Re: Linux, the final decision

From: Kadaitcha Man (nospam_at_rainx.cjb.net)
Date: 02/01/04

  • Next message: d2004xx: "Re: Linux, the final decision" 
    Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 18:34:10 -0800 (PST)

    The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Kadaitcha Man
    > <nospam@rainx.cjb.net>
    > wrote
    > on Fri, 30 Jan 2004 22:29:56 -0800 (PST)
    > <klPHUr2xDNtv7E285182pk77cDrx1G8h@nsa.silentsky.com>:
    >
    >>The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    >>
    >>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Kadaitcha Man
    >>
    >>>Actually, a GUI restart is worse for the workstation sitter.
    >>>With a reboot, it's simple: CTRL-ALT-DEL and that's it.
    >>>A GUI restart can be initiated on Linux by one of the following.
    >>>
    >>>[1] The X server crashes on its own. This is somewhat akin to
    >>> a Windows spontaneous reboot except that the rest of the
    >>> server doesn't notice. Under normal circumstances the user
    >>> will just see his screen vanish, to be replaced by an
    >>> authentication widget, unless he used 'startx' in which case
    >>> he might get a message. The apps will die. If the session
    >>> manager's smart enough they might restart when he next logs in
    >>> but I've discovered that, at least for xterms, they're not too
    >>> bright about it; if you have a chance try setting up a
    >>> multiworkspace Gnome/sawfish desktop, fire up a bunch of
    >>> of Xterms, then log out and log back in. The results are amusing
    >>> to a person of a certain mindbent but hardly useful.
    >>>
    >>> For its part Galeon fares somewhat better but one has to be careful
    >>> when restarting it to start it from the same workspace/window where
    >>> it died or its session was saved; otherwise it shifts.
    >>
    >>SHOCK! HORROR! And to listen to the vast majority of the cola posters,
    >>that is an out and out lie that simply does not happen in linux.
    >
    >
    > Well, it may depend on what one defines as "Linux"; kernel crashes
    > are rather rare.

    Indeed, but being as I'm a *** troll, I won't let that distinction
    get in the way of healthy debate.

    >>BWAHAHAHAHAH!!! I tried it whilst reading that. I lost the lot - no
    >>prompts to save my work, nothing -- POOF! BWAHAHAHAHAHA!! Thank you for
    >>that *eg*

    [snip]

    > That most editors don't bother indicates that we have a challenge
    > in the Linux community -- a challenge that should be met if
    > we ever are going to compete with a buggy but omnipresent
    > competitor.

    Indeed, but windows does go POOF! without warning. That cannot be
    denied. Of course, the scenario we are discussing is avoidable.

    > (HINT HINT, guys. I know you're out there. :-) )

    LOL

    [snip]

    >>Yes, I understood most of that already.
    >
    >
    > Good. :-)

    Well, if I'm going to succeed at being a linux troll instead of a
    wintroll, I'm going to have to know my stuff.

    [snip]

    > Welcome to Fundamental Philosophical Incompatibility Land. :-)
    >
    > As you might have noticed, there are (at least) two general
    > possibilities for design that are possible.
    >
    > [1] The system pretends the crash didn't happen and waits for
    > the remote box to restart, then continues where it left off.
    >
    > [2] The system notifies the app that something went wrong, which
    > the app then decides to notify the user, confusing him
    > to some extent, then the app terminates.
    >
    > With NFS, one can get either option. :-) (I'd have to look to see
    > how Windows deals with an analogous situation. One advantage
    > of course is that Windows drivers have access to the GUI, which
    > might be of some assistance for notification if a remote node
    > decides to go down.)

    That drivers have access to the gui is not a hard and fast rule. See the
    common object model.

    >>I didn't mean first time at that age, but you're right. I was going to
    >>mention that I cannot give linux to my kids because the software they
    >>use, and you mention Jumpstart, which the 3yr old uses here, is simply
    >>not available. The older kids are into very heavy graphics games and
    >>they will not play under XO.
    >
    >
    > Correct, although it may depend on the engine; both Quake and
    > Unreal engines can run under Linux. (Of course it depends on
    > the mods the gamedevelopers did on the games, and there are
    > many many other game engines -- Build comes to mind [Duke Nukem,
    > Max Payne, etc.] -- which haven't been ported yet.)

    Hopefully the developers will get on the bandwagon when XOO/Wine et al
    are stable enough and start to build apps that support that environment.

    [snip]

    > Linux does *not* work out of the box. You take a Linux kernel
    > (any kernel), compressed, uncompiled, and make it work without
    > any utilities.

    There's the kernel distinction again. So, what is the correct term for
    what I'm talking about? Is the whole package, including the GUIs, the OS
    or not? Is it something else? What is the collective term for all the
    things I have installed that are currently called Xandros?

    [snip]

    > I'd have to look up the details.)

    No need.

    > And Windows has exactly the same problem, although Windows
    > sidesteps it through the Magic Of Microsoft Marketing(tm).
    > Simply put, no one has to install Windows because the
    > vendors of prebuilt x86 machines have done all of the
    > schlogging for you; just plug it in and go.

    Not true in most cases. You have over-generalised.

    > If one does have to install Windows from scratch (a
    > full XP install, that is), one has a little work ahead,
    > judging from the posts I've seen thus far, with perhaps
    > three or four reboots -- including the one that starts
    > reading from the CD. (I suspect most of these are't all
    > that necessary, though.)

    I can get my machine installed with XP, all upto date drivers and SP1 in
    two reboots. It's a matter of knowing WTF you're doing. I could do it in
    one, but it's risky because the SP might have unmet driver dependencies
    and could be waiting for the drivers to be updated by the reboot. But
    windows actually tells you that you cannot proceed without a reboot when
    the dependency issue occurs.

    [major snippage]

    >>>I take it you've read the Deuglification Howto?
    >>
    >>The what? oh - de-uglification. No. But I just found it
    >>on google. Thank you. At least I'm not the only one
    >>complaining about linux' font rendering.
    >
    >
    > You're hardly the first. :-)

    The problem ended up being mozilla. TTfont support is good. It worked
    out of the box in Xandros. All I had to do was install the fonts. Even
    OpenOffice picked them up to use. It turns out mozilla is a piece of
    ***. It wants to control the fonts and refuses to recognise your system
    settings. I'm a happy linux*** at the moment.

    >>>If you're a masochist you can of course design your own fonts... :-)
    >>>I might consider such at some point (for other reasons).
    >>
    >>I used to do that many years ago as a postscript programmer. Oh joy!
    >
    > Like I said...if you're a masochist. :-)

    I installed linux, didn't I?

    > Personally, I'd try to do something with BDF, were I all that
    > interested in the problem. Of course, BDF is ancient tech
    > nowadays; I probably should find info on TrueType.

    It's worth the effort. 

    -- 
Kadaitcha Man: Registered Linux User #344402
Akhenaten: Registered Linux Machine #235500
-- 
Your Free Insult: Thou begemming, gauging, scabby duck stoppling throat scraping.
  • Next message: d2004xx: "Re: Linux, the final decision"