not to be too snarky, but I think you miss the point of my post.
I have no argument against your point that self-described newbs, especially those with experience/comfort on the MS Windows OS's will be better served with decent GUIs, and that when they lack understanding of how something's done then it's a good sign that the linux community needs a bit more polish here and there.
I was just flabbergasted by his turn of phrase there.
Pick on the command line all you like, but apt is IMHO a thing of simplicity (for a command line app) and what he says there is just plain wrong, to the extent it's funny. Much like his advice to only allow the update manager to update stuff tyou recognise. Which if you're new to linux will be pretty much nothing...
But that 0.1% of the time still embarrasses me. When a friend is visiting and can't use my computer to do what they expect, I cringe, because my computer somehow seems inferior to theirs.
I share a flat with a windows IT guy. He sometimes thinks this, then I set up an NSLU2 torrent server/media streamer and he realised this linux thing had some other attractions that perhaps windows was lacking.
I'm not going to argue one way or another if it's ready for Joe Sixpack, but it fits certain needs very well and I think we've definitely arrived at power-user-friendly, down from dedicated-linux-hacker where we were a decade back.
1. Download software you want to install.
2. Drag said software to a main "Applications" folder marked with a big fat distinctive icon.
3. Enjoy.
or the linux way: 1. Find the software you want to install 2. apt-get (or GUI) install it 3. enjoy
Why put up with repositories, RPM files, dependency hell, etc..
Spoken like someone that hasn't used linux in 5 years or more.
Sacrilegious as it may be of me to say this Windows install packages are often less complicated to use than Linux RPM packages can be.
When was the last time anyone using a recent distro and recent software touched an rpm? I played with an rpm recently because I Wanted to install a piece of software that hadn't been updated in a decade.
What Linux needs, and this has been pointed out by more people than me, is a simple well thought out installation mechanism that is used by all Linux distributions.
Why? The whole point of FOSS is that there isn't one "true" path. And which clueless home users are going to be installing software across multiple distributions anyway? In all liklihood they'll have Ubuntu, Fedora or one other distro and to them that will be linux. Or even "the computer".
For GUI apps, which is what most of your "clueless and lazy" consumers are installing anyway, it is hard to beat the OS X concept of a drag-and-drop application-bundle for ease of use.
It's already been beaten. Start up your software installer GUI, select a piece of software, click install. I believe in Apple terms that would be an "App Store" except they're all free.
AnyDVD-HD -- gotta have that one to make the media center more useful
Well, ubuntu Linux can play/rip HD-DVD and possibly some blu-ray disks, but you're right, There isn't a full FOSS app that's works perfectly yet.
I dont give a rats arse about copyright. I want 720pHD content in my own on demand system. and I'll rip my disks for my use and tell everyone else to go stuff it.
Actually, you're perfectly within your rights as a consumer of copyrighted works to do that. The fact that there are technological measures in place to stop it disgusts me.
"So your plan is to chmod all shells unexecutable then? This will break all the rc scripts, break posix compliance, break X, break openoffice, and likely a thousand other things. I guess you are right about one thing, a machine that won't boot is fairly secure."
You know that you can tune execute permissions by user, right?
Or are you so fucking retarded you though my solution was to make it impossible to run shells and interpreters across the whole system?
If you *must* turn fast then there's this button in this one game. But ignoring that feature in that single game, I still don't miss PC gaming at all. I prefer slouching on the sofa with a controller, it's just more comfortable. And you can turn pretty quick with a controller.
PCs probably will always be where "hardcore" FPS players live. I'm perfectly happy with console FPS's myself, but then my days of being a caffeine-fuelled headshot-merchant are over.
I played Portal on linux last year. Looked the same under Wine as it does on Windows.
Never did play counterstrike though, so I don't know what special considerations it has. If the game runs fine but the tamper-evident punkbuster system fails because you're on a different platform, well, I wouldn't be so quick to blame wine.
We're playing the same game, it's true. Your lot have really gone for it in other ways (rendition, gitmo, habeas corpus, wiretaps etc, mostly with UK help) and our lot are doing their best to legislate away every right we ever had.
That's why I'm moving to Australia.
Not that they're any better, but it's warm there and there are less people.
"Of course you would have to do the same with python, bash, tcsh, awk, etc as well. That somewhat breaks the utility of the system."
It somewhat breaks the utility of the system *if you're a geek*. (like me).
If you're deploying these to people that need to use OO.o and a couple of other GUI apps, as general office workers do, then it doesn't break anything. It's like saying "lock down vbscript/shell/c#" on windows. Most folks wouldn't know or care about that.
Of course, when you've reduced it to just a machine that runs a word processor and a browser, plus has storage space, then it doesn't matter what OS you're running. Which may or may not be the point...
Wine is great, when it works. I wouldn't call it craptastic, it made it possible for me to migrate to Linux here at work because the dev ticket tracking system could be made to run. And there are many non-flaky FOSS solutions...
But in general, yes, if you've got something tied to a platform then it makes sense to keep it, especially if it's customised/bespoke/niche.
Goes without saying that if you've got specialised applications that will only run on one OS that you use that OS, really.
I find it genuinely funny that not so long ago people would have made that argument and SGI or other big commercial UNIX workstation vendors over MS Windows...
How's about I set up iptables to disallow any incoming connections then?
That would slow your relay down. And how are you going to DoS whenyou don't have access to netcat, any compilers or interpreters? Hell, I could stop you even running an xterm...
You can do any/all of these things from windows too. I have yet to see a machine that could do anything useful at all that I couldn't also download and then run PuTTY on.
Sure, they can write stuff in shell. Now, what are they going to do?
If you've set up the firewall nicely you can stop outgoing stuff as well as incoming. You can restrict access to interpreters like perl and compilers for other languages. You can stop them running stuff out of home and force it to be data-only. Hell, if you use SELinux you can allow particular executables to run/access particular files and not allow anything else to.
Make an image, have it retrieve new rules when needed, away you go. Hell, if it's debian/ubuntu base you could set up your own package repository for security policies.... Now I'm getting into complex territory, but this stuff is all possible.
Not to say it's necessarily easy, but UNIX admins have been carefully guarding the rights to things and restricting user privileges for at least a decade longer than windows existed, it's a solved problem.
Turing machine it may be, but you don't have to give permission to access resources for it to be a Turing machine, just provide a mathematical way to solve any given (solvable) problem.
"Not respecting the rights that DRM imposes isn't too far off from not respecting the right that GPL imposes."
Yes, yes it is.
DRM does not impose "rights", it tries to restrict legal, protected uses of media. It tries to stop people ripping a CD to listen to on their iPod, or DRM'd downloads from working on your other music player, or in the car. It tries to stop you ripping your DVDs to a media server and watching them later. It restricts how you can use media.
The GPL not only doesn't interfere with your right to do what the hell you want with the software, it also explicitly grants you extra rights to distribute under certain circumstances.
Yes exactly, you have no right to distribute without the GPL. It grants you extra rights on top of your fair/personal use rights, to distribute with restrictions.
Odd how many folks don't see the difference between something that gives you extra rights (GPL) and something that attempts to take legal rights away (DRM).
As a rights-holder? Bull. Shit. "You have the right to use content provided you do so in a manner consistent with the license provided with it." That's the same basic principle protected in the GPL, as well as in DRM-licensing terms.
That's not what the law says. Read up on fair use.
So, to use your argument, if I wanted to argue that I should have the RIGHT to use the Linux kernel however I see fit (including, potentially, in a closed-source application), you'd be in favor of that. Because that should be my right as a consumer of the code, to determine how I want to use it... right.... right?
Exactly right. The GPL in fact grants you EXTRA rights in the form of rights to distribute under certain circumstances.
Slashdot Mirror
not to be too snarky, but I think you miss the point of my post.
I have no argument against your point that self-described newbs, especially those with experience/comfort on the MS Windows OS's will be better served with decent GUIs, and that when they lack understanding of how something's done then it's a good sign that the linux community needs a bit more polish here and there.
I was just flabbergasted by his turn of phrase there.
Pick on the command line all you like, but apt is IMHO a thing of simplicity (for a command line app) and what he says there is just plain wrong, to the extent it's funny. Much like his advice to only allow the update manager to update stuff tyou recognise. Which if you're new to linux will be pretty much nothing...
I share a flat with a windows IT guy. He sometimes thinks this, then I set up an NSLU2 torrent server/media streamer and he realised this linux thing had some other attractions that perhaps windows was lacking.
I'm not going to argue one way or another if it's ready for Joe Sixpack, but it fits certain needs very well and I think we've definitely arrived at power-user-friendly, down from dedicated-linux-hacker where we were a decade back.
or the linux way:
1. Find the software you want to install
2. apt-get (or GUI) install it
3. enjoy
Spoken like someone that hasn't used linux in 5 years or more.
When was the last time anyone using a recent distro and recent software touched an rpm? I played with an rpm recently because I Wanted to install a piece of software that hadn't been updated in a decade.
Why? The whole point of FOSS is that there isn't one "true" path. And which clueless home users are going to be installing software across multiple distributions anyway? In all liklihood they'll have Ubuntu, Fedora or one other distro and to them that will be linux. Or even "the computer".
It's already been beaten. Start up your software installer GUI, select a piece of software, click install. I believe in Apple terms that would be an "App Store" except they're all free.
Seriously, get your knowledge up to date.
Package names I'll give you, though that's what apt-cache search is for. but dependencies and integrity checks are just part of how it works.
Likewise updates/upgrades.
I don't think it's a pain in the arse at all. OTOH I agree that newbs + GUI is a good teaching combination.
Umm, you have to look it up *every* time and you consider yourself a hardcore geek?
Seriously?
I'm not disputing that the GUI is the right way to teach newbs, but you're no hardcore geek if you can't remember apt-get install "package"
I'm not saying he should have gone into detail about how apt works and how to use it, I'm just saying that his assessment of it is a bit off.
By all means leave it out and tell the clueless users how to use the GUI, I just didn't think his comment on apt was useful, and it was kinda funny.
"That's exactly what Linux needs."
I disagree. What it needs is people who can write for clueless users. NOT people who are actually totally clueless writing about it.
We seem to have the latter here.
AnyDVD-HD -- gotta have that one to make the media center more useful
Well, ubuntu Linux can play/rip HD-DVD and possibly some blu-ray disks, but you're right, There isn't a full FOSS app that's works perfectly yet.
I dont give a rats arse about copyright. I want 720pHD content in my own on demand system. and I'll rip my disks for my use and tell everyone else to go stuff it.
Actually, you're perfectly within your rights as a consumer of copyrighted works to do that. The fact that there are technological measures in place to stop it disgusts me.
(I won't cover apt in this piece, because it's simply too confusing for newbies; even many experienced Linux experts stay away from it.)
Lol wat?
apt-cache search
apt-get install
Yup, my head just exploded from the complexity.
"So your plan is to chmod all shells unexecutable then? This will break all the rc scripts, break posix compliance, break X, break openoffice, and likely a thousand other things. I guess you are right about one thing, a machine that won't boot is fairly secure."
You know that you can tune execute permissions by user, right?
Or are you so fucking retarded you though my solution was to make it impossible to run shells and interpreters across the whole system?
FUCKING RETARD.
I meant the two things as separate statements -
If you *must* turn fast then there's this button in this one game. But ignoring that feature in that single game, I still don't miss PC gaming at all. I prefer slouching on the sofa with a controller, it's just more comfortable. And you can turn pretty quick with a controller.
PCs probably will always be where "hardcore" FPS players live. I'm perfectly happy with console FPS's myself, but then my days of being a caffeine-fuelled headshot-merchant are over.
I played Portal on linux last year. Looked the same under Wine as it does on Windows.
Never did play counterstrike though, so I don't know what special considerations it has. If the game runs fine but the tamper-evident punkbuster system fails because you're on a different platform, well, I wouldn't be so quick to blame wine.
Left4Dead has a button for spinning 180 in no time at all.
I don't miss PC/mouse gaming at all, and this is coming from a guy who was hardcore into online Quake 12/13 years ago.
We're playing the same game, it's true. Your lot have really gone for it in other ways (rendition, gitmo, habeas corpus, wiretaps etc, mostly with UK help) and our lot are doing their best to legislate away every right we ever had.
That's why I'm moving to Australia.
Not that they're any better, but it's warm there and there are less people.
"Of course you would have to do the same with python, bash, tcsh, awk, etc as well. That somewhat breaks the utility of the system."
It somewhat breaks the utility of the system *if you're a geek*. (like me).
If you're deploying these to people that need to use OO.o and a couple of other GUI apps, as general office workers do, then it doesn't break anything. It's like saying "lock down vbscript/shell/c#" on windows. Most folks wouldn't know or care about that.
Of course, when you've reduced it to just a machine that runs a word processor and a browser, plus has storage space, then it doesn't matter what OS you're running. Which may or may not be the point...
Wine is great, when it works. I wouldn't call it craptastic, it made it possible for me to migrate to Linux here at work because the dev ticket tracking system could be made to run. And there are many non-flaky FOSS solutions...
But in general, yes, if you've got something tied to a platform then it makes sense to keep it, especially if it's customised/bespoke/niche.
Goes without saying that if you've got specialised applications that will only run on one OS that you use that OS, really.
I find it genuinely funny that not so long ago people would have made that argument and SGI or other big commercial UNIX workstation vendors over MS Windows...
How's about I set up iptables to disallow any incoming connections then?
That would slow your relay down. And how are you going to DoS whenyou don't have access to netcat, any compilers or interpreters? Hell, I could stop you even running an xterm...
You can do any/all of these things from windows too. I have yet to see a machine that could do anything useful at all that I couldn't also download and then run PuTTY on.
Not true.
Sure, they can write stuff in shell. Now, what are they going to do?
If you've set up the firewall nicely you can stop outgoing stuff as well as incoming. You can restrict access to interpreters like perl and compilers for other languages. You can stop them running stuff out of home and force it to be data-only. Hell, if you use SELinux you can allow particular executables to run/access particular files and not allow anything else to.
Make an image, have it retrieve new rules when needed, away you go. Hell, if it's debian/ubuntu base you could set up your own package repository for security policies.... Now I'm getting into complex territory, but this stuff is all possible.
Not to say it's necessarily easy, but UNIX admins have been carefully guarding the rights to things and restricting user privileges for at least a decade longer than windows existed, it's a solved problem.
Turing machine it may be, but you don't have to give permission to access resources for it to be a Turing machine, just provide a mathematical way to solve any given (solvable) problem.
It does if you don't give them exec priveleges on perl. Or anything under their home dir....
There are ways.
Why is this insightful? It's no more insightful than saying "Linux Sux!"
Linux is fine for the enterprise desktop.
Want to lock stuff down? Don't give users root. If you want really fine-grained control, use SELinux.
What's the issue?
Good job we don't operate in that particular sort of libertarian paradise then, eh?
Thankfully, in western countries, we do have those concepts that present themselves as fair use rights and limits on contract laws.
FAIL.
This is just not true. There are limits to contract law and to copyright law for precisely these reasons.
"Not respecting the rights that DRM imposes isn't too far off from not respecting the right that GPL imposes."
Yes, yes it is.
DRM does not impose "rights", it tries to restrict legal, protected uses of media. It tries to stop people ripping a CD to listen to on their iPod, or DRM'd downloads from working on your other music player, or in the car. It tries to stop you ripping your DVDs to a media server and watching them later. It restricts how you can use media.
The GPL not only doesn't interfere with your right to do what the hell you want with the software, it also explicitly grants you extra rights to distribute under certain circumstances.
These are totally different situations.
Yes exactly, you have no right to distribute without the GPL. It grants you extra rights on top of your fair/personal use rights, to distribute with restrictions.
Odd how many folks don't see the difference between something that gives you extra rights (GPL) and something that attempts to take legal rights away (DRM).
That's not what the law says. Read up on fair use.
Exactly right. The GPL in fact grants you EXTRA rights in the form of rights to distribute under certain circumstances.