Microsoft Authorises Anti-linux Discounts

OK, the reason RPMs dont work is because they suck. Its that simple. Even Red Hat, the inventor is trying to get their name out of them.

Slackware uses TGZs and just about every package ive used works great. Im not saying they are the best though, IMO .DEBs are, but i dont like Debian. :6

Ill tell you what the commands mean:

./configure - runs a special script the programmer made, that checks dependancies.

Make - compiles the program, if you dont know what compiling does, I can explain

Make Install - installs the program you just "made".

And the point of the Cli is that it does help you if the program doesnt install right. If a GUI installer doesnt install the program right, what do people tell you to do? Try reinstalling it. Most of the time, this is pointles.

In Linux, it gives you a very readable error, Like one I just got:

"libpng missing. Go to png.org and install it. " Thats too hard?

If something doesnt install right, and you just "give up", then you're beyond help.

Computers are supposed to make work as easy as possible - you saying people (inferring me) are lazy sounds like an excuse for being wrong.

Computers do make our lives easier, you cant do what Photoshop or autoCAD does, by hand (at least in a comparable amount of time).

But what you want is instant usability (and thats fine), and you are a perfect candidate for Windows or OSX. I use computers as a hobby, and secondarily as a tool, so I dont mind spending more time to get stuff working.

You just want Linux to have "instant usability", and what Im saying is that's not always the best thing. Accept that some things require a time investment.

Linux = quality over speed. (IMO), but if all you want is speed (which, once again, is fine), then choose a different OS and dont complain when Linux doesnt do what you want it to.

#27123

If something doesnt install right, and you just "give up", then you're beyond help.

If you read my post again, you'll see that i def. don't say that.

Linux = quality over speed. (IMO), but if all you want is speed (which, once again, is fine), then choose a different OS and dont complain when Linux doesnt do what you want it to.

This is only your opinion - most linux distributors think you can have both and are trying to implement that. Debian is a good example.

Its your choice, you can stay in your little slackware world if you like, i just don't see the point.

#27124

The only reason why I mention any minuses is because people lke you contra don't. They would have everyone believe that their OS of choice is perfect, flawless, the answer to everyone's question from a toddler to grandma. You have said before that open source is bug free and totally secure.

You have to know the difference between hard, and not for everyone. What is easy for you may not be for someone else. I never said it was hard for me to type those commands, I have even done so in both linux and windows.

Most problems come from when one of those commands fails (on linux) and sometimes it's not as easy as just installing the dependencies. Here is where the program it yourself part comes in. I sure as hell don't know all the options to all programs to change their make files or their source so that they would compile properly on all distros.

Obviously I don't believe Linux is the be all end all of OS'. Nor do I believe windows or OSX or any other one is either. That's why we have different versions. If we lived in a perfect world and Unix was the perfect OS in every way and everyone agreed on a computer system then there wouldn't be a need

for OSX or linux or (insert your favorite OS or system here).

#27125

You guys were bashing Linux before I even got in here, thats why I started responding. So thats why I havent been listing the minuses.

Linux is not for everyone, and THATS WHAT IVE BEEN TELLING EVERYONE. Fissy (and many others) want it to do everything for them, and Linux is not and never will be like that, thats what Windows is here for.

I NEVER said Linux was bug free. I said it was Virus free, which it IS. There are plenty of bugs, thats why new versions come out.

I believe that Linux is the best OS for ME, and of course Windows will be for some, OS X for others. I just get upset when people complain that its too hard. Its different, and if you dont like it, dont use it, thats the beauty of choice.

You CAN have quality and speed. Like I said, I can type those commands faster than double clicking (really), but thats because im used to it. Remember, Compiling will ALWAYS be a slower process than installing Binaries, because you have to make the image before you can even install it. Im about to install Gentoo, and that will probobly take me 2 days to install, because it compiles the whole OS. But am I saying that image distros are bad, NO! I use one (slackware).

My point is that compiling SHOULDNT go away. But you disagree.

I havent just used Slackware. Ive used Mandrake and Red Hat. And currently, I run Slackware, FreeBSD, and Knoppix.

I appreciate GUIs in many areas, and I am not saying computers should be run completly Command Line, I would hate that.

#27128

Linux is not and never will be like that, thats what Windows is here for.

Like i've said before MandrakeSoft et al disagree with you.

You are right though, I want my Linux operating system to be able to do everything i want it to, that may sound very me-centric but its true, and i don't see why it shouldn't.

I didn;t say compiliing was bad, at least i don't think so.

Compiling is probably a good thing - i just think it should be invisible to the user - unless the user specifies he/she wants to see, for debugging perhaps.

#27135

On occasion contra I have seen you say it's bug free as well, well not linux but open sources software in general. Like since it's open source that automatically means it's bug free.

I never said compiling should go away as a program has to be compiled before you can use it no matter what system you are on. I myself never said it should go away, as that is silly. But a developer should provide binaries for their target systems for those who want them.

A developer should never use end user compiling or config files as a crutch for laziness to provide binaries or some way to easily install for those who just want to get it overwith and get on with what they want to do.

That's one reason why I think companies like apple can charge as much as they do for their products. They actually go through all the work nessasary to make it user friendly and attractive.

#27140

Im talking about the actual kernel was not (and will never be)designed to be simple. Its a UNIX clone, and unix is complex.

Mandrake and others are adding 3rd Party apps to add simplicity, which is fine. This is what Im saying is so great about Linux. The GUI is seperate from the Kernel. So people like me can use the Cli, and people like you can use the GUI. You have thousands of GUI choices as well, which is something you cant say w/ any other OS.

Thats why Linux NEVER (99% <_< ) crashes. The GUI can crash, but the kernel wont. You can just restart the GUI and go where you left off. Windows cant do that.

Your forgetting, X is just a 3rd party program as well, and its about to split (im sorry to say), so there will most likely be two versions of X11 to deal with.

And SciTech has just released their Graphical Server, they dont even want you to use X. http://www.scitechsoft.com/products/enterp...snap_linux.html , right now its free in Beta, im gonna try it out tommorrow.

#27141

Originally posted by contrasutra@May 17 2003, 12:49 AM

Im talking about the actual kernel was not (and will never be)designed to be simple. Its a UNIX clone, and unix is complex.

Aha! but OSX is based on Unix yet they have ease of use.

And I'm not one to just use GUI as I've spent quite some time CLI only and I use CLI tools even in windows (cygwin) as well as on my linux server. But not everyone shares mine or your point of view sorry to say.

Especially Mac users pre-OSX. For the longest time they where anti-cli and there are still some that are like that that refuse to use OSX because they don't believe it's mac enough.

Most problems on XP for example also have to do with 3rd party programs. I don't get the NT kernel crashing on me rarely at all. The only times this past year that it has is due to me installing faulty drivers.

Actually on GUI choices. There are tons of things you can do to windows too. I shouldn't have to tell you this. Check out desktopian.org, virtualplastic.net, wincustomize.com etc. etc.

here are some examples of my old work which was based on some linux looks:

http://tetsudust.net/files/downloadimages/...ke_10_04_01.jpg

http://tetsudust.net/files/downloadimages/cruxxp2.jpg

#27143

OK, I just read your post, my refreshing been slow, because im downloading GOBOLINUX, which you guys should check out. It is designed to completly change the file structure to make the system "understandable". Its a LiveCD, so you dont have to install anything, maybe this is what you guys want.

Anyway, I wasnt really refering to YOU not wanting to compile, I probobly should have specified who I was talking about (but he knows who he is :rant: ).

Most distributers DO release packages, but unfortunatly, theres LOADS of different types, and it would be impossible to get them all. Hey, im on Slackware. TGZ is the least common packaging system.

And dont tell me there should only be one, because if you dont have a choice, sure you have compatability, but no freedom, and if RPM won, it would be a sad, sad world.

Self compiling gives you better code anyway, its not just a lazyness thing. It takes 5 minutes to make a package (I make my own, for backup reasons), but if it doesnt run great, whats the point. There are so many different systems anyway, i386,i586,i686,Alpha, Sparc, PPC,etc, that a programmer might not OWN all these different systems to compile on.

"User friendy". This is DEFINITLY opinion. I find the way linux is to be more user friendly. I dont appreciate people (not just you) saying that Linux ISNT user friendly, plenty of people like it just the way it is, and change should not be forced to please Windows users. But seperate groups forming to appease these people is fine, I have no problem w/ that.

#27144

Your right in many respects. Apple did a FANTASTIC job making unix easy to use. But remember, they had to completly change the kernel (which is pretty much out of the question in Linux, since a new kernel wouldnt be linux anymore), AND they paid the price of having the GUI and Kernel integrated. IF (and it is an IF) the GUI crashes the kernel goes w/ it, unlike Linux. PLUS, look how much money Apple spent, Linux is a community project, which means NO MONEY.

Windows is relatively stable, but my point is that if your working on an important letter or something, and the GUI crashes, you dont want to restart and lose your data, which you'd have to in Windows.

Yes, if the System is very stable, it doesnt matter that much if the GUI and Kernel are integrated, but why should we rely on the company (or whatever) making the OS stable. Not ever having to lose data is a nice backup, in case something does go wrong.

#27146

Originally posted by contrasutra@May 16 2003, 08:58 PM

"User friendy". This is DEFINITLY opinion. I find the way linux is to be more user friendly. I dont appreciate people (not just you) saying that Linux ISNT user friendly, plenty of people like it just the way it is, and change should not be forced to please Windows users. But seperate groups forming to appease these people is fine, I have no problem w/ that.

amen.

personally, I find Mandrake more user-friendly than Windows. Even my mom could use it without having to know anything about UNIX.

#27148

It's not just relying on a company to make a system stable you also have to rely on yourself. Don't install crappy drivers or things like that.

Actually though even on linux you have to rely on the ones doing the work to not fark up the source even if you compile it unles you enjoy cleaning up after their messes if they do.

#27149

BTW... what does the Scitech thingy do exactly?

#27150

i had to edit my fstab by hand to get my external hard drives to work - for me that means less user friendly.

I think having to edit a text file is almost always worse.

i would much rather have a list of check boxes with comments and text boxes to edit my httpd.conf than do it in gedit -even if they are pretty much the same thing

#27152

You use it instead of X.

Basically, All GUI programs right now use the X Server to spit out their image. This program is a replacement to X11R6.

So all the programs you use have to be written for this server as well, though it says its X11R6 compatable.

X11 handles the very basic GUI taskes if you didnt know. Its whats responsible for actually getting that image on your screen. It handles Graphics Card, Monitor, GUI effects (transparency), etc.

Scitech says their server is better, faster, and more compatable w/ hardware. Im pretty weary though, as X11 has been around for like a gazillian years, and these guys just showed up.

@smoke: Your right. But remember, Linux is a programmers OS. They (in many cases) expect you to fix the problem by yourself. And dont tell me it should be completly different, b/c thats not what Linux was designed for.

And more importantly, If you are going to compile it, it means its open source, so another seperate group could spark to fix the problems that the origional creator made. This is how Mozilla Firebird was formed, to fix Mozillas "mistakes". But you are still relying on other people. But then again, if your not a programmer, you HAVE to rely on other people.

But this is what im saying, since X and the Kernel are seperate, two "companies" are making them, so if one bonks it up, it doesnt mean the other will. This "new" company is a great example. They dont like X, so they formed their own graphical server. Your still getting the same kernel, but the GUI infastructure is different. mmmm.....choice....

#27154

The bad part about choices like several X servers is it can potentially create complexity. Like having to port all your software or patch it or something like that to the new servers and maintain branches for them.

I mean look at directfb for example. It looks great as it allows alpha blended windows and such but you have to port all software to it. Even though X has it's advantages it still has a legacy which kind of holds it behind from progressing with visual effects the same way OSX has being written without that stuff. Though I don't begrudge developers from trying to improve it as those ones that are making a opengl xfree are doing.

Actually to be honest with you I don't think having to create your own patches and fixes for your programs is the right way to approach software. Why? Because not everyone is inclined to do so. And to be frank not everyone think it's l33t to be able to do so. Some people don't even want to fix skins themselves. If you are so inclined as to fix problems in all your software you really should be part of the dev teams of those softwares in my opinion.

#27159

ive been following along with the discussion, much different from where it started i think, hehe.

Originally posted by smoke@May 16 2003, 05:54 PM

just like people sometimes insist on using manual transmittion in their car.

anyway, i agree mostly what has been happening, but comparing linux to people "insisting" on using manual transmission sounds a bit wrong.....the reason some people "insist" (like me recently) is because driving stick gives you more control of the car in acceleration, deacceleration (& braking), gas mileage, and a friend of mine could probably tell you more advantages. plus, its fun (except at times in a city <_< ).

anyway, some people probably use linux because they enjoy being in control of the OS (display, compiling, etc.) and they enjoy it. just like some people like driving stick, which im becoming very good at :smartass:

i forgot the real meaning of my post, but i wanted to put in my two cents

#27161

Your absolutley right, Smoke. Having several X servers is causing HUGE problems in the community. I mean, a million programs arent about to be ported to this new server. Its funny, this new SciTech server actually had to have an X11 Server built in just to be able to run programs.

And this split thats coming up could very well ruin Linux. Right now, theres really only one graphical server used, but imagine if the official X organization splits. Which one do you go with? This isnt like some 3rd party like SciTech.

But you have to walk that fine line between compatability and choice. Windows walks waaay toward compatability, and linux tends to walk more towards freedom and choice. And it sometimes causing problems.

Ever heard the saying: "Slavery is freedom"?

Some people dont want to edit configs and patch stuff (even if a seperate company is doing it for them), and thats fine. Linux is not for them.

#27165