Microsoft uses ``One World, One Web, One Program'' as a slogan. Doesn't that sound like ``Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer'' to you, too? -- Eric S. Raymond
I switched from 2.4/SuSE/KDE because I wanted to try something new. The complexity level is roughly the same. In fact, once you get Gentoo up and running its easier to install things. Emerge takes care of almost everything for you. The optimized compile is just an added bonus.
I think it is elegant because it is a large part of what allows XP to be so stable.
98 SE and ME were 'elegant' in your sense of the word because they could run 95 programs w/o much of a problem. But this (and many related things) affected stability in a negative way.
With XP, Microsoft brought in a new and stable code base, NT/2K, and added a seperate compatibility mode for 9x and ME programs. This was a very good move IMO.
It takes 6 clicks to change an env variable w/o the keyboard.
If you press ctrl+break to start, it takes 3 clicks
If you like text-based, type "set/?" on the cmd line.
I like text-based configuration files better as well, but the vast majority of the world's population does not. Windows is targeted at everyone, not us geeks.
Well I don't know what he does, but here we use VNC. That way we can take over the user's session directly, while they watch. Then I usually leave a quick message in notepad explaining what I just did. Some of them actually get it, and end up fixing the problem themselves next time. So I get more time to reload slashdot;)
The user's are locked down now, their programs work, and every thing is centrally administered thanks to group policy and active directory. Overall it's been very nice.
Locking the users down, group policy, and active directory are as much a part of XP as 2K.
The new UI just sucks IMNSHO
I agree.
Start --> Run --> gpedit.msc --> User Config --> Admin. Templates --> Control Panel --> Display --> Desktop Themes --> Force Windows Classic
I have a.reg file for this and other settings to speed the process, since this used to be a very small business that has grown very fast and we never bothered to set up a network-wide group policy system.
Our servers are 2K so I can't comment on 2003. I'm trying to sell the execs on using kernel 2.6 and samba 3.x for our next server. I figure something approaching 2.6.10 ought to be out by the time we are ready, so it should be stable enough.
Yes but remember back in the day when he first started working on the Linux network code, he bumped the kernel version up to.90 thinking he was almost done. And then there were like 200 kernel releases between Linux.9 and 1.0?
My point is that he's been wrong before, and he could be wrong now. He's not as omniscient as some OSS jocks try to make him out to be.
I do not consider Linus an expert on desktop systems. He is first and foremost a kernel hacker.
Now, don't get me wrong, I am very pleased with my kernel 2.6/Gentoo/Gnome desktop. But I do not think it is ready for prime time. Much work remains to be done to simplify configuration and installation, both for the distros themselves, adding applications, and new hardware.
> XP and 2003 are fairly minor tweaks of Windows NT, but they are missing some of the back-compatibility that was in Windows 2000 if I remember right.
No, you have got it backwards. XP and 2003 are both MUCH more back-compatible than Win2k.
Asside from NT, Win2k was the most incompatible windows ever. Stable, but with many compatibility problems with both hardware and software. Especially before the various service packs came out.
> XP was in no way "from scratch"
You are correct. XP is the Win2k codebase with many features added and much better hard/soft compatibility. It was designed to be both a home/office OS, whereas Win2k was designed specifically to be a robust server/workstation.
Incidentally, after all this time there is still an ongoing debate about whether XP or 2000 are more stable as a workstation client. As a network admin for 46 stations, my vote goes for XP.
Uh, hmm. Well I sort of get around this problem by having multiple accounts. Here's my scheme:
I usually have three active accounts, and I get a new (primary) one every 2 years. However, I always check the other 2 newest ones, just less frequently. So it looks like this:
Primary Mailbox (personal, priority business transactions): checked every day
Secondary Mailbox (mailing lists and business with less priority, such as online orders): checked every few days
Tertiary Mailbox (signing up for sites, forums, and other places that might leak your address to spammers): checked rarely
Every 2 years or so, I get a new primary mailbox and the former primary becomes the secondary, etc.
That way I get progressively less spam the newer a mailbox is.
It works pretty well for me, and I've been satisfied with Yahoo's bulk mail filtering.
As an aside, you might want to take a look at the excellent "yosucker" program which downloads all your yahoo messages automatically and will optionally delete the ones in folders such as bulk mail.
Slashdot Mirror
I consider ESR a reliable source:
Microsoft uses ``One World, One Web, One Program'' as a slogan. Doesn't that sound like ``Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer'' to you, too? -- Eric S. Raymond
But what good is karma if you can't burn it?
It looks fine to me in Opera 7.23 and Firebird 0.6
Thanks =)
I switched from 2.4/SuSE/KDE because I wanted to try something new. The complexity level is roughly the same. In fact, once you get Gentoo up and running its easier to install things. Emerge takes care of almost everything for you. The optimized compile is just an added bonus.
Not really, but since your story was accepted instead of mine, I decided I'd shoot for at least a +5 Informative ;-)
Hmm, is that system-wide or per-user ?
Why not link directly to the original article?
Ah, thx for that. Hopefully I will never have to deal with Home, but it is good to know.
Here's a babelfish of the SuSE lines, for us anglicans:
Yes. We form good Linux fur IBM.
I am not certain..
You let unite us goods.
out loudly laugh
I think it is elegant because it is a large part of what allows XP to be so stable.
98 SE and ME were 'elegant' in your sense of the word because they could run 95 programs w/o much of a problem. But this (and many related things) affected stability in a negative way.
With XP, Microsoft brought in a new and stable code base, NT/2K, and added a seperate compatibility mode for 9x and ME programs. This was a very good move IMO.
err excuse me - its WINKEY + Break, not ctrl.
It takes 6 clicks to change an env variable w/o the keyboard.
/?" on the cmd line.
If you press ctrl+break to start, it takes 3 clicks
If you like text-based, type "set
I like text-based configuration files better as well, but the vast majority of the world's population does not. Windows is targeted at everyone, not us geeks.
no that is episode 3 material /me prays
I guess it was a good decision. But it sure was sad, especially when it could have been avoided so easily =(
The new UI really is a love/hate thing. I started using 95 the week it was released, so I am very attached to the old theme.
There are plenty of people who like the new theme... but there is too much color there for my tastes.
"Crayola interface", indeed!
Well I don't know what he does, but here we use VNC. That way we can take over the user's session directly, while they watch. Then I usually leave a quick message in notepad explaining what I just did. Some of them actually get it, and end up fixing the problem themselves next time. So I get more time to reload slashdot ;)
The user's are locked down now, their programs work, and every thing is centrally administered thanks to group policy and active directory. Overall it's been very nice.
.reg file for this and other settings to speed the process, since this used to be a very small business that has grown very fast and we never bothered to set up a network-wide group policy system.
Locking the users down, group policy, and active directory are as much a part of XP as 2K.
The new UI just sucks IMNSHO
I agree.
Start --> Run --> gpedit.msc --> User Config --> Admin. Templates --> Control Panel --> Display --> Desktop Themes --> Force Windows Classic
I have a
Our servers are 2K so I can't comment on 2003. I'm trying to sell the execs on using kernel 2.6 and samba 3.x for our next server. I figure something approaching 2.6.10 ought to be out by the time we are ready, so it should be stable enough.
Yes but remember back in the day when he first started working on the Linux network code, he bumped the kernel version up to .90 thinking he was almost done. And then there were like 200 kernel releases between Linux .9 and 1.0?
My point is that he's been wrong before, and he could be wrong now. He's not as omniscient as some OSS jocks try to make him out to be.
I do not consider Linus an expert on desktop systems. He is first and foremost a kernel hacker.
Now, don't get me wrong, I am very pleased with my kernel 2.6/Gentoo/Gnome desktop. But I do not think it is ready for prime time. Much work remains to be done to simplify configuration and installation, both for the distros themselves, adding applications, and new hardware.
Windows-for-Workgroups was not a significant rewrite of Win3.1 They just removed 286 compatibility ("standard mode") and added networking support.
But yeah, 2k --> XP was transitional. If you want an analogy: DOS 4 --> DOS 6, I would say
> XP and 2003 are fairly minor tweaks of Windows NT, but they are missing some of the back-compatibility that was in Windows 2000 if I remember right.
No, you have got it backwards. XP and 2003 are both MUCH more back-compatible than Win2k.
Asside from NT, Win2k was the most incompatible windows ever. Stable, but with many compatibility problems with both hardware and software. Especially before the various service packs came out.
> XP was in no way "from scratch"
You are correct. XP is the Win2k codebase with many features added and much better hard/soft compatibility. It was designed to be both a home/office OS, whereas Win2k was designed specifically to be a robust server/workstation.
Incidentally, after all this time there is still an ongoing debate about whether XP or 2000 are more stable as a workstation client. As a network admin for 46 stations, my vote goes for XP.
Uh, hmm. Well I sort of get around this problem by having multiple accounts. Here's my scheme:
I usually have three active accounts, and I get a new (primary) one every 2 years. However, I always check the other 2 newest ones, just less frequently. So it looks like this:
Primary Mailbox (personal, priority business transactions): checked every day
Secondary Mailbox (mailing lists and business with less priority, such as online orders): checked every few days
Tertiary Mailbox (signing up for sites, forums, and other places that might leak your address to spammers): checked rarely
Every 2 years or so, I get a new primary mailbox and the former primary becomes the secondary, etc.
That way I get progressively less spam the newer a mailbox is.
It works pretty well for me, and I've been satisfied with Yahoo's bulk mail filtering.
As an aside, you might want to take a look at the excellent "yosucker" program which downloads all your yahoo messages automatically and will optionally delete the ones in folders such as bulk mail.
> Why the sad face?
:)
:P
:\ == Undecided; Sceptical
> Ever wanted to date a pilot?
I don't really have a criteria. Maybe I'll start worrying about it if a woman ever looks at me twice
too bad those characters get filtered out
"Fuck off SCO"