Warpslide wrote to Dennisk <=-
On 05 Aug 2020, Dennisk said the following...
Usability comes from familiarity, I completely agree and devs need to lear this so they don't constantly break what people have learned with their experiments.
Someone needs to send this statement to the Microsoft Office team. I
get that some things change between versions, which used to be every couple of years: Office 2007, Office 2013, Office 2016 & now Office
2019.
As/if you upgrade you have to find where they moved certain items on
the ribbon and then you eventually get used to it.
We use Office 365 at work and they constantly changing things. Most recently in Outlook they moved the search bar from where it always was
up into the title bar of the window. So now if I want to grab the
window to drag it to my other monitor I have to make sure to not click
in the search bar. Also now when searching it'll expand to cover everything under it, so you know, if you want to read something you're searching for, sorry, that doesn't work anymore.
Another small annoyance is they've "streamlined" the look. Current
day's email only show the time and anything before that only shows the date. Want to know the time an email was sent yesterday? Can't just
get that at a glance anymore, you have double click the message to open
it in a new window for that information.
The problem is, I've just gotten used to how this is now (there's no
way to roll back or stop updates) - Next month they may move the search bar again or being the time back. Who knows?
Jay
Vk3jed wrote to Atroxi <=-
On 08-04-20 17:50, Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
This is true. Most of the power in GNU/Linux lies in being able to use
the command line. But doing so would take effort on the user's part to read and understand how things work. While I might argue that doing so
is not that hard, not everyone has the motivation nor the time to sink into reading manuals just to figure how stuff works. Still, however,
being to harness that would surely help you "elevate" your computing experience.
Yeah, people bang on about this interface or that, but my primary interface is Bash, usually over SSH, because most of my Linux systems
are running as servers. I do have one desktop, which is running
Cinnamon on Mint, which I like as an interface. And I have a netbook running Lubuntu
The argument that less goes wrong with Windows, I don't know about
that. I hear the argument that Windows is easier to use, but when something does go wrong, its just as hard to fix as Linux.
If not harder. Linux at least is honest about its complexity. Windows tries to hide the complexity, and that makes diving under the hoof
harder at times.
This is also true. I would even go as far as saying that problems that arise while using GNU/Linux, which aren't many, are easily solvable by either just reading the error message or by just searching about it and usually the first result would give the answer. Now that I've thought about it, I can't even recall a time when my install broke in some mysterious way. It's usually just either missing libraries or
unresolved dependencies. Though it might also be because I'm not
running a particularly heavy environment as well and my stuff don't
depend on as much dependencies as, say, a usual Ubuntu or Mint install. But even then, I used to run Xubuntu and didn't have that much problems
as well.
Biggest challenge I've had is installing newer software on an older distro, but I solve that one, by installing the dependency that was too old from source by hand, using a newer version. Then the software I
waas installing compiled properly. :)
But that's no different in the Windows world, where newer software
won't install on older versions of Windows - these days, usually
Windows 7 is the cut off, but there is software that will only install
on Windows 10. Difference is, that unlike my old Linux system, you
can't upgrade the parts that are "too old" individually under Windows
as easily, and generally compiling from source isn't an option.
I swear, I think most of the "usability" of Windows comes from decades long familiarity of people with the operating system (and fairly aggressive push of M$ to include Windows by default to computers, as
well as teaching M$ software by default in schools). Though I have
grown up using Windows as well, taking a step back and looking at the whole process of just even installing drivers in a new Windows system feels like a pain. Going to dodgy websites, trusting that .CAB or .EXE file are not some ransomware of sorts and in the end, praying to the Operating System Gods that the driver you just installed would actually make that device work. It's even much more painful when using
"esoteric" software that would somehow demand some unknown .dll file
that you have no idea why you don't have or why it's needed in the
first place.
One thing I do notice with Windows is other than the Microsoft
components, upgrades are driven by individual vendors, while on Linux, updates are generally managed by the distribution maintainers. While
the Linux way is great in that it's generally painless, and reboots are rarely needed (only when upgrading the kernel and possibly glibc), some apps, like Firefox aren't updated as promptly or automatically as they
are on Windows.
Just different ways of doing things.
... On a clear disk you can seek forever.
Vk3jed wrote to Atroxi <=-
On 08-04-20 18:20, Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
I think there's some merit in distrohopping, though I used to distrohop myself haha! On one side, it's an exercise in software freedom and on
the other, it's finding out what package distribution model works for
you. As I've mentioned, I used to distrohop a lot before. Started with Ubuntu, then went around the Ubuntu derivaties (Xubuntu, Ubuntu MATE, etc.) then dove into Arch, Manjaro and Gentoo ultimately finding my
place in Void Linux which has been my distro for the past three years
now.
For me, it depends on the application. A lot of ham radio applications these days are built for either Debian or Ubuntu, and there's often packages for only those distros (e.g. AllStar, DVSwitch) are easiest installed on Debian Stretch, where they can be installed from apt repositories.
Some business oriented applications are built for a Red Hat style
distro, and will run on RHEL or CentOS without any dramas, possibly
Fedora with some massaging.
I use mostly Debian nowadays, with some CentOS, Lubuntu and Mint.
Currently considering trying out Guix or just going back to Gentoo for that flexibility, but let's see. I'm being quite lazy lately. :-)
Unless I have a compelling reason to try a particular distro, I'll use what best fit my operational needs.
... The exception also declares the rule
Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
The only problem is that if many people switch to Linux, developers
will turn it into "Windows" in order to accomodate all the new users.
That is the catch 22. Linux is great becase of choice, customisability and being able to hack and modify, but with a limited audience, there
is less impetus for software and hardware support. But if it were to
get more users, and better software and hardware support, distros would start to neglect "power users" and make it another "Consumer OS",
locked down.
I think GNU/Linux "turning into Windows" wouldn't be that much of a problem and I think this is happening already anyway with the more "user-friendly" distros such as Mint and Ubuntu. I quite doubt whether
the operating system would be as locked down as Windows or OSX though. Perhaps there might be some distros that would do that for the sake "user-friendliness" but I doubt most distros would follow suit. I think there will always be minimial distros and the Free nature of the
operating system ensures that; should they want to use something full-featured like Mint or something minimal like Arch or Gentoo.
I think pulling people into GNU/Linux would ultimately be a net
positive as it would, as you mentioned, deal with the lack of impetus
for software and hardware support in the operating system. Though, now that I'm typing this, I don't think it's that big of a deal nowadays? Whenever I install GNU/Linux to a new machine, usually laptops, most of the stuff generally work out of the box sans wifi or bluetooth. But anyway, I think getting more people into GNU/Linux would give impetus
to kernel development, and, hopefully, to have that Free software
support on wifi and bluetooth drivers would be a godsend.
The only issue that I was thinking with more people getting into
GNU/Linux would probably be the increase in nonfree stuff. Though I
think by just plain awareness in GNU/Linux would also bring forth Free software principles and, hopefully, inspire more developers to develop towards that as well. :-)
I started using Linux in 2000, and back then the focus was on getting "mom" to use it. Linux users seemed to believe that "mom" had to use
it, and this market was important to unseat Microsoft. I don't believe that anymore, and I think Linux will always be, and should be, niche. Also, I think the attempts are misguided, as the barrier is more to do with inertia, documentation, not the fact that Gnome wasn't controlled
by systemd, or that we don't have apps which override window
decorations, etc, or a containerised software installation system. My wife who is not computer literate navigates KDE Plasma just fine, as
does my 8 year old daughter, who has been able to work the GUI for some time now. Linux is and has been usable for some time now.
In part, the problem is that because Linux is a developers OS,
developers approach the problem in terms of what new code can be
written. So the "solution" always tend to be, more code, another standard, another frameworks, which is NOT what Linux needs. And these solutions are always promoted from the developers POV. The
simplification Linux needs is not new software or a new GUI, but rather simplification of choice and method. There are too many distros, and different distros have different 'spins', even more confusing! Sadly,
even Puppy Linux is like that know, with multiple Puppies. Even *I*
get confused! There is Ubuntu, Lubuntu, Xubuntu, this spin, that spin.
There are multiple ways to do things, and which ones work depends on
your distro. Developers believe that there should be a uniform look,
but then they change their GUI, its a bit braindead to be honest. No
one is in charge.
In the ideal world, there would only be a small number of distros, you could count them on one hand, each one designed for a different use
case (full PC, portable, single board PC), one package mangement system (RPM or DEB, I'm not fussed, but I prefer RPM) and sub-systems which
can actually be understood, are well documented and don't constantly break. Pulseaudio would not exist and there would be no braindead
ideas where the software tries to be too "clever", (pulse audio), and things would not break on updates. There would be agreement on
standards. Software and hardware vendors would actually be able to release a package that will work for all Linux users.
... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
The benefits are indeed only realised for those willing to venture
beyond what the graphical software spefically does. If you aren't the type to think of your own solutions, there probably is little benefit, aside from the lower cost and perhaps lesser hardware requirements.
This is true. Most of the power in GNU/Linux lies in being able to use
the command line. But doing so would take effort on the user's part to read and understand how things work. While I might argue that doing so
is not that hard, not everyone has the motivation nor the time to sink into reading manuals just to figure how stuff works. Still, however,
being to harness that would surely help you "elevate" your computing experience.
I agree that is not for everyone, but I'm always surprised when people
who make a living writing software and install complex frameworks don't take advantage of it.
The argument that less goes wrong with Windows, I don't know about
that. I hear the argument that Windows is easier to use, but when something does go wrong, its just as hard to fix as Linux.
This is also true. I would even go as far as saying that problems that arise while using GNU/Linux, which aren't many, are easily solvable by either just reading the error message or by just searching about it and usually the first result would give the answer. Now that I've thought about it, I can't even recall a time when my install broke in some mysterious way. It's usually just either missing libraries or
unresolved dependencies. Though it might also be because I'm not
running a particularly heavy environment as well and my stuff don't
depend on as much dependencies as, say, a usual Ubuntu or Mint install. But even then, I used to run Xubuntu and didn't have that much problems
as well.
I did break my system once when I started using it, back before
journaling filesystems existed, and a hard shutdown caused files to be lost that I didn't know how to replace. But that was aaaggges ago. I haven't had since then any wierd problems that I couldnt' resolve, and
the few times I did, it was something not unexpected (ie, I made a
system change that didn't quite work), or some niggly problem with specific software during an update that I could resolve.
The other thing I liked, compared to Windows, is no performance degradation. None. I don't know about now, but Windows would age, get slower, more buggy. I NEVER had Linux do that, no matter what software
I installed.
I set up a Windows machine some time ago (Windows 10), and installationwasn't as
smooth as I thought it would be. The machine would present almost no information and seem to be busy for ages doing who-knows-what. Then
there is drivers. If you bought your hardware new, or bought it all installed, its OK, but if you were to try and find drivers for a
printer you bought second hand, then it can be awful going through
dodgy sites. Not Microsoft's fault, but still part of the Windows experience. Occasionally when I need to do something more complex in Windows, I find it quite frustrating.
I swear, I think most of the "usability" of Windows comes from decades long familiarity of people with the operating system (and fairly aggressive push of M$ to include Windows by default to computers, as
well as teaching M$ software by default in schools). Though I have
grown up using Windows as well, taking a step back and looking at the whole process of just even installing drivers in a new Windows system feels like a pain. Going to dodgy websites, trusting that .CAB or .EXE file are not some ransomware of sorts and in the end, praying to the Operating System Gods that the driver you just installed would actually make that device work. It's even much more painful when using
"esoteric" software that would somehow demand some unknown .dll file
that you have no idea why you don't have or why it's needed in the
first place.
Dealing with it is incredibly frustrating. And don't even get me
started with Windows Updates. :'-(
Usability comes from familiarity, I completely agree and devs need to learn this so they don't constantly break what people have learned with their experiments. My daughter is familiar with KDE Plasma, so to her, that is easy.
Should would be JUST as comfortable with KDE 3, I'm sure, if that was still current. If they were to change it, because of some new fad or idea, she would get frustrated. There is no problem with it now. I
think his focus on mechanics and UI design, and redesigining things all the time is largely pointless, and mostly a self-indulgent wank. Most
UI redesigns turn out to just be a PITA.
... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
Some Linux users 'distro-hop', they move from distro to distro every 6 months, start fresh, I couldn't think of anything worse. In 5 years
time, my "workstation" will still be as it is now, as it was 5 years
and more ago.
I think there's some merit in distrohopping, though I used to distrohop myself haha! On one side, it's an exercise in software freedom and on
the other, it's finding out what package distribution model works for
you. As I've mentioned, I used to distrohop a lot before. Started with Ubuntu, then went around the Ubuntu derivaties (Xubuntu, Ubuntu MATE, etc.) then dove into Arch, Manjaro and Gentoo ultimately finding my
place in Void Linux which has been my distro for the past three years
now.
Currently considering trying out Guix or just going back to Gentoo for that flexibility, but let's see. I'm being quite lazy lately. :-)
Is there any real qualitative difference between them? I do need to switch away from Fedora on my laptop soon, as Fedora dropped 32 bit support. I'm thinking Debian. Someone raved about Mint, but I'm not
sure what day-to-day difference there would be aside from the contents
of the repository.
... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
You can use enterprise licensing and domains to control updates, which does very little for SOHO... I don't like how forceful updates are in a
On 08-06-20 09:14, Atroxi wrote to Vk3jed <=-
On the other hand, mine's the exact reverse, haha! There are instances that I'm using older or more esoteric software and as such are often
not provided in the package repositories, I usually end up compiling
those ones from source if I can't find an .appimage or similar for it.
I swear, I think most of the "usability" of Windows comes from decades long familiarity of people with the operating system (and fairly aggressive push of M$ to include Windows by default to computers, as
well as teaching M$ software by default in schools). Though I have
grown up using Windows as well, taking a step back and looking at the whole process of just even installing drivers in a new Windows system feels like a pain. Going to dodgy websites, trusting that .CAB or .EXE file are not some ransomware of sorts and in the end, praying to the Operating System Gods that the driver you just installed would actually make that device work. It's even much more painful when using
"esoteric" software that would somehow demand some unknown .dll file
that you have no idea why you don't have or why it's needed in the
first place.
One thing I do notice with Windows is other than the Microsoft
components, upgrades are driven by individual vendors, while on Linux, updates are generally managed by the distribution maintainers. While
the Linux way is great in that it's generally painless, and reboots are rarely needed (only when upgrading the kernel and possibly glibc), some apps, like Firefox aren't updated as promptly or automatically as they
are on Windows.
Just different ways of doing things.
Yeah, I agree. It's basically just picking your own poison, haha! :-)
On 08-06-20 09:19, Atroxi wrote to Vk3jed <=-
For me, it depends on the application. A lot of ham radio applications these days are built for either Debian or Ubuntu, and there's often packages for only those distros (e.g. AllStar, DVSwitch) are easiest installed on Debian Stretch, where they can be installed from apt repositories.
Oh wow. I've been thinking of getting into ham radio recently, just because of this whole pandemic thing is making me a bit looney at
times. It's great that there's good support for those in GNU/Linux.
It's exactly this, isn't it? We use what fits the best for our needs. Though I do think there's also pleasure in just figuring how stuff
works in different systems, if you have nothing better to do that is.
:-P
... The exception also declares the rule
... Not enough mail? Here, let me help...
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
The only problem is that if many people switch to Linux, developers
will turn it into "Windows" in order to accomodate all the new users.
That is the catch 22. Linux is great becase of choice, customisability and being able to hack and modify, but with a limited audience, there
is less impetus for software and hardware support. But if it were to
get more users, and better software and hardware support, distros would start to neglect "power users" and make it another "Consumer OS",
locked down.
I think GNU/Linux "turning into Windows" wouldn't be that much of a problem and I think this is happening already anyway with the more "user-friendly" distros such as Mint and Ubuntu. I quite doubt whether
the operating system would be as locked down as Windows or OSX though. Perhaps there might be some distros that would do that for the sake "user-friendliness" but I doubt most distros would follow suit. I think there will always be minimial distros and the Free nature of the
operating system ensures that; should they want to use something full-featured like Mint or something minimal like Arch or Gentoo.
I think pulling people into GNU/Linux would ultimately be a net
positive as it would, as you mentioned, deal with the lack of impetus
for software and hardware support in the operating system. Though, now that I'm typing this, I don't think it's that big of a deal nowadays? Whenever I install GNU/Linux to a new machine, usually laptops, most of the stuff generally work out of the box sans wifi or bluetooth. But anyway, I think getting more people into GNU/Linux would give impetus
to kernel development, and, hopefully, to have that Free software
support on wifi and bluetooth drivers would be a godsend.
The only issue that I was thinking with more people getting into
GNU/Linux would probably be the increase in nonfree stuff. Though I
think by just plain awareness in GNU/Linux would also bring forth Free software principles and, hopefully, inspire more developers to develop towards that as well. :-)
I started using Linux in 2000, and back then the focus was on getting "mom" to use it. Linux users seemed to believe that "mom" had to use
it, and this market was important to unseat Microsoft. I don't believe that anymore, and I think Linux will always be, and should be, niche. Also, I think the attempts are misguided, as the barrier is more to do with inertia, documentation, not the fact that Gnome wasn't controlled
by systemd, or that we don't have apps which override window
decorations, etc, or a containerised software installation system. My wife who is not computer literate navigates KDE Plasma just fine, as
does my 8 year old daughter, who has been able to work the GUI for some time now. Linux is and has been usable for some time now.
In part, the problem is that because Linux is a developers OS,
developers approach the problem in terms of what new code can be
written. So the "solution" always tend to be, more code, another standard, another frameworks, which is NOT what Linux needs. And these solutions are always promoted from the developers POV. The
simplification Linux needs is not new software or a new GUI, but rather simplification of choice and method. There are too many distros, and different distros have different 'spins', even more confusing! Sadly,
even Puppy Linux is like that know, with multiple Puppies. Even *I*
get confused! There is Ubuntu, Lubuntu, Xubuntu, this spin, that spin.
There are multiple ways to do things, and which ones work depends on
your distro. Developers believe that there should be a uniform look,
but then they change their GUI, its a bit braindead to be honest. No
one is in charge.
In the ideal world, there would only be a small number of distros, you could count them on one hand, each one designed for a different use
case (full PC, portable, single board PC), one package mangement system (RPM or DEB, I'm not fussed, but I prefer RPM) and sub-systems which
can actually be understood, are well documented and don't constantly break. Pulseaudio would not exist and there would be no braindead
ideas where the software tries to be too "clever", (pulse audio), and things would not break on updates. There would be agreement on
standards. Software and hardware vendors would actually be able to release a package that will work for all Linux users.
... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
I agree that I think people should not jam GNU/Linux to other people's throats by "getting them into using it". I think the operating system should speak for itself, for its features and its benefits for the
people meaning to use it. Give them a reason to switch and it should be their choice in doing so. Though, I don't know, with people slowly
being privacy aware and now cares about how and where their data is
being used, GNU/Linux becomes more increasingly the sole choice for
such users should that be the case, GNU/Linux will cease to be a niche operating system. Though I'd argue that it isn't the case anymore...?
I've been seeing mass use of GNU/Linux systems in my university and
some opt to using it because it interfaces well with our university
stuff. Sure, I think the more minimal ones will always remain niche.
Arch, Gentoo, Slackware and the likes will never achieve the same
amount of popularity that Mint and Ubuntu experiences.
Yeah, I think the problem with adoption's to do with inertia mostly,
for people to adopt GNU/Linux there must be a functional, practical and tangible reason for them to do so. Something like deep, underlying
systems such as the init system or linux subsystems are stuff that a normal person would not care about. They don't care whether their
system boots 0.5 seconds slower because systemd is bloated or whatnot. Though, I'd argue that such questions have their place and that we shouldn't just fall into "meh, it is what it is" mentality. Save those questions for the developers not the users.
I think the various systems, standards and frameworks that spring up in GNU/Linux is both a good and a bad thing. On one side it shows how
active things are in the development side of things and gives any
coming user the faith that GNU/Linux won't just be obsolete after a few decades despite not being taken care of by a single monolithic body. On the other side, it is what you mentioned: the amount of stuff presented also puts the user in a paradox of choice situation. Though personally,
I think it's a good thing that there's a lot of choices because it's exactly the point of software freedom and that the ideal solution
should be more around the "let's create a more consolidated distro"
rather than shooting the whole development in the foot slightly by hampering developer freedom and homogenizing things (I prefer my xbps
and portage over apt, thank you very much). :-)
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
The benefits are indeed only realised for those willing to venture
beyond what the graphical software spefically does. If you aren't the type to think of your own solutions, there probably is little benefit, aside from the lower cost and perhaps lesser hardware requirements.
This is true. Most of the power in GNU/Linux lies in being able to use
the command line. But doing so would take effort on the user's part to read and understand how things work. While I might argue that doing so
is not that hard, not everyone has the motivation nor the time to sink into reading manuals just to figure how stuff works. Still, however,
being to harness that would surely help you "elevate" your computing experience.
I agree that is not for everyone, but I'm always surprised when people
who make a living writing software and install complex frameworks don't take advantage of it.
Are they? Well, I don't write software for a living but if that's the
case then they're definitely using a boat to travel the road.
This is also true. I would even go as far as saying that problems that arise while using GNU/Linux, which aren't many, are easily solvable by either just reading the error message or by just searching about it and usually the first result would give the answer. Now that I've thought about it, I can't even recall a time when my install broke in some mysterious way. It's usually just either missing libraries or
unresolved dependencies. Though it might also be because I'm not
running a particularly heavy environment as well and my stuff don't
depend on as much dependencies as, say, a usual Ubuntu or Mint install. But even then, I used to run Xubuntu and didn't have that much problems
as well.
This is true. A friend of mine always had problems with Windows over
time, he would install Windows 10 and after two years it would slow
down to a crawl and would randomly throw errors at him which would then prompt him to reset his system. Rinse and repeat.
Yeah, UI redesigns are a massive PITA from a user's standpoint.
Suddenly things that you're used to aren't what they are. I really
liked the old GNOME but then they completely went 180 with GNOME 3.
Though it's great that MATE exists, users can't just rely to some concerned developer to fork the older, more desirable, version and maintain it. The lead developers themselves shouldn't just suddenly
depart to their previous design language and expect everyone to use
their system. To be honest, that's part of the reason why I just used
CLI applications and stuck with a simple window manager, things are
more consistent and are much more customizable; though of course window managers are not for everyone.
I think part of what I said earlier has to do with inertia that you've talked about in the other thread. Windows just has this decades long inertia to back it up and people who grew up using it wouldn't just
give it up easily for something else. So yeah, I agree, usability comes with familiarity but Windows has so much familiarity that even if it is technically subpar compared to the other operating systems that people still find it usable.
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
Some Linux users 'distro-hop', they move from distro to distro every 6 months, start fresh, I couldn't think of anything worse. In 5 years
time, my "workstation" will still be as it is now, as it was 5 years
and more ago.
I think there's some merit in distrohopping, though I used to distrohop myself haha! On one side, it's an exercise in software freedom and on
the other, it's finding out what package distribution model works for
you. As I've mentioned, I used to distrohop a lot before. Started with Ubuntu, then went around the Ubuntu derivaties (Xubuntu, Ubuntu MATE, etc.) then dove into Arch, Manjaro and Gentoo ultimately finding my
place in Void Linux which has been my distro for the past three years
now.
Currently considering trying out Guix or just going back to Gentoo for that flexibility, but let's see. I'm being quite lazy lately. :-)
Is there any real qualitative difference between them? I do need to switch away from Fedora on my laptop soon, as Fedora dropped 32 bit support. I'm thinking Debian. Someone raved about Mint, but I'm not
sure what day-to-day difference there would be aside from the contents
of the repository.
In my limited experience distrohopping, most of the difference lies
with how minimal stuff are post-install and the package manager that
they use (... also the init system). For example, Arch, Debian, Gentoo
and Void Linux all are quite minimal post-install, though there are DE options, which means that you have to install most of the programs yourself. Which is great for a tinkerer and customizability standpoint
but would be a pain for someone who just wants a system that works.
Also, Gentoo and Void Linux use OpenRC and runit respectively which
some might care about.
Package manager-wise, some argue that apt lacks features that pacman
has, but you might have to look it up if it applies to your use case. Portage is source based and I really like fiddling with USE flags and stuff and the excitement of building software that are just slightly optimized for your hardware just don't lose their charm (0.5 sec faster boot time, aww yeah :-P). XBPS is much more leaner and simpler from a "user maintaing the system" standpoint.
I find XBPS and runit to be just right for me. It's powerful, simple
and fast.
Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
The only problem is that if many people switch to Linux, developers
will turn it into "Windows" in order to accomodate all the new users.
That is the catch 22. Linux is great becase of choice, customisability and being able to hack and modify, but with a limited audience, there
is less impetus for software and hardware support. But if it were to
get more users, and better software and hardware support, distros would start to neglect "power users" and make it another "Consumer OS",
locked down.
I think GNU/Linux "turning into Windows" wouldn't be that much of a problem and I think this is happening already anyway with the more "user-friendly" distros such as Mint and Ubuntu. I quite doubt whether
the operating system would be as locked down as Windows or OSX though. Perhaps there might be some distros that would do that for the sake "user-friendliness" but I doubt most distros would follow suit. I think there will always be minimial distros and the Free nature of the
operating system ensures that; should they want to use something full-featured like Mint or something minimal like Arch or Gentoo.
I think pulling people into GNU/Linux would ultimately be a net
positive as it would, as you mentioned, deal with the lack of impetus
for software and hardware support in the operating system. Though, now that I'm typing this, I don't think it's that big of a deal nowadays? Whenever I install GNU/Linux to a new machine, usually laptops, most of the stuff generally work out of the box sans wifi or bluetooth. But anyway, I think getting more people into GNU/Linux would give impetus
to kernel development, and, hopefully, to have that Free software
support on wifi and bluetooth drivers would be a godsend.
The only issue that I was thinking with more people getting into
GNU/Linux would probably be the increase in nonfree stuff. Though I
think by just plain awareness in GNU/Linux would also bring forth Free software principles and, hopefully, inspire more developers to develop towards that as well. :-)
I started using Linux in 2000, and back then the focus was on getting "mom" to use it. Linux users seemed to believe that "mom" had to use
it, and this market was important to unseat Microsoft. I don't believe that anymore, and I think Linux will always be, and should be, niche. Also, I think the attempts are misguided, as the barrier is more to do with inertia, documentation, not the fact that Gnome wasn't controlled
by systemd, or that we don't have apps which override window
decorations, etc, or a containerised software installation system. My wife who is not computer literate navigates KDE Plasma just fine, as
does my 8 year old daughter, who has been able to work the GUI for some time now. Linux is and has been usable for some time now.
In part, the problem is that because Linux is a developers OS,
developers approach the problem in terms of what new code can be
written. So the "solution" always tend to be, more code, another standard, another frameworks, which is NOT what Linux needs. And these solutions are always promoted from the developers POV. The
simplification Linux needs is not new software or a new GUI, but rather simplification of choice and method. There are too many distros, and different distros have different 'spins', even more confusing! Sadly,
even Puppy Linux is like that know, with multiple Puppies. Even *I*
get confused! There is Ubuntu, Lubuntu, Xubuntu, this spin, that spin.
There are multiple ways to do things, and which ones work depends on
your distro. Developers believe that there should be a uniform look,
but then they change their GUI, its a bit braindead to be honest. No
one is in charge.
In the ideal world, there would only be a small number of distros, you could count them on one hand, each one designed for a different use
case (full PC, portable, single board PC), one package mangement system (RPM or DEB, I'm not fussed, but I prefer RPM) and sub-systems which
can actually be understood, are well documented and don't constantly break. Pulseaudio would not exist and there would be no braindead
ideas where the software tries to be too "clever", (pulse audio), and things would not break on updates. There would be agreement on
standards. Software and hardware vendors would actually be able to release a package that will work for all Linux users.
... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
I agree that I think people should not jam GNU/Linux to other people's throats by "getting them into using it". I think the operating system should speak for itself, for its features and its benefits for the
people meaning to use it. Give them a reason to switch and it should be their choice in doing so. Though, I don't know, with people slowly
being privacy aware and now cares about how and where their data is
being used, GNU/Linux becomes more increasingly the sole choice for
such users should that be the case, GNU/Linux will cease to be a niche operating system. Though I'd argue that it isn't the case anymore...?
I've been seeing mass use of GNU/Linux systems in my university and
some opt to using it because it interfaces well with our university
stuff. Sure, I think the more minimal ones will always remain niche.
Arch, Gentoo, Slackware and the likes will never achieve the same
amount of popularity that Mint and Ubuntu experiences.
Yeah, I think the problem with adoption's to do with inertia mostly,
for people to adopt GNU/Linux there must be a functional, practical and tangible reason for them to do so. Something like deep, underlying
systems such as the init system or linux subsystems are stuff that a normal person would not care about. They don't care whether their
system boots 0.5 seconds slower because systemd is bloated or whatnot. Though, I'd argue that such questions have their place and that we shouldn't just fall into "meh, it is what it is" mentality. Save those questions for the developers not the users.
I think the various systems, standards and frameworks that spring up in GNU/Linux is both a good and a bad thing. On one side it shows how
active things are in the development side of things and gives any
coming user the faith that GNU/Linux won't just be obsolete after a few decades despite not being taken care of by a single monolithic body. On the other side, it is what you mentioned: the amount of stuff presented also puts the user in a paradox of choice situation. Though personally,
I think it's a good thing that there's a lot of choices because it's exactly the point of software freedom and that the ideal solution
should be more around the "let's create a more consolidated distro"
rather than shooting the whole development in the foot slightly by hampering developer freedom and homogenizing things (I prefer my xbps
and portage over apt, thank you very much). :-)
There is choice that matters, and choice that doesn't. That is an individual thing too. For me, the important choices are being able to
use the GUI I like, being able to have the system look and act the way
I want, backward compatibility and being able to keep existing
workflows and capacities. I don't really care about choice of package managers, as long as it works, or choice of distros (as long as the
distro doesn't limit me), or choice of installer defaults (you can
always change the options).
Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
The benefits are indeed only realised for those willing to venture
beyond what the graphical software spefically does. If you aren't the type to think of your own solutions, there probably is little benefit, aside from the lower cost and perhaps lesser hardware requirements.
This is true. Most of the power in GNU/Linux lies in being able to use
the command line. But doing so would take effort on the user's part to read and understand how things work. While I might argue that doing so
is not that hard, not everyone has the motivation nor the time to sink into reading manuals just to figure how stuff works. Still, however,
being to harness that would surely help you "elevate" your computing experience.
I agree that is not for everyone, but I'm always surprised when people
who make a living writing software and install complex frameworks don't take advantage of it.
Are they? Well, I don't write software for a living but if that's the
case then they're definitely using a boat to travel the road.
I don't know too many people, but I have seen it.
This is also true. I would even go as far as saying that problems that arise while using GNU/Linux, which aren't many, are easily solvable by either just reading the error message or by just searching about it and usually the first result would give the answer. Now that I've thought about it, I can't even recall a time when my install broke in some mysterious way. It's usually just either missing libraries or
unresolved dependencies. Though it might also be because I'm not
running a particularly heavy environment as well and my stuff don't
depend on as much dependencies as, say, a usual Ubuntu or Mint install. But even then, I used to run Xubuntu and didn't have that much problems
as well.
This is true. A friend of mine always had problems with Windows over
time, he would install Windows 10 and after two years it would slow
down to a crawl and would randomly throw errors at him which would then prompt him to reset his system. Rinse and repeat.
Does Windows 10 still have this problem? I would have thought they
would have solved this by now. Two years is a pretty good lifespan for
a Windows install.
Yeah, UI redesigns are a massive PITA from a user's standpoint.
Suddenly things that you're used to aren't what they are. I really
liked the old GNOME but then they completely went 180 with GNOME 3.
Though it's great that MATE exists, users can't just rely to some concerned developer to fork the older, more desirable, version and maintain it. The lead developers themselves shouldn't just suddenly
depart to their previous design language and expect everyone to use
their system. To be honest, that's part of the reason why I just used
CLI applications and stuck with a simple window manager, things are
more consistent and are much more customizable; though of course window managers are not for everyone.
It would have been better to make Gnome 3 another DE, and keep Gnome,
or somehow manage the transition so that if you were using Gnome 2, and the next update put Gnome 3, you were booted into MATE, with your Gnome
2 settings. Maybe the distros could have made that happen.
I think part of what I said earlier has to do with inertia that you've talked about in the other thread. Windows just has this decades long inertia to back it up and people who grew up using it wouldn't just
give it up easily for something else. So yeah, I agree, usability comes with familiarity but Windows has so much familiarity that even if it is technically subpar compared to the other operating systems that people still find it usable.
That and people use it at work, because it is always the safer option, professionally speaking, to use Windows.
Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
Some Linux users 'distro-hop', they move from distro to distro every 6 months, start fresh, I couldn't think of anything worse. In 5 years
time, my "workstation" will still be as it is now, as it was 5 years
and more ago.
I think there's some merit in distrohopping, though I used to distrohop myself haha! On one side, it's an exercise in software freedom and on
the other, it's finding out what package distribution model works for
you. As I've mentioned, I used to distrohop a lot before. Started with Ubuntu, then went around the Ubuntu derivaties (Xubuntu, Ubuntu MATE, etc.) then dove into Arch, Manjaro and Gentoo ultimately finding my
place in Void Linux which has been my distro for the past three years
now.
Currently considering trying out Guix or just going back to Gentoo for that flexibility, but let's see. I'm being quite lazy lately. :-)
Is there any real qualitative difference between them? I do need to switch away from Fedora on my laptop soon, as Fedora dropped 32 bit support. I'm thinking Debian. Someone raved about Mint, but I'm not
sure what day-to-day difference there would be aside from the contents
of the repository.
In my limited experience distrohopping, most of the difference lies
with how minimal stuff are post-install and the package manager that
they use (... also the init system). For example, Arch, Debian, Gentoo
and Void Linux all are quite minimal post-install, though there are DE options, which means that you have to install most of the programs yourself. Which is great for a tinkerer and customizability standpoint
but would be a pain for someone who just wants a system that works.
Also, Gentoo and Void Linux use OpenRC and runit respectively which
some might care about.
Package manager-wise, some argue that apt lacks features that pacman
has, but you might have to look it up if it applies to your use case. Portage is source based and I really like fiddling with USE flags and stuff and the excitement of building software that are just slightly optimized for your hardware just don't lose their charm (0.5 sec faster boot time, aww yeah :-P). XBPS is much more leaner and simpler from a "user maintaing the system" standpoint.
I find XBPS and runit to be just right for me. It's powerful, simple
and fast.
OK, that is what I thought it would be. I'm a tinkerer, so the
"default" is only what lasts that 5 minutes until I switch to the GUI, shell and personalisation I want to use, and install the standard
software I consider essential for my system. Anytime I've set up a new Linux machine (which isn't that often), that is the first thing I do.
Last time I installed Linux on a netbook, I ended up just copying most
of my config from my main machines home directy, used the same Window Manager (FVWM) with almost the same configuration, and installed the
same software that I use day to day, or occasionally need.
Maybe it matters more for new users, the distro's defaults.
Vk3jed wrote to Atroxi <=-
On 08-06-20 09:14, Atroxi wrote to Vk3jed <=-
On the other hand, mine's the exact reverse, haha! There are instances that I'm using older or more esoteric software and as such are often
not provided in the package repositories, I usually end up compiling
those ones from source if I can't find an .appimage or similar for it.
Sometimes compiling older software on a modern distro can be a
challenge too! :) I have struck that one myself.
I swear, I think most of the "usability" of Windows comes from decades long familiarity of people with the operating system (and fairly aggressive push of M$ to include Windows by default to computers, as
well as teaching M$ software by default in schools). Though I have
grown up using Windows as well, taking a step back and looking at the whole process of just even installing drivers in a new Windows system feels like a pain. Going to dodgy websites, trusting that .CAB or .EXE file are not some ransomware of sorts and in the end, praying to the Operating System Gods that the driver you just installed would actually make that device work. It's even much more painful when using
"esoteric" software that would somehow demand some unknown .dll file
that you have no idea why you don't have or why it's needed in the
first place.
Yes, a lot of Windows is familiarity. I'm equally well versed in both Windows and Linux - both are equally familiar, as I have been running Linux since 1995, Windows only a few years earlier.
One thing I do notice with Windows is other than the Microsoft
components, upgrades are driven by individual vendors, while on Linux, updates are generally managed by the distribution maintainers. While
the Linux way is great in that it's generally painless, and reboots are rarely needed (only when upgrading the kernel and possibly glibc), some apps, like Firefox aren't updated as promptly or automatically as they
are on Windows.
Just different ways of doing things.
Yeah, I agree. It's basically just picking your own poison, haha! :-)
True, though I do find it annoying when key desktop apps don't update
on Linux like they do on Windows, even after using the distro's package management.
Vk3jed wrote to Atroxi <=-
On 08-06-20 09:19, Atroxi wrote to Vk3jed <=-
For me, it depends on the application. A lot of ham radio applications these days are built for either Debian or Ubuntu, and there's often packages for only those distros (e.g. AllStar, DVSwitch) are easiest installed on Debian Stretch, where they can be installed from apt repositories.
Oh wow. I've been thinking of getting into ham radio recently, just because of this whole pandemic thing is making me a bit looney at
times. It's great that there's good support for those in GNU/Linux.
It's good for these crazy times. I get on a "welfare net" most
mornings, where hams around this end of the country get on and let each other know how things are going, and compare notes on lockdown
survival. :)
It's exactly this, isn't it? We use what fits the best for our needs. Though I do think there's also pleasure in just figuring how stuff
works in different systems, if you have nothing better to do that is.
:-P
Haha I certainly don't have time, plenty of things on the go here.
While I find the concept of Gentoo interesting, I can't see it working
for me. :)
... The exception also declares the rule
... Not enough mail? Here, let me help...
Haha I bet! :D
... Virtue is a relative term. Spock, Friday's Child, stardate 3499.1.
--- MultiMail/Win v0.51
= Synchronet = Freeway BBS, Bendigo Australia.
freeway.apana.org.au
On 08-07-20 15:41, Atroxi wrote to Vk3jed <=-
True, though I do find it annoying when key desktop apps don't update
on Linux like they do on Windows, even after using the distro's package management.
What are the examples of these? I'm quite curious as I haven't really encountered any. But I think that's also because I don't use that much software anyway.
On 08-07-20 15:43, Atroxi wrote to Vk3jed <=-
It's good for these crazy times. I get on a "welfare net" most
mornings, where hams around this end of the country get on and let each other know how things are going, and compare notes on lockdown
survival. :)
Man, that's so interesting. I should get a license too soon, but the pandemic really put a stop into anything here. Now we're facing an economic recession and just doing my morning reading of the news makes
me sad.
Yeah, if that's the case a more minimal install would be more apt for
you. I had this period of time that minimal distros scared the crap out
of me and I would rather just go through Ubuntu, install all my stuff there are remove all of the other unnecessary stuff that I didn't need. It's quite silly actually now that I think about it. But yeah, since
you have your own workflow jive, it would probably better if you have a minimal install since then you'll just be adding stuff into it.
Maybe it matters more for new users, the distro's defaults.
Oh certainly, I think the defaults are really more for the new users at some point once you go deep into the GNU/Linux rabbit hole you'll eventually develop your own workflow which might not be similar to the distro's defaults.
Vk3jed wrote to Atroxi <=-
On 08-07-20 15:41, Atroxi wrote to Vk3jed <=-
True, though I do find it annoying when key desktop apps don't update
on Linux like they do on Windows, even after using the distro's package management.
What are the examples of these? I'm quite curious as I haven't really encountered any. But I think that's also because I don't use that much software anyway.
I have had distros install an old version of Firefox, and had to
install a copy in my user profile from the Mozilla site, so it would update using its own mechanisms.
Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
The only problem is that if many people switch to Linux, developers will turn it into "Windows" in order to accomodate all the new users. That is the catch 22. Linux is great becase of choice, customisability and being able to hack and modify, but with a limited audience, there is less impetus for software and hardware support. But if it were to get more users, and better software and hardware support, distros would start to neglect "power users" and make it another "Consumer OS", locked down.
I think GNU/Linux "turning into Windows" wouldn't be that much of a problem and I think this is happening already anyway with the more "user-friendly" distros such as Mint and Ubuntu. I quite doubt whether the operating system would be as locked down as Windows or OSX though. Perhaps there might be some distros that would do that for the sake "user-friendliness" but I doubt most distros would follow suit. I think there will always be minimial distros and the Free nature of the operating system ensures that; should they want to use something full-featured like Mint or something minimal like Arch or Gentoo.
I think pulling people into GNU/Linux would ultimately be a net positive as it would, as you mentioned, deal with the lack of impetus for software and hardware support in the operating system. Though, now that I'm typing this, I don't think it's that big of a deal nowadays? Whenever I install GNU/Linux to a new machine, usually laptops, most of the stuff generally work out of the box sans wifi or bluetooth. But anyway, I think getting more people into GNU/Linux would give impetus to kernel development, and, hopefully, to have that Free software support on wifi and bluetooth drivers would be a godsend.
The only issue that I was thinking with more people getting into GNU/Linux would probably be the increase in nonfree stuff. Though I think by just plain awareness in GNU/Linux would also bring forth Free software principles and, hopefully, inspire more developers to develop towards that as well. :-)
I started using Linux in 2000, and back then the focus was on getting "mom" to use it. Linux users seemed to believe that "mom" had to use it, and this market was important to unseat Microsoft. I don't believe that anymore, and I think Linux will always be, and should be, niche. Also, I think the attempts are misguided, as the barrier is more to do with inertia, documentation, not the fact that Gnome wasn't controlled by systemd, or that we don't have apps which override window decorations, etc, or a containerised software installation system. My wife who is not computer literate navigates KDE Plasma just fine, as does my 8 year old daughter, who has been able to work the GUI for some time now. Linux is and has been usable for some time now.
In part, the problem is that because Linux is a developers OS, developers approach the problem in terms of what new code can be written. So the "solution" always tend to be, more code, another standard, another frameworks, which is NOT what Linux needs. And these solutions are always promoted from the developers POV. The simplification Linux needs is not new software or a new GUI, but rather simplification of choice and method. There are too many distros, and different distros have different 'spins', even more confusing! Sadly, even Puppy Linux is like that know, with multiple Puppies. Even *I* get confused! There is Ubuntu, Lubuntu, Xubuntu, this spin, that spin.
There are multiple ways to do things, and which ones work depends on your distro. Developers believe that there should be a uniform look, but then they change their GUI, its a bit braindead to be honest. No one is in charge.
In the ideal world, there would only be a small number of distros, you could count them on one hand, each one designed for a different use case (full PC, portable, single board PC), one package mangement system (RPM or DEB, I'm not fussed, but I prefer RPM) and sub-systems which can actually be understood, are well documented and don't constantly break. Pulseaudio would not exist and there would be no braindead ideas where the software tries to be too "clever", (pulse audio), and things would not break on updates. There would be agreement on standards. Software and hardware vendors would actually be able to release a package that will work for all Linux users.
... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
I agree that I think people should not jam GNU/Linux to other people's throats by "getting them into using it". I think the operating system should speak for itself, for its features and its benefits for the people meaning to use it. Give them a reason to switch and it should be their choice in doing so. Though, I don't know, with people slowly being privacy aware and now cares about how and where their data is being used, GNU/Linux becomes more increasingly the sole choice for such users should that be the case, GNU/Linux will cease to be a niche operating system. Though I'd argue that it isn't the case anymore...? I've been seeing mass use of GNU/Linux systems in my university and some opt to using it because it interfaces well with our university stuff. Sure, I think the more minimal ones will always remain niche. Arch, Gentoo, Slackware and the likes will never achieve the same amount of popularity that Mint and Ubuntu experiences.
Yeah, I think the problem with adoption's to do with inertia mostly, for people to adopt GNU/Linux there must be a functional, practical and tangible reason for them to do so. Something like deep, underlying systems such as the init system or linux subsystems are stuff that a normal person would not care about. They don't care whether their system boots 0.5 seconds slower because systemd is bloated or whatnot. Though, I'd argue that such questions have their place and that we shouldn't just fall into "meh, it is what it is" mentality. Save those questions for the developers not the users.
I think the various systems, standards and frameworks that spring up in GNU/Linux is both a good and a bad thing. On one side it shows how active things are in the development side of things and gives any coming user the faith that GNU/Linux won't just be obsolete after a few decades despite not being taken care of by a single monolithic body. On the other side, it is what you mentioned: the amount of stuff presented also puts the user in a paradox of choice situation. Though personally, I think it's a good thing that there's a lot of choices because it's exactly the point of software freedom and that the ideal solution should be more around the "let's create a more consolidated distro" rather than shooting the whole development in the foot slightly by hampering developer freedom and homogenizing things (I prefer my xbps and portage over apt, thank you very much). :-)
There is choice that matters, and choice that doesn't. That is an individual thing too. For me, the important choices are being able to use the GUI I like, being able to have the system look and act the way I want, backward compatibility and being able to keep existing workflows and capacities. I don't really care about choice of package managers, as long as it works, or choice of distros (as long as the distro doesn't limit me), or choice of installer defaults (you can always change the options).
Yup, I agree. We shouldn't stife that individual choice which I think is central to how GNU/Linux works.
... Whatever happens, happens.
Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
Some Linux users 'distro-hop', they move from distro to distro every 6 months, start fresh, I couldn't think of anything worse. In 5 years time, my "workstation" will still be as it is now, as it was 5 years and more ago.
I think there's some merit in distrohopping, though I used to distrohop myself haha! On one side, it's an exercise in software freedom and on the other, it's finding out what package distribution model works for you. As I've mentioned, I used to distrohop a lot before. Started with Ubuntu, then went around the Ubuntu derivaties (Xubuntu, Ubuntu MATE, etc.) then dove into Arch, Manjaro and Gentoo ultimately finding my place in Void Linux which has been my distro for the past three years now.
Currently considering trying out Guix or just going back to Gentoo for that flexibility, but let's see. I'm being quite lazy lately. :-)
Is there any real qualitative difference between them? I do need to switch away from Fedora on my laptop soon, as Fedora dropped 32 bit support. I'm thinking Debian. Someone raved about Mint, but I'm not sure what day-to-day difference there would be aside from the contents of the repository.
In my limited experience distrohopping, most of the difference lies with how minimal stuff are post-install and the package manager that they use (... also the init system). For example, Arch, Debian, Gentoo and Void Linux all are quite minimal post-install, though there are DE options, which means that you have to install most of the programs yourself. Which is great for a tinkerer and customizability standpoint but would be a pain for someone who just wants a system that works. Also, Gentoo and Void Linux use OpenRC and runit respectively which some might care about.
Package manager-wise, some argue that apt lacks features that pacman has, but you might have to look it up if it applies to your use case. Portage is source based and I really like fiddling with USE flags and stuff and the excitement of building software that are just slightly optimized for your hardware just don't lose their charm (0.5 sec faster boot time, aww yeah :-P). XBPS is much more leaner and simpler from a "user maintaing the system" standpoint.
I find XBPS and runit to be just right for me. It's powerful, simple and fast.
OK, that is what I thought it would be. I'm a tinkerer, so the "default" is only what lasts that 5 minutes until I switch to the GUI, shell and personalisation I want to use, and install the standard software I consider essential for my system. Anytime I've set up a new Linux machine (which isn't that often), that is the first thing I do. Last time I installed Linux on a netbook, I ended up just copying most of my config from my main machines home directy, used the same Window Manager (FVWM) with almost the same configuration, and installed the same software that I use day to day, or occasionally need.
Yeah, if that's the case a more minimal install would be more apt for you. I had this period of time that minimal distros scared the crap out of me and I would rather just go through Ubuntu, install all my stuff there are remove a of the other unnecessary stuff that I didn't need. It's quite silly actually now that I think about it. But yeah, since you have your own workflow jive, would probably better if you have a minimal install since then you'll just b adding stuff into it.
Maybe it matters more for new users, the distro's defaults.
Oh certainly, I think the defaults are really more for the new users at some point once you go deep into the GNU/Linux rabbit hole you'll eventually deve your own workflow which might not be similar to the distro's defaults.
... Whatever happens, happens.
Moondog wrote to Atroxi <=-
There are times I would like to go the "linux from scratch"
approach, however I doubt if something went seriously wrong or if
I got too deep in it, I wouldn't finish the process. Although if
things go smoothly, I would try it again to see if i could
streamline the process (and learn even more)
Yep. Although I've thought about switching to Linux, I'm still using Windows as my main OS right now because I have things set up that way
now and things are w orking okay for me.
On 08-07-20 20:39, Dennisk wrote to Vk3jed <=-
Which distro? Distro's update the included software, but some have
older versions. Debian for example will usually hold older versions of software because they update theirs less frequently. I like Debian,
but I found when I tried it the age of the software was occasionally a problem, especially with youtube-dl which I use a lot.
A better option is to use a distro that keeps modern, such as Fedora.
I use Fedora and the versions of software included is new enough to not
be a problem.
On 08-07-20 18:51, Gamgee wrote to Moondog <=-
I've done it a couple of times, but for me at least, the end
result is not really worth the effort expended to get there. It
is a nice learning experience which helps you understand the
"guts" of Linux, especially the boot process and compiling
software.
Vk3jed wrote to Atroxi <=-
On 08-07-20 15:43, Atroxi wrote to Vk3jed <=-
It's good for these crazy times. I get on a "welfare net" most
mornings, where hams around this end of the country get on and let each other know how things are going, and compare notes on lockdown
survival. :)
Man, that's so interesting. I should get a license too soon, but the pandemic really put a stop into anything here. Now we're facing an economic recession and just doing my morning reading of the news makes
me sad.
We're up for a recession here too, though due to fortuitous
circumstances, we're relatively insulated from the worst effects of it.
Good news is there some cheap ways to get started, especially on the highly (and globally) networked VHF/UHF bands, which is where our nets operate.
Underminer wrote to Atroxi <=-
Hey man, super glad you're fitting in and enjoying yourself. This is
not meant to be a killjoy message in any respect, but just a heads up:
You don't need to include the entirety of previos messages in your
reply quoting. Try to just quote the relevant and needed parts to
remind people what you're replying to; for those reading on the typical 80x24 terminal screen a wall of reply quote can get in the way of
message flow a bit.
Sometime's it's a bit of an art to pick the quote lines appropriately,
but I'm sure you'll get the hang of it quickly :) ---
Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-
Maybe it matters more for new users, the distro's defaults.
Oh certainly, I think the defaults are really more for the new users at some point once you go deep into the GNU/Linux rabbit hole you'll eventually develop your own workflow which might not be similar to the distro's defaults.
Red Hat or Fedora has something called a "kixstart" file or something
like that, which would have all the config options for a new install,
or most of them. Better than multiple spins. You could download the distro intaller, and then the config you want, then simply load the
config you want at install.
One spin, multiple outcomes.
Moondog wrote to Atroxi <=-
Re: Re: Linux
By: Atroxi to Dennisk on
Fri Aug 07 2020 01:22 pm
Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-
I agree that I think people should not jam GNU/Linux to other people's throats by "getting them into using it". I think the operating system should speak for itself, for its features and its benefits for the people meaning to use it. Give them a reason to switch and it should be their choice in doing so. Though, I don't know, with people slowly being privacy aware and now cares about how and where their data is being used, GNU/Linux becomes more increasingly the sole choice for such users should that be the case, GNU/Linux will cease to be a niche operating system. Though I'd argue that it isn't the case anymore...? I've been seeing mass use of GNU/Linux systems in my university and some opt to using it because it interfaces well with our university stuff. Sure, I think the more minimal ones will always remain niche. Arch, Gentoo, Slackware and the likes will never achieve the same amount of popularity that Mint and Ubuntu experiences.
Yeah, I think the problem with adoption's to do with inertia mostly, for people to adopt GNU/Linux there must be a functional, practical and tangible reason for them to do so. Something like deep, underlying systems such as the init system or linux subsystems are stuff that a normal person would not care about. They don't care whether their system boots 0.5 seconds slower because systemd is bloated or whatnot. Though, I'd argue that such questions have their place and that we shouldn't just fall into "meh, it is what it is" mentality. Save those questions for the developers not the users.
I think the various systems, standards and frameworks that spring up in GNU/Linux is both a good and a bad thing. On one side it shows how active things are in the development side of things and gives any coming user the faith that GNU/Linux won't just be obsolete after a few decades despite not being taken care of by a single monolithic body. On the other side, it is what you mentioned: the amount of stuff presented also puts the user in a paradox of choice situation. Though personally, I think it's a good thing that there's a lot of choices because it's exactly the point of software freedom and that the ideal solution should be more around the "let's create a more consolidated distro" rather than shooting the whole development in the foot slightly by hampering developer freedom and homogenizing things (I prefer my xbps and portage over apt, thank you very much). :-)
There is choice that matters, and choice that doesn't. That is an individual thing too. For me, the important choices are being able to use the GUI I like, being able to have the system look and act the way I want, backward compatibility and being able to keep existing workflows and capacities. I don't really care about choice of package managers, as long as it works, or choice of distros (as long as the distro doesn't limit me), or choice of installer defaults (you can always change the options).
Yup, I agree. We shouldn't stife that individual choice which I think is central to how GNU/Linux works.
... Whatever happens, happens.
Linux users are a diverse group with diverse interests. The friendly desktop movement is probably second to the linux server side. Ubuntu
and Mint are most likely the leaders in the desktop development, and
all the little Windows and OSX lookalikes depend on these bigger
distros momentum.
Moondog wrote to Atroxi <=-
Re: Re: Linux
By: Atroxi to Dennisk on
Fri Aug 07 2020 01:35 pm
Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
Is there any real qualitative difference between them? I do need to switch away from Fedora on my laptop soon, as Fedora dropped 32 bit support. I'm thinking Debian. Someone raved about Mint, but I'm not sure what day-to-day difference there would be aside from the contents of the repository.
In my limited experience distrohopping, most of the difference lies with how minimal stuff are post-install and the package manager that they use (... also the init system). For example, Arch, Debian, Gentoo and Void Linux all are quite minimal post-install, though there are DE options, which means that you have to install most of the programs yourself. Which is great for a tinkerer and customizability standpoint but would be a pain for someone who just wants a system that works. Also, Gentoo and Void Linux use OpenRC and runit respectively which some might care about.
Package manager-wise, some argue that apt lacks features that pacman has, but you might have to look it up if it applies to your use case. Portage is source based and I really like fiddling with USE flags and stuff and the excitement of building software that are just slightly optimized for your hardware just don't lose their charm (0.5 sec faster boot time, aww yeah :-P). XBPS is much more leaner and simpler from a "user maintaing the system" standpoint.
I find XBPS and runit to be just right for me. It's powerful, simple and fast.
OK, that is what I thought it would be. I'm a tinkerer, so the "default" is only what lasts that 5 minutes until I switch to the GUI, shell and personalisation I want to use, and install the standard software I consider essential for my system. Anytime I've set up a new Linux machine (which isn't that often), that is the first thing I do. Last time I installed Linux on a netbook, I ended up just copying most of my config from my main machines home directy, used the same Window Manager (FVWM) with almost the same configuration, and installed the same software that I use day to day, or occasionally need.
Yeah, if that's the case a more minimal install would be more apt for you. I had this period of time that minimal distros scared the crap out of me and I would rather just go through Ubuntu, install all my stuff there are remove a of the other unnecessary stuff that I didn't need. It's quite silly actually now that I think about it. But yeah, since you have your own workflow jive, would probably better if you have a minimal install since then you'll just b adding stuff into it.
Maybe it matters more for new users, the distro's defaults.
Oh certainly, I think the defaults are really more for the new users at some point once you go deep into the GNU/Linux rabbit hole you'll eventually deve your own workflow which might not be similar to the distro's defaults.
... Whatever happens, happens.
There are times I would like to go the "linux from scratch" approach, however I doubt if something went seriously wrong or if I got too deep
in it, I wouldn't finish the process. Although if things go smoothly,
I would try it again to see if i could streamline the process (and
learn even more)
I'm sorry! Yeah, it's quite a balance to not lose context and have a wall of text when the conversation has been going on for a while. I'll be more mindful from now on. :-)
Vk3jed wrote to Dennisk <=-
On 08-07-20 20:39, Dennisk wrote to Vk3jed <=-
Which distro? Distro's update the included software, but some have
older versions. Debian for example will usually hold older versions of software because they update theirs less frequently. I like Debian,
but I found when I tried it the age of the software was occasionally a problem, especially with youtube-dl which I use a lot.
Yes, Debian often has older versions, if you use stable. I installed
my own Firefox on Mint, IIRC.
A better option is to use a distro that keeps modern, such as Fedora.
I use Fedora and the versions of software included is new enough to not
be a problem.
I found the rapid release cycle and planned obolescence of Fedora a
pain, but it is a solid distro.
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-
Maybe it matters more for new users, the distro's defaults.
Oh certainly, I think the defaults are really more for the new users at some point once you go deep into the GNU/Linux rabbit hole you'll eventually develop your own workflow which might not be similar to the distro's defaults.
Red Hat or Fedora has something called a "kixstart" file or something
like that, which would have all the config options for a new install,
or most of them. Better than multiple spins. You could download the distro intaller, and then the config you want, then simply load the
config you want at install.
One spin, multiple outcomes.
Oh, that's interesting. That's quite similar to what Guix is doing with their config.scm file on install. You can basically dictate how the
system would install and configured, this includes all the user
settings and such, in a simple file in the system. I even saw a very
lean config file somewhere that installs nothing but the essentials.
That might be something that would interest you.
Vk3jed wrote to Gamgee <=-
On 08-07-20 18:51, Gamgee wrote to Moondog <=-
Re Linux from Scratch
I've done it a couple of times, but for me at least, the end
result is not really worth the effort expended to get there. It
is a nice learning experience which helps you understand the
"guts" of Linux, especially the boot process and compiling
software.
Learning is probably the only reason I'd do it. Maybe if we get a
stage 4 lockdown here, I may have to amuse myself that way. :)
There are times I would like to go the "linux from scratch"
approach, however I doubt if something went seriously wrong or if
I got too deep in it, I wouldn't finish the process. Although if
things go smoothly, I would try it again to see if i could
streamline the process (and learn even more)
It's not real difficult - the instructions are pretty much
step-by-step and all inclusive. Quite tedious after a while, and
you end up with a bootable but not really useable system until you continue with adding everything you need (with BLFS for example).
I've done it a couple of times, but for me at least, the end
result is not really worth the effort expended to get there. It
is a nice learning experience which helps you understand the
"guts" of Linux, especially the boot process and compiling
software.
DaiTengu wrote to Gamgee <=-
Re: Re: Linux
By: Gamgee to Moondog on Fri Aug 07 2020 06:51 pm
There are times I would like to go the "linux from scratch"
approach, however I doubt if something went seriously wrong or if
I got too deep in it, I wouldn't finish the process. Although if
things go smoothly, I would try it again to see if i could
streamline the process (and learn even more)
It's not real difficult - the instructions are pretty much
step-by-step and all inclusive. Quite tedious after a while, and
you end up with a bootable but not really useable system until you continue with adding everything you need (with BLFS for example).
I've done it a couple of times, but for me at least, the end
result is not really worth the effort expended to get there. It
is a nice learning experience which helps you understand the
"guts" of Linux, especially the boot process and compiling
software.
running Gentoo taught me more about Linux than any other distro
ever did. Granted, back when I first started, I was bootstrapping
with stage 1, and now it just installs a base system that you
eventually recompile after modifying your use flags and tweaking
your compiler settings.
I currently have a gentoo install that's about 6 years old, it's
gone through 2 different CPUs and 3 different motherboards. It
still runs great.
It's definitely frustrating though when you get upgrading
conflicts, but luckilly the gentoo forums hold of wealth of
information on solving just about any issue you run into.
Package manager-wise, some argue that apt lacks features that pacman has, but you might have to look it up if it applies to your use case Portage is source based and I really like fiddling with USE flags an stuff and the excitement of building software that are just slightly optimized for your hardware just don't lose their charm (0.5 sec fas boot time, aww yeah :-P). XBPS is much more leaner and simpler from "user maintaing the system" standpoint.
I find XBPS and runit to be just right for me. It's powerful, simple and fast.
OK, that is what I thought it would be. I'm a tinkerer, so the "default" is only what lasts that 5 minutes until I switch to the GU shell and personalisation I want to use, and install the standard software I consider essential for my system. Anytime I've set up a Linux machine (which isn't that often), that is the first thing I do Last time I installed Linux on a netbook, I ended up just copying mo of my config from my main machines home directy, used the same Windo Manager (FVWM) with almost the same configuration, and installed the same software that I use day to day, or occasionally need.
Yeah, if that's the case a more minimal install would be more apt for you had this period of time that minimal distros scared the crap out of me an would rather just go through Ubuntu, install all my stuff there are remov of the other unnecessary stuff that I didn't need. It's quite silly actua now that I think about it. But yeah, since you have your own workflow jiv would probably better if you have a minimal install since then you'll jus adding stuff into it.
Maybe it matters more for new users, the distro's defaults.
Oh certainly, I think the defaults are really more for the new users at s point once you go deep into the GNU/Linux rabbit hole you'll eventually d your own workflow which might not be similar to the distro's defaults.
... Whatever happens, happens.
There are times I would like to go the "linux from scratch" approach, however I doubt if something went seriously wrong or if I got too deep in it, I wouldn't finish the process. Although if things go smoothly, I would try it again to see if i could streamline the process (and learn even more)
Oh man, I'm also tempted to do that as well but I guess I still don't have t balls (and the patience) to spend an afternoon (or even more) trying to diagnose issues when configuring and compiling everything manually as to compared to something like using portage. Even portage can be quite a challe if you're not prepared for it, which I was certainly am when I first install gentoo, haha! :-)
... 300 baud makes you wanna get out and shoot it.
On 08-08-20 21:41, Dennisk wrote to Vk3jed <=-
I found that a pain in Fedora too, so much so, that at times I was
looking at moving away to avoid having to update all the time.
But I've gotten used to the updates, and the updates from version to version aren't that significant. It is almost like a rolling disto.
So I stayed.
On 08-08-20 22:14, Dennisk wrote to Vk3jed <=-
If you are wanting to learn how to make a distro, it is useful. But if you want to learn Linux, and have time, I think it is much better to
learn BASH scripting or better yet, the Unix toolset, awk, sed, cut,
grep, and others, maybe groff as well. With this knowledge, you'd be
able to create new and novel solutions. Or you can learn more
customisation, editing existing scripts, or learning to configure FVWM.
Vk3jed wrote to Dennisk <=-
On 08-08-20 21:41, Dennisk wrote to Vk3jed <=-
I found that a pain in Fedora too, so much so, that at times I was
looking at moving away to avoid having to update all the time.
But I've gotten used to the updates, and the updates from version to version aren't that significant. It is almost like a rolling disto.
So I stayed.
Interesting, how do you manage that? That could be a useful way to
treat Fedora.
Andeddu wrote to Arelor <=-
I absolutely maintain that iOS and Android are killing Windows. I am
not sure if Windows are as dominant as they used to be in the corporate world, but they're taking losses everywhere else. Their Windows Phone
OS bombed hard, and I am glad of it.
Underminer wrote to Andeddu <=-
Windows is stable. That's a good one. It's better than previous
offerings in some cases, but much much worse in others, for one You
still measure stable uptime on most Windows systems in hours, sometimes days, past that you still start to get increasingly weird problems.
That's fine for playing games, which I understand is your priority, but when you start dealing with production or productivity environments
it's laughably horrible.
Then there's the frequency with which auto
updates, which you have very very little control over, have a bad
tendency to either require and auto reboot systems, or break critical functionality until a reboot - and they can't even manage to leave user settings alone without wiping them out half the time.
Once again, fine
for gaming, but the frequency with which I get frantic calls from
clients who have had a mission critical system or functionality break during work hours because of an unavoidable update or other random
event is higher than it has been since Vista.
I currently have a gentoo install that's about 6 years old, it's
gone through 2 different CPUs and 3 different motherboards. It
still runs great.
Nice. One of the joys of running Linux. It just........ works.
It's definitely frustrating though when you get upgrading
conflicts, but luckilly the gentoo forums hold of wealth of
information on solving just about any issue you run into.
Yes, they are well-regarded sources of info, even by others who
don't use Gentoo. I have referred to those forums quite a few
times over the years.
Glad to hear there are still some who use it - it has lost favor
compared to years ago when everything was new, but that doesn't
mean it isn't good. I know that well, being a Slackware user.
The corporate world is hardcore Intel, Windows and Azure and
Microsoft 365. They're doing just fine.
poindexter FORTRAN wrote to Underminer <=-
Underminer wrote to Andeddu <=-
Windows is stable. That's a good one. It's better than previous
offerings in some cases, but much much worse in others, for one You
still measure stable uptime on most Windows systems in hours, sometimes days, past that you still start to get increasingly weird problems.
I haven't had to schedule production maintenance windows around a
reboot
schedule in 10 years.
That's fine for playing games, which I understand is your priority, but when you start dealing with production or productivity environments
it's laughably horrible.
Nope, it works.
Then there's the frequency with which auto
updates, which you have very very little control over, have a bad
tendency to either require and auto reboot systems, or break critical functionality until a reboot - and they can't even manage to leave user settings alone without wiping them out half the time.
In corporate environments you're testing patches and pushing them out
using WSUS or a similar management platform - especially on your
server environment. Or, you've paid for a platform like Ivanti, which
manages office, windows and 3rd party patches with one platform.
Once again, fine
for gaming, but the frequency with which I get frantic calls from
clients who have had a mission critical system or functionality break during work hours because of an unavoidable update or other random
event is higher than it has been since Vista.
If you're on a domain, I could imagine a SMB IT Manager setting up
via group policy a group of test machines to receive patches first,
then set the rest of the systems to download only. As an IT manager,
you patch on Tuesday, test on Wednesday, and tell everyone to patch
on Thursday.
I'd claim that those issues plague SMBs more than enterprise, and
Microsoft has a gap there. They need to look at a solution for small
businesses to better manage their patching, but I could imagine they
look at it as it's better to crash a few boxes than to let a few
million miss a critical patch.
Now, I could imagine them pushing Azure cloud services as a solution
instead of patch management. It's a shame, I made a good deal of
money selling Small Business Server back in the 2000s. It's a nice
little package for small offices.
Nope, it works.
I use Windows 10 at work, company supplied machine, and I've never seen an update happen. They must happen, because occasionally the software change slightly, but it seems to be in the background.
Like I say, if you just want to play games fine, it will work well enough for that. If you need to do anything resembling real work you either need to do a lot of self learning and setup, or be willing to spend $$ to have someone else do it for you.
Meanwhile, you take a system running a stable distro of Linux and it will run just as stable and happy as a stand alone system, part of a network, or anything else you want to do with it.
Dealing with Windows on an idividual or smb basis makes me want to boot things out the window far too often.
why is windows so hard for you? they designed it so even idiots wont have problems with it. ---
Nice. One of the joys of running Linux. It just........ works.Most of the time. I remember trying to install Arch once a few years back on a laptop, and that just didn't go well for me.
On 08-09-20 22:01, Dennisk wrote to Vk3jed <=-
My desktop was a Fedora 17 or so install, that has been continuously updated to Fedora 31, and due for one now. Most of the time, the
update just means minor updates to versions. KDE 4 to KDE 5 was the
only "breaking" change, and that was years ago.
I use Windows 10 at work, company supplied machine, and I've never seen an update happen. They must happen, because occasionally the software change slightly, but it seems to be in the background.
MRO wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: Linux
By: Dennisk to poindexter FORTRAN on Mon Aug 10 2020 09:29 am
I use Windows 10 at work, company supplied machine, and I've never seen an update happen. They must happen, because occasionally the software change slightly, but it seems to be in the background.
Vk3jed wrote to Dennisk <=-
On 08-09-20 22:01, Dennisk wrote to Vk3jed <=-
My desktop was a Fedora 17 or so install, that has been continuously updated to Fedora 31, and due for one now. Most of the time, the
update just means minor updates to versions. KDE 4 to KDE 5 was the
only "breaking" change, and that was years ago.
Sounds good, but the key detail is what's the process for such updating
to create the effective "rolling distro"?
MRO wrote to Underminer <=-
Re: Re: Linux
By: Underminer to poindexter FORTRAN on Sun Aug 09 2020 03:25 pm
Like I say, if you just want to play games fine, it will work well enough for that. If you need to do anything resembling real work you either need to do a lot of self learning and setup, or be willing to spend $$ to have someone else do it for you.
Meanwhile, you take a system running a stable distro of Linux and it will run just as stable and happy as a stand alone system, part of a network, or anything else you want to do with it.
Dealing with Windows on an idividual or smb basis makes me want to boot things out the window far too often.
why is windows so hard for you? they designed it so even idiots wont
have problems with it. ---
Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-
Maybe it matters more for new users, the distro's defaults.
Oh certainly, I think the defaults are really more for the new users at some point once you go deep into the GNU/Linux rabbit hole you'll eventually develop your own workflow which might not be similar to the distro's defaults.
Red Hat or Fedora has something called a "kixstart" file or something
like that, which would have all the config options for a new install,
or most of them. Better than multiple spins. You could download the distro intaller, and then the config you want, then simply load the
config you want at install.
One spin, multiple outcomes.
Oh, that's interesting. That's quite similar to what Guix is doing with their config.scm file on install. You can basically dictate how the
system would install and configured, this includes all the user
settings and such, in a simple file in the system. I even saw a very
lean config file somewhere that installs nothing but the essentials.
That might be something that would interest you.
It's quite likely that its already been done, or thought of. I think
it is a better solution than multiple spins, or spin-off distros.
Simpler and less confusing.
... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
= Synchronet = End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com
Slackware was my first distro back in the mid 90's. I remember starting a kernel compile, and having to let it run overnig
Slackware is the base system that my NAS runs on, using a system called "UnRAID". So I still get to tinker with it from time
time. :)
Re: Re: Linux
By: poindexter FORTRAN to Andeddu on Wed Aug 05 2020 06:56 am
The corporate world is hardcore Intel, Windows and Azure and
Microsoft 365. They're doing just fine.
Microsoft's Windows is the default. When the average Joe purchases a computer, it's pre-installed with Windows. Whether they
switch to Linux or another OS is hardly relevant as Microsoft have made their money. I am not aware of too many folk who bui
their own machines with the intent of bypassing the requirement of a Windows license.
Re: Re: Linux
By: Underminer to poindexter FORTRAN on Sun Aug 09 2020 03:25 pm
Like I say, if you just want to play games fine, it will work well enough for that. If you need to do anything resembli
real work you either need to do a lot of self learning and setup, or be willing to spend $$ to have someone else do it
you.
Meanwhile, you take a system running a stable distro of Linux and it will run just as stable and happy as a stand alone
system, part of a network, or anything else you want to do with it.
Dealing with Windows on an idividual or smb basis makes me want to boot things out the window far too often.
why is windows so hard for you? they designed it so even idiots wont have problems with it.
Microsoft does not make the bulk of their money from selling you a software license. They don't give a damn if you pirate the
hell out of it. They want you to use Microsoft Office, pirated or not, because that way they ensure the dominant document
format in the IT ecosystem is one they control. Then they can charge multiple kilobucks to enterprise customers if they want to
do fancy stuff with that format.
Or patent troll you, or whatever.
I don't build my own machines with the intention of screwing Microsoft, but I certainly build them from used components or buy
used ones because that is so much more cost effective. Running Linux or OpenBSD on top of them certainly prevents a MS Windows
sale.
Windows updates often run on their own unless your company has set up an U Server. Those give your Systems Administrator (or team) the ability to scr d install updates based on their schedule instead of Redmond's.
why is windows so hard for you? they designed it so even idiots wont
have problems with it. ---
It's not "hard," it's needlessly aggravating. It's like... imagine if you had a car where you had to walk around and unlock all the doors before any would open, and 90% of the cars on the market worked like that, then you get a car that has remote start and try to explain to people that the "normal" way of doing things is broken and there's a much better system out there, but all you get back is that walking around to all 4 doors and putting your key in works just fine, and they ask why it's so hard for you.... it isn't, but it's stupid.
MRO wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: Linux
By: Dennisk to poindexter FORTRAN on Mon Aug 10 2020 09:29 am
I use Windows 10 at work, company supplied machine, and I've never
seen an update happen. They must happen, because occasionally the
software change slightly, but it seems to be in the background.
I shut down my machine at the end of the day. Must be during the day. Or maybe Windows doesn't get updates at all.
boot things out the window far too often.
why is windows so hard for you? they designed it so even idiots wont
have problems with it. ---
Idiots may not have problems with it, but anyone who isn't one, will.
Andeddu wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
Microsoft's Windows is the default. When the average Joe purchases a computer, it's pre-installed with Windows. Whether they switch to Linux
or another OS is hardly relevant as Microsoft have made their money. I
am not aware of too many folk who build their own machines with the
intent of bypassing the requirement of a Windows license.
why is windows so hard for you? they designed it so even idiots wont
have problems with it.
Make a program that a fool could use, and only a fool will want to use it.
For us the biggest advantage (other than being able to control what gets updated when) is having one server reaching out to the internet to download the updates. Then all of our servers & workstations can download from that one server, saving on bandwidth and speeding up installations.
i use windows and linux in harmony. i dont really see why you get aggrivated by windows.
maybe there are some 3rd party programs you could use to tweak it to your liking. ---
MRO wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: Linux
By: Dennisk to MRO on Mon Aug 10 2020 08:50 pm
boot things out the window far too often.
why is windows so hard for you? they designed it so even idiots wont
have problems with it. ---
Idiots may not have problems with it, but anyone who isn't one, will.
if someone is smart enough, they will be smart enough not to have problems. ---
i use windows and linux in harmony. i dont really see why you get
aggrivated by windows.
I deal with and support this junk all day, so I have a very low tolerance left for annoyances with it for my own usage. Likewise, decades of deskside support, depot work, and IT consulting have bombarded me with the multitude of really stupid ways Windows environments can fail. Linux isn't immune to that, but I find it easier to avoid. If you prefer Windows, by all means use it.
if someone is smart enough, they will be smart enough not to have
problems. ---
I don't think it works quite like that. Some people are too smart, and end up creating problems they didn't need to.
Andeddu wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
Microsoft's Windows is the default. When the average Joe purchases a computer, it's pre-installed with Windows. Whether they switch to Linux or another OS is hardly relevant as Microsoft have made their money. I am not aware of too many folk who build their own machines with the intent of bypassing the requirement of a Windows license.
Back in the day, people used to request a Windows refund from
Microsoft, it made the news back in the '90s.
... Be extravagant
Back in the day, people used to request a Windows refund from
Microsoft, it made the news back in the '90s.
Do you know if they were successful in obtaining a refund? I reckon it's a hard one to argue as they'd have purchased the computer with Window's pre-installed... surely that's an admission that they were happy with the transaction at the time?
Re: Re: Linux
By: poindexter FORTRAN to Andeddu on Mon Aug 10 2020 06:35 pm
Back in the day, people used to request a Windows refund from
Microsoft, it made the news back in the '90s.
Do you know if they were successful in obtaining a refund? I reckon it's a hard one to argue as they'd have purchased the computer with Window's pre-installed... sure
that's an admission that they were happy with the transaction at the time?
On 08-10-20 20:46, Dennisk wrote to Vk3jed <=-
I think the key detail is that the difference between an up to date
Fedora 31, and the Fedora 32 release, is most of the time not that significant. So even though you still make the "leap" from Fedora 31
to 32 then to 33, etc, that "leap" is actually a small step.
Vk3jed wrote to Dennisk <=-
On 08-10-20 20:46, Dennisk wrote to Vk3jed <=-
I think the key detail is that the difference between an up to date
Fedora 31, and the Fedora 32 release, is most of the time not that significant. So even though you still make the "leap" from Fedora 31
to 32 then to 33, etc, that "leap" is actually a small step.
That's not a helpful practical detail, just a statement of what appears
to be fact. I'm more interested in the process used. I know how
Debian is upgraded, and I don't know what other distros can be successfully upgraded in a similar way.
Andeddu wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
Do you know if they were successful in obtaining a refund? I reckon
it's a hard one to argue as they'd have purchased the computer with Window's pre-installed... surely that's an admission that they were
happy with the transaction at the time?
The argument was based on the MS TOS that stated you could get a refund. However Microsoft required the OEM Vendors to provide the refund, so nobody received one from Microsoft. It did however do a good job at promoting Free Software concerns.
Re: Re: Linux
By: poindexter FORTRAN to Andeddu on Mon Aug 10 2020 06:35 pm
Back in the day, people used to request a Windows refund from
Microsoft, it made the news back in the '90s.
Do you know if they were successful in obtaining a refund? I reckon it's a hard one to argue as they'd have purchased the computer with Window's pre-installed... surely that's an admission that they were happy with the transaction at the time?
On 08-12-20 21:25, Dennisk wrote to Vk3jed <=-
Fedora is updated in a very similar way to Debian. DNF is Fedora's equivalent of APT. You use DNF to do a system upgrade, by passing a system-upgrade flag and the version you want to upgrade to.
Dennisk wrote to MRO <=-
MRO wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: Linux
By: Dennisk to MRO on Mon Aug 10 2020 08:50 pm
boot things out the window far too often.
why is windows so hard for you? they designed it so even idiots wont
have problems with it. ---
Idiots may not have problems with it, but anyone who isn't one, will.
if someone is smart enough, they will be smart enough not to have problems. ---
I don't think it works quite like that. Some people are too smart, and end up creating problems they didn't need to.
Vk3jed wrote to Dennisk <=-
On 08-12-20 21:25, Dennisk wrote to Vk3jed <=-
Fedora is updated in a very similar way to Debian. DNF is Fedora's equivalent of APT. You use DNF to do a system upgrade, by passing a system-upgrade flag and the version you want to upgrade to.
Oh, OK, so they've gone away from YUM? Not sure I like the sound of "DNF", in my game it means "Did Not Finish". ;)
Anyway, that makes sense, and that would make Fedora a more interesting proposition.
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
Dennisk wrote to MRO <=-
MRO wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: Linux
By: Dennisk to MRO on Mon Aug 10 2020 08:50 pm
boot things out the window far too often.
why is windows so hard for you? they designed it so even idiots wont
have problems with it. ---
Idiots may not have problems with it, but anyone who isn't one, will.
if someone is smart enough, they will be smart enough not to have problems. ---
I don't think it works quite like that. Some people are too smart, and end up creating problems they didn't need to.
Yeah, I remember years ago when I really wanted to customize the crap
out of the Windows 7 box, with all those custom aero stuff and
aesthetic stuff that only a nerd teenager would care about. I went into
a dive of modifying system files to the point of breaking my system
just because I wanted to change the way it works. Then, I found
GNU/Linux and it blew my mind how I can actually build a custom system from the ground up instead of stripping one away and making it custom (though still not quite).
On 08-14-20 09:49, Dennisk wrote to Vk3jed <=-
Yes, they moved away from Yum years ago. IIRC, DNF is native code, Yum was python, so DNF is a bit faster. DNF was pretty much a drop in replacement for Yum.
I only use Fedora because my first distro was a Red Hat based one (Definite Linux 7.0) , then I moved to Red Hat (I think 6.2? 7.0?). I stuck with what I know, and Fedora has the packages that I'm used to having installed on my system.
Vk3jed wrote to Dennisk <=-
On 08-14-20 09:49, Dennisk wrote to Vk3jed <=-
Yes, they moved away from Yum years ago. IIRC, DNF is native code, Yum was python, so DNF is a bit faster. DNF was pretty much a drop in replacement for Yum.
Ahh OK, cool. So won't be an issue to learn, I am still familiar with yum. :)
I only use Fedora because my first distro was a Red Hat based one (Definite Linux 7.0) , then I moved to Red Hat (I think 6.2? 7.0?). I stuck with what I know, and Fedora has the packages that I'm used to having installed on my system.
I started with Ygdrasil(sp?), then Slackware, then moved to Red Hat for
a number of years, but in recent years (last 10 or so), I've drifted across to Debian style distros. :)
A rolling Fedora distro does sound like not a bad way to go.
If you ever are wanting Arch again, google ARCHFI and use that script to do the installation... it guides you thru install; you don't have to know the inner workings of linux to get wifi and other essentials going.
However, I suggest that people use Archfi once and then go back and learn the linuxy stuff... its great knowledge to have, if you ever have to dig in on other systems some day.
Sadly,Slackware has been losing ground to OpenBSD in my networks since Patrick has such bad communication issues. The current -stable release of Slackware is getting a bit outdated for some tasks and I find myself upgrading those boxes to OpenBSD -release. Slackware development is very active - changelogs scrolling blazing fast - but we don't get a picture of that the release goals are and what we can expect.
s windows so hard for you? they designed it so even idiots wont
have problems with it.
Make a program that a fool could use, and only a fool will want to use it.
Re: Re: Linux
By: Arelor to DaiTengu on Mon Aug 10 2020 07:38 am
Sadly,Slackware has been losing ground to OpenBSD in my networks since Patrick has such bad communication issues. The current -stable release of Slackware is
getting a bit outdated for some tasks and I find myself upgrading those boxes to OpenBSD -release. Slackware development is very active - changelogs scrolling
blazing fast - but we don't get a picture of that the release goals are and what we can expect.
Roadmaps are nice to have, especially with huge open source projects like distros. It sounds like they just don't quite have a "big picture" group as to where they
want to go.
The only machine I run any kind of *BSD on here is my pfSense router. I haven't used it in any production environment in about a decade.
My go-to choice for any kind of production server is CentOS. It's stable, and that's often what I need.
DaiTengu
... I can't promise anything but I can promise 100%.
Heh, just a word of warning. It looks like IBM is doing IBM things and started quietly outsourcing what Red Hat's team used to do to India. So much for their promises of letting Red Hat be the same it always was...
On 08-14-20 22:25, Dennisk wrote to Vk3jed <=-
There were some differences with the API, and how it works internally,
but from the POV of a user, its almost exactly the same. You likely
won't have to do anything different except type "dnf" where you used to type "yum".
A rolling Fedora distro does sound like not a bad way to go.
Stick with what works for you. I don't feel the need to evangelise any particular distro, but if you do want to remain up to date, Fedora is great in that regard.
Yeah, the primary determinant of what distro I use is the use case. A lot of software is easier to work with under one distro or another. Some particularly tricky to compile (usually because of a myriad of
Much amateur software these days tends to favour Debian based systems, and that's the primary reason I run mostly Debian or variants. There was a time when Red Hat/CentOS were the preferred distros.
Vk3jed wrote to Dennisk <=-
On 08-14-20 22:25, Dennisk wrote to Vk3jed <=-
There were some differences with the API, and how it works internally,
but from the POV of a user, its almost exactly the same. You likely
won't have to do anything different except type "dnf" where you used to type "yum".
So it's dead simple to switch to Dnf. :D
A rolling Fedora distro does sound like not a bad way to go.
Stick with what works for you. I don't feel the need to evangelise any particular distro, but if you do want to remain up to date, Fedora is great in that regard.
Yeah, the primary determinant of what distro I use is the use case. A
lot of software is easier to work with under one distro or another.
Some particularly tricky to compile (usually because of a myriad of dependencies from multiple non standard sources) may be available precompiled for a particular distro, or dependencies may be easier to satisfy on certsin distros.
Much amateur software these days tends to favour Debian based systems,
and that's the primary reason I run mostly Debian or variants. There
was a time when Red Hat/CentOS were the preferred distros.
Linux is literally my day job. :)
I'm a sysadmin for a large adtech company. I manage about 2000
physical server s and a couple hundred virtual ones.
dealing with Linux all day really has
killed my desire to ti nker with it in my free time. :)
On 08-16-20 13:28, Underminer wrote to Vk3jed <=-
that's the primary reason I run mostly Debian or variants. There was a time when Red Hat/CentOS were the preferred distros.
Yeah, if there's a package available there's going to be a .deb. The
AUR is super nice in Arch though. ---
On 08-17-20 08:59, Dennisk wrote to Vk3jed <=-
From yum? Yes. If you know yum, you know dnf.
I tend to find that there are sometimes .deb's where there aren't
.rpms. Not often, but it does happen. Typically with software
packaged by the software creator. On occasion, I've found a .deb, but
no .rpm.
Not a deal breaker, as its rare, but .deb system have a slight
advantage there, and is probably the one factor which pushes me toward Debian.
Being able to compile the kernel, and choose what goes into it was something that surprised me. It was one of the first things I tried to customise! (After
selecting the window manager I wanted). I borked the system a few times, but my compiled kernel did run faster and leaner. I mostly customize the GUI (I use FVWM, which allows for some heavy customisation, more than any other WM I've used), the shell, streamlining things, and changing some niggly defaults that don't suit me and adding things I think are missing (like a shutdown/reboot button) on the XDM login screen, disabling pulseaudio, adding the -CK kernel patch, adding scripts, etc, occasionally using my own copy of a
binary instead of the distro one (I try to avoid this, because its a headache during updates).
It's been some time since I tried to play with Arch, I keep meaning to go back to it, but honestly, dealing with Linux all day really has killed my desire to tinker with it in my free time. :)
Vk3jed wrote to Dennisk <=-
On 08-17-20 08:59, Dennisk wrote to Vk3jed <=-
From yum? Yes. If you know yum, you know dnf.
Cool, of course, I could even do:
ln -s dnf yum
from the directory dnf resides in.
I tend to find that there are sometimes .deb's where there aren't
.rpms. Not often, but it does happen. Typically with software
packaged by the software creator. On occasion, I've found a .deb, but
no .rpm.
I even have software that not only had a .deb, but a complete apt repository, and some that are quite distribution specific - I had to
use Debian 9 to successfully install the AllStarLink RoIP system. The .debs would install on other distros like Ubuntu 18.04, but the source
for Dahdi (the drivers) wouldn't compile on Ubuntu.
Not a deal breaker, as its rare, but .deb system have a slight
advantage there, and is probably the one factor which pushes me toward Debian.
Yeah, the availability of apt repos and version specificity has
definitely kept me in the Debian camp in recent years.
On 08-17-20 21:59, Dennisk wrote to Vk3jed <=-
I just found that I stil have yum installed!
Yeah, the availability of apt repos and version specificity has
definitely kept me in the Debian camp in recent years.
Perhaps not worth moving on for you then?
Vk3jed wrote to Dennisk <=-
On 08-17-20 21:59, Dennisk wrote to Vk3jed <=-
I just found that I stil have yum installed!
Haha is it actual yum or a symlink to dnf?
Yeah, the availability of apt repos and version specificity has
definitely kept me in the Debian camp in recent years.
Perhaps not worth moving on for you then?
At this time, no, but if there's something I intend to use heavily that requires Red Hat/Fedora, or at least strongly prefers a RH flavoured distro, then I will seriously consider Fedora over CentOS.
On 08-18-20 21:15, Dennisk wrote to Vk3jed <=-
Haha is it actual yum or a symlink to dnf?
It's a symlink to dnf!
At this time, no, but if there's something I intend to use heavily that requires Red Hat/Fedora, or at least strongly prefers a RH flavoured distro, then I will seriously consider Fedora over CentOS.
Cool. If any questions, let me know.
Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
Dennisk wrote to MRO <=-
MRO wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: Linux
By: Dennisk to MRO on Mon Aug 10 2020 08:50 pm
boot things out the window far too often.
why is windows so hard for you? they designed it so even idiots wont
have problems with it. ---
Idiots may not have problems with it, but anyone who isn't one, will.
if someone is smart enough, they will be smart enough not to have problems. ---
I don't think it works quite like that. Some people are too smart, and end up creating problems they didn't need to.
Yeah, I remember years ago when I really wanted to customize the crap
out of the Windows 7 box, with all those custom aero stuff and
aesthetic stuff that only a nerd teenager would care about. I went into
a dive of modifying system files to the point of breaking my system
just because I wanted to change the way it works. Then, I found
GNU/Linux and it blew my mind how I can actually build a custom system from the ground up instead of stripping one away and making it custom (though still not quite).
Being able to compile the kernel, and choose what goes into it was something that surprised me. It was one of the first things I tried to customise! (After selecting the window manager I wanted). I borked the system a few times, but my compiled kernel did run faster and leaner.
I mostly customize the GUI (I use FVWM, which allows for some heavy customisation, more than any other WM I've used), the shell,
streamlining things, and changing some niggly defaults that don't suit
me and adding things I think are missing (like a shutdown/reboot
button) on the XDM login screen, disabling pulseaudio, adding the -CK kernel patch, adding scripts, etc,
occasionally using my own copy of a binary instead of the distro one
(I try to avoid this, because its a headache during updates).
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
Dennisk wrote to MRO <=-
MRO wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: Linux
By: Dennisk to MRO on Mon Aug 10 2020 08:50 pm
boot things out the window far too often.
why is windows so hard for you? they designed it so even idiots wont
have problems with it. ---
Idiots may not have problems with it, but anyone who isn't one, will.
if someone is smart enough, they will be smart enough not to have problems. ---
I don't think it works quite like that. Some people are too smart, and end up creating problems they didn't need to.
Yeah, I remember years ago when I really wanted to customize the crap
out of the Windows 7 box, with all those custom aero stuff and
aesthetic stuff that only a nerd teenager would care about. I went into
a dive of modifying system files to the point of breaking my system
just because I wanted to change the way it works. Then, I found
GNU/Linux and it blew my mind how I can actually build a custom system from the ground up instead of stripping one away and making it custom (though still not quite).
Being able to compile the kernel, and choose what goes into it was something that surprised me. It was one of the first things I tried to customise! (After selecting the window manager I wanted). I borked the system a few times, but my compiled kernel did run faster and leaner.
I mostly customize the GUI (I use FVWM, which allows for some heavy customisation, more than any other WM I've used), the shell,
streamlining things, and changing some niggly defaults that don't suit
me and adding things I think are missing (like a shutdown/reboot
button) on the XDM login screen, disabling pulseaudio, adding the -CK kernel patch, adding scripts, etc,
Oh yes. What a thrill doing something like that is. A few months ago I dived head-first into Gentoo and suddenly a whole world of
customization was opened to me. I never imagined how these small tweaks would actually be beneficial on the long run but it did. Sadly, the
amount of time compiling packages really took a toll on me, haha! And I feel like I'm not yet smart enough to deal with stuff or maybe I'm just lazy to give up a weekend to just learn the stuff.
Right now I've pretty much integrated my whole setup around using bspwm and terminal applications. It's surprising to me actually how little
that I need to have to be able to use my computer productively (or not, haha!). Most of the time I'm just writing stuff and that's done through vim and I either compile it to LaTeX or groff. Other than that, most of the stuff that I have are scripts that I wrote to manage the system's functions like using dmenu as a power menu, display menu, mount menu,
etc. I think right now the only thing that I'm missing is the ability
to do spreadsheets, and while libreoffice does that I would like to do spreadsheets in the commandline.
occasionally using my own copy of a binary instead of the distro one
(I try to avoid this, because its a headache during updates).
Oh man. It IS a pain.
| Sysop: | deepend |
|---|---|
| Location: | Calgary, Alberta |
| Users: | 266 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 82:40:02 |
| Calls: | 2,108 |
| Files: | 4,484 |
| D/L today: |
9 files (12,968K bytes) |
| Messages: | 414,141 |