But that philosophy breaks down if nothing's standardized. You could develop a million little tools to change settings for applications, but since all applications store their settings in different places and different formats, practically, none of them will work all the time.
I don't think that's a particularly fair statement to make. Yes, I agree, if, for example, I need to check the DNS server settings on a UNIX machine then I have to go to/etc/resolv.conf - there's nothing about the name of the config file that tells you it contains DNS information, unless you think of name resolver which gives you a clue.
But you need to see it from both sides. By your own admission, you don't find Linux intuitive but equally I don't find Windows particularly intuitive either. Yes, there might well be some relatively logical naming system to the Registry and keys but, at my experience level, I don't see it.
So the argument does both work ways.
In any case, sure it *can* be done in Linux, but it's a hundred times harder and probably not as powerful, either. (The registry has per-key permissions, meaning you can "disable" a particular application option by setting it to read only. In Linux, the best you can do is disabling the whole settings file.)
No, I'm sorry, I don't accept that at all. Yes, I'm prepared to admit that there are a large number of data manipulation tools in Linux and that it will take a new person quite a while to get to grips with even some of them. But as soon as you start doing that, you begin to realise the power of the command line with scripting. Truthfully, I don't expect you to be able to visualise it unless you've actually tried some of it for yourself, it is very, very powerful.
Then please don't claim you can't do something unless you know for sure. It's not just Mozy, BTW, it's every non-crap backup utility. I just name-dropped Mozy because it's in my system tray right now.
No, I'm sorry, that's not a fair comment. We are having a good intelligent discussion & I'm allowing you to put me straight when I make incorrect statements about Windows. I'm pretty good on Windows but I'm not an administrator so all I can do is make comments based on my experience with it, just like I'm doing to you with Linux. I really am NOT trying to say one is better than the other because I accept your opinion that you don't find adjustment to Linux easy just like I have taken your advice about using a correct Windows backup tool. No, I don't necessarily claim everything I state is true, that's why I'm listening to you telling me otherwise.
Perhaps; it's also something most Linux developers don't understand because they don't deal with network administration. But the fact is that Windows does it very, very well, and Linux and OS X do not, and as a result Windows is on a very high percentage of corporate desktops. If Linux wants to crack that market, they'll have to figure this stuff out.
Again, I don't accept that. Linux is based on UNIX and UNIX was the first OS to get a TCP/IP networking stack in about 1983. Windows for Workgroups got it as an addon in around 1992. Also, Linux is making deep inroads into the server arena, particularly when it comes to commercial UNIX servers like Unixware, SCO and to a lesser degree, Solaris. It's not out there replacing things like Microsoft Exchange because Exchange is core to most corporate environments.
But I work as a security & network consultant for a US telecoms company who manufactures telephony equipment and I can tell you now that for the core telephony servers that do most of the processing and networking stuff, Red Hat Linux is the underlying OS. Yes, we do have administration servers linked to those that run quite happily on Windows and that provide the integration each one of our customers need into their mainly Windows user environments.
If Linux has a problem with networking then wireless networking, at this moment in time, can be problematic. Tha
Okay, I'm glad we've found some commonality because I'm also a Moody Blues fan & they, to me, are a typical album band so we agree on something - again, I can't pick out tracks from their albums, "On The Threshold Of A Dream" is one of my favourites and is equivalent to "Dark Side Of The Moon" or "Sgt. Peppers" in that you cannot get the best out of it unless you listen from start to finish.
But, to me, appreciating a good album is no different to an art enthusiast who can stand for a half a day staring at a painting as opposed to a tourist giving the same painting a brief glance and then moving on to the next thing. In both cases there's a the same single painting but you can't appreciate it fully unless you spend time exploring it.
And like you, I don't share music - the worst I do is donwload an album I fancy the look of from Usenet, listen to it & buy the album or delete the downloads. I'm old fashioned, I like discs & sleevenotes.
Likewise, I don't deny your right to fair usage - I just don't understand why anyone would want to hack about with good music in much the same way as I wouldn't want to paint a longer nose on the Mona Lisa, for example. In other words, it not really *any of my business* to fiddle about with something someone else has created - sure, if I was a musician myself I might emulate another artist or draw influences from them but that's totally different. All I have to do is decide how much I like it & enjoy it as it unaltered as it was supposed to be.
Someone might want to correct me on this, but I'm also lead to believe that (here in the UK) you can now buy a FreeSat box and watch the free-to-air channels through an existing Sky dish?
I do have a working Sky dish and (old) Sky box that was left here by the previous house owners that we do watch the free channels through but (again correct me if I'm wrong), you can put a FreeSat box on an existing Sky dish and get some of the additional channels free of charge that would normally be included with a paid-for Sky subscription.
I did have a look in an electrical store the other week and they wanted £50 for a standard Freesat box (or £150 for the HD one) plus an additional £70 for a dish installation. The latter struck me as *unusual* to say the least since the FreeSat services is bounced off the same Astra satellite as the Sky service - so why wouldn't an existing Sky dish work?
Again, I bow to the expertise of others here. I'm interested because the Freeview quality is pretty bad where I am so rather than upgrade the terrestrial aerial, I guess £50 just to buy a Freesat box (HD doesn't concern me at the moment) seems like the cheapest way to do it.
...are the vast numbers of people over the whole of this world of ours who *pay* for TV services that *also* have advertising included.
Here in the UK, you don't get much of a choice to not pay the TV License fee but at least everything the BBC broadcasts is advert free. And likewise, I will happily sit & watch the free cable/satellite channels that have advertising breaks.
But/etc or your home directory are predictable places also.
A grave error in your argument is that you naturally assume everyone to be knowledgeable in Windows. My niece has been using Windows for 8 years now but I wouldn't expect her to work out what's under Documents and Settings "intuitively" - she'd need to read a Windows book or call her uncle.
Why would someone completely new to Windows assume that C:\Documents and Settings is any more intuitive than/etc? Especially when you consider the fact that those settings could also be on D:\Documents and Settings if you choose to move it to a different partition whereas, using UNIX mount points,/etc could be on a completely different partition as well (even if that's not a recommended thing to do) but still be/etc.
True; but it also has a lot of features that text-based configuration systems do not. For example, multiple users can edit a single app's configuration at once without stomping all over each other, and it's dead simple (compared to other OSes) to remote-administer (which is a huge feature Windows over virtually all other OSes, and I think the number one reason it's so popular among corporations.)
But Linux does this all by default anyway!
If your configuration is held in your home directory, there's nothing to stop you editing your config while another user is doing theirs, they're certainly not "stomping all over each other".
And remote administration is straightforward also. Because they're text files and Linux has a large number of powerful text manipulation tools that can be put into scripts, you can do pretty much what you want with automation and remote administration. Plus of you set up Secure Shell to use PKE rather than passwords, you can pretty much control a remote PC from a script without having to deal with password authentication.
Let me give you an example. I have several Linux PCs at home - a server, a desktop, a notebook and a media player by my TV. I like to keep the configuration of all the tools I use the same across all machines. I could, if I wanted to, just centralise my home directory on the server and just mount it over the network on the other machines but because the notebook and media server are wireless connected only, it would make some accesses to my centralised files quite slow. So, instead, I just run a shell script on each machine that looks at all the different config files at various times and grabs the latest updated version on whatever machine it happens to be. It's not a complicated script that does that and it's one I've written to do automated administration for my own specific needs.
I do accept that learning the Linux command line is a daunting task for many users and most would probably prefer not to have to put in that level of learning curve to get something to work. But unfortunately, that's the philosophy of Linux - loads of neat little tools that do a small task, you decide how you want to put them together in order to create one of an infinite number of combinations.
There's an API to get past the protection and "snapshot" the contents to back the files up. That's what Microsoft's own Backup utility uses, as well as third-party programs like Mozy. It would be kind of nice if you could just drag&drop the files, but you haven't realistically been able to do that on ANY OS since Mac Classic went kaput. (Which is a shame; IMHO I think Mac Classic got nearly everything right, usability and filesystem-wise and OS X is a huge step down.)
Okay, I take your point on that and it's useful to know about Mozy. I won't claim to be anywhere near as knowlegeable on Windows administration than I am on Linux.
Not if you're a sysadmin and you want to change, or disable, a setting across 30,000 computers at once.
To be fair, I think that's a very extreme example. I accept that in a corporate environment there may be a need to do something like this but no matter what OS you use, you're going to test and restest a change like this in a pre-prod environment before you do it live! And yes, there are a lot more enterprises running 30,000 Windows desktops than there are Linux desktops but this is entirely possible on Linux anyway.
Again, NO OS ever realistically supported this other than Mac Classic, and arguably Mac OS X. Linux is the same way; try moving an application from one Linux machine to another without using a repository or installer, and you'll spend at least as much time fiddling with config files and changing library versions as you would registring DLLs and editing the registry on Windows.
I disagree with you entirely on this because I do this just about every day. In my distro of choice, Gentoo, I just "emerge" the package I want to the second machine and copy the config file under
If you want my honest opinion, then I think that any form of downloads (illegal or paid for) will ultimately change the music industy for the worse and may even end up killing it completely.
DRM is evil - pure and simple. It's sold as a technology to inhibit illegal downloads where, in reality, honest music fans like I guess you and me just end up paying more through a rental model in order to subsidise the music industry's perceived losses through piracy.
Personally, I don't want "pick n mix" music. Anyone that tells me that a CD contains two good songs and the rest as filler tracks is not searching for music well enough as there are thousands of good albums out there that are worth every penny you pay for them on CD, especially if you spend some time researching & buying music as cheaply as possible. That's why I consider CDs to be the only way to buy music that gives me the freedoms to rip it how I want to whatever device I own.
Unfortunately, there's one simple fact that the proponents of the "new download revolution" fail to realise. Whilst I agree record companies are invariably evil themselves, they put a lot of money into promotion & advertising which ultimately leads a lot of people to find the music they like. But how will they do that when there are 10,000,000 groups & musicians all selling their music from their own web sites. How are you going to find the stuff you want to hear?
And in addition to that, what becomes of live music? If demand changes from albums to single tracks, how does a band get together enough material to not only justify playing live in the first place but also to keep having enough new material later on so that fans keep coming to live concerts over and over again? If bands don't tour, they don't make the majority of the money they do currently so why stay in the music business?
I really do honestly believe that the selfish "I want it now and I want it this way" attitude of many people claiming to be music fans is ultimately going to kill music.
Let's face it, the current system may be flawed but at least the "album every year" process has worked for nigh on 50 years & has meant a good selection of music artists are able to make money doing what they do.
I can't argue with what you're saying, I just wanted to ensure that the rationale behind using text files was understood. It is a daunting task for a new user to get to grips with editing text files sometimes and with the way things are with Linux at the minute, the only solution is to do a lot of reading & ask a lot of questions.
And if you end up with arrogant idiots when you ask a simple question, then just remind them that they themselves didn't emerge from the womb as sysadmins and had themselves to start at some point with zero knowledge.
Linux still uses the outmoded FHS at the front end - I know I'll get flamed for this, but look at the other options. Windows installs end-user applications in/Program Files, dependencies either in the application folders or in/Windows/system32, the documentation and resources within the application folders and the rest of the core system files in/Windows, and puts all the home folders in/Users.
I think you're *seriously* oversimplifying the way Windows does it.
For starters, the configuration of a user's applications is usually held in the combination of a folder under "Documents and Settings" and the user's own chunk of the registry which is, to say the least, not the *easiest* place to pull configuration settings out of. Half the time, when you try to copy the Applications folder somewhere else to back them up, the folder is protected & you then have to boot to "Safe Mode" to do it.
And even when you've done that, and somehow worked out what bits of the Registry you need, there's absolutely no guarantee that by putting that chunk of the registry on another machine or another user, that you won't just trash the whole thing.
By comparison, knowing on Linux that your configuration file is likely to be a text file somewhere in/etc or in your home directory and maybe having to read the man page to find out precisely the name and location of the file, is infinitely easier.
Unfortunately, Windows suffers from the *MY* mentality ("My Documents", "My Pictures") without thinking that there might be the remotest possibility you might want to move an application to another machine without having to reinstall it.
You seem to be quick enough to diss FOSS without considering the fact that, by it's very nature, FOSS software at least makes a good attempt at storing configs in an easy to read text or XML file which you can easily back up and put somewhere else very easily - even on Windows.
Yes, but you also need to remember that UNIX is designed around "the lowest common denominator" which is why on just about every UNIX/Linux system out there, anyone with some sysadmin skills can be pretty certain that standard tools like vi, sed, awk, etc. are going to be available to be used - and hopefully work pretty much the same way across all systems.
I'm not poo-pooing your SQLite suggestion but there's a heap of processing difference between a handheld running embedded Linux and huge great teraflops server and you're probably not going to get SQLite running on the former.
It is a trade-off between using simple (but complex to use) small tools across everything or custom (easier to use) configuration tools based on what each platform can handle.
My view is that it's better to spend some time learning the power of command-line tools so that, in the longer term, you can pretty much work on any UNIX-like system. But I do agree it's a steep learning curve for someone new to step into who perhaps wants something GUI based.
It's "horses for courses" - there's justification for both ways of doing things.
It's *infinitely* easier to remember "HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE/System/Microsoft/Hosts/Microsoft/Servers/Microsoft/Rocks/Microsoft/Hosts/NetBeui/Sorry/UpOne/IP/Address/Class/Subnet/Host = 192.168.1.1" than just putting a "192.168.1.1 Server" in/etc/hosts!
Configuration still handled with text files, with front-end tools that try to conceal them but never quite do it all.
Just one observation. I agree about the flakiness of some of the GUI front ends for text file configuration but the fact is there are countless web pages, man pages & sample configuration files around that will guide you through a lot of this stuff if you do a bit of reading first.
No, configuration is not necessarily easy - but moving that configuration somewhere else, or backing it up, is a piece of piss. A text file is easy to read, easy to edit and once an application is installed, just copy the file somewhere under/etc (the man page will tell you precisely where) or into the user's home directory.
I don't know if you use (or even care about) Windows but try moving configuration settings between machines or users & invariably that involves mucking about in the dreaded Registry, even if it's possible to work out what bits of the Registry needs to be moved where.
Get a text file wrong in Linux and the worse that happens is the application won't run or crashes out - get a Registry setting wrong in Windows and the whole machine can be bricked.
I think it's better to tell people that the moment you change to root, then Linux/UNIX considers you to be a grown-up and everything you do from this point on is entirely your responsibility.
And don't forget, if you're *that* security conscious (and I applaud you for being that way), you probably do need to make sure that sudo is configured to give enough access to whoever needs it - and that, of course, needs be done at root.
Still, even that's far superior than some poorly animated paper clip constantly treating me like a nursery school kid.
...I think there needs to be a *LOT* of education of the Windows & Apple crowd to make them understand that Linux refers just to the core kernel whilst all the other applications around it are Open Source.
So hopefully, by 2012, they will begin to understand that by viewing Linux purely as an attack on their own OSes of choice, they actually do themselves a great injustice by completely choosing to ignore the basic fact that, by design, just about any piece of Open Source software does run or can be made to run on their OSes of choice.
And rather than parting with any of their hard earned money to pay for what is frequently overpriced & buggy commercial software, by holding on to their money & just giving a small amount of their time to trying out some of these applications without having to worry about changing their OS, they can play a positive role in ensuring that everyone gets a choice of using commercial or free software, whatever fits their needs.
Slashdot Mirror
But that philosophy breaks down if nothing's standardized. You could develop a million little tools to change settings for applications, but since all applications store their settings in different places and different formats, practically, none of them will work all the time.
I don't think that's a particularly fair statement to make. Yes, I agree, if, for example, I need to check the DNS server settings on a UNIX machine then I have to go to /etc/resolv.conf - there's nothing about the name of the config file that tells you it contains DNS information, unless you think of name resolver which gives you a clue.
But you need to see it from both sides. By your own admission, you don't find Linux intuitive but equally I don't find Windows particularly intuitive either. Yes, there might well be some relatively logical naming system to the Registry and keys but, at my experience level, I don't see it.
So the argument does both work ways.
In any case, sure it *can* be done in Linux, but it's a hundred times harder and probably not as powerful, either. (The registry has per-key permissions, meaning you can "disable" a particular application option by setting it to read only. In Linux, the best you can do is disabling the whole settings file.)
No, I'm sorry, I don't accept that at all. Yes, I'm prepared to admit that there are a large number of data manipulation tools in Linux and that it will take a new person quite a while to get to grips with even some of them. But as soon as you start doing that, you begin to realise the power of the command line with scripting. Truthfully, I don't expect you to be able to visualise it unless you've actually tried some of it for yourself, it is very, very powerful.
Then please don't claim you can't do something unless you know for sure. It's not just Mozy, BTW, it's every non-crap backup utility. I just name-dropped Mozy because it's in my system tray right now.
No, I'm sorry, that's not a fair comment. We are having a good intelligent discussion & I'm allowing you to put me straight when I make incorrect statements about Windows. I'm pretty good on Windows but I'm not an administrator so all I can do is make comments based on my experience with it, just like I'm doing to you with Linux. I really am NOT trying to say one is better than the other because I accept your opinion that you don't find adjustment to Linux easy just like I have taken your advice about using a correct Windows backup tool. No, I don't necessarily claim everything I state is true, that's why I'm listening to you telling me otherwise.
Perhaps; it's also something most Linux developers don't understand because they don't deal with network administration. But the fact is that Windows does it very, very well, and Linux and OS X do not, and as a result Windows is on a very high percentage of corporate desktops. If Linux wants to crack that market, they'll have to figure this stuff out.
Again, I don't accept that. Linux is based on UNIX and UNIX was the first OS to get a TCP/IP networking stack in about 1983. Windows for Workgroups got it as an addon in around 1992. Also, Linux is making deep inroads into the server arena, particularly when it comes to commercial UNIX servers like Unixware, SCO and to a lesser degree, Solaris. It's not out there replacing things like Microsoft Exchange because Exchange is core to most corporate environments.
But I work as a security & network consultant for a US telecoms company who manufactures telephony equipment and I can tell you now that for the core telephony servers that do most of the processing and networking stuff, Red Hat Linux is the underlying OS. Yes, we do have administration servers linked to those that run quite happily on Windows and that provide the integration each one of our customers need into their mainly Windows user environments.
If Linux has a problem with networking then wireless networking, at this moment in time, can be problematic. Tha
Okay, I'm glad we've found some commonality because I'm also a Moody Blues fan & they, to me, are a typical album band so we agree on something - again, I can't pick out tracks from their albums, "On The Threshold Of A Dream" is one of my favourites and is equivalent to "Dark Side Of The Moon" or "Sgt. Peppers" in that you cannot get the best out of it unless you listen from start to finish.
But, to me, appreciating a good album is no different to an art enthusiast who can stand for a half a day staring at a painting as opposed to a tourist giving the same painting a brief glance and then moving on to the next thing. In both cases there's a the same single painting but you can't appreciate it fully unless you spend time exploring it.
And like you, I don't share music - the worst I do is donwload an album I fancy the look of from Usenet, listen to it & buy the album or delete the downloads. I'm old fashioned, I like discs & sleevenotes.
Likewise, I don't deny your right to fair usage - I just don't understand why anyone would want to hack about with good music in much the same way as I wouldn't want to paint a longer nose on the Mona Lisa, for example. In other words, it not really *any of my business* to fiddle about with something someone else has created - sure, if I was a musician myself I might emulate another artist or draw influences from them but that's totally different. All I have to do is decide how much I like it & enjoy it as it unaltered as it was supposed to be.
That's great info, may thanks for the advice.
Yes, the TV license is current - fortunately the missus is an accountant so she does the money. :-)
...especially when taking a lot of pornographic close-up shots.
Someone might want to correct me on this, but I'm also lead to believe that (here in the UK) you can now buy a FreeSat box and watch the free-to-air channels through an existing Sky dish?
I do have a working Sky dish and (old) Sky box that was left here by the previous house owners that we do watch the free channels through but (again correct me if I'm wrong), you can put a FreeSat box on an existing Sky dish and get some of the additional channels free of charge that would normally be included with a paid-for Sky subscription.
I did have a look in an electrical store the other week and they wanted £50 for a standard Freesat box (or £150 for the HD one) plus an additional £70 for a dish installation. The latter struck me as *unusual* to say the least since the FreeSat services is bounced off the same Astra satellite as the Sky service - so why wouldn't an existing Sky dish work?
Again, I bow to the expertise of others here. I'm interested because the Freeview quality is pretty bad where I am so rather than upgrade the terrestrial aerial, I guess £50 just to buy a Freesat box (HD doesn't concern me at the moment) seems like the cheapest way to do it.
...are the vast numbers of people over the whole of this world of ours who *pay* for TV services that *also* have advertising included.
Here in the UK, you don't get much of a choice to not pay the TV License fee but at least everything the BBC broadcasts is advert free. And likewise, I will happily sit & watch the free cable/satellite channels that have advertising breaks.
But I definitely *WON'T* pay to be advertised at.
But /etc or your home directory are predictable places also.
A grave error in your argument is that you naturally assume everyone to be knowledgeable in Windows. My niece has been using Windows for 8 years now but I wouldn't expect her to work out what's under Documents and Settings "intuitively" - she'd need to read a Windows book or call her uncle.
Why would someone completely new to Windows assume that C:\Documents and Settings is any more intuitive than /etc? Especially when you consider the fact that those settings could also be on D:\Documents and Settings if you choose to move it to a different partition whereas, using UNIX mount points, /etc could be on a completely different partition as well (even if that's not a recommended thing to do) but still be /etc.
True; but it also has a lot of features that text-based configuration systems do not. For example, multiple users can edit a single app's configuration at once without stomping all over each other, and it's dead simple (compared to other OSes) to remote-administer (which is a huge feature Windows over virtually all other OSes, and I think the number one reason it's so popular among corporations.)
But Linux does this all by default anyway!
If your configuration is held in your home directory, there's nothing to stop you editing your config while another user is doing theirs, they're certainly not "stomping all over each other".
And remote administration is straightforward also. Because they're text files and Linux has a large number of powerful text manipulation tools that can be put into scripts, you can do pretty much what you want with automation and remote administration. Plus of you set up Secure Shell to use PKE rather than passwords, you can pretty much control a remote PC from a script without having to deal with password authentication.
Let me give you an example. I have several Linux PCs at home - a server, a desktop, a notebook and a media player by my TV. I like to keep the configuration of all the tools I use the same across all machines. I could, if I wanted to, just centralise my home directory on the server and just mount it over the network on the other machines but because the notebook and media server are wireless connected only, it would make some accesses to my centralised files quite slow. So, instead, I just run a shell script on each machine that looks at all the different config files at various times and grabs the latest updated version on whatever machine it happens to be. It's not a complicated script that does that and it's one I've written to do automated administration for my own specific needs.
I do accept that learning the Linux command line is a daunting task for many users and most would probably prefer not to have to put in that level of learning curve to get something to work. But unfortunately, that's the philosophy of Linux - loads of neat little tools that do a small task, you decide how you want to put them together in order to create one of an infinite number of combinations.
There's an API to get past the protection and "snapshot" the contents to back the files up. That's what Microsoft's own Backup utility uses, as well as third-party programs like Mozy. It would be kind of nice if you could just drag&drop the files, but you haven't realistically been able to do that on ANY OS since Mac Classic went kaput. (Which is a shame; IMHO I think Mac Classic got nearly everything right, usability and filesystem-wise and OS X is a huge step down.)
Okay, I take your point on that and it's useful to know about Mozy. I won't claim to be anywhere near as knowlegeable on Windows administration than I am on Linux.
Not if you're a sysadmin and you want to change, or disable, a setting across 30,000 computers at once.
To be fair, I think that's a very extreme example. I accept that in a corporate environment there may be a need to do something like this but no matter what OS you use, you're going to test and restest a change like this in a pre-prod environment before you do it live! And yes, there are a lot more enterprises running 30,000 Windows desktops than there are Linux desktops but this is entirely possible on Linux anyway.
Again, NO OS ever realistically supported this other than Mac Classic, and arguably Mac OS X. Linux is the same way; try moving an application from one Linux machine to another without using a repository or installer, and you'll spend at least as much time fiddling with config files and changing library versions as you would registring DLLs and editing the registry on Windows.
I disagree with you entirely on this because I do this just about every day. In my distro of choice, Gentoo, I just "emerge" the package I want to the second machine and copy the config file under
If you want my honest opinion, then I think that any form of downloads (illegal or paid for) will ultimately change the music industy for the worse and may even end up killing it completely.
DRM is evil - pure and simple. It's sold as a technology to inhibit illegal downloads where, in reality, honest music fans like I guess you and me just end up paying more through a rental model in order to subsidise the music industry's perceived losses through piracy.
Personally, I don't want "pick n mix" music. Anyone that tells me that a CD contains two good songs and the rest as filler tracks is not searching for music well enough as there are thousands of good albums out there that are worth every penny you pay for them on CD, especially if you spend some time researching & buying music as cheaply as possible. That's why I consider CDs to be the only way to buy music that gives me the freedoms to rip it how I want to whatever device I own.
Unfortunately, there's one simple fact that the proponents of the "new download revolution" fail to realise. Whilst I agree record companies are invariably evil themselves, they put a lot of money into promotion & advertising which ultimately leads a lot of people to find the music they like. But how will they do that when there are 10,000,000 groups & musicians all selling their music from their own web sites. How are you going to find the stuff you want to hear?
And in addition to that, what becomes of live music? If demand changes from albums to single tracks, how does a band get together enough material to not only justify playing live in the first place but also to keep having enough new material later on so that fans keep coming to live concerts over and over again? If bands don't tour, they don't make the majority of the money they do currently so why stay in the music business?
I really do honestly believe that the selfish "I want it now and I want it this way" attitude of many people claiming to be music fans is ultimately going to kill music.
Let's face it, the current system may be flawed but at least the "album every year" process has worked for nigh on 50 years & has meant a good selection of music artists are able to make money doing what they do.
I can't argue with what you're saying, I just wanted to ensure that the rationale behind using text files was understood. It is a daunting task for a new user to get to grips with editing text files sometimes and with the way things are with Linux at the minute, the only solution is to do a lot of reading & ask a lot of questions.
And if you end up with arrogant idiots when you ask a simple question, then just remind them that they themselves didn't emerge from the womb as sysadmins and had themselves to start at some point with zero knowledge.
Well, let's face it - that "migration" is sure taking it's time then, isn't it?
Well thanks for the info - I didn't actually realise that.
Linux still uses the outmoded FHS at the front end - I know I'll get flamed for this, but look at the other options. Windows installs end-user applications in /Program Files, dependencies either in the application folders or in /Windows/system32, the documentation and resources within the application folders and the rest of the core system files in /Windows, and puts all the home folders in /Users.
I think you're *seriously* oversimplifying the way Windows does it.
For starters, the configuration of a user's applications is usually held in the combination of a folder under "Documents and Settings" and the user's own chunk of the registry which is, to say the least, not the *easiest* place to pull configuration settings out of. Half the time, when you try to copy the Applications folder somewhere else to back them up, the folder is protected & you then have to boot to "Safe Mode" to do it.
And even when you've done that, and somehow worked out what bits of the Registry you need, there's absolutely no guarantee that by putting that chunk of the registry on another machine or another user, that you won't just trash the whole thing.
By comparison, knowing on Linux that your configuration file is likely to be a text file somewhere in /etc or in your home directory and maybe having to read the man page to find out precisely the name and location of the file, is infinitely easier.
Unfortunately, Windows suffers from the *MY* mentality ("My Documents", "My Pictures") without thinking that there might be the remotest possibility you might want to move an application to another machine without having to reinstall it.
You seem to be quick enough to diss FOSS without considering the fact that, by it's very nature, FOSS software at least makes a good attempt at storing configs in an easy to read text or XML file which you can easily back up and put somewhere else very easily - even on Windows.
Yes, but you also need to remember that UNIX is designed around "the lowest common denominator" which is why on just about every UNIX/Linux system out there, anyone with some sysadmin skills can be pretty certain that standard tools like vi, sed, awk, etc. are going to be available to be used - and hopefully work pretty much the same way across all systems.
I'm not poo-pooing your SQLite suggestion but there's a heap of processing difference between a handheld running embedded Linux and huge great teraflops server and you're probably not going to get SQLite running on the former.
It is a trade-off between using simple (but complex to use) small tools across everything or custom (easier to use) configuration tools based on what each platform can handle.
My view is that it's better to spend some time learning the power of command-line tools so that, in the longer term, you can pretty much work on any UNIX-like system. But I do agree it's a steep learning curve for someone new to step into who perhaps wants something GUI based.
It's "horses for courses" - there's justification for both ways of doing things.
Oh don't be so silly!
It's *infinitely* easier to remember "HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE/System/Microsoft/Hosts/Microsoft/Servers/Microsoft/Rocks/Microsoft/Hosts/NetBeui/Sorry/UpOne/IP/Address/Class/Subnet/Host = 192.168.1.1" than just putting a "192.168.1.1 Server" in /etc/hosts!
What are you? Man or mouse?
Didn't Apple launch DRM in iTunes about 3 years ago and isn't Windows Vista embracing DRM at this very moment?
God I hope you're wrong - I want to *keep* my Linux music, not *borrow* it!
How can an OS that a lot of people on here say is difficult to use be defined as "toy", which would imply even a child could use it.
I wish you whiners would whine *consistently*.
Configuration still handled with text files, with front-end tools that try to conceal them but never quite do it all.
Just one observation. I agree about the flakiness of some of the GUI front ends for text file configuration but the fact is there are countless web pages, man pages & sample configuration files around that will guide you through a lot of this stuff if you do a bit of reading first.
No, configuration is not necessarily easy - but moving that configuration somewhere else, or backing it up, is a piece of piss. A text file is easy to read, easy to edit and once an application is installed, just copy the file somewhere under /etc (the man page will tell you precisely where) or into the user's home directory.
I don't know if you use (or even care about) Windows but try moving configuration settings between machines or users & invariably that involves mucking about in the dreaded Registry, even if it's possible to work out what bits of the Registry needs to be moved where.
Get a text file wrong in Linux and the worse that happens is the application won't run or crashes out - get a Registry setting wrong in Windows and the whole machine can be bricked.
I think it's better to tell people that the moment you change to root, then Linux/UNIX considers you to be a grown-up and everything you do from this point on is entirely your responsibility.
And don't forget, if you're *that* security conscious (and I applaud you for being that way), you probably do need to make sure that sudo is configured to give enough access to whoever needs it - and that, of course, needs be done at root.
Still, even that's far superior than some poorly animated paper clip constantly treating me like a nursery school kid.
I bow to your obviously greater intelligence.
I can only think of two ways of pronouncing "vi".
...I think there needs to be a *LOT* of education of the Windows & Apple crowd to make them understand that Linux refers just to the core kernel whilst all the other applications around it are Open Source.
So hopefully, by 2012, they will begin to understand that by viewing Linux purely as an attack on their own OSes of choice, they actually do themselves a great injustice by completely choosing to ignore the basic fact that, by design, just about any piece of Open Source software does run or can be made to run on their OSes of choice.
And rather than parting with any of their hard earned money to pay for what is frequently overpriced & buggy commercial software, by holding on to their money & just giving a small amount of their time to trying out some of these applications without having to worry about changing their OS, they can play a positive role in ensuring that everyone gets a choice of using commercial or free software, whatever fits their needs.
I must admit to finding the various connotations of the English words "micro" and "soft" quite amusing.
Erm... that shifty looking guy that told you "Lulu can handle all males"... well, he wasn't talking about a publisher.
I guess it's back to the drawing board with my "Super Mario Schoolgirls vs The Nazi Hentai Tentacles" Wii game then?
Who gave them permission to use my photo?
Signed
T.P. Gumby The Postman