Message from Peter 3D TT Dobrovka

[Kmarcks]

">

Peter J. Dobrovka <dobro...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:85o7l3$sq3$1@news02.btx.dtag.de...
:
: Bill Hayles schrieb in Nachricht
38818057.12520...@enews.newsguy.com>...
: >On Fri, 14 Jan 2000 13:54:40 +0100, "Peter J. Dobrovka"
: ><dobro...@t-online.de> wrote:
:
:
: >> : ></smug
:
:
: What is smug? I don't know this word, I have to ask.
:
: > :
: > :
: > :smug

Self-satisfied, consciously virtuous. "Oxford Dictionary"

Kmarcks

[Peter J. Dobrovka]

Mike Wagstaff schrieb in Nachricht
<199632852409920NEWS...@news.dial.pipex.com>...

[Linux not user-friendly]

Same sort of experience here as well. For me, I see more and
more people switching back to WinNT after having tried out
Linux (often for quite a while). I often wonder how well
Linux would be received if most of the computing press
didn't hate Microsoft so much. For me, much as I support the
idea of an open-source OS, Linux is a massive step backwards,
especially when we should be concentrating on making
computers more user-friendly.

One good example for being nasty without reason is this "mounting" of
directories. The directory structure of Linux is completely different from
DOS, you have no A:, B:, C:, D:, your have a root directory (normally '/')
and you access the drives over the '/dev/'-subdirectory. so the floppy is to
be found in '/dev/fda', the first harddisk in '/dev/hda1'. Some drives have
to be "mounted" before you can use them. This is a command that assigns a
root directory to the drive.
Example: mounting the CD-ROM:
mount -t iso9660 /directoryname
Then you can access the CD by /directoryname
But not nasty enough: the mount command does not create a virtual
directory - you have to create a directory first to mount your drive into!

mkdir directoryname

Argh! It should be the opposite: If there is already an existing directory
with this name then it should not be possible to mount the drive.
Even still not nasty enough: after mounting you cannot open the drive to
change the CD, you have to unmount first! And of course mount again if you
want to read the new CD.
This is more than user-unfirendly, this is SICK! Product of an insane brain.

Peter
--
Die 3. Dimension der Strategiespiele:
http://www.digitalprojects.com/way-x

[Paul Wright]

dictionary, i'm not familliar with that <G>

--
____________________________________________________________________

Paul Wright
ICQ UIN: 38986089
E-Mail: Ask me for it
___________________________________________________________________

Kmarcks <k...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:85qc83$atq$1@uranium.btinternet.com...
:
: Self-satisfied, consciously virtuous. "Oxford Dictionary"

[Patchman]

In article <85qi8e$3...@news06.btx.dtag.de>, Peter J. Dobrovka says...

Mike Wagstaff schrieb in Nachricht
199632852409920NEWS...@news.dial.pipex.com>...

Same sort of experience here as well. For me, I see more and
more people switching back to WinNT after having tried out
Linux (often for quite a while). I often wonder how well
Linux would be received if most of the computing press
didn't hate Microsoft so much. For me, much as I support the
idea of an open-source OS, Linux is a massive step backwards,
especially when we should be concentrating on making
computers more user-friendly.

As a Linux fan myself, I of course have to step in and defend it. It's
true that Linux has a much steeper learning curve than Windows, but
"user-friendly" is relative, it depends on what the user expects. For
me, it is very user-friendly in that it lets me get on with my work. It
is extremely stable. The only reboots the box in my office has seen were
from power failures, or when I installed a kernel upgrade. No
crashes. At all. Once you figure it out, you can be certain that it
will behave in the way you expect. I had no problems when installing
additional programs like there are with Windows, for example with
overwritten DLL's and all that.

And there are very nice GUIs, like KDE and Gnome that let you do the
system configuration in a user-friendly way. You still have to know
something about how it works, but it's much easier with them.

One good example for being nasty without reason

It does have a reason. You just could not see it, or so it appears.

is this "mounting" of
directories. The directory structure of Linux is completely different from
DOS, you have no A:, B:, C:, D:, your have a root directory (normally '/')
and you access the drives over the '/dev/'-subdirectory.

That's not quite true. The /dev files *are* the devices. For example,
by looking at /dev/hda you can see the raw data as it is on your hard
disk. The equivalent in DOS would for example be "LPT1:", a pseudo
filename representing the actual device. But in Linux this concept is
true for any device you have in your system. Sound cards, drives, the
mainboard clock, joysticks, serial ports, anything can be accessed with a
filename. For example to play an audio file, you just have to output it
to /dev/dsp, and it will play. You do not need any program to do that.

so the floppy is to
be found in '/dev/fda', the first harddisk in '/dev/hda1'. Some drives have
to be "mounted" before you can use them.

/dev/hda1 is the first partition of the first harddisk, to be correct.
And *all* drives have to be mounted to gain access to the files on them.
Even the root directory / is mounted.

Mount points, as opposed to drive letters have a very important
advantage: they always stay the same if you want. This is equivalent to
being able to decide what your drive letters are. Even when you add new
disks for example, it won't affect your programs. On DOS/Windows,
another disk will need an extra drive letter and that will move the other
drive letters around, messing things up for many programs that rely on
the drive letter.

This is a command that assigns a
root directory to the drive.
Example: mounting the CD-ROM:
mount -t iso9660 /directoryname
Then you can access the CD by /directoryname
But not nasty enough: the mount command does not create a virtual
directory - you have to create a directory first to mount your drive into!

mkdir directoryname

Argh! It should be the opposite: If there is already an existing directory
with this name then it should not be possible to mount the drive.

I don't know why you think this, or why you think that this is a problem.
Mounting a disk fills the given directory (i.e. mount point) with its
files, and to do that it has to exist first. It can even have files, but
those are then hidden until you unmount it again.

Even still not nasty enough: after mounting you cannot open the drive to
change the CD, you have to unmount first! And of course mount again if you
want to read the new CD.

Well, compare that to what you get in Windows when you eject a CD that
the system still uses: a blue screen. On Linux it's just impossible to
do that. But there's a way to tell Linux that you're done with it, but
on Windows you never really know when it's safe to eject it.

This is more than user-unfirendly, this is SICK! Product of an insane brain.

No. It's a very versatile way, but it may not be the way you're used to
see. But that's your problem alone, not trying to understand the way it
works.

For example, suppose you mount a game on /cdrom. Then consider that it
has music files that appear in /cdrom/music. Now, to replace the music
with your own files you just have to mount something else in
/cdrom/music. Try doing that on Windows.

And the last advantage is that on Windows, you are limited to 26 drive
letters while on Linux there is no limit.

So, everything that you see as disadvantage or strangeness is in fact an
advantage that you just don't see yet. Basically what you are saying is
that Linux is bad because it's different from what you are used to. That
is just not the case, and shows that either you were unwilling or unable
to see it for what it is. It does have a radically different way of
doing many things, but usually it's a better way in the sense that it is
far more versatile and powerful. And that is because it's not a single
company that dictates how things are to be done, but it evolves with
time. Unix has been around for several decades, and has had time to
mature.

--
Josef Drexler | http://publish.uwo.ca/~jdrexler/
---------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Please help Conserve Gravity | To email me, please change the country
Don't do push ups | code to .ca - Death to Spammers!

[Mike Wagstaff]

As a Linux fan myself, I of course have to step in and defend it. It's
true that Linux has a much steeper learning curve than Windows, but
"user-friendly" is relative, it depends on what the user expects. For
me, it is very user-friendly in that it lets me get on with my work. It
is extremely stable. The only reboots the box in my office has seen were
from power failures, or when I installed a kernel upgrade. No
crashes. At all. Once you figure it out, you can be certain that it
will behave in the way you expect. I had no problems when installing
additional programs like there are with Windows, for example with
overwritten DLL's and all that.

Yes, Linux is more reliable and stable than Windows. I'd
like to think that Windows 2000 will come close or perhaps
even manage to match it when it comes out in February. But,
for the moment, in terms of reliability, Linux does the
business. That's undisputable.

And there are very nice GUIs, like KDE and Gnome that let you do the
system configuration in a user-friendly way. You still have to know
something about how it works, but it's much easier with them.

Yes, but this situation of a GUI bolted onto the OS is
hardly ideal. The GUI should surely be an integral part of
the OS designed specifically to reflect its functioning, not
just an optional add-on (it reminds me in some ways of Win
95/98 with its underlying DOS legacy).

One good example for being nasty without reason

It does have a reason. You just could not see it, or so it appears.

[Techy stuff snipped!]

Basically, all this drive mounting stuff sounds a complete
nightmare! What hope do non-technical people have of
understanding it? Surely an OS should be designed not just
for computer wizards, but for everyone! With Windows, the
situation is bad enough with amazingly incomprehensible error
messages and maddeningly inconsistent GUI design at times -
but at least "normal" people can use it!

I think that part of the problem is that Linux's authors are
obviously highly skilled very computer-literate people, your
archetypal programmers. Sadly, for whatever reason, skilful
programmers tend to be pathetic designers. Perhaps part of
the reason is that programmers are taught to value efficiency
above all else - having a super-efficient OS is all very
well, but it's not much help if you need to have a degree in
Rocket Sciences just to get the hard drive recognised!

And the last advantage is that on Windows, you are limited to 26 drive
letters while on Linux there is no limit.

Wahey! I can finally install those 35 extra hard drives I
got for Christmas! <g>

So, everything that you see as disadvantage or strangeness is in fact an
advantage that you just don't see yet. Basically what you are saying is
that Linux is bad because it's different from what you are used to. That
is just not the case, and shows that either you were unwilling or unable
to see it for what it is. It does have a radically different way of
doing many things, but usually it's a better way in the sense that it is
far more versatile and powerful. And that is because it's not a single
company that dictates how things are to be done, but it evolves with
time. Unix has been around for several decades, and has had time to
mature.

Well, I reckon that Linux has got a heck of a lot of
maturing left to do if it ever wants to seriously challenge
Windows. Perhaps part of the problem is that we see Linux as
performing different roles - I see Linux as a potential SOHO
(small office/home) OS, a Windows replacement in other
words. This is why the UI and ease-of-use is so important to
me - I'm fed up by the fact that currently only an "elite"
few can use computers to their full potential.

Maybe you see Linux more as an OS for power-users, the type
of people who actually know and care about the technical
side of computing. These are the sort of people who prefer
speed and efficiency over ease-of-use, the sort who use a
command-line and aren't afraid to be proud of it... in other
words, programmers!

-Mike [http://games.hplx.net]

[Peter J. Dobrovka]

Josef Drexler schrieb in Nachricht ...
...

As a Linux fan myself, I of course have to step in and defend it. It's
true that Linux has a much steeper learning curve than Windows, but
"user-friendly" is relative, it depends on what the user expects. For
me, it is very user-friendly in that it lets me get on with my work. It
is extremely stable. The only reboots the box in my office has seen were
from power failures, or when I installed a kernel upgrade. No
crashes. At all.

I mentioned already that the technical part is very good. And I do not want
to discuss this point because it is absolutely clear.

Once you figure it out, you can be certain that it
will behave in the way you expect. I had no problems when installing
additional programs like there are with Windows, for example with
overwritten DLL's and all that.

I never said Windows is perfect - or even good. Another point I do not want
to discuss.

And there are very nice GUIs, like KDE and Gnome that let you do the
system configuration in a user-friendly way. You still have to know
something about how it works, but it's much easier with them.

Oh, there are many additionals making a good job. But I am talking about the
basics.

One good example for being nasty without reason

It does have a reason. You just could not see it, or so it appears.

is this "mounting" of
directories. The directory structure of Linux is completely different
from
DOS, you have no A:, B:, C:, D:, your have a root directory (normally
'/')
and you access the drives over the '/dev/'-subdirectory.

That's not quite true. The /dev files *are* the devices.

Really? You can hold a device in your hands - try this with a file.

For example,
by looking at /dev/hda you can see the raw data as it is on your hard
disk. The equivalent in DOS would for example be "LPT1:",

LPT1: is the paralel port, usually the printer. Was has it to do with the
harddisk?

a pseudo
filename representing the actual device. But in Linux this concept is
true for any device you have in your system. Sound cards, drives, the
mainboard clock, joysticks, serial ports, anything can be accessed with a
filename. For example to play an audio file, you just have to output it
to /dev/dsp, and it will play. You do not need any program to do that.

This program is integrated in the OS. Nice gimmick. What is the point?
The system to access everything by a filename is acceptable. I only wouldn't
have made the hierarchy the way it is. but that is another story.

so the floppy is to
be found in '/dev/fda', the first harddisk in '/dev/hda1'. Some drives
have
to be "mounted" before you can use them.

/dev/hda1 is the first partition of the first harddisk, to be correct.

You are right. I was too lazy to be more prcise here.

And *all* drives have to be mounted to gain access to the files on them.
Even the root directory / is mounted.

You are right again. But you do not have to mount the root directory with
the mount command. You are asked for the root name while installation and if
you boot it is mounted automatically.

Mount points, as opposed to drive letters have a very important
advantage: they always stay the same if you want.

Staying the same is of course an advantage. But to be precise: the mounting
point system has nothing to do with this advantage. Keeping drive letters
can be done in the DOS-system as well or in any other file system.

This is equivalent to
being able to decide what your drive letters are. Even when you add new
disks for example, it won't affect your programs. On DOS/Windows,
another disk will need an extra drive letter and that will move the other
drive letters around, messing things up for many programs that rely on
the drive letter.

I never said DOS/Windows is good. But nowadays you can assign a fixed drive
letter to a harddisk.

This is a command that assigns a
root directory to the drive.
Example: mounting the CD-ROM:
mount -t iso9660 /directoryname
Then you can access the CD by /directoryname
But not nasty enough: the mount command does not create a virtual
directory - you have to create a directory first to mount your drive
into!

mkdir directoryname

Argh! It should be the opposite: If there is already an existing
directory
with this name then it should not be possible to mount the drive.

I don't know why you think this, or why you think that this is a problem.

It is illogical and unneccessary.

Mounting a disk fills the given directory (i.e. mount point) with its
files, and to do that it has to exist first.

Yes, we know that now. But it is unneccessary.

It can even have files, but
those are then hidden until you unmount it again.

You really don't see the problem?

Even still not nasty enough: after mounting you cannot open the drive to
change the CD, you have to unmount first! And of course mount again if
you want to read the new CD.

Well, compare that to what you get in Windows when you eject a CD that
the system still uses: a blue screen.

I never said Windows is perfect. But we should mention that this bluescreen
is no crash, only a kind of dialog that the CD accesss has problems. I don't
know why these MS-cretines made it in textmode instead of a normal dialog
box.

On Linux it's just impossible to do that.

Yes, but why should I be glad about it? Could you imagine to eject the CD at
any time without a bluescreen? Of course you could. Me, too. THAT would be
perfect.

But there's a way to tell Linux that you're done with it, but
on Windows you never really know when it's safe to eject it.

Isn't it strange that I never ever had problems with this? I always know
when my CD is busy. I know this bluescreen only by some bad CD's and some
brutal installation abortions. Audio CD's I can take out even during playing
without this blue.

This is more than user-unfirendly, this is SICK! Product of an insane
brain.

No. It's a very versatile way, but it may not be the way you're used to
see. But that's your problem alone, not trying to understand the way it
works.

I understand it very well, I had to use Linux for many months and I think I
know its specialities. If I would set up an internet server or a database
engine for an office I would certainly use Linux because of its stability
and customizeability.
But I am saying this after all: Linux is no OS but a OS construction kit.
And I do not agree with many principles. This doesn't mean I am a fan of MS,
oh no. I have cursed Bill Gates and his apes so often that he should not
live anymore after so many curses.
But IMO Linux missed some points to make things better. It made it only
different but not better. And by missing to be as intuitive as the MS
systems it is no wonder that the common consumer cannot do much with it.

For example, suppose you mount a game on /cdrom. Then consider that it
has music files that appear in /cdrom/music. Now, to replace the music
with your own files you just have to mount something else in
/cdrom/music. Try doing that on Windows.

Why should I do this? Where is the sense of doing this? To confuse myself
about what files to expect in this directory?

And the last advantage is that on Windows, you are limited to 26 drive
letters while on Linux there is no limit.

Yes, this is a true advantage since every user has 27 drives nowadays...

So, everything that you see as disadvantage or strangeness is in fact an
advantage that you just don't see yet.

I hope I could show that the advantages do exist but elsewhere.

Basically what you are saying is
that Linux is bad because it's different from what you are used to.

No. To hell with DOS and Windoze. I deny their existence. And even then I
say that some principles of Linux are illogical and unneccesary
overcomplicated. I can handle this since I consider myself as an expert, but
I would have done it differently.

That
is just not the case, and shows that either you were unwilling or unable
to see it for what it is.

Stop insulting me! Do you really think that somebody who is developing
software since 17 years is unable to analyze this little OS, especially when
the sources are freeware?

It does have a radically different way of
doing many things, but usually it's a better way in the sense that it is
far more versatile and powerful.

I am not talking about versatile and powerful. Of course this is so. But the
handling is misdesigned. Experts like you and me can handle but we should
not make advantage where there isn't.

And that is because it's not a single
company that dictates how things are to be done, but it evolves with
time. Unix has been around for several decades, and has had time to
mature.

Amen.

Peter
--
Die 3. Dimension der Strategiespiele:
http://www.digitalprojects.com/way-x

[Peter J. Dobrovka]

Mike Wagstaff schrieb in Nachricht
<553882852409296NEWS...@news.dial.pipex.com>...
...

One good example for being nasty without reason

It does have a reason. You just could not see it, or so it appears.

[Techy stuff snipped!]

Basically, all this drive mounting stuff sounds a complete
nightmare!

Hehe, learning a bit about this famous Linux is always refreshing, isn't it?

What hope do non-technical people have of
understanding it?

They don't need to understand it because they will not even complete the
installation procedure. If you don't know the internal specials you have no
chance. Linux requires a network card and if you don't have this hardware
you have to install a dummy driver. If you don't know this and else little
things you are lost.

Surely an OS should be designed not just
for computer wizards, but for everyone! With Windows, the
situation is bad enough with amazingly incomprehensible error
messages and maddeningly inconsistent GUI design at times -
but at least "normal" people can use it!

This is the point.

I think that part of the problem is that Linux's authors are
obviously highly skilled very computer-literate people, your
archetypal programmers.

Yes, they are. And a bit arrogant. OK, usually more than a bit.

Sadly, for whatever reason, skilful
programmers tend to be pathetic designers. Perhaps part of
the reason is that programmers are taught to value efficiency
above all else - having a super-efficient OS is all very
well, but it's not much help if you need to have a degree in
Rocket Sciences just to get the hard drive recognised!

Hehe, this is exactly the problem I meant. Linux is technically brilliant
but not for normal mortals.

And the last advantage is that on Windows, you are limited to 26 drive
letters while on Linux there is no limit.

Wahey! I can finally install those 35 extra hard drives I
got for Christmas! <g

So, everything that you see as disadvantage or strangeness is in fact an
advantage that you just don't see yet. Basically what you are saying is
that Linux is bad because it's different from what you are used to. That
is just not the case, and shows that either you were unwilling or unable
to see it for what it is. It does have a radically different way of
doing many things, but usually it's a better way in the sense that it is
far more versatile and powerful. And that is because it's not a single
company that dictates how things are to be done, but it evolves with
time. Unix has been around for several decades, and has had time to
mature.

Well, I reckon that Linux has got a heck of a lot of
maturing left to do if it ever wants to seriously challenge
Windows. Perhaps part of the problem is that we see Linux as
performing different roles - I see Linux as a potential SOHO
(small office/home) OS, a Windows replacement in other
words. This is why the UI and ease-of-use is so important to
me - I'm fed up by the fact that currently only an "elite"
few can use computers to their full potential.

Maybe you see Linux more as an OS for power-users, the type
of people who actually know and care about the technical
side of computing. These are the sort of people who prefer
speed and efficiency over ease-of-use, the sort who use a
command-line and aren't afraid to be proud of it... in other
words, programmers!

I can only repeat myself: Linux is no OS, it is an OS construction kit. If
you are skilled you get a powerful system - but you have to build it
yourself.

Peter
--
Die 3. Dimension der Strategiespiele:
http://www.digitalprojects.com/way-x

[Bill Hayles]

On Sat, 15 Jan 2000 18:06:36 +0100, "Peter J. Dobrovka"
<dobro...@t-online.de> wrote:

Bill Hayles schrieb in Nachricht ...


I'd use Linux if enough apps were to be ported to it.


It might be more stable but I don't like it. IMO Linux is no operating
system but an OS-construction kit. Very nice for freaks, unuseable for
normal people.

In that case, there are lots of freaks out there. What's more, I'm
always being told I'm not normal!

I am an old DOS user since 1986.

Yup. That's about my time scale, too. The first version of DOS I ever
installed was 2.11

Whenever I say Linux is unneccesarily
overcomplicated and should have been designed differently I always get the
answer that I do say this only because I am used to DOS and Windows.

For many years, I ran a large public Fidonet BBS (The Cray BBS for
anybody who's interested) under OS/2. I was an OS/2 fanatic from version
2 to 4. But OS/2 died because of the same problem Linux has. Fantastic
operating system, shame about the applications.

But in
the institute I am currently learning medical informatics there were people
who did not know anything about computers. I watched them learning and I saw
them becoming familiar with DOS much quicker than with Linux.

That's interesting. It's also true that the average computer user isn't
interested in learning operating systems, any more than the average car
driver is interested in how to change their clutch. By the very nature
of this newsgroup, I doubt we could be called average computer users.



From Benitachell, Alicante, Spain
Bill Hayles
bill...@ctv.es

[Bill Hayles]

On Sat, 15 Jan 2000 22:47:45 GMT, jdrex...@julian.uwo.canada (Josef
Drexler) wrote:

One good example for being nasty without reason

It does have a reason. You just could not see it, or so it appears.

is this "mounting" of
directories. The directory structure of Linux is completely different from
DOS, you have no A:, B:, C:, D:, your have a root directory (normally '/')
and you access the drives over the '/dev/'-subdirectory.

That's not quite true. The /dev files *are* the devices.

The Linux directory structure has another advantage. You can't run out
of drive letters.
I was first introduced to Linux by a friend who looked after my BBS
while I was away. I complained to him that I'd run out of drive
letters, so I couldn't add any more CDs to the system (OS/2 uses drive
letters in the same way as DOS). I had two CD changers, each with 7 CDs,
as well as seven hard disks. When I wanted to add a third changer, the
alphabet let me down.

Under Linux I would have had no such problem.

Even today, by the time all the network drives are mapped, I get as far
as R:


From Benitachell, Alicante, Spain
Bill Hayles
bill...@ctv.es

[Eddie Bernard]

Christie Lewis <christiele...@worldmailer.com> wrote in message
news:85su75$ipv$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...

dictionary, i'm not familliar with that <G

Yes, more stuff that comes on paper, whatever that is...

I have reams of the stuff scattered across my room, and the computer room. I
hate it all. Maybe I should clear it up....

Eddie
-- Personal Site: http://www.ebernard.greatxscape.net
-- Transport Tycoon World: http://www.ttworld.cjb.net

[Patchman]

In article <85t0v6$kk...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>, Eddie Bernard says...

Christie Lewis <christiele...@worldmailer.com> wrote in message
news:85su75$ipv$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
dictionary, i'm not familliar with that <G

Yes, more stuff that comes on paper, whatever that is...

I have reams of the stuff scattered across my room, and the computer room. I
hate it all. Maybe I should clear it up....

Too bad that the person who, about fifteen years ago, predicted that the
end of using paper was near because of the improvements in computing, was
not right.

--
Josef Drexler | http://publish.uwo.ca/~jdrexler/
---------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Please help Conserve Gravity | To email me, please change the country
Play Chess, not Basketball. | code to .ca - Death to Spammers!

[Patchman]

In article <553882852409296NEWS...@news.dial.pipex.com>, Mike Wagstaff
says...

As a Linux fan myself, I of course have to step in and defend it. It's
true that Linux has a much steeper learning curve than Windows, but
"user-friendly" is relative, it depends on what the user expects. For
me, it is very user-friendly in that it lets me get on with my work. It
is extremely stable. The only reboots the box in my office has seen were
from power failures, or when I installed a kernel upgrade. No
crashes. At all. Once you figure it out, you can be certain that it
will behave in the way you expect. I had no problems when installing
additional programs like there are with Windows, for example with
overwritten DLL's and all that.

Yes, Linux is more reliable and stable than Windows. I'd
like to think that Windows 2000 will come close or perhaps
even manage to match it when it comes out in February. But,
for the moment, in terms of reliability, Linux does the
business. That's undisputable.

Well, considering that they haven't done anything as far as I can tell to
improve the problems with DLL version numbering, it cannot get much
better if you install many programs. It remains possible for a program
to replace system DLLs with its own version, and unless you know which
programs to avoid, this *will* cause stability problems.

And there are very nice GUIs, like KDE and Gnome that let you do the
system configuration in a user-friendly way. You still have to know
something about how it works, but it's much easier with them.

Yes, but this situation of a GUI bolted onto the OS is
hardly ideal. The GUI should surely be an integral part of
the OS designed specifically to reflect its functioning, not
just an optional add-on (it reminds me in some ways of Win
95/98 with its underlying DOS legacy).

Exactly. Win95 was "bolted onto" DOS itself, though it had its own
improvements that ameliorated this. If you have a look at Corel Linux,
they are going the same way. I've never tried it myself, but I've heard
that it is much easier to manage than other Linuxes.

I think it is very likely that soon KDE will have functions dealing with
all but the most extraordinary configuration jobs.

One good example for being nasty without reason

It does have a reason. You just could not see it, or so it appears.

[Techy stuff snipped!]

Basically, all this drive mounting stuff sounds a complete
nightmare! What hope do non-technical people have of
understanding it? Surely an OS should be designed not just
for computer wizards, but for everyone! With Windows, the
situation is bad enough with amazingly incomprehensible error
messages and maddeningly inconsistent GUI design at times -
but at least "normal" people can use it!

Well, normal people don't have to bother with it at all. This is
basically the job of the installation program. If done right, the CD
will automatically be mounted and unmounted, and hard disks will always
be mounted anyways.

What I didn't like about Peter's statements was that he seemed to dislike
that it's *possible* to do this, or maybe rather that's it's done with
mount points instead of drive letters.

There is no conceptual difference between calling a drive "A:" or calling
it "/drives/a", or maybe even "/a".

I think that part of the problem is that Linux's authors are
obviously highly skilled very computer-literate people, your
archetypal programmers. Sadly, for whatever reason, skilful
programmers tend to be pathetic designers. Perhaps part of
the reason is that programmers are taught to value efficiency
above all else - having a super-efficient OS is all very
well, but it's not much help if you need to have a degree in
Rocket Sciences just to get the hard drive recognised!

Again, the fact is that you don't have to bother with all this, but you
can. All Linux distributions come with installation and configuration
programs that can do this for you instead.

And the last advantage is that on Windows, you are limited to 26 drive
letters while on Linux there is no limit.

Wahey! I can finally install those 35 extra hard drives I
got for Christmas! <g

Exactly.

Well, as Bill said, it's possible to run out of drive letters if you use
CD changers, split your hard disk into partitions for logical separation
of your data, and use many networked drives.

Well, I reckon that Linux has got a heck of a lot of
maturing left to do if it ever wants to seriously challenge
Windows. Perhaps part of the problem is that we see Linux as
performing different roles - I see Linux as a potential SOHO
(small office/home) OS, a Windows replacement in other
words. This is why the UI and ease-of-use is so important to
me - I'm fed up by the fact that currently only an "elite"
few can use computers to their full potential.

Yes, that is very true. And fortunately, a lot of work is being done in
that direction too. It is really amazing how fast KDE has been
developed, considering that it's only done by volunteers who don't get
paid for their work.

Maybe you see Linux more as an OS for power-users, the type
of people who actually know and care about the technical
side of computing. These are the sort of people who prefer
speed and efficiency over ease-of-use, the sort who use a
command-line and aren't afraid to be proud of it... in other
words, programmers!

That may be true. Right now I see Linux as the OS that I can work most
efficiently with. When you run simulations that take eight hours even on
the fastest machines, you don't want your computer to reboot when it's
halfway through...

--
Josef Drexler | http://publish.uwo.ca/~jdrexler/
---------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Please help Conserve Gravity | To email me, please change the country
Play Chess, not Basketball. | code to .ca - Death to Spammers!

[Paul Wright]

i do my homework on it, which i must get round to doing

--
____________________________________________________________________

Paul Wright
ICQ UIN: 38986089
E-Mail: Ask me for it
___________________________________________________________________

Eddie Bernard <e...@ttworld.the-whale.com> wrote in message
news:85t0v6$kkd$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...

: I have reams of the stuff scattered across my room, and the computer room.
I
: hate it all. Maybe I should clear it up....
:
: Eddie
: -- Personal Site: http://www.ebernard.greatxscape.net
: -- Transport Tycoon World: http://www.ttworld.cjb.net
:
:

[Paul Wright]

isn't that what ppl from the olden days used?

--
____________________________________________________________________

Paul Wright
ICQ UIN: 38986089
E-Mail: Ask me for it
___________________________________________________________________

Christie Lewis <christiele...@worldmailer.com> wrote in message
news:85su75$ipv$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
: > dictionary, i'm not familliar with that <G>
:
: Yes, more stuff that comes on paper, whatever that is...
:
: Chrizz
:
:

[Patchman]

In article <85raud$km...@news01.btx.dtag.de>, Peter J. Dobrovka says...

Josef Drexler schrieb in Nachricht ...
That's not quite true. The /dev files *are* the devices.

Really? You can hold a device in your hands - try this with a file.

Well... I think you know what I mean. Anything a computer can do with
devices can be done through these files.

For example,
by looking at /dev/hda you can see the raw data as it is on your hard
disk. The equivalent in DOS would for example be "LPT1:",

LPT1: is the paralel port, usually the printer. Was has it to do with the
harddisk?

My point was that DOS has the same concept of having file names represent
devices, but Linux is much more self-consistent in this respect in that
all devices follow this philosophy. And there is no conceptual
difference between calling the printer port "LPT1:" or "/dev/lp1". But
on Linux, there's a file for all your devices.

a pseudo
filename representing the actual device. But in Linux this concept is
true for any device you have in your system. Sound cards, drives, the
mainboard clock, joysticks, serial ports, anything can be accessed with a
filename. For example to play an audio file, you just have to output it
to /dev/dsp, and it will play. You do not need any program to do that.

This program is integrated in the OS. Nice gimmick. What is the point?
The system to access everything by a filename is acceptable. I only wouldn't
have made the hierarchy the way it is. but that is another story.

Well, you don't have to put your devices in /dev, they can be anywhere
you like. It's just traditional to do so.

And *all* drives have to be mounted to gain access to the files on them.
Even the root directory / is mounted.

You are right again. But you do not have to mount the root directory with
the mount command. You are asked for the root name while installation and if
you boot it is mounted automatically.

You are also asked for all your other mount points during installation,
and don't have to mount them manually at all.

Mount points, as opposed to drive letters have a very important
advantage: they always stay the same if you want.

Staying the same is of course an advantage. But to be precise: the mounting
point system has nothing to do with this advantage. Keeping drive letters
can be done in the DOS-system as well or in any other file system.

Really? Consider this: you have a single partition C: on your only hard
disk, as well as a CD drive D:. There is no way the CD drive can stay at
that drive letter if you add another hard disk.

This is equivalent to
being able to decide what your drive letters are. Even when you add new
disks for example, it won't affect your programs. On DOS/Windows,
another disk will need an extra drive letter and that will move the other
drive letters around, messing things up for many programs that rely on
the drive letter.

I never said DOS/Windows is good. But nowadays you can assign a fixed drive
letter to a harddisk.

How?

Argh! It should be the opposite: If there is already an existing
directory
with this name then it should not be possible to mount the drive.

I don't know why you think this, or why you think that this is a problem.

It is illogical and unneccessary.

Mounting a disk fills the given directory (i.e. mount point) with its
files, and to do that it has to exist first.

Yes, we know that now. But it is unneccessary.

It can even have files, but
those are then hidden until you unmount it again.

You really don't see the problem?

No. Please tell me what you think the problem is? Except for not
matching your personal preferences, that is.

On Linux it's just impossible to do that.

Yes, but why should I be glad about it? Could you imagine to eject the CD at
any time without a bluescreen? Of course you could. Me, too. THAT would be
perfect.

Yes, that's true.

Basically what you are saying is
that Linux is bad because it's different from what you are used to.

No. To hell with DOS and Windoze. I deny their existence. And even then I
say that some principles of Linux are illogical and unneccesary
overcomplicated. I can handle this since I consider myself as an expert, but
I would have done it differently.

OK. This is your personal opinion. That I like Linux and don't think it
is illogical or overly complicated is mine. I don't think this
discussion will be leading anywhere, you won't convince me and I won't
convince you.

That
is just not the case, and shows that either you were unwilling or unable
to see it for what it is.

Stop insulting me! Do you really think that somebody who is developing
software since 17 years is unable to analyze this little OS, especially when
the sources are freeware?

I'm sorry, that really didn't come out the way I intended it. I did not
mean to insult you and am sorry if I offended you. I myself have been
developing software for 13 years, and love Linux for what it is. I have
not found a major flaw in it. Except maybe that there's too few games
for it, but even that is becoming better and better, what with Railroad
Tycoon II out now, Jagged Alliance 2 coming out in March, and even Quake
3 available for example.

It does have a radically different way of
doing many things, but usually it's a better way in the sense that it is
far more versatile and powerful.

I am not talking about versatile and powerful. Of course this is so. But the
handling is misdesigned. Experts like you and me can handle but we should
not make advantage where there isn't.

The last comment I want to make on this is that the handling can easily
be improved by making better and more versatile configuration programs,
and that is a project that is very actively pursued by the distributors.

--
Josef Drexler | http://publish.uwo.ca/~jdrexler/
---------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Please help Conserve Gravity | To email me, please change the country
Play Chess, not Basketball. | code to .ca - Death to Spammers!

[Mike Wagstaff]

Yes, Linux is more reliable and stable than Windows. I'd
like to think that Windows 2000 will come close or perhaps
even manage to match it when it comes out in February. But,
for the moment, in terms of reliability, Linux does the
business. That's undisputable.

Well, considering that they haven't done anything as far as I can tell to
improve the problems with DLL version numbering, it cannot get much
better if you install many programs. It remains possible for a program
to replace system DLLs with its own version, and unless you know which
programs to avoid, this *will* cause stability problems.

I seem to remember reading somewhere that Windows 2000 will
be a lot more protective when it comes to the vital system
files - it won't allow any old program to overwrite such a
file, especially when that file is older than the current
one.

One of the major bugbears I have with Win95/98 is the
ridiculous notion of "shared files". If you've ever
uninstalled a program which uses shared files, you'll know
that you get asked whether you want to keep them or not -
Windows will warn you that removing them *may* harm your
system. May?! Great! What are we supposed to do? Guess?!?! Of
course, normally you can remove shared files without
problem, but just occasionally that's not the case.
Non-experts tend to leave the files of course, adding to the
general Windows clutter and slowing the system down even
more. This is another example of completely idiotic design.

Yes, but this situation of a GUI bolted onto the OS is
hardly ideal. The GUI should surely be an integral part of
the OS designed specifically to reflect its functioning, not
just an optional add-on (it reminds me in some ways of Win
95/98 with its underlying DOS legacy).

Exactly. Win95 was "bolted onto" DOS itself, though it had its own
improvements that ameliorated this. If you have a look at Corel Linux,
they are going the same way. I've never tried it myself, but I've heard
that it is much easier to manage than other Linuxes.

I think it is very likely that soon KDE will have functions dealing with
all but the most extraordinary configuration jobs.

Which will be a good thing. Nobody should be forced to use a
command prompt unless they actually want to. A command
prompt invariably forces you to learn commands (or at least
consult the manual or reference docs), while a GUI
doesn't... or shouldn't, at any rate!

Basically, all this drive mounting stuff sounds a complete
nightmare! What hope do non-technical people have of
understanding it? Surely an OS should be designed not just
for computer wizards, but for everyone! With Windows, the
situation is bad enough with amazingly incomprehensible error
messages and maddeningly inconsistent GUI design at times -
but at least "normal" people can use it!

Well, normal people don't have to bother with it at all. This is
basically the job of the installation program. If done right, the CD
will automatically be mounted and unmounted, and hard disks will always
be mounted anyways.

Fair enough, so long as the installation program does
actually manage to do it right!

I think that part of the problem is that Linux's authors are
obviously highly skilled very computer-literate people, your
archetypal programmers. Sadly, for whatever reason, skilful
programmers tend to be pathetic designers. Perhaps part of
the reason is that programmers are taught to value efficiency
above all else - having a super-efficient OS is all very
well, but it's not much help if you need to have a degree in
Rocket Sciences just to get the hard drive recognised!

Again, the fact is that you don't have to bother with all this, but you
can. All Linux distributions come with installation and configuration
programs that can do this for you instead.

Mmm. The fact remains that for the moment, setting up new
hardware with any OS is usually a nightmare, especially for
non-experts. Fortunately, things appear to be moving in the
right direction with developments such as 'plug & play', and
USB.

I think that inevitably in the future, people will need (and
demand) a faster, easier way to add new hardware - the days
of opening up the case and forcing a card down into the
appropriate slot will soon be nothing more than a fond
memory... I hope! (Anyone still have trouble with IRQ
settings?)

Imagine if adding a new video card was as simple as
attaching a USB-style connection, with the software being
auto-installed from a built-in ROM chip on the card (or,
more likely, being installed from the web). Better yet, you
could avoid the cables altogether by using a fast wireless
connection (eg, a faster version of Bluetooth). I've got it
all thought out and my consultancy fees are fairly
reasonable, if any major companies are reading...

And the last advantage is that on Windows, you are limited to 26 drive
letters while on Linux there is no limit.

Wahey! I can finally install those 35 extra hard drives I
got for Christmas! <g

Exactly.

Well, as Bill said, it's possible to run out of drive letters if you use
CD changers, split your hard disk into partitions for logical separation
of your data, and use many networked drives.

A fair point. This is of interest to the real hard-core
techies, rather than to the general computer-using public,
methinks!

Well, I reckon that Linux has got a heck of a lot of
maturing left to do if it ever wants to seriously challenge
Windows. Perhaps part of the problem is that we see Linux as
performing different roles - I see Linux as a potential SOHO
(small office/home) OS, a Windows replacement in other
words. This is why the UI and ease-of-use is so important to
me - I'm fed up by the fact that currently only an "elite"
few can use computers to their full potential.

Yes, that is very true. And fortunately, a lot of work is being done in
that direction too. It is really amazing how fast KDE has been
developed, considering that it's only done by volunteers who don't get
paid for their work.

It is really impressive when you think that most of the
people associated with Linux are working without pay -
although I wonder if the open-source software model is
viable in the longer term given the capitalist society in
which we live. If Linux is a success, people are going to
want to start making money out of it. But, for the moment,
it's out of the hands of big business and the "money men",
and in the hands of the real enthusiasts - it's nice to see
that.

Maybe you see Linux more as an OS for power-users, the type
of people who actually know and care about the technical
side of computing. These are the sort of people who prefer
speed and efficiency over ease-of-use, the sort who use a
command-line and aren't afraid to be proud of it... in other
words, programmers!

That may be true. Right now I see Linux as the OS that I can work most
efficiently with. When you run simulations that take eight hours even on
the fastest machines, you don't want your computer to reboot when it's
halfway through...

If I was running a simulation that would take 8 hours to
complete, I wouldn't let it near Windows 95/98!!! I reckon
that NT(/Win2K) could be trusted. Also, I'd be more than
happy to use pure DOS. But 8-hour simulations are not a
frequent occurrence on my todo list, I'm happy to say! This
isn't an 8-hour TT session you're referring to, is it...?!


-Mike [http://games.hplx.net]

[Phillip Michael Jordan]

If I was running a simulation that would take 8 hours to
complete, I wouldn't let it near Windows 95/98!!! I reckon
that NT(/Win2K) could be trusted. Also, I'd be more than
happy to use pure DOS. But 8-hour simulations are not a
frequent occurrence on my todo list, I'm happy to say! This
isn't an 8-hour TT session you're referring to, is it...?!


In fact, I had a 3D video that took ages to render, so I let it run over

night, under WinNT. Big mistake. Some time around midnight there was a
bluescreen and in the morning I still didn't have my video

--
Phillip
Download the
Transport Tycoon Deluxe Scenario Installer
TTDSI for short
currently Beta 5
http://www.crosswinds.net/~pwcsoft/engl ... cts/ttdsi/

[Patchman]

In article <42949546812852528941NEWS...@news.dial.pipex.com>, Mike
Wagstaff says...

Yes, Linux is more reliable and stable than Windows. I'd
like to think that Windows 2000 will come close or perhaps
even manage to match it when it comes out in February. But,
for the moment, in terms of reliability, Linux does the
business. That's undisputable.

Well, considering that they haven't done anything as far as I can tell to
improve the problems with DLL version numbering, it cannot get much
better if you install many programs. It remains possible for a program
to replace system DLLs with its own version, and unless you know which
programs to avoid, this *will* cause stability problems.

I seem to remember reading somewhere that Windows 2000 will
be a lot more protective when it comes to the vital system
files - it won't allow any old program to overwrite such a
file, especially when that file is older than the current
one.

That would be excellent news, if it works. But sometimes a replacement
is legitimate, sometimes it's not. I expect that to either break a lot
of older install programs. But we'll have to wait till it's been out for
a while.

One of the major bugbears I have with Win95/98 is the
ridiculous notion of "shared files". If you've ever
uninstalled a program which uses shared files, you'll know
that you get asked whether you want to keep them or not -
Windows will warn you that removing them *may* harm your
system. May?! Great! What are we supposed to do? Guess?!?! Of
course, normally you can remove shared files without
problem, but just occasionally that's not the case.
Non-experts tend to leave the files of course, adding to the
general Windows clutter and slowing the system down even
more. This is another example of completely idiotic design.

Very true. The better way to do these things would be to first move them
to a neutral location, so that you can try if your programs still work,
and delete them only after you give the ok.

I think it is very likely that soon KDE will have functions dealing with
all but the most extraordinary configuration jobs.

Which will be a good thing. Nobody should be forced to use a
command prompt unless they actually want to. A command
prompt invariably forces you to learn commands (or at least
consult the manual or reference docs), while a GUI
doesn't... or shouldn't, at any rate!

Yes, for most users the command prompt wouldn't be very intuitive. For
me personally, however, it is much faster to type than to click, so I
usually prefer the command prompt to do many things.

Well, normal people don't have to bother with it at all. This is
basically the job of the installation program. If done right, the CD
will automatically be mounted and unmounted, and hard disks will always
be mounted anyways.

Fair enough, so long as the installation program does
actually manage to do it right!

I don't know if they include the option for the auto-mounter, but the
rest does work.

Yes, that is very true. And fortunately, a lot of work is being done in
that direction too. It is really amazing how fast KDE has been
developed, considering that it's only done by volunteers who don't get
paid for their work.

It is really impressive when you think that most of the
people associated with Linux are working without pay -

Most of it is done of a voluntary basis, although paid jobs are getting
more and more common, with most of the money coming from the Linux
distribution companies. Fortunately that doesn't change the fact that
the results of this work are still free to copy, at least in most cases.
That's one of the virtues of the General Public Licence.

although I wonder if the open-source software model is
viable in the longer term given the capitalist society in
which we live. If Linux is a success, people are going to
want to start making money out of it. But, for the moment,
it's out of the hands of big business and the "money men",
and in the hands of the real enthusiasts - it's nice to see
that.

Many people have spent many hours pondering exactly the same question. I
think that it can survive, and that people can make money from it even
so. Just look at Redhat. They have huge sales and lots of profit, even
though anybody is free to copy their Linux distribution. I think what
people will make most money with in the future will be general support
and convenience, which is what you pay distributors for right now.

That may be true. Right now I see Linux as the OS that I can work most
efficiently with. When you run simulations that take eight hours even on
the fastest machines, you don't want your computer to reboot when it's
halfway through...

If I was running a simulation that would take 8 hours to
complete, I wouldn't let it near Windows 95/98!!! I reckon
that NT(/Win2K) could be trusted. Also, I'd be more than
happy to use pure DOS. But 8-hour simulations are not a
frequent occurrence on my todo list, I'm happy to say! This
isn't an 8-hour TT session you're referring to, is it...?!

No, it was for the research work, and they were quite frequent a few
weeks ago. Now I'll just be writing up my thesis, on Linux of course


By the way, could you please leave the attributions at the top of your
replies, so that readers know whom you are replying to?

--
Josef Drexler | http://publish.uwo.ca/~jdrexler/
---------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Please Conserve Gravity: Don't | To email me, please change the country
hang your clothes - pile them up| code to .ca - Death to Spammers!

[Eddie Bernard]

Paul Wright <ask...@for.it> wrote

i do my homework on it (paper), which i must get round to doing.

Hehehe! I did mine on Friday as soon as a came home from school.

Eddie
-- Personal Site: http://www.ebernard.greatxscape.net
-- Transport Tycoon World: http://www.ttworld.cjb.net

[Peter J. Dobrovka]

Mike Wagstaff schrieb in Nachricht
<42949546812852528941NEWS...@news.dial.pipex.com>...
...

One of the major bugbears I have with Win95/98 is the
ridiculous notion of "shared files". If you've ever
uninstalled a program which uses shared files, you'll know
that you get asked whether you want to keep them or not -
Windows will warn you that removing them *may* harm your
system. May?! Great! What are we supposed to do? Guess?!?! Of
course, normally you can remove shared files without
problem, but just occasionally that's not the case.
Non-experts tend to leave the files of course, adding to the
general Windows clutter and slowing the system down even
more. This is another example of completely idiotic design.

Once upon a time "installing a program" was meaning to unpack it from the
disks onto the harddrive into a directory. Oh, I will not glorify these days
when you had to modify the config.sys and autoexec.bat or - even worse - the
installation program did it for you. It was also not good that every program
used a different memory model. Some required emm386.exe, some crashed if it
was loaded. Some programs needed 630kB conventional memory and worked only
with a bootdisk.
Ugly, ugly!
But one thing was good: if you had to uninstall a program, you deleted
simply its directory. Voilá.
And if you had to reinstall DOS (really rare event) you could do it without
touching your programs.

With Windows95 the world changed. Installation now means to mix the new
program with the OS so that you need separate programs to uninstall it.

Especially these DLLs are a real problem. The basic idea is interesting,
different programs can use the same subroutine-file. This escpecially
interesting in the case of drivers and system utilities.
But MS introduced the bad fashion to store all DLLs in a common directory
where you have not much possibility to sort them by owner.
It would have been better to have the custom DLLs in their own directories,
not in the system directory.
But I think the biggest bulls*** that MS invented is the registry. A huge
encrypted file where every program writes its pointless nonsense into,
making it larger and larger, making the system slower and slower, because
all the nonsense has to be loaded in the startup.
And if one byte is corrupted in this huge file you can reinstall Windows.
This must be a product of an insane brain.
After reinstalling Windows of course you have to reinstall all your
programs, too, because the links to them are broken.
Since I have special knowledge I am used to 'reinstall' windows by restoring
some backupped files, hehe. But I am unable to stop the system's blowing up
and one day even for me the day will come when I better make a new
installation.
I remained at Win95 because I still run my installation from 1997. But even
if I buy a new PC I will not install Win98. There are some hidden brakes in
the system I could not figure out yet.

Peter
--
Die 3. Dimension der Strategiespiele:
http://www.digitalprojects.com/way-x