Even RedHat is only worse than Windows if you have a double standard (as you have) and good desktop distros like SuSE or Mandrake beat it right away or Debian and Gentoo beat it on different merits (harder to install but easier to maintain).
GNU/Linux distros have improved a great deal but I maintain they're still not a satisfactory windows replacement in many important areas.
The only thing Windows really is better than Linux is at running Win32 software.
Actually, that's not entirely true. Just a few days ago I downloaded and (tried) to run an old "NT4-only" program on my w2k system and it crashed every time I opened a particular window. I tried running it under wine and it worked perfectly, with a few minor visual glitches. A lot of people laughed when slashdot posted that story about the group that was trying to run wine in cygwin, but I'm anxiously awaiting the day when it compiles.
The funny thing is that SuSE does most of what you are complaining about (make Windows partitions smaller, automatically partition available space, boot from harddisk when CD is in drive, support mouse-wheels out of the box, no registration for security updates, preinstall OpenOffice) and probably Mandrake, too (haven't tried it for quite some time).
Cool! I'll have to try it.:) Where can I download SuSE ISOs?
It's also quite funny that you *expect* Linux to be able to handle partitions from another OS,
Windows 2000 handles partitions from other OSs by default -- they're all other MS OSs so they don't really "count", but the support is there. With an add-in app, you can mount ext2 disks as drives or browse them with an explorer-like interface.
to come with a full blown office-suite
I don't expect it to come with a full-blown office suite. I would really like two changes to be made:
1. Don't install office software by default, or give me an option to deselect "office software" as a whole (meaning no abiword, no gnumeric, etc...) to de-bloat default installs.
2. Offer the integrated, compatible, newbie-frendly, full-featured, open-source package (openoffice) by default rather than a loose collection of apps that are "just fine for 75% of the things you want to do". In the OSS world, competition does not bring down prices; it divides the knowledge base, the developer base, and slows adoption.
and use less than 1GB
Windows 2000 Profession installs by default at about 900M on my machine. Pre-ultrabloat versions of windows that are still quite capable for 99% of the things people want to do (e.g. Windows 98SE) install in under 300M, or 400M with all the goodies.
If you select minimum install without X...
I'm sorry, but if it doesn't come with a GUI, it's not going to be accepted by the mainstream public.
Saying Linux sucks for the desktop because of RedHat is like saying x86 sucks for the desktop because you had to install a graphics card in your rackmounted computer for desktop use.
I'm not saying that linux sucks because redhat sucks. I'm saying that GNU/Linux in general is not at a stage where it can be expected to be adopted by the mainstream public. Yes, I've tried the other bigger distros (debian, slack, etc...). I helped out a friend with some minor issue when he was installing an old version of SuSe on his machine, but I've never used that particular distro myself.
I don't want you to get the wrong idea: I'm not defending windows. There are things I absolutely hate about windows, though the majority of them are ethical problems like DRM in the integrated media system, or unreasonable licensing terms. I'm saying that there's some real bottom-line, basic newbie-friendliness that's missing from gnu/linux distros. I also don't want you to think that the challenges and frustrations I listed above are necessarily the biggest problems for technical users. I actually have fun when I'm solving a problem or getting some strange feature to work. The longer it takes and the more involved it is, the greater the sense of satisfaction I get when I finish. My point of view is that making several simple changes to common distros could save a lot of hassle, greatly increase gnu/linux adoption among people who are fed up with MS BS, and even make the lives of technical people more productive and fun. I like solving problems, but at a certain point I prefer a system that just functions "like it should" so that I can get real work done.
Let me illuminate the joys of installing Redhat Linux 7.3 (the last distro I installed):
Boot of of CD-Rom Read several F(number) pages of information and decide which boot option is right for me ~ 5 min Curse at a system that does not let my set my keyboard mapping to dvorak before forcing me to enter textual data ~ frustration +1 Wait for anaconda et all to load ~ 2 min Select my keyboard mapping and mouse type (*) Get to the partition screen and find out that the installer doesn't dynamically resize windows partitions to make room for itself. ~ frustration +2 Reboot Warez partition magic Use partition magic ~ 30 min Reboot Repeat above steps until the partition screen comes up. Set up mount points and a swap partition because the system won't configure available space in a sane way automatically ~ frustration +3 Fsck & mkfs ~ 2 min Choose 'custom' from the workstation/server/custom menu, and select package groups that I think I'll need. Select "choose individual packages". Realize that package management systems under linux don't descriminate between packages that users may or may not want to include (konqueror) and packages that are mandatory and must always be installed without bothering the user and making him/her read up on them (glibc) and should only be exposed as options when the user selects "ultra-expert" install mode ~ frustration +4, 5 min (to find the things I need [luckily I know what they are] ) Realize that standard desktop OS functionality requires a default install greater than 1 GB ~ 2 seconds, frustration +5 Wait for packages to install ~ 55 min Install grub Reboot Enter install program because I didn't remove the CD and the CD boot loader isn't smart enough to present me with a "Press any key to boot from CD...." timeout option which boots from the hard disk if the OS is already installed ~ frustration +5 Remove CD Reboot Realize that even though linux has reached version 2.4 and redhat's distro has been around for so many years, no one has ever considered that long, fast-scrolling startup text barfed out by the kernel scares away users who "can't read the error messages fast enough to keep up" and instead replaced them with a progress bar by default, while still making advanced startup an option ~ frustration +6 Realize something similar while watching the init scripts ~ frustration +7 Appreciate that X just works and that I can log in graphically and that I don't have to configure anything in order to get to that point ~ frustration +6 Remember that windows has been this way for a very long time ~ frustration +7 Log in Click the little red exclamation point, and read an error message that says I have to be registered in order to get automatic security updates ~ frustration +8 Remember that not even windows is that persnickety about giving out security patches ~ frustration +9 Remember that windows requires you to accept an agreement giving MS total access to your computer in order to patch critical security flaws ~ frustration +8 Register for rhn ~ 10 min Change home page from redhat to my usual home page. Be thankful that multiple reboots aren't necessary while downloading software updates ~ frustration +7, 2 hours Download openoffice because it's been neglected in favor of inferior, splintered, buggy, incompatible individual office programs which were installed even thought I didn't want them. Be forced to open a console, untar, find the setup file, and run it in order to install an office program because there is still no single, unified package management system for linux which results in confused users and puts extra strain on developers who package their own software by forcing them to either neglect certain distros, learn and use all of the major packaging systems, or write their own setup programs ~ frustration +8 Make an educated guess that even if package management system developers could put aside their egos, develop a decent universal package system, and get every distro to use it that it would still force me to use the console ~ frustration +9 Try to launch openoffice and find out that it crashes ~frustration +10 Read man pages, docs, visit IRC help chat, etc... ~ 2 hours, frustration +11 Give up for now, get a snack ~ 10 min, frustration +10 Realize the reason why the interface feels so uncomfortable: my wheel mouse doesn't work ~ frustration +11 Read up on XF86Config, hit IRC again, man pages, man pages, man pages galore ~ 30 min, frustration +12 Figure out how to turn on mouse wheel suuport ~ frustration +11 Be forced to edit a text config file in order to get a very basic feature to work that would be easy to autodetect and autoconfigure in the install program ~ frustration +12 Go through an incredibly long series of steps that I won't list here with lots of downloading, compiling (!), manual reading, IRCing, etc... to get 3D acceleration to work ~ 7 hours, frustration +15 Reinstall windows 2000 professional (it's a dual boot system), (it needed to be done anyway) ~ a whole lot less time, very little trouble. Click "I Agree" for the first time after turning 18 ~ 1 second, freedom -<rotate clockwise="90 degrees">8</rotate> Realize that gnu/linux will never take off as a mainstream desktop OS as long as it is hard to install, presents scary "informative" messages, forces the user to learn the console, has a default install that's more bloated than windows (yeah, really), and so on..., and that as long as windows remains the desktop OS of choice everyone loses, including gnu/linux users ~ frustration +<rotate clockwise="90 degrees">8</rotate> Post on slashdot about my experience ~ -3 karma (I post at +2, slashbots who don't like to hear jaded but honest criticism of OSS can get it down to -1) Sigh in despair ~ no net change
firstly - the policies affect ALL users, INCLUDING the administrator.
I have some experience adminstrating a win2k active directory domain so I can offer some advice in that area: policies only affect all users by default -- you can change this behavior. When you create the new policy, click the "edit" button (I think its this one. If not, it's the other button with a similarly suggestive name.) and you can edit the policy ACLs by hand. See that little check box marked apply in the "Authenticated Users" entry? Uncheck it. If you do this _before_ hitting apply you'll be fine every time.
What does this mean? Does it mean that they officially permit gnu/linux machines on their network or that they actually provide tech support for gnu/linux users?
I mean, 1.5/384 [...]
Which package is this? How much are you paying for it?
I'm moving from Cox Cable because they recently instituted monthly transfer caps, and was all set to transfer to pac bell dsl when I read about how they're sending out spyware in the mail. I'm not about to commit for a year (or pay an extra $10/month) when they could very easily make that kind of software mandatory to use their service. Speakeasy.net was my next choice.
Anyone have any experience to share about speakeasy.net, specifically their customer service as well as how badly the bells abuse their monopoly when you sign up with an alternative dsl carrier? Also, I'm probably just not looking hard enough, but I didn't see any mention on their web site of the speeds provided with each tier of service. I'm looking at either the plain vanilla or sysadmin packages. Preferred rpmfind access would be great, but unless there's a significant speed increase (preferably in the upstream direction) over normal service it's not worth the extra $10/month. Any experience/information would be great.
Speaking of increased upstream bandwidth, I saw something interesting a while ago and I though I'd ask the slashdot community about it. At the end of the interview with the WinMX developers on slyck.com, someone (it's not clear whether it's the interviewer or interviewee) adds the comment:
Also I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that as more and more people move away from the crappy 128kbit upstream broadband connections onto the next generation 600kbit+ upstream broadband connections over the next year or two, the amount of available files and other resources will flourish on ALL P2P networks beyond all our wildest dreams.
600kbit+ upstream connections that people can actually afford? Huh? Has anyone heard anything about this anywhere else?
One of the reasons they cite for limiting accounts to one player each is server storage space. Here's an idea: if a player wants to, allow him to download his character and store it on his own computer -- then he can create a new character and play it until he decides he wants his old one back or discovers that his MMORPG addiction is destroying his social life (;) ). If he chooses to go back to his original character, let him upload it and play from where he left off.
There are two main ways a user can cheat in a system like this:
1. He can download, modify, and upload his character file to get extra items or status, and 2. He can download his character, do something risky but with a large possible reward online, and re-upload his character file if he isn't successful and ends up losing something.
Both of those problems could be solved by associating a unique ID and last-downloaded date with every character in a user's account. Character files containing the above data would be made available for download, and only the unique ID and date would remain on the server taking up very little space after download. Since the data would be encrypted using a fast, proven symmetric cypher and the server would be the only entity in posession of the key, the user would be unable to determine the internal format of the character file or modify data to gain in-game status.
Don't confuse this with DRM -- this is actually capable of working. Digital Restriction Mechanisms will always fail because in order for them to make content available to the user, the user's computer must be in possession of enough information at one time or another to obtain a decrypted copy of the "protected" content. This is not a requirement for the character-saving system, as the user never needs to have access to the character data stored in the file. Every character file could contain a copy of the goatse pic and no one would ever know.
This system prevents users from uploading stored characters to erase mistakes by including a last downloaded date and a unique ID in the character file. If the last downloaded date in the character file is older than the last downloaded date stored on the server for that character's unique ID, or if a user tries to upload an earlier copy of their active character, the server would reject the upload.
Of course, that's only a technical solution to the problem. It doesn't stop the rich from buying more than one account and getting around every single restriction imposed by single player accounts, but I have a feeling that the service providers kinda like it that way. Maybe EQ or Blizzard (Diablo II) will implement something like this and save themselves some storage space?
I remember reading an open letter from the Indian government (I think. It might have been a south american country.) to MS stating the reasons they wanted to go with linux rather than a windows platform. Basically, they realized (to the cheers of many many slashdotters) that no matter what discounts MS may offer them, providing their schools with MS software would allow MS to jack up the price or impose any other restrictions later on when everyone would be used to the windows environment, making a switch to linux costly and difficult.
Hopefully they'll remember their position and realize that opening the source code is just another piece of bait. There's no guarantee it will stay open and availabe, just like there's no guarantee of continued MS price breaks after the first one. It looks like they've got a pretty good handle on the "The first one's free" concept.
A few key differences between the two are that the Opteron will be multiprocessor-enabled and have three HyperTransport pipes (each providing a theoretical 6.4GB/s of throughput) versus one in the Athlon 64.
The last time I looked at any Hammer-related information on AMD's web site, it said that hypertransport would be used for interprocessor communication, but they would only operate at 6.4GB/sec on quad-cpu setups. Dual-cpu hypertransport pipes would operate at 3.2GB/sec, but considering the hammers will have onboard PC2100 memory controllers only a maximum of 2.1GB/sec of that could be eaten up by memory transfers (mulitprocessor athlon systems use a NUMA) so 3.2GB/sec is a reasonable number. I think the hypertransport pipe connecting the cpu to the chip that's something like a stripped-down north bridge may be even slower (1.6GB/sec?) but I'm not sure about that.
Mine used to crash all the time, but it was due to a bug in the Athlon Thunderbird.
I had this very same problem after I upgraded from a voodoo3 to a geforce2 mx. I was (and still am) dual booting win2k professional and redhat 7.3. The strange thing was that I only experienced crashes during 3d acceleration in windows - linux worked fine, even without the mem=nopentium option. I researched the problem quite a bit before I found the solution, and I got two contrary explanations. One places the blame on the cpu and one points at the OS.
The first explanation I got was that the Athlon Thunderbirds and two steppings of the Palomino core don't properly execute the invlpg instruction under certain circumstances (i.e. when 4MB pages are used), so some TLB entries can be left behind even though they shouldn't be there. This can cause the modification of areas of memory (AGP memory in use by the GART in this case) to be written to when they shouldn't be. Either the graphics card is getting confused because its data is being modified by code that thinks it's modifying its own data, or a program is tweaking out because its data is being modified by the graphics card.
The other explanation was that the instability was caused by an interaction between a "feature" of Athlon processors and OS page allocation code. Athlon CPUs allocate cache lines for speculative writes (reading memory into the cache so that cache lines can be mapped to other areas of memory, expecting that they'll be written to later, without causing problems if the cpu needs to read from that memory instead) and writes the data back to main memory whether the data is actually changed or not. This explanation says that if the OS allocates 4MB pages and marks them as cacheable and if those areas of memory are in use by the AGP GART, the cpu will "guess" that the cpu may be instructed to perform a write to that area of memory (which would never be done, but the athlon doesn't know this) and will read that area into the cache in preparation for a write. Later the cpu will write it back. Normally this wouldn't cause a problem, but since that area of memory is in use by the GART, the data may have changed since the time that it had been read by the cpu. When the athlon writes that data back to memory (even though it wasn't changed by the processor) it inadvertently writes stale data into memory used by the agp card. The graphics card gets confused and the machine then locks up.
The problem is that both explanations say that the problem only occurs when 4MB pages are used, and it goes away if the machine only allocates 4KB pages. Also, all the fixes I've seen disable 4MB pages (mem=nopentium in linux and a registry patch in win2k), so there's no way for me to be absolutely sure which is the real culprit.
I'm inclined to lean towards the first explanation because: -It provides a reason why changing to 4KB pages fixes the problem. The CPU treats 4MB pages differently from 4KB pages, providing a distinct set of circumstances in which the INVLPG instruction won't work properly. -The problem disappeared with later palominos and all cores after that. I don't think AMD decided to disable speculative writes, so by my logic explanation 2 predicts that the same thing should happen on all athlons.
It seems like explanation 1 is more likely to be correct, except that I have no problems under linux, even without the mem=nopentium option. Since explanation 1 relies purely on the hardware in use and does not involve the OS, it seems as if linux should crash as well when 4MB pages are not disabled. I've read AMD's processor errata and anything I could skim off of google on the subject, butI can't seem to find a really good, complete explanation.
Does anyone out there know what's really going on?
but it is a shame it could not improve your spelling....
Actually, my spelling is usually fairly good. The problem is that learning dvorak just made it easier to stay up until 2am writing posts on slashdot while reading about the latest LoTR movie (you know, the one with hobbits in it?;) ).
That said, good for you. Slashdot and the internet in general are absolutely polluted with posters who don't understand basic English grammar such as the difference between there, their and they're. I'm not talking about those for whom English is a second language -- they're pretty easy to pick out, and the fact that they're making an effort (most of them do) is a positive thing. I'm talking about people who fell asleep in their ninth grade English class -- every day -- and now spend their time chatting on AOL using "u" instead of "you" and ignoring the difference between your and you're.
The problem comes into play when playing some games - most Quake derivatives (Half-Life, Medal of Honor: Allied Assault, etc.) use hard-coded Querty key layouts, so your keys revert back to Querty. Just something to keep in mind.
This is why I switched to linux/wine for quake and quake derivatives (mostly Half-Life for me). Well, that and that I like to be able to individually tweak per-game opengl settings like FSAA in startup scripts. Anyway, keypresses in X are always translated before they get to the program, so I don't have to worry about using qwerty on my own machine.
It's not all that hard to switch back and forth, but there's a huge amount of inconsistency in windows. Most 3D games come with their keybindings preset for the popular WADS layout (w for forward, a for strafe left, d for strafe right, s for back, e for use, r for reload, etc...). Nicer, more modern games like Hitman II (the demo at least) automatically set themselves for your keyboard layout. I was incredibly pleased when I installed the game, got ready to reconfigure the key bindings, entered the menu, and found that the game had replaced WADS with,AEO automatically. Some games like Jedi Knight go the opposite route, and read QWERTY in the menu and during gameplay. Not as good, but at least I can press a key during configuration and have the same key perform that function during gameplay.
Wine fixes all of those problems, but what I really appreciate is what it does for Half-Life. In windows 2000 with the keyboard mapping set for dvorak, Half-Life reads dvorak in the menus and qwerty during gameplay. ARG! That means than I have to configure the game by entering a qwerty layout using a dvorak keyboard, and then play as if my keyboard weren't remapped. I tried HL under wine, saw that games worked like they should, and never went back.
----------
As for the parent post's question about how easy it is to switch, I didn't get really comfortable with dvorak until I had been using it for about two months. Now that I'm comfortable with it, I find that I type significantly faster than I did with qwerty; I'm probably about 10-20% faster, but I've never done a benchmark or anything (before or after). The most significant benefit, I think, is that I got to re-learn how to type and get rid of some bad habbits I could never shake. Before I switched, I would hit shift with the same hand I used to type the capital letter; now I hit shift with one hand and hit the letter key with the other.
As for how hard it is to switch back and forth between qwerty and dvorak, I have some direct experience with that. I use dvorak on my home computer and on a friend's computer (he switched about the same time I did), but I'm forced to use qwerty on the computers at my college. I spend much more time typing at home than I do at school, so using qwerty is fairly awkward for the first few minutes. After that I probably type at about 80-90% the speed I did before (again, that's just a guess).
So the software is FREE, but the service is paid for. Thus the service enables the "free" software to be used and you have paid for a period of n to use that software. This could make getting a refund harder as the service is provided by Microsoft and not the OEM, also as its paid up front from the OEM to Microsoft it blurs how refunds can be obtained. Its like car insurance, you have it, you pay for it up front, the fact that you don't have a car crash doesn't mean that you can say it wasn't used and ask for a refund.
If the initial software cost is 0, then the problem goes away. Remember, the reason we need refunds is that the OEM _paid_ money to MS for the copy of windows that comes with the machine. If the OEM pays nothing to MS to put that software on the computer, the laptop wouldn't cost any more than it would if it came with no OS at all. Sure, imaging the drive costs money, but that cost is very small per drive next to a $200+ windows license.
From there, there are only two options that the OEM can offer the consumer: a laptop that comes with a monthly bill to use windows, or one that comes with a prepaid usage period. If no windows time comes with the laptop, then getting a "refund" is as simple as calling up MS and canceling the subscription. If it comes with, say, a one year subscription to "Windows DRM 2003", getting a refund means the consumer calling up the OEM and telling them she doesn't want to pay for the remaining windows time and would like a refund. This is pretty much the situation we're in right now, except you can turn the laptop on to make sure it works without forfeiting your option to get a refund, before you make the call.
The real problem is not getting the refund. There are two major issues here that need more attention:
-Subscription-based software licenses are totally unacceptable. Think about it -- subscription software means paying a monthly fee just so everything keeps working. This is more like a protection racket than a maintenance contract. Yes, that subscription may include updates and fixes, but if the latest version of windows comes with a serious bug that allows a web page to delete arbitrary files on a user's hard disk *cough*Windows XP*cough*, one of two things needs to happen:
A) The fix should be free to the end user, maintenance contract or not. or B) Consumers should be made aware that they're buying software with serious and easily exploitable security flaws.
Maybe both. Also, subscription softare (as MS defines it) tries to work in a manner contrary to information physics: it's not natural for software to stop working when the user stops paying -- a simple crack and it behaves like regular software. It may be illegal to crack windows in such a way, but it's possible to do so. What we need to be doing is making sure new business models work _with_ information physics rather than try to fight it. For instance, ransom licenses work particularly well (the ones that do not release the full version of a piece of software until a certain total has been paid by the public). It's not possible to crack and pirate software that hasn't been released, assuming the software company doesn't do something stupid like put an iso of the cd on an unpassworded ftp account and then allow that information to be leaked *cough*Windows XP*cough*.
-The second thing we need to keep in mind that the hardware underlying a subscription-based version of windows may not boot anything else. No linux for you. TCPA/Palladium is bad, remember that.;)
> Most of what's labeled as piracy nowadays is simply acting > in accordance with the laws of information physics at possible > detriment to the financial standing of companies that have a > vested interest in maintaining the status quo with regards to > content-centric business models.
How is that any different from saying:
"Most of what's labeled as burglary nowadays is simply acting in accordance with the laws of mechanical physics at possible detriment to the financial standing of companies that have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo with regards to inventory-centric business models."
It's the difference between information and physical objects. If someone breaks into a warehouse and steals a television to sell to someone else, they hurt the company they stole it from in two ways: 1. They deprive the company of whatever revenue it could have obtained through lawful sale of that television. 2. They satisfy a consumer's demand for a television, which could cost the company another potential sale.
This scenario does not change if the television were slated to go on the market for the first time next week, or if it had already been on the market for a year. The possible monetary values change, but the logic stays the same.
Now, imagine that the same person, while working in a movie studio, makes a copy of the finished (yet _unreleased_) product on a DVD (with their own equipment, powered on their own batteries, during their lunch break). That person then makes many copies of the DVD and sells them for a "low" price. That person has hurt the production company in _one_ way. -They have reduced demand for the information (the movie) when it finally comes out in theaters. -They have _not_ prevented the production company from finishing the film by stealing key footage, equipment, or any other property.
This scenario does change if the movie had already been released to the public. Note that releasing to the public does not include playing in theaters as theaters do not allow customers to have unrestricted physical access to the information and thus cannot make perfect copies. Once the information has been released to the public in a form that gives the consumer unrestricted physical access to the medium storing the information, that information becomes freely copyable.
If that same person were to copy and resell a released DVD, the (potential) damage done to the company would be inversely proportional to the level of progressiveness in views held by the society towards information and the expense of the duplication equipment. I.e. it would not be damaging in a society where information physics are understood by all and copying equipment is cheap (the future, hopefully), but it would be very damaging in a situation where the physics of information are not understood by all, specifically the big media companies, and copying equipment is cheap (now). In the past, when copyright was originally provided for in the constitution, copying equipment was expensive and information physics was not understood. A single, small, yet unauthorized reprinting of a copyrighted book would have been moderately damaging. (It would hurt companies with business models forged in ignorance of infomration physics, but would hame limited effect -- recipients of the reprints would be unable to copy them without expensive equipment.)
What's the difference? Through reasonable legislation and reasonable security measures (i.e. not a police state and wherehouses don't have to be guarded by 1000 armed security personnel), the first and second scenarios can be prevented or reduced to the point where the activites of producing and selling goods and providing the service of creating valuable content can be profitable and productive ventures in a free society. You _can_ (mostly) stop people from stealing out of warehouses. You _can_ (mostly) stop films from being pirated before they are released (see above post re: information physics and secrets).
You _cannot_, however, prevent the third scenario because it is impossible to prevent people from copying information when they have unrestricted physical access to a medium that stores it.
In other words, media companies need to shape up and change their business model with regards to post-release revenue, not because it's the "moral thing" to do but because the method of obtaining post-release revenue they desire and a free society in the information age are mutually exclusive, and a free society is essential. Similarly, we need tougher laws to prosecute pre-release pirates (those who make consumer accessible versions of content available before the copyright owners do) and consistent enforcement. Again, not because it's the "moral thing", but because it's necessary for media creators to stay in business in the information age.
That's the most absurd statement I have heard since "Information wants to be free".
How about "Information wants to be anthropomorphized."?
I'm almost totally convinced this either isn't true or the quality is so bad that a purchaser of one of these dvds wouldn't be able to tell whether or not she got the real thing.
But just in case...
This is the only kind of piracy that I actively and vocally oppose. Most of what's labeled as piracy nowadays is simply acting in accordance with the laws of information physics at possible detriment to the financial standing of companies that have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo with regards to content-centric business models. I'm not saying it's good or bad. In fact, I'm saying the exact opposite: when someone copies digital media, legally or illegally, they're simply doing what the laws of physics of information permit. "Piracy" of digital media after it has been sold or rented to the public is as natural and unstoppable as falling after jumping off a cliff. (I.e. It can be stopped, but only through extreme measures like stationing a police officer in every home, or bungeeing [is that a word?] yourself to a crane you've rented for the specific occasion. And even though it can be stopped, that does not take away from the fact that physics still works. Information is still copied in a free society. You still experience the force of gravity when you're hanging from a crane.)
However, just because information physics doesn't permit the kind of control over information that big media companies would like (i.e. the ability to sell information as a physical good) doesn't mean that they have no control. On the contrary. The one and only way information can be controlled is by keeping it a secret. The one and only way information can be kept secret is by assuring that all entities that have access to that information:
1. Agree to keep the information secret. and 2. Are able to keep the information secret.
While DRM schemes like Palladium or SDMI aim to prevent the unstoppable variety of piracy, they cannot do so because they violate #2. DRM system designers may want to keep information a secret even after it enters a consumer's home, but no device is capable of that. (Yes, you could encase every computer in 10 meters of titanium, but if you're going to allow such extreme protection of content in a hypothetical situation, you also must allow extreme resources on the part of the consumer as well.)
On the other hand, movie companies are very capable (or should be very capable) of keeping a movie secret until its release. If the film didn't leave the care of responsible individuals who care about the profits to be had when it is finally released, bootleg preview copies like the ones mentioned in this article wouldn't exist. You can't sell copies of information you can't get at all.
It's because of this that I oppose this kind of copying and will never purchase or watch any kind of pre-release copy such as this. This kind of piracy is damaging to both consumers and producers of content, but most importantly it is preventable.
I'm not saying that I pirate (or support the piracy of) MP3s or rentable movies online; in fact, I'm of the opinion that there is an overall negative impact on the self caused by participating in the unstoppable variety of piracy in a legal system which doesn't allow it. Easy availability of content through illegal means anesthetizes potential activists and prevents them from acting towards greater good. It stops people not from understanding there is a problem with the legal system, but really feeling it to the point where they're willing to act. Want to hear a conspiracy theory? Maybe the content industries are holding back on prosecuting file traders so that they can get more anti-consumer legislation passed before people really start to pay attention.
Ugh. It's way too late to be evangelizing on slashdot. I'm going to bed. </soapbox>
A very nice piece has been written about this...
on
Getting Started In Linux
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
... The people who contacted you want to know how to get started using GNU/Linux, not Linux.
I'm not writing this to berate you or get into some political issue about giving GNU credit, although I do think that's important. (Actually, I still slip up and write Linux instead of GNU/Linux, or NIC card instead of NIC or network interface card. [hey, it happens;)] ) I'm writing to underscore one of the problems that your viewers will come up against: there are too many distros. Well, ok, that's a value judgement on my part, but in reality your viewers are going to be confused when they hear there's more than one GNU/Linux. In terms of picking a good beginner's resource, my only advice would be (this comes from experience):
The fastest, most effective way to turn a user off to GNU/Linux and send him back to his Windows or Mac box is to tell him that the easiest way to do any task is through a CLI.
Avoid books that say that if you can.
Yes, I know that's the truth sometimes (one of the great parts about *nix is that everything is scriptable, and scripts are great tools for getting things done), but Joe User wants to do everything graphically. The problem is that Joe User is already very comfortable with a GUI, and so even if there were a task that he wanted to do on a regular basis that would be easier on a command line, the extra work and annoyance of having to get used to a CLI would more than balance out the gain in productivity.
What is Helix DNA? Is it a good thing or a bad thing?
On one hand, it's from Real -- the first major media company to release a player that (depending on a few bits in a file) won't let you save an internet multimedia stream, the precursor to modern DRM. Real also brought us RealONE, the most junk-infested media player ever, famous for spraying garbage all over your system without your consent.
Now they're releasing a player and its source with ogg support built in? If there's one thing we need in the media arena, it's an open file format and codecs to combat proprietary windows media, real, and quicktime. This sounds like it could be really cool.
Ok, it's oversimplification time. As I understand it, the three main flavors of BSD and their foci are:
Free - Well-rounded BSD for popular architectures. Open - Ultrasecure BSD for many architectures. Lots of code auditing, but always just behind Free in some area or another. Net - Runs everywhere. Won't be done until it runs on toasters and wristwatches.
I have much less experience with the BSDs than I do with the various GNU/Linux distros, so I hope someone will answer my question rather than flame in response. I've long been an advocate of reducing the number of different and nearly equal (in functionality) ways to do the same thing, regarding what I would call redundant software projects. In my view, the necessity of competition in a market for physical goods (the need to keep costs down and quality up by preventing monopolies) does not exist with OSS. If a company producing OSS decides to raise prices or slow development or include unpopular features, anyone else is free to keep using older versions at the very least or fork the project and continue development with positive goals at best. With the necessity for competition removed, a market containing multiple, redundant, competing (for mind share) OSS projects is inferior to a market containing a single, popular OSS project that satisfies a specific need. Incompatibilites crop up. The support base is divided. Developer time is divided. Skills must be learned twice. I would greatly prefer a single desktop environment (and widget set and cut 'n' paste mechanism) over the current situation. In Erpo's-the-emperor land, there is only one gnu/linux distro.
Remember, these are just my opinions.
My question is this: while there are a number of idealogical, license-, or ego-related reasons why maintainers of gnu/linux distros (or desktop environments, or whatever) would resist a merging of sofware or elimination of obviously inferior options (obviously inferior in the "there's 1001 gnutella clients and 99% of them suck" sense), is there the same kind of resistance in the BSD community to merging all three main flavors?
Those who want to give you their files for safekeeping should not forget to include their ip addresses, so that you can contact them in case of a problem...
Sounds like a good idea, but that's all you can get for free. I have limited space and resources -- I can only keep track of so many password files and IP addresses at a time at no cost.
Erpo's "Bronze Tier" security service is available for $10 per month, and for that modest fee you can have the privilege of running Erpo Inc.'s backdoord, "The most advanced intrusion detection software on the planet." (Note, UID 0 and internet access necessary for security functions to operate effectively.) For those willing to spend $50/month for a little more peace of mind, Erpo's "Silver Tier" plus package includes eight (count them, eight) bytes of space on my hard drive for a cleartext backup of your root password. Sometimes, however, that just isn't enough. For those that need the ultimate in security, Erpo Inc. offers the most comprehensive option available anywhere: the super duper "Gold Tier" uber-premium technoblaster package with cherries on top. Clients in this elite class of service have the extreme honor of keeping their servers on-site in a musty corner of my basement (T3 and battery backup provided by client, some restrictions may apply, void where prohibited). For only $100/month, I will personally look through all of your sensitive, private data to make sure it has not been compromised by an attacker. It doesn't get any better than this, folks. Sign up today at www.er....
This is great for precompiled binaries, but it won't work so well for config files - they're different from system to system. I have a better solution:
Anyone who wants to make sure their important config files haven't been changed by an intruder can email them to me, and I'll hold on to them for safe keeping./etc/passwd and/etc/shadow are especially likely to be modified, so I'd recommend sending those right away.
Slashdot Mirror
It's better when it was already installed with the distro - and in (I must really sound like a employee by now, but I'm not) SuSE you do just that:
1) Open config-menu (right beside K-menu): 1 click
2) select for example install software -> games -> arcade -> penguin command: 2nd click
3) insert root password
4) insert DVD/CD if needed (I actually copy the DVD to the harddrive) and wait ~30 seconds Wow that was hard. The whole procedure included only 2 clicks and inserting the root password. Sorry, but I don't know how it can become any easier and more comfortable than that.
[...]
Alternatively you can of course use a packet manager to install more than just one package at a time.
[...]
Wow that was hard. The whole procedure included only 2 clicks and inserting the root password. Sorry, but I don't know how it can become any easier and more comfortable than that.
How many users do you know that install windows software by opening my computer, control panel, add/remove programs, add new program, browse to the installer executable (Is it install.exe or setup.exe on this CD? There are both. Or maybe autorun.exe? Or ar.exe?), clicking ok, going through the install process, closing out of add/remove programs, control panel, and my computer? How many insert the CD and wait for the first thing that pops up?
From a very high-level (or newbie-ish) perspective, software is added by to the computer in windows by bringing the two into contact. It is not usually added to the computer by instructing the computer to absorb the software. Also, do you see an add/remove programs entry for msvcrt.dll or hal.dll in windows? No. Do you see an rpm for glibc under linux? Yes. Even in a gui package manager? Yes. Two easy changes can be made to make conversion from windows easier without making life harder for more experienced users:
1. Hide system packages by default. Joe average doesn't know or care about glibc. When he wants to remove a program, he wants to see entries for the seven or eight big app packs that he uses, not hundreds of entries for things he doesn't care about.
2. Make software installation work by selecting the software, not the software installer. It doesn't matter that that would be implemented by creating an association between files of type (package format) and the installer program to handle double clicks. It just matters that the user not have to go the "add/remove programs, install software route.
We have too many distros.
No we don't. First, all distros are compatible.
Install an apache rpm on a debian system, startup scripts and all. No tweaking.
Run a binary from a distro that's still using last year's libwhatever on a distro that uses the incompatible this year's libwhatever.
Then people have no problems choosing computers from many different vendors and also don't have problems choosing from many different vendors for thousands of other markets, why should the operation systems market be any different?
Two markets:
Non-free computer hardware and software markets need competition to keep prices down and proprietary/monopoly products out.
Free software (including OS software) does not need competition to keep prices down and proprietary systems out. Competition among free software products divides the user, developer, and support base.
All commercial distros except RedHat install KDE by default so they look quite similar. The only differences are config stuff
Newbie overall (but intermediate KDE) users cannot jump into GNOME and do everything exactly the same way. The opposite is also true. Config files are important.
but that's different between Windows versions, too.
Yes, there are incompatibilities between versions of windows but they're nowhere near as bad for most popular software packages. If they were, how could XP have become so widespread so quickly? People are pretty docile when it comes to options on new computers, but if Joe's favorite app just won't work on the new PC, he takes it back to the store.
Just look at 3D-modelling: These machines are operated by artists, not computer geeks, yet Linux (even the mediocre RedHat) made big inroads in this market and can already be called the standard - every new movie is created on Linux workstations.
In those environments, choosing linux over other windows or unix can save a bundle and greatly increase performance. The average computer buyer thinks windows comes "free" with his computer and only really needs raw performance when it comes to games, which is not one of GNU/Linux's strong points.
Linux needs not change at all. [...] Linux itself is already able to do everything needed. [...] Linux itself is ready for the home market. [etc]
Linux is ready, although it's not absolutely perfect in every way. GNU/Linux distros are not quite ready yet.
I think Linux will go a similar route as WindowsNT, which also was used in businesses long before it was used at home.
I know two people who use Windows NT at home and they're both old, male computer geeks with degrees in tech fields. The rest use 98SE, 2000, or XP -- the ones that are less stable but with good UIs.
In countries where RedHat doesn't scare away users, Linux desktop market share is already somewhere between 5% and 15%, at least in newsgroups. (In US-newsgroups, Linux is nonexistant, usually below 2% - thank you, RedHat) If you don't believe me, just do some statistics for a few newsgroups, this is what I did. (non-technical newsgroups only, of course)
Joe non-technical user doesn't know about newsgroups anymore. They're just not hot stuff like the www and instant messaging. I'm not saying nobody knows about them or that news dying by any means -- only that newsgroups are not a random sample of the population at all.
GNU/Linux distros have improved a great deal but I maintain they're still not a satisfactory windows replacement in many important areas.
Correct, but that's because of the software library, not because of Linux itself.
IDE-SCSI for cd burning. USB support. Interruptable kernel mode code. ATA133. DRI/DRM. Software libraries wouldn't work without kernel support for hardware. I agree with you though, GNU/Linux has improved a great deal due to leaps and bounds in userland software development.
RedHat is not Linux, please acknowledge that already.
RedHat is not Linux. RedHat is not GNU/Linux. RedHat contributes to Linux and is a part of the set of GNU/Linux distros. GNU/Linux distros need to improve to be widely accepted desktop OSs.
Isn't this the first option to set? (And yes, I also use dvorak).
...
Yes, after you finish reading through the info in the bootloader and typing out your "linux a=b c=d" line.
Realise that Windows doesn't even recognise linux partitions as there much less attempt to resize them. And don't get me started on the Windows boot loader.
Being like windows isn't the goal. Getting a toehold in a market that is dominated by windows is.
Set up mount points and a swap partition because the system won't configure available space in a sane way automatically ~ frustration +3
Ease of use, exactly what you want. Pick one.
Choose 'custom' from the workstation/server/custom menu, and select package groups that I think I'll need.
See above action.
The kind of ease of use that is needed on a desktop OS and getting exactly what you want are not necessarily mutually exclusive in a well-designed system.
A decent set of automatic defaults for partitions would be very little trouble to implement, and a non-bloated default install would alleviate the need to dive into individual package selection.
Realize that package management systems under linux
Realise that windows doesn't actually have a package management system.
Installshield? Add/remove programs? Superpimp? They work just fine. Sure, sometimes they leave stuff behind, but they're many many times more user friendly than (for instance) gnorpm. If you define a package management system as one where mostly system code is executed during package installation, then windows didn't have one in the past. Now it does: MSI. It's not the most beautiful file format, but it works and it's easy. Double-click.
Realize that even though linux has reached version 2.4 and redhat's distro has been around for so many years, no one has ever considered that long, fast-scrolling startup text barfed out by the kernel scares away users who "can't read the error messages fast enough to keep up" and instead replaced them with a progress bar by default, while still making advanced startup an option ~ frustration
Realise that hiding the messages would piss the vast majority of your users off.
Possibly. That's why an advanced startup option is needed.
Make an educated guess that even if package management system developers could put aside their egos, develop a decent universal package system, and get every distro to use it that it would still force me to use the console ~ frustration +9
Realise that "One size fits all" means that everyone is equally pissed off with it.
Other than the fact that the windows package management system often leaves stuff behind on uninstall, name three things that a novice user thinks are wrong with it that a gnu/linux package managemnt system does right with a graphical tool.
Realize the reason why the interface feels so uncomfortable: my wheel mouse doesn't work ~ frustration +11
Wonder why you are using a version of Redhat that is over two years old. Consider the possibility that the user didn't pay attention during the install.
Hang out in #linuxhelp. People still ask questions about mouse wheels with the latest distros.
the mainstream public doesn't care about the install taking less than a Gig.
I know. That was actually one of my personal pet peeves (that the install is over 1GB, not that the public doesn't care that the install is over 1GB). However, just because they're unaware that install size is important (beyond that it should be, at a maximum, less than the size of their entire hard drive) doesn't mean it doesn't matter. The smaller the install, the more likely the tiny partition they create from what's left of their windows free space will be adequate. Not everyone has a second hard drive in their computer that's not being used. But that logic can only take you so far -- the size reduction has to stop at some point. I guess what I'm saying is that the default install comes with too much stuff, and there's a particular quality that, in my experience, many many windows converts posess that can be taken advantage of in order to make the creation of a lighter distro easier: When confronted with a computer lacking a particular piece of software and a software installation CD, most users are at home inserting the CD and clicking next a few times until the software is there. Combining a thinner distro with a software installation system that is a serious competitor to installshield or MSI in terms of user interface would be, in my opinion, a great improvement.
on one hand you talk about newbie-friendlyness, then you require ultra-l33t and useless features.
I don't think the two are mutually exclusive, but I don't remember requiring any ultra-l33t and useless features either. I don't think a smaller default install, a less cluttered program menu, and a lack of useles (to the average user) startup messages qualify as ultra-l33t or useless.
Well, nobody expected newbies being able to install WinNT4, so what's the point?
That's an easy one. If distro maintainers want to convert a bunch of windows users, gnu/linux needs to be easier to install than NT4. That's the point. Most mainstream distros are partly there, but partly better than NT4 isn't all that impressive to a newbie.
We have several distros just as we have several computer makers. Just like people can choose what computer they will buy they can also choose what distro they use.
We have too many distros. The more computer makers there are, the better it is for consumers (up to a point). It means competition in price, competition in customer service, and competition in quality. Of course, the fact that the average computer user doesn't know the difference between Intel and AMD dulls this competition a bit - why bother to make a product better when the user won't notice and the money could be better spent on marketing? However, and this is the key point, all computers sold by major manufacturers (meaning full computer systems including speakers and a monitor) go through pretty much the same process when they get to a user's home:
-Unpack it.
-Plug in the color coded connectors according to the manual, and plug it into an outlet.
-Turn it on.
-See the start button, taskbar, and desktop.
-Insert user action here.
There is no deviation, with the possible exception that there may be a newer version of windows on the new computer than on the old one. Competition among computer manufacturers is good.
On the other hand, competition among multiple distros (once they number more than, say, 2 or 3) is a terrible thing. They all try to "innovate" or play to a particular ideology, but all they end up changing is the stuff that should be the same everywhere. Destkop environments, the location of init scripts, etc... If those things and a few others remained contant from distro to distro, users could hop from their new gnu/linux install at home to their brand new gnu/linux at work without having to re-learn basic skills. If there were only one filesystem layout and standard set of base software, app developers could spend a lot more time developing apps and a lot less time compiling binaries and packaging them in a million different formats for a million different distros.
GNU/Linux distros are availabe free for download. Developers of OSS are not getting paid what their commercial counterparts are receiving on the whole. Competition does not increase quality nearly as much as it does when _physical goods_ are being _sold_ -- it divides the user and developer base.
Why this double standard?
GNU/Linux needs to be better than windows if it's to be accepted as a mainstream desktop OS.
Windows kept crashing and now I'm so used to multiple desktops, Unix-style copy paste and real 3-mouse button support that the Windows GUI appears to me as the archaic, primitive GUI it is. I'm twice as productive on Linux than on Windows. Hell, I always have about 50 windows open, Window's GUI just can't handle that, even with their measly 4-desktop extension.
Those are all good arguments and things about gnu/linux that don't need much more refinement, if any. I'm not saying gnu/linux has no positive points (It most certainly does!), just that some areas are lacking. The stability argument doesn't hold up any more, though. Yes, gnu/linux is still much more stable than even a well-maintained windows installation, but with windows 2000 and xp (yuck) stability has improved to the point where _desktop_ users aren't going to demand much more. Yes, there are certainly a lot of computers out there still running older versions of windows, but we're talking about new offerings here. The fact is, windows 2000/xp can now (most of the time) last the eight hours from startup to shutdown without crashing. Now that users have preemptive multitasking and protected memory, they have as much "stability" as they need. Those users never wanted or needed multi-day, multi-week, or multi-month uptimes in a desktop OS.
3 years ago, it was exactly as you described. But today, no. Even RedHat is only worse than Windows if you have a double standard (as you have) and good desktop distros like SuSE or Mandrake beat it right away or Debian and Gentoo beat it on different merits (harder to install but easier to maintain).
GNU/Linux distros have improved a great deal but I maintain they're still not a satisfactory windows replacement in many important areas.
The only thing Windows really is better than Linux is at running Win32 software.
Actually, that's not entirely true. Just a few days ago I downloaded and (tried) to run an old "NT4-only" program on my w2k system and it crashed every time I opened a particular window. I tried running it under wine and it worked perfectly, with a few minor visual glitches. A lot of people laughed when slashdot posted that story about the group that was trying to run wine in cygwin, but I'm anxiously awaiting the day when it compiles.
...can it decode rap and/or reggae? I swear I can't understand 3/4 of those lyrics. Songs could start with
-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
and I wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
The funny thing is that SuSE does most of what you are complaining about (make Windows partitions smaller, automatically partition available space, boot from harddisk when CD is in drive, support mouse-wheels out of the box, no registration for security updates, preinstall OpenOffice) and probably Mandrake, too (haven't tried it for quite some time).
:) Where can I download SuSE ISOs?
Cool! I'll have to try it.
It's also quite funny that you *expect* Linux to be able to handle partitions from another OS,
Windows 2000 handles partitions from other OSs by default -- they're all other MS OSs so they don't really "count", but the support is there. With an add-in app, you can mount ext2 disks as drives or browse them with an explorer-like interface.
to come with a full blown office-suite
I don't expect it to come with a full-blown office suite. I would really like two changes to be made:
1. Don't install office software by default, or give me an option to deselect "office software" as a whole (meaning no abiword, no gnumeric, etc...) to de-bloat default installs.
2. Offer the integrated, compatible, newbie-frendly, full-featured, open-source package (openoffice) by default rather than a loose collection of apps that are "just fine for 75% of the things you want to do". In the OSS world, competition does not bring down prices; it divides the knowledge base, the developer base, and slows adoption.
and use less than 1GB
Windows 2000 Profession installs by default at about 900M on my machine. Pre-ultrabloat versions of windows that are still quite capable for 99% of the things people want to do (e.g. Windows 98SE) install in under 300M, or 400M with all the goodies.
If you select minimum install without X...
I'm sorry, but if it doesn't come with a GUI, it's not going to be accepted by the mainstream public.
Saying Linux sucks for the desktop because of RedHat is like saying x86 sucks for the desktop because you had to install a graphics card in your rackmounted computer for desktop use.
I'm not saying that linux sucks because redhat sucks. I'm saying that GNU/Linux in general is not at a stage where it can be expected to be adopted by the mainstream public. Yes, I've tried the other bigger distros (debian, slack, etc...). I helped out a friend with some minor issue when he was installing an old version of SuSe on his machine, but I've never used that particular distro myself.
I don't want you to get the wrong idea: I'm not defending windows. There are things I absolutely hate about windows, though the majority of them are ethical problems like DRM in the integrated media system, or unreasonable licensing terms. I'm saying that there's some real bottom-line, basic newbie-friendliness that's missing from gnu/linux distros. I also don't want you to think that the challenges and frustrations I listed above are necessarily the biggest problems for technical users. I actually have fun when I'm solving a problem or getting some strange feature to work. The longer it takes and the more involved it is, the greater the sense of satisfaction I get when I finish. My point of view is that making several simple changes to common distros could save a lot of hassle, greatly increase gnu/linux adoption among people who are fed up with MS BS, and even make the lives of technical people more productive and fun. I like solving problems, but at a certain point I prefer a system that just functions "like it should" so that I can get real work done.
Let me illuminate the joys of installing Redhat Linux 7.3 (the last distro I installed):
Boot of of CD-Rom
Read several F(number) pages of information and decide which boot option is right for me ~ 5 min
Curse at a system that does not let my set my keyboard mapping to dvorak before forcing me to enter textual data ~ frustration +1
Wait for anaconda et all to load ~ 2 min
Select my keyboard mapping and mouse type (*)
Get to the partition screen and find out that the installer doesn't dynamically resize windows partitions to make room for itself. ~ frustration +2
Reboot
Warez partition magic
Use partition magic ~ 30 min
Reboot
Repeat above steps until the partition screen comes up.
Set up mount points and a swap partition because the system won't configure available space in a sane way automatically ~ frustration +3
Fsck & mkfs ~ 2 min
Choose 'custom' from the workstation/server/custom menu, and select package groups that I think I'll need.
Select "choose individual packages".
Realize that package management systems under linux don't descriminate between packages that users may or may not want to include (konqueror) and packages that are mandatory and must always be installed without bothering the user and making him/her read up on them (glibc) and should only be exposed as options when the user selects "ultra-expert" install mode ~ frustration +4, 5 min (to find the things I need [luckily I know what they are] )
Realize that standard desktop OS functionality requires a default install greater than 1 GB ~ 2 seconds, frustration +5
Wait for packages to install ~ 55 min
Install grub
Reboot
Enter install program because I didn't remove the CD and the CD boot loader isn't smart enough to present me with a "Press any key to boot from CD...." timeout option which boots from the hard disk if the OS is already installed ~ frustration +5
Remove CD
Reboot
Realize that even though linux has reached version 2.4 and redhat's distro has been around for so many years, no one has ever considered that long, fast-scrolling startup text barfed out by the kernel scares away users who "can't read the error messages fast enough to keep up" and instead replaced them with a progress bar by default, while still making advanced startup an option ~ frustration +6
Realize something similar while watching the init scripts ~ frustration +7
Appreciate that X just works and that I can log in graphically and that I don't have to configure anything in order to get to that point ~ frustration +6
Remember that windows has been this way for a very long time ~ frustration +7
Log in
Click the little red exclamation point, and read an error message that says I have to be registered in order to get automatic security updates ~ frustration +8
Remember that not even windows is that persnickety about giving out security patches ~ frustration +9
Remember that windows requires you to accept an agreement giving MS total access to your computer in order to patch critical security flaws ~ frustration +8
Register for rhn ~ 10 min
Change home page from redhat to my usual home page.
Be thankful that multiple reboots aren't necessary while downloading software updates ~ frustration +7, 2 hours
Download openoffice because it's been neglected in favor of inferior, splintered, buggy, incompatible individual office programs which were installed even thought I didn't want them.
Be forced to open a console, untar, find the setup file, and run it in order to install an office program because there is still no single, unified package management system for linux which results in confused users and puts extra strain on developers who package their own software by forcing them to either neglect certain distros, learn and use all of the major packaging systems, or write their own setup programs ~ frustration +8
Make an educated guess that even if package management system developers could put aside their egos, develop a decent universal package system, and get every distro to use it that it would still force me to use the console ~ frustration +9
Try to launch openoffice and find out that it crashes ~frustration +10
Read man pages, docs, visit IRC help chat, etc... ~ 2 hours, frustration +11
Give up for now, get a snack ~ 10 min, frustration +10
Realize the reason why the interface feels so uncomfortable: my wheel mouse doesn't work ~ frustration +11
Read up on XF86Config, hit IRC again, man pages, man pages, man pages galore ~ 30 min, frustration +12
Figure out how to turn on mouse wheel suuport ~ frustration +11
Be forced to edit a text config file in order to get a very basic feature to work that would be easy to autodetect and autoconfigure in the install program ~ frustration +12
Go through an incredibly long series of steps that I won't list here with lots of downloading, compiling (!), manual reading, IRCing, etc... to get 3D acceleration to work ~ 7 hours, frustration +15
Reinstall windows 2000 professional (it's a dual boot system), (it needed to be done anyway) ~ a whole lot less time, very little trouble.
Click "I Agree" for the first time after turning 18 ~ 1 second, freedom -<rotate clockwise="90 degrees">8</rotate>
Realize that gnu/linux will never take off as a mainstream desktop OS as long as it is hard to install, presents scary "informative" messages, forces the user to learn the console, has a default install that's more bloated than windows (yeah, really), and so on..., and that as long as windows remains the desktop OS of choice everyone loses, including gnu/linux users ~ frustration +<rotate clockwise="90 degrees">8</rotate>
Post on slashdot about my experience ~ -3 karma (I post at +2, slashbots who don't like to hear jaded but honest criticism of OSS can get it down to -1)
Sigh in despair ~ no net change
firstly - the policies affect ALL users, INCLUDING the administrator.
I have some experience adminstrating a win2k active directory domain so I can offer some advice in that area: policies only affect all users by default -- you can change this behavior. When you create the new policy, click the "edit" button (I think its this one. If not, it's the other button with a similarly suggestive name.) and you can edit the policy ACLs by hand. See that little check box marked apply in the "Authenticated Users" entry? Uncheck it. If you do this _before_ hitting apply you'll be fine every time.
THEY ARE LINUX FRIENDLY.
What does this mean? Does it mean that they officially permit gnu/linux machines on their network or that they actually provide tech support for gnu/linux users?
I mean, 1.5/384 [...]
Which package is this? How much are you paying for it?
I'm moving from Cox Cable because they recently instituted monthly transfer caps, and was all set to transfer to pac bell dsl when I read about how they're sending out spyware in the mail. I'm not about to commit for a year (or pay an extra $10/month) when they could very easily make that kind of software mandatory to use their service. Speakeasy.net was my next choice.
Anyone have any experience to share about speakeasy.net, specifically their customer service as well as how badly the bells abuse their monopoly when you sign up with an alternative dsl carrier? Also, I'm probably just not looking hard enough, but I didn't see any mention on their web site of the speeds provided with each tier of service. I'm looking at either the plain vanilla or sysadmin packages. Preferred rpmfind access would be great, but unless there's a significant speed increase (preferably in the upstream direction) over normal service it's not worth the extra $10/month. Any experience/information would be great.
Speaking of increased upstream bandwidth, I saw something interesting a while ago and I though I'd ask the slashdot community about it. At the end of the interview with the WinMX developers on slyck.com, someone (it's not clear whether it's the interviewer or interviewee) adds the comment:
Also I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that as more and more people move away from the crappy 128kbit upstream broadband connections onto the next generation 600kbit+ upstream broadband connections over the next year or two, the amount of available files and other resources will flourish on ALL P2P networks beyond all our wildest dreams.
600kbit+ upstream connections that people can actually afford? Huh? Has anyone heard anything about this anywhere else?
One of the reasons they cite for limiting accounts to one player each is server storage space. Here's an idea: if a player wants to, allow him to download his character and store it on his own computer -- then he can create a new character and play it until he decides he wants his old one back or discovers that his MMORPG addiction is destroying his social life ( ;) ). If he chooses to go back to his original character, let him upload it and play from where he left off.
There are two main ways a user can cheat in a system like this:
1. He can download, modify, and upload his character file to get extra items or status, and
2. He can download his character, do something risky but with a large possible reward online, and re-upload his character file if he isn't successful and ends up losing something.
Both of those problems could be solved by associating a unique ID and last-downloaded date with every character in a user's account. Character files containing the above data would be made available for download, and only the unique ID and date would remain on the server taking up very little space after download. Since the data would be encrypted using a fast, proven symmetric cypher and the server would be the only entity in posession of the key, the user would be unable to determine the internal format of the character file or modify data to gain in-game status.
Don't confuse this with DRM -- this is actually capable of working. Digital Restriction Mechanisms will always fail because in order for them to make content available to the user, the user's computer must be in possession of enough information at one time or another to obtain a decrypted copy of the "protected" content. This is not a requirement for the character-saving system, as the user never needs to have access to the character data stored in the file. Every character file could contain a copy of the goatse pic and no one would ever know.
This system prevents users from uploading stored characters to erase mistakes by including a last downloaded date and a unique ID in the character file. If the last downloaded date in the character file is older than the last downloaded date stored on the server for that character's unique ID, or if a user tries to upload an earlier copy of their active character, the server would reject the upload.
Of course, that's only a technical solution to the problem. It doesn't stop the rich from buying more than one account and getting around every single restriction imposed by single player accounts, but I have a feeling that the service providers kinda like it that way. Maybe EQ or Blizzard (Diablo II) will implement something like this and save themselves some storage space?
I remember reading an open letter from the Indian government (I think. It might have been a south american country.) to MS stating the reasons they wanted to go with linux rather than a windows platform. Basically, they realized (to the cheers of many many slashdotters) that no matter what discounts MS may offer them, providing their schools with MS software would allow MS to jack up the price or impose any other restrictions later on when everyone would be used to the windows environment, making a switch to linux costly and difficult.
Hopefully they'll remember their position and realize that opening the source code is just another piece of bait. There's no guarantee it will stay open and availabe, just like there's no guarantee of continued MS price breaks after the first one. It looks like they've got a pretty good handle on the "The first one's free" concept.
A few key differences between the two are that the Opteron will be multiprocessor-enabled and have three HyperTransport pipes (each providing a theoretical 6.4GB/s of throughput) versus one in the Athlon 64.
The last time I looked at any Hammer-related information on AMD's web site, it said that hypertransport would be used for interprocessor communication, but they would only operate at 6.4GB/sec on quad-cpu setups. Dual-cpu hypertransport pipes would operate at 3.2GB/sec, but considering the hammers will have onboard PC2100 memory controllers only a maximum of 2.1GB/sec of that could be eaten up by memory transfers (mulitprocessor athlon systems use a NUMA) so 3.2GB/sec is a reasonable number. I think the hypertransport pipe connecting the cpu to the chip that's something like a stripped-down north bridge may be even slower (1.6GB/sec?) but I'm not sure about that.
Mine used to crash all the time, but it was due to a bug in the Athlon Thunderbird.
I had this very same problem after I upgraded from a voodoo3 to a geforce2 mx. I was (and still am) dual booting win2k professional and redhat 7.3. The strange thing was that I only experienced crashes during 3d acceleration in windows - linux worked fine, even without the mem=nopentium option. I researched the problem quite a bit before I found the solution, and I got two contrary explanations. One places the blame on the cpu and one points at the OS.
The first explanation I got was that the Athlon Thunderbirds and two steppings of the Palomino core don't properly execute the invlpg instruction under certain circumstances (i.e. when 4MB pages are used), so some TLB entries can be left behind even though they shouldn't be there. This can cause the modification of areas of memory (AGP memory in use by the GART in this case) to be written to when they shouldn't be. Either the graphics card is getting confused because its data is being modified by code that thinks it's modifying its own data, or a program is tweaking out because its data is being modified by the graphics card.
The other explanation was that the instability was caused by an interaction between a "feature" of Athlon processors and OS page allocation code. Athlon CPUs allocate cache lines for speculative writes (reading memory into the cache so that cache lines can be mapped to other areas of memory, expecting that they'll be written to later, without causing problems if the cpu needs to read from that memory instead) and writes the data back to main memory whether the data is actually changed or not. This explanation says that if the OS allocates 4MB pages and marks them as cacheable and if those areas of memory are in use by the AGP GART, the cpu will "guess" that the cpu may be instructed to perform a write to that area of memory (which would never be done, but the athlon doesn't know this) and will read that area into the cache in preparation for a write. Later the cpu will write it back. Normally this wouldn't cause a problem, but since that area of memory is in use by the GART, the data may have changed since the time that it had been read by the cpu. When the athlon writes that data back to memory (even though it wasn't changed by the processor) it inadvertently writes stale data into memory used by the agp card. The graphics card gets confused and the machine then locks up.
The problem is that both explanations say that the problem only occurs when 4MB pages are used, and it goes away if the machine only allocates 4KB pages. Also, all the fixes I've seen disable 4MB pages (mem=nopentium in linux and a registry patch in win2k), so there's no way for me to be absolutely sure which is the real culprit.
I'm inclined to lean towards the first explanation because:
-It provides a reason why changing to 4KB pages fixes the problem. The CPU treats 4MB pages differently from 4KB pages, providing a distinct set of circumstances in which the INVLPG instruction won't work properly.
-The problem disappeared with later palominos and all cores after that. I don't think AMD decided to disable speculative writes, so by my logic explanation 2 predicts that the same thing should happen on all athlons.
It seems like explanation 1 is more likely to be correct, except that I have no problems under linux, even without the mem=nopentium option. Since explanation 1 relies purely on the hardware in use and does not involve the OS, it seems as if linux should crash as well when 4MB pages are not disabled. I've read AMD's processor errata and anything I could skim off of google on the subject, butI can't seem to find a really good, complete explanation.
Does anyone out there know what's really going on?
but it is a shame it could not improve your spelling....
;) ).
Actually, my spelling is usually fairly good. The problem is that learning dvorak just made it easier to stay up until 2am writing posts on slashdot while reading about the latest LoTR movie (you know, the one with hobbits in it?
That said, good for you. Slashdot and the internet in general are absolutely polluted with posters who don't understand basic English grammar such as the difference between there, their and they're. I'm not talking about those for whom English is a second language -- they're pretty easy to pick out, and the fact that they're making an effort (most of them do) is a positive thing. I'm talking about people who fell asleep in their ninth grade English class -- every day -- and now spend their time chatting on AOL using "u" instead of "you" and ignoring the difference between your and you're.
The problem comes into play when playing some games - most Quake derivatives (Half-Life, Medal of Honor: Allied Assault, etc.) use hard-coded Querty key layouts, so your keys revert back to Querty. Just something to keep in mind.
,AEO automatically. Some games like Jedi Knight go the opposite route, and read QWERTY in the menu and during gameplay. Not as good, but at least I can press a key during configuration and have the same key perform that function during gameplay.
This is why I switched to linux/wine for quake and quake derivatives (mostly Half-Life for me). Well, that and that I like to be able to individually tweak per-game opengl settings like FSAA in startup scripts. Anyway, keypresses in X are always translated before they get to the program, so I don't have to worry about using qwerty on my own machine.
It's not all that hard to switch back and forth, but there's a huge amount of inconsistency in windows. Most 3D games come with their keybindings preset for the popular WADS layout (w for forward, a for strafe left, d for strafe right, s for back, e for use, r for reload, etc...). Nicer, more modern games like Hitman II (the demo at least) automatically set themselves for your keyboard layout. I was incredibly pleased when I installed the game, got ready to reconfigure the key bindings, entered the menu, and found that the game had replaced WADS with
Wine fixes all of those problems, but what I really appreciate is what it does for Half-Life. In windows 2000 with the keyboard mapping set for dvorak, Half-Life reads dvorak in the menus and qwerty during gameplay. ARG! That means than I have to configure the game by entering a qwerty layout using a dvorak keyboard, and then play as if my keyboard weren't remapped. I tried HL under wine, saw that games worked like they should, and never went back.
----------
As for the parent post's question about how easy it is to switch, I didn't get really comfortable with dvorak until I had been using it for about two months. Now that I'm comfortable with it, I find that I type significantly faster than I did with qwerty; I'm probably about 10-20% faster, but I've never done a benchmark or anything (before or after). The most significant benefit, I think, is that I got to re-learn how to type and get rid of some bad habbits I could never shake. Before I switched, I would hit shift with the same hand I used to type the capital letter; now I hit shift with one hand and hit the letter key with the other.
As for how hard it is to switch back and forth between qwerty and dvorak, I have some direct experience with that. I use dvorak on my home computer and on a friend's computer (he switched about the same time I did), but I'm forced to use qwerty on the computers at my college. I spend much more time typing at home than I do at school, so using qwerty is fairly awkward for the first few minutes. After that I probably type at about 80-90% the speed I did before (again, that's just a guess).
So the software is FREE, but the service is paid for. Thus the service enables the "free" software to be used and you have paid for a period of n to use that software. This could make getting a refund harder as the service is provided by Microsoft and not the OEM, also as its paid up front from the OEM to Microsoft it blurs how refunds can be obtained. Its like car insurance, you have it, you pay for it up front, the fact that you don't have a car crash doesn't mean that you can say it wasn't used and ask for a refund.
;)
If the initial software cost is 0, then the problem goes away. Remember, the reason we need refunds is that the OEM _paid_ money to MS for the copy of windows that comes with the machine. If the OEM pays nothing to MS to put that software on the computer, the laptop wouldn't cost any more than it would if it came with no OS at all. Sure, imaging the drive costs money, but that cost is very small per drive next to a $200+ windows license.
From there, there are only two options that the OEM can offer the consumer: a laptop that comes with a monthly bill to use windows, or one that comes with a prepaid usage period. If no windows time comes with the laptop, then getting a "refund" is as simple as calling up MS and canceling the subscription. If it comes with, say, a one year subscription to "Windows DRM 2003", getting a refund means the consumer calling up the OEM and telling them she doesn't want to pay for the remaining windows time and would like a refund. This is pretty much the situation we're in right now, except you can turn the laptop on to make sure it works without forfeiting your option to get a refund, before you make the call.
The real problem is not getting the refund. There are two major issues here that need more attention:
-Subscription-based software licenses are totally unacceptable. Think about it -- subscription software means paying a monthly fee just so everything keeps working. This is more like a protection racket than a maintenance contract. Yes, that subscription may include updates and fixes, but if the latest version of windows comes with a serious bug that allows a web page to delete arbitrary files on a user's hard disk *cough*Windows XP*cough*, one of two things needs to happen:
A) The fix should be free to the end user, maintenance contract or not.
or
B) Consumers should be made aware that they're buying software with serious and easily exploitable security flaws.
Maybe both. Also, subscription softare (as MS defines it) tries to work in a manner contrary to information physics: it's not natural for software to stop working when the user stops paying -- a simple crack and it behaves like regular software. It may be illegal to crack windows in such a way, but it's possible to do so. What we need to be doing is making sure new business models work _with_ information physics rather than try to fight it. For instance, ransom licenses work particularly well (the ones that do not release the full version of a piece of software until a certain total has been paid by the public). It's not possible to crack and pirate software that hasn't been released, assuming the software company doesn't do something stupid like put an iso of the cd on an unpassworded ftp account and then allow that information to be leaked *cough*Windows XP*cough*.
-The second thing we need to keep in mind that the hardware underlying a subscription-based version of windows may not boot anything else. No linux for you. TCPA/Palladium is bad, remember that.
> Most of what's labeled as piracy nowadays is simply acting
> in accordance with the laws of information physics at possible
> detriment to the financial standing of companies that have a
> vested interest in maintaining the status quo with regards to
> content-centric business models.
How is that any different from saying:
"Most of what's labeled as burglary nowadays is simply acting in accordance with the laws of mechanical physics at possible detriment to the financial standing of companies that have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo with regards to inventory-centric business models."
It's the difference between information and physical objects. If someone breaks into a warehouse and steals a television to sell to someone else, they hurt the company they stole it from in two ways:
1. They deprive the company of whatever revenue it could have obtained through lawful sale of that television.
2. They satisfy a consumer's demand for a television, which could cost the company another potential sale.
This scenario does not change if the television were slated to go on the market for the first time next week, or if it had already been on the market for a year. The possible monetary values change, but the logic stays the same.
Now, imagine that the same person, while working in a movie studio, makes a copy of the finished (yet _unreleased_) product on a DVD (with their own equipment, powered on their own batteries, during their lunch break). That person then makes many copies of the DVD and sells them for a "low" price. That person has hurt the production company in _one_ way.
-They have reduced demand for the information (the movie) when it finally comes out in theaters.
-They have _not_ prevented the production company from finishing the film by stealing key footage, equipment, or any other property.
This scenario does change if the movie had already been released to the public. Note that releasing to the public does not include playing in theaters as theaters do not allow customers to have unrestricted physical access to the information and thus cannot make perfect copies. Once the information has been released to the public in a form that gives the consumer unrestricted physical access to the medium storing the information, that information becomes freely copyable.
If that same person were to copy and resell a released DVD, the (potential) damage done to the company would be inversely proportional to the level of progressiveness in views held by the society towards information and the expense of the duplication equipment. I.e. it would not be damaging in a society where information physics are understood by all and copying equipment is cheap (the future, hopefully), but it would be very damaging in a situation where the physics of information are not understood by all, specifically the big media companies, and copying equipment is cheap (now). In the past, when copyright was originally provided for in the constitution, copying equipment was expensive and information physics was not understood. A single, small, yet unauthorized reprinting of a copyrighted book would have been moderately damaging. (It would hurt companies with business models forged in ignorance of infomration physics, but would hame limited effect -- recipients of the reprints would be unable to copy them without expensive equipment.)
What's the difference? Through reasonable legislation and reasonable security measures (i.e. not a police state and wherehouses don't have to be guarded by 1000 armed security personnel), the first and second scenarios can be prevented or reduced to the point where the activites of producing and selling goods and providing the service of creating valuable content can be profitable and productive ventures in a free society. You _can_ (mostly) stop people from stealing out of warehouses. You _can_ (mostly) stop films from being pirated before they are released (see above post re: information physics and secrets).
You _cannot_, however, prevent the third scenario because it is impossible to prevent people from copying information when they have unrestricted physical access to a medium that stores it.
In other words, media companies need to shape up and change their business model with regards to post-release revenue, not because it's the "moral thing" to do but because the method of obtaining post-release revenue they desire and a free society in the information age are mutually exclusive, and a free society is essential. Similarly, we need tougher laws to prosecute pre-release pirates (those who make consumer accessible versions of content available before the copyright owners do) and consistent enforcement. Again, not because it's the "moral thing", but because it's necessary for media creators to stay in business in the information age.
That's the most absurd statement I have heard since "Information wants to be free".
How about "Information wants to be anthropomorphized."?
I'm almost totally convinced this either isn't true or the quality is so bad that a purchaser of one of these dvds wouldn't be able to tell whether or not she got the real thing.
But just in case...
This is the only kind of piracy that I actively and vocally oppose. Most of what's labeled as piracy nowadays is simply acting in accordance with the laws of information physics at possible detriment to the financial standing of companies that have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo with regards to content-centric business models. I'm not saying it's good or bad. In fact, I'm saying the exact opposite: when someone copies digital media, legally or illegally, they're simply doing what the laws of physics of information permit. "Piracy" of digital media after it has been sold or rented to the public is as natural and unstoppable as falling after jumping off a cliff. (I.e. It can be stopped, but only through extreme measures like stationing a police officer in every home, or bungeeing [is that a word?] yourself to a crane you've rented for the specific occasion. And even though it can be stopped, that does not take away from the fact that physics still works. Information is still copied in a free society. You still experience the force of gravity when you're hanging from a crane.)
However, just because information physics doesn't permit the kind of control over information that big media companies would like (i.e. the ability to sell information as a physical good) doesn't mean that they have no control. On the contrary. The one and only way information can be controlled is by keeping it a secret. The one and only way information can be kept secret is by assuring that all entities that have access to that information:
1. Agree to keep the information secret.
and
2. Are able to keep the information secret.
While DRM schemes like Palladium or SDMI aim to prevent the unstoppable variety of piracy, they cannot do so because they violate #2. DRM system designers may want to keep information a secret even after it enters a consumer's home, but no device is capable of that. (Yes, you could encase every computer in 10 meters of titanium, but if you're going to allow such extreme protection of content in a hypothetical situation, you also must allow extreme resources on the part of the consumer as well.)
On the other hand, movie companies are very capable (or should be very capable) of keeping a movie secret until its release. If the film didn't leave the care of responsible individuals who care about the profits to be had when it is finally released, bootleg preview copies like the ones mentioned in this article wouldn't exist. You can't sell copies of information you can't get at all.
It's because of this that I oppose this kind of copying and will never purchase or watch any kind of pre-release copy such as this. This kind of piracy is damaging to both consumers and producers of content, but most importantly it is preventable.
I'm not saying that I pirate (or support the piracy of) MP3s or rentable movies online; in fact, I'm of the opinion that there is an overall negative impact on the self caused by participating in the unstoppable variety of piracy in a legal system which doesn't allow it. Easy availability of content through illegal means anesthetizes potential activists and prevents them from acting towards greater good. It stops people not from understanding there is a problem with the legal system, but really feeling it to the point where they're willing to act. Want to hear a conspiracy theory? Maybe the content industries are holding back on prosecuting file traders so that they can get more anti-consumer legislation passed before people really start to pay attention.
Ugh. It's way too late to be evangelizing on slashdot. I'm going to bed.
</soapbox>
... The people who contacted you want to know how to get started using GNU/Linux, not Linux.
;)] ) I'm writing to underscore one of the problems that your viewers will come up against: there are too many distros. Well, ok, that's a value judgement on my part, but in reality your viewers are going to be confused when they hear there's more than one GNU/Linux. In terms of picking a good beginner's resource, my only advice would be (this comes from experience):
I'm not writing this to berate you or get into some political issue about giving GNU credit, although I do think that's important. (Actually, I still slip up and write Linux instead of GNU/Linux, or NIC card instead of NIC or network interface card. [hey, it happens
The fastest, most effective way to turn a user off to GNU/Linux and send him back to his Windows or Mac box is to tell him that the easiest way to do any task is through a CLI.
Avoid books that say that if you can.
Yes, I know that's the truth sometimes (one of the great parts about *nix is that everything is scriptable, and scripts are great tools for getting things done), but Joe User wants to do everything graphically. The problem is that Joe User is already very comfortable with a GUI, and so even if there were a task that he wanted to do on a regular basis that would be easier on a command line, the extra work and annoyance of having to get used to a CLI would more than balance out the gain in productivity.
What is Helix DNA? Is it a good thing or a bad thing?
On one hand, it's from Real -- the first major media company to release a player that (depending on a few bits in a file) won't let you save an internet multimedia stream, the precursor to modern DRM. Real also brought us RealONE, the most junk-infested media player ever, famous for spraying garbage all over your system without your consent.
Now they're releasing a player and its source with ogg support built in? If there's one thing we need in the media arena, it's an open file format and codecs to combat proprietary windows media, real, and quicktime. This sounds like it could be really cool.
But is it for Real?
Not sure how they came up with that figure, but I'd have to say it's way off.
The number isn't a theoretical maximum for IP over Pigeon technology; it's what they actually got using their method.
Ok, it's oversimplification time. As I understand it, the three main flavors of BSD and their foci are:
Free - Well-rounded BSD for popular architectures.
Open - Ultrasecure BSD for many architectures. Lots of code auditing, but always just behind Free in some area or another.
Net - Runs everywhere. Won't be done until it runs on toasters and wristwatches.
I have much less experience with the BSDs than I do with the various GNU/Linux distros, so I hope someone will answer my question rather than flame in response. I've long been an advocate of reducing the number of different and nearly equal (in functionality) ways to do the same thing, regarding what I would call redundant software projects. In my view, the necessity of competition in a market for physical goods (the need to keep costs down and quality up by preventing monopolies) does not exist with OSS. If a company producing OSS decides to raise prices or slow development or include unpopular features, anyone else is free to keep using older versions at the very least or fork the project and continue development with positive goals at best. With the necessity for competition removed, a market containing multiple, redundant, competing (for mind share) OSS projects is inferior to a market containing a single, popular OSS project that satisfies a specific need. Incompatibilites crop up. The support base is divided. Developer time is divided. Skills must be learned twice. I would greatly prefer a single desktop environment (and widget set and cut 'n' paste mechanism) over the current situation. In Erpo's-the-emperor land, there is only one gnu/linux distro.
Remember, these are just my opinions.
My question is this: while there are a number of idealogical, license-, or ego-related reasons why maintainers of gnu/linux distros (or desktop environments, or whatever) would resist a merging of sofware or elimination of obviously inferior options (obviously inferior in the "there's 1001 gnutella clients and 99% of them suck" sense), is there the same kind of resistance in the BSD community to merging all three main flavors?
Those who want to give you their files for safekeeping should not forget to include their ip addresses, so that you can contact them in case of a problem...
Sounds like a good idea, but that's all you can get for free. I have limited space and resources -- I can only keep track of so many password files and IP addresses at a time at no cost.
Erpo's "Bronze Tier" security service is available for $10 per month, and for that modest fee you can have the privilege of running Erpo Inc.'s backdoord, "The most advanced intrusion detection software on the planet." (Note, UID 0 and internet access necessary for security functions to operate effectively.) For those willing to spend $50/month for a little more peace of mind, Erpo's "Silver Tier" plus package includes eight (count them, eight) bytes of space on my hard drive for a cleartext backup of your root password. Sometimes, however, that just isn't enough. For those that need the ultimate in security, Erpo Inc. offers the most comprehensive option available anywhere: the super duper "Gold Tier" uber-premium technoblaster package with cherries on top. Clients in this elite class of service have the extreme honor of keeping their servers on-site in a musty corner of my basement (T3 and battery backup provided by client, some restrictions may apply, void where prohibited). For only $100/month, I will personally look through all of your sensitive, private data to make sure it has not been compromised by an attacker. It doesn't get any better than this, folks. Sign up today at www.er....
What? Fraud? Don't be silly.
This is great for precompiled binaries, but it won't work so well for config files - they're different from system to system. I have a better solution:
/etc/passwd and /etc/shadow are especially likely to be modified, so I'd recommend sending those right away.
Anyone who wants to make sure their important config files haven't been changed by an intruder can email them to me, and I'll hold on to them for safe keeping.
IP over rodentia carrier?
Nope, but there's IP over carrier pigeon.