Something people continue to miss is that Linux _has_ been adopted
en mass. Most people probably have at least one Linux device at
home, often without even realizing it.
Efforts to take Linux mainstream are misguided. Ferrari sells cars precisely because they DON'T compete with Toyota, Nissan and Mazda. Th understand their market. Linux devs seem to not understand their marke They seem to think it more important that "mom" uses it, than those tha actually want the freedom and technical capabilities it provides.
I agree that trying to turn a given tool into something it isn't is most often a bad idea. You see this with many non-technological products: they have a small loyal userbase, and they change the product to attract a different sort of user. The end result is that the old users get angry
and the new users don't like the modified product anyway.
People who likes Windows is going to use Windows. There is no way Linux can be a better Windows than Windows. What Linux can do is to become a better Linux.
I like the smaller BSD projects because they don't want to be something else. They want to be BSDs and to hell with everything else. Sometimes
it is hard because some FOSS program starts depending on Linuxisms, but the BSD position is that if some FOSS program becomes Linux-only and
won't accept patches to run on any other system, it is better to give it the boot than to try to make the BSD into a Linux copycat full of Linuxisms just so third party software can run.
This is just wrong.
The value of Linux is that it's a highly configurable kernel
that can run just about everywhere and drive just about any
hardware you may care to throw at it. It's used everywhere
from the world's fastest supercomputers to cell phones and
thermostats. It presents a highly capable kernel interface
that provides useful services to user-space programs; it can
be parameterized with a number of filesystems, schedulers,
memory management policies, etc. In other words, it is a
flexible toolkit for building useful things.
People lose sight of the idea that computers are tools. For
most people that means using them to do useful work. When
those tools are overly complex, users are inhibited from doing
what they really want with the computer. Scientists working on
climate models aren't dumb; they just aren't interested in the
minutia of futzing with the computer. They'd rather just get
their HPC jobs running. And most of them could care less about
window managers and shells and garbage like that; they want to
visualize the results and not sweat the small stuff. Those use
cases are important, and claiming that efforts to make systems
more user-friendly are "dumbing down" computing are misguided at
best and frankly facile and reek of elitist snobbery.
Ferrari makes money on the margins; the others make it on volume.
The nifty thing about Linux is that it does both, though it's
imperfect.
Mom's have been using Linux on cell phones for a decade perfectly
capably, similarly with kids using Chromebooks and people who just
want to set the temperature in their home or watch a movie on an
airplane. Linux developers understand this very well.
They also understand that Linux actually runs on a small fraction
of the overall computer and that almost no one has the "freedom"
to actually see into the rest.
I feel this is a double edged sword. I would really like to see mass adoption, however I feel what stops many people is the sheer mass amount of options you have. Every distro claims to be the best one. Your average nerd will learn the differences and choose one they like. The average person will start reading and TLDR later decide to stick to windows. Linux can do so much of the day to day things better and for free, but windows can do everything and it just works. I would like to
see one of the top distros have an option that offers the look and feel
of the older windows systems labels that match XP, 7, and 10. This way people joining have a familiar place to start. As they learn more about it then customization will happen.
If you really want customization then arch lets you completely install
by hand. So you start out with a bootstrap and hand install every single item as you go. This will allow you to choose to not use a distro and hand build your system. There are tons of videos on youtube about this
if you are interested.
I would like to see Linux take out windows so the gamers and the
everyday user can come to Linux and all the hardworking open source
folks start to see greater fruits of their labor.
So aside from superficial customization of the user interface,
I'm not seeing what _most_ people are customizing. Most people
are not hacking the kernel. Most people aren't hacking the
services that start when the machine boots. Most are just
playing around with userspace stuff, which is fine, but pretty
mellow.
I'm not sure about that.. I think ease of use is always a good thing. Even if a Linux PC is used as a server, you'll have a better experience with it if it's easy to use and configure. I don't really see the value of making things difficult (at least, not purposefully).
What about Linux makes it not appropriate for mainstream use? To
compare, Mac OS X is based on a *NIX type OS (Darwin) but Apple has
added their user interface & things on top of it. Although Mac doesn't have the amount of marketshare that Windows does, they're still popular enough that I'd consider Mac OS X mainstream. I think Linux distros
that add a nice UI are similar.
For us nerds I totally get it. But for the average user that is customization to them. I get it once you have moved up the ladder and learned many of the awesome features and the true power of what Linux
can do, its really easy to become a gatekeeper. I would like to see
Linux have a higher rate of adoption in the desktop space. I do understand that Linux is already everywhere. What I would like to see is people choosing Linux for their desktop. I want to see developers
decide it is necessary to support it with all their software. Games
being direct for Linux instead of being wrapped in wine. Proton has
made leaps and bounds wrestling gamers away from windows.
Keep the momentum.
Re: Re: Windows vs Linux
By: Arelor to 2twisty on Wed Apr 20 2022 04:43 pm
I am not a fan of Mint, but I installed it on my mother's laptop and so
What don't you like about Linux Mint? And what distro do you prefer over Mi
Nightfox
Re: Re: Windows vs Linux
By: claw to Nightfox on Wed Apr 20 2022 08:01 pm
Agreed. I get if you love to run without a window manager how that wouldn't be ideal but if there is a decent GUI running then many averag users would have a much better experience in Linux. If you're not gamin installing apps is more like an app store on a phone which Linux had first. Most if not all the apps are free.
There are many free apps for Linux, but I feel like it's a trap to think mos apps for Linux will be free. A company could still charge money for a Linux version of their software for the same reasons they'd charge for it on other operating systems. Commmercially sold PC games (i.e. on Steam) is one examp (you still have to pay for a game on Linux).
Nightfox
One of the main reasons why people installs a Linux distribution on their desktop is because they like the idea of running mainly open-source
code, or better yet, GPL or BSD licensed code.
Warpslide wrote to 2twisty <=-
On 19 Apr 2022, 2twisty said the following...
I'd still be using Win7 if I could get security updates for it.
https://0patch.com
There is a free tier for personal use as well, but that doesn't get you all of the updates, just the bigger ones like Print Nightmare or Remote Potato0.
There are too many "choices" of distro, and most are unecessary. A lot of t difference is just in defaults, stylistic differences. The only difference that I think is significant, is package management, which having used both Debian and Fedora, isn't that much of a difference. Distros that are design to run very differently, such as Puppy Linux do offer something significantl different.
Arelor wrote to tenser <=-
When you talk about Linux, most people thinks of a Linux distribution
with a traditional GNU userland (or something that simulates it).
Arelor wrote to tenser <=-
When you talk about Linux, most people thinks of a Linux distribution with a traditional GNU userland (or something that simulates it).
Maybe we should start calling it Linux/GNU, in reference to the boot/running order of a Linux system? RMS, are you listening?
... Overtly resist change
Something people continue to miss is that Linux _has_ been adopted
en mass. Most people probably have at least one Linux device at home, often without even realizing it.
That's.... probably not correct. Sure there's plenty of devices with linux embedded but its not really the user system. It'll have a custom front end on it if its visible at all. You could say it has wide
industry adoption, but that is as much the fault of the likes of M$ writing dud systems as it is because they wanted linux in the first
place.
Lets say "GNU/Linux" then. Technically Linux is just the kernel, but
when it is referenced, it is in almost all contexts, references as the
OS, the Kernel, the GNU tools, X and other supporting software.
For people using a smartphone, it is irrelevant to them whether the
kernel is Linux or not. Thats for the millions of millions of "Linux" users, who could very will have the kernel swapped out for something
else, and not notice a difference. It is also irrelevent to people
using other "appliances". Maybe my router runs Linux, who knows. I
don't care, why would I?
For people who make a choice to use Linux for computing, they are not choosing the kernel, they are choosing the entire OS. They are choosing
a different GUI (or choice of GUI), package management, software repos, price. The kernel usually plays a small role (ability to use btrfs, stability).
If Linux was just Windows with a different kernel, I wouldn't have bothered.
Scientists (I studied science) just want to use their tools. Fortran is still used for climate modelling, many will use python, used for astronomy. Linux doesn't need futzing around. I just installed Fedora for my wife on a Thinkpad, and everything really does "just work".
Linux needs to remain viable, in that it needs to be used enough to justify investment. The investment is paid by usability moreso than sales.
They aren't aware they are using Linux, and they have no freedom,
really. Free software is about autonomy, the ability to mould and use
the software as you see fit, to create your own solutions, decide to
make things as you see fit. Freedom doesn't come from a license, it
comes from how the software is engineered, the documentation, its configurability.
So aside from superficial customization of the user interface,
I'm not seeing what _most_ people are customizing. Most people
are not hacking the kernel. Most people aren't hacking the
services that start when the machine boots. Most are just
playing around with userspace stuff, which is fine, but pretty
mellow.
So aside from superficial customization of the user interface,Actually, depending on the Window Manager, it is far more than Window Dressing. Some (such as the one I use, FVWM), have their own language, and you can script GUI actions. You can get it to build menus on the
I'm not seeing what _most_ people are customizing. Most people
are not hacking the kernel. Most people aren't hacking the
services that start when the machine boots. Most are just
playing around with userspace stuff, which is fine, but pretty mellow.
fly, any type of menu you can think of representing anything you want, updated each time it is created. You can do with the GUI what you can kind of do with a shell (ie, close all windows belonging to this group)
or (close all windows on this page). You can build basic graphical interfaces with it, or with a keypress, run a script which also opens, closes and moves windows.
Apple didn't just add their user interface, the system is locked so you can ONLY use their interface.
If you got a machine pre-installed with
Linux, as you would with Windows, it is good enough for mainstream use. My concern is the Linux community wanting to shut out options, incase users get confused. Changes to the underyling system which may make it harder for people to build their own UI's, or make existing choices obsolete, or incompatible.
Maybe we should start calling it Linux/GNU, in reference to the boot/running order of a Linux system? RMS, are you listening?
I think the boot loader kicks in before so it would be still GNU/Linux (since Grub is a GNU product).
I was one of the folks who compiled my own kernel many years ago and
who used Gentoo for some time.
But as I grew older (not neccessarily wiser...), I wanted the base of
my system to work, so I can concentrate on configuring the Look and
Feel of my system - that's why I'm using KDE (on KDE Neon).
Apple didn't just add their user interface, the system is locked so you bo>> can ONLY use their interface.
Hmm. I can start an X11 server in full-screen mode under
macOS and run whatever window manager I want in it.
I don't see it as a huge risk, but I can see potential for devs to decide that a walled garden approach is now needed to prevent people from say, installing 3rd party repos. I'm sure a "walled garden" would be something you could easily disable, but still...
I am not above installing a FOSS program that requires a paid subscription to operate but nowadays I think twice before I install closed software on the same machine.
that would be awesome if it wasn't Google. There not much better
than Microsoft.
Meh. I know a lot of the ChromeOS folk and they're good
folks. The point though, is that Linux has achieved widespread
success.
The fact of the matter is, that if you use the Internet, you touch
a computer somewhere running Linux daily, most likely in your own
home. I'd go so far as to wager that most consumer-grade WiFi base
stations and "routers" are running Linux at this point.
On 21 Apr 2022 at 09:23a, Arelor pondered and said...
I think the boot loader kicks in before so it would be still GNU/Linux (since Grub is a GNU product).
Grub is not the only bootloader in the world. :-)
On 21 Apr 2022 at 04:36p, acn pondered and said...
I was one of the folks who compiled my own kernel many years ago and who used Gentoo for some time.
But as I grew older (not neccessarily wiser...), I wanted the base of my system to work, so I can concentrate on configuring the Look and Feel of my system - that's why I'm using KDE (on KDE Neon).
Perhaps. As I grow older, I find I care less and less
what the system looks like; anything decently reasonable
makes me happy.
Re: Re: Windows vs Linux
By: Arelor to Nightfox on Thu Apr 21 2022 07:55 am
I am not above installing a FOSS program that requires a paid subscript to operate but nowadays I think twice before I install closed software the same machine.
I tend to not like the idea of subscription software.. Rather than having t keep paying a recurring fee, I'd rather just buy it up front and be able to it any time I want.
Nightfox
That's true, because X11.app is just an application running on top of Apple's GUI.
Can you make X11 the default GUI without Apple's GUI still running?
Meh. I know a lot of the ChromeOS folk and they're good
folks. The point though, is that Linux has achieved widespread success.
It has had good success, but systems like ChromeOS (and similarly
Android) are successful examples because the companies that made them chose Linux as the base for those products. Usually though, when people think of ChromeOS (or Android), they don't tend to think of Android.. ChromeOS is its own thing that is locked down and limited in what it can do - similar to Android, which is baseed on Linux but locked down to run the Android UI and to run Android apps.
Re: Re: Windows vs Linux
By: tenser to Spectre on Fri Apr 22 2022 02:27 am
The fact of the matter is, that if you use the Internet, you touch
a computer somewhere running Linux daily, most likely in your own
home. I'd go so far as to wager that most consumer-grade WiFi base stations and "routers" are running Linux at this point.
I am not convinced of that. Maybe things have changed as of recently,
but in the Linksys era I think most manufacturers used something else.
Incidentaly Linksys WRT54GL became a huge hit by virtue of being a Linux router...
I like Mikrotiks precisely because they expose a lot of Netfilter's capabilities to the user. They don't really make routers geared towards the domestic user though.
I think the boot loader kicks in before so it would be still GNU/L (since Grub is a GNU product).
Grub is not the only bootloader in the world. :-)
No, but it is the most commonly used by big generalist desktop distributions, by far.
I don't care what it looks like, but hotkeying the functionality you
want in makes for such a productivity boost.
It is like VIM freaks scripting the hell out of the editor. It seems
silly but it really makes a difference.
It's freedom from surveillance, from corporate control, from walled gardens, and if someone believes that some piece of software should work differently, and has forked it, the choice to use that fork.
I would like to see people learning that their computer, their digital world can be something they truly own and control. That you can have "devices" where you are in charge, and you don't have to be subject to forced changes. You don't have to "lump it or leave it" if Apple decide to change the UI on an update. Its your phone, and you are the one who decides what layout works for you.
Not convinced about the basestation/router comment, or touching
Linux generally? Certainly most people use DNS, which is almost
certainly hitting a Linux host.
Not convinced about the basestation/router comment, or touching
Linux generally? Certainly most people use DNS, which is almost
certainly hitting a Linux host.
On 21 Apr 2022 at 02:15p, Arelor pondered and said...
I think the boot loader kicks in before so it would be still GN (since Grub is a GNU product).
Grub is not the only bootloader in the world. :-)
No, but it is the most commonly used by big generalist desktop distributions, by far.
I suppose. Regardless, Grub's existence does not automatically
mean, "GNU/Linux". That's pure RMS propaganda.
I was tempted to put BSD on my Laptop, but ended up with Debian because
of hardware and software support. I'm still open to BSD.
Scientists (I studied science) just want to use their tools. Fortran is
There are too many "choices" of distro, and most are unecessary. A lot
of the difference is just in defaults, stylistic differences. The only
Yes, that's the point. The number of embedded devices absolutely
dwarfs desktop systems, and even mobile devices.
Perhaps. As I grow older, I find I care less and less what the
system looks like; anything decently reasonable makes me happy.
I am not convinced of that. Maybe things have changed as of recently, but in the Linksys era I think most manufacturers used something else.
Not convinced about the basestation/router comment, or touching
Linux generally? Certainly most people use DNS, which is almost certainly hitting a Linux host.
Not just DNS, but I'd guess there are still many web sites that are running on Linux. There was a time in the late 90s or early 2000s when
I saw an article saying most web sites on the internet were running on Linux. I imagine that has probably changed a bit, but could still be true.
Not convinced about the basestation/router comment, or touching
Linux generally? Certainly most people use DNS, which is almost certainly hitting a Linux host.
Not convinced than a overwhelming mayority of consumer grade routers are linux based since at least back in the day everybody was using "VxWorks and other things". I am a bit out of touch so I don't know the current state of things but Linux based firmware would be messy for licensing reasons alone.
Re: Re: Windows vs Linux
By: tenser to Arelor on Fri Apr 22 2022 09:10 am
I suppose. Regardless, Grub's existence does not automatically
mean, "GNU/Linux". That's pure RMS propaganda.
BY pointdexer's logic, the existence of Grub is enough to turn a distribution from Linux/GNU to GNU/Linux. I think you have not been tracking the joke :-)
I know it's not "fair," but I think of BSD as an OS for "appliances" like TrueNAS Core or pfSense.
I think of Linux as more general-purpose server / desktop OS.
Scientists (I studied science) just want to use their tools.
Fortran is
If "-ologists" are people who study a subject, does that make you a SCIENTologist?
:P Would "scienceologist" be more correct?
There are many free apps for Linux, but I feel like it's a trap to thin apps for Linux will be free. A company could still charge money for a version of their software for the same reasons they'd charge for it on operating systems. Commmercially sold PC games (i.e. on Steam) is one (you still have to pay for a game on Linux).
Nightfox
It is a cultural thing, really.
One of the main reasons why people installs a Linux distribution on their desktop is because they like the idea of running mainly open-source
code, or better yet, GPL or BSD licensed code.
I am not above installing a FOSS program that requires a paid
subscription to operate but nowadays I think twice before I install
closed software on the same machine.
--
There are too many "choices" of distro, and most are unecessary. A lot difference is just in defaults, stylistic differences. The only differ that I think is significant, is package management, which having used b Debian and Fedora, isn't that much of a difference. Distros that are d to run very differently, such as Puppy Linux do offer something signifi different.
That is true somewhat.
Most general purpose distributions which are themselves derivative of general purpose distributions are pretty much the same to me. The innovation is in the original distributions that act as parents for
others and in niche distributions.
I think there is value in "appliance" distributions designed to be solutions to specific problems, like that old Linux Gaming one. You
could just take a DVD with that to a party and netboot a bunch of computers from it and have an awesome birthday, for example.
Perhaps that's true for hobbyists.
Yes, that's the point. These things are tools. People who
care about the interface and shell and all of that are focusing
on the tool, not the application of that tool. Most people do
not -- and should not -- care.
So those are the sorts of superficial differences that don't
really matter. Being a hobbyist and futzing around with window
managers and shells stuff is fine, but you can do that with many
systems. That's really not where the focus in the Linux
community is.
Yup. And those machines on the top 500 list? I guarantee
you those nodes aren't running a window manager, or even much
of a userspace at all. No one logs into them, so they don't
care about the tools. In fact, most of the time you try to
keep Linux from running on the app cores in anything other than
a cursory way, so as not to interfere with the HP codes.
Viable for what? It's already ubiquitous. The world literally
runs on Linux and the mainframe; it swept everything before it.
Whether end users run it on their desktops or laptops is mostly irrelevant, and in any case, millions of people already do.
Just running Linux on a tiny fraction of the overall computer
does not make "freedom" in the FSF sense. You do you, but let
me know when you can see your storage device's firmware or CPU
microcode. The next major battle in this front has shifted to
firmware, because Linux already won.
I actually new nothing about the "Free Software" movement and GNU and Open Source when I first installed Linux. I knew I wanted to try it, because I didn't like windows, and I wanted something I could configure, could get under-the-hood, was fast, stable and could make my own.
Yes, but even 'only that' is something that's not possible anymore on other systems.
Win11 won't let you move the taskbar or show seconds in the clock.
On MacOS, also many customizations are not possible that were simple
to achieve 10-15 years ago.
(And even on Linux, the GNOME folks forbid many many customizations
and made Gtk themes go away almost completely)
I was one of the folks who compiled my own kernel many years ago and
who used Gentoo for some time.
But as I grew older (not neccessarily wiser...), I wanted the base of
my system to work, so I can concentrate on configuring the Look and
Feel of my system - that's why I'm using KDE (on KDE Neon).
But I still do want to control what services are running, eg. have control over printers (oh what a mess CUPS today is...) and things
like that.
Regards,
Anna
Actually, depending on the Window Manager, it is far more than Window Dressing. Some (such as the one I use, FVWM), have their own languag and you can script GUI actions. You can get it to build menus on the fly, any type of menu you can think of representing anything you want updated each time it is created. You can do with the GUI what you ca kind of do with a shell (ie, close all windows belonging to this grou or (close all windows on this page). You can build basic graphical interfaces with it, or with a keypress, run a script which also opens closes and moves windows.
Yeah, I get it. I used to use a window manager written in
Common Lisp and you could do all that sort of thing. However,
that's just mucking with the user environment; it's fine, but
not quite as deep as it is being made out to be, and can be
done on many systems. From that perspective, there's essentially
no difference between any of the BSDs and Linux.
I love the idea. As someone that lives on a computer 10+ hours a day
yeah works for me. As the kind of person that just maybe spends a few hours a day or even a week. They will never care to learn anything more than necessary to get their fix. If its get too much they will just
leave all together and go back to phone only. Not that I want less
options for us but I do believe in an option for them as well.
DrClaw
Another key difference I have seen between "families" of linux distros
is the specific locations and names of files under /etc or the structure of /var or /usr
I have been using Debian family members for so long now that it is
painful for me to use Arch, Mandrake, BSD, RedHat, etc....
So I stick with what I know.
I actually new nothing about the "Free Software" movement and GNU and Source when I first installed Linux. I knew I wanted to try it, beca didn't like windows, and I wanted something I could configure, could under-the-hood, was fast, stable and could make my own.
All the way back at Slak 1.0 it was quite funny trying to see people get their heads around Linux being an entirely different operating system. It'd be nothing to get the question but what version of DOS is that. It wasn't super useful for anything back then save networking but it was a complete paradigm shift.
I was tempted to put BSD on my Laptop, but ended up with Debian because of hardware and software support. I'm still open to BSD.
I know it's not "fair," but I think of BSD as an OS for "appliances" like TrueNAS Core or pfSense.
I think of Linux as more general-purpose server / desktop OS.
There are too many "choices" of distro, and most are unecessary. A lot of the difference is just in defaults, stylistic differences. The only
Another key difference I have seen between "families" of linux distros is th specific locations and names of files under /etc or the structure of /var or /usr
I have been using Debian family members for so long now that it is painful f me to use Arch, Mandrake, BSD, RedHat, etc....
So I stick with what I know.
Yes, that's the point. The number of embedded devices absolutely dwarfs desktop systems, and even mobile devices.
That doesn't make it a "user" system though. Those same devices could
run on a couple of jam tins and a piece of string and the owner would be none the wiser. Sure its a practical application of the underlying
layers of linux but not something you can generally use for anything
other than the hardware was designed for.
Perhaps. As I grow older, I find I care less and less what the system looks like; anything decently reasonable makes me happy.
I find much the same, wanting to beat something into submission is less
on my agenda, rather than just wanting something that works. But being
the CLI guy I don't much care what it looks like.
Yes, that's the point. These things are tools. People who
care about the interface and shell and all of that are focusing
on the tool, not the application of that tool. Most people do
not -- and should not -- care.
So those are the sorts of superficial differences that don't
really matter. Being a hobbyist and futzing around with window managers and shells stuff is fine, but you can do that with many systems. That's really not where the focus in the Linux
community is.
The shell is a tool, the interface is a tool. I use the shell to solve problems, work things out. Using a Mac at work, I used the shell to manage data, run queries and provide formatted output and validation
from CSV data.
Computers store and manipulate data. The Unix shell allows you to manipulate and transform data in ways that you describe, and create functionality which may not already exist in other programs.
Just running Linux on a tiny fraction of the overall computer
does not make "freedom" in the FSF sense. You do you, but let
me know when you can see your storage device's firmware or CPU microcode. The next major battle in this front has shifted to firmware, because Linux already won.
You haven't won anything if the kernel sits underneath a prioprietary, locked down wall garden. As I said, I don't care one iota if my TV runs Linux, if the TV is locked down anyway.
Why should I want the kernel to succeed?
Yeah, I get it. I used to use a window manager written in
Common Lisp and you could do all that sort of thing. However,
that's just mucking with the user environment; it's fine, but
not quite as deep as it is being made out to be, and can be
done on many systems. From that perspective, there's essentially
no difference between any of the BSDs and Linux.
One must not go down a rabbit-hole and waste time messing around. It is definitely a trap, just configuring for the sake of configuring and
people do do that. Configuring for visual effects can also be a time sink.
I try to be focused, I realise a potential workflow or configuration
which would make my life easier and implement it. I don't do much configuration in terms of looks, my desktop looks the same as it did 10 years ago, with a similar config (it looks very dated). When I find myself doing a task repeately, I automate it, or if I need information, find a way to get to it easier. The good thing is, because I choose stable programs, (emacs, fvwm, shell), once implemented, the solution lasts years and years.
something else. Incidentaly Linksys WRT54GL became a huge hit by
virtue of being a Linux router...
Things like TrueNAS Core are just adapted distributions in the same
way NAS4FREE is an adapted Linux distribution.
Things like TrueNAS Core are just adapted distributions in the same way NAS4FREE is an adapted Linux distribution.
For someone who had only realy used DOS and Windows up until 98, it was quite a paradigm shift to see multitasking and networking on the command line, in text mode, and the filesystem, no drive letters and long filenames natively supported.
Things I assumed were fundamental about PC's, weren't.
For someone who had only realy used DOS and Windows up until 98, it was quite a paradigm shift to see multitasking and networking on the command line, in text mode, and the filesystem, no drive letters and long filenames natively supported.
Don't get me started in Linux distributionswhich cannot agree whether libraries should go into /lib64 or /lib. You try to install a third
party binary in some of them and they cannot locate the dynamic linker. Bleh.
But the point was, in the context of people worrying about "dumbing
down" Linux because they like to customize their user experience,
a) desktop Linux is already a minority use-case even within the
Linux community, and b) that's really not a useful measure of
"success" for Linux as a project.
The organization options are limitless. I do remember from those days thinking what I I have more drives than letters in the alphabet? Knowing that its mostly ridiculous to think of but depending on the application it
The shell is a tool, the interface is a tool. I use the shell to sol problems, work things out. Using a Mac at work, I used the shell to manage data, run queries and provide formatted output and validation from CSV data.
And how is that relevant to the ability to customize your .zshrc
file or whatever? Do you really think you couldn't do the same
thing with powershell or wsl or whatever? The ability to customize
your shell experience is only tangentially related to the ability
to script a shell to do something useful with the Unix filter model. Indeed, if you want to write scripts to do useful things, in many
ways it's best NOT to rely on customizations, so that those scripts
are portable -- not just to other machines and environments, but
even to other users.
I've never argued against the utility of the Unix shell. This is
a strawman in the context of this discussion, which is about customizing one's environment.
That said, it's important to recognize the limitations of the
shell. As anyone who has to work with a variety of structured
data formats knows, it can break down pretty quickly; VM/CMS
pipes and PowerShell both do rather better in this domain than
most Unix shells.
Since you mentioned CSV, it's interesting to look back at, "The
Practice of Programming" by Kernighan and Pike, which discusses
the difficulty of parsing CSV files in the shell. This is coming
from the same Kernighan and Pike who wrote, "The Unix Programming Environment" and who worked in the same lab as Dennis Ritchie and
Ken Thompson.
Unix tools are useful. But it does no one any service not to
recognize their limitations.
You haven't won anything if the kernel sits underneath a prioprietary locked down wall garden. As I said, I don't care one iota if my TV r Linux, if the TV is locked down anyway.
I don't think you understand. It's not what's _on top_ of the
kernel that limits you using your computer how you see fit, it's
what is _underneath_ the kernel. Many millions of instructions
are run by hidden microcontrollers in a modern desktop system
before the x86 cores even come out of reset; many billions of
x86 instructions run before the bootloader you've installed is
even started. Hell, millions of x86 instructions run on Intel
processors before you've even turned on DRAM.
But you ask, what have you won? Well, if that allows someone to
do some useful work, you've won quite a bit.
Why should I want the kernel to succeed?
I have no idea. You seem to be worried about someone taking away
your "freedom" to muck with whatever Linux distribution you've
installed. I'm merely pointing out that that's already a niche
use case, even within the wider Linux community. That said, did
your chosen distro switch to systemd? Did you agree with that?
Do you think you could switch to, say, OpenRC or even back to SysV
init or whatever?
One must not go down a rabbit-hole and waste time messing around. It definitely a trap, just configuring for the sake of configuring and people do do that. Configuring for visual effects can also be a time sink.
That seems to be exactly what you're arguing for. I have yet
to hear anything that you can't do on another system.
I try to be focused, I realise a potential workflow or configuration which would make my life easier and implement it. I don't do much configuration in terms of looks, my desktop looks the same as it did years ago, with a similar config (it looks very dated). When I find myself doing a task repeately, I automate it, or if I need informatio find a way to get to it easier. The good thing is, because I choose stable programs, (emacs, fvwm, shell), once implemented, the solution lasts years and years.
Seems like what many engineers and scientists do with Windows,
or even the Mac.
We build systems at my job, and I work with a lot of electrical
engineers. They require CAD packages (OrCAD, Altium) that don't
run on pretty much anything except Windows and are garbage under emulation. They've got similar setups to what you describe that
they've been carting around for years.
What's the difference?
For someone who had only realy used DOS and Windows up until 98, it w quite a paradigm shift to see multitasking and networking on the comm line, in text mode, and the filesystem, no drive letters and long filenames natively supported.
Things I assumed were fundamental about PC's, weren't.
Linux was definitely a paradigm shift.
I had seen networking on the command line in DOS though, at least to some extent. It was possible to set up DOS in an IPX/SPX network, and many
DOS games supported IPX/SPX network protocols for multiplayer support.
My high school had a computer lab with some PCs that had DOS & Windows
3.1 set up on them, and I remember seeing Novell Netware network drivers for DOS when they were booting up.
Also, at some point around 1995 or 1996, I had seen a dialup internet stack for DOS.. It would let you dial into your ISP from DOS and then exit out but stay resident, and there was a text-based web browser for
DOS that I had seen as well (it was similar to the Lynx web browser in Linux). That DOS internet package may have been part of Kali, which was
a piece of software mainly for games, which translated IPX/SPX
networking to TCP/IP so you could play DOS multiplayer games over the internet. (They later made a Windows 9x version of Kali too..)
Nightfox
I remember the first disto install going wheres C:. Ha those were the days. But after learning how it works and how you have the power to choose how the storage is applied, I really liked it. It really opens
up so many options to be able to control how a system is handling
storage. The organization options are limitless. I do remember from those days thinking what I I have more drives than letters in the alphabet? Knowing that its mostly ridiculous to think of but depending
on the application it could happen.
I'm so glad to be back in the scene. This isn't just nostalgic it's so much fun to connect with other folks that are just as nerdy as me :D
Thanks for being a part of it!
DrClaw
My first BBS was a 386DX40 with 4MB ram and 2 MFM drives a 20 and a 40. used the 20 for the OS BBS and doors and put the file area on the 40.
Felt like I was king of the world with that thing too :D
Being able to have a separate disk just be part of the same hierarchy is pretty cool. With btrfs, the distinction is even less pronounced, though
My first BBS was a 386DX40 with 4MB ram and 2 MFM drives a 20
and a 40. used the 20 for the OS BBS and doors and put the file
area on the 40. Felt like I was king of the world with that
thing too :D
Phwoar.... we would've killed for that.. the very first of mine, and
also my first AT class machine, was a 286-21 the entire 1Mb ram,
equipped with a 40Mb IDE drive and a 40Mb Colorado tape drive. It was probably one of the best 286's I ever had which was pure fluke,
because I knew nothing about them.
My first BBS was on an 8 bit BBC Micro with 32K and a double sided
floppy drive. You thought you had it difficult.
Hi Arelor,
Things like TrueNAS Core are just adapted distributions in the same
way NAS4FREE is an adapted Linux distribution.
NAS4FREE isn't linux. It's runing on FreeBSD 12.3-RELEASE-p2.
\/orlon
I'm beginning to think we should rename this thread WinDux.
http://tlp.zapto.org/windux.jpg :P
Spec
*** THE READER V4.50 [freeware]
--- SuperBBS v1.17-3 (Eval)
That's a pretty old theory thought... IBM had 32bit systems back in the 80's in which there was no HD space per se the whole thing was just addressed as linear memory..I can't give you a model off the top of my head, but I'm sure I can track one or more down if you like :)
Spec
Was that a memory mapped hard disk? BTRFS does what lvm does, combine
Arelor wrote to 2twisty <=-
The fun part is that Linux is very applianceable.
Things like TrueNAS Core are just adapted distributions in the same way NAS4FREE is an adapted Linux distribution.
Arelor wrote to 2twisty <=-
Something I like of the BSD is that the filesystem hierarchy is very consistent. Not moving mount points from /media to /var/run just
because, not eliminating the capability of the system to boot with a separate /usr filesystem... you get the idea.
Thats more like my very first pooty.... a II+ with 48k and one single sided floppy... those were the days.. By the time I thought about firing up a BBS though, I was at a IIgs, and I didn't want to dedicate that to the BBS and lose use of it.
Was that a memory mapped hard disk? BTRFS does what lvm does, combine disks. With btrfs you can simply make the filesystem span multiple disks without having any layer underneath to abstract the partitions/disks.
I'm running DD-WRT and OpenWRT on routers in my environment - they're embedded Linux distros that run on a variety of appliance routers. Being able to run a web site, proxy server, OpenVPN client and server,
bandwidth monitor, DLNA server, Samba file server and ad blockers on a sub $100 hunk of plastic is pretty neat.
I have never played around with BTRFS and have thought about it. Is it very difficult to get setup initially? And afterwards is it as stable
as just using the old ext4?
My first BBS was a 386DX40 with 4MB ram and 2 MFM drives a 20 and a
40. used the 20 for the OS BBS and doors and put the file area on
the 40. Felt like I was king of the world with that thing too :D
Phwoar.... we would've killed for that.. the very first of mine, and also
my first AT class machine, was a 286-21 the entire 1Mb ram, equipped with
Interesting.. I didn't know they made the 286 at 21mhz.
DrClaw
Interesting.. I didn't know they made the 286 at 21mhz.
I never had a 286 but if it had the ability to add a Math co-processor similar to the DX systems maybe thats it?
Just a guess no idea
me. I wish it was more but it wasn't long after that I got an Apple IIc. Played around what that for hours on end making my own basic programs and playing the occasional game. Never got to use it with a modem. Then
and once I did never looked back at apple again. My main computer was a 486SX20 with 8MB ram (upgraded) and a 170MB drive. I was the super kid on the block with that much space. I actually got the 386 after this from a
I have never played around with BTRFS and have thought about it. Is it very difficult to get setup initially? And afterwards is it as stable as just using the old ext4?
I never had a 286 but if it had the ability to add a Math co-processor similar to the DX systems maybe thats it?
Re: Re: Windows vs Linux
By: vorlon to Arelor on Sat Apr 23 2022 01:15 am
Things like TrueNAS Core are just adapted distributions in
the same way NAS4FREE is an adapted Linux distribution.
NAS4FREE isn't linux. It's runing on FreeBSD 12.3-RELEASE-p2.
My bad. I must have been thinking of EasyNAS.
I am gonna have to drown my sorrows in bourbon for that mistake. My credibility is destroyed and my horses are not going to look up to
me anymore :-(
Yup that as my thing too. My first PC technically was a VIC20 I got at a garage sale but it was missing every thing and only had a couple carts
for it. Can't really count that as much more than a console experience for me. I wish it was more but it wasn't long after that I got an Apple IIc. Played around what that for hours on end making my own basic programs and playing the occasional game. Never got to use it with a modem. Then School Got Macs and I was like look at all these colors! Begged Dad for one and he was like nope were getting a PC. This is when
I got in to PCs and once I did never looked back at apple again. My
main computer was a 486SX20 with 8MB ram (upgraded) and a 170MB drive.
I was the super kid on the block with that much space. I actually got
the 386 after this from a friend who was a computer parts hoarder. I
went to him and said Hay let me build a computer from all these parts
you have sitting around. He said yes and my BBS (at least the hardware) w
Look you guys have me in a super nostalgic mood.
DrClaw
Was that a memory mapped hard disk? BTRFS does what lvm does, combin disks. With btrfs you can simply make the filesystem span multiple di without having any layer underneath to abstract the partitions/disks.
I have never played around with BTRFS and have thought about it. Is it very difficult to get setup initially? And afterwards is it as stable
as just using the old ext4?
DrClaw
I have never played around with BTRFS and have thought about it. Is very difficult to get setup initially? And afterwards is it as stabl as just using the old ext4?
Its been a few years since I plaed witg BTRFS. Back then, there were
some known issues with its RAID5/6 implementation that could result in data loss. Don't know if that's still a thing. But their RAID10 implementation was pretty good.
I don't recommend BTRFS unless you are doing redundancy -- one of the key benefis of BTRFS is protection against bitrot.
That all said, I use ZFS now -- MUCH more mature than BTRFS, and it is available for Linux systems now (used to be a BSD only thing). ZFS has all the plusses of BTRFS, and is even more aggressive about protecting data than BTRFS is.
BTRFS is easier to set up than ZFS, but IMO, ZFS is the vastly superior
of the two.
You may not feel its a useful measure, others do, and like it or not,
even if its a low use case scenario, its still a valid measure.
And how is that relevant to the ability to customize your .zshrc
file or whatever? Do you really think you couldn't do the same
thing with powershell or wsl or whatever? The ability to customize your shell experience is only tangentially related to the ability
to script a shell to do something useful with the Unix filter model. Indeed, if you want to write scripts to do useful things, in many ways it's best NOT to rely on customizations, so that those scripts are portable -- not just to other machines and environments, but
even to other users.
WSL is a relatively new addition, and it is Linux under Windows. Powershell seems powerful, designed more around system administration.
Could I transfer my workflow to windows? Perhaps a notable portion, but Windows wasn't designed with the same philosophy. It was designed as a "consumer OS", a platform for applications, and it is only relatively recently that Microsoft are accommodating this other usage.
Windows is changing, but Powershell and WSL are recognitions of the advantages that we already enjoy.
I don't think you understand. It's not what's _on top_ of the kernel that limits you using your computer how you see fit, it's
what is _underneath_ the kernel. Many millions of instructions
are run by hidden microcontrollers in a modern desktop system
before the x86 cores even come out of reset; many billions of
x86 instructions run before the bootloader you've installed is
even started. Hell, millions of x86 instructions run on Intel processors before you've even turned on DRAM.
But you ask, what have you won? Well, if that allows someone to
do some useful work, you've won quite a bit.
https://protesilaos.com/codelog/2022-03-22-libreplanet-emacs-living-freedo
This is a really good discussion on freedom, in the context of Emacs.
The lived experience is your freedom, your ability to use your machine
as you see fit, and as computers are general purpose computers, in that they can simulate and reproduce any possible imagined workflow, the more the system allows you to realise that, the freer it makes you.
The difference is that one system, out-of-the-box, is designed around
this paradigm, and the other was designed around another, but is adding
a better shell language and SWL later on.
I use Windows at work, and the workflows and data management is horrendously hobbled by the "desktop consumer computing" paradigm. It
may be possible for the IT team to set up our Windows machines differently, so that we aren't playing application jockeys, but I really doubt it will happen. They are to stuck in the mindset of finding applications which encompass the entire solution.
The company I'm working for is spending a 6 figure amount for a such a
web based software package. I've used similar management systems such
at that elsewhere, and they save no time, have a short shelf life, and
are rigid in how they are used.
Unix tools are useful. But it does no one any service not to recognize their limitations.
CSV is not as good a format as delimited text files. Eric Raymond mentions this in the Art of Unix Programming, how the /etc/passwd format is superior. I agree, but at work I'm dealing with excel spreadsheets, and exporting to CSV fits in better.
Windows is designed around computing being something to consume. Their goal was selling software, and the desktop world was based on shrink-wrapped applications packages. You bought a blank platform (that for the most part didn't by default let you write your own programs),
and then bought "solutions". Want to write a resume, buy a word
processor or resume writing program. Each application was its own
world, managing its own data, and having all the functionality the
author thought you needed in its own world.
Unix was designed around a different idea, separation of
data and processing. The tools process text, and can pass from tool to tool. Not the most ideal model, but that is what it is. It was more amenable to storing data in a way that is application agnostic, and
doing whatever transformation you want.
Emacs is another unique
approach, quite different to Unix in that it doesn't rely on
composability of commands, but ability to run different functions over
the same instance of data.
This is the difference, Windows was designed around software being sold
to the consumer with its own telos, whereas Unix was designed moreso around the user constructing their own ends. It isn't possible for a developer to anticipate, or know what the user will want to do. Now
Linux and Windows are meeting somewhere in between.
Personally, I don't care much one way or the other. What I'm saying
is that the people working on Linux itself don't see it as a
particularly useful measure. That's independent of whether it's
valid or not.
Nightfox wrote to boraxman <=-
I had seen networking on the command line in DOS though, at least to
some extent. It was possible to set up DOS in an IPX/SPX network, and many DOS games supported IPX/SPX network protocols for multiplayer support. My high school had a computer lab with some PCs that had DOS
& Windows 3.1 set up on them, and I remember seeing Novell Netware
network drivers for DOS when they were booting up.
Spectre wrote to claw <=-
TLP was alphabet soup at its ~1990 peak. There or slightly after, it
was running NetwareLite on 5 or so 286s that each served a node, and shared their drives with every other system...so between substing
pyhsical drives out the way, mounting drives from other systems, RAM drives and the odd CD thrown in.. it was at times all the way down to Y
I think. It was fun trying to keep everything aligned between systems because every setup was slightly different. This was a time here where 40/60Meg HD's were plentiful and cheep and anything bigger was
hideously expensive.
Nigel Reed wrote to All <=-
My first BBS was on an 8 bit BBC Micro with 32K and a double sided
floppy drive. You thought you had it difficult.
That's a pretty old theory thought... IBM had 32bit systems back in t 80's in which there was no HD space per se the whole thing was just addressed as linear memory..I can't give you a model off the top of m head, but I'm sure I can track one or more down if you like :)
Was that a memory mapped hard disk? BTRFS does what lvm does, combine disks. With btrfs you can simply make the filesystem span multiple disks without having any layer underneath to abstract the partitions/disks.
That all said, I use ZFS now -- MUCH more mature than BTRFS, and it is available for Linux systems now (used to be a BSD only thing). ZFS has all the plusses of BTRFS, and is even more aggressive about protecting data than BTRFS is.
Personally, I don't care much one way or the other. What I'm saying is that the people working on Linux itself don't see it as a particularly useful measure. That's independent of whether it's valid or not.
You see there you're using yourself and apparently like minded people as
a yard stick, and that's going to be a biased group... so a few dozen grains of salt with that...
Oh, the days we spent in the early '90s. The office would close around 5pm, we'd place a 6 way conference call on the telephones and jump into
a DooM cooperative deathmatch. I'd usually bow out around 8pm, others would keep playing until I don't know when.
Oh, the days we spent in the early '90s. The office would close around 5pm, we'd place a 6 way conference call on the telephones and jump into a DooM cooperative deathmatch. I'd usually bow out around 8pm, others would keep playing until I don't know when.
What I'm saying is that the people doing the work aren't not worried
about what those who are talking about "freedom" and dumbing down
Linux because that may infringe on their freedom to choose their
shell and window manager are worried about.
Nope.
This was not the "design philosophy" behind Windows,
which was designed to be a multi-tenant microkernel with
different "personalities" tailored to individual jobs.
Recall that Cutler had done RSX-11m at DuPont and then
VMS at DEC and was working on MICA for PRISM before the
Alpha.
Windows is changing, but Powershell and WSL are recognitions of the advantages that we already enjoy.Windows had POSIX compatibility bolted on more or less
from the beginning to meet FIPS requirements. It used
the aforementioned personality support to provide a
more or less Unix-like experience to those who wished to
pay for the experience. Things like UWIN and Cygwin
made this largely transparent (e.g., for those of us stuck
on Windows machines on US Government networks for a time).
WSL is new and is different. WSL1 is an ELF loader and
system-call adapter that presents the Linux system interface
to applications; WSL2 boots a Linux kernel under Hyper-V.
However, this is all moving the goalposts: you started this
discussion talking about the ability to "customize" Linux,
but beyond selecting a window manager, I have yet to see
what you are referring to that you can't do on any number of
other systems.
As I said before, computers are tools; MSFT is invested in
you being able to use their OS as a tool, just as the Linux
and BSD and even Mac people are.
--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A47 2021/12/24 (Linux/64)
Except, as I have pointed out, you cannot use your machine
"as you see fit." Do you have any idea what runs in SMM mode,
or what's peripherals are saying to each other behind a PCI
bridge, or what the firmware in your graphics card is doing?
RMS acolytes waxing eloquent about emacs while missing the
obvious issues entirely is sophomoric pseudo-intellectualism.
Moreover, if the software I want to run to do work I care
about doesn't exist for the "free" platform, then how "free"
am I, really? I can't use the tool I have for the purpose I
intended, thus limiting my "freedom." "Our hammers aren't
compatible with mainstream nails" isn't actually a great look.
"The nails need to change" as an absolutism doesn't work.
Besides, weren't you the person asking, "why should I care
about supporting the kernel?"
--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A47 2021/12/24 (Linux/64)
And yet that "one system, out-of-the-box, [that] is
designed around this paradigm" is useless for this
kind of work. The other that is "adding a better
shell language" (nevermind that PowerShell is 15 years
old) can do it.
Something I had to come to terms with 15 or so years
ago is that the Unix pipeline model _has limitations_.
But a couple of shell scripts and some awk will do better?
I've heard this many times, and implemented it a few times
myself. The thing that happens time and time again is that
it seems simple at first, but systems grow to accommodate
special cases and you start to realize that those "rigid"
packages actually have real value.
Again, computers are _tools_. Use them to do real work; for
most people, they are not the end in and of themselves.
Ahh, typical ESR foolishness: that book does not have a
great reputation for a reason. CSV obviously _is_ a
delimited text format. Since you mention /etc/passwd,
suppose a side wanted to put a colon in the GECOS field;
how would one do it? Or they wanted to put arbitrary
commas in fields (say, 'LastName, FirstName' was the
local convention), but you still wanted compatibility
with tools like `chfn` and `finger`?
There's a reason structured data formats have become
popular.
I'm old enough to remember Steve Balmer literally frothing
at the mouth shouting, "developers! developers! developers!"
I also remember Rob Pike writing that MSFT was were the
innovation was at in 2000, challenging attendees at a
conference to compare developing on 1990s Microsoft platforms
with development for Microsoft platforms just 10 years later.
Now repeat the exercise for Unix.
I'd put this rather differently. Unix wasn't so much designed
as it emerged as a reaction to overly complex systems squeezed
onto a tiny (but affordable!) machine. That first machine
seemed promising and gave way to another small but affordable
machine; pipes came a few years later.
That's not unique; it came directly out of the "image" model
of languages like Lisp and its progeny (smalltalk is another
exemplar here). Stallman never really understood Unix.
That's simply not true, and betrays lack of study of the relevant
history. Unix was developed for the internal use of a handful of exquisitely talented researchers; it achieved success beyond that
for a number of reasons, but one of the biggest was merely accident:
it was at a sweet spot on the price/performance curve where it
could, in Kernighan's words, "ride Moore's law" for two decades.
Indeed, Unix was a bit of a red-headed stepchild in the OS world
for a long time, looked down upon for lacking basic functionality
that was considered requisite for building complex systems (file
locking, for instance). It had to build those things over time,
leading to frankly a mess of a system that has congealed into modern
Linux and while useful, isn't particularly _good_.
As I said before, computers are tools; MSFT is invested in
you being able to use their OS as a tool, just as the Linux
and BSD and even Mac people are.
The difference in opinion is you are looking very closely at the
technical capabilities, whereas I'm looking further back, in how Windows systems act as a whole.
I've worked almost exclusively with Windows machines in my professional career, and my job involves information, being an "information worker" myself, someone who does most of their job on a computer.
All the systems I've used have had the issues I've described. Without exception, going back to 1999. The tools have never, ever matched the workflow. It has always been a case of opening the application which controls the data, and then jockeying information back and forth,
usually in a labourious way. The "solution" to these problems is just
as bad, pay a company hundreds of thousands of dollars to create a
closed web-based ecosystem which barely solves any problems, is usually just as hostile. The company I work for has put down a LOT of money for this program, and the people deciding how it works can only think in the "application" paradigm, so the result will suck. We'll still be
literally tying in information from "master" documentation by reading
the screen, then transcribing.
Windows 11, I believe won't run on older machines. Period. It won't
run on this computer I'm using. Being able to make your hardware
actually operate is a fairly important part of an OS. That alone is an indictment on MS.
By default, with a new install, you can't compose
workflows like you can with MacOS and *nix.
I've used the GNU tools, and
cygwin. The former has quirks, the latter just doesn't seem
intergrated. The GUI is important, because it allows admins to actually tailor the graphical interface specifically for their companies needs.
Not just "Branding", but something deeper. You have less control over updating, and less over telemetry, and there is the "can I pull this
hard drive out to a newer machine and just have it run" issue.
You CAN make Windows customisable, but it take more effort. As I said
earlier, no one actually does.
It's always just throwing in boxed
applications and let people come up with crappy workflows. That is the practice, the reality. No one can see a better way, and it sucks.
I think you are just being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative.
Your line of reasoning just doesn't make any sense.
Not knowing how my PCI cards are communicating has no impact on me, or almost anyone else.
Your argument is bordering on sophistry.
Very,
very few people buy computers specifically for the purposes of
controlling how the CPU sends data to a PCI or AGP card, or to have control over the firmware in a hard drive.
We don't experience limitations if now knowing doesn't result is us not being able to use it.
Your freedom comes from being able to use the tool to solve your
problems.
Computers compute. The more freedom you have to define your
computational problems, to implement your solutions, as you need it, the freer you are. The less that the hardware or software limits you, or is the embodiment of an external vision constrianing you, the freer you are.
I've stated that the Free Software people miss the point, so I agree there.
Free software doesn't give me freedom if I cannot practically
EXPERIENCE it.
[snip]
These individual problems are not that difficult, but the desktop computing paradigm we have is to have a system which lacks the ability
to compose our own solutions.
Ahh, typical ESR foolishness: that book does not have a
great reputation for a reason. CSV obviously _is_ a
delimited text format. Since you mention /etc/passwd,
suppose a side wanted to put a colon in the GECOS field;
how would one do it? Or they wanted to put arbitrary
commas in fields (say, 'LastName, FirstName' was the
local convention), but you still wanted compatibility
with tools like `chfn` and `finger`?
There's a reason structured data formats have become
popular.
He explains it. You use an escape character.
I've written a CSV parser, and one which is based on the delimited
format. The latter is far easier.
CSV is OK to use from a users POV (and if you have a parser already, better than a format only accessible to its parent application), but if you were making your own format, you wouldn't use it.
Steve Balmer. Sheesh! I remember that too. So what?
I'd put this rather differently. Unix wasn't so much designed
as it emerged as a reaction to overly complex systems squeezed
onto a tiny (but affordable!) machine. That first machine
seemed promising and gave way to another small but affordable machine; pipes came a few years later.
Perhaps, but I find it more pragmatic. Solutions born from people
trying to solve problems have stood the test of time. They may not be optimal, often arent, and you could do better if we tried again, but
they are established and understood.
I know a lot of Linux, BSD, and yes, Windows kernel developers.
What you are describing is simply not accurate.
I've worked almost exclusively with Windows machines in my profession career, and my job involves information, being an "information worker myself, someone who does most of their job on a computer.
I see. So you haven't had an opportunity to evaluate
equivalent Linux (or whatever) options in a professional
context. Why then, make claims about them, or for
that matter, about Linux?
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but raising
concerns that somehow "Linux" will change directions and
become hostile to the sorts of customizations you like
to do with it if it becomes more popular is a bit much.
What you are describing is a bad, inefficient situation.
However, you are creating a logical fallacy by asserting
that a) this is due to Windows (or something; I'm not
quite sure) and b) that the situation would be different
with Unix/Linux (or something; again, I'm not quite sure).
Indeed, I'm having a hard time understanding how that
relates to Linux/Unix/whatever. Is your argument that
you would like an open, or even "free" solution so that
you wouldn't be tied to whatever vendorware you're being
subjected to? If so, I could see that as an argument,
with some caveats: you need people that are both
sufficiently talented and sufficiently incentivized to
support that software.
Or is your argument that you think this big pile of bad
software (a friend likes to refer to such as, "the compost
heap") could be replaced with a handful of shell scripts
and some pipelines? If that's the case, I seriously doubt
it.
Uh ok. What does that have to do with anything at discussion
here?
I have a VAX 4000 down in my basement that won't run Linux.
I don't think that's an indictment of the Linux developers.
Now you're mixing things. Do you want to write shell pipelines
using the Unix model (something, I'll note, you can do with
PowerShell -- which also understands structured data), or do
you want a graphical experience, in which case, why not invest
in the native Windows ecosystem?
Saying that it "takes more effort" is subjective. I know
lots of scientists and engineers who'd rather not futz
about editing text files to customize things. Perhaps
that is easier for you, and that's fine! But it is a
mistake to assume that it is easier for everyone else, too.
Nonsense; plenty of people do. Absolute statement trivially
disproven by a single empirical example.
Perhaps in your experience you haven't encountered anyone
who can see a better way, but I have. What you are describing
is a _preference_. And again, that's fine, but it does not
mean a universal truth.
I think I've been very civil and polite with you.
Perhaps not to you.
Actually, that's not true. If, say, the unpatched
ancient version of the Linux kernel running on your
storage device gets hacked and starts exfiltrating
your data by talking directly to your Ethernet
device without your IOMMU being able to intervene
because they're on the same side of a PCI bridge,
that seems like the sort of thing that would have
an impact on you. This is, of course, even worse
if it happens to, say, your bank.
Similarly, if the ME in your Intel CPU is hackable,
that might have a profound impact on you.
Again, I think I've remained polite and civil throughout
this conversation. If you disagree, please feel free
to point something out.
to point something out.
But this is just rude.
Just like very few people buy computers to customize their
shell or window manager. They buy their computers to do some
useful work, because computers are tools.
Sounds like you have less of a technical problem and more
of a management problem. *shrug*
With /etc/passwd? Nope. That doesn't work. Because
the parser is are built into a library. And even on
systems where I can hack the library, I might use
something like LDAP or NIS, or even shell scripts and
rsync or rdist to copy those to machines where I can't
hack the library for some reason. So no, that doesn't
work for /etc/passwd.
Or did you mean for delimited text formats generally?
In which case, don't CSV files support quoted strings?
If one is going to appeal to authority or personal
experience, it's best if one checks one's priors.
I learned compilers from Al Aho, and I've written
parsers for full programming languages with context
sensitive grammars. Some of them are Internet
facing and used daily by millions of users. So I
think I speak with some authority when I say that
CSV is not significantly harder than simple
delimited lines of text, which are themselves
trivial to parse.
However, neither is very extensible. Consider what
happens when one needs to add a new field. To go
back to the /etc/passwd example, when this last
happened with both Linux and BSD, they had to invent
a new file format that lived in a separate file next
to the legacy V7 format file, and they had to develop
specialized tools to keep these in sync.
Delimited lines of text are great because they're
simple to use and easy to get going. They work well
in Unix pipelines because most filters were evolved
to work best with that kind of textual data.
They're not so great because they generally don't
evolve gracefully: too much is implicit in the format
itself ("field 3 is always an integer and it's always
the user ID number"). There are no universally
agreed upon formats to represent the full range of
representable data expressible on modern machines.
This is schematized structured formats are useful,
though they are harder to get started with. However,
once you start using those, informally specified
things like Unix filters start to break down because
they don't understand the structured format.
This naturally led to the rise of things like PowerShell,
which attempt to fit a much richer data model into the
filter paradigm. Things like nushell, or even things like
Michael Greenberg's work on formally shell specifications
and smoosh are more recent advances.
You missed the point. Microsoft invested heavily in the
developer experience for Windows, and developers wanted to
use Windows.
More pragmatic than what, exactly?
The interesting thing about a research system is that
it is designed to solve problems that are interesting
in some place at some point in time. Unix is one of
those very rare systems indeed where the research
interests coincided with commercial interests in such
a way that it could _successfully_ make the jump from
research to commercial development.
However, that doesn't mean that the system doesn't owe
its origins -- not to mention its major design
principles -- to the research context it was created
in. The point is that Unix wasn't designed as a pragmatic
solution to production data processing problems as much
as it evolved to answer interesting research questions.
What's even more interesting is that every system since
has similarly had the benefit of that research. To bring
this back to the original point -- again -- you may prefer
Linux, but truly, there's very little in there that cannot
be implemented on just about any other base system.
claw wrote to boraxman <=-
I have never played around with BTRFS and have thought about it. Is it very difficult to get setup initially? And afterwards is it as stable
as just using the old ext4?
claw wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
Yeah I these are awesome. I actually bought a Buffalo router that had DD-WRT as the stock firmware. Specifically to support that idea. Too
bad Buffalo didn't make it.
Nightfox wrote to Spectre <=-
my first AT class machine, was a 286-21 the entire 1Mb ram, equipped with
Interesting.. I didn't know they made the 286 at 21mhz.
claw wrote to Nightfox <=-
Interesting.. I didn't know they made the 286 at 21mhz.
I never had a 286 but if it had the ability to add a Math co-processor similar to the DX systems maybe thats it?
Warpslide wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
switch on an Unreal Tournament server (connected to that high speed connection) and play several games, usually to 8 or 9pm. It was neat
to see people connecting to our server from all over. We mostly did capture the flag games if I remember correctly.
Next door to us was a bar & grill and the wait staff knew to call and
ask if we wanted to order anything, even bringing over free refills on
pop (soda).
my first AT class machine, was a 286-21 the entire 1Mb ram, equipped
with
Interesting.. I didn't know they made the 286 at 21mhz.
Mauybe he meant 12? My first experience with hardware hacking was a 8 mhz
better. Microsoft is changing, and Powershell and WSL is recognition of that. They wouldn't be doing this otherwise, would they?? They are
Similarly, if the ME in your Intel CPU is hackable,
that might have a profound impact on you.
Nightfox wrote to boraxman <=-
better. Microsoft is changing, and Powershell and WSL is recognition of that. They wouldn't be doing this otherwise, would they?? They are
Sometimes I'm still a little suspicious about why Microsoft is
doing the things they're doing these days, in supporting Linux
and such. It seemed Microsoft used to employ tactics like
"embrace, extend, and extinguish" to try to eliminate competing technologies. By supporting Linux, I've wondered if Microsoft
eventually plans to try to destroy Linux in the long term.
Sometimes I'm still a little suspicious about why Microsoft is
doing the things they're doing these days, in supporting Linux
and such. It seemed Microsoft used to employ tactics like
"embrace, extend, and extinguish" to try to eliminate competing
technologies. By supporting Linux, I've wondered if Microsoft
eventually plans to try to destroy Linux in the long term.
I don't think they can destroy it, because Linux isn't under their absolute control, like Windows is. The open-source aspect means many people have control and they can't affect that.
my first AT class machine, was a 286-21 the entire 1Mb ram, equipped
Interesting.. I didn't know they made the 286 at 21mhz.
Mauybe he meant 12? My first experience with hardware hacking was a 8 mhz
Mauybe he meant 12?
Nightfox wrote to Gamgee <=-
Sometimes I'm still a little suspicious about why Microsoft is
doing the things they're doing these days, in supporting Linux
and such. It seemed Microsoft used to employ tactics like
"embrace, extend, and extinguish" to try to eliminate competing
technologies. By supporting Linux, I've wondered if Microsoft
eventually plans to try to destroy Linux in the long term.
I don't think they can destroy it, because Linux isn't under their absolute control, like Windows is. The open-source aspect means many people have control and they can't affect that.
You're probably right. Though I still wonder what they're up to,
and if they really just want to support the Linux community.
They might not be able to destroy Linux, but I wonder if they
could make things difficult. IMO they did that with the web in
the 2000s - Microsoft made Internet Explorer popular by including
it with Windows, and then introduced their own web extensions
that only worked in Internet Explorer. Internet Explorer also
had bugs and quirks that many web developers worked around. The
result was that there were many web sites at the time that only
really worked with Internet Explorer and didn't work as well with
other browsers, because web developers sometimes focused mainly
on getting their site to work with Internet Explorer.
Yes, I remember those days with IE problems too. It was like a vicious circle - design your site to work with IE, or else! The backing behind the demand was that IE was the dominant browser and they didn't want the upstart new browsers to take any market share away. I don't think I've "trusted" Microsoft since the first version of Windows showed up. I did like MS-DOS in the days before that, though.
Nightfox wrote to Gamgee <=-
Yes, I remember those days with IE problems too. It was like a vicious circle - design your site to work with IE, or else! The backing behind
the demand was that IE was the dominant browser and they didn't want the upstart new browsers to take any market share away. I don't think I've "trusted" Microsoft since the first version of Windows showed up. I did like MS-DOS in the days before that, though.
I hadn't been using PCs much in those days. My dad always had
computers around, but I don't remember him getting an
IBM-compatible PC until the mid-late 80s. I think the first
version of MS-DOS I remember using was probably 3.31, and 5.0
later. The first version of Windows I remember using was version
3.0 in 1990. I thought it all was fairly cool, but I started to
be frustrated with Windows when it seemed slow and sometimes
unstable, where other similar (less popular) software was
arguably better.. In the mid-90s, I was hoping OS/2 might start
to catch on more, but Windows was already a sort of default by
then.
Yes, I remember those days with IE problems too. It was like a vicious circle - design your site to work with IE, or else! The backing behind
better. Microsoft is changing, and Powershell and WSL is recognition that. They wouldn't be doing this otherwise, would they?? They are
Sometimes I'm still a little suspicious about why Microsoft is doing the things they're doing these days, in supporting Linux and such. It
seemed Microsoft used to employ tactics like "embrace, extend, and extinguish" to try to eliminate competing technologies. By supporting Linux, I've wondered if Microsoft eventually plans to try to destroy
Linux in the long term.
Nightfox
Sometimes I'm still a little suspicious about why Microsoft is
doing the things they're doing these days, in supporting Linux
and such. It seemed Microsoft used to employ tactics like
"embrace, extend, and extinguish" to try to eliminate competing technologies. By supporting Linux, I've wondered if Microsoft eventually plans to try to destroy Linux in the long term.
I don't think they can destroy it, because Linux isn't under their absolute control, like Windows is. The open-source aspect means many people have control and they can't affect that.
... Internal Error: The system has been taken over by sheep at line 19960
I never had any of the early computers like the TRS-80, Commodores, etc. My first one was called the "Kaypro PC" which I bought new in 1986. Had an 8088 CPU clocked at 4.77Mhz (which I later upgraded to an NEC V20 at 8Mhz - significant upgrade), CGA graphics, an amber mono monitor (probably 13-14"), and DUAL 5.25" floppy drives (360Kb each). No hard drive, although I added that later too. I added a 1200 baud modem at some point and had a Compuserve account eventually. Hard to imagine
such hardware now, but at the time... it was GREAT. Can't even
describe the enjoyment I got out of that computer. GW-BASIC
programming, WordStar, SuperCalc. I wish I had kept it but of course it is long gone. I got more computers obviously and also went up through the Windows versions like everybody else did. For some reason I was never interested in OS/2, and eventually started dabbling with Linux around 1996 or so. Didn't start using Linux seriously until about 2001, and been with it ever since. :-)
Ahhhhh, the memories. Good stuff.
I think I've been very civil and polite with you.
As have I. And I say this with all due respect, but your style of
debate is somewhat difficult to digest. One brings up general ideas
which impact a majority of people, and you debunk it with a corner case which may affect a few, if any.
I don't particularly like a debating style which gets bogged in technicalities. They are, to me, disingenuous and a waste of time. It seems a common debating style, and one I'm not interested in, as it doesn't resolve any problems, other than to make one person claim to be correct over the other.
I'm not suggesting you're doing this deliberately, but I can't see value in it and whether "technically" Windows is POSIX or not doesn't interest me, nor matter, nor does it matter if "technically" there is a chip on
my computer which might be closed off and has at the moment, little practical different on the choices I can make.
It wasn't my intent to be rude, it just seems like you are arguing tangental points, and thinking that any argument that can be made, is
one with veracity.
With /etc/passwd? Nope. That doesn't work. Because
the parser is are built into a library. And even on
systems where I can hack the library, I might use
something like LDAP or NIS, or even shell scripts and
rsync or rdist to copy those to machines where I can't
hack the library for some reason. So no, that doesn't
work for /etc/passwd.
Treat '/' as an escape character. Always. Thats it.
Yes, and quoted strings suck, because they may have within themselves, quotes. The parser has to know whether "," is a delimiter or not. You may have ," and ",/ Quote are not universally used either. The one I
had to write was using CSV data where spaced strings may or may not be quoted, within the same file. That a fault of implementation of
whatever wrote that data, than the CSV format itself, but such
differences are more likely.
And that is one definite improvement that powershell brings. Over time, I'm sure Windows will have the same composability, it just is at the moment perhaps not being used to its full extent, because using windows that way is something relatively new.
What you don't see, is developers leveraging existing tools, existing capabilties, and stringing them together to solve problems.
We get closed box solutions, usually a web based app.
I call it as I see it. The current computing paradigm is broken, error prone, and these are errors that I deal with professionally. Transcription errors, wrong information on a specification, unclear
status of documents, these are errors which result in costly rejects. When data is poorly managed, when it is difficult to consolidate, to query, to ratify, mistakes happen. The opacity between the different tools provides points of failure. As I said, errors come about from people incorrectly typing data, data that has already been entered and verified. It has to be typed because the tools don't allow the machine
to do the transcription.
generate documents could do this. Maybe Windows can, but if so, its now doing it late in its development, and it will take a culture shift.
Sometimes I'm still a little suspicious about why Microsoft is doing the things they're doing these days, in supporting Linux and such. It
seemed Microsoft used to employ tactics like "embrace, extend, and extinguish" to try to eliminate competing technologies. By supporting Linux, I've wondered if Microsoft eventually plans to try to destroy
Linux in the long term.
Re: Re: Windows vs Linux
By: tenser to boraxman on Mon Apr 25 2022 02:01 pm
Similarly, if the ME in your Intel CPU is hackable,
that might have a profound impact on you.
Intel's ME doesn't run in the CPU itself. It's in a separate set of
chips on the motherboard.
Typically, to use the ME from the OS, you'd need the Intel ME drivers & software installed. I'm nto sure, but I think Intel might only provide that for Windows. Although the Intel ME runs independently of the OS,
if you don't have the software installed on the OS for it, it may not affect you as much.
Wasn't Dr. Claw the bad guy from Inspector Gadget? ;)
You didn't miss a lot by not having a modem for a IIc. They had the dodgiest serial ports of any II. 5 pin din connectors, incomplete handshaking, no carrier detect. And at least on the early ones limited speed, but you'd probably only have needed 2400 back then. :)
Whee... PC's especially clones offered far better bang for your buck
than the premium Apple still charged for IIs which people still bought because they had such a presence in schools. It was cheaper to buy a second hand 286 when I got it, than to buy a SCSI card for the IIgs :/
The Vic20 was my second computer, from a garage sale soon after I got my first computer, which was also from a garage sale. I only had a few
games that came with it (SkyBlazer being my favourite), but it also had the manual, so I typed in a couple of the game listings in the back, and did a little programming, but with only a few tapes/cartridges, and
being 1991, having little opportunity to buy new software, it was, as
you say, like a console. I bugged my parents for a C64 which I got soon after, and that was fun for a few years before I got into PC's.
There are some distinct advantages to btrfs. It uses less resources and is better on older hardware. It is far, far more flexible, you can add, remove drives on a whim, and change raid level, all while the filesystem is online. It is built into the kernel, unlike ZFS, and can be mounted and unmounted like any other filesystem, it doesn't need the use of a specific tool like zfs. Also, being able to create copy-on-write copies of any file or directory to anywhere on the same drive is useful.
As have I. And I say this with all due respect, but your style of debate is somewhat difficult to digest. One brings up general ideas which impact a majority of people, and you debunk it with a corner ca which may affect a few, if any.
Perhaps you find my style difficult to digest, and perhaps
it is. However, the issue I have with your argument is that
you make general assertions that are poorly supported, mostly
through anecdotal evidence and appeals to authority, that are
logically inconsistent, and then use those to make inferences
that do not follow.
You also have a tendency to go from one topic to something
tangentially related. Recall that the genesis of this
discussion was your assertion that you don't want to see
Linux become easier to use because you fear losing something
in return. My response has always been that I don't see how
there's anything specific to Linux in particular that cannot
be replicated elsewhere (really, if Linux becomes what you
fear, simply move to FreeBSD, etc). It is unclear to me what
the Unix pipelines and the composibility of tools has to do
with it, and that seems like a non sequitur. Any really, the
Linux people have no desire to take away your ability to do
the sorts of things you appear to want to do. It's not going
to happen. And if it did, you could fork your own distro:
that's how it works.
Treat '/' as an escape character. Always. Thats it.
Nope. See what I wrote above, re-read your response,
and try to figure out how that would work. Particularly
since the pathname separator in both the shell and home
directory fields is '/' in /etc/passwd.
Actually, lexical analysis of strings literals with embedded
quotes escaped by backslashes is a trivial regular expression: /"(\.|[^\\"])*"/
Again, PowerShell is 15 years old.
What you don't see, is developers leveraging existing tools, existing capabilties, and stringing them together to solve problems.
That is blatantly false. This is exactly how software is
built these days. Have you ever done professional software
development?
There are some distinct advantages to btrfs. It uses less resources is better on older hardware. It is far, far more flexible, you can a remove drives on a whim, and change raid level, all while the filesys is online. It is built into the kernel, unlike ZFS, and can be mount and unmounted like any other filesystem, it doesn't need the use of a specific tool like zfs. Also, being able to create copy-on-write cop of any file or directory to anywhere on the same drive is useful.
Now I will have to play around with this. how is it in a vm?
DrClaw
I just don't see it. The basic paradigm is the same now as it was in 1999. You may have data in an excel spreadsheet, to extract the data, you have to open Excel, select the "File -> Open" option, open the file, use Excels search functionality, find the record containing the key you need, navigate to the cell which has the data you want, CTRL-C, then switch to where you want to put the data, put your mouse pointer there, CTRL-V. Repeat.
If I recall correctly, this started from a comment that Linux was more configurable, and more amenable to constructing your own workflows and system than Windows. That the Unix philosophy was based on composition
of existing tools, whereas Windows evolved in a paradigm where computing solutions came from application solutions.
I just don't see it. The basic paradigm is the same now as it was in 1999. Y
may have data in an excel spreadsheet, to extract the data, you have to open
Excel, select the "File -> Open" option, open the file, use Excels search
functionality, find the record containing the key you need, navigate to the ce
which has the data you want, CTRL-C, then switch to where you want to put the
data, put your mouse pointer there, CTRL-V. Repeat.
Ponder how is that different in Nix? Sure you can feed your data through a variety
ad hoc tools, but it still really belongs to whatever it was
created in. Its not like you can do much to an SQL database with a text editor or spreadsheet... I will freely admit I have no experience with a nix gui so
there might be something I'm missing. But the premise seem to me to be the same
regardless of O/S or platform. Specific data types belong to
specific applications... the only change will be how you can try to integrate that
data into other uses.
Spec
*** THE READER V4.50 [freeware]
Treat '/' as an escape character. Always. Thats it.
Nope. See what I wrote above, re-read your response,
and try to figure out how that would work. Particularly
since the pathname separator in both the shell and home
directory fields is '/' in /etc/passwd.
The escape character means the next character is to be taken literally
and not translated.
//etc//password
Or, if you had a colon delimited file, you would insert colons which
were not to be taken as separators as /:
\\n would mean take the newline as a literal, and not an end of record.
Actually, lexical analysis of strings literals with embedded
quotes escaped by backslashes is a trivial regular expression: /"(\.|[^\\"])*"/
Again, PowerShell is 15 years old.
How has it changed the use of Windows for users such as me? Remember, most users are like me, not software developers.
That is blatantly false. This is exactly how software is
built these days. Have you ever done professional software development?
I just don't see it. The basic paradigm is the same now as it was in 1999. You may have data in an excel spreadsheet, to extract the data,
you have to open Excel, select the "File -> Open" option, open the file, use Excels search functionality, find the record containing the key you need, navigate to the cell which has the data you want, CTRL-C, then switch to where you want to put the data, put your mouse pointer there, CTRL-V. Repeat.
The OS makes it *slightly* easier in that you can double click the file
in Explorer to open it, if the file is accessible via Explorer, which
may not be the case on a bespoke cloud storage system.
The paradigm is unchanged. The data belongs to Excel, it is accessible only through Excel, or perhaps a custom piece of code, maybe. We are still using computers in terms of managing applications.
You might say "so what", in which case, I think that is the result of a lack of imagination. Data, such as product master data, should be independent of an application. It should be part of the system, the system being the computing environment. Make data a first class
citizen, data belongs to the user, not the app, and make it available
for any piece of code to refer to.
In this respect, one can store product master data, and then use that
data to generate a document, or use it to validate data, or to run
queries about inventory. We need this functionality, and you can tell this because what business does, is it seeks software which does all
this, such as a Quality Management System. The thing is ,these systems are operating systems in and of themselves, which is why they tend to stagnate, development and customisation is difficult, and outside the scope of what the business can do itself because it is the vendors own specific solution, instead of one leveraging core OS components and
tools. The result is sub-par, slow, error prone and costly, but no one can see any better, because we're stuck with this idea that computers
are there to run Applications.
Maybe Windows is ready to do this, perhaps, but it just plain hasn't resulted in practical change.
Nightfox wrote to Gamgee <=-
using was probably 3.31, and 5.0 later. The first version of Windows I remember using was version 3.0 in 1990. I thought it all was fairly
cool, but I started to be frustrated with Windows when it seemed slow
and sometimes unstable, where other similar (less popular) software was arguably better..
As a BBS guy, comms under Windows was bad for a long time, and that kept me in OS/2 and DOS. It wasn't until PCs got more horsepower that Windows became viable.
From 1997 until 2001 or so, I ran a DOS BBS in a window on my Windows95 desktop, and it ran OK for a single node with not a lot of traffic. By then, I was on a Pentium 166 and later Pentium Pro 200 system with 32+ megabytes of RAM, pretty good for the time. It was still bad at serial comms, but fast enough hardware to compensate.
Love all the nostalgic stories. kinda want to dial in. i know flex is adding lines for this soon my bbs will have dial up
As a BBS guy, comms under Windows was bad for a long time, and thatkept
me in OS/2 and DOS. It wasn't until PCs got more horsepower thatWindows
became viable.
Sometimes I'm still a little suspicious about why Microsoft is doing the things they're doing these days, in supporting Linux and such. It
seemed Microsoft used to employ tactics like "embrace, extend, and extinguish" to try to eliminate competing technologies. By supporting Linux, I've wondered if Microsoft eventually plans to try to destroy
Linux in the long term.
I haven't used it in a VM, but it should work just fine in one. If you
do have a Linux install, you can create disk files, and just put the
file system within those.
As a BBS guy, comms under Windows was bad for a long time, andkept
that
me in OS/2 and DOS. It wasn't until PCs got more horsepower thatWindows
became viable.
For some time, your fast 486 was better than any Pentium at interrupt driven serial I/O which may have been a big driver in the problem as much as Windoze.
I think you guys forgot to add the best OS ever made. Lets you talk to god. Heres the link to the wiki page. Might want to check it out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TempleOS
I've heard of that. Interesting that it was actually functional and the author developed it in a fairly short time. According to Wikipedia, the author had schizophrenia. :/
I'm the wrong person. You quoted Poindexter Fortran but your reply was
Ponder how is that different in Nix? Sure you can feed your data
through a variety of ad hoc tools, but it still really belongs to
whatever it was created in. Its not like you can do much to an SQL database with a text editor or spreadsheet... I will freely admit I have no experience with a nix gui so there might be something I'm missing.
But the premise seem to me to be the same regardless of O/S or platform. Specific data types belong to specific applications... the only change will be how you can try to integrate that data into other uses.
Spec
I believe that's what you've honed in on, but the comment
that precipitated that was you opining that making Linux
more user-friendly is dumbing it down and opening the door
to a loss of some sort of freedom as different use cases
become favored, which is just not an accurate reading of
things.
You keep missing the point.
Sure; that's how escape characters work. But now perhaps
you can explain how you intend to retrofit an escape
character into /etc/passwd given 50 years of installed
base? How do you intend to do this on systems that
share their authorization database via LDAP or NIS with
hosts where it is difficult or impossible to update libc?
What do you do about static binaries? What do you do about
the many, many tools that were written without care for
this new thing you want to introduce into an existing file
format? And how does any of this address the problem of
adding new fields, or changing existing fields?
Recall that the genesis of this subtopic was your opining
that delimited text files were somehow superior to CSV,
which is itself a delimited text format, and your seeming
objection (unclear; you never really addressed it) to my
statement that delimited files have limitations.
You seem to fixate on trivial technical details, like
escape characters etc, while missing the larger technical
issues. There's a reason the world has mostly moved to
structured data formats, and it's not because developers
or lazy or stupid or simply wow'ed by the shiny thing du
jour. We all understand how escaping works. Experienced
developers also understand that that is not the only issue
at play.
I have no idea, but that's not the point. The point is that
you can use the exact same model you point to with Unix on
Windows. The Unix philosophy is not singular in the way you
seem to be asserting it is; it's not even that rich on Unix.
Both VM/CMS and Windows actually have _more powerful_ primitives
than Unix/Linux because they bring notions of type safety and
structure to the pipe primitive.
If you aren't aware of the tools that are available on the
platforms you are dismissing, and not aware of the limitations
of the platforms you are lauding, perhaps you examine your
opinions and refrain from voicing value judgments.
What does that have to do with building software? Your
statement was about software development, which is _radically_
different now than it was in 1999. Based on this comment
alone, it seems likely your experience is limited to using
machines, and you have very limited development experience.
Sounds like you find yourself in a soul-sucking deadening
environment. I'm genuinely sorry for that; however, you
continue to draw unwarranted conclusions about things generally
based on your personal experience, which really does not
follow. That's called anecdotal evidence, and is a known
logical fallacy.
This is a strawman. I didn't say, "so what." Though I
have no idea why you're bringing this up in response to a
comment about software development, I will say that open
data formats are de rigor now and have been for quite some
time.
Also, you seem unaware of a number of points, here. Namely,
that you could simply programmatically extract the data you
want from an excel file. There are APIs for this in most
major programming languages and the formats themselves are
standardized (ISO/IEC 29500-1:2016). If you run across a
version of Excel that does not natively save in those standard
formats, you can likely export to a format that is, or one
easily groked by a library (even CSV!).
In other words, this problem is easily solved, even on
Windows. If there's a failure of imagination here, I'd
say it is not even considering these possibilities.
Again, you conflate the _system_ with the _application running
on that system_, and assert that the former implies the structure
of the latter. That is the part that does not follow.
You don't seem to want to acknowledge that the system is just a
tool, and haven't presented any serious evidence for any of your assertions beyond anecdote.
Finally, you may find life a bit more pleasant if you took the
time to look into solutions that are already available on the
platform you are forced to work on, instead of looking rigidly
at a different platform as the only solution.
Love all the nostalgic stories. kinda want to dial in. i know flex is adding lines for this soon my bbs will have dial up
I like the nostalgic stories too. And I think it's funny that back when broadband internet was becoming more common, it seemed so cool to have a super high-speed internet connection that was always connected, but now sometimes I want to use a modem with a phone line again to dial into a BBS.
Nightfox
I think you guys forgot to add the best OS ever made. Lets you talk to god. Heres the link to the wiki page. Might want to check it out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TempleOS
DrClaw
I haven't used it in a VM, but it should work just fine in one. If y do have a Linux install, you can create disk files, and just put the file system within those.
Well I'll have to spin it ups this weekend and play around with it. Do you have a distro you recommend trying it in?
DrClaw
You can export from an SQL database, and take what you need. It isn't
You'll want it for all of 5 minutes ,then go back to your Internet connection. The only thing I miss about dial up, is that you could
bypass the Internet. At the time there was no real good reason to do
so, but now with the Internet being what it is in terms of privacy the intimate "direct dial to a friends house" seems more appealing. I used
to dial into a friends place with modem, and we'd just chat "online" in Telix, and maybe send some small files back and forth, like cool new
Amiga Tracker Modules we've found.
tenser wrote to Nightfox <=-
It's not your father's Microsoft since Balmer retired.
claw wrote to boraxman <=-
Love all the nostalgic stories. kinda want to dial in. i know flex is adding lines for this soon my bbs will have dial up
claw wrote to boraxman <=-
Now I will have to play around with this. how is it in a vm?
My bad, not sure how I did that, found the right text in the wrong message.. when I reply I can't change the addressee... :/
with the Internet being what it is in terms of privacy the intimate "direct dial to a friends house" seems more appealing. I used to dial into a friends place with modem, and we'd just chat "online" in Telix, and maybe send some small files back and forth, like cool new Amiga Tracker Modules we've found.
But it is also in some ways quite impressive, and at times, quite awe inspiring how one man not only made this, but how this OS is quite a different paradigm.
Doesn't matter what distro you use. Anyone you can get working easily will be fine.
If you want something you can run easily, try a bootable "mini" distro, like Puppy Linux or even System Rescue CD. These will boot and run straight from the install media, which means for the VM, just create a couple of blank disk images, attach the ISO, and boot from the ISO and you're good to go.
Can't change the addressee? What are you using to reply to messages?
Nightfox wrote to claw <=-
I like the nostalgic stories too. And I think it's funny that back
when broadband internet was becoming more common, it seemed so cool to have a super high-speed internet connection that was always connected,
but now sometimes I want to use a modem with a phone line again to dial into a BBS.
I believe that's what you've honed in on, but the comment
that precipitated that was you opining that making Linux
more user-friendly is dumbing it down and opening the door
to a loss of some sort of freedom as different use cases
become favored, which is just not an accurate reading of
things.
A large reason for Free operating systems being free, is that no one project, no one power, no one vision has enough power to be able to push out competitors. I did express a concern that Linux say, taking a majority share of the desktop could lead to degradation of freedom.
Such a scenario results in a higher probability of one company defining what Linux is, and having potential clout to shape the desktop of the majority of users, and make specific requirement which push out, or exclude competition. For example, using an app packaging system which
is closed source (for security reasons), or if PC's will only boot
signed kernels, and they can push for standards which only they, or only large aligned distros can meet.
I'm sorry I brought up ESR's article, because it wasn't the point I
wanted to made. /etc/passwd is a little different, but the details
don't matter. ESR made a statement that delimited formats are better
than CSV, in general I think he is right, but there are nuances.
What does that have to do with building software? Your
statement was about software development, which is _radically_ different now than it was in 1999. Based on this comment
alone, it seems likely your experience is limited to using
machines, and you have very limited development experience.
Sounds like you find yourself in a soul-sucking deadening environment. I'm genuinely sorry for that; however, you
continue to draw unwarranted conclusions about things generally
based on your personal experience, which really does not
follow. That's called anecdotal evidence, and is a known
logical fallacy.
There is a difference between building software, and building solutions.
When software is created by developers to solve a particular problem, it tends to be a monolithic 'suite', often now web based, which attempts to capture all workflows, but is usually inflexible (or modifiable at a cost).
I do export to CSV, before using in my scripts, and I am aware of the API's. I don't claim it is not possible to create such workflows in Windows, only that Windows wasn't designed around this type of computing model.
To some degree, the system has shaped the applications, moreso by convention and culture, than by technical necessity.
Whereas Unix systems officially support a different GUI.
My experience isn't the only thing I'm drawing on, but from
conversations with others.
tenser wrote to Nightfox <=-
It's not your father's Microsoft since Balmer retired.
There's an old school mentality that's now become dated. Ballmer had the benefit of momentum at Microsoft, but didn't provide much intertia, IMO. He was focused on "beating" the competition with a full stack of offerings - OS, browser, instant messaging, office apps and more.
Revenue was guaranteed through programmed obsolescence and support lifetimes.
The problem with exclusionary strategies is that you limit your market base.
Better still to separate your apps from your OS, especially as other
OSes gain market share. Move from a big, possibly unneeded upgrade
every couple of years to monthly billing...
Companies are still going to buy your OS, and you still have the Intel home market locked in - so rely on volume licensing and OEM deals.
Its at the bottom of every message :) "The Reader" its rather antique DOS software. When it first came out if seemed really spiffy to have a lightbar driven reader... was useless at 2400 though :P
Anyway its reply foibles are no change in addressee or subject... If you write instead sans quoting you do whatever you like.
About this time I discovered Fido via FTP, and could download Fido packets 4x/day instead of once at night.
I remember telling people 20 years ago that as the cost of
hardware goes asymptotically towards zero, software costs
would start to dominate, thus driving the rise of FOSS.
Google has O(10^7) discrete machines in its data centers,
distributed globally. The cost to license the OS for all
of them? $0.
Foible? ....*Googles "foible"*.... Ah, I hadn't heard that word
And Apple, seemingly wanting to be a hardware-focused company, decided years ago to start making their Mac OS X updates free for their Macintosh machines. Years ago, I remember Mac OS X costing about $110 for a copy, and was much less to upgrade from the past couple versions. But those prices for Mac OS X are long gone.
You can export from an SQL database, and take what you need. It isn'
Yeah but you can export from pretty much anything, and that means the
data isn't inherently transferable, you still have to find the lowest common denominator all your dud software can handle.
Spec
You'll want it for all of 5 minutes ,then go back to your Internet connection. The only thing I miss about dial up, is that you could bypass the Internet. At the time there was no real good reason to do so, but now with the Internet being what it is in terms of privacy th intimate "direct dial to a friends house" seems more appealing. I us to dial into a friends place with modem, and we'd just chat "online" Telix, and maybe send some small files back and forth, like cool new Amiga Tracker Modules we've found.
Nice The first Terminal program I has was Telix! Then Terminate came along. With the wider view and better scroll back options. Couldn't
beat it. Man the mods. We all collected them. Made mix tapes traded them. It was just crazy how much fun they were. Riding around on our bikes listening to them and eventually our cars. I remember takeing a
few steps to get them on to CD. :D
DrClaw
Love all the nostalgic stories. kinda want to dial in. i know flex is adding lines for this soon my bbs will have dial up
I don't want to go through the hassle of getting a modem working with my VOIP lines. I'll have to settle for running Telix in DOSBOX, setting the speed to 38400 and hearing that connect alert sound that reminds me of
the 90s.
... Move towards the unimportant
with the Internet being what it is in terms of privacy the intimate "direct dial to a friends house" seems more appealing. I used to dial a friends place with modem, and we'd just chat "online" in Telix, and maybe send some small files back and forth, like cool new Amiga Track Modules we've found.
Yeah, I did that a few times back in the day. That was fun.
Nightfox
--- SBBSecho 3.15-Win32
But it is also in some ways quite impressive, and at times, quite awe inspiring how one man not only made this, but how this OS is quite a different paradigm.
I also heard he made his own variant of the C programming language to write TempleOS in - it was called "Holy C".
Nightfox
Doesn't matter what distro you use. Anyone you can get working easil will be fine.
If you want something you can run easily, try a bootable "mini" distr like Puppy Linux or even System Rescue CD. These will boot and run straight from the install media, which means for the VM, just create couple of blank disk images, attach the ISO, and boot from the ISO an you're good to go.
Thanks. I actually have system rescue on PXE boot so might give that a shot this weekend.
DrClaw
Sysop Noverdu BBS (Noverdu.com)
Standard Ports for SSH/Telnet Web/HTTP://Noverdu.com:808
fsxNet/MRC Chat/Registered Doors!/50Nodes/No Time Use! Stay On!
--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A47 2021/12/24 (Linux/64)
A large reason for Free operating systems being free, is that no one project, no one power, no one vision has enough power to be able to p out competitors. I did express a concern that Linux say, taking a majority share of the desktop could lead to degradation of freedom. Such a scenario results in a higher probability of one company defini what Linux is, and having potential clout to shape the desktop of the majority of users, and make specific requirement which push out, or exclude competition. For example, using an app packaging system whic is closed source (for security reasons), or if PC's will only boot signed kernels, and they can push for standards which only they, or o large aligned distros can meet.
So things that are already happening in the firmware space.
Mods, S3M's, 669's, Impulse Tracker, they were the bomb! When I got the 386, it had an Adlib card. The Adlib card had an OPL2 chip, but no DSP. So FM Synthesis only, yet mod players could play mods through them,
albeit quietly. Some even supported the PC speaker, which sounded, well, not as good as Adlib.
I think this stems from Jobs in particular deciding this is what you want, you just don't know it. I'm not sure going forward how long this will really be viable for them. They don't seem to have any..... innovators at the moment.. that is innovators in the paradigm change kind of area... probably plenty of smart people refining "current" concepts.
We used to use a version of ZModem called szmodem, I think "Super Z Modem". You could while a transfer was going, chat or play tetris or another two player game. Kind of cool to be able to do that while a transfer was going, as typically in those days, once you started a download if you were using DOS, thats it, your computer can't do anything else until you're done.
szmodem sounds familiar.. And I had started to see software that let you do other things while transferring a file, just before the internet started to get popular.
szmodem sounds familiar.. And I had started to see software that
let you do other things while transferring a file, just before the
internet started to get popular.
There was also bi-modem, and another one...sabre hmmm no... nup can't think what it was... they all appeared roughly the same kind of time... about 93/94 at least here anyways.
Which is the point you were making earlier, wasn't it ;)
in my BBS in case a user wanted to use one of them. These days, it seems there's just support for X/Y/Zmodem in modern BBS software, and I'd heard technically we don't even need those when sending data over an internet connection.
Which is the point you were making earlier, wasn't it ;)
Bazingo.
Mods, S3M's, 669's, Impulse Tracker, they were the bomb! When I got 386, it had an Adlib card. The Adlib card had an OPL2 chip, but no D So FM Synthesis only, yet mod players could play mods through them, albeit quietly. Some even supported the PC speaker, which sounded, we not as good as Adlib.
Hmm If I recall right, ModTracker for the PC came with schematics for a parallel port D2A converter... either a resistor ladder type or a DAC0800 chip. It actually worked better than the adlib.
ST
We used to use a version of ZModem called szmodem, I think "Super Z Modem". You could while a transfer was going, chat or play tetris or another two player game. Kind of cool to be able to do that while a transfer was going, as typically in those days, once you started a download if you were using DOS, thats it, your computer can't do anyt else until you're done.
szmodem sounds familiar.. And I had started to see software that let
you do other things while transferring a file, just before the internet started to get popular.
There were a couple of graphical BBS standards I started to see too -
RIP and RoboBoard. I remember calling one or two RoboBoard BBSes in my area, and I remember RoboBoard having a custom, fully graphical BBS
client program, and I seem to remember it looking a bit like AOL or Windows, where you could have multiple things going on with the BBS at
the same time. I think it would allow you to be downloading a file
while also playing a game and chatting, etc..
Nightfox
szmodem sounds familiar.. And I had started to see software that let do other things while transferring a file, just before the internet started to get popular.
There was also bi-modem, and another one...sabre hmmm no... nup can't think what it was... they all appeared roughly the same kind of time... about 93/94 at least here anyways.
Spec
Which is the point you were making earlier, wasn't it ;)
Bazingo.
I think that's the core reason I don't have any Apple devices right now. They seem to want a lot of control over the hardware and software, and more and more lately, they don't have any offerings that I really want.
Which is the point you were making earlier, wasn't it ;)
Bazingo.
Which I don't disagree with, and is forward looking. Freedom requires both, the ability to understand, modify, configure and compose software
at the higher level, and the ability to actually build it and run it at
a lower level.
The former cannot exist without the latter, but the latter without the former is pointless.
A lot of transfer protocols won't behave over the interwebs due to latency.. TLP doesn't get any assist in the department being 2-3 layers before you reach the BBS. I can barely get any of it to run over LAN let alone from something from remote.
Being able to do two things at once though is something I'd still like to see on a BBS, in particular have a download going while composing messages.
That's what I've heard, but I've been able to upload & download files via Zmodem to remote BBSes and haven't had a problem.
Which I don't disagree with, and is forward looking. Freedom require both, the ability to understand, modify, configure and compose softwa at the higher level, and the ability to actually build it and run it a lower level.
The former cannot exist without the latter, but the latter without th former is pointless.
The latter is essential the former. What does it matter what
you do to configure your "free" desktop and shell environment
when you can no longer boot it because the platform vendors
have locked you out at the firmware level? Or when you can
no longer get an X server that works on your hardware because
the graphics adapter vendors have decided that they just won't
tell the X people how to program the hardware? That is the
point.
Fortunately, Linux is too important now to lock out entirely.
But vendors don't care about Xorg or Wayland, and the firmware
folks could well require signed kernels to boot, in which case
your "freedom" to configure your own kernel is gone. And if
that kernel only runs signed binaries? Forget it (and yes,
Linux supports that, and yes, it's used in data centers).
--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A47 2021/12/24 (Linux/64)
Nightfox wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
With my original BBS, I joined FidoNet a bit late (in 1998). By then,
I probably could have been transferring FidoNet packets by FTP several times a day instead of once a night.
That was a good time, but the end was definitely in sight for theI was one of the last dialup bbs in my area code. Then I went dsl in 2002.
dial-up
BBS.
That's what I've heard, but I've been able to upload & download files via Zmodem to remote BBSes and haven't had a problem.
I was one of the last dialup bbs in my area code. Then I went dsl in
2002.
Interesting. Probably depends on implementation at both ends of Z-modem.. but Z is usually the first to fail.. shifting block size while
That's what I've heard, but I've been able to upload & download
files via Zmodem to remote BBSes and haven't had a problem.
Interesting. Probably depends on implementation at both ends of Z-modem.. but Z is usually the first to fail.. shifting block size while dealing with latency, while X/Y usually keep functioning due to more simplistic action.
Quoting Nightfox to Spectre <=-
software, and more and more lately, they don't have any offerings that
I really want. In recent years, they've even gone so far as soldering
the RAM onto the board and making it hard to upgrade/replace other components as well.. But I think I had heard they're reversing that trend, at least with a couple of their Macs. But they're also fairly expensvie too..
I was one of the last dialup bbs in my area code. Then I went dsl in 2002.
You guys lasted longer than us. By ~93/94 it was all over here... dialins virtually went to 0 in a matter of a couple of months. By 2000 we would have had a pretty good shaking out of ISPs as well most of the BBS level guys had merged into bigger dialup installations, and ADSL/Cable were putting the kibosh on those too.
ST
I was using dial up BBS's up until about 1999, though it was around 1995-1996 when they started to really decline.
I'm in Australia, so it seems they kept going here for a little longer.
I finally moved away from
using a modem in 2007.
Linux is easy to use, my wife is using it with very little training.
The only thing I had to show her, was where to go to install software,
and how to change the background image. My pre-school kids figured out how to start and stop programs.
I agreed that being able to use your hardware at a fundamental level was necessary, but the original point I was making was orthogonal to this.
It was that a sense of freedom at a higher level (at the application
level and higher) was based on the functionality the software gave you, the documentation that gave you, and the way in which the disparate
pieces that form your system can be put together the way you want.
To use an analogy, I was talking about your freedom to drive your car wherever you like, at any time you like, taking whatever route you feel
is good for you, whereas you're talking about the ability to start the
car at all. Yes, the former freedom is useless without the latter, but
it still warrants discussion.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 296 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 50:39:06 |
| Calls: | 6,649 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,200 |
| Messages: | 5,330,212 |
