[gentoo-user] Re: Slightly OT: favorite window manager/desktop environ?

[gentoo-user] Re: Slightly OT: favorite window manager/desktop environ?

[Charles Marcus]

IceWM (with ROXFiler if you want Desktop icons, etc)

lightening fast, easy to configure

-- 

Charles
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-user] Re: Slightly OT: favorite window manager/desktop environ?

[Thomas Kirchner]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 633 bytes --]

* On Sep  2 20:59, danielhf@21cn.com wrote:
> seems that nobody likes FVWM

Hey, I use FVWM and love it, have for a long time ;)  FVWM is small, 
ultimately customizable, and can do everything any other WM can do, with 
a bit of work.  Virtually any dreamable interface is possible with it.  
This can be a bit daunting, though, so when I was setting it up I found a 
fairly good base (taviso's, I believe) and customized the heck out of it.  
Now it's perfect for me, and I just can't get rid of it.  I've tried 
pretty much every other option, but only FVWM can scratch everyone's 
exact itch - if they're patient.
Tom

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Slightly OT: favorite window manager/desktop environ?

[waltdnes]

On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 11:31:28AM -0400, Charles Marcus wrote
> IceWM (with ROXFiler if you want Desktop icons, etc)
> 
> lightening fast, easy to configure

  Blackbox WM here.  This goes back to when my 6-year-old Dell, 450 mhz
PIII, 128 megs of RAM, was still my main machine.  The GNOME and KDE
people write some great apps (Gimp, Gnumeric, AbiWord, KDE Office), but
their "desktop environments" are huge, bloated, resource hogs.  With
Blackbox, I can still run the apps, without the desktop.  Put it this way

  I don't run desktops, I run applications.

  I think lightweight WM's will be important.  Linux in general will
have a great "window of Opportunity" when Vista is released.  A lot of
current machines will not be able to run it well ("crawl" != "run").  If
people are faced with a choice of throwing out their old W2K, and XP
machines, and buying new ones, versus keeping their machines and
switching to linux, I think we could see quite a few converts.  We can
also pound away on the TCO angle at Microsoft's expense.  Running the
latest version of linux doesn't require you to buy a new desktop.  On
the other hand, that may explain why some PC hardware companies are so
lukewarm (in some cases hostile) about linux support.

-- 
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>
My musings on technology and security at http://tech_sec.blog.ca
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Slightly OT: favorite window manager/desktop environ?

[Mark Knecht]

On 9/3/05, waltdnes@waltdnes.org <waltdnes@waltdnes.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 11:31:28AM -0400, Charles Marcus wrote
> > IceWM (with ROXFiler if you want Desktop icons, etc)
> >
> > lightening fast, easy to configure
> 
>   Blackbox WM here.  This goes back to when my 6-year-old Dell, 450 mhz
> PIII, 128 megs of RAM, was still my main machine.  The GNOME and KDE
> people write some great apps (Gimp, Gnumeric, AbiWord, KDE Office), but
> their "desktop environments" are huge, bloated, resource hogs.  With
> Blackbox, I can still run the apps, without the desktop.  Put it this way
> 
>   I don't run desktops, I run applications.
> 
>   I think lightweight WM's will be important.  Linux in general will
> have a great "window of Opportunity" when Vista is released.  A lot of
> current machines will not be able to run it well ("crawl" != "run").  If
> people are faced with a choice of throwing out their old W2K, and XP
> machines, and buying new ones, versus keeping their machines and
> switching to linux, I think we could see quite a few converts.  We can
> also pound away on the TCO angle at Microsoft's expense.  Running the
> latest version of linux doesn't require you to buy a new desktop.  On
> the other hand, that may explain why some PC hardware companies are so
> lukewarm (in some cases hostile) about linux support.
> 

In general I'll have to take the unpopular position and say I
disagree. All those potential converts are just like you - They don't
run desktops they run apps - and because they are so entrenched with
dollars already spent on Microsoft Windows, Microsoft email, Microsoft
Office, Quicken,, etc., they won't come just because they can save
$400 buying a new PC.

To become a Linux user is a commitment. People don't make new
commitments lightly, and making a light commitment to Linux is doomed
to failure. It's far too hard to use. Imagine knowing absolutely
nothing about any Linux editor, nor even terminal commands, and trying
to configure networking. It's nigh on impossible.

That said, Linux, and Gentoo specifically, is a pleasure to run when
it's running, but even after 3-4 years of being a newbie it's taken me
3 days of work to get my new AMD64 machine to the point where it's
starting to do multimedia.

Just my 2 cents,
Mark

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Slightly OT: favorite window manager/desktop environ?

[John Jolet]

> >   I don't run desktops, I run applications.
> >
> In general I'll have to take the unpopular position and say I
> disagree. All those potential converts are just like you - They don't
> run desktops they run apps - and because they are so entrenched with
> dollars already spent on Microsoft Windows, Microsoft email, Microsoft
> Office, Quicken,, etc., they won't come just because they can save
> $400 buying a new PC.
>
> To become a Linux user is a commitment. People don't make new
> commitments lightly, and making a light commitment to Linux is doomed
> to failure. It's far too hard to use. Imagine knowing absolutely
> nothing about any Linux editor, nor even terminal commands, and trying
> to configure networking. It's nigh on impossible.
>
I agree.  I'm a longtime unix administrator with many opportunities to convert 
family and friends to linux, but haven't yet, either due to lack of linux 
drivers for multi-function devices, or lack of linux compatibility to apps 
they need to run.  Until companies support all their hardware o linux 
(specifically in my case lexmark), people will feel trapped in windows.  even 
clients of mine that have spent hundreds of dollars for me to clean their 
windows boxes of spyware  can't afford to move due to websites they NEED to 
run requiring activeX controls.
-- 
John Jolet
Your On-Demand IT Department
512-762-0729
www.jolet.net
john@jolet.net
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Slightly OT: favorite window manager/desktop environ?

[Holly Bostick]

Mark Knecht schreef:
> To become a Linux user is a commitment. People don't make new 
> commitments lightly, and making a light commitment to Linux is doomed
>  to failure. It's far too hard to use.

This is a common 'perception', and yet again I have to object to it,
because it's *wrong* (not for the reasons you think), but it's
nonetheless wiping the floor with us (much in the same way that the
common perception that the world was flat wiped the floor with many
early potential explorers).

<rant>
Yes, becoming a Linux user is a commitment. I'm with you that far. But
then saying that in combination with "it's far too hard to use",
implying that it should be easy to use is a contradiction in terms.

Operating a vehicle is also a commitment, and you have to learn to drive
a car/truck/motorcycle-- you even have to learn to ride a bike. A bike
is "easier" to use than a car, and a car is easier to use than a bus (I
suppose), but in fact none of these vehicles is really "easy to use" and
half the tools created to make it easier to use actually make it harder
(how many people have trouble using a GPS system, for example?). In
fact, the only 'easy' way to use a car is to get someone else to do all
the hard work of driving on your behalf, since we do not yet have
mental-telepathy-controlled vehicles, or transport beams ala Star Trek.

Yes, of course, once you've learned to drive, it's (pretty) easy to do,
but does the fact that it's easy once you've learned it mean that you
can judge the task as objectively 'easy'? I don't think so-- if you have
to learn how to do it, it's automatically 'hard' (or at the very least,
"not easy"). Especially since, continuing with this example, learning
one variant of how to perform the total operation does not enable you to
'automatically' perform any other variant knowledgeably (you can drive a
car, but you can't drive a bus or a motorcycle, or an 18-wheeler).

That suggests to me --because of the limits of the human animal, and
because of the current design of vehicles-- that "operating a vehicle"
can not ever be considered an 'easy' task, notwithstanding that many
people are able to do so.

Which brings us to 'commitment', proving my point. You don't make
'commitments' to tasks that are easy; you don't have to. You don't have
to 'commit' to 'taking a cookie and eating it', because that's easy--
unless of course you have an eating disorder, in which case you do,
because 'eating' is now no longer easy, but hard, due to your illness.

*OPERATING A COMPUTER IS NOT EASY.* That's just all there is to it. The
current design of computers is like a Neanderthal stone axe, for Pete's
sake. It's not like a stone axe is not useful, and certainly it's better
than your bare hands for chopping down a tree, but it's a long way from a
gas-powered chainsaw, which is itself a long way from something like a
(back to Star Trek) replicator, which would provide the result (wood, in
this example), without even destroying the original source (a tree).

Windows is designed with the premise that this fundamental truth should
be concealed from 'users' at all costs (they've even abused monopoly
power in an effort to promote the perception that using a computer is
easy; yes, of course surfing all of the non-compliant sites with *IE* is
'easy", especially if you make sure that the non-compliance is built in
by your free-for-the-asking design kit, fold your browser (which of
course knows all the tricks) into the OS so that most 'average users'
will just use it by default, and bump the competitors out of the market
so that 'not-so-average' users won't wonder just what's up with why they
can't view thus and so site with X browser, but can with Y(our) browser.

Linux, on the other hand, doesn't see that there's anything to hide--
possibly because it was originally meant for server admins, who of
course already know that operating a computer is a complex task.

Now, of course, the community is all undecided about whether to break
the news 'gently' to the hoped-for migrating Windows users (which is a
whole sub-argument as to how to do that, or what it even means), or
whether to just fling 'em in the water and let $DEITY sort 'em out.

But just because Microsoft says that operating a computer is easy does
not make it so-- and may I just point out that operating Windows is
*not* "easy" either; leaving aside the idea that a complete reformat and
reinstall is an 'easier' solution to something going wrong than editing
a text file, icons and associating icons with specific programs and
understanding the whole concept of files and applications is all
*learned behaviour*-- thus, by definition, not 'easy'.

So how is changing one *operating system* to another supposed to be an
easier task than the global task of operating the computer in the first
place? I mean, please. It's a commitment, yes (if only because in order
to learn a behaviour, you must commit to learning and retaining what you
learn), and when is commitment ever easy? "Light" commitment.... what is
that? There is 'conditional' commitment, as in  "I'll help you move if I
don't have to stay late at work", but the only way this could be
constructed as 'light commitment' is "Maybe I'll come help you move"--
which is not a commitment at all.

Commitments in the real world usually have to be *sworn* before the
state, and often before $DEITY. Why? Because they're so hard to carry
out, and so important to be carried out properly once made, that all the
power of $DEITY is sometimes needed to keep you to your promise once
you've made it (it's hard, and sometimes it's too hard-- we're 'only
human', after all-- and only fear of the state or $DEITY will keep you
on track).

This is my basic objection with the current state of society w.r.t.
technology; it's made available to everyone as if it does not require
commitment, but the actual state of the technology is so low that it
does in fact require commitment to operate reliably/well/sometimes 'at all'.

If you gave me a block of wood with a hole, a screw, and a screwdriver,
all you'd have to say (assuming that I didn't know what a screwdriver
was), is, "This is the tool used to put that thing in that hole," and I
could screw in the screw with the tool. A child could figure it out
(leaving aside the motor coordination issues involved). *That's* 'easy'.

But a digital camera, an answering machine , an automobile-- they *must*
have instructions, because if they didn't, you wouldn't be able to use them
(or only use them at the most basic level, which makes it pointless to
have gotten a device with advanced features).

And if you must be instructed in order to use the device, you must
commit to accepting that instruction, and there you are-- committed.

If you refuse to commit to such instruction, the device goes back in the
box, or is impoperly used, creating negative conditions ranging from
distress, to damage to property or injury, to death of self or others,
depending on the nature of the device.

This is why I can't deal with all the people I encounter who suggest
that 'it' should 'JustWork' without need for instruction of any sort
(whether that be a physical manual, man pages, READMEs, or Windows Help
files).

Like humanity is sooooooo good at making stuff, and 'users' are sooooooo
brilliantly educated, that they should be able to look at a computing
device and immediately know what it all means (like looking at a screwhole,
a screw, and a screwdriver).

It's not gonna happen any time soon, and it certainly hasn't happened
yet.  Operating a computer safely, reliably, and with any degree of
competence whatsoever is a hard and complex task, and it's going to be
hard for some time to come.

So for $DEITY's sake, get over it, and stop whining (not you personally,
Mark).

</rant>

Holly
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Slightly OT: favorite window manager/desktop environ?

[Matt Garman]

On Fri, Sep 02, 2005 at 09:15:26AM -0400, Thomas Kirchner wrote:
> This can be a bit daunting, though, so when I was setting it up I
> found a fairly good base (taviso's, I believe) and customized the
> heck out of it.  Now it's perfect for me, and I just can't get rid
> of it.  I've tried pretty much every other option, but only FVWM
> can scratch everyone's exact itch - if they're patient.

I did a search for "taviso" and found his fvwm2rc file:

http://dev.gentoo.org/~taviso/fvwm2rc.html

There's also a lot of screenshots (and even a video!) of that
desktop.

After starting this thread, I got to playing with enlightenment
DR16 (not ready for 17 yet).  Despite being known for the eye candy,
it (so far) has proven itself to be a great lightweight window
manager.  Raster (enlightenment author) wrote a simple window
manager benchmark program; see the results of some typical window
managers here:

http://www.rasterman.com/index.php?page=News

I'd like to see some more window manager benchmarks (because I'm a
bit suspicious given that enlightenment had the best results in this
benchmark).  But I ran the two tests on my machine, and my results
were consistent with Raster's.  In fact, the two "fastest" window
managers I tested were enlightenment DR16 and FVWM.

I did play with Fvwm for a while, though.  And taviso's
configuration pretty much proves that *anything* is possible.  It
just takes so much work to get it looking "nice"!  The Fvwm
development team might take offense to this, but they could probably
improve their "market share" if fvwm looked... different... out of
the box.

Not that market share is really important here, but it's a bit
ironic to see all the window managers that have been written, either
from scratch or as hacks on FVWM, when FVWM has been able to do
pretty much everything for a long time.

Well, now I'm thinking I need to learn X11 programming, and hack on
FVWM or something... another project in my infinitely-long queue of
started-but-not-finished projects.

Matt

-- 
Matt Garman
email at: http://raw-sewage.net/index.php?file=email
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Slightly OT: favorite window manager/desktop environ?

[Philip Webb]

050904 Matt Garman wrote:
> I did a search for "taviso" and found his fvwm2rc file:
>   http://dev.gentoo.org/~taviso/fvwm2rc.html
> There's also a lot of screenshots (and even a video!) of that desktop.

The video is astonishing !  Fvwm2 looks like great fun, if you have the time.

-- 
========================,,============================================
SUPPORT     ___________//___,  Philip Webb : purslow@chass.utoronto.ca
ELECTRIC   /] [] [] [] [] []|  Centre for Urban & Community Studies
TRANSIT    `-O----------O---'  University of Toronto
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Slightly OT: favorite window manager/desktop environ?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1554 bytes --]

On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 15:56:34 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote:

> In general I'll have to take the unpopular position and say I
> disagree. All those potential converts are just like you - They don't
> run desktops they run apps - and because they are so entrenched with
> dollars already spent on Microsoft Windows, Microsoft email, Microsoft
> Office, Quicken,, etc., they won't come just because they can save
> $400 buying a new PC.
> 
> To become a Linux user is a commitment. People don't make new
> commitments lightly, and making a light commitment to Linux is doomed
> to failure. It's far too hard to use. Imagine knowing absolutely
> nothing about any Linux editor, nor even terminal commands, and trying
> to configure networking. It's nigh on impossible.

You're confusing using with administering. Yes, administering a Linux
system takes more knowledge than clicking a few buttons in Windows, but
using a correctly setup system is no harder with Linux, even Gentoo, than
Windows. My partner is about as computer-illiterate as they come, but she
uses a Gentoo system. She runs apps, not a desktop and not an operating
system. She uses KDE, not because she prefers it, but because it's what I
use, so it was the easiest one for me to show her around. But as long as
her mailer, browser and office programs work, she doesn't care what's
underneath. This is someone so technophobic that she cannot use a VCR,
but Linux is not hard to use for her.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Forgive your enemies. But hit them a few times first.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Slightly OT: favorite window manager/desktop environ?

[Uwe Thiem]

On 04 September 2005 11:41, Holly Bostick wrote:

I've tried to stay away from this thread but can't resist any more. ;-)

[ snip a lot of Holly's rant I mostly agree with ]
 
> This is why I can't deal with all the people I encounter who suggest
> that 'it' should 'JustWork' without need for instruction of any sort
> (whether that be a physical manual, man pages, READMEs, or Windows Help
> files).
>
> Like humanity is sooooooo good at making stuff, and 'users' are sooooooo
> brilliantly educated, that they should be able to look at a computing
> device and immediately know what it all means (like looking at a screwhole,
> a screw, and a screwdriver).
>
> It's not gonna happen any time soon, and it certainly hasn't happened
> yet.  Operating a computer safely, reliably, and with any degree of
> competence whatsoever is a hard and complex task, and it's going to be
> hard for some time to come.

That is exactly the reason I feel I have to make sure I do not add further 
complexity to it for my users. My users, or actually my customers and their 
users, are mostly office workers, engineers and journalists or other workers 
at newspapers. So it's mostly about corporate computing rather than home 
users. They do not administrate their boxes, they use them. Or, to use 
Holly's example of driving, they are drivers rather than car mechanics.

My POV is: The most important feature of a GUI is consistency.

Before I'll argue that point, I have to put away a fairy tale of computing: 
The intuitive desktop. Such beast does not exist. Intuition is highly based 
on one's cultural background. Since cultures are pretty much diverse, 
desktops cannot be intuitive across different culture. 

Lemme give you some examples, all of them coming from KDE because that is what 
I know best.

Let's have a look at the icon for "Email". That's a capital "E", an envelop 
leaning against it. Pretty intuitive, no? Alright, let's just assume I have 
grown up with a language that does not use the Latin script, and I do not 
speak English at all. In that case, the "E" is meaningless to me. Let's 
additionally assume my culture doesn't use envelops for mail but scrolls. The 
entire icon does not contain one single hint for me to guess what it means.

Look at the icon for "Help". Let's say you have never been on a ship. Let's 
say you have never seen a ship - and yes, there are a lot of people like 
that. What does that red-and-white ring tell you? Next to nothing.

Same for the "Home" icon. Unless your home looks somehow like that, you won't 
be able to associate the icon with "home" intuitively.

A diagonal line from the bottom-left corner to the top-right one means 
"upwards", right? Well, yes, it does for most of us. The keyword here is 
"most". Most of us read from the left to the right. That gives us the sense 
of direction when we look at that line. Those who read from the right to the 
left perceive it as "downwards". And how about those who read from top to 
bottom? Actually, I have no idea how they may perceive that line.

Alright, I have got into my favourite pasttime: Intercultural communications. 
I'll stop here as long as we can agree on "intuitive desktops" being a fairy 
tale that has never made it into real life. Let's forget about that concept 
and come back to my initial point:

The most crucial property of any computer (G)UI is consistency. 
Inconsistencies make it damn much harder for users to learn their environment 
or, in Holly speak, to commit to it. To borrow from Holly's example of 
driving again: All cars have their accelerators on the right hand side, the 
clutch on the left hand side and the brake in between (alright, cars with 
automatic gearboxes omit the clutch). That makes it feasible to change to 
another car without learning driving from scratch.

Same for computers and, especially, desktops. All "Open" dialogues *must* look 
and operate the same regardless which application one uses. The "Print" entry 
*must* be in the same menu regardless of the application. The same icon means 
the same in every application; a particular action is represented by the same 
icon in each and every application. Same for wording. "Dismiss", "Cancel", 
"Bail out" - that's simply confusing for someone who *tries* to commit 
themselves to something new like linux.

That's the reason I strongly advise to go with a real Desktop Environment for 
users rather than choose a windows manager and all the apps at random. Throw 
KDE or GNOME at your users to make it easier for them commit themselves. Make 
it easier for them to "drive" their desktops by providing a consistent 
interface. 

</my rant>

If you geeks want to use whatever you want, that is fine. For *you*. Don't 
even dream about converting the vast majority of computer *users* with that 
approach.

Good night
Uwe

-- 
95% of all programmers rate themselves among the top 5% of all software 
developers. - Linus Torvalds

http://www.uwix.iway.na (last updated: 20.06.2004)
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Slightly OT: favorite window manager/desktop environ?

[Mark Knecht]

On 9/4/05, Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 15:56:34 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote:
> 
> > In general I'll have to take the unpopular position and say I
> > disagree. All those potential converts are just like you - They don't
> > run desktops they run apps - and because they are so entrenched with
> > dollars already spent on Microsoft Windows, Microsoft email, Microsoft
> > Office, Quicken,, etc., they won't come just because they can save
> > $400 buying a new PC.
> >
> > To become a Linux user is a commitment. People don't make new
> > commitments lightly, and making a light commitment to Linux is doomed
> > to failure. It's far too hard to use. Imagine knowing absolutely
> > nothing about any Linux editor, nor even terminal commands, and trying
> > to configure networking. It's nigh on impossible.
> 
> You're confusing using with administering. Yes, administering a Linux
> system takes more knowledge than clicking a few buttons in Windows, but
> using a correctly setup system is no harder with Linux, even Gentoo, than
> Windows. My partner is about as computer-illiterate as they come, but she
> uses a Gentoo system. She runs apps, not a desktop and not an operating
> system. She uses KDE, not because she prefers it, but because it's what I
> use, so it was the easiest one for me to show her around. But as long as
> her mailer, browser and office programs work, she doesn't care what's
> underneath. This is someone so technophobic that she cannot use a VCR,
> but Linux is not hard to use for her.
> 
> 
> --
> Neil Bothwick

Neil,
   But to use it you have to set it up, right? ;-)

   I'm not confusing administering a system with using a system.
Although my skill set is permanantly locked somewhere around the 6 out
of 10 level I do understand that difference. I also understand what
it's like on the other side. I administer not only my own Gentoo
systems (numbering 3) but I also administer my wife's Gentoo box, my
son's Fedora box, my father's Gentoo box and 4 Pundit-R's that are
used as MythTV frontend machines. I get the difference. I love Gentoo,
and Linux in general, but it took a long time.

   The point is that not a single one of those people could even begin
to take a Gentoo CD and end up with a running system, or if they did
it would take weeks. Everyone of them can do that with Windows in an
afternoon. They have. None of them could even begin to do what's in a
Gentoo install doc in terms of configuration. The editors are arcane,
the instructions sometimes a bit vague, and RTFM instructions would
simply send them back to Windows in a heart beat.

   We both understand that without vi or nano experience that without
luck you'll probably never get networking, and without networking you
go nowhere fast. We both can see that if someone tried to use Linux on
a Windows network the first question after getting the machine up
would probably be some Samba oriented issue about 'Where is network
neighborhood' Windows gives me that. How do I get my files?" ...etc...
I've had to solve that for my family.

   Browsers are almost OK these days, as long as you don't want or
need multimedia, flash, etc., but after I'll hit the real issue that
was raised earlier. Even if the machine is up and working perfectly, I
need M$ Word, Excel, Outlook, or all my old stuff is lost and I'm just
starting over. Damn, the kid sure is screaming loud about his stupid
games not working, my wife want's her 'Family Tree' program or some
other such thing. I give up and go to the pub for liquid therapy.

   I've done this, both for myself and for 3 family members. Granted,
I ain't that smart, but I've seen the problems. On the other hand I
think many hot shot Linux folks cannot always see the forest for the
trees and take far, far too much for granted. For someone who just
wants to browse the web and get a little email through GMail Window
gets the job done until it fails. When it does they wipe their disk,
reinstall, and go on. That sort of user is never, IMHO, going to make
a commitment to learn vi...

   Just my two cents, respectfully given. I'm not bashing Linux, or
developers, or anyone here. I'm just saying life isn't all about CS
majors just out of college.

cheers,
Mark

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Slightly OT: favorite window manager/desktop environ?

[Holly Bostick]

Uwe Thiem schreef:
> On 04 September 2005 11:41, Holly Bostick wrote:
> 
> I've tried to stay away from this thread but can't resist any more. 
> ;-)
> 
> [ snip a lot of Holly's rant I mostly agree with ]
> 
> 
>> This is why I can't deal with all the people I encounter who 
>> suggest that 'it' should 'JustWork' without need for instruction of
>>  any sort (whether that be a physical manual, man pages, READMEs, 
>> or Windows Help files).
>> 
>> Like humanity is sooooooo good at making stuff, and 'users' are 
>> sooooooo brilliantly educated, that they should be able to look at 
>> a computing device and immediately know what it all means (like 
>> looking at a screwhole, a screw, and a screwdriver).
>> 
>> It's not gonna happen any time soon, and it certainly hasn't 
>> happened yet.  Operating a computer safely, reliably, and with any 
>> degree of competence whatsoever is a hard and complex task, and 
>> it's going to be hard for some time to come.
> 
> 
> That is exactly the reason I feel I have to make sure I do not add 
> further complexity to it for my users. My users, or actually my 
> customers and their users, are mostly office workers, engineers and 
> journalists or other workers at newspapers. So it's mostly about 
> corporate computing rather than home users. They do not administrate 
> their boxes, they use them. Or, to use Holly's example of driving, 
> they are drivers rather than car mechanics.

Yes, Uwe, I see what you mean-- but do you see that they don't *have* to
be competent/educated/committed.... because they have you to be that for
them? My point was only that *someone* has to be, because we are not at
such a state of technological advancement where it's possible for such a
device to operate without somebody who knows what they're doing
somewhere along the line. Behind every good (and bad) user, there's a
frazzled admin keeping the channel clear for them.
> 
<snip of Uwe's rant, most of which I agree with>
> 
> If you geeks want to use whatever you want, that is fine. For *you*. 
> Don't even dream about converting the vast majority of computer 
> *users* with that approach.

Hey, who you calling a geek? ;-) But seriously, where are you going with
this? First of all, who cares about converting anybody?

But let's say somebody does... and there are, naturally, those who do.
Those who do are... let's see... commercial distributions like Mandriva,
SUSE, RedHat.

Seems to me that they already go to a lot of trouble to conform their
environments to the type of standard you describe. Only a few apps like
OO.o just won't get in line.

So those who have a stake in managing such issues, manage such issues.
Those who have a stake in such issues being managed, go with the
organization that's managing the issues they need managed. So is there
any reason that I, as someone not particularly interested in managing
this issue, need to think any more about this :-) ?

Holly
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Slightly OT: favorite window manager/desktop environ?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1924 bytes --]

On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 13:02:30 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote:

> > You're confusing using with administering. Yes, administering a Linux
> > system takes more knowledge than clicking a few buttons in Windows,
> > but using a correctly setup system is no harder with Linux, even
> > Gentoo, than Windows. My partner is about as computer-illiterate as
> > they come, but she uses a Gentoo system. She runs apps, not a desktop
> > and not an operating system. She uses KDE, not because she prefers
> > it, but because it's what I use, so it was the easiest one for me to
> > show her around. But as long as her mailer, browser and office
> > programs work, she doesn't care what's underneath. This is someone so
> > technophobic that she cannot use a VCR, but Linux is not hard to use
> > for her.

> Neil,
>    But to use it you have to set it up, right? ;-)

Wrong. someone has to set it up, but it doesn't have to be the user.

>    I'm not confusing administering a system with using a system.
> Although my skill set is permanantly locked somewhere around the 6 out
> of 10 level I do understand that difference. I also understand what
> it's like on the other side. I administer not only my own Gentoo
> systems (numbering 3) but I also administer my wife's Gentoo box, my
> son's Fedora box, my father's Gentoo box and 4 Pundit-R's that are
> used as MythTV frontend machines. I get the difference. I love Gentoo,
> and Linux in general, but it took a long time.

See, you are the admin, your wife etc. are users. they don't care about
the ins and outs of the system, only what they can do with it.

>    The point is that not a single one of those people could even begin
> to take a Gentoo CD and end up with a running system, or if they did
> it would take weeks. 

Why would they need to, they have you for that :)


-- 
Neil Bothwick

OPERATOR ERROR: Nyah, Nyah, Nyah, Nyah, Nyah!

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Slightly OT: favorite window manager/desktop environ?

[Mark Knecht]

On 9/4/05, Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:

> >    But to use it you have to set it up, right? ;-)
> 
> Wrong. someone has to set it up, but it doesn't have to be the user.

Surely...

> 
> >    I'm not confusing administering a system with using a system.
> > Although my skill set is permanantly locked somewhere around the 6 out
> > of 10 level I do understand that difference. I also understand what
> > it's like on the other side. I administer not only my own Gentoo
> > systems (numbering 3) but I also administer my wife's Gentoo box, my
> > son's Fedora box, my father's Gentoo box and 4 Pundit-R's that are
> > used as MythTV frontend machines. I get the difference. I love Gentoo,
> > and Linux in general, but it took a long time.
> 
> See, you are the admin, your wife etc. are users. they don't care about
> the ins and outs of the system, only what they can do with it.

Fine, but going back to the only thing in the thread that got me
involved (why do I get involved? ) ;-) Walter siad:

"I think lightweight WM's will be important.  Linux in general will
have a great "window of Opportunity" when Vista is released.  A lot of
current machines will not be able to run it well ("crawl" != "run").  If
people are faced with a choice of throwing out their old W2K, and XP
machines, and buying new ones, versus keeping their machines and
switching to linux, I think we could see quite a few converts. "

Now, if by a 'few' we want to assume one or two who learn enough to
make it work, then I agree with Walter, but that's not very
interesting. On the other hand, if by a few mean mean thousands (not
millions, etc.) then I suggest it isn't going to happen because they
won't be able to administer it themselves and they won't know someone
who'll do it for them like I do for my family.

My 'disagreement', if there is one, is that a savings of $300 for a
new computer and a $99 Windows upgrade won't convince many people to
learn to do it themselves using Linux. It takes a much stronger reason
than that, at least in my limited part of the planet.

> 
> >    The point is that not a single one of those people could even begin
> > to take a Gentoo CD and end up with a running system, or if they did
> > it would take weeks.
> 
> Why would they need to, they have you for that :)
> 
3 people do, but thousands don't.

Anyway, 'nuff said. Thanks!

Cheers,
Mark

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Slightly OT: favorite window manager/desktop environ?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1638 bytes --]

On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 14:11:51 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote:

> > See, you are the admin, your wife etc. are users. they don't care
> > about the ins and outs of the system, only what they can do with it.
> 
> Fine, but going back to the only thing in the thread that got me
> involved (why do I get involved? ) ;-) Walter siad:
> 
> "I think lightweight WM's will be important.  Linux in general will
> have a great "window of Opportunity" when Vista is released.  A lot of
> current machines will not be able to run it well ("crawl" != "run").  If
> people are faced with a choice of throwing out their old W2K, and XP
> machines, and buying new ones, versus keeping their machines and
> switching to linux, I think we could see quite a few converts. "
> 
> Now, if by a 'few' we want to assume one or two who learn enough to
> make it work, then I agree with Walter, but that's not very
> interesting. On the other hand, if by a few mean mean thousands (not
> millions, etc.) then I suggest it isn't going to happen because they
> won't be able to administer it themselves and they won't know someone
> who'll do it for them like I do for my family.

Fair comment. If you're talking about individual user/admins then the
learning curve of installing and administering a different OS (not
necessarily more difficult, just different) is a serious obstacle.

> > Why would they need to, they have you for that :)
> > 
> 3 people do, but thousands don't.

Be thankful for that, I'm sure three is more than enough at times :)


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Time for a diet!                             -- [NO FLABBIER].

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Slightly OT: favorite window manager/desktop environ?

[Bob Sanders]

On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 00:56:56 +0100
Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:


> Fair comment. If you're talking about individual user/admins then the
> learning curve of installing and administering a different OS (not
> necessarily more difficult, just different) is a serious obstacle.
> 

Based on my experiences, I'll disagree with you Neil.  I had a couple of
interns working for me last year.  One was about to graduate from college and the
other was in the middle of getting a Master's degree.  Both were comp-sci majors.
The Master's degree intern had been running Red Hat or something,  but really didn't
know Linux.  The other intern used WinXX - college was teaching her Java,
nothing much more than that.

First thing I did was get them set up with systems and hand them a Gentoo minimal
CD and url for the installation manual.  Told them to ask anything they wanted at any
time.  Explained to them that they needed to learn Linux, but that RPM based distros
wouldn't give them any type of broad knowledge, and wouldn't be any better than learning
to install WinXX.  They took about a week, with a couple of restarts, had them run fluxbox
and Enlightenment before allowing them to run their choice of WM.  Eventually, they moved
to KDE, which is fine, but they had an X environment and additional knowledge, they could
work while KDE was compiling.  *Btw - they were also learning how to install and use Irix
at the same time.)

While they were there, they had no real problems with Gentoo.  As part of their task at the
time was porting/fixing former Irix tests to run on Linux,  it was a lot easier to deal with the
issues on Gentoo, then move the the tests to RH and SuSE, where all kinds of things
broke.  But they were more able to fix the tests because they had a better peek under
the hood.

While they've left to go to other companies, one of the interns told me that she misses her
Gentoo system - she's back in the Java/WinXX world of Corporate computing.

For training new technical individuals on Linux, source based distributions with package
management systems that stay out  of the way, are great tools.  Even if the end of the road
for many of them is some - keep your distance, GUI installer based, RPM Linux system.

For a long time I used to think that starting a new user with a nice RPM based distribution
was the right answer.  I was wrong.  It's the wrong answer.  It teaches them nothing they
can use in the future.  It's painful during upgrades.  It binds their hands in the shackles of -
you will do things the way we tell you to do them.  And letting new users utilize GUI based
installers, always ends in - where is the install everything check box?

They may migrate to another distribution, and that's fine.  But they will be prepared and
have knowledge.  To use Holly's car analogy -  they learned to drive a stick shift, but 
now want an automatic.  No problem.  (It's a poor analogy on my part - too simplistic
and not fair to Portage.)

Also, this isn't just the two interns.  With only two exceptions - a Slackware user, and a
remote Engineer who prefers to have Corp IS administrate the box, I've moved a lot of
technical people to Gentoo.  A few have gone to other dists, and a few have returned
back to Gentoo - the others are just too painful to administer.  But, in all cases, they
are more knowledgeable because of having to "do things the hard way."  And being
more knowledgeable make them much more valuable as skilled employees.  More so than
any certification will.

Bob 
-  
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Slightly OT: favorite window manager/desktop environ?

[Paul Hoy]

On Sep 4, 2005, at 11:20 PM, Bob Sanders wrote:

> On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 00:56:56 +0100
> Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>> Fair comment. If you're talking about individual user/admins then the
>> learning curve of installing and administering a different OS (not
>> necessarily more difficult, just different) is a serious obstacle.
>>
>>
>
> Based on my experiences, I'll disagree with you Neil.  I had a  
> couple of
> interns working for me last year.  One was about to graduate from  
> college and the
> other was in the middle of getting a Master's degree.  Both were  
> comp-sci majors.
> The Master's degree intern had been running Red Hat or something,   
> but really didn't
> know Linux.  The other intern used WinXX - college was teaching her  
> Java,
> nothing much more than that.
>
> First thing I did was get them set up with systems and hand them a  
> Gentoo minimal
> CD and url for the installation manual.  Told them to ask anything  
> they wanted at any
> time.  Explained to them that they needed to learn Linux, but that  
> RPM based distros
> wouldn't give them any type of broad knowledge, and wouldn't be any  
> better than learning
> to install WinXX.  They took about a week, with a couple of  
> restarts, had them run fluxbox
> and Enlightenment before allowing them to run their choice of WM.   
> Eventually, they moved
> to KDE, which is fine, but they had an X environment and additional  
> knowledge, they could
> work while KDE was compiling.  *Btw - they were also learning how  
> to install and use Irix
> at the same time.)
>
> While they were there, they had no real problems with Gentoo.  As  
> part of their task at the
> time was porting/fixing former Irix tests to run on Linux,  it was  
> a lot easier to deal with the
> issues on Gentoo, then move the the tests to RH and SuSE, where all  
> kinds of things
> broke.  But they were more able to fix the tests because they had a  
> better peek under
> the hood.
>
> While they've left to go to other companies, one of the interns  
> told me that she misses her
> Gentoo system - she's back in the Java/WinXX world of Corporate  
> computing.
>
> For training new technical individuals on Linux, source based  
> distributions with package
> management systems that stay out  of the way, are great tools.   
> Even if the end of the road
> for many of them is some - keep your distance, GUI installer based,  
> RPM Linux system.
>
> For a long time I used to think that starting a new user with a  
> nice RPM based distribution
> was the right answer.  I was wrong.  It's the wrong answer.  It  
> teaches them nothing they
> can use in the future.  It's painful during upgrades.  It binds  
> their hands in the shackles of -
> you will do things the way we tell you to do them.  And letting new  
> users utilize GUI based
> installers, always ends in - where is the install everything check  
> box?
>
> They may migrate to another distribution, and that's fine.  But  
> they will be prepared and
> have knowledge.  To use Holly's car analogy -  they learned to  
> drive a stick shift, but
> now want an automatic.  No problem.  (It's a poor analogy on my  
> part - too simplistic
> and not fair to Portage.)
>
> Also, this isn't just the two interns.  With only two exceptions -  
> a Slackware user, and a
> remote Engineer who prefers to have Corp IS administrate the box,  
> I've moved a lot of
> technical people to Gentoo.  A few have gone to other dists, and a  
> few have returned
> back to Gentoo - the others are just too painful to administer.   
> But, in all cases, they
> are more knowledgeable because of having to "do things the hard  
> way."  And being
> more knowledgeable make them much more valuable as skilled  
> employees.  More so than
> any certification will.
>
> Bob
> -
> -- 
> gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
>
>


Hi Bob,

I found your email really informative and I have a question regarding  
one of your final comments. To paraphrase, you state that doing  
things the hard way will make employees more knowledgeable, "more so  
than any certification will." So, my question is this: is it  
worthwhile to obtain certification? And, if so, which would be a  
better choice in your opinion: Red Hat certification or say, for  
instance, certification from the Linux Professional Institute?

Btw, I'm not sure if I have hijacked the thread. If so, please feel  
free to edit the subject line.

Paul
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Slightly OT: favorite window manager/desktop environ?

[Matt Randolph]

[I just thought I'd chip in my two cents on the question of whether 
Linux is easy or hard.  It's turned into more like my $11.62, so it's a 
good thing it's broken into sections.]

Linux is easy.

That's not to say that it can't be hard.  Depending on what you're 
trying to do, you may have to be able to think like an engineer to get 
the desired results.  But that doesn't detract from my previous 
statement.  In general, Linux is easy.  Allow me to explain my reasoning.

Knoppix is easier than Windows.

Koko the the sign-language gorilla could turn an OS-less computer into a 
feature-loaded Debian system by merely pressing two buttons and 
inserting a Knoppix CD.  ANY idiot that has ever used Windows 95 can 
find their way around in KDE without help (that's not to say that Koko 
is an idiot, mind you).  If Koko is familiar with Gaim, Firefox and 
OpenOffice.org from her Windows experience, she's instantly able to do 
in Linux what she spends 99% of her time doing in Windows (actually, I'm 
pretty sure Koko usually uses a Mac, but you get my drift).

"Out of the box" Knoppix should be completely intuitive to anyone that 
has ever used a relatively recent version of Windows.  Is KDE intuitive 
if you don't read from left to right, or email doesn't begin with an E 
in your language?  Maybe not.  It's probably not very intuitive to pygmy 
headhunters either.  But I'd bet 90% of Windows and Mac users could 
figure out how to do everything they want to do in Knoppix in twenty 
minutes or less... they just have to be willing to try.  (Knoppix might 
be beyond the abilities of some BSD people, though.  ;-)

Installing Linux can be easy.

While a Windows user is twiddling her thumbs as Windows XP installs, 
Koko the gorilla is getting in a quick game of frozen-bubble as Debian 
is copied to the disk.  If something goes wrong during the install, well 
Koko just opens up a browser and Googles the error message.  Our person 
installing Windows has to find another working machine in order to do 
that.  The only thing that might give Koko some trouble about the 
install is partitioning her disk.  This must be done during a Windows 
install too, of course, but our Windows user only had to accept all of 
the defaults when she partitioned a disk during an install.

Installing Linux USED to be hard. 

This is probably why so many people think Linux IS hard.  I've tried 
Slackware, Redhat, Suse, Mandrake, Debian (and Lindows/Linspire), and 
probably others.  FreeBSD too.  For years and years I wanted to play 
with Linux, but I could never even get it installed.  I think I tried to 
install Redhat about half a dozen times (each time a new version number 
was released or so) before I ever had a working graphical system.  I 
think Redhat was up to version 6 or 7 when I finally managed to get it 
up and running to my satisfaction (I switched to Debian when Redhat 
started demanding subscription fees).

Getting X configured properly was always a sticky issue.  The monitor 
never had refresh rates listed on the back label.  And I could never 
find the hard copy manual for the monitor either.  I only had one 
computer so I had to power off, swap disks, boot into Windows, look for 
the refresh rates online, power off, swap disks, try installing Linux 
again, type in the refresh rates... But what's this?  "How the hell am I 
supposed to know the speed of my graphics card's RAMDAC?!  WTF is a 
RAMDAC!?  If Windows does this automatically anyway, why can't Linux!  
Screw this!"  Fortunately, Linux has come a long way since then.

Installing Gentoo can be hard.

I tried to install Gentoo on three different occasions.  Just like with 
those ancient versions of other distributions, the first two times I 
attempted to install relatively recent copies of Gentoo I was thwarted 
by mysterious errors while having no ready access to the web (or even a 
proper GUI) for help.  On the third occasion, unable to get the LiveCDs 
to work, I finally managed to get Gentoo installed from within 
Kanotix64.  Each time I encountered an error, trusty Firefox was there 
to display the solution.  I had to promise myself the reward of buying 
and installing Doom3 to get me to stick with it.  Actually, the fact 
that Doom3 and AA were both in amd64 in portage is what finally pushed 
me towards trying Gentoo again (I erroneously assumed they would be 
64-bit versions).  Well, that and the prospect of effortless updates and 
the fact that REAL Linux men and women (and gorillas) install all their 
software from source.

So getting Gentoo (circa 2004) installed was a challenge the likes of 
which I hadn't seen since Redhat version 5 and prior.  But keeping it 
installed (solving every problem that came along without throwing up my 
hands and switching distros) has been easy.  I owe that in part to the 
large and largely savvy Gentoo community. 

Getting Gentoo to do all of the things that I want has certainly been 
harder than in Knoppix.  It's been harder than in Redhat or Suse or 
regular Debian too.  But mostly I think that's because "what I want" has 
become so much more since moving to Gentoo.  I never bothered to do half 
of the things I now routinely do in Linux until switching to Gentoo.  
Heck, I don't think I ever even compiled a kernel in Suse, Mandrake, or 
Redhat.

Administering Linux is easy. 

Administering it well, properly or wisely is hard, but the same can be 
said of Windows.  Staying on top of Windows security patches, keeping up 
with new proprietary technologies, forking over loads of cash for 
software and support, all of those things are hard to do (for me, at 
least).  A modern Linux machine is capable of performing admirably (for 
a user with the simplest needs) for YEARS right out of the box without 
ever having to change more than a few settings from the default values, 
without ever having to install external applications, without ever even 
having to REBOOT!  How many machines are out there that are still 
running ancient versions of the Kernel because there has never been a 
reason to upgrade that warrants the downtime of a reboot?  (Well, OK, 
there are other reasons for using older kernels too, but you see what 
I'm getting at.)

One thing that the Linux administrator has that the Windows one doesn't 
is a seemingly endless supply of free support.  A Windows admin may have 
to buy a support subscription to get access to help.  At a minimum, she 
had to buy some software.  And when the developer stops supporting that 
version... well she gets to buy some software again.  Most of the 
problems a would-be Linux admin (the only kind I can speak to) will 
encounter, however, have already been solved.  Some non Linux specific 
Unix issues may even have been solved decades ago!  And if the solution 
cannot be found online, the uber-Linux admin probably has all of the 
tools needed to find the solution herself!

Have you ever tried to solve a rare Windows problem?  The solutions 
sometimes don't seem to have anything to do with the problem.  The admin 
can't figure out the answer entirely by herself because it might be a 
glitch in some seemingly unrelated piece of code that she didn't even 
know her program used because she didn't have access to the source 
code.  She has to complain to the developers (and wait until enough 
other people complained too) before a fix is released, all the while 
being told that it's not their problem, it's a problem with the OS!  And 
if the problem is some flaky piece of hardware... well... for all the 
finger pointing it might be easier to just buy a new computer.  ...with 
a new version of Windows to boot.

... easy partly because Linux has better documentation than Windows.

Windows apps typically have help files, but have you ever tried to read 
them?  In my experience, they never have anything even remotely related 
to your problem in them.  Windows help files aren't there to help the 
admin make the software work when it doesn't.  They're there to tell the 
enduser what he probably already knows through intuition or by just 
experimenting.  Sometimes the first resort a Windows admin has for help 
is a forum.  Linux admins get to RTFM first.  Sure, commercial Windows 
software typically comes with a hard copy manual, but it is often little 
better than the help file.  Some times it IS the help file.  And if it 
actually contains useful information, it might be written in such a 
highly technical way that college graduates, PhD's even, run out and buy 
a "...for Dummies" book.  When our would be admin buys a book about a 
Unix program, it's because she wants to learn how to use that program 
"well."  Not just "at all."

Administering Gentoo is especially easy. 

At least, most of the day-to-day stuff is trivial, that is.  Sure, 
Windows XP downloads security updates automatically, whereas in Gentoo 
you have to type in a command or create a cron job, but look at what 
that single command does!  You've not only plugged any security holes in 
your system files/programs, you've plugged the holes in ALL of your 
programs (assuming you stay in portage).  A Windows user might have to 
visit dozens of websites on a daily basis to find out that there is a 
security patch for one of their commercial apps in time to block an 
exploit.  And there WILL be an exploit!  Granted, in Gentoo one has to 
run dispatch-conf afterwards, but, hey, would you really want some 
program mucking around in your config files unchaperoned anyway? 

When new versions of Windows or Windows applications are released, the 
smart Windows admin waits a while in the hopes that some of the bugs 
will get worked out before upgrading.  But how long to wait?  As reports 
of Windows 2000 machines getting wormed to pieces reveal, they often 
guess wrong.  With Gentoo, the would-be admin can be pretty confident 
that anything in arch has been well tested and is safe enough to install.

...partly because portage is the easiest!

Installing new software on Linux machines had long been a thorn in my 
side.  For years, every time I found some interesting program on 
SourceForge or Freshmeat, it would only be available as a source file.  
Countless times I would download and attempt to compile a program only 
to have the build die halfway through.  After chasing down half a dozen 
dependencies and trying to get them installed in the right order, I'd 
invariably give up in disgust when it turned out that a dependency no 
longer existed for download in the required version number or it 
conflicted with software that was already installed.

Portage (and Debian's apt) made what for me was long the hardest part of 
using (I use the word use as in the word enduser) Linux into one of the 
easiest.  If there was a GUI based tool that enabled a Koko to turn a 
tarball and a list of dependencies into a properly ebuild, there would 
be virtually no room for improvement in my eyes.

The fact that Gentoo has such a rabid fan base (sporting many developers 
and package maintainers) has helped to ensure that most of the programs 
that most people might want can be painlessly installed on Gentoo with 
merely a few keystrokes.

Other distributions are easy too.

I think of Redhat as the distro you use if you don't want to learn 
anything about Linux (OK, OK, and nearly every Linux app. has an rpm 
available).  For many people it is, or will be, their first distro.  
And, not infrequently, their last.  Getting hardware to work with Redhat 
is probably the easiest because many of the hardware manufacturers that 
release Linux drivers, only do so in the form of .rpm's.  I think 
Debian, on the other hand, must be for lazy people.  I mean, look at 
apt!  It's like emerge only everything is precompiled.  That's almost 
too easy!  Suse impressed me with Yast because I could do what I wanted 
with only a slight shift from the Windows paradigm.  Slackware... well, 
Slackware is a beast.  It was the first distro I ever attempted to 
install, and I think it scarred me for life.  I don't think I ever 
actually got it up and running, though I haven't tried in many years.  
The last time I looked at their website, though, it was little more than 
a brief text file with links to .tgz's and .iso's.  I'm sure it's an 
awesome distribution, but I never got to see why first hand.

So aside from my experience with ancient versions of Slack, most of the 
other major distros proved themselves to be easy to install and 
configure once they came of age.  Well, I haven't tried Slack in years 
so I assume that it came of age also and is now easy too.

Linux is (often) easier than Windows.

Linux (well, all Unices I know of) come with scads of powerful tools 
that Windows simply doesn't have.  There are countless things that a 
Linux user can do with just a few standard commands and some pipes that 
a Windows guru would have to use commercial software and/or VB (or C) to 
do.  Many's the time I've moved every file of some Windows project to a 
Linux box and back again just so that I'd have access to the Unix 
tools.  I am a bit of an odd duck, though, as I'd probably try to write 
a bash script to brush my teeth if I thought I could.

Linux isn't having an easy time.

The only thing that is harder to do in the Linux world that in the 
Windows world is to find commercial software and some driver support.

In the Windows world, you don't have to ask yourself "is this software 
available for my OS?"  In the Windows world, you buy the hardware first 
and then check to see if it's compatible AFTER you start having trouble 
getting it to work in your computer.

This is the only area in which Windows has the upper hand to Linux.  
Unfortunately, it is the area over which we have the least control.  It 
is only as the user base grows that these problems will fade away.  As 
more people use Linux, more hardware manufacturers will support Linux, 
and more prospective users will discover that they have compatible 
hardware.  As more businesses use Linux, more people will learn how to 
use it on the job. 

As businesses look for ways to cut costs, some will turn to Linux as an 
obvious answer.  One day there will be a big article in Fortune or The 
Wallstreet Journal about a little nano-tech company that made it big.  
And it will mention that one of the factors that helped them beat the 
competition was that they saved scads of money by putting Linux on all 
of their desktops.  And people will read this article and they will be 
paying attention.  Koko and I are just sure of it.
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Slightly OT: favorite window manager/desktop environ?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1409 bytes --]

On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 20:20:39 -0700, Bob Sanders wrote:

> > Fair comment. If you're talking about individual user/admins then the
> > learning curve of installing and administering a different OS (not
> > necessarily more difficult, just different) is a serious obstacle.

> Based on my experiences, I'll disagree with you Neil.  I had a couple of
> interns working for me last year.  One was about to graduate from
> college and the other was in the middle of getting a Master's degree.
> Both were comp-sci majors.

These are hardly typical user who have never seen anything but Windows.
They are the focus of this discussion.

> Also, this isn't just the two interns.  With only two exceptions - a
> Slackware user, and a remote Engineer who prefers to have Corp IS
> administrate the box, I've moved a lot of technical people to Gentoo.

Yes, technical people, the people who can respond to the challenge of
changing the mindset needed when you switch operating systems. Try the
same with someone who has only ever used Windows, but has never installed
it, and has no idea of the inner workings. Such people consider Windows
to be intuitive, not because it is, but because it is what they know, and
will balk at anything different.

Who was is said "the only truly intuitive user interface is the tit"?


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Energizer Bunny arrested, charged with battery :)

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Slightly OT: favorite window manager/desktop environ?

[Holly Bostick]

Matt Randolph schreef:
> [I just thought I'd chip in my two cents on the question of whether 
> Linux is easy or hard.  It's turned into more like my $11.62, so it's
>  a good thing it's broken into sections.]
> 
> Linux is easy.
> 
<snip of Matt's tour-de-force, virtually all of which I agree with,
except it still assumes that a 'knowledgeable user'; i.e. an admin, is
involved, which was the point of the whole debate-- Windows users
believe that they should always be 'pure users' and the very fact that
they or someone must 'admin' Linux automatically makes it "too hard">
> 
> The only thing that is harder to do in the Linux world that in the 
> Windows world is to find commercial software and some driver support.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the Windows world, you don't have to ask yourself "is this 
> software available for my OS?"  In the Windows world, you buy the 
> hardware first and then check to see if it's compatible AFTER you 
> start having trouble getting it to work in your computer.

Which is, btw, completely bass-ackward to start with, which was my
original point (the assumption that 'pure user, no admin necessary' is
possible is fundamentally wrong, and patently false based on the
observed evidence).

You can't buy a couch on a whim without taking into account the
measurements of your doors/room first (well you can, but if you can't
get it into your house, no vendor is going to say, 'oh, sorry, that's my
fault'). If you do, and the movers can't get the couch up the
stairs/through the door/into the room, whose fault is everyone
(including you) going to say it is that you can't use the couch?

*Yours* for not determining that the device (couch) was appropriate for
your environment before buying.

This idea that somehow computer hardware is different (fostered by MS,
where everything supposedly 'JustWorks') is completely contrary to
knowledge and experience we have of the Real World --where you can't
just buy 'anything' without checking something first (you try on
clothes, or at least check the size, you make sure that electrical
appliances have the right connectors for your wiring or needs, heck, if
nothing else you make sure the color matches your room or shoes).

Judgement is an 'admin-level task', and it is unavoidable that judgement
should be involved in such a situation as buying computer hardware
(because we are currently unable to create computers that are able to
either make such judgements for themselves, or are so flexible/standard
that such judgement does not need to be made at all).

The fact that the OS manufacturer with 90+% of the market is actively
fostering the complete untruth that judgement is not only outdated and
uncool, but furthermore completely unneccessary in Our Modern World
(ha!) is, shall we say, "deeply disturbing" to me.

Holly
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Slightly OT: favorite window manager/desktop environ?

[John SJ Anderson]

Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> writes:

> Who was is said "the only truly intuitive user interface is the tit"?

  Somebody who never had children: babies and moms have to _learn_ how
  to nurse, and sometimes aren't able to pull it off.

john.
-- 
genehack.org * weblog == ( bioinfo / linux / opinion / stuff ) * daily *

Don't compare floating point numbers just for equality.
            - The Elements of Programming Style (Kernighan & Plaugher)
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Slightly OT: favorite window manager/desktop environ?

[Matt Randolph]

Holly Bostick wrote:

>Matt Randolph schreef:
>  
>
>>[I just thought I'd chip in my two cents on the question of whether 
>>Linux is easy or hard.  It's turned into more like my $11.62, so it's
>> a good thing it's broken into sections.]
>>
>>Linux is easy.
>>
>>    
>>
><snip of Matt's tour-de-force, virtually all of which I agree with,
>except it still assumes that a 'knowledgeable user'; i.e. an admin, is
>involved, which was the point of the whole debate-- Windows users
>believe that they should always be 'pure users' and the very fact that
>they or someone must 'admin' Linux automatically makes it "too hard">
>  
>
>>The only thing that is harder to do in the Linux world that in the 
>>Windows world is to find commercial software and some driver support.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>In the Windows world, you don't have to ask yourself "is this 
>>software available for my OS?"  In the Windows world, you buy the 
>>hardware first and then check to see if it's compatible AFTER you 
>>start having trouble getting it to work in your computer.
>>    
>>
>
>Which is, btw, completely bass-ackward to start with, which was my
>original point (the assumption that 'pure user, no admin necessary' is
>possible is fundamentally wrong, and patently false based on the
>observed evidence).
>
>You can't buy a couch on a whim without taking into account the
>measurements of your doors/room first (well you can, but if you can't
>get it into your house, no vendor is going to say, 'oh, sorry, that's my
>fault'). If you do, and the movers can't get the couch up the
>stairs/through the door/into the room, whose fault is everyone
>(including you) going to say it is that you can't use the couch?
>
>*Yours* for not determining that the device (couch) was appropriate for
>your environment before buying.
>
>This idea that somehow computer hardware is different (fostered by MS,
>where everything supposedly 'JustWorks') is completely contrary to
>knowledge and experience we have of the Real World --where you can't
>just buy 'anything' without checking something first (you try on
>clothes, or at least check the size, you make sure that electrical
>appliances have the right connectors for your wiring or needs, heck, if
>nothing else you make sure the color matches your room or shoes).
>
>Judgement is an 'admin-level task', and it is unavoidable that judgement
>should be involved in such a situation as buying computer hardware
>(because we are currently unable to create computers that are able to
>either make such judgements for themselves, or are so flexible/standard
>that such judgement does not need to be made at all).
>
>The fact that the OS manufacturer with 90+% of the market is actively
>fostering the complete untruth that judgement is not only outdated and
>uncool, but furthermore completely unneccessary in Our Modern World
>(ha!) is, shall we say, "deeply disturbing" to me.
>
>Holly
>  
>

I don't think Knoppix really has an administrator.  It really is an 
enduser only flavour of Linux.  It's sort of a "fire and forget" 
distro.  Sure, someone had to go to a lot of trouble to get it set up 
just right in the first place, but once that was done it can perform 
reliably without further administrative intervention.  The enduser not 
only probably won't set the root password, the enduser doesn't even need 
to know that it is unset.  Or even that a root account exists!

I don't believe this sort of user experience is limited to read-only 
systems like Knoppix, though.  Look at Lindows/Linspire.  How about 
those $200 Linux computers they are (or were) selling at Wal*Mart 
(strewth!).  I expect those machines ARE intended to provide the enduser 
with an essentially administratorless (to coin a word) experience.  
Linspire (at least used to) have the user running everything as root.  
But do you think the enduser always knows that?  I think the enduser 
simply knows that when they pay to install OpenOffice.org from 
Linspire's private apt servers, it just works; it installs without their 
ever having to `su` or `sudo` or anything.  That Linspire user 
essentially is the admin, though she doesn't know it and she almost 
certainly doesn't behave like one.  That's true for Windows XP users too 
(personal users, at least).  The default Windows XP account runs 
everything with administrative privileges.  But that doesn't mean 
there's an admin at the controls.  Microsoft has tried to shift the most 
frequently performed critical administrative task, namely installing 
security updates, from the user's shoulders onto their own.  I think 
portage and apt achieve similar (nay, superior) functionality for Linux 
users, and I don't think that's a bad thing.

Should Linux users be able to get away without administering their 
systems?  Well, I think Linspire users should be able to get away 
without administering their systems themselves.  For their target users, 
Linspire systems should me largely maintenance free.  For these people, 
any administrative tasks that must be performed should probably be 
handled by corporate HQ as much as possible.  Professionally written 
scripts should be used and a cron job should download and install 
updates to those scripts.

Should the rest of us be able to get away without administering (or 
attempting to administer, in my case) our systems?  Of course not.  
That'd be daft.  You wouldn't agree to ride in a car without a licensed 
driver behind the wheel, would you?  Well, I suppose some people might 
if one was driving it by remote control.  I don't think we're really 
disagreeing on this point (not about the car, about the initial question).

Secondly, I didn't mean to imply that it was appropriate for Windows 
folks to buy hardware without first verifying that it is compatible with 
Windows.  I'm merely saying that, for many Windows users, it is probably 
quite common behavior.  They may even be able to get away with it more 
often than not.

Does a savvy Windows user or an administrator or even a pimply-faced 
computer gamer do this?  Of course not.  These types of users will sit 
down and research the prospective hardware purchase carefully beforehand.

But how often do you think John Q. Enduser somewhere walks into a store 
and buys a mouse or a hard drive or even a wireless NIC combo without 
doing a lick of homework first?  I'd say it probably IS more often than 
not.  He was probably goaded into the purchase by the 75%-off mail in 
rebate which he will promptly fail to send in properly anyway.

What I think I hear you saying is that being able to get away with this 
foolish behavior should not be one of our goals.  I did not mean to 
imply that careless hardware shopping should be encouraged.  Rather, I 
used this as an example to try to illustrate how lacking driver support 
slows the growth of Linux.  If Linux is going to grow it's user base 
significantly, it's probably going to have to attract quite a few of 
those careless boobs too.  And if Linux can't be made to work on their 
hardware, do you think they are going to run out and buy a new computer 
or will they simply rethink the decision to try Linux?

Although careless hardware shopping should not be encouraged, being able 
to get away with it (that is, having nearly ubiquitous hardware support) 
should indeed be one of our goals.

I was not aware that any company was trying to encourage careless 
hardware shopping.  If knew it to be so, I'd be as unhappy about it as 
you appear to be.  Well... I do suppose that is what those mail-in 
rebates ARE trying to do.  And I am certainly unhappy about that 
(disgusted, even).

I guess there's another reason Linux is a superior OS: it makes you behave.

- Matt

[Oh, and thank you for your kind comments.]

-- 
"Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate" - W. of O.

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Slightly OT: favorite window manager/desktop environ?

[Holly Bostick]

Matt Randolph schreef:
> Holly Bostick wrote:
> 
>>> 
>>> In the Windows world, you don't have to ask yourself "is this 
>>> software available for my OS?"  In the Windows world, you buy the
>>>  hardware first and then check to see if it's compatible AFTER 
>>> you start having trouble getting it to work in your computer.
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Which is, btw, completely bass-ackward to start with, which was my 
>> original point (the assumption that 'pure user, no admin necessary'
>> is possible is fundamentally wrong, and patently false based on the
>> observed evidence).
>> 
<snip>
>> 
> 
> I don't think Knoppix really has an administrator.  It really is an 
> enduser only flavour of Linux.  It's sort of a "fire and forget" 
> distro.  Sure, someone had to go to a lot of trouble to get it set up
>  just right in the first place, but once that was done it can perform
>  reliably without further administrative intervention.  The enduser 
> not only probably won't set the root password, the enduser doesn't 
> even need to know that it is unset.  Or even that a root account 
> exists!

Interesting. But again, *someone* had to administer the system to set it
up so that a user could be 'pure'.

> 
> I don't believe this sort of user experience is limited to read-only 
> systems like Knoppix, though.  Look at Lindows/Linspire.  How about 
> those $200 Linux computers they are (or were) selling at Wal*Mart 
> (strewth!).  I expect those machines ARE intended to provide the 
> enduser with an essentially administratorless (to coin a word) 
> experience. Linspire (at least used to) have the user running 
> everything as root. But do you think the enduser always knows that? I
>  think the enduser simply knows that when they pay to install 
> OpenOffice.org from Linspire's private apt servers, it just works; it
>  installs without their ever having to `su` or `sudo` or anything. 
> That Linspire user essentially is the admin, though she doesn't know
>  it and she almost certainly doesn't behave like one.

And many now question whether Linspire can even be called a Linux
distribution for this and other reasons, despite the fact that it runs
on a Linux kernel. We're all wondering if that is then the only
requirement, or does it also need to follow 'the rules' to be counted?

But that's a whole 'nother discussion.

> 
<snip>
> What I think I hear you saying is that being able to get away with 
> this foolish behavior should not be one of our goals.  I did not mean
>  to imply that careless hardware shopping should be encouraged. 
> Rather, I used this as an example to try to illustrate how lacking 
> driver support slows the growth of Linux.  If Linux is going to grow
>  it's user base significantly, it's probably going to have to attract
>  quite a few of those careless boobs too.  And if Linux can't be made
>  to work on their hardware, do you think they are going to run out
> and buy a new computer or will they simply rethink the decision to
> try Linux?
> 
> Although careless hardware shopping should not be encouraged, being 
> able to get away with it (that is, having nearly ubiquitous hardware
>  support) should indeed be one of our goals.

OK, I understand that, but... how exactly is allowing one to 'get away'
with such behaviour not 'encouraging' such behaviour?

If one has always been able to 'get away' with any behaviour, why would
one think that any other behaviour is possible?

If for my entire life, I have walked into "stores", taken what I wanted,
and left again (which is perfectly acceptable behaviour wherever I'm
from), the day I walk into a "real" store, and get taken away
by the police for 'stealing' (because I didn't pay, which I have never
heard of and thus never even considered that a 'store' represents an
'exchange' of 'money' for 'goods'), it may be true that I have not been
'encouraged' to 'steal', but I definitely have been poorly trained in
the actual working of The (rest of the) Real World, and that is not a
good thing.

Ubiquitous hardware support, on the one hand, is closer than you think
(there's not all that much hardware that cannot, no matter what you do,
be made to work under Linux; it's just not that it all "JustWorks"), and on
the other hand is less relevant than you think (I have drivers that
enable my ATI card to 'work' under Linux, but they suck, so whose fault
is that? Not Linux's. Nor is it Linux's fault if I plug in my digicam
and it is mounted, but I don't know how to get the dv output into Kino,
or can't figure out how to properly mount my perfectly-well-detected
Flash card to get my pictures into whatever graphics display or editing
program I might use). The hardware works fine. But that's no help if I
can't understand how to use it, or can't use it effectively.

And enabling some kind of efficient communication between the hardware
that is being properly detected by the kernel, and the programs the user
uses to utilize the device is a design issue, which is an administrative
task. If Wine/Cedega will run Morrowind using my ATI card under certain
configurations, but not others (or the 'default' config), then someone
has to be responsible for setting that up so that the user (who is also
me, of course) can just click an icon and run Morrowind. Hell, someone
has to make sure that the ATI drivers are installed in the first place--
and supposedly the user is never supposed to know about any of this, and
there should never be an admin, so who's supposed to do it then? The
Tooth Fairy?

The fact that you may be able to "Plug and Play" does not remove the
necessity that administration must occur: under Windows, a Wizard does
it, in an enterprise situation, IT does it, under SuSE, maybe YaST does
it, under Gentoo, you do it (or Mark does it for you :) ).

But the fact that at some point somebody has to be responsible for
administration is inescapable, and I feel that saying that's wrong
somehow is... wrong.

Because it's a limit of technology, and pretending that such limits
don't exist (or worse yet, attempting to conceal such limits) seems very
very unwise to me.
> 
> I was not aware that any company was trying to encourage careless 
> hardware shopping.  If knew it to be so, I'd be as unhappy about it 
> as you appear to be.

One word.... Winmodem (easiest possible example).

All winmodems are (naturally) marked that they work under Windows. How
many of them are marked that they *only* work under Windows, because a
Winmodem is an incomplete piece of hardware, where the functioning of
certain physical chips (which are physically no longer present) are
replaced by software functions available only in the Windows Operating
System (because the Windows Operating System was specifically designed
with closed-source APIs to replace the functions of specific chips
formerly on the modem PCB)?

How many 'real' hardware modems (which have all the chips, and do not
replace any hardware functionality with OS-based functions) are
distinguished on their packaging from WinModems, or vice versa?

And do you think that the 1) creation of, and 2) lack of disclosure on
the packaging of, such crippled hardware was somehow not 'encouraged' by
the company whose product's market share benefits the most from the
existance of such hardware (because the hardware seems to JustWork with
their software)? The benefit to the hardware companies, of course, is
that their product becomes cheaper to produce, since it requires less
chips... and there's little chance that the old PCB with all the chips
will need to make a reappearance, because the software being used to
replace the hardware functioning is eternal (not least because of the
manufacturer's new hardware design).

And that's just the easy example.

Holly
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Slightly OT: favorite window manager/desktop environ?

[Matt Randolph]

Holly Bostick wrote:

>Matt Randolph schreef:
>  
>
>>I don't think Knoppix really has an administrator.  It really is an 
>>enduser only flavour of Linux.  It's sort of a "fire and forget" 
>>distro.  Sure, someone had to go to a lot of trouble to get it set up
>> just right in the first place, but once that was done it can perform
>> reliably without further administrative intervention.  The enduser 
>>not only probably won't set the root password, the enduser doesn't 
>>even need to know that it is unset.  Or even that a root account 
>>exists!
>>    
>>
>
>Interesting. But again, *someone* had to administer the system to set it
>up so that a user could be 'pure'.
>  
>
It sounds like we are in agreement on this point.  We both state that 
someone had (past tense) to administer the system... at some point in 
time.  We also both state (or imply) that the enduser doesn't take up 
the role of administrator.  Is it possible to have any sort of computer 
that hasn't felt the effects of an administrator?  Of course not.  Any 
device of any significant complexity can only exist by the labors of 
some knowledgeable persons.  I don't think anyone is trying to say the 
opposite.

But does the Knoppix user's system have an administrator NOW?  I say it 
does not.  It has been configured by an admin... heck, the OS was 
installed to it's filesystem by an admin...  but there is no admin 
looking over the shoulder of the Knoppix user.

>  
>
>>I don't believe this sort of user experience is limited to read-only 
>>systems like Knoppix, though.  Look at Lindows/Linspire.  How about 
>>those $200 Linux computers they are (or were) selling at Wal*Mart 
>>(strewth!).  I expect those machines ARE intended to provide the 
>>enduser with an essentially administratorless (to coin a word) 
>>experience. Linspire (at least used to) have the user running 
>>everything as root. But do you think the enduser always knows that? I
>> think the enduser simply knows that when they pay to install 
>>OpenOffice.org from Linspire's private apt servers, it just works; it
>> installs without their ever having to `su` or `sudo` or anything. 
>>That Linspire user essentially is the admin, though she doesn't know
>> it and she almost certainly doesn't behave like one.
>>    
>>
>
>And many now question whether Linspire can even be called a Linux
>distribution for this and other reasons, despite the fact that it runs
>on a Linux kernel. We're all wondering if that is then the only
>requirement, or does it also need to follow 'the rules' to be counted?
>
>But that's a whole 'nother discussion.
>  
>
I didn't mean to imply that Linspire is a proper Linux distribution.  It 
certainly doesn't follow 'the rules' of a proper operating system.  But 
neither does Windows for that matter (and for much the same reasons).  
Knoppix doesn't follow the traditional 'rules' in that it is read-only.  
Embedded versions of Linux don't follow 'the rules' in a sense because 
the user might never interface with the OS at all, merely a single 
application instead.  Linspire IS trying to follow a set of rules.  
Specifically, the ones Windows goes by.  So doesn't that mean that 
Linspire is at least as valid an OS as Windows is?

No, Linspire is not proper Linux, but it is bringing the kernel and 
Linux apps into some peoples homes.  It may not be bringing the 
traditions, the behaviors, or the ways of thinking that are a part of 
Linux, but those may come with time to those that seek them.  But even 
if they never did, why should certain sorts of people be prevented from 
using Linux just because they aren't clever enough or are too busy to do 
it properly?  Some people will never learn more than the basics of 
operating a computer.  If those people are forced to chose between 
learning to use a proper OS properly versus using a typewriter, they'll 
start dusting off the old Selectric.

I have heard rumors that some futurists are predicting the death of the 
PC in the not too distant future.  Instead of PCs they predict people 
will use weird multi-function mobile phone devices with speech 
recognition interfaces.  Will you want to have to log in to your mobile 
in order to answer it?  Will you want to have to create a cron job to 
get it to download your email?  But don't you want it to be Linux-based 
anyway?

>>What I think I hear you saying is that being able to get away with 
>>this foolish behavior should not be one of our goals.  I did not mean
>> to imply that careless hardware shopping should be encouraged. 
>>Rather, I used this as an example to try to illustrate how lacking 
>>driver support slows the growth of Linux.  If Linux is going to grow
>> it's user base significantly, it's probably going to have to attract
>> quite a few of those careless boobs too.  And if Linux can't be made
>> to work on their hardware, do you think they are going to run out
>>and buy a new computer or will they simply rethink the decision to
>>try Linux?
>>
>>Although careless hardware shopping should not be encouraged, being 
>>able to get away with it (that is, having nearly ubiquitous hardware
>> support) should indeed be one of our goals.
>>    
>>
>
>OK, I understand that, but... how exactly is allowing one to 'get away'
>with such behaviour not 'encouraging' such behaviour?
>
>If one has always been able to 'get away' with any behaviour, why would
>one think that any other behaviour is possible?
>  
>
In my town it is the custom to drive ten to fifteen miles per hour over 
the speed limit.  Almost everybody does it.  You're much more likely to 
see someone greatly exceeding the limit than you are to find someone 
strictly obeying it.  By allowing people to get away with this scofflaw 
behavior, do you mean to imply that the police are actively encouraging 
it some how?  Do you honestly believe a single one of those motorists 
doesn't know they are breaking the law?  Or that it is even possible to 
drive more slowly?  So which is it?  When they put out limit signs and 
mentions of fines, but then don't pull you over for every little 
violation, are they encouraging or discouraging speeding?

I think I see what you're driving at, though.  What I hear you saying is 
that whenever someone gets away with a thing, they will invariably feel 
encouraged to do it again.  I feel, however, that this "encouragement" 
is distinctly different from encouragement with the intent to 
encourage.  The latter is the result of an action while the former is 
the result of an inaction.  Encouraging is not the same as not 
discouraging.  Some people are encouraged to speed by the lax 
enforcement, while others are discouraged from speeding by the signs and 
a desire to obey the law.  Whether one is encouraged to be a lawbreaker 
or not varies from one person to the next.  There is nothing invariable 
about it.

But we're not really talking about cars here.  We're talking about 
buying hardware and the availability of drivers for a particular 
operating system.  Do you mean to imply that carefree hardware buying is 
such an evil that we must ensure that the behavior never goes 
unpunished?  To me that would mean that hardware manufacturers would 
have to be DIScouraged from releasing Linux drivers so that every 
hardware purchase by the uninformed would be a total crap shoot.  
Allowing people to get away with careless shopping is an unavoidable 
consequence of having universal hardware support.  If we labor to obtain 
the latter, we will be enabling the former poor behavior by default.  
But if Linux actually had 100% complete universal hardware support, 
failing to look for an OS compatibility sticker would no longer BE poor 
behavior.  It would have become unnecessary entirely.

>Ubiquitous hardware support, on the one hand, is closer than you think
>(there's not all that much hardware that cannot, no matter what you do,
>be made to work under Linux; it's just not that it all "JustWorks"), and on
>the other hand is less relevant than you think (I have drivers that
>enable my ATI card to 'work' under Linux, but they suck, so whose fault
>is that? Not Linux's. Nor is it Linux's fault if I plug in my digicam
>and it is mounted, but I don't know how to get the dv output into Kino,
>or can't figure out how to properly mount my perfectly-well-detected
>Flash card to get my pictures into whatever graphics display or editing
>program I might use). The hardware works fine. But that's no help if I
>can't understand how to use it, or can't use it effectively.
>  
>
You're right.  Hardware support has come a long way.  Knoppix, for 
instance, is awesome.  More often than not, it really does "just work."  
But I do not believe that having even basic hardware support is as 
irrelevant as you seem to suggest.  Are you not better off having crappy 
support from ATI than you would be if you had none?

But I'm not wishing for poorly written or incomplete drivers.  When I 
say that a piece of hardware has Linux support, I mean that it "runs" 
not "crawls" (to quote Mr. Knecht, I believe).

If your digicam is mounted but you cannot get the contents into Kino, 
are you really getting support from the manufacturer?  Shouldn't support 
for Linux include instructions on how to get it to work with Linux?  If 
some insanely talented hacker/engineer reverse engineers your camera's 
interface and adds it to the kernel, yet no Howto exists to show you how 
to use it, do you really have "support?"  I was talking about driver 
support but I guess I really meant to be talking about complete support: 
driver support, software support, technical support, the whole package 
the Windows folks get.  If we had that from hardware manufacturers, 
Linux's growth would snowball.

>And enabling some kind of efficient communication between the hardware
>that is being properly detected by the kernel, and the programs the user
>uses to utilize the device is a design issue, which is an administrative
>task. If Wine/Cedega will run Morrowind using my ATI card under certain
>configurations, but not others (or the 'default' config), then someone
>has to be responsible for setting that up so that the user (who is also
>me, of course) can just click an icon and run Morrowind. Hell, someone
>has to make sure that the ATI drivers are installed in the first place--
>and supposedly the user is never supposed to know about any of this, and
>there should never be an admin, so who's supposed to do it then? The
>Tooth Fairy?
>  
>
As I understand it, in the case of Cedega, the someones responsible for 
setting things up for a particular game are the techs at Transgaming.  
In Wine, that someone is you, though hopefully someone else has posted 
how they did it so you won't have to reinvent the wheel.  But Windows 
gamers often have to deal with administrative tasks too (and other 
Windows endusers do as well).  It happens quite often that a Windows 
game has to be patched in order to work on a particular computer.  The 
enduser may have to seek help from the developers and follow their 
instructions.  Does this make the enduser the administrator?  Or is the 
administrator the one that solved the problem, made the patch, and wrote 
the instructions?

I'm not saying "there should never be an admin" ever.  But for certain 
sorts of users, there need to be products that don't require that an 
admin be present in order to keep things working properly (enough).  If 
a box is configured well and it can be made to be static, does it really 
need an administrator?  What if that box is a refrigerator, a video game 
console, or even a non-networked PC?  I think that a Linux appliance 
like one of these can and should be able to be used without the further 
help of an admin.

>The fact that you may be able to "Plug and Play" does not remove the
>necessity that administration must occur: under Windows, a Wizard does
>it, in an enterprise situation, IT does it, under SuSE, maybe YaST does
>it, under Gentoo, you do it (or Mark does it for you :) ).
>
>But the fact that at some point somebody has to be responsible for
>administration is inescapable, and I feel that saying that's wrong
>somehow is... wrong.
>  
>
"[S]omeone had to go to a lot of trouble to get it set up just right in 
the first place, but once that was done it can perform reliably without 
further administrative  intervention," is what I said about Knoppix.  
There was an admin, but there isn't one now.  I don't know what I said 
that led you to believe I thought something different.

The more that is asked of a system, the more administering must be done 
to it.  A video game console with a Linux OS only has to do one thing.  
As a result, it will require essentially no administrative 
intervention.  An enterprise web server has to do more things than I can 
count.  As a result, it has to be closely watched and fiddled with to 
keep things running smoothly.  Somewhere in between is the Linspire 
desktop.  If all it has to do is write documents, send emails, and surf 
the web, then little more than security updates would need to be 
performed (by cron, even) to keep it going.  But if you actually want to 
use your computer AS a computer instead of an appliance, then a 
different distro would be a better choice and somebody is going to need 
to administer things.

>Because it's a limit of technology, and pretending that such limits
>don't exist (or worse yet, attempting to conceal such limits) seems very
>very unwise to me.
>  
>
I agree that the limitations of a technology should be made aware to its 
users and it should be done in such a way that they will comprehend 
those limitations.  But does that mean that trying to make simple 
systems that don't require constant babysitting by flesh and blood 
administrators is automatically a bad idea simply because it shields the 
enduser from the underlying mechanics?

>>I was not aware that any company was trying to encourage careless 
>>hardware shopping.  If knew it to be so, I'd be as unhappy about it 
>>as you appear to be.
>>    
>>
>
>One word.... Winmodem (easiest possible example).
>
>All winmodems are (naturally) marked that they work under Windows. How
>many of them are marked that they *only* work under Windows,
>
All of them.  The list of hardware and software requirements on each 
package *only* indicates that it works under Windows.  Granted, they 
don't say "won't work with Linux," but they don't say "won't work with a 
Cray," either.  If you buy a piece of hardware and the manufacturer 
didn't say it would work with your OS, and you can't get it to work with 
your OS... then you're on your own.

> because a
>Winmodem is an incomplete piece of hardware, where the functioning of
>certain physical chips (which are physically no longer present) are
>replaced by software functions available only in the Windows Operating
>System (because the Windows Operating System was specifically designed
>with closed-source APIs to replace the functions of specific chips
>formerly on the modem PCB)?
>
>How many 'real' hardware modems (which have all the chips, and do not
>replace any hardware functionality with OS-based functions) are
>distinguished on their packaging from WinModems, or vice versa?
>  
>
None that I've seen, but that doesn't mean there aren't any.  I'm not 
sure, but I think a proper external modem can be made to work with both 
PC's and Macs.  If so, it might even say so on the box.  I believe I was 
able to tell that my last (last as in final) modem was a proper one 
because the box said it worked in DOS too.

>And do you think that the 1) creation of, and 2) lack of disclosure on
>the packaging of, such crippled hardware was somehow not 'encouraged' by
>the company whose product's market share benefits the most from the
>existance of such hardware (because the hardware seems to JustWork with
>their software)? The benefit to the hardware companies, of course, is
>that their product becomes cheaper to produce, since it requires less
>chips... and there's little chance that the old PCB with all the chips
>will need to make a reappearance, because the software being used to
>replace the hardware functioning is eternal (not least because of the
>manufacturer's new hardware design).
>  
>
Do you really believe that some little Taiwanese company failing to 
state "this product will not work without Windows," on a modem package 
is evidence that Microsoft is up to no good?  I'm not saying Microsoft 
isn't.  Of course they are.  But I don't think they told hardware 
manufacturers how to word the compatibility information on each box in 
an effort to mislead those people who might want to switch from Windows 
to Linux some day (and do it at 53Kbps to boot).  Even if Winmodems DID 
come with a warning about being unusable without Windows, do you really 
think that would have affected sales appreciably?  And why aren't there 
Win-NICs, or Win-mice, or Win-hard drives?  Granted, they may come with 
the arrival of the Microsoft brand of Digital Rights Management.  That 
may even be the real reason they're moving towards DRM at all.  But I 
think the fact that the RIAA and the MPAA have been screaming their 
heads off might have something to do with it too. ;-)

- Matt
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Slightly OT: favorite window manager/desktop environ?

[Bob Sanders]

On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 23:46:02 -0400
Paul Hoy <paul.hoy@mac.com> wrote:

> Hi Bob,
> 
> I found your email really informative and I have a question regarding  
> one of your final comments. To paraphrase, you state that doing  
> things the hard way will make employees more knowledgeable, "more so  
> than any certification will." So, my question is this: is it  
> worthwhile to obtain certification? And, if so, which would be a  
> better choice in your opinion: Red Hat certification or say, for  
> instance, certification from the Linux Professional Institute?
> 

The certification tests do require real knowledge - mainly on setting up things
like mail, ftp, drive arrays, etc - lots of "after the install items."  certainly all
requiring skill and knowledge.

Red Hat focuses on Red Hat, though many items are transferable for the motivated
individual.  LPI certification is broader, and, some say, the harder test of the two.

Are they worth it?  Depends upon the job market.  The knowledge required to
pass the tests is certainly a large part of managing any Linux system.  But if your
starting with a blank hard drive, then neither will get you past any problems that
may occur during the install or with the package manager.

> Btw, I'm not sure if I have hijacked the thread. If so, please feel  
> free to edit the subject line.
> 

Hijack a hijacked thread that was originally an OT about window managers?

Bob
-  
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Slightly OT: favorite window manager/desktop environ?

[Holly Bostick]

Matt Randolph schreef:
> Holly Bostick wrote:
> 
>> Matt Randolph schreef:
>> 
>> 
>>> I don't think Knoppix really has an administrator.  It really is
>>>  an enduser only flavour of Linux.  It's sort of a "fire and 
>>> forget" distro.  Sure, someone had to go to a lot of trouble to 
>>> get it set up just right in the first place, but once that was 
>>> done it can perform reliably without further administrative 
>>> intervention.  The enduser not only probably won't set the root 
>>> password, the enduser doesn't even need to know that it is unset.
>>>  Or even that a root account exists!
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Interesting. But again, *someone* had to administer the system to 
>> set it up so that a user could be 'pure'.
>> 
>> 
> It sounds like we are in agreement on this point.  We both state that
>  someone had (past tense) to administer the system... at some point 
> in time.  We also both state (or imply) that the enduser doesn't take
>  up the role of administrator.  Is it possible to have any sort of 
> computer that hasn't felt the effects of an administrator?  Of course
>  not.  Any device of any significant complexity can only exist by the
>  labors of some knowledgeable persons.  I don't think anyone is 
> trying to say the opposite.
> 
> But does the Knoppix user's system have an administrator NOW?  I say
>  it does not.  It has been configured by an admin... heck, the OS was
>  installed to it's filesystem by an admin...  but there is no admin 
> looking over the shoulder of the Knoppix user.

Right.... so here's a real-world problem, from elsewhere on this list
("authorization failure when sending email")

> Matthew Lee schreef:
>> I've tried every combination of kmail settings available, no joy. 
>> I've reemerged all the software that --depclean removed, no joy. 
>> I've reemerged kmail, no joy.  I've reemerged ssmtp, no joy. 
>> However, I think ssmtp, or something associated with it is the 
>> problem.  But what I haven't a clue.  Is there another "simple" 
>> mail transfer agent I could try.  I don't need anything fancy it's
>>  just a laptop connected to the lab DHCP server.
>> 

Since this issue seems to revolve around programs also available to
Knoppix (and likely also being used under Knoppix), it's probably a
valid example.

So you've got a user who is unable to use a simple user function (send
email). In the proposed administratorless world, who is supposed to fix
this? The "invisible administrator" (who must exist, but is no longer
necessarily present).

In the case of Knoppix, that's the Knoppix team or the Debian team, if
we're restricting ourselves purely to the packages involved. Is the user
supposed to download and install another "fixed" Knoppix disk in order
to be able to use KMail as they did last week? Or is the user to follow
the Debian protocol and not use the newer version of these programs
(meaning they wouldn't be available to Debian stable in the first place,
which of course, they probably aren't)?

If everything is supposed to "JustWork" and does not, someone must be at
fault. Who? The user is experiencing some unidentified conflict between
programs that worked together well last week. Is there any way for those
who are 'to blame' (development, packaging, some admin along the line)
to work in such a way that these conflicts never ever filter down to the
user? I say no, because we persist in making the conflicting
applications known to the user before all such conflicts are
identified and eliminated-- partly because development requires that
these errors filter down to the user to be identified in the first
place, as developers cannot test under all possible conditions.

Basically the limit of software technology is that we make it
immediately available to everyone as if it does not require
administration, but it is (almost) never so stable and intuitive that
this is in fact the case.

The solution would seem to be to either not make the software available
until it has been sufficiently tested so that it does "JustWork" under
all possible
conditions (which the trained greed of users will not allow), or teach
the user
that sometimes they may have to do something a bit more complicated than
just click 'Send' (which means that the user cannot be a pure user anymore).

I don't see any middle ground here, but maybe I'm missing something.

Holly


> 
>> 
>> 
>>> I don't believe this sort of user experience is limited to 
>>> read-only systems like Knoppix, though.  Look at 
>>> Lindows/Linspire.  How about those $200 Linux computers they are
>>>  (or were) selling at Wal*Mart (strewth!).  I expect those 
>>> machines ARE intended to provide the enduser with an essentially
>>>  administratorless (to coin a word) experience. Linspire (at
>>> least used to) have the user running everything as root. But do
>>> you think the enduser always knows that? I think the enduser
>>> simply knows that when they pay to install OpenOffice.org from 
>>> Linspire's private apt servers, it just works; it installs 
>>> without their ever having to `su` or `sudo` or anything. That 
>>> Linspire user essentially is the admin, though she doesn't know 
>>> it and she almost certainly doesn't behave like one.
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> And many now question whether Linspire can even be called a Linux 
>> distribution for this and other reasons, despite the fact that it 
>> runs on a Linux kernel. We're all wondering if that is then the 
>> only requirement, or does it also need to follow 'the rules' to be
>>  counted?
>> 
>> But that's a whole 'nother discussion.
>> 
>> 
> I didn't mean to imply that Linspire is a proper Linux distribution.
>  It certainly doesn't follow 'the rules' of a proper operating
> system. But neither does Windows for that matter (and for much the
> same reasons). Knoppix doesn't follow the traditional 'rules' in that
> it is read-only. Embedded versions of Linux don't follow 'the rules'
> in a sense because the user might never interface with the OS at all,
>  merely a single application instead.  Linspire IS trying to follow a
>  set of rules. Specifically, the ones Windows goes by.  So doesn't 
> that mean that Linspire is at least as valid an OS as Windows is?
> 
> No, Linspire is not proper Linux, but it is bringing the kernel and 
> Linux apps into some peoples homes.  It may not be bringing the 
> traditions, the behaviors, or the ways of thinking that are a part of
>  Linux, but those may come with time to those that seek them.  But 
> even if they never did, why should certain sorts of people be 
> prevented from using Linux just because they aren't clever enough or
>  are too busy to do it properly?  Some people will never learn more 
> than the basics of operating a computer.  If those people are forced
>  to chose between learning to use a proper OS properly versus using a
>  typewriter, they'll start dusting off the old Selectric.
> 
> I have heard rumors that some futurists are predicting the death of 
> the PC in the not too distant future.  Instead of PCs they predict 
> people will use weird multi-function mobile phone devices with speech
>  recognition interfaces.  Will you want to have to log in to your 
> mobile in order to answer it?  Will you want to have to create a cron
>  job to get it to download your email?  But don't you want it to be 
> Linux-based anyway?
> 
>>> What I think I hear you saying is that being able to get away 
>>> with this foolish behavior should not be one of our goals.  I did
>>>  not mean to imply that careless hardware shopping should be 
>>> encouraged. Rather, I used this as an example to try to 
>>> illustrate how lacking driver support slows the growth of Linux.
>>>  If Linux is going to grow it's user base significantly, it's 
>>> probably going to have to attract quite a few of those careless 
>>> boobs too.  And if Linux can't be made to work on their hardware,
>>>  do you think they are going to run out and buy a new computer or
>>>  will they simply rethink the decision to try Linux?
>>> 
>>> Although careless hardware shopping should not be encouraged, 
>>> being able to get away with it (that is, having nearly ubiquitous
>>>  hardware support) should indeed be one of our goals.
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> OK, I understand that, but... how exactly is allowing one to 'get 
>> away' with such behaviour not 'encouraging' such behaviour?
>> 
>> If one has always been able to 'get away' with any behaviour, why 
>> would one think that any other behaviour is possible?
>> 
>> 
> In my town it is the custom to drive ten to fifteen miles per hour 
> over the speed limit.  Almost everybody does it.  You're much more 
> likely to see someone greatly exceeding the limit than you are to 
> find someone strictly obeying it.  By allowing people to get away 
> with this scofflaw behavior, do you mean to imply that the police are
>  actively encouraging it some how?  Do you honestly believe a single
>  one of those motorists doesn't know they are breaking the law?  Or 
> that it is even possible to drive more slowly?  So which is it?  When
>  they put out limit signs and mentions of fines, but then don't pull
>  you over for every little violation, are they encouraging or 
> discouraging speeding?
> 
> I think I see what you're driving at, though.  What I hear you saying
>  is that whenever someone gets away with a thing, they will 
> invariably feel encouraged to do it again.  I feel, however, that 
> this "encouragement" is distinctly different from encouragement with 
> the intent to encourage.  The latter is the result of an action while
> the former is the result of an inaction.  Encouraging is not the same
> as not discouraging.  Some people are encouraged to speed by the lax
> enforcement, while others are discouraged from speeding by the signs
> and a desire to obey the law.  Whether one is encouraged to be a
> lawbreaker or not varies from one person to the next.  There is 
> nothing invariable about it.
> 
> But we're not really talking about cars here.  We're talking about 
> buying hardware and the availability of drivers for a particular 
> operating system.  Do you mean to imply that carefree hardware buying
>  is such an evil that we must ensure that the behavior never goes 
> unpunished?  To me that would mean that hardware manufacturers would 
> have to be DIScouraged from releasing Linux drivers so that every 
> hardware purchase by the uninformed would be a total crap shoot. 
> Allowing people to get away with careless shopping is an unavoidable 
> consequence of having universal hardware support.  If we labor to 
> obtain the latter, we will be enabling the former poor behavior by 
> default. But if Linux actually had 100% complete universal hardware 
> support, failing to look for an OS compatibility sticker would no 
> longer BE poor behavior.  It would have become unnecessary entirely.
> 
>> Ubiquitous hardware support, on the one hand, is closer than you 
>> think (there's not all that much hardware that cannot, no matter 
>> what you do, be made to work under Linux; it's just not that it all
>>  "JustWorks"), and on the other hand is less relevant than you 
>> think (I have drivers that enable my ATI card to 'work' under 
>> Linux, but they suck, so whose fault is that? Not Linux's. Nor is 
>> it Linux's fault if I plug in my digicam and it is mounted, but I 
>> don't know how to get the dv output into Kino, or can't figure out 
>> how to properly mount my perfectly-well-detected Flash card to get 
>> my pictures into whatever graphics display or editing program I 
>> might use). The hardware works fine. But that's no help if I can't
>>  understand how to use it, or can't use it effectively.
>> 
>> 
> You're right.  Hardware support has come a long way.  Knoppix, for 
> instance, is awesome.  More often than not, it really does "just 
> work." But I do not believe that having even basic hardware support 
> is as irrelevant as you seem to suggest.  Are you not better off 
> having crappy support from ATI than you would be if you had none?
> 
> But I'm not wishing for poorly written or incomplete drivers.  When I
>  say that a piece of hardware has Linux support, I mean that it 
> "runs" not "crawls" (to quote Mr. Knecht, I believe).
> 
> If your digicam is mounted but you cannot get the contents into Kino,
>  are you really getting support from the manufacturer?  Shouldn't 
> support for Linux include instructions on how to get it to work with
>  Linux?  If some insanely talented hacker/engineer reverse engineers
>  your camera's interface and adds it to the kernel, yet no Howto 
> exists to show you how to use it, do you really have "support?"  I 
> was talking about driver support but I guess I really meant to be 
> talking about complete support: driver support, software support, 
> technical support, the whole package the Windows folks get.  If we 
> had that from hardware manufacturers, Linux's growth would snowball.
> 
>> And enabling some kind of efficient communication between the 
>> hardware that is being properly detected by the kernel, and the 
>> programs the user uses to utilize the device is a design issue, 
>> which is an administrative task. If Wine/Cedega will run Morrowind
>>  using my ATI card under certain configurations, but not others (or
>>  the 'default' config), then someone has to be responsible for 
>> setting that up so that the user (who is also me, of course) can 
>> just click an icon and run Morrowind. Hell, someone has to make 
>> sure that the ATI drivers are installed in the first place-- and 
>> supposedly the user is never supposed to know about any of this, 
>> and there should never be an admin, so who's supposed to do it 
>> then? The Tooth Fairy?
>> 
>> 
> As I understand it, in the case of Cedega, the someones responsible 
> for setting things up for a particular game are the techs at 
> Transgaming. In Wine, that someone is you, though hopefully someone 
> else has posted how they did it so you won't have to reinvent the 
> wheel.  But Windows gamers often have to deal with administrative 
> tasks too (and other Windows endusers do as well).  It happens quite
>  often that a Windows game has to be patched in order to work on a 
> particular computer.  The enduser may have to seek help from the 
> developers and follow their instructions.  Does this make the enduser
>  the administrator?  Or is the administrator the one that solved the
>  problem, made the patch, and wrote the instructions?
> 
> I'm not saying "there should never be an admin" ever.  But for 
> certain sorts of users, there need to be products that don't require
>  that an admin be present in order to keep things working properly 
> (enough).  If a box is configured well and it can be made to be 
> static, does it really need an administrator?  What if that box is a
>  refrigerator, a video game console, or even a non-networked PC?  I 
> think that a Linux appliance like one of these can and should be able
>  to be used without the further help of an admin.
> 
>> The fact that you may be able to "Plug and Play" does not remove 
>> the necessity that administration must occur: under Windows, a 
>> Wizard does it, in an enterprise situation, IT does it, under SuSE,
>>  maybe YaST does it, under Gentoo, you do it (or Mark does it for 
>> you :) ).
>> 
>> But the fact that at some point somebody has to be responsible for 
>> administration is inescapable, and I feel that saying that's wrong 
>> somehow is... wrong.
>> 
>> 
> "[S]omeone had to go to a lot of trouble to get it set up just right
>  in the first place, but once that was done it can perform reliably 
> without further administrative  intervention," is what I said about 
> Knoppix. There was an admin, but there isn't one now.  I don't know 
> what I said that led you to believe I thought something different.
> 
> The more that is asked of a system, the more administering must be 
> done to it.  A video game console with a Linux OS only has to do one
>  thing. As a result, it will require essentially no administrative 
> intervention.  An enterprise web server has to do more things than I
>  can count.  As a result, it has to be closely watched and fiddled 
> with to keep things running smoothly.  Somewhere in between is the 
> Linspire desktop.  If all it has to do is write documents, send 
> emails, and surf the web, then little more than security updates 
> would need to be performed (by cron, even) to keep it going.  But if
>  you actually want to use your computer AS a computer instead of an 
> appliance, then a different distro would be a better choice and 
> somebody is going to need to administer things.
> 
>> Because it's a limit of technology, and pretending that such limits
>>  don't exist (or worse yet, attempting to conceal such limits) 
>> seems very very unwise to me.
>> 
>> 
> I agree that the limitations of a technology should be made aware to
>  its users and it should be done in such a way that they will 
> comprehend those limitations.  But does that mean that trying to make
>  simple systems that don't require constant babysitting by flesh and
>  blood administrators is automatically a bad idea simply because it 
> shields the enduser from the underlying mechanics?
> 
>>> I was not aware that any company was trying to encourage careless
>>>  hardware shopping.  If knew it to be so, I'd be as unhappy about
>>>  it as you appear to be.
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> One word.... Winmodem (easiest possible example).
>> 
>> All winmodems are (naturally) marked that they work under Windows.
>>  How many of them are marked that they *only* work under Windows,
>> 
> All of them.  The list of hardware and software requirements on each 
> package *only* indicates that it works under Windows.  Granted, they 
> don't say "won't work with Linux," but they don't say "won't work 
> with a Cray," either.  If you buy a piece of hardware and the 
> manufacturer didn't say it would work with your OS, and you can't get
>  it to work with your OS... then you're on your own.
> 
>> because a Winmodem is an incomplete piece of hardware, where the 
>> functioning of certain physical chips (which are physically no 
>> longer present) are replaced by software functions available only 
>> in the Windows Operating System (because the Windows Operating 
>> System was specifically designed with closed-source APIs to replace
>>  the functions of specific chips formerly on the modem PCB)?
>> 
>> How many 'real' hardware modems (which have all the chips, and do 
>> not replace any hardware functionality with OS-based functions) are
>>  distinguished on their packaging from WinModems, or vice versa?
>> 
>> 
> None that I've seen, but that doesn't mean there aren't any.  I'm not
>  sure, but I think a proper external modem can be made to work with 
> both PC's and Macs.  If so, it might even say so on the box.  I 
> believe I was able to tell that my last (last as in final) modem was
>  a proper one because the box said it worked in DOS too.
> 
>> And do you think that the 1) creation of, and 2) lack of disclosure
>>  on the packaging of, such crippled hardware was somehow not 
>> 'encouraged' by the company whose product's market share benefits 
>> the most from the existance of such hardware (because the hardware
>>  seems to JustWork with their software)? The benefit to the
>> hardware companies, of course, is that their product becomes
>> cheaper to produce, since it requires less chips... and there's
>> little chance that the old PCB with all the chips will need to make
>> a reappearance, because the software being used to replace the 
>> hardware functioning is eternal (not least because of the 
>> manufacturer's new hardware design).
>> 
>> 
> Do you really believe that some little Taiwanese company failing to 
> state "this product will not work without Windows," on a modem 
> package is evidence that Microsoft is up to no good?  I'm not saying
>  Microsoft isn't.  Of course they are.  But I don't think they told 
> hardware manufacturers how to word the compatibility information on 
> each box in an effort to mislead those people who might want to 
> switch from Windows to Linux some day (and do it at 53Kbps to boot).
>  Even if Winmodems DID come with a warning about being unusable 
> without Windows, do you really think that would have affected sales 
> appreciably?  And why aren't there Win-NICs, or Win-mice, or Win-hard
>  drives?  Granted, they may come with the arrival of the Microsoft 
> brand of Digital Rights Management.  That may even be the real reason
>  they're moving towards DRM at all.  But I think the fact that the 
> RIAA and the MPAA have been screaming their heads off might have 
> something to do with it too. ;-)
> 
> - Matt

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Slightly OT: favorite window manager/desktop environ?

[Mark Knecht]

On 9/6/05, Holly Bostick <motub@planet.nl> wrote:
<SNIP>
> The solution would seem to be to either not make the software available
> until it has been sufficiently tested so that it does "JustWork" under
> all possible
> conditions (which the trained greed of users will not allow), or teach
> the user
> that sometimes they may have to do something a bit more complicated than
> just click 'Send' (which means that the user cannot be a pure user anymore).
> 
> I don't see any middle ground here, but maybe I'm missing something.
> 
> Holly
<SNIP>

I don't think you're missing anything but I do think there are
options. None of what I say below is necessarily for Gentoo folks to
do. It's just comments, none of which are original:

1) Having this 'Just Work' is important for end users. End users
aren't interested in what's under the hood. They just want to drive.
'Just Works' is the most important thing. Nothing else matters unless
you're ready to make a commitment.

2) The 'trained greed' mode is really with, IMO, coming from CS and IT
types and other such folks who like living in the 'Wild West'. At my
advanced age I personally don't care much if things are really up to
date or not, unless they don't 'Just Work'. Unfortunately for folks
like me portage keeps me far more updated than I really think I need
to be. All my desktop and laptop machines (5 PCs) are almost
constantly doing compiles. On the other hand my 4 MythTV frontend
machines haven't been touched in 1-2 months. Of course, at this point
they 'Just Work', so why touch them?

3) Releases could be more layered, such that consumer ready apps that
do 'Just Work' are what's available and the stuff I'm emerging this
morning isn't made so easily available to non-CS/IT types like me. In
my mind this would probably end up looking more like a 'desktop
release' instead of just the difference between stable and
~x86/~amd64. Of course, that's pretty much Fedora/Suse, Debian, but I
want Gentoo's stability and I want an environment where it's really
easy to do the few things I do that require me to compile and
administer code. (Ardour & Linux Sampler mostly, but a few other audio
apps also.)

4) Some set of apps, like the web-based CUPS manager, could be set up,
documented and maintained better for end-user types like me. These
apps should be able to administer all aspect of networking, video
setup, sound, etc., so that the end-user type doesn't need to know how
to use an editor. no more nano, vi, etc., for end-user types. Over
time they will learn it, but in the beginning they should be able to
set up a machine without it. (Maybe these already exist. I've heard of
Webmin but the one time I tried it I ended up with problems on my
Redhat box so I stopped.)

   All in all it's a big job, and I think a huge portion of what
Microsoft appears to offer people. It's sad that underneath their
offering is so little stability, so many viruses and so little
control, but folks jump in, get set up, spend their money and then
find the way out of that mess is not easy.

   To you Holly, thanks for all your inputs and insights. you've got
lots of good stuff to say.

Cheers,
Mark

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Slightly OT: favorite window manager/desktop environ?

[Matt Randolph]

Holly Bostick wrote:

>Matt Randolph schreef:
>  
>
>>But does the Knoppix user's system have an administrator NOW?  I say
>> it does not.  It has been configured by an admin... heck, the OS was
>> installed to it's filesystem by an admin...  but there is no admin 
>>looking over the shoulder of the Knoppix user.
>>    
>>
>
>Right.... so here's a real-world problem, from elsewhere on this list
>("authorization failure when sending email")
>
>  
>
>>Matthew Lee schreef:
>>    
>>
>>>I've tried every combination of kmail settings available, no joy. 
>>>I've reemerged all the software that --depclean removed, no joy. 
>>>I've reemerged kmail, no joy.  I've reemerged ssmtp, no joy. 
>>>However, I think ssmtp, or something associated with it is the 
>>>problem.  But what I haven't a clue.  Is there another "simple" 
>>>mail transfer agent I could try.  I don't need anything fancy it's
>>> just a laptop connected to the lab DHCP server.
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>
>Since this issue seems to revolve around programs also available to
>Knoppix (and likely also being used under Knoppix), it's probably a
>valid example.
>
>So you've got a user who is unable to use a simple user function (send
>email). In the proposed administratorless world, who is supposed to fix
>this? The "invisible administrator" (who must exist, but is no longer
>necessarily present).
>  
>
Mr. Lee's problem is not that he cannot send email.  It is that he 
cannot send email by the method he has chosen to use because he hasn't 
the knowledge necessary to make that method work.  I assume he could 
probably resort to webmail in a pinch.  

If his distribution had provided those packages together with a wizard 
to bring the task of configuring them properly to within his grasp, he 
would not be having this problem.  Is the task of producing such a 
wizard the responsibility of the Gentoo team?  It would be only if he 
had paid them to provide such.

But Mr. Lee hasn't paid anyone to do this configuration for him.  He has 
consented to serve the role of administrator for his laptop himself by 
choosing a non-commercial distribution without a tech support line.  
However, it sounds like he is administering his laptop in a reasonable 
fashion by first exhausting every idea he can come up with before 
turning to the community for help.

One might say that the admin is the person (or persons) that through 
knowledge and experience enable a system to perform what is required of 
it.  Building systems that do not require physical interaction with 
administrators on a regular basis does not make the admin go away per 
se.  It merely moves the admin FURTHER away.  It may mean that the 
developers have assumed some of the roles an admin would have performed.

So if developers can produce software that actually is maintenance free 
(to the satisfaction of the enduser), what has happened to your 
administrator?  Now it is the developer that has made the system work by 
virtue of their experience.  If the authors of kmail and ssmtp can't or 
won't do that, there may be others who will.  The paid people at Redhat 
and Linspire come to mind.

>In the case of Knoppix, that's the Knoppix team or the Debian team, if
>we're restricting ourselves purely to the packages involved. Is the user
>supposed to download and install another "fixed" Knoppix disk in order
>to be able to use KMail as they did last week? Or is the user to follow
>the Debian protocol and not use the newer version of these programs
>(meaning they wouldn't be available to Debian stable in the first place,
>which of course, they probably aren't)?
>
>If everything is supposed to "JustWork" and does not, someone must be at
>fault. Who? The user is experiencing some unidentified conflict between
>programs that worked together well last week. Is there any way for those
>who are 'to blame' (development, packaging, some admin along the line)
>to work in such a way that these conflicts never ever filter down to the
>user? I say no, because we persist in making the conflicting
>applications known to the user before all such conflicts are
>identified and eliminated-- partly because development requires that
>these errors filter down to the user to be identified in the first
>place, as developers cannot test under all possible conditions.
>
>Basically the limit of software technology is that we make it
>immediately available to everyone as if it does not require
>administration, but it is (almost) never so stable and intuitive that
>this is in fact the case.
>
>The solution would seem to be to either not make the software available
>until it has been sufficiently tested so that it does "JustWork" under
>all possible
>conditions (which the trained greed of users will not allow), or teach
>the user
>that sometimes they may have to do something a bit more complicated than
>just click 'Send' (which means that the user cannot be a pure user anymore).
>
>I don't see any middle ground here, but maybe I'm missing something.
>
>Holly
>  
>
In the world of the cathedral, the middle ground is "both."  Console 
video games cannot easily be patched after release, so the developers DO 
do extensive testing before the first product is shipped.  Windows 
software users are required to configure their email clients in order to 
get their mail, but instructions are generally provided by their ISPs.  
In each case, those administrative tasks that can be performed remotely 
by experts are so performed.  The enduser will always have to initially 
configure her email client to talk to her ISP just as the video gamer 
will always have to read the instructions to learn how to play a new 
game.  [Though I think AOL users actually have all of the configuration 
done for them automatically.  But then, AOL isn't strictly an ISP.]

The bazaar has settled on a "both" approach too, though.  Linux distros 
have testing branches and stable branches in their package management 
schemes.  Those users that can best be described as "endusers" should be 
encouraged to stay within the stable branch, while those users that can 
be better described as "administrators" should be encouraged to 
experiment with the testing branches.  Even software in the stable 
branch will need to be configured properly to work, so knowledgeable 
people create Howtos and wizards for the benefit of the less 
knowledgeable.  In each case, the novice receives the benefits of the 
experience of experts without having to be or to employ one of those 
experts.  If the free help isn't helpful enough, the enduser needs to 
either get some skills or buy some personalized advice.

I think I've lost sight of just what it is we're discussing here.  I'm 
not saying that there shouldn't be knowledgeable people serving 
administrative roles.  I'm just saying that there is a place in the 
world for software that attempts to reduce or eliminate dependence on 
administrators.  Will anyone ever be able to run an Enterprise email 
server without an admin?  Undoubtedly not; someone needs to be on hand 
to ensure it keeps working and, if it stops working, to fix it RIGHT 
NOW.  But should Linspire users be able to use email without having to 
know what a mail transfer agent is?  I think so.

I think we have a difference of opinion on just what is meant by the 
word "admin."  You seem to suggest that an admin is anyone whose 
interaction with an email client extends beyond merely clicking "send."  
I wouldn't call a person an admin simply because they may have installed 
a piece of software.  Windows users install software all the time yet 
they seldom perform any of the other functions of an admin (if I had a 
nickel for each time I had to remove spyware that endusers had installed 
on their computers...). 

I don't think a person is an admin until they have taken significant 
responsibility for the care and upkeep of a system.  The majority of 
personal Mac and Windows systems don't have administrators by that 
definition.  Yet some of those systems often actually do "JustWork." 

Linux is actually an ideal operating system for those rank novices that 
have shirked their responsibilities as the de facto admins of their own 
computers.  Properly configured, Linux is able to be incredibly stable.  
If I built a file server for my LAN and gave it a private IP, I could 
disconnect the monitor and keyboard and expect it to "JustWork."  If it 
was plugged into a UPS and I had configured it well, it might "JustWork" 
continuously for many years until the hardware finally failed. 

Similarly, I believe a multi-function PC built on Linux, that would 
perform for years without a hiccup, is not an impossible target.  If 
etc-update could be counted on to always do the right thing, that PC 
could even be running Gentoo.  It's all a question of how numerous and 
complicated the demands are that are placed on the system.  If a Linux 
box only has to do four things (say, email, the web, word processing, 
and solitaire), it is less likely but not unimaginable that one could be 
made to run for years without needing to be touched by an admin. 

If machines like that were placed in the hands of significant numbers of 
those people with such simple needs, users of proper Linux systems would 
reap benefits as well.  Hardware manufacturers would have an incentive 
to find ways to release more Linux drivers.  Commercial software 
developers (like game companies) would take Linux more seriously as a 
development target.  Teenagers would discover that there was more to 
Linux than Mom and Dad's Linspire system and decide to join the rest of 
the club.

- Matt
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Slightly OT: favorite window manager/desktop environ?

[Matt Randolph]

Matt Randolph wrote:

> Mr. Lee's problem is not that he cannot send email.  It is that he 
> cannot send email by the method he has chosen to use because he hasn't 
> the knowledge necessary to make that method work.  I assume he could 
> probably resort to webmail in a pinch. 
> If his distribution had provided those packages together with a wizard 
> to bring the task of configuring them properly to within his grasp, he 
> would not be having this problem.  Is the task of producing such a 
> wizard the responsibility of the Gentoo team?  It would be only if he 
> had paid them to provide such.
>
> But Mr. Lee hasn't paid anyone to do this configuration for him.  He 
> has consented to serve the role of administrator for his laptop 
> himself by choosing a non-commercial distribution without a tech 
> support line.  However, it sounds like he is administering his laptop 
> in a reasonable fashion by first exhausting every idea he can come up 
> with before turning to the community for help.


Excuse me.  I have just learned that Mr. Lee is actually Dr. Lee.  My 
apologies.

- Matt
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Slightly OT: favorite window manager/desktop environ?

[waltdnes]

On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 02:11:51PM -0700, Mark Knecht wrote

> My 'disagreement', if there is one, is that a savings of $300 for a
> new computer and a $99 Windows upgrade won't convince many people to
> learn to do it themselves using Linux. It takes a much stronger reason
> than that, at least in my limited part of the planet.

  How about "the hard truth"...

Admiinistering Linux is hard.
Keeping a Windows machine free of spyware is harder.

-- 
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>
My musings on technology and security at http://tech_sec.blog.ca
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Slightly OT: favorite window manager/desktop environ?

[Mark Knecht]

On 9/6/05, waltdnes@waltdnes.org <waltdnes@waltdnes.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 02:11:51PM -0700, Mark Knecht wrote
> 
> > My 'disagreement', if there is one, is that a savings of $300 for a
> > new computer and a $99 Windows upgrade won't convince many people to
> > learn to do it themselves using Linux. It takes a much stronger reason
> > than that, at least in my limited part of the planet.
> 
>   How about "the hard truth"...
> 
> Admiinistering Linux is hard.
> Keeping a Windows machine free of spyware is harder.

Damn straight!!!

Actually, building a Win XP machine is pretty damn hard also. I wrote
down what I did today building my only dual boot machine from scratch.
I swear it almost took long to load Win XP successfully than it did to
do a stage 3 Gentoo install! No less than 12 reboots and one
spontanious reboot that shouldn't have happened. All this just to get
XP loaded, Windows update done, and NAV loaded. What a mess!!!

Everythign is up except grub. I need to send the list a question about
that before I run grub and actually install it.

Cheers,
Mark

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Slightly OT: favorite window manager/desktop environ?

[John Jolet]

On Sep 6, 2005, at 8:08 PM, waltdnes@waltdnes.org wrote:

> On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 02:11:51PM -0700, Mark Knecht wrote
>
>
>> My 'disagreement', if there is one, is that a savings of $300 for a
>> new computer and a $99 Windows upgrade won't convince many people to
>> learn to do it themselves using Linux. It takes a much stronger  
>> reason
>> than that, at least in my limited part of the planet.
>>
>
>   How about "the hard truth"...
>
> Admiinistering Linux is hard.
> Keeping a Windows machine free of spyware is harder.

amen brother....can I get a witness?  As an independent technical  
consultant, I make most of my money, unfortunately, cleaning windows  
computers of spyware.  In most of those cases, any old linux desktop  
with openoffice would fit their needs, but they've bought the  
marketing.  In most of those cases, the amount of money they'd have  
paid me to do the "up front" administering, would have been less.
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list