Re: Linux, the final decision

From: The Ghost In The Machine (ewill_at_sirius.athghost7038suus.net)
Date: 02/02/04

  • Next message: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: Linux, the final decision" 
    Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 01:00:20 GMT

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Kadaitcha Man
    <nospam@rainx.cjb.net>
     wrote
    on Sat, 31 Jan 2004 18:34:10 -0800 (PST)
    <NhcdqXtqaIP9E5BEF635zpeoFjUbNZNf@internet.hapra.at>:
    > 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.

    OK.

    >
    >>>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.

    No, but many drivers presumably do. Ideally, they all would, if
    only through some sort of interface that would prompt the user
    and ask "Hey, I'm having a problem here; what should I do?"

    Or at least indicate through the application instigating an
    action that there's an issue.

    >
    >>>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.

    Or simply port from Windows to Linux using XOO/Wine. In fact,
    they may have to do absolutely *nothing*, in an ideal sense;
    Unreal (an old copy) for instance works fine under Linux *as is*.
    (Linux + Wine, that is.)

    The main problem appears to be the installer.

    >
    > [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?

    A distribution. Or one can refer to a specific distro:
    Debian, RedHat, Fedora, Gentoo, Xandros, Mandrake, Thiz (or ThizLinux),
    etc.

    There's a lot of them out there; www.distrowatch.com may be
    of some interest, listing over a hundred.

    (And people wonder why Linux appears fragmented, disjointed,
    and confused.)

    >
    > [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.

    That I have, but the naive user will want to purchase
    something he can *use*, not something he has to fuss with
    and install 2,714 drivers, utilities, and patches to get
    it to work the way he -- or at least the way the vendor --
    wants it.

    Hence, bundling.

    There are Linux distros out there selling preinstalled
    equipment (ThizLinux comes to mind, although I forget
    who's selling it; I've seen it in Fry's Electronics, though,
    on equipment running for display), but they're few.

    Of course, you're a power user, who will probably customize
    the hell out of a box. (*I* would, too. :-) )

    >
    >> 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.

    I'm assuming that's not including the power-on slap-in-CD one?
    That's sort of a reboot. If I don't count that most Linux
    distros can do it in one, and it sounds like XP can, too,
    under many conditions.

    > It's a matter of knowing WTF you're doing.

    That *always* helps. :-)

    > 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.

    Should we worry? :-)

    >
    >>>>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?

    That you did, confusing the issue quite a bit. :-)

    >
    >> 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.

    Indeed, especially since I have the Three Magic Books on PostScript.
    (Red, green, blue). Of course, actually finding them in my
    demesnes might be an interesting problem.

    (Organized? What's that?)

    [.sigsnip] 

    -- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
  • Next message: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: Linux, the final decision"