Um, ASOT? Have you ever used it? You can take a Linux box out of the box, plug it in, and be on the Internet doing whatever you want to do in about five minutes. You don't have to dick around with settings, or fiddle with security stuff. There's a proper firewall turned on by default, and the web browser that comes with it doesn't suck.
It comes with great personal productivity software: Thunderbird, Evo, OpenOffice, and in many cases, Totem / MPlayer. Some applications that are kinda sorta similar to those are available for Mac OSX, but the Mac versions have three huge problems: first, you have to download them. Second, the OSX versions are less maintained. Third, you have to use a billion different tyools to keep your apps up to date, rather than just one.
Then, of course, you can play a lot more games on Linux on a PC than you can with OSX - either native (usually the same games as most Mac Ports - Doom 3, UT 2004, etc), or through Cedega. Want Halflife 2? You got it.
Then, of course, there's GTKPod. Personally, when I buy an iPod, and upgrade my computer, I can't imagine being told I should delete all my songs to use it.
Given that Linux does so much, it is, yes, a pretty absurd concept for me that people might want to throw all that functionality away and use an operating system that makes you feel like it's 1984 all over again.
Because you don't want to learn to live without Evolution, a decent version of OpenOffice, or a iPod app (GTKPod) that doesn't work when you use your existing player with a new machine?
- Because Unix, for me, means very rarely having to reboot to install a security upgrade. MacOSX isn't very Unixy in that regard - Because I have to do lots of stuff to make my iPod work under OSX, due to some silly iTunes DRM thing, whereas GTKPod just works. Also the tag editor in GTKPod (just click the text to edit) is simpler than iTunes (right click context menu). - All my work is in OpenOffice and JOffice isn't very good.
> lack of consistency harms interoperability. That doesn't even make sense
Heh. Get someone else to explain it to you then.
> I'm not always talking about myself.
Then perhaps you should use the editorial "we" to let us serfs know when you're astroturfing, I mean speaking for us.
If I say 'Windows admins' or 'Linux admins' it means 'Windows admins' or 'Linux admins'. Again, I gues you're having trouble trying to understand it.
(re: how lack of standards supposedly helps security) > I'll inform the LSB immediately.
You probably won't get much of a response, since the LSB is a proposed standard.
Also, I imagine they'd get the sarcasm.
The reason I mentioned my job was simply to show that I'm experienced and fully aware when systems are not interoperable.
But you're not expierienced - as you've said, you're not a system administrator and think more people work for corporates than otherwise. That makes you pretty naive.
After repeated prodding, you said the comparison was about interoperability. You were also trying to compare different versions of Windows to different distros of Linux. Now you say it's about consistency.
Some common sense: lack of consistency harms interoperability.
That sentence obviously indicates you believe all Linux distros to be the same operating system.
No, it indicates most people in the world consider Linux as a single Operating System.
> Nor have I ever said I have problems installing anything in Windows. You made that up. Please paste where I say I did. I know enough about both to be quite confortable working in either.
The point was about your claim of difficulty with installation between different Linux OSs.
I'm not always talking about myself. You're assuming (or deliberately troling me by pretending to assume) comments about inconsistency for users are based shortcomings that only I, personally, am faced with.
Annoyance != non-interoperability
Of course not. I never said that. What I did say was that non-interoperability is annoying. I suppose you'll take that to task too?
> Do you think a standard place to find the config file for a network interface, or a static route, or whatever else, or a standard way to install a package would be a good thing?
(re standardization of config files)
at the very least, as I already stated, if they're all the same, you've got a monoculture, which is far more vulnerable to malware
Do you think the benefits of standardization are negated by the monoculture they create? Do you think diversity is a real means toward security?
I'll inform the LSB immediately.
Again, you're not paying attention. At the very least, as I already stated, if they're all the same, you've got a monoculture,
Er, you made your security through obscurity (sorry, monoculture) point twice in your last post. Before then, you simply refrained from anwering the question and started pissing contests about jobs, much in the same way you're claiming I'm a dotcommer now.
Nice to know you've got a real technical argument there.
> Do you really think more desktops are managed than otherwise?
In business, yes
Find me a study anywhere that says there's more people employed by corporates than elsewhere in any first world country. Perhaps, rather than working for a small company, I work for a large company but have a better understanding of economic realities.
Secondly, you don't want to get into a pissing contest about where you work. You'll lose.
I didn't laud Windows. I said processes of using WIndows are consistent between versions. I said that's not the case with Linux.
Nor did I say Linux was one operating system. I have repeatedly said the difference in interoperability mmeans different distributions can be considered different operating systems despite the fact that most people would say Linux, itself, is an OS.
You don't seem to understand that.
Nor have I ever said I have problems installing anything in Windows. You made that up. Please paste where I say I did. I know enough about both to be quite confortable working in either.
What I did say was that Windows admins, OTOH, have problems installing software in Linux. Likewise 'Linux admins' (ie, Red Hat admins, Debian admins, etc) have problems installing things in other distributions.
Do you disagree with that? No?
I belong in a Line of work which involves instructing people from different distributions on the details of the other, being annoyed at the unnecessary difference between them.
Do you think a standard place to find the config file for a network interface, or a static route, or whatever else, or a standard way to install a package would be a good thing?
If not, what significant advantage is there to the current difference?
No, what I said "Yes, you need to be interoperable with platforms you're not using right now, for much the same way it makes sense for Windows to be interoperable with Linux ".
Even with the end chopped off, you can see I cover that point.
Do you really think more desktops are managed than otherwise?
Can you explain how the same package working across all version of Windows is detrimental to the usability of Windows?
I don't have much problem moving between Linux and Windows either.
From this comment, I gather that your understanding of either is not particularly deep. Which makes sense, as you've said, you're no SA.
Why participate in a coversation comparing two operating systems if your understanding of them is fairly superficial?
I don't really think anyone's made a conscious decision to choose Red Hat or Debian network interface config file formats, there's no competitive advantage to either. There's also veryt little between the different packaging formats. Rather, its symptomatic of a 'not invented here' syndrome that affects the early design of a lot of Linux distributions.
Yes, you need to be interoperable with platforms you're not using right now, for much the same way it makes sense for Windows to be interoperable with Linux even though most... existing Windows shops don't use Linux.
Your point about that Windows not interoperating with Linux now is irrelevant. I never said it did. I just said it would be a good thing if it did.
Since all the other replies seemed to understand what I'm saying, I'd say like it seems you might have missed my point.
You tried to compare software installation methods between various different Linux operating systems to those between various versions of the same Microsoft operating system.
Yes. To make the point that Linux cross distro interoperability is so poor they may as well be considered seperate Operating Systems. Whjich you seem to agree on.
That looks a lot more like a usability issue than an interoperability issue.
Why?
Most businesses aren't corporates. Most desktop users can and will install their own software.
any competent Linux SA won't have problems.
That sounds like an insult to just about every Linux SA who tries his hand at another distro and finds it difficult. Also, in line with your previous statement (which I agree with), since these are so different they can be classified as diffferent Operating Systems, do you think moving between different Operating Systems is a trivial thing?
I must have missed it when the law of computer usability was written. Who said everything had to work according to the Microsoft way?
You're the one claiming that installing software is the measure of OS usability....
Your assumption that I'm angry is amusing.
You keep putting words in my mouth - so far you've alleged I've said everything has to work the microsoft way, and implied I'm trying to dictate ideas of computer usability. Neither of which I've said.
Do you think its unreasonable for me to conclude you're someone who just wants to start a fight with anyone defending something said by Bill Gates?
It looks like ass. It may be a thousand times more sensible than Gnome or KDE, but being the facile person I am, I equate black text on dark grey background to mean old school Unix 'Window Manager + crappy menu to launch programs' environment.
If you're interested in running Linux on it, its pretty decent. I'm typing this on a Mac Mini with a GB of RAM now, and both OSX and Fedora Core 3 are snappy as hell. I can open as many apps I want in either without slowing down, or the unit becoming hot to the touch. The only exception to that is running Windows XP in QEmu on OSX. Even then, OSX remains responsive, its just that QEmu is too slow.
The Apple bluetooth keyboard is the best keyboard I've ever used - it looks great, but it feels like one of those old honeywell keyboards. The bluetooth mouse is fine too. OSX doesn't
FC3 works fine with the bluetooth devices, video card, dual booting, DVD player, and putting icons on my desktop for the iPod when I plug it in.
So, conversely, you're a fan of a freak. So there:^P.
Else, I can testify that I'm currently using the same set of bash commands I used as a student on a VAX mainframe some 15 years ago, now that's interoperability according to you;)
Actually, yeah, it is. My main thrust is that I wish admin skills were as portable as bash. But I wish the things you could rely on were higher level. There's more cooperation between distros than ever before - in Suse, Red Hat and Debian you can always rely on services being accessable under/etc/init.d and doco beneath/usr/share/doc for example, but there's a 'not invented here' syndrome that affects a lot of distros. But for such a basic thing as networking config, it annoys me there' still no standard place. Likewise, RPM and DPKG are so similar you could easily add a few features to one or the other and cover all functionality of both.
Your post is true, and I'm not disputing it. But things have improved markedly in the Linux world since then.
1) Beneath/etc/httpd isn't to bad an assumption on any Linux these days, as that's where the FHS says the file goes.
2) Red Hat no longer have a question and answer on the RHCE exam. As long as you setup (eg) Apache HTTPD correctly, according to the specified requirements, you'll pass.
Yes, they're similar in use. But self-extracting executables are bad for security and trask your packages if you use them for anything important due to differences in how Linux and Windows package things (Linux: one copy of each library/version, Windows, one copy of each library per application).
The process for installing an MSI package is the same as the old.exe. So yes, if you installed a recent app on Windows 95, it'd use MSI and you wouldn't even realize. The process is exactly the same.
Yes, you need to be interoperable with platforms you're not using right now, for much the same way it makes sense for Windows to be interoperable with Linux even though most
It makes it easier to find support, or pick another technology later down the track. Debian folk have trouble using Red hat, Red Hat folk have trouble using Debian.
I must have missed it when the law of computer usability was written. Who said everything had to work according to the Microsoft way?
You're the one claiming that installing software is the measure of OS usability.
Er, I was actually saying portability of methods used to install software was one of many measures of interoperability.
I never mentioned usability, I never said everything had to work the Microsoft way, and I work for one of the larger Linux companies. Your anger towards me, and your assumptions, are amusing.
I just don't have my head in the sand about any operating systems weaknessess. This is a good thing, as I know where Linux needs to improve, and can work towards it.
I think you've lost sight of what Linux is, and why it's here. Linux isn't the environment. It's not even the command-line, it's just the kernel.
I think you're severely out of touch with the rest of the Linux commuinity, who generally use the term kernel to refer to kernel (kernel.org) and Linux to refer to a suite of applications you use as an Operating System. Compare kernel.org and linux.org.
Do you think Gates was referring to kernels in the article?
True, but if that's the only thing stopping worms and trojans, then your platform has issues.
It isn't though - default permission on new files being non executable, web clients not executing applications inside pages, etc. and other such measures are. We don't need to add obscurity to the list of techniques.
Score -1, uses a dictionary definition of the topic.
I'm not an idiot, if you want to speak to me, don't treat me like one....
That said, cause of slow down cowboy, I've been forced to read your post and reply. I'd like to point out that network config files are file formats. In addition, computers aren't limited to software - if the skills taught on one platform don't easily move to another platform, those platforms can be said to be interoperable.
Might be more to do with Microsoft not innovating rather than anything to do with the maturation of Linux.
Is the way an IP address stored in Red Hat or Debian somehow more innovative than the other? Is apt-get update; apt-get upgrade more of less innovative than up2date -u?
Slashdot Mirror
What's so special about Linux?
Um, ASOT? Have you ever used it? You can take a Linux box out of the box, plug it in, and be on the Internet doing whatever you want to do in about five minutes. You don't have to dick around with settings, or fiddle with security stuff. There's a proper firewall turned on by default, and the web browser that comes with it doesn't suck.
It comes with great personal productivity software: Thunderbird, Evo, OpenOffice, and in many cases, Totem / MPlayer. Some applications that are kinda sorta similar to those are available for Mac OSX, but the Mac versions have three huge problems: first, you have to download them. Second, the OSX versions are less maintained. Third, you have to use a billion different tyools to keep your apps up to date, rather than just one.
Then, of course, you can play a lot more games on Linux on a PC than you can with OSX - either native (usually the same games as most Mac Ports - Doom 3, UT 2004, etc), or through Cedega. Want Halflife 2? You got it.
Then, of course, there's GTKPod. Personally, when I buy an iPod, and upgrade my computer, I can't imagine being told I should delete all my songs to use it.
Given that Linux does so much, it is, yes, a pretty absurd concept for me that people might want to throw all that functionality away and use an operating system that makes you feel like it's 1984 all over again.
I purchased a Mac Mini and am dual booting Fedora Core 3 with OSX, though I probably will reclaim the OSX space.
Instructions on how to do this are
here
a iPod app (GTKPod) that doesn't work when you use your existing player with a new machine?
Oops. Double negative. meant to say an iPod app that works.
why do I want to do this again?
Because you don't want to learn to live without Evolution, a decent version of OpenOffice, or a iPod app (GTKPod) that doesn't work when you use your existing player with a new machine?
Because a most Shuttle boxes are about six times the size, and look like poo.
On his Mac Mini before installing Fedora...
- Because Unix, for me, means very rarely having to reboot to install a security upgrade. MacOSX isn't very Unixy in that regard
- Because I have to do lots of stuff to make my iPod work under OSX, due to some silly iTunes DRM thing, whereas GTKPod just works. Also the tag editor in GTKPod (just click the text to edit) is simpler than iTunes (right click context menu).
- All my work is in OpenOffice and JOffice isn't very good.
> lack of consistency harms interoperability.
That doesn't even make sense
Heh. Get someone else to explain it to you then.
> I'm not always talking about myself.
Then perhaps you should use the editorial "we" to let us serfs know when you're astroturfing, I mean speaking for us.
If I say 'Windows admins' or 'Linux admins' it means 'Windows admins' or 'Linux admins'. Again, I gues you're having trouble trying to understand it.
(re: how lack of standards supposedly helps security)
> I'll inform the LSB immediately.
You probably won't get much of a response, since the LSB is a proposed standard.
Also, I imagine they'd get the sarcasm.
The reason I mentioned my job was simply to show that I'm experienced and fully aware when systems are not interoperable.
But you're not expierienced - as you've said, you're not a system administrator and think more people work for corporates than otherwise. That makes you pretty naive.
After repeated prodding, you said the comparison was about interoperability. You were also trying to compare different versions of Windows to different distros of Linux. Now you say it's about consistency.
Some common sense: lack of consistency harms interoperability.
That sentence obviously indicates you believe all Linux distros to be the same operating system.
No, it indicates most people in the world consider Linux as a single Operating System.
> Nor have I ever said I have problems installing anything in Windows. You made that up. Please paste where I say I did. I know enough about both to be quite confortable working in either.
The point was about your claim of difficulty with installation between different Linux OSs.
I'm not always talking about myself. You're assuming (or deliberately troling me by pretending to assume) comments about inconsistency for users are based shortcomings that only I, personally, am faced with.
Annoyance != non-interoperability
Of course not. I never said that. What I did say was that non-interoperability is annoying. I suppose you'll take that to task too?
> Do you think a standard place to find the config file for a network interface, or a static route, or whatever else, or a standard way to install a package would be a good thing?
(re standardization of config files)
at the very least, as I already stated, if they're all the same, you've got a monoculture, which is far more vulnerable to malware
Do you think the benefits of standardization are
negated by the monoculture they create? Do you think diversity is a real means toward security?
I'll inform the LSB immediately.
Again, you're not paying attention. At the very least, as I already stated, if they're all the same, you've got a monoculture,
Er, you made your security through obscurity (sorry, monoculture) point twice in your last post. Before then, you simply refrained from anwering the question and started pissing contests about jobs, much in the same way you're claiming I'm a dotcommer now.
Nice to know you've got a real technical argument there.
> Do you really think more desktops are managed than otherwise?
In business, yes
Find me a study anywhere that says there's more people employed by corporates than elsewhere in any first world country. Perhaps, rather than working for a small company, I work for a large company but have a better understanding of economic realities.
Secondly, you don't want to get into a pissing contest about where you work. You'll lose.
I didn't laud Windows. I said processes of using WIndows are consistent between versions. I said that's not the case with Linux.
Nor did I say Linux was one operating system. I have repeatedly said the difference in interoperability mmeans different distributions can be considered different operating systems despite the fact that most people would say Linux, itself, is an OS.
You don't seem to understand that.
Nor have I ever said I have problems installing anything in Windows. You made that up. Please paste where I say I did. I know enough about both to be quite confortable working in either.
What I did say was that Windows admins, OTOH, have problems installing software in Linux. Likewise 'Linux admins' (ie, Red Hat admins, Debian admins, etc) have problems installing things in other distributions.
Do you disagree with that? No?
I belong in a Line of work which involves instructing people from different distributions on the details of the other, being annoyed at the unnecessary difference between them.
Do you think a standard place to find the config file for a network interface, or a static route, or whatever else, or a standard way to install a package would be a good thing?
If not, what significant advantage is there to the current difference?
You sir, are a liar and an idiot.
Cool. But my point remain: someone needs to create a good looking theme.
Or what you meant to say.
No, what I said "Yes, you need to be interoperable with platforms you're not using right now, for much the same way it makes sense for Windows to be interoperable with Linux ".
Even with the end chopped off, you can see I cover that point.
Do you really think more desktops are managed than otherwise?
Can you explain how the same package working across all version of Windows is detrimental to the usability of Windows?
I don't have much problem moving between Linux and Windows either.
From this comment, I gather that your understanding of either is not particularly deep. Which makes sense, as you've said, you're no SA.
Why participate in a coversation comparing two operating systems if your understanding of them is fairly superficial?
I don't really think anyone's made a conscious decision to choose Red Hat or Debian network interface config file formats, there's no competitive advantage to either. There's also veryt little between the different packaging formats. Rather, its symptomatic of a 'not invented here' syndrome that affects the early design of a lot of Linux distributions.
Saw the link, but it still looks like Windows 95.
Oops, hit post too early
... existing Windows shops don't use Linux.
...
Yes, you need to be interoperable with platforms you're not using right now, for much the same way it makes sense for Windows to be interoperable with Linux even though most
Your point about that Windows not interoperating with Linux now is irrelevant. I never said it did. I just said it would be a good thing if it did.
Since all the other replies seemed to understand what I'm saying, I'd say like it seems you might have missed my point.
You tried to compare software installation methods between various different Linux operating systems to those between various versions of the same Microsoft operating system.
Yes. To make the point that Linux cross distro interoperability is so poor they may as well be considered seperate Operating Systems. Whjich you seem to agree on.
That looks a lot more like a usability issue than an interoperability issue.
Why?
Most businesses aren't corporates. Most desktop users can and will install their own software.
any competent Linux SA won't have problems.
That sounds like an insult to just about every Linux SA who tries his hand at another distro and finds it difficult. Also, in line with your previous statement (which I agree with), since these are so different they can be classified as diffferent Operating Systems, do you think moving between different Operating Systems is a trivial thing?
I must have missed it when the law of computer usability was written. Who said everything had to work according to the Microsoft way?
You're the one claiming that installing software is the measure of OS usability.
Your assumption that I'm angry is amusing.
You keep putting words in my mouth - so far you've alleged I've said everything has to work the microsoft way, and implied I'm trying to dictate ideas of computer usability. Neither of which I've said.
Do you think its unreasonable for me to conclude you're someone who just wants to start a fight with anyone defending something said by Bill Gates?
It looks like ass. It may be a thousand times more sensible than Gnome or KDE, but being the facile person I am, I equate black text on dark grey background to mean old school Unix 'Window Manager + crappy menu to launch programs' environment.
If you're interested in running Linux on it, its pretty decent. I'm typing this on a Mac Mini with a GB of RAM now, and both OSX and Fedora Core 3 are snappy as hell. I can open as many apps I want in either without slowing down, or the unit becoming hot to the touch. The only exception to that is running Windows XP in QEmu on OSX. Even then, OSX remains responsive, its just that QEmu is too slow.
The Apple bluetooth keyboard is the best keyboard I've ever used - it looks great, but it feels like one of those old honeywell keyboards. The bluetooth mouse is fine too. OSX doesn't
FC3 works fine with the bluetooth devices, video card, dual booting, DVD player, and putting icons on my desktop for the iPod when I plug it in.
So, conversely, you're a fan of a freak. So there :^P.
;)
/etc/init.d and doco beneath /usr/share/doc for example, but there's a 'not invented here' syndrome that affects a lot of distros. But for such a basic thing as networking config, it annoys me there' still no standard place. Likewise, RPM and DPKG are so similar you could easily add a few features to one or the other and cover all functionality of both.
Else, I can testify that I'm currently using the same set of bash commands I used as a student on a VAX mainframe some 15 years ago, now that's interoperability according to you
Actually, yeah, it is. My main thrust is that I wish admin skills were as portable as bash. But I wish the things you could rely on were higher level. There's more cooperation between distros than ever before - in Suse, Red Hat and Debian you can always rely on services being accessable under
Your post is true, and I'm not disputing it. But things have improved markedly in the Linux world since then.
/etc/httpd isn't to bad an assumption on any Linux these days, as that's where the FHS says the file goes.
1) Beneath
2) Red Hat no longer have a question and answer on the RHCE exam. As long as you setup (eg) Apache HTTPD correctly, according to the specified requirements, you'll pass.
Yes, they're similar in use. But self-extracting executables are bad for security and trask your packages if you use them for anything important due to differences in how Linux and Windows package things (Linux: one copy of each library/version, Windows, one copy of each library per application).
.exe. So yes, if you installed a recent app on Windows 95, it'd use MSI and you wouldn't even realize. The process is exactly the same.
The process for installing an MSI package is the same as the old
Yes, you need to be interoperable with platforms you're not using right now, for much the same way it makes sense for Windows to be interoperable with Linux even though most
It makes it easier to find support, or pick another technology later down the track. Debian folk have trouble using Red hat, Red Hat folk have trouble using Debian.
I must have missed it when the law of computer usability was written. Who said everything had to work according to the Microsoft way?
You're the one claiming that installing software is the measure of OS usability.
Er, I was actually saying portability of methods used to install software was one of many measures of interoperability.
I never mentioned usability, I never said everything had to work the Microsoft way, and I work for one of the larger Linux companies. Your anger towards me, and your assumptions, are amusing.
I just don't have my head in the sand about any operating systems weaknessess. This is a good thing, as I know where Linux needs to improve, and can work towards it.
I think you've lost sight of what Linux is, and why it's here. Linux isn't the environment. It's not even the command-line, it's just the kernel.
I think you're severely out of touch with the rest of the Linux commuinity, who generally use the term kernel to refer to kernel (kernel.org) and Linux to refer to a suite of applications you use as an Operating System. Compare kernel.org and linux.org.
Do you think Gates was referring to kernels in the article?
True, but if that's the only thing stopping worms and trojans, then your platform has issues.
It isn't though - default permission on new files being non executable, web clients not executing applications inside pages, etc. and other such measures are. We don't need to add obscurity to the list of techniques.
Score -1, uses a dictionary definition of the topic.
...
I'm not an idiot, if you want to speak to me, don't treat me like one.
That said, cause of slow down cowboy, I've been forced to read your post and reply. I'd like to point out that network config files are file formats. In addition, computers aren't limited to software - if the skills taught on one platform don't easily move to another platform, those platforms can be said to be interoperable.
Argue with logic, not a dictionary.
Might be more to do with Microsoft not innovating rather than anything to do with the maturation of Linux.
Is the way an IP address stored in Red Hat or Debian somehow more innovative than the other? Is apt-get update; apt-get upgrade more of less innovative than up2date -u?