'Anyway, steroids didn't make Barry Bonds any better at being able to see a 90 mph fast ball, or move his hands quickly and expertly enough to hit the ball once he does.'
Actually they do. Steroids enhance his eye muscles and the muscles in his hands, making him better able to see and giving him precision control of his swing. They don't give him any expert knowledge but hitting or catching a ball is really an instinct not something you study up on.
There are other protocols already that do what Bittorrent does, some are even better. If the protocol isn't open then why support yet another evil corporation? Move along and let them drown.
Wouldn't that let people modify the blueprints (which are GPL'd) but not actually make the chip (which is presumably patented). Sounds like a PR stunt to me.
Maybe to someone's eyes. Linux fonts have looked great to me for a couple years now on any major distribution. They all use anti-aliased fonts. Fonts only matter to the extent that you don't notice them.
'The different distributions are experimenting with their user interface, which is good (Fedora with the GNOME Online Desktop, SUSE with SLAB (GNOME) and their custom KDE menu, Mandriva with their 3-D Matisse desktop).'
Yes, but they suck.
'You don't want to replace Microsoft's monopoly with a single Linux distribution, surely.'
No, I was referring to my own usage; not dictating what anyone else should use. However, since you bring it up. Yes, I think it is time to see some consolidation. The LSB is a great start but what has been done for the filesystem hierarchy needs to be done for the GUI and basic API's. Some behaviors need to become accepted, a certain amount of uniformity needs to develop. What behaviors and uniformity isn't anywhere near as important as the fact that it is uniform.
If that uniformity is going to grow around anything then I would suggest Ubuntu. It's really the only viable desktop Linux. The configuration utilities work without all kinds of crazy glitches or depending on the user never manually customizing the system. The layout is intuitive and the default install is clean.
Once that is done, let the diversity built on top of those standards prevail.
'replace Microsoft's monopoly with a single Linux distribution'
A single linux distribution is nothing like a single Microsoft monopoly. You can't fork windows.
'That's not how it works. Licensed spectrum means you still need a licence to operate almost anything in that part of spectrum. Unless you follow the frequency band owner's rules (assuming ATT) you would be breaking the law.'
Thats not how it normally works. There normally isn't an FCC ruling that opens the spectrum for certain uses. ATT or any other purchaser is REQUIRED to allow these uses, it isn't optional.
'No, as long as they control the network they can mandate how your device should behave.'
If you aren't connecting to their network, and you don't need their permission to make a device that uses the frequency then how can mandate anything? The ruling says they don't have to let you connect to their network but that you can make devices that operate in this spectrum. Devices would include towers, servers, and routers. You could build your own wireless infrastructure on the frequency or a company like Google could.
'Google has recently said it would bid on the 700MHz spectrum only if the FCC guarantees certain open-access principles, including open access for companies wanting to buy wireless capacity wholesale. Does this mean that Google won't bid on spectrum if the rules aren't adopted?'
Translated marketing babble. We have no committed to any course of action or lack of course of action and never will.
'So it's not out of the question that Google would participate in the auction, even if the FCC doesn't adopt all four principles?'
Translated marketing babble. We all have glowing halos atop our heads and are wonderful and good. We have not committed to any course of action or lack thereof and never will. (Actually this is what almost every PR drone statement translates to.)
"The agency said yes to "open devices" and "open applications," thus requiring the auction winner to permit consumers to use any device or application on the network. But the FCC turned down "open services" and "open networks,"
Can you have one without the other? If the winner is required to allow free use of the spectrum for devices and applications doesn't that include devices used to provide services? I mean sure, they wouldn't have to let you use their infrastructure or buy access at wholesale prices, but they couldn't stop you from building your own infrastructure.
Obviously the FCC is no longer concerned with the purpose it was created for (encouraging competition in communication related industry) so why do we still have an FCC?
'just interested in knowing how you do your rating. Are you referring to Linux the kernel, or the OS/distributions?'
All of the above. Although the definition has been muddied in recent times the kernel IS the OS. However, you can't really have a fair comparison with the other popular operating systems because they are distributions. So yes, the discussion must include everything that is available for Linux as a platform and that everything is not limited to a single distribution. We can discuss features until we are blue in the face and probably benchmarks as well. There are as many conclusions to those discussions as there are people discussing them. The simple answer is that the Linux environment when configured properly on adequate hardware is faster, more secure, crashes less, handles multiple running tasks better, and is more aesthetically pleasing than either windows or OSX.
'If it's the latter, what is technically superior about Linux and the Linux environment?'
Let me preface this discussion by saying that recently I use nothing but Ubuntu on the desktop. I have worked with many distributions over the years and Ubuntu and I just clicked, I don't see a purpose for the others anymore. In Ubuntu the most difficult task in preparing the system for use is adding a couple well known and trusted repositories to the list.
The software selection is excellent. The hardware detection as well. The only fault I can find that there are holes in the hardware support list because some commercial vendors do not support the system as they should. That really has nothing to do with the platform itself though. Vendor support is a side effect of market share.
With any modern video card you will see performance using Beryl that is both more aesthetically pleasing and more responsive than you will see in windows or MacOSX.
Multi-tasking and application performance again places Linux at the top of the playing field. Anyone who knows how to properly configure a Linux system knows that memory is far more important than processor and for a decent desktop experience I recommend at least 1GB memory (which is also what I recommend for XP) and a swap partition at the end of the drive of half that size. When using Linux I can just do what I need to do. I never run into an issue with the number of applications I have running simultaneously and feeling performance decrease is a rare event. In windows you run into this issue fairly quickly and it feels like I am constantly waiting for the machine to respond. With just a couple simple applications working windows can't even seem to draw the application I switched to onto the screen. MacOSX does a much better job with this but I do still feel a performance hit as I begin to have more tasks running.
'The ease of package compilation?'
Package compilation is the domain of programmers, administrators, and distributors. There is no particular reason it needs to be easy. Its a tool that should be designed for those who know what their doing rather than being designed to be easy to pick up on.
'The consistency in the look and feel of GUI programs?'
I take it you never played video games? The Nintendo generation doesn't have trouble switching from one interface to another so long as the interface is good. Even so, I haven't noticed any particular lack of consistency but I wouldn't unless the interface got in my way.
'The consistency of the GUIs (ie; window managers)?'
I find that any particular version of the popular window managers is extremely consistent in behavior. Not necessarily with other versions but with itself. That is more than I can say for windows. OSX actually does well in that department.
Anyway, my eyes are closing on me so I'm going to have to cut this post short.
You mean the contractor the mint hired to design the table heading? I usually refer to the coins themselves and you will find 'Quarter Dollar' firmly stamped in... whatever composition of metal that page mentions just below the eagle on each coin.
William Gates III was always wealthy and well connected. His startup was funded with family money, not venture capital or loans. Although it is safe to say that both the money and the connections belonged to his parents at that point.
A 25 cent piece is actually called a quarter dollar. It is only shortened to quarter in slang. Half dollars aren't used very often and so nobody would recognize what you were saying if you referred to it as just a half.
'As they say, it's better to be lucky than to be smart.'
And its better to be rich with connections than either. Most small companies that have no track record and haven't produced anything couldn't even get a meeting to pitch their product to IBM in the first place.
'If technical excellence was the only benchmark then Linux would also be in trouble. It is good but even Linux which I do like and use has it's warts.'
Everything has its warts. On the technical excellence scale I'd certainly rate Linux before Mac OSX and Windows though.
'All well and good. Give me back the 30%-45% of my salary that gets sucked up by the police state and I'll gladly take care of it myself.'
Don't complain at me buddy, you already get tax breaks for dependents and household to pay for those expenses. I sure as hell don't see those tax breaks and actually pay a higher rate so you can have them. Don't even think about expecting me to pay for the same thing twice.
That said, your tax breaks are nothing compared what the police state burns.
'its a shame the drug industry doesn't make a medicine to treat such arrogance and elitism as you have expressed.'
Lets be done with the namecalling and attempt a mature discussion where both parties must present logic and reasoning. "Your wrong cuz your a poo poo head" doesn't make for a very interesting conversation.
'Besides if a technician needs to install all the software, then why are their package manager for the end users anyway?'
Package managers aren't for end users, they are for the people who install the software. Namely, technicians.
'The library issue only exist due failure to allow different version of the same library.'
Why it exists is beside the point. It does exist. Package managers exist to safely install and remove software and they are not compatible with manual compilation.
'Software is not prescription medicine'
If software were prescription medicine it wouldn't be called an analogy. Just like prescription medicine installing software on your system can have a wide array of subtle and unintended side effects. I am not claiming that there aren't plenty of end users (and again, end users are the secretary typing in word, not technicians/admins/programmers/etc) who can manage to click through an installer or use a package manager to install an application. I am saying that installing or even using software in certain ways can very much break other aspects of your system and that end users are not capable of fixing these problems once they occur and in some cases it may be too late to fix them after the action has been taken. For example, installing both Norton AV and Mcafee AV on a windows system will cause a couple hours of grief just to implement the fix when you know exactly what you are doing and can cause data loss.
'This problem will not/does not exist with Dragonfly BSD.'
Which isn't even in the ballpark of an end-user desktop system.
'If there are still issues with package managers'
Which to me is really the summary of your post. You call me an elitist and arrogant and yet admit you are completely ignorant of the complications I am speaking of.
I have studied several operating systems and in addition I have spent years gaining experience with them. I understand the detailed operation and inter-operation of dozens of applications and have a general understanding of hundreds. As a technician, I advise end users on what applications are safe and what applications cause problems and there are no shortage of applications that cause problems or must be configured in a certain way. In fact, there are enough problem applications that end users who install software without consulting me usually learn their lesson within 3 months.
For instance, Friday I went to see a new customer. A doctor as the case may be. His previous technician had moved to costa rica and like you he felt he was a bright guy and could manage the computers himself. He had a number of issues and I resolved the majority of them. Most were due to misconfiguration, for instance, he had a network printer and installed it with the default settings. This means DHCP and DHCP means all of his computers lose their ability to print every time the printer is turned off and back on again. They didn't realize this was a problem because they very rarely power cycle their printer.
They have an external backup drive. They have been doing a backup manually by dragging the folder... from the opened external drive window, to the external drive in my computer. They can't figure out why it says they are running out of space.
He had also purchased two new computers without seeking the advice of a qualified professional. Both of those computers are running vista, both loaded the xp driver for his printer automatically and neither could recognize the tray id's of the printer. On one computer he had the save to file checkbox selected and couldn't figure out why it wanted him to pick a save location everytime he tried to print. Naturally, the Vista driver
'lol, in using linux the end users will sooner or later set in motion the compiling of a program.'
Not if they have good advice. If they have good advice they are using a binary package management system like apt. If that is the case manually compiling and installing programs is a big no no (unless you are doing it to make a package and then installing the package and only techs would do that and my definition of end user doesn't include technicians).
When you manually compile a program and install it then binaries and libraries are put on the system that the package manager doesn't know about. This can lead to library incompatibilities. Unfortunately, these incompatibilities are not always immediately obvious, instead manifesting in strange errors. What is worse, an end user compiling a program can get through the steps if the program compiles cleanly but doesn't know what actually happened. They probably don't know what 'make install' actually did and all the files it installed. They probably didn't even take steps that would allow them to uninstall said files after the fact.
'The kernel, though I have never compiled one that I recall (probably have - early red-hat) is no different I would think, except for the possibility of turning more things on or off or this way instead of that way.'
I have compiled the kernel many times. The actual process isn't all that difficult and has become easier over time although end users would have no clue what options mean. This again suffers from the same problem as manually compiling programs and is something the end user shouldn't do. The performance gains from manually compiling your kernel are minimal these days and it is solidly within the realm of your distro or your technician to compile a kernel.
It is actually highly debatable whether end users should be installing/removing software at all, let alone compiling. That is what technicians are for and only competent technicians are capable of making informed decisions. This is no different than prescription medication. Anyone can look up what a medication does and recommended dosage. Certainly anyone can swallow a pill. What you can't do is understand the complex chemical interactions that take place in the human body as a result of taking that medication. How your personal medical condition will be impacted by those interactions and you certainly can't predict the interactions with other medication you are taking. That is why we have competent doctors to make those decisions. It isn't a question of intelligence. Usually this becomes and issue with the intelligent and curious first. It is a question of learning and study. It takes years of both study and hands on experience working with computers to really understand how they work and the implications of your actions.
If you don't understand what I am talking about or what the big deal is with installing and removing software then you can safely file yourself on the 'not capable of making an informed decision' list and should consult your technician before installing software. The consequences of your actions aren't as severe as with the human body and that is why technicians need no license and end users no prescriptions. That doesn't make it safe for end users to take matters into their own hands if they don't want to face the consequences that do exist. These potentially include compromising system integrity, system and data security, and partial or complete data loss.
'Why is the majority of Slashdot so anti-Microsoft, they sound all sound like whiny 15 year olds that think they are cool since they know how install Linux on their machine.'
Because unlike the greater population the Slashdot crowd is a bit tech heavy. There are no shortage of people reading Slashdot who understand the technical merits of Linux vs windows. That is why most advocate Linux.
As for actually being anti-Microsoft, how can you be into technology and not hate Microsoft? How can you care about software and not hate Microsoft? Microsoft is a monopoly, they used every shady trick in the book to secure that monopoly and continue to do so, looking at anti-trust fines as the cost of doing business. This has crippled the software industry and set it back decades
Microsoft uses proprietary protocols and formats to prevent interoperability. Hell, their operating system even nukes the MBR on your harddrive during install without a prompt because they don't acknowledge that other operating systems even exist. If someone reverse engineers for interoperability purposes they extend or modify their proprietary protocols. Anyone who wants a choice is going to be against a company that does this, especially when the company is a monopoly. The fact that their proprietary protocols often start as standards and Microsoft often claims their completely proprietary implementation of that standard as a step toward interoperability is just a slap in the face.
No matter how insecure and buggy their software is, there is no doubt Microsoft has released some great technology. If only Microsoft had developed some of it. Instead they buy it and rebrand it. This would normally be okay, except that once Microsoft owns the technology it sits and collects dust on a shelf. They update the rebranding now and then but the core technology doesn't improve in Microsoft's hands.
Last but not least, Microsoft has paid Slashdot shills. That's enough reason to hate anyone. Apparently they know a lot of technology decision makers frequent this site. To conserve mod points they seem to like changing history by going back and moderating on stories that are no longer on the front page. To avoid meta-moderation they use underrated and overrated.
'I believe he was referring to plugsched not being merged into the mainline kernel because Ingo didn't want the end user to have the choice to pick which scheduler they thought would be best for their workload.'
Then he must have been referring to distributions rather than end users. End users don't compile kernels.
'The general concept is common knowledge in coding regardless of what programming language you are using,
However, this concept is not typically provided to the end user, but instead kept away from the user and certainly not provided to the user, when some distortion of it is provided the user, in any sort of easy common consistent manner.'
Remind me again WTF that has to do with scheduling and desktop performance?
I am not a kernel developer and do not follow the mailing list. I was under the impression that a new scheduler that was supposed to drastically improve performance went into the kernel a couple years ago? I know there has been a huge difference in desktop performance from that time.
Slashdot Mirror
'Anyway, steroids didn't make Barry Bonds any better at being able to see a 90 mph fast ball, or move his hands quickly and expertly enough to hit the ball once he does.'
Actually they do. Steroids enhance his eye muscles and the muscles in his hands, making him better able to see and giving him precision control of his swing. They don't give him any expert knowledge but hitting or catching a ball is really an instinct not something you study up on.
For the rest of your post, I agree.
There are other protocols already that do what Bittorrent does, some are even better. If the protocol isn't open then why support yet another evil corporation? Move along and let them drown.
Wouldn't that let people modify the blueprints (which are GPL'd) but not actually make the chip (which is presumably patented). Sounds like a PR stunt to me.
'We're announcing the fastest microprocessor we've ever shipped this week'
I bet its the only chip they've shipped this week.
'Err.. better font rendering?'
Maybe to someone's eyes. Linux fonts have looked great to me for a couple years now on any major distribution. They all use anti-aliased fonts. Fonts only matter to the extent that you don't notice them.
'The different distributions are experimenting with their user interface, which is good (Fedora with the GNOME Online Desktop, SUSE with SLAB (GNOME) and their custom KDE menu, Mandriva with their 3-D Matisse desktop).'
Yes, but they suck.
'You don't want to replace Microsoft's monopoly with a single Linux distribution, surely.'
No, I was referring to my own usage; not dictating what anyone else should use. However, since you bring it up. Yes, I think it is time to see some consolidation. The LSB is a great start but what has been done for the filesystem hierarchy needs to be done for the GUI and basic API's. Some behaviors need to become accepted, a certain amount of uniformity needs to develop. What behaviors and uniformity isn't anywhere near as important as the fact that it is uniform.
If that uniformity is going to grow around anything then I would suggest Ubuntu. It's really the only viable desktop Linux. The configuration utilities work without all kinds of crazy glitches or depending on the user never manually customizing the system. The layout is intuitive and the default install is clean.
Once that is done, let the diversity built on top of those standards prevail.
'replace Microsoft's monopoly with a single Linux distribution'
A single linux distribution is nothing like a single Microsoft monopoly. You can't fork windows.
'That's not how it works. Licensed spectrum means you still need a licence to operate almost anything in that part of spectrum. Unless you follow the frequency band owner's rules (assuming ATT) you would be breaking the law.'
Thats not how it normally works. There normally isn't an FCC ruling that opens the spectrum for certain uses. ATT or any other purchaser is REQUIRED to allow these uses, it isn't optional.
'No, as long as they control the network they can mandate how your device should behave.'
If you aren't connecting to their network, and you don't need their permission to make a device that uses the frequency then how can mandate anything? The ruling says they don't have to let you connect to their network but that you can make devices that operate in this spectrum. Devices would include towers, servers, and routers. You could build your own wireless infrastructure on the frequency or a company like Google could.
'Google has recently said it would bid on the 700MHz spectrum only if the FCC guarantees certain open-access principles, including open access for companies wanting to buy wireless capacity wholesale. Does this mean that Google won't bid on spectrum if the rules aren't adopted?'
Translated marketing babble. We have no committed to any course of action or lack of course of action and never will.
'So it's not out of the question that Google would participate in the auction, even if the FCC doesn't adopt all four principles?'
Translated marketing babble. We all have glowing halos atop our heads and are wonderful and good. We have not committed to any course of action or lack thereof and never will. (Actually this is what almost every PR drone statement translates to.)
"The agency said yes to "open devices" and "open applications," thus requiring the auction winner to permit consumers to use any device or application on the network. But the FCC turned down "open services" and "open networks,"
Can you have one without the other? If the winner is required to allow free use of the spectrum for devices and applications doesn't that include devices used to provide services? I mean sure, they wouldn't have to let you use their infrastructure or buy access at wholesale prices, but they couldn't stop you from building your own infrastructure.
Obviously the FCC is no longer concerned with the purpose it was created for (encouraging competition in communication related industry) so why do we still have an FCC?
'just interested in knowing how you do your rating. Are you referring to Linux the kernel, or the OS/distributions?'
All of the above. Although the definition has been muddied in recent times the kernel IS the OS. However, you can't really have a fair comparison with the other popular operating systems because they are distributions. So yes, the discussion must include everything that is available for Linux as a platform and that everything is not limited to a single distribution. We can discuss features until we are blue in the face and probably benchmarks as well. There are as many conclusions to those discussions as there are people discussing them. The simple answer is that the Linux environment when configured properly on adequate hardware is faster, more secure, crashes less, handles multiple running tasks better, and is more aesthetically pleasing than either windows or OSX.
'If it's the latter, what is technically superior about Linux and the Linux environment?'
Let me preface this discussion by saying that recently I use nothing but Ubuntu on the desktop. I have worked with many distributions over the years and Ubuntu and I just clicked, I don't see a purpose for the others anymore. In Ubuntu the most difficult task in preparing the system for use is adding a couple well known and trusted repositories to the list.
The software selection is excellent. The hardware detection as well. The only fault I can find that there are holes in the hardware support list because some commercial vendors do not support the system as they should. That really has nothing to do with the platform itself though. Vendor support is a side effect of market share.
With any modern video card you will see performance using Beryl that is both more aesthetically pleasing and more responsive than you will see in windows or MacOSX.
Multi-tasking and application performance again places Linux at the top of the playing field. Anyone who knows how to properly configure a Linux system knows that memory is far more important than processor and for a decent desktop experience I recommend at least 1GB memory (which is also what I recommend for XP) and a swap partition at the end of the drive of half that size. When using Linux I can just do what I need to do. I never run into an issue with the number of applications I have running simultaneously and feeling performance decrease is a rare event. In windows you run into this issue fairly quickly and it feels like I am constantly waiting for the machine to respond. With just a couple simple applications working windows can't even seem to draw the application I switched to onto the screen. MacOSX does a much better job with this but I do still feel a performance hit as I begin to have more tasks running.
'The ease of package compilation?'
Package compilation is the domain of programmers, administrators, and distributors. There is no particular reason it needs to be easy. Its a tool that should be designed for those who know what their doing rather than being designed to be easy to pick up on.
'The consistency in the look and feel of GUI programs?'
I take it you never played video games? The Nintendo generation doesn't have trouble switching from one interface to another so long as the interface is good. Even so, I haven't noticed any particular lack of consistency but I wouldn't unless the interface got in my way.
'The consistency of the GUIs (ie; window managers)?'
I find that any particular version of the popular window managers is extremely consistent in behavior. Not necessarily with other versions but with itself. That is more than I can say for windows. OSX actually does well in that department.
Anyway, my eyes are closing on me so I'm going to have to cut this post short.
You mean the contractor the mint hired to design the table heading? I usually refer to the coins themselves and you will find 'Quarter Dollar' firmly stamped in... whatever composition of metal that page mentions just below the eagle on each coin.
William Gates III was always wealthy and well connected. His startup was funded with family money, not venture capital or loans. Although it is safe to say that both the money and the connections belonged to his parents at that point.
Yes but this is laptop. The price of the drive isn't the whole ball of wax, they would have to add a chipset that could communicate with your drive.
A 25 cent piece is actually called a quarter dollar. It is only shortened to quarter in slang. Half dollars aren't used very often and so nobody would recognize what you were saying if you referred to it as just a half.
'As they say, it's better to be lucky than to be smart.'
And its better to be rich with connections than either. Most small companies that have no track record and haven't produced anything couldn't even get a meeting to pitch their product to IBM in the first place.
'If technical excellence was the only benchmark then Linux would also be in trouble. It is good but even Linux which I do like and use has it's warts.'
Everything has its warts. On the technical excellence scale I'd certainly rate Linux before Mac OSX and Windows though.
'All well and good. Give me back the 30%-45% of my salary that gets sucked up by the police state and I'll gladly take care of it myself.'
Don't complain at me buddy, you already get tax breaks for dependents and household to pay for those expenses. I sure as hell don't see those tax breaks and actually pay a higher rate so you can have them. Don't even think about expecting me to pay for the same thing twice.
That said, your tax breaks are nothing compared what the police state burns.
'its a shame the drug industry doesn't make a medicine to treat such arrogance and elitism as you have expressed.'
Lets be done with the namecalling and attempt a mature discussion where both parties must present logic and reasoning. "Your wrong cuz your a poo poo head" doesn't make for a very interesting conversation.
'Besides if a technician needs to install all the software, then why are their package manager for the end users anyway?'
Package managers aren't for end users, they are for the people who install the software. Namely, technicians.
'The library issue only exist due failure to allow different version of the same library.'
Why it exists is beside the point. It does exist. Package managers exist to safely install and remove software and they are not compatible with manual compilation.
'Software is not prescription medicine'
If software were prescription medicine it wouldn't be called an analogy. Just like prescription medicine installing software on your system can have a wide array of subtle and unintended side effects. I am not claiming that there aren't plenty of end users (and again, end users are the secretary typing in word, not technicians/admins/programmers/etc) who can manage to click through an installer or use a package manager to install an application. I am saying that installing or even using software in certain ways can very much break other aspects of your system and that end users are not capable of fixing these problems once they occur and in some cases it may be too late to fix them after the action has been taken. For example, installing both Norton AV and Mcafee AV on a windows system will cause a couple hours of grief just to implement the fix when you know exactly what you are doing and can cause data loss.
'This problem will not/does not exist with Dragonfly BSD.'
Which isn't even in the ballpark of an end-user desktop system.
'If there are still issues with package managers'
Which to me is really the summary of your post. You call me an elitist and arrogant and yet admit you are completely ignorant of the complications I am speaking of.
I have studied several operating systems and in addition I have spent years gaining experience with them. I understand the detailed operation and inter-operation of dozens of applications and have a general understanding of hundreds. As a technician, I advise end users on what applications are safe and what applications cause problems and there are no shortage of applications that cause problems or must be configured in a certain way. In fact, there are enough problem applications that end users who install software without consulting me usually learn their lesson within 3 months.
For instance, Friday I went to see a new customer. A doctor as the case may be. His previous technician had moved to costa rica and like you he felt he was a bright guy and could manage the computers himself. He had a number of issues and I resolved the majority of them. Most were due to misconfiguration, for instance, he had a network printer and installed it with the default settings. This means DHCP and DHCP means all of his computers lose their ability to print every time the printer is turned off and back on again. They didn't realize this was a problem because they very rarely power cycle their printer.
They have an external backup drive. They have been doing a backup manually by dragging the folder... from the opened external drive window, to the external drive in my computer. They can't figure out why it says they are running out of space.
He had also purchased two new computers without seeking the advice of a qualified professional. Both of those computers are running vista, both loaded the xp driver for his printer automatically and neither could recognize the tray id's of the printer. On one computer he had the save to file checkbox selected and couldn't figure out why it wanted him to pick a save location everytime he tried to print. Naturally, the Vista driver
'lol, in using linux the end users will sooner or later set in motion the compiling of a program.'
Not if they have good advice. If they have good advice they are using a binary package management system like apt. If that is the case manually compiling and installing programs is a big no no (unless you are doing it to make a package and then installing the package and only techs would do that and my definition of end user doesn't include technicians).
When you manually compile a program and install it then binaries and libraries are put on the system that the package manager doesn't know about. This can lead to library incompatibilities. Unfortunately, these incompatibilities are not always immediately obvious, instead manifesting in strange errors. What is worse, an end user compiling a program can get through the steps if the program compiles cleanly but doesn't know what actually happened. They probably don't know what 'make install' actually did and all the files it installed. They probably didn't even take steps that would allow them to uninstall said files after the fact.
'The kernel, though I have never compiled one that I recall (probably have - early red-hat) is no different I would think, except for the possibility of turning more things on or off or this way instead of that way.'
I have compiled the kernel many times. The actual process isn't all that difficult and has become easier over time although end users would have no clue what options mean. This again suffers from the same problem as manually compiling programs and is something the end user shouldn't do. The performance gains from manually compiling your kernel are minimal these days and it is solidly within the realm of your distro or your technician to compile a kernel.
It is actually highly debatable whether end users should be installing/removing software at all, let alone compiling. That is what technicians are for and only competent technicians are capable of making informed decisions. This is no different than prescription medication. Anyone can look up what a medication does and recommended dosage. Certainly anyone can swallow a pill. What you can't do is understand the complex chemical interactions that take place in the human body as a result of taking that medication. How your personal medical condition will be impacted by those interactions and you certainly can't predict the interactions with other medication you are taking. That is why we have competent doctors to make those decisions. It isn't a question of intelligence. Usually this becomes and issue with the intelligent and curious first. It is a question of learning and study. It takes years of both study and hands on experience working with computers to really understand how they work and the implications of your actions.
If you don't understand what I am talking about or what the big deal is with installing and removing software then you can safely file yourself on the 'not capable of making an informed decision' list and should consult your technician before installing software. The consequences of your actions aren't as severe as with the human body and that is why technicians need no license and end users no prescriptions. That doesn't make it safe for end users to take matters into their own hands if they don't want to face the consequences that do exist. These potentially include compromising system integrity, system and data security, and partial or complete data loss.
'Why is the majority of Slashdot so anti-Microsoft, they sound all sound like whiny 15 year olds that think they are cool since they know how install Linux on their machine.'
Because unlike the greater population the Slashdot crowd is a bit tech heavy. There are no shortage of people reading Slashdot who understand the technical merits of Linux vs windows. That is why most advocate Linux.
As for actually being anti-Microsoft, how can you be into technology and not hate Microsoft? How can you care about software and not hate Microsoft? Microsoft is a monopoly, they used every shady trick in the book to secure that monopoly and continue to do so, looking at anti-trust fines as the cost of doing business. This has crippled the software industry and set it back decades
Microsoft uses proprietary protocols and formats to prevent interoperability. Hell, their operating system even nukes the MBR on your harddrive during install without a prompt because they don't acknowledge that other operating systems even exist. If someone reverse engineers for interoperability purposes they extend or modify their proprietary protocols. Anyone who wants a choice is going to be against a company that does this, especially when the company is a monopoly. The fact that their proprietary protocols often start as standards and Microsoft often claims their completely proprietary implementation of that standard as a step toward interoperability is just a slap in the face.
No matter how insecure and buggy their software is, there is no doubt Microsoft has released some great technology. If only Microsoft had developed some of it. Instead they buy it and rebrand it. This would normally be okay, except that once Microsoft owns the technology it sits and collects dust on a shelf. They update the rebranding now and then but the core technology doesn't improve in Microsoft's hands.
Last but not least, Microsoft has paid Slashdot shills. That's enough reason to hate anyone. Apparently they know a lot of technology decision makers frequent this site. To conserve mod points they seem to like changing history by going back and moderating on stories that are no longer on the front page. To avoid meta-moderation they use underrated and overrated.
'This patchset is different, it is an interactivity patch that works to be more fair to desktop processes, making the desktop feel more snappy.'
That's exactly what everyone said about the last scheduler.
In any case, the Linux desktop is already snappier than anything you see in the Mac or Windows world.
'I believe he was referring to plugsched not being merged into the mainline kernel because Ingo didn't want the end user to have the choice to pick which scheduler they thought would be best for their workload.'
Then he must have been referring to distributions rather than end users. End users don't compile kernels.
'The general concept is common knowledge in coding regardless of what programming language you are using,
However, this concept is not typically provided to the end user, but instead kept away from the user and certainly not provided to the user, when some distortion of it is provided the user, in any sort of easy common consistent manner.'
Remind me again WTF that has to do with scheduling and desktop performance?
I am not a kernel developer and do not follow the mailing list. I was under the impression that a new scheduler that was supposed to drastically improve performance went into the kernel a couple years ago? I know there has been a huge difference in desktop performance from that time.