Linux Format forums

[wyliecoyoteuk]

Rahkios, console yourself with the thought of how badly the unoptimised Windows kernel functions
_________________
The sig between the asterisks is so cool that only REALLY COOL people can even see it!

*************** ************

[jjmac]

Hullo All,

It's been a loooong day. I've been trying to make sense of 'git.kernel.org' ... trying to find some thing on why my pppd program in kv2.6.24 times out waiting on an acknowledgement from an initial confreq at dialup (wvdial). Why is it soooo hard sometimes ....


DocMindwipe wrote:

[ollie]

If the command line is so bad, why is microsoft investing so much time and effort in Windows PowerShell? They have even given you the choice of a "command line" installation for Windows Server 2008 r2. Of course it's not really a GUI free environment, they need the GUI to display error messages Then another problem arises, if you change your mind and want to use the GUI interface, you can't. You can't simply decide to add the GUI environment later, you have to reinstall from scratch. Somehow, I just knew they would stuff it up when it was announced and microsoft didn't disappoint. The flexibility of Linux is what really sets it apart from other operating systems.

[Bazza]

Hi DocMindwipe...

> COMPILING the kernel, EDITING the config-scripts.... while
> oldtimers are comfortable with it, the vast majority of new
> Linux users comes from the Redmond wannabe OS. And
> they've never realised that compiling a custom kernel can
> have HUGE advantages for their system. Because the
> wannabe only comes with one kernel, and "one kernel fits
> all" according to them.

I don`t understand your logic here.

Those people from the Redmond wannabe OS as you put it
are generally USERS, not TINKERERS. They probably don`t
even know how to use the CLI in Windblows let alone set
up a script file in an OS which is completely alien to them.

All they want to do is P'n'P - thats an old abbreviation we
don`t see much these days - so the one size fits all is all
they need OR want to know.

Crikey, I`ve been using Linux for years and still know nearly
nothing about how it really works, and there is NO-ONE on
here who hammers the HW more than I do.

> For us enlightened people, one kernel is what it takes to
> install, after that, we compile a custom kernel, useable
> only on my computer, and noone elses, unless they've
> got the EXACT same setup as mine.

Enlightened? Many Windows users who know nothing
about the internals can run rings around me on some
things; especially MS-Office so therefore by definition
that word is not OS or App' specific but user specific.
Therefore an expert on MS-Office is equally as "Enlightened"
as a expert Linux kernel compiler in their field of expertise.

> PLUS, it'll make the wannabe-converts less afraid to
> do things that might break their system

Now this IS my hobby and to break a fully operational
and stable Linux Flavour is bloody hard to say the least.

It is possible to obtain a "kernel panic" if you try hard
enough much as it is to obtain a BSOD/RSOD in Windwoes.
Trying to access RING 0 is near impossible with MMUs
controlling everything these days but I AM trying.
_________________
73...

Bazza, G0LCU...

Team AMIGA...

[Bazza]

Hi nelz...

> You have clearly never written Amiga installer scripts.
> Having written a 2000+ line Amiga installer script, I can
> tell you I'd far rather use the standard GNU tools like sed,
> grep and awk.

2000+ WHAT?

Were you writing NASAs satellite tracking installer code?
_________________
73...

Bazza, G0LCU...

Team AMIGA...

[nelz]

It was a pretty involved installer, installing and configuring several programs, but the syntax had a lot to do with the length too.
_________________
Unix is user-friendly. It's just very selective about who it's friends are.

[DocMindwipe]

Sometimes, I find otherwise intelligent people incredibly stupid.... where did I say Linux could implement the Amiga installer as it is? I believe I said (although not in those words) making a uniform Amiga Installer type thing, maybe Python would be a good choice for the actual syntax to make the "wizards."

I believe that to make Linux as a whole, and each distro just a matter of personal preference, easier for the people who's thinking of migrating from the Redmond-Wannabe. Make it easier to compile a kernel for the adventurous peoples. Make it easier to download and install from source.

I never ONCE said people HAVE to use the "Kernel compiling wizard," people who don't want to use it, are, just like right now, free to drop to the commandshell and type "make allyes" or whatever.

I'm by no means a newbie when it comes to Linux. My first experience with Linux, was when Slackware 3.2 was the most recent distro available (of the Slackware line, that is).

But when you've been around and gotten experience with other systems, you come to realise (well, at least _I_ came to realise) that some of the reasons people won't migrate, is because their curent system is easy to use, it's uniform in how you install programmes, it's uniform in so many ways. Partly because there's no "war" about which desktop environment is "best" (partly because you simply don't have a choice in it when installing, and partly because most people thinks "it comes with this interface, so it must be that way").

Ubuntu Desktop comes in how many flavours? let's see: Gnome (the "normal" version) KDE, XFCE, Myth, Edu, and probably more that I've forgotten from the top of me head. Slackware has how many desktop environments? KDE, XFCE, FVWM, FVWM95, Enlightnement, and more.

See what I mean? and installing a programme is a different experience in each of these.

To make it easier for people who're used to a uniform approach for every programme they install, and every config-setting they tweak, Linux should adopt some uniformity in the way every DE works and handles.

This does by no means mean that I mean "drop all other DE's and keep <insert a Desktop Environment of choice> only." It means "some things should work mostly the same way no matter what DE you use"

Our (Linux-users) freedom of choice in what we use, is very daunting for people who hasn't had that freedom at all.

[nelz]

You didn't, I was simply pointing out what an incredibly poor choice of a starting point, or even an example, it was. We are much better off with what we already have.

The problem with your kernel compiling wizard is that it won't work properly, because a computer is no longer a fixed set of hardware. Why would we need one anyway. The current method is quite straightforward and easy to understand, if a little long winded at time, but if you aren't prepared to take the time to make sure you are doing it peoperly, you shouldn't be recompiling your kernel in the first place. How many people actually need to recompile a kernel these days anyway?

There is already a lot of consistency between desktop environments, thanks for freedesktop.org. For example, install a GNOME program under GNOME and it appears in the menus. Switch to KDE and it appears in that desktop's menus too. There could certainly be more, and things are moving that way, but we also need to preserve the differences between the choices, or where's the choice? For most people, they pick a distro and the desktop, package manager and so on just follow automatically.
_________________
Unix is user-friendly. It's just very selective about who it's friends are.

[DocMindwipe]

I guess it's not something you "need" todo, compiling your own kernel. However, for some people, it's part of the fun. and part of the joy of not being restricted to what one company tells you to deal with.

The Installer-script was just an example... the Winetricks-sh script is far more along the lines that I'm thinking of... you start the script, then you're presented with a GUI and can select/deselct to your hearts content. No real reason why such a script couldn't be implemented with a couple of tweaks to get a "scan hardware and autoselect based upon findings" and "review choices" buttons, for example.

Well, no reason apart from I couldn't make a bash script meself if me life depended on it, not with anything even close to what the wintricks.sh do, anyways :lol

But yeah. The tools are already there, to make the commandline less needed (unless you, like me, aren't afraid of typing ls instead of opening a window to see the contents of a directory, or aren't afraid of compiling Wine from source).

To get the very very latest Wine (for example, just because I use that one alot meself) you either have to wait for the repo's to update, or download and compile the source yourself. And this, I believe, could've been so much more userfriendly for "newbies" by using a "wizardish" script.

btw, kudos to me for finally remembering the winetricks script as an example of what I mean _can_ be done to ease the "Command Line Terror"

[nelz]

Oh yes, scripts like WineTricks are easily done, using something like Zenity. But if you want to build a new kernel for the fun of it, why take away all the fun by having a wizard doing it all for you, especially if that kernel falls over as soon as you connect another piece of hardware.

As I mentioned earlier, the kernel make system already has the ability to configure a kernel based on autodetected hardware and loaded modules, but how many non-server computers have a fixed set of hardware these days?
_________________
Unix is user-friendly. It's just very selective about who it's friends are.

[DocMindwipe]

Not the point, whether or not you have a fixed set of hardware or not.

Many windows-users have heard that you can, if you want, compile your own kernel, and wants to try it, but they're scared away because of the commandline and the menu-config and whatnot..... me wife won't touch it, because "you have to type in the shell"

I asked if it would be something she would try if it were more like the winetricks-script. She said "yes, I can understand that thing. But I don't want those ugly menus you ahve there"

Strange thing is though, SHE can touchtype, and she's damn good at it... I use the well-tried "4finger method" but I don't mind the shell....

But that's most windows-users in a nutshell: If it doesn't ahve a GUI-menu, it can't be that good.

[Bazza]

Hi DocMindwipe...

> Sometimes, I find otherwise intelligent people incredibly
> stupid.... where did I say Linux could implement the Amiga
> installer as it is? I believe I said (although not in those
> words) making a uniform Amiga Installer type thing, maybe
> Python would be a good choice for the actual syntax to
> make the "wizards."

I migt be missing summat here...

How do you implement a Python script on a machine that
doesn`t have an installation yet?
_________________
73...

Bazza, G0LCU...

Team AMIGA...

[DocMindwipe]

*sigh*

Why would you want to compile a new kernel (or Wine, or TuxCommander, or Gnome, or whatever) BEFORE you install the OS itself?

[wyliecoyoteuk]

Thing is, the GUI IS SOOOO SLOW.
We moved from a windows click and point database client to a terminal type client, and our productivity jumped overnight.
Even though the GUI one had shortcut keys for most things(not all), we couldn't get the girls to leave that damned mouse alone.

typical entry:
name
click
address line one
click
address line two
click
postcode
click

whereas the terminal

name
enter
address line one
enter
address line two
enter
postcode
enter


Add to that the time waiting for a GUI screen refresh, and they can log a breakdown call in about a quarter of the time, on a database that is now roughly 4 times the size.
_________________
The sig between the asterisks is so cool that only REALLY COOL people can even see it!

*************** ************

[towy71]