It's an OS where the files have no association to programs; all configuration files and settings are stored "wherever" in text files that grow to be several megabytes long; most shell commands are so abstractly named that you would never be able to use them without knowing how they work.. or first reading its "manual pages".
It is also an OS of inconsistency. There's over a thousand distributions of Linux, and over a billion different modified versions of it. Programs come shipped as source code that you must compile and configure yourself (by way of large scripts that attempt to figure out how your system is running.. since nothing is standard).
What I am trying to say is if you want to make full use of your hardware, then use Windows. If you want to waste days trying to get an alpha OS to work with hacked drivers and illegally reverse engineered applications (that are mostly written by ugly teenagers who would stop doing it once they get laid) then by all means use Linux.
OP is an idiot, not only should you not be using Linux, you should not even use Windows since you want everything done for you. The only OS for your kind of mentality is OSX where you have a gui interface to walk you though everything and hide all OS details your tiny brain would never understand.
The reason why Linux utilities are so dificult to understand is because they are so powerful. Utilities like awk are almost a programming language unto themselves. Everything is a file in Linux and is exposed to those who have the understanding to manipulate them, unlike a kiddie OS like Windows or OSX where everything is a binary handled by the OS for you.
OP- stop posting on /prog/ and take your feeble brain back to /b/
Name:
Anonymous2010-04-10 13:38
>>4
Why waste your time when you know very well that YHBT .
Awk comes installed in OSX... Come to mention it, almost all standard *nix ware is packaged with it. While I have issues with how the hierarchy is structured, and obscuring certain things that are pedestrian to change in other *nix systems, OSX is a actually a well thought out OS, and is quite flexible.
It's an OS where the files have association to only one program; all configuration files and settings are stored in a "registry" that sits god-knows-where on the filesystem; most commands are so retardedly named that you would never be able to use them without immediately having its full purpose shoved in your face.. or first reading its "tooltip".
It is also an OS of inconsistency. There's over a thousand wallpapers for Windows, and over a billion different pirated versions of it. Programs come shipped as executable zip files or self-installing executables or some other unsafe shit that you must authenticate for administrative access before running (by way of a large popup window that is so obtrusive that it stops you being able to do anything else until you've let it.. since no intelligence is assumed of the user).
What I am trying to say is if you want to make full use of your hardware, then use OS/II. If you want to waste days trying to figure out what "Click here to begin" on a button labeled "start" means and illegally downloaded applications (that are all several thousand times more expensive than is natural) then by all means use Windows.
It's an OS where the files have association to only one program;
You can have alternate associations all configuration files and settings are stored in a "registry" that sits god-knows-where on the filesystem;
You don't have to use the registry if you don't want to. The registry is rather well documented, like most of the OS. The physical location of the registry is also well-documented(it's stored across different hives, global and user-specific hives). The location of the hives themselves is part hard-coded, and part self-referential, thus the registry refers to itself. (%SystemRoot%\system32\config\*, then look up HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\hivelist for a complete listing of all hives... it usually looks like:
\REGISTRY\MACHINE\SAM -> \Device\HarddiskVolume1\WINDOWS\system32\config\SAM
\REGISTRY\MACHINE\SECURITY -> \Device\HarddiskVolume1\WINDOWS\system32\config\SECURITY
\REGISTRY\MACHINE\SOFTWARE -> \Device\HarddiskVolume1\WINDOWS\system32\config\software
\REGISTRY\MACHINE\SYSTEM -> \Device\HarddiskVolume1\WINDOWS\system32\config\system
\REGISTRY\USER\.DEFAULT -> \Device\HarddiskVolume1\WINDOWS\system32\config\default
\REGISTRY\USER\S-1-5-19 -> \Device\HarddiskVolume1\Documents and Settings\LocalService\NTUSER.DAT
And so on (per user registry follows).
While most people who have never studied how the registry works will find it confusing, it's actually rather nicely designed and easy to use, as long as you understand the basic principles behind it. It's also a lot more uniform than *nix's /etc, and allows more control to the user, as well as a lot more fine-grained control over permissions and hierarchy, however the structure of some of the data is rather complex and some developers tend to abuse it.
most commands are so retardedly named that you would never be able to use them without immediately having its full purpose shoved in your face.. or first reading its "tooltip".
Really? What commands may those be? I find Win32 API names a lot easier to remember than certain unix commands. They're also rather consistent. That doesn't mean I won't have to look up the documentation on either OS(MSDN on Windows, manpages on *nix).
It is also an OS of inconsistency. There's over a thousand wallpapers for Windows, and over a billion different pirated versions of it.
The APIs are very consistent. I have plenty of applications which while made in 2009-2010 are still compatible with Windows 9x and the NT line, even if those OSes have completly different kernels. That speaks a lot to how much care they took to preserve backward compatibility when they extended their APIs.
Just because there's different versions of the OS, that doesn't mean the core is different. Most differences are superficial and are in the included software and versions, as well as building parameters, not in functionality. Wouldn't this argument apply a lot more to there being uncountable numbers of GNU/Linux distros?
Programs come shipped as executable zip files or self-installing executables
I don't mind this packaging, however I tend to prefer archives to installers. When I'm dealing with an installer, I always unpack the installers files using some other tools beforehand to verify the contents and safety(using a disassembler/debugger in a VM) of the software.
or some other unsafe shit that you must authenticate for administrative access before running (by way of a large popup window that is so obtrusive that it stops you being able to do anything else until you've let it.. since no intelligence is assumed of the user).
You can easily disable this if you trust yourself more. It's more useful for those that are unable to verify the safety of some software before running it. It can also act as a reasonable heuristic. Besides, isn't this "problem" present on Ubuntu too, being asked your root password all the time.
Name:
Anonymous2010-04-10 20:06
>>10
wow, finally I come across someone who understands OSX. Do you think it would be possible to implement an OSX type of file registry in Linux? The problems of dependencies in Linux is such a mess it seems developers can only distribute source so that it can be compiled on each distro. It would be so nice if you could get just an executable that just pastes and runs in Linux like on OSX. Do you think it would be possible to do that in Linux?
>>10
Replying to a modification of a pasta? really?
Name:
Anonymous2010-04-10 20:16
>>11
What's that? An operating system designed entirely by one company, with set goals (you know, like what for-profit companies do) is more centralised and consistent throughout versions than software that has been made in nerds' spare time by several hundred nerds worldwide?
Also: Most distributions have things called repositories. You don't even need to copy and paste; you just say "install this for me" and guess what? it does. Software doesn't even need an uninstall function, because the distro-specific tools do that for you.
Linux isn't the OS. The OS is the OS. Linux is the kernel.
>>13
the whole idea of repositories is stupid, you are trusting some repo maintainer to compile and install software for you. Linux will never take off as a platform for commercial software all long as this "mommy, will you cut my meat for me" attitude continues between distro users and maintainers
>>14
GNU/Linux is not POSIX compliant. Not a single distribution, not even RHEL, is certified against the Single UNIX Specification.
POSIX_ME_HARDER, baby!
Name:
Anonymous2010-04-10 21:42
My beef with *nix is simple - the filesystem hierarchy is retarded.
Data is data, but if we go a little bit further, we can think of the data stored on a hard disk like this: There are programs that we can run, settings that change the way these programs behave, and data that these programs can act on.
Binary executables should go in one directory, program settings should go in one directory, data should go in one directory. Simple as that. Oh, sure, go ahead and make separate versions of these directories for each user - that would only make sense, given *nix's history as a multi-user OS. Maybe even throw in a folder for program sources, although you could probably throw that under data. Our hierarchy now looks something like this:
/bin
/conf
/data
/user/bin or /ubin
/user/conf or /uconf
/user/data or /udata
In any case, even this slightly mangled version of the original 3 directory hierarchy is fairly elegant and logical. It's easy for anyone to come up with the idea for this kind of system - I'm certainly not the first to think about this.
SO WHY IN THE FUCK DO LINUX DEVELOPERS FEEL THE NEED TO PLACE THEIR CONFIGURATION FILES IN SIX MILLION DIFFERENT PLACES? WHY DO SOME OF THEM USE /etc, WHILE OTHERS USE /usr/something AND OTHERS PUT SOME SHIT IN MY HOME DIRECTORY, AND OTHERS KEEP THEM ALONG WITH THE BINARY, AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUCK ELSE? WHAT IS THE POINT TO THIS? WHY WOULD YOU DESIGN AN OS THIS WAY? WHY DO I HAVE TO REMEMBER A SEPARATE LOCATION FOR EVERY PROGRAM'S SETTINGS? WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT?
But we can't change it now! It wouldn't be POSIX compliant!
Every OS has got some things right and some things wrong... for certain tasks and usage patterns. No OS will ever get everything right, and there isn't even a ``right'' state as various applications have different needs. The best one could do is find a middle compromise which fits most common usage cases well and make sure things are extensible enough that the other cases could be accomodated as needed.
Name:
Anonymous2010-04-10 22:08
>>20
there is nothing that makes one file configuration more retarded than another. What needs to be done is a file registry system has to be made standard for Linux
Name:
Anonymous2010-04-10 23:46
>>22 registry in Linux
gee, this is an astounding idea!!
>>22 Fuck you.
What is wrong with /etc/ and hidden files in home directories?
Implementing a regestry like how Microsoft Windows® does is a *great* idea!
Lets all drop POSIX and start messing around with operating systems internally!
Great ideas guys!
Dropping POSIX is real good for making the life of programmers easier. [b]Microsoft did a great job of building a enterprise quality operating system!
We can all agree on that, can't we?[/b/
Worst fucking thing about *nix. Any rational person would have just said to themself, "Well my system-wide configuration files go in /etc, so I'll put user-specific files in $HOME/etc." But since this is *nix, they create a godawful name-based hidden file scheme, meaning you generally get far more clutter than the one non-hidden directory there should have been.
None of this configuration is the operating system's fault - it's all software that doesn't know where to put things, so it just puts it where it wants. >>28
Some of the root filesystem is copied in the home folder. .config is the user-specific /etc, .local is the user-specific /usr[/local]. But about 5% of applications follow this.
If you let anyone develop for a system, chances are everything's going to be all over the palace.
Name:
Anonymous2010-04-11 7:55
Whats the point of making everything a three letter abbreviation
/usr/ /dev /bin
Instead of
Documents/ Devices / Programs
>>30
During the early times of UNIX, people used to use dumb terminals/thinclients over terribly slow lines, so the shorter the better. This is also the reason why people liked to use ed.
*nix might have been shaped more differently had they not had those limitations.
Name:
Anonymous2010-04-11 8:17
>>30
Imagine having to read through the path: /Documents/Shared/Programs/Cowsay/Files/
instead of /usr/share/cowsay
Not only are the short folder names easy to type, they're easy to read and parse in your head. The more times your eyes have to move over words, the less likely you are to remember them and their purpose.
>>35 all "binaries" directories map to the same place.
So when it inevitably breaks, system binaries will not be available because they're in the same (unmounted, for recovery) directory as non-essential programs? Amazing!
>>36
One partition is not safer than another. At least you'd get a consisten loss, not lose all data or all programs, but only lose certain programs and their data in full.
No, actually that's a backronym -- /usr/ did originally stand for "user", and in very old systems it did what /home/ generally does now. You might still find /usr/ftp/ and /usr/http/ in some systems now.
>>38
Yes. Also BSD keeps user directories under /usr/home/.
>>37
That wasn't the point. In low runlevels, the system asks for root access before going through fstab and mounting things. So, when you try to do anything as root, you will be met with "command not found" because all programs are on the unmounted filesystem, including mount.