J
Jan Panteltje
Is that so? Did not know... How about XFree? (what I run).
Novell Desktop Linux 10: getting closer to a toss up between Linux & Windows?
J
Jan Panteltje
You mean you cowboys learned it from the injuns?
J
Jan Panteltje
I will have to look at that, local connects work fine for all users...
This is 'proftpd' started from inet.d/
J
Jan Panteltje
I've heard people describe Windows menuing interface as intuitive - what
utter tripe!... consistent *can* be its strength if programmers don't
wander too far. While I think we're all aware of the strengths of a CLI,
any suggestion of going without a GUI would be absurd - Jan's GUI avoidance
is err, perverted.
Yes make fun of it, I put some desktop shots here, as ftp seems to have been
censored in the US ;-)
http://panteltje.com/panteltje/d/
J
Jan Panteltje
R
Robert Redelmeier
George Macdonald said:
Of course! Almost everything is difficult to learn and retain
if you don't use it.
Agreed. The only intuitive interface is the nipple. -- Jay Volmer
For me, it's the other 'way around. Any suggestion of going
without a CLI is absurd in the long term. I can suffer for a
short while if I don't have admin to do. But it is painfully
slow and inflexible. With ssh, I can work across the 'net on
my home computer _exactly_ as if I were at the console. My mail
goes into the same folders, my usenet .newsrc is current and my
web favorites and cache are all there. I can easily & temporarily
run `putty` on most unlocked MS-Windows machines.
Graphics are only rarely important, like when I want to watch
traffic maps, weather or hurricane tracks. Perhaps I should
look into SVGAlib so I don't need to load X. I can navigate
most websites (except my bank's) with `links`.
Jan's GUI avoidance is err, perverted.
Then I'm even worse. I load X less than once per day.
(I've been MS-free for 5+ years except at work). I can see
GUIs have some use. Just not much for me. I would have to
give up too much.
-- Robert
R
Robert Redelmeier
The little lost angel said:Hmm interesting! I didn't know the shells can do filename
completion nowadays! That might make things a lot easier. Every
year or so, I make one attempt at setting up a *nix box and it
always end up as too much of a tedium to use
File name completion isn't all that new. I believe 4DOS had it 15+
years ago. I get irritated when I'm stuck with some dumb install
shell (like `ash`) without a history or filename completion.
FYI, filename completion will also do the quoting/escaping to
properly handle filenames with spaces in them.
Completion (both command and filename) and persistant (on disk)
command history are two important CLI usability features. I can
look back and see what command worked to do something I need done
again. And just type !321 if I want to repeat it, or !321
ifI want to edit it. This helps when I look back 6 months to see
how I burnt a backup of my son's MS-WinXP box across the network.
Even MS-WinNT cmd.exe has filename completion (but not command
completion). You many need to adjust registry settings under
HKLM\sw\MS\Command Processor , but I believe XP has reasonable
defaults [TAB].
-- Robert
T
The little lost angel
Thanks for the tip!
T
The little lost angel
I've heard people describe Windows menuing interface as intuitive - what
utter tripe!... consistent *can* be its strength if programmers don't
wander too far. While I think we're all aware of the strengths of a CLI,
any suggestion of going without a GUI would be absurd - Jan's GUI avoidance
is err, perverted.
The strange thing is GUIs are aplenty on his screenshots....
K
Keith
Unlike Europeons, we learn.
G
George Macdonald
Censored? I don't think so - you just don't know how to do it apparently.
If you were expecting people to run an FTP to download *your* files, which
could be infections for all we know, and then run them through a viewer
program you're as daft as a brush.
As for the content, I still don't know what you're trying to present here:
so you have a few graphical interface progs which run under X. So bloody
what? You think we've never seen an X application before?
G
George Macdonald
I'm impressed.Ô_ó
G
George Macdonald
But it sounds to me like Jan is trying to "sell" a vertical solution to end
users - most people can't cope with anything more than a browser.
I don't think I could go "back" to something like `links` - sounds like
wearing a hair shirt to me.
On the subject of M$ dependency, I came across this last night:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/12/AR2006021200942.html
$22Billion and this is what they came up with! I can't see any mention of
what the actual dependency is -- ActiveX maybe? -- but it's odd that they
only mention Mac users as those who are excluded.
R
Robert Redelmeier
George Macdonald said:
Agreed. I believe that people should choose their own tools.
Only they know enough to decide for themselves. But I also
believe that all alternatives should be presented.
I don't think I could go "back" to something like `links`
- sounds like wearing a hair shirt to me.
Of course there's no disputing taste. But I have my choice
of browsers, and I almost always prefer `links` (I migrated
from lynx a few years ago). Pages load quicker, without
distracting backgrounds, fonts, photographs/ads.
There's a correction on the top of the page, that's 22
_million_ devcost. Still, your point is well taken.
It's at least a 220 jobyear effort.
They probably don't have data for Linux. It could be ActiveX
or some binary applet that gets dropped. It might be a simple IE
dependancy. I think MS-IE for Mac has been on-again, off-again.
In any case, I think it's appalling. That project spec should
have had target platforms that would include the Mac, Suns
and non-IE browsers. Especially since AFAIK the NIST still
considers MS-IE insecure and recommends alternatives be used.
-- Robert
R
Robert Redelmeier
George Macdonald said:
I agree Jan's ftpd looked very misconfigured. I tried it
from three different machines, one in Europe.
I disagree. I fully expect something as simple as a viewer
to be free of exploits, if not entirely bug-free. I won't
blame data for malevolence. Users have responsibilities too.
Agreed. I wasn't sure what the point was, other than it seemed
Jan had a borderless shell running, and X apps pasted overtop
(perhaps without stealing focus?).
-- Robert
J
Jan Panteltje
Well look at it the bright way, by not having MS and not 400 Billion in grants
you save 500 Billion on MS software.
Where do you think the gov gets the 400B from anyways ;-)
(MS sells for 4G $, taxes .4G$ and YOU pay for the 4G$ by buying all those
E M P E R O R no clothes apps).
And, as the subject is the new Novell desktop, at least SOME will agree with
me that THIS:
http://www.novell.com/linux/xglrelease/
does not add a lot to 'functionality'.
Indeed it is just a waterhead on the same box with the same apps.
As for the ftp server (your other reply), yes I understand a bit the stress
you poor MS victims must be under, now that every website, every movie, every
email, and every link can take over your box and destroy years of work.
My condolences....
Now with 4 years and servers online and a LOT of usage not ONE external 'event'
did anything to my Linux box.
I read emails, download files, open attachments, and have a good firewall
(iptables).
As to the ftp server, I notice the old kernel and system worked (!!!) and this
one does not.
Only from inet.d it does not work, so now it (proftpd) runs standalone.
Tested from the US.
So, yes, MS soft makes one paranoia, it helps to sell anti-virus soft.
Just like Bush makes the world paranoia for Iran, that helps to put oil
prices higher and sell weapons.
Paranoia sells, if not only for tinfoil hats.
You have been had (not only with that GUI when he cut DRDOS 6 away from
under Windows).
J
Jan Panteltje
Yes focus follows mouse (always, no click).
The point is the 6 virtual screens (pager on top right), one with
icons for when you need to click (netscape is easier to click for some
reason, actually it is firefox), one with whatever text files (C sources
manuals, config files, log files) that you are working on AT THAT
MOMENT (and I have many times ALL of these files open), not cluttered
in idiotic Billy little windows overlapping, but each in a nice rxvt, in ONE
virtual screen.
So much easier, and some GUI apps in their own virtual screen.
Even worked with MS Visual studio to create a C++ program?
Man what a nuissance
Just run gcc in one rxvt and have the sources in the other etc, and
you only need half the size monitor.
MS windows with ever smaller windows in windows is just so stupid...
you will need glasses and a mouse movent stabilizer ...
I agree completely, MS sort of assumes users are idiots.
That is why we here say 'written by idiots for idiots' about MS soft.
Here kids from 8 years up who can just spell LOVE xterms.
They WANT power of the PC.
MS degrades people to dumb ones who cannot write or speak, and only
point at things.. now think of the age group....
To learn to drive a car you need a license, maybe it would be not such
a bad idea to give some basic training in those Unix commands at the
schools, not just in Apple GUIs.
Because the younger they learn the better the chance they will be able
to play the game later on.
When old and blind and mute they can always refer back to the eye or nose driven
point and click to say:" 'I am happy' 'I am not'.
Efficient? I would like to see that astronomical number representing the
number of hours people spend flipping in front of the MS box 're-installing' that OS.
To do WHAT? torture them again !!!!
hehe
G
George Macdonald
I think you've lived with the "luxury" of being M$-free at home for too
long Robert.
As for responsibilities, yes... but we've all been caughtat one time or another - zero-day is what it is.;-)
G
George Macdonald
I've been surprised/stunned by the uptake of the graphical browser as a
sort of universal interface to just about any application you want. Corps
love it: low training/edu cost; IT takes back control, of computing
resource *and* data... and over WAN, not just local. When application
server was first talked of I poo-poo'd it but the interest/enthusiasm I'm
seeing is causing me to rethink.
Based on my comments above on potential browser ubiquity, this situation
needs to be fixed *badly* and *quickly* - I mean the mechanisms and their
standardization not just this one example. I see there's a project,
already available in Beta, for an ActiveX plugin for
Mozilla/Firefox/Seamonkey but while maybe useful... wrong end of the horse
IMO.
R
Robert Redelmeier
George Macdonald said:
Yes, it has been *stunning*. I suppose not that surprising,
because many apps are little more than filling in textboxes.
And it does fit well with the Glass House Agenda.
Yes. BillG once was worried the MS would be relegated to
obscurity by Netscape/Java, so cryed "Over the Top!" and
pushed MS-IE with all the [considerable] clout he could muster.
Looks like he got his way but with unintended consequences.
NO! Spreading the infections!
-- Robert