unix n00bs (i.e. most of you here) make me shit my pants
for the love of god, people, using unix for a month is not enough to make you knowledgeable in its ways and give advice to others. please refrain from making yourself look like complete utter idiots (mind you, this is hard to achieve since idiots are the norm in CS) by giving horribly shitty authorative-sounding suggestions based on shit you read two days ago on linuxtoday and newsforge.
discuss.
Name:
Anonymous2005-05-24 18:40
Clueless newbies with just enough knowledge to be dangerous giving advice to other newbies clueless enough to trust them is hardly a phenomenon that is limited to unix.
And it makes me want to kill.
Name:
Anonymous2005-05-24 21:19 (sage)
a) You're right, but...
b) I don't see much *nix-oriented discussion here.
What, three threads ever? YHBT.
Name:
Anonymous2005-05-24 23:14 (sage)
Idiots are the norm in CS? I wouldn't call most of the people who took vector calculus or
Name:
Anonymous2005-05-24 23:17
what was I just saying? oh right, Im anonymous and I'm on the interweb and im so good at unix cause I read some gib koogs or somehinthg?
Name:
Christy McJesus!DcbLlAZi7U2005-05-25 9:03
>>1
Give examples to make your rant less incoherent.
Name:
Anonymous2005-05-27 1:35
idiots use unix.
end of discus.
Name:
Anonymous2005-05-27 2:03
Someone, somewhere, is weeping that the art of trolling is dead.
>>10
You would have liked me as a student, I never bothered the lab tutors except to occasionally ask why they were letting all the Java "programmers" use Windows.
Name:
Chicken Flake2005-06-24 0:28
Why would I want to see idiots stop giving advice on unix? Nothing humors me more than people claiming to know about POSIX environments (linu.x/unix) totally bury themselves, and I honestly do anything I can to keep them going so I can humiliate them afterwards. This is the only way they will learn.
gb2/windows/
I wouldnt call myself a POSIX expert, but 2 years ago, Windows pissed me off to the point of refusing to go back to using it (corrupted my MySQL databases in a botched conversion I never authorized it to do). I forced myself to learn it so I would be able to never use Windows again, and truth be told, I'm glad I did. I run KDE, but I'm never not running a comsole. I'm not claiming to be a POSIX wizard, but I do know enough to spot a n00b moron.
Name:
Anonymous2005-06-24 2:17
POSIX is just another way of saying flip flopper.
Name:
Anonymous2005-06-24 4:36
>>13
Warning, n00b moron with delusions of grandeur spotted!
>>13 corrupted my MySQL databases in a botched conversion I never authorized it to do
You should be the one gb2/windows'ing, and learning how to use that OS before bitching.
I find it fun how when people screws up in Linux, they're "learning" and "controlling the OS", while if they screw up in Windows, it's "stupid Windows doing stuff".
I've been using both Windows NT and Linux for years (programming, running servers, making bread, etc.), and never screwed up that badly in either. I'm always admin/root, and work in the console (adding my own gadgets so the Windows console is almost as powerful as Linux).
I'm never not running a comsole
WTF, I prefer not to assume what does this mean because it wouldn't say much of you...
Name:
Anonymous2005-06-25 2:47
lol if a computer is unstable it is your fault.
Name:
Anonymous2005-06-25 6:44
A while ago my 2.4 kernel kept panicking when I was playing games. I never managed to figure out what was causing it, but upgrading to 2.6 fixed the problem.
Anecdote related.
Name:
Anonymous2005-06-25 7:49
>>19 That's rich. I've never had 2.6 kernel work on my (new and predbuilt) computer worth a damn. Sometimes it will work if I use the right combination of acpi=off, noapic and chickenbones. Even then, all that it does is boot and then die randomly.
Upgrading to NetBSD fixed the problem. ^^
Name:
Anonymous2005-06-25 22:14
2.6 works here, but every time I've used it I've had issues. They're all minor, but they're also annoying. Most recently 2.6.11.11 had rounding errors with my mouse.
2.4 you're the only one.
Name:
Anonymous2005-07-03 17:19
I just realised I've been using Unix for 19 years now. lol.
Learning it all on massively multiuser -minicomputers- was damned fun (where every computer had an 'online' community like websites today..)
Name:
Anonymous2005-07-04 18:09
Been using linux and some BSDs for 5 years now.
And i still think im a unix noob.
Name:
Anonymous2005-07-04 18:25
I've been using linux/bsd regularly (but not exclusively) since 98. I don't consider myself either a n00b or a wizard; just a user.
Name:
Anonymous2005-07-05 4:11
I've been using Linux for less than a year. I'm still a n00b - but I can already use Linux more easily than Windows, despite my lifetime of experience with that particular program. (Hint: if you design a GUI such that performing any given task is an np-complete problem for your users, your users are gonna get pissed)
Name:
Anonymous2005-07-05 4:27
Oh yeah? Like what?
If you're talking about the server, sure. If you're talking about the desktop, then you're seriously full of shit.
Name:
Anonymous2005-07-05 7:12
>>26
When my new desktop is complete I'm going to retire the current one to fileserver-in-the-corner status. I'm gonna stick BSD on it for variety. Linux is a great desktop.
Name:
Anonymous2005-07-05 7:43
Linux is a great desktop.
No, it's not.
Certainly, if you feel like dicking around with the system to set it up just right, then maybe it's for you. But most people don't want to spend several hours to a couple of days tweaking files, digging through google and newsgroups to resolve issues, possibly recompiling kernels, patching software and hacking code for things they really want but don't work, and then still wondering why X, Y and Z doesn't work, because nobody else has had that problem before. Or maybe it works, but works poorly.
That's just the beginning of the story. The interfaces that OSS GUIs present is inconsistent and just generally poor. All that work for this?
Linux is a hacker chewtoy. And after a few years (ie, like me), you'll get sick and tired of it. You get tired of solving the same set of problems for the five-thousanth time. You just want it to fucking work already. For servers, fine, but I'd die young from high blood pressure if I had to tolerate it as a desktop.
Name:
Anonymous2005-07-05 8:27
Well it works for me.
RE: "The interfaces that OSS GUIs present is inconsistent and just generally poor."; you might want to take a look at Gnome's latest efforts. Seems they've finally decided to make a real push for proper usability, as opposed to merely "yeah you can click on it if you don't like the console..."
To be honest I do like dicking around with my system, that's why I use Gentoo most of them time. But I also keep an Ubuntu install handy for those days when I cannot be bothered and want my computer to Just Work (TM)
Name:
Anonymous2005-07-05 9:13
you might want to take a look at Gnome's latest efforts
The problem is that many applications ignore the HIG, and others use a different toolkit.
My stance exactly. I couldn't have expressed it better.
Name:
Anonymous2005-07-05 9:37
>But most people don't want to spend several hours to a couple of days tweaking files
Most people think the CDROM drive is a coffee mug holder.
Wanting to learn how a computer actually operates is NEVER a bad thing-- unless you're a scab who likes charging people $100 to install (Windows) software that could've done themselves. I work at a non-profit ISP/Freenet; those people who think learning about computers is a waste of their time and beneath them are (a) 99% of the service calls (b) should have never fucking bought a computer in the first place.
Name:
Anonymous2005-07-05 9:40
Just got done reading this article. Discusses some interesting solutions to the "linux desktop problem"
Good read. I started off skeptical, but by the end I was of the opinion that the author has some damn good ideas.
Name:
Anonymous2005-07-05 9:47
Oh, great. One of the myopic elitists shows up.
Most people think the CDROM drive is a coffee mug holder.
No, they don't. Don't be an idiot.
There's more to life than fucking around with a computer. As much as it may surprise you, a computer is a tool. Why should anyone waste time with such an obtuse system when there's one that mostly works, and another that really does work?
My time is valuable. I know the machine inside out already, and chances are high I know it better than you do. So why do I have to fix stupidities to get the system working? Who is going to reimburse me for the time lost? And what about people who earn excess of $200 an hour? People who don't need to know the minutiae of some fancy calculator with memory to do their vocation?
Do you know your car inside out? Can you fix your cellphone? Do you do all the electrical wiring and plumbing in your house? Do you do all your taxes yourself, after reading the tax code? Do you do your own legal opinions? Do you give a shit about these things?
No one is asking you to do any of these things. Calm the fuck down.
Name:
Anonymous2005-07-05 12:24 (sage)
You bet it's about "me". I've stated clearly why linux makes a poor desktop for John Doe, and many power users as well. They're all asking, "Why should I use this? What's in it for me?" They don't care about elitist geek wankery, nor should they. Not everything rotates around computers.
Of course, the answer to their question is: it's waste of time. Spend some money to get a better prepared desktop, then go outside and do something more worthwhile.
These days, if it takes someone "several hours" to get a functional linux desktop, either they're using Gentoo, or they're incompetent.
Someone who has that much difficulty with it SHOULD stick to windows since their time is valuble.
Meanwhile, those of us who can manage to sort it out in a reasonable amount of time, and who like having the options and variety that using a unix desktop provides should be free to use that.
It's not a binary world; don't like unix? Don't use it. But don't you fucking dare suggest that I stop using BSD as a desktop. Just because YOU can't set up a GUI, firefox, media player and word processor doesn't mean that I should be held down to the level of the stupidest AOL user.
GB2/windows if it makes you happy; but let those of us who want to use unix, use it.
>>37
Wait no, I didn't read it properly. I agree with the second half, but I left Windows precisely because my time is valuable, and I don't like wasting it trying to get my computer to do what I damn well tell it.
Also: >>36
I hope to Jebus you're talking about MacOS when you talk about "a better prepared desktop" because if you consider Windows an example of good UI then your opinion no longer counts for jack in my estimation.
Name:
Anonymous2005-07-05 21:09
you're talking about MacOS
Duhhhhhhrrrr. Obviously. However, windows isn't as bad as the OSS fanboys make it out either. Oh, no, Micro$oft suks lolol!
but let those of us who want to use unix, use it.
Duhhhhhhrrrr. Obviously. It's your life.
or they're incompetent
Or they're using non-standard hardware. Or they want an option that wasn't compiled into the binary by default. Or something doesn't work properly. Or they want to change an option (how many programs don't expose all their options through the GUI?).
Or, god forbid, they want to use software you buy off the shelf (your mom won't be running Wine to use photoshop or quicken).
It ain't no "great desktop". A great desktop is OSX. At least it's a unix that got its shit together finally, even if it's fat.
that I stop using BSD as a desktop
You fail at reading comprehension. "It has a poor desktop" != "Don't use it".
Name:
Anonymous2005-07-05 22:58
>Or, god forbid, they want to use software you buy off the shelf (your mom won't be running Wine to use photoshop or quicken).
OH NOES MY PROGRAMS I BOUGHT FOR WINDOWS WON'T RUN ON LOONIX. No shit? No one complains that their linux programs don't run on windows. If you have a finanicial investment in windows, then you're an idiot for switching over to linux.
As far as non-standard hardware goes, from my experience if it gives linux problems, it's eventually going to give windows problems. As far as the 'compiled into the binary by default' argument goes...what the fuck? If you know enough to care, then you should know enough to know ./configure --enter-a-option-i-read-by-typing-configure-dash-dash-help && make && make install
I've been using linux for years, and I haven't *needed* to recompile jack shit since the 1990's. So, really, I think you're making up excuses out of whole cloth on that one. The only possible exception I can think of is watching dvds; but that's because of legal issues surrounding dvd decryption, not technical issues.
Name:
Anonymous2005-07-06 0:11
Either you can't read, or you're just too emotionally tied up with linux/bsd/whatever.
WON'T RUN ON LOONIX.
Of course not. Except that John Doe wants those programs. So do I. Strike one.
you should know enough to know ./configure --enter-a-option-i-read-by-typing-configure-dash-dash-help && make && make install
You and I do. I ran slackware for years, and that's how I used to install most my shit. That doesn't mean I want to waste time doing it. And John Doe won't do it, because the command line is scary to him. Strike two.
recompile jack shit since the 1990's.
You haven't compiled anything the entire time? You're full of shit. Even with Debian you sometimes have to compile things. And John Doe isn't going to fuck with apt-get either. Talking about which, apt-get is fugly.
By the way, strike three.
it's eventually going to give windows problems.
Now we know you're full of shit. It might, but it's a whole less likely (and less painful) with windows. Last I checked, my scanner isn't supported by SANE. My graphics cards doesn't have accelerated 3D either. 2.6.11.11 just partially broke my synaptics touchpad. One PCMCIA card doesn't work, and the other took several hours hacking with card services to work. Etc.
This isn't a good desktop experience. Is your head stuffed so far up your ass you can't see this?
Name:
Anonymous2005-07-06 0:16
>>42 if john doe wants those programs, why are they switching to linux? that's asinine; and -as you point out- you should know better.
You haven't compiled anything the entire time?
I said that haven't *needed* to, not that I hadn't. I have compiled shit either out of curiosity or to do optimisations; but to just have a functional KDE or Gnome desktop that I can surf the web and listen to music with? No, I haven't *HAD* to.
Name:
Anonymous2005-07-06 0:22
>>41
I don't use windows because it is virtually impossible to automate effeciently and quickly. I can't even string apps together without getting excessively hot and heavy. Even then, next year a new one will come out and break compatibility.
Name:
Anonymous2005-07-06 0:36
And lunix is much better in the 'break compatibility' bit?
Name:
Anonymous2005-07-06 0:47
>>45 To the extent that if you want to tie applications together using perl, c or shell programming it's more likely to work linux version to linux version that it will between windows versions.
Name:
Anonymous2005-07-06 1:04
why are they switching to linux?
I'm not arguing about switching. I'm arguing about whether OSS has a good desktop experience. For most of what counts, it doesn't, and it's not exactly GNOME or KDE's fault either. John Doe won't use it, and a lot of older geeks are fed up with stupid shit too. It's improving... but they were promising the moon back in 97 as well. I'd rather have a Mac for everyday use.
Most of the comments reflect exactly how I feel. And then of course there's this guy, who was about as hard-core as you could get, but...: http://jwz.livejournal.com/494040.html
When you bring up running applications under wine, you're exactly arguing about switching.
The only compelling argument you've put forth is regarding scanners and drawing pads. That point I'll give you, but again, if it doesn't work for you, don't use it. Linux isn't always the answer, neither is windows and I'm not going to comment on the Mac.
And citing comments from slashdot proves little more than does citing articles from adequacy.org; given the intelligence at adequacy, it actually probably proves less.
Name:
Anonymous2005-07-06 1:41
Did you even read what's in there? I acknowledge slashdot is pretty damn inane by now, but most those comments are valid. Even the village idiot can speak the truth every now and again.
you're exactly arguing about switching.
Not really. I'm pointing out that people buy software and expect it to work. But it won't. This isn't linux's fault, but it still reduces its attractiveness as a desktop. There's plenty of commercial software that has no comparable OSS counterpart (and vice versa, but primarily for server and development applications).
Linux isn't always the answer, neither is windows and I'm not going to comment on the Mac.
That much I do agree with. I just wish linux had less foibles, because, ya know, I'd like it to be the answer more often. Maybe I'm just disillusioned, considering they've been calling it the year of the desktop every year since I started using it. Hasn't happened.
The Mac though... now there's an interesting question. It does most of what linux does, but more elegantly and with less hassle, the price being money and flexibility.
Name:
Anonymous2005-07-06 4:46
I'm just going to keep on using Ubuntu when I want a good desktop and Gentoo when I want to actually have control over my system. The hell with you guys.
Name:
Anonymous2005-07-06 10:32
Gentoo is for ricer faggots; use BSD instead.
Name:
Anonymous2005-07-06 10:55
Can't play games on BSD, I'll use it as a server and maybe for development or something. Which one do you suggest?
Name:
Anonymous2005-07-06 13:10 (sage)
>>52
You can play Linux games on FreeBSD if you have a nvidia graphic card.
P.S. this thread is teh suck
Name:
Anonymous2005-07-06 14:06
>>53
It's sucked since the first post.
Are you saying I could play NWN and Doom3 on FreeBSD?
Name:
Anonymous2005-07-06 15:47
>>54
Yes. As I said you only need to have a nvidia card and use nvidia's proprietary FreeBSD drivers and they will work fine.
BTW for NWN linux client there is even a port in FreeBSD's port tree. http://www.freshports.org/games/linux-nwnclient/
Name:
Anonymous2005-07-06 15:49
The only thing BSD gives you is desktop ready performance (see OSX)
Name:
Anonymous2005-07-06 19:41
>>52
Use FreeBSD if you want the most apps or if you want a BSD tightly optimised for the x86 platform
Use NetBSD if you want a BSD for your toaster
Use OpenBSD if it absolutely, positively has to be secure
Use PCBSD if you're a retard.
Of course, if you own a mac SURPRISE! You're not running BSD, you're running MACH.
Aww Gee, you must be one of those people who didn't need to get a computer.
> Who is going to reimburse me for the time lost?
Who would reimburse you for the time you'd lost if you couldn't fix the system and just put up with it not working like_nearly_all_laypeople_with_busted_computers?
"One hour becoming familiar with a computer is worth 300 hours of knowing jack-shit about them."
> Do you know your car inside out?
Motorbike: yes. I do unassisted solo rides across the country, and have done serious roadside repairs in a situtation that otherwise would've meant dumping the bike. (One of my panniers is filled with tools..)
> Can you fix your cellphone?
Yes, resoldered a memory card socket with a dry joint. "While I had the case open..", I modded it with an external battery tap to improve the runtime, too.
> Do you do all the electrical wiring and plumbing in your house?
It's illegal to do that here, but yes. (My Mum's place was wired by a dodgy ex-boyfriend of hers. I fixed it from killing people.)
> Do you do all your taxes yourself, after reading the tax code?
Yes.
> Do you do your own legal opinions?
I'm not doing 10-15 years for 50 counts of break/enter/steal...
> Do you give a shit about these things?
"Hmm... My life and/or livelyhood depends on this. Should I take the time to become familiar with the tools I rely on? A tough call.."
I read "Zen and the art of Motorcycle Maintance" when I was a wee tot. Almost everything went over my head at the time, but it did focus my ideals of what a "Professional" was.
> People who don't need to know the minutiae of some fancy calculator with memory to do their vocation?
How many billions of dollars and man-hours are lost every year through unskilled people using computers? How many people are seriously injured or _killed_ because the employee was not conscientious enough to be an expert at -everything- they needed to be because they're a lazy fuck whose "time is valuable"? ... "A computer on every desk" is a fucking scam, and that's a Computer Professional of 20 years saying that.
Name:
Anonymous2005-07-07 1:38
>>58 doesn't get it either. Why should someone learn something irrelevant to them when they don't have to? Get an OS that does a better job of fulfilling the needs of the user, and not being a religion.
Your elitist faggotry is idiotic. There's not enough time in one life to learn everything, so people concentrate on what's important to their field and leave irrelevancies to those to whom it matters. Your time must be worthless to you.
Name:
Anonymous2005-07-07 4:31
>>59
No <i>your</i> elitist faggotry is idiotic.
My OS does do a better job of fulfilling my needs. So does 58's I imagine. Quit telling people what OS they should use you ugly hate-filled man.
>>55
Thanks. I was toying with the idea of trying out FreeBSD as a desktop. I guess I'll put it on my list of things to dual-boot. I still need to decide between Net- and Open- for the fileserver though.
Name:
Anonymous2005-07-07 4:31
Also: how do I shot italics?
Name:
Anonymous2005-07-07 5:10
Quit telling people what OS they should use you ugly hate-filled man.
With all due respect, you completely fail reading comprehension and logic. I clearly answer this elsewhere. Reread the thread before going off half-cocked.
Name:
Anonymous2005-07-07 5:24
If I may quote:
"Get an OS that does a better job of fulfilling the needs of the user, and not being a religion."
That looks to me like it's written in the imperative voice. Did I miss something?
Name:
Anonymous2005-07-07 5:50
Yes. Yes you did. Quite clearly.
Name:
Anonymous2005-07-07 6:26
So are you going explain what it is you actually did mean?
Name:
Anonymous2005-07-07 7:39
Exactly what it says, you just interpreted it wrong.
"get an OS that does a better job of fulfilling the needs of the user" != "telling people what OS they should use"
Like you said, the needs of the user. The irony is you're protecting someone else who is exactly counter to this point. Not everyone wants to learn the arcana of *nix when they can do just as well with another desktop. According to him nobody who isn't a computer expert should touch the things.
I don't know why people think my having issues with *nix somehow means I think they shouldn't use it. I use it too, you know, I'm just aware of the shortcomings. The desktop experience (which is what this whole brouhaha is about) could be a whole lot better.
Name:
Anonymous2005-07-07 8:29
OK you weren't specifically telling anyone which OS to use, but you were clearly telling people which OS NOT to use.
Name:
Anonymous2005-07-07 9:39
I'm sorry you interpreted it that way. Perhaps you should reread all of >>59 in context of >>58.
Name:
Anonymous2005-07-07 10:44
Clueless people should just stick with typewriters for work and TVs for entertainment.
I just do this:
- I make up my mind on my exact requeriments.
- I see how much of it does every system meet.
- I see how much time would it cost me to adapt these systems to what I want.
- I usually choose Windows for desktop computing (*), Linux for servers.
- I save my time.
I don't religiously avoid Windows (or Linux), doing so is asinine. And of course, if I'm going to use an OS I must have at least advanced used/basic sysadmin knowledge and must deal with all problems myself.
(*): Oh, and just for the record, I'll say I'm working in the commandline for 80% of the time, and even so, I go for Windows. (Of course, it's not "out of the box" Windows, but my heavily tweaked Windows with a hundred of powerful shell utilities and regex integration.)
Name:
Anonymous2005-07-08 10:03
"I make up my mind on my exact requeriments."
Software houses would love to have you as a customer ;)
"Of course, it's not "out of the box" Windows, but my heavily tweaked Windows with a hundred of powerful shell utilities and regex integration."
This is what you call "saving your time"?
Well, some of these utilities are as old as Windows NT 3.5, and most of them aren't available as they want them in Linux either, so I take special care to write them in Perl or PHP, so I can have a more "portable" command line environment, which I always carry in a Flash disk for my pleasure on any computer I have to work with. So yes, I can say I'm saving a lot of time, because not being able to do what these tools do - even in your standard Linux distro - would take more time.
Name:
Anonymous2005-07-09 18:17
>>59 is right. You could do about anything in the middle age, but right now I'll be writing software while somebody else installs my A/C and a different company deals with the SDK I use, because we don't have the time to do everything ourselves, and if we did, any piece of software would cost several grands.
What's fun in this thread is half of us are speaking of using Windows vs. Linux, but nobody dares to write the word "Windows" and mask it as "other desktops", because Linux zealots would cut their throat as Windows = baddy bad, *ix = goody good.
Name:
Anonymous2005-07-10 6:04
>>74
Actually dumbass, a lot of the discussion about "other desktops" refers to OS X, because the important thing about desktops is usability, something Windows doesn't have.
>>83
Windows gets better security review than any of the open source OSes, including OpenBSD - Microsoft actually pay hundreds of people to look for security holes, full-time.
i've used bsd for 8 years now and use it daily on my only computer as my only operating system, this is why i fail, i'm getting a macbook next month
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-07 15:11
>>89
Let's dump out 50 years of standardized Unix configuration conventions and implement our own arcane xml configuration, also fuck init lets make our own proprietary launchd. FUCK YEAH APPLE FTW
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-07 15:13
>>90
See m0n0wall for an good example of xml-only configuration.
>>92
That would be the ``defaults'' system. The programmer only sees key/value pairs, and the user doesn't interact with it at all, but they're stored as XML plists, so I'm pretty sure that's what >>90 is talking about.
>>102
I'm not quite sure what you mean. XML was the default plist format around 10.3 (I don't know about earlier versions). Since 10.4 they've been binaries by default and now (10.5) it seems that plutil doesn't even support NeXT plists anymore. Your post makes it sound like even a binary configuration file is superior to XML.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-09 11:21
>>103
Binary is love. Especially when programs manage their own configuration like any usable system.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-09 11:47
configuration files are not part of the UNIX philosophy.