Mac OS X does this automatically, without needing that little script you wrote. Just give both interfaces the same IP information, and it will seamlessly switch to whichever is higher in the list of connections.
I could do the same thing on Linux, but you miss understood -- It's using DHCP first to grab the IP address and settings. After that, it will duplicate the settings to the ethernet card or vice-versa if I plug/unplug the ethernet card. I don't intend to setup any sort of static IP addresses.
Once again, all kinds of power, and a GUI that makes it trivial to use.
I suppose I could make a GUI for the script, but what would it do? Show a about box? I could just package it nicely and let people install it if they need something similar for their Debian/(EDU|Xu|Ku)buntu/Mepis installation (relies on/etc/networking/interfaces).
My experience has been that pretty much anything that's USB or Firewire just works, including such dongles, serial adapters, modems, printers, etc.
I guess you've never seen the "Not supported on Mac" indicators on boxes in stores either.
I can sit here and spin tales of how my MegaRAID adapter in my server wasn't recognized by several Linux install CD's, then was broken in the kernel for a few versions, and when I finally switched to an IBM ServeRAID 3L, it wasn't supported by Windows XP!
That isn't exactly off-the-shelf hardware either.
I'd say you're most likely to get something to work with full functionality on Windows.
After the hassle of getting upto date drivers, perhaps. But I've got into stupid situations where devices were rendered absolutely useless on windows by some windows update (last one I encountered was related to a wireless Atheros card -- no updated drivers were released to my knowledge for it).
You may have problems and conflicts, but full feature support is a priority.
As mentioned in my parent post, I couldn't even run some games on my current laptop under Windows, but I can under Linux. It's additionally even faster. Linux seems full featured to me?
You're most likely to get most functionality on Mac OS X.
Could you give me some examples?
Things break much more often on Linux.
I've experienced less hardware support problems under Linux than I ever did under Windows. As for things breaking... Well, every incident of something breaking was when I was doing something dirty (I like tinkering with things to make them easier for me as you've probably noticed -- although sometimes that has blown up in my face).
but running a system update (synaptic, yum, emerge, etc) is sometimes like russian roulette.
I've stayed away from Fedora (since I notice you mention yum), but really. Most of the times I've seen things break, is when someone tries todo a full distro upgrade or does something in the complete wrong way (I help out on IRC a lot, quite a reoccurring scenario).
I don't need to with OS X or Windows.
Seeing how you have to upgrade usually each application manually on those platforms -- it's suddenly not a issue with the OS if something happens, but the application.
Saying that, I'm not saying Linux doesn't have it's issues, I've just found that I have far less problems and issues on the OS in general, I also prefer some of the desktop environments a lot more.
I always thought the expose features, widgets, various transition effects, perfectly working transparency, sleep visual style, etc. were outstanding features, even if they're not as important separately.
If I wanted that stuff, I'd have it on my Linux installation. I'm surprised you didn't mention spotlight, most people really like that. Personally I find those feature just slow down the computer and don't help me get on with what's important.
Together, they make a really sleek and organized operating system that is easy to use and easy to get things done with.
Most modern operating systems are organized these days... I don't agree with your sleek statement though. I also don't see how editing XML files to change stupid settings you don't want and then rebooting to see changes is easy either (KDE at least has most graphical options available to you in kcontrol).
I've tried to mac-ify my windows machines with litestep and flyakiteOSX and various explorer replacements, widgets, visual styles, and so on, but none of them work as smoothly and reliably as anything I've seen on macs. Besides that, it seems like there's all sorts of great user-created widgets and applications that make things even better on macs.
Can't say I'm really into theming that much, I like my system to be really light-weight and compact.
Two main factors have prevented me from going with a mac. First is the insane prices, nearly double what I pay for my PC to get an equivalent mac.
Ah, the current prices seemed okay -- I just wasn't very impressed with the actual hardware, it seemed flimsy in quality (plus they emit annoying sounds I can hear).
Second is the lack of support from certain developers (games, 3dsmax, etc).
Yeah, that is a problem that I never entirely over came yet.
That, however, would easily be remedied had you been able to get a cheap $500 dell and slap OS X on it.
Or you could run Windows on the Mac (although I'm sure there is a Mac user out there who feels a pain in his chest whenever someone suggests this).
In reality, I can get most stuff I like on Linux on MacOSX using Fink. Or on windows using Cygwin... But it really feels like a cheat (not to mention it's slower for some reason).
Of course, show a Windows user or a Mac user that you're running KDE ontop of their sacred OS and it's all suddenly, "Why are you doing that!?".
The same people get really upset and iffy when you aren't using the same office applications, paint programs and so on too. Me? I couldn't careless what people use, I know what I like to use.
Things I can do on Linux that MacOSX and Windows can't:
I wrote a simple script that simply switches between wireless and wired networks automatically without disconnecting any of my existing connections on IRC and so on.
I plug in the Ethernet cable, a script automatically starts and disables wi-fi card, duplicates NIC settings from the wi-fi card (IP address and so on) then brings up Ethernet. My applications just continue running, still connected to servers and such. If I pull out the ethernet cable, Wi-fi starts up, connects to the relevant network (if it's there) and my applications still aren't disconnected from anything.
This is really useful for me when I need to move around, but every now and then, I need to connect to a wired network so I can do network intensive tasks quickly, such as speedy backups, huge file copies, low latency network gaming, conference calling (works fine over wi-fi, but artifacts sometimes occur).
The other thing is, whenever I need to use a scanner, tablet, Bluetooth dongle, wi-fi card -- anything. I can just plug it in, and it works, no need to download drivers, configure the thing. It just works almost instantly. Now, MacOSX? I find a lot of hardware doesn't "just work" on that, if it works at all. I have a Bluetooth dongle that crashes the OS, but works fine on Windows and Linux. Windows on the other hand.. Always asking me drivers, it rarely finds drivers automatically from the windows update site, the drivers that come on the CD don't work for some reason (designed for XP SP1 and doesn't work on SP2 -- manufacturer's website uses some borked javascript that doesn't let me download the drivers -- BLAH). I just can't use any off-the-shelf equipment immediately with non-linux OSes.
I admit there is definitely hardware that doesn't work with Linux, but so far. I've had far more problems with MacOSX and Windows.
The windows games I can get working under Wine, run often faster than I ever got under Windows on the same hardware -- including some wouldn't even work under Windows on my hardware (second life) -- but worked fine under Wine and Linux (now second life has a Linux port which is even better).
Things I can't do on Linux:
Play every windows game. Run a program equivalent in functionality to Satscape... I honestly can't think of anything else now.
I think that WGA and now OGA are the first step down the slippery slope towards subscription based software.
I agree.
Valve's Steam already requires activation of products over the Internet and automatically updates the software as well and it has been very successful in frustrating copyright infringers.
Don't they just use cracked copies and use something like Gamespy for finding servers to play on?
Now steam, it's frustrating for legitimate customers. For many months, people couldn't play single player games offline. Valve didn't care enough todo anything about for months and months. Then the friends list broke, at first it would randomly start forgetting all your friends, then it would entirely not work for everything for months and months (I'm pretty sure this issue went over a year).
Theres also the lovely feature of Steam, where you can click, play. Suddenly a stupid dialog pops up, and tells it's estimating it will take 17 minutes or so to start... No, you can't bypass it at that particular time. Only got a 30 minute break? Too bad.
Not to mention when Steam is down. That's it, the end, nobody can play online anymore.
The only true benefit to Steam, is that you can play on 'VAC' servers, which shouldn't even be needed in the first place. The fact that people can wall-hack is a design flaw in the game like CSS. Other FPSs actually implemented client-side handling of physics and so on, while the server verified what the user was doing was actually possible. Did it work? Yes. There was no cheating of this sort at all. Since it's a really well known implementation to solve the 'wall-hack' issues, impossible aim bot movements, it leads one to believe that the engine was purposely broken a SECOND TIME to enforce the idea of VAC, which is only available to people who have a Steam account with HL2 and good VAC standing.
Subscription-service based software isn't really any good because you're forced into lock-ins to use it suddenly by flawed designs, companies don't seem to care enough to-do much about fixing problems urgently.. After all, you're still on the service. They just need to provide, 'just enough' to keep you on.
Some other MP3 players can actually play music even when they're mounted. I also don't see why it shouldn't be this way. The device is designed specifically for playing music in the first place.
The technology exists today to make a very capable wireless media player
I don't know.. I looked at my sister's mobile phone -- you just right click a bunch of files you selected, click send to -> [phone name]. And.. that was it. Music was uploaded (via bluetooth) and immediately available. Seems the technology is already here.
what is missing is someone (Apple?) to make it useful and functional.
Is this another one of those things where you need to download their proprietary software that works so-so under windows, but okay on Mac and doesn't work at all on other operating systems just so you can upload the music?
The possibilities are endless. Imagine "Mall Radio Stations"
Most malls have speakers already...
audio lectures or supplemental material distributed wirelessly to all the students in the classroom
That would be kind of nifty... But quite a few lecturers want you to pay first. I doubt it would be that simple.
having a playlist at a party that is a composite of all the wireless devices in the room/house.
But if someone dares violate the GPL, those same Slashdotters rise up and demand the heads of everyone involved on a silver platter.
And that specific group of 'Slashdotters' you mention probably wouldn't even touch commercial software they haven't paid for with a ten-foot pole.
Slashdot has a lot of users, saying all Slashdot users do one thing (when not all of them do) and after do the other (when not all do) is quite far from the truth.
For some unknown reason, my CD Drive trips a copy protection on Civ 4, causing a switch to low priority on my machine.
The copy protection in Civ4 ruined my laptop's DVD-ROM -- I am really tired of being punished for being legit (and before anyone says, yes - I have contacted them on the issue - no, nothing came of it).
But in an enterprise network where you need directory services to manage thousands of objects on huge networks, it is hard to beat Microsoft's Active Directory.
I have seen such networks actually use Linux systems infront of the Windows domain controllers and so on because they couldn't get 'enough' performance out of the windows servers.
Also some other reasons for doing so include the fail-over heartbeat systems that exist on Linux platforms that generally work with any TCP/IP services (a similar feature does exist under Windows clusters, but -- it has it's problems).
Admittedly though -- I haven't seen anything handle client connections to Exchange-sort of server yet. I've also not seen a huge enterprise setup with my own eyes that completely replaced the Windows servers with Linux.
I mean seriously, Fedora, Ubuntu, et al don't even come CLOSE in terms of usability compared to Windows.
You need to explain how. Because I cannot determine how Windows comes more usable than Ubuntu (And who the heck uses Fedora?).
Mac OS X does.
How?
BeOS did.
How?
Linux still is and always will be a hobbyist OS.
Except there are people using it on their desktop for work and businesses right now. Including huge companies even making money off commercializing it. You can't call that a hobby.
I happened to find out today that the SCTP vulnerability in the linux kernel (back in 2.6.14 days) exists because of lack of standard checks in the kernel that were outlined in the draft proposal
Oh nos! My world is dying! This is even more dire than anything we have ever faced under Windows!
(read: lazy developer let things slide because of the 640k-ought-to-be-enough-for-anybody mentality).. I mean seriously..
if you fail to see that problem then you're also going to fail to see why X is the worst idea for a desktop environment
It's not a desktop environment, KDE is a desktop enviroment, Gnome is a desktop enviroment.
(hint: BeOS, heck even SkyOS and AtheOS/syllable have tight windowing systems.. why are we still pushing X?)
I have yet to find a real reason in my everyday use of X not to use it.
I honestly can't think of anything, it works well, it's fast (hell, windows games are faster under Wine for me than under Windows, and that's with all the wrapping directx functions to opengl non-sense), it's networked (I have use for older laptops -- they're powerful desktops - I couldn't get the same performance off remote desktop) and it doesn't even attempt to lock me into any UI widget systems or anything.
OK it's one thing to call yesterday's release "2.0" -- after all it was a big improvement from 1.5.
Firefox wasn't released yesterday, it was released today.
But this today is really just an incremental release from yeseterday's. Calling it "2.0" again is a slap in the face to all of us loyal users who downloaded it yesterday and felt like we were getting something special.
Today's binaries are the exact same ones that went into Firefox 2.0 RC3 I hear.
Come on guys, this is why open source can't compete in a real marketplace.
I agree, for one thing, it needs to ship late like most commercial products, rather than being available a day early.
If you are serious about gaming, then you will have a mouse designed for just that.
I'm not serious about gaming, not even much of a gamer. So I don't really fit in that category you mentioned.
I find the whole ctrl click, dual finger tapping and so on -- quite awkward honestly. I'm sure it works well for some people, but it really doesn't for me.
Apple's approach is that a user technically-minded enough to be remoting into a Windows machine will have purchased their own cheap two-button mouse or selected the Mighty Mouse option on order.
I see, so using remote desktop on a Mac is considered that the user is technically-minded. I suddenly understand the so called 'support' I got from Apple-care.
By the way, my mother (not a very a technical oriented person) uses remote desktop.
It will never end, because the two-button mouse is an artifact of bad GUI design that confuses the majority of computer users and leads to badly designed applications.
Just because it doesn't work for Mac users, a niche group at the moment. Doesn't mean it works for the majority of users -- Who are on Windows, and most seem to be using it just fine.
Slashdot Mirror
*Shivers* So.. cold..
Saying that, I'm not saying Linux doesn't have it's issues, I've just found that I have far less problems and issues on the OS in general, I also prefer some of the desktop environments a lot more.
Of course, show a Windows user or a Mac user that you're running KDE ontop of their sacred OS and it's all suddenly, "Why are you doing that!?".
The same people get really upset and iffy when you aren't using the same office applications, paint programs and so on too. Me? I couldn't careless what people use, I know what I like to use.
Things I can do on Linux that MacOSX and Windows can't:
I wrote a simple script that simply switches between wireless and wired networks automatically without disconnecting any of my existing connections on IRC and so on.
I plug in the Ethernet cable, a script automatically starts and disables wi-fi card, duplicates NIC settings from the wi-fi card (IP address and so on) then brings up Ethernet. My applications just continue running, still connected to servers and such. If I pull out the ethernet cable, Wi-fi starts up, connects to the relevant network (if it's there) and my applications still aren't disconnected from anything.
This is really useful for me when I need to move around, but every now and then, I need to connect to a wired network so I can do network intensive tasks quickly, such as speedy backups, huge file copies, low latency network gaming, conference calling (works fine over wi-fi, but artifacts sometimes occur).
The other thing is, whenever I need to use a scanner, tablet, Bluetooth dongle, wi-fi card -- anything. I can just plug it in, and it works, no need to download drivers, configure the thing. It just works almost instantly. Now, MacOSX? I find a lot of hardware doesn't "just work" on that, if it works at all. I have a Bluetooth dongle that crashes the OS, but works fine on Windows and Linux.
Windows on the other hand.. Always asking me drivers, it rarely finds drivers automatically from the windows update site, the drivers that come on the CD don't work for some reason (designed for XP SP1 and doesn't work on SP2 -- manufacturer's website uses some borked javascript that doesn't let me download the drivers -- BLAH). I just can't use any off-the-shelf equipment immediately with non-linux OSes.
I admit there is definitely hardware that doesn't work with Linux, but so far. I've had far more problems with MacOSX and Windows.
The windows games I can get working under Wine, run often faster than I ever got under Windows on the same hardware -- including some wouldn't even work under Windows on my hardware (second life) -- but worked fine under Wine and Linux (now second life has a Linux port which is even better).
Things I can't do on Linux:
Play every windows game.
Run a program equivalent in functionality to Satscape.
Now steam, it's frustrating for legitimate customers. For many months, people couldn't play single player games offline. Valve didn't care enough todo anything about for months and months. Then the friends list broke, at first it would randomly start forgetting all your friends, then it would entirely not work for everything for months and months (I'm pretty sure this issue went over a year).
Theres also the lovely feature of Steam, where you can click, play. Suddenly a stupid dialog pops up, and tells it's estimating it will take 17 minutes or so to start... No, you can't bypass it at that particular time. Only got a 30 minute break? Too bad.
Not to mention when Steam is down. That's it, the end, nobody can play online anymore.
The only true benefit to Steam, is that you can play on 'VAC' servers, which shouldn't even be needed in the first place. The fact that people can wall-hack is a design flaw in the game like CSS. Other FPSs actually implemented client-side handling of physics and so on, while the server verified what the user was doing was actually possible. Did it work? Yes. There was no cheating of this sort at all. Since it's a really well known implementation to solve the 'wall-hack' issues, impossible aim bot movements, it leads one to believe that the engine was purposely broken a SECOND TIME to enforce the idea of VAC, which is only available to people who have a Steam account with HL2 and good VAC standing.
Subscription-service based software isn't really any good because you're forced into lock-ins to use it suddenly by flawed designs, companies don't seem to care enough to-do much about fixing problems urgently.. After all, you're still on the service. They just need to provide, 'just enough' to keep you on.
Slashdot has a lot of users, saying all Slashdot users do one thing (when not all of them do) and after do the other (when not all do) is quite far from the truth.
Also some other reasons for doing so include the fail-over heartbeat systems that exist on Linux platforms that generally work with any TCP/IP services (a similar feature does exist under Windows clusters, but -- it has it's problems).
Admittedly though -- I haven't seen anything handle client connections to Exchange-sort of server yet. I've also not seen a huge enterprise setup with my own eyes that completely replaced the Windows servers with Linux.
How?How?Except there are people using it on their desktop for work and businesses right now. Including huge companies even making money off commercializing it. You can't call that a hobby.Oh nos! My world is dying! This is even more dire than anything we have ever faced under Windows!Yeah.. seriously.. that's a urban myth. It's not a desktop environment, KDE is a desktop enviroment, Gnome is a desktop enviroment.I have yet to find a real reason in my everyday use of X not to use it.
I honestly can't think of anything, it works well, it's fast (hell, windows games are faster under Wine for me than under Windows, and that's with all the wrapping directx functions to opengl non-sense), it's networked (I have use for older laptops -- they're powerful desktops - I couldn't get the same performance off remote desktop) and it doesn't even attempt to lock me into any UI widget systems or anything.
I give you my word I didn't put malware or some other non-sense in it.
Nah, I wrote my own filters because I don't mind text ads.
Adblock was protecting me -- I didn't even know it. Disabled adblock and yes, my browser crashed.
I find the whole ctrl click, dual finger tapping and so on -- quite awkward honestly. I'm sure it works well for some people, but it really doesn't for me.
By the way, my mother (not a very a technical oriented person) uses remote desktop.Just because it doesn't work for Mac users, a niche group at the moment. Doesn't mean it works for the majority of users -- Who are on Windows, and most seem to be using it just fine.