Menu
▾
▴
reactos-kernel
|
From: Casper H. <ch...@us...> - 2002-05-31 14:25:55
|
fre, 2002-05-31 kl. 15:48 skrev Jason Filby: > Heh, I tried to douse the flames - seems it didn't work! I think > ros-general is where the flames belong, but that's down right now. It > could be back next week though. > > - Jason Actually, I wouldn't want to see flamewars on ros-general either because it is still a ReactOS related list and ros-general is great for people interrested in ReactOS (but don't have the time to participate in development) to monitor progress. IMO, flaming other OS's should not be something this project should officially condone. - Casper |
|
From: Jason F. <jas...@ya...> - 2002-05-31 21:59:08
|
Sorry, I meant flame wars as in GUI vs Command Line - which involves concepts and not people/projects (which tend to happen every now and again). OS flame wars aren't acceptable, of course. There's no point, no good comes of it and it can only do harm. If someone doesn't like Linux they shouldn't tear it down here. There's no official condoning of that kind of behaviour. - Jason --- Casper Hornstrup <ch...@us...> wrote: > fre, 2002-05-31 kl. 15:48 skrev Jason Filby: > > Heh, I tried to douse the flames - seems it didn't work! I think > > ros-general is where the flames belong, but that's down right > now. It > > could be back next week though. > > > > - Jason > > Actually, I wouldn't want to see flamewars on ros-general either > because > it is still a ReactOS related list and ros-general is great for > people > interrested in ReactOS (but don't have the time to participate in > development) to monitor progress. IMO, flaming other OS's should > not be > something this project should officially condone. > > - Casper > > > _______________________________________________________________ > > Don't miss the 2002 Sprint PCS Application Developer's Conference > August 25-28 in Las Vegas -- > http://devcon.sprintpcs.com/adp/index.cfm > > _______________________________________________ > reactos-kernel mailing list > rea...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/reactos-kernel __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com |
|
From: Steven E. <ste...@ya...> - 2002-05-31 14:31:15
|
Lets no provide a forum to waste bandwith. While I would subscribe to it also =), I would suggest instead we make it part of our guidelines that if you get in to a heated disscussion on the mailling lists a moderator can slap you down and make you move the debate to IRC. I would be more then happy to moderate if more of our developers/subscribers used #reactos on openprojects. Thanks Steven --- Casper Hornstrup <ch...@us...> wrote: > This thread is turning into a flamewar. Jason, how > about setting up > os...@re... mailing list for these > discussions? They pop up once > in a while, and as the number of subscribers > increase, I expect we'll > see them more often. I would subscribe to this list, > but then I can > automagically route them to the > not-so-important-reactos-stuff folder > ;o) > > - Casper > > > > _______________________________________________________________ > > Don't miss the 2002 Sprint PCS Application > Developer's Conference > August 25-28 in Las Vegas -- > http://devcon.sprintpcs.com/adp/index.cfm > > _______________________________________________ > reactos-kernel mailing list > rea...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/reactos-kernel __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com |
|
From: Casper H. <ch...@us...> - 2002-05-31 15:36:08
|
fre, 2002-05-31 kl. 16:31 skrev Steven Edwards: > I would be more then happy to moderate if more of our > developers/subscribers used #reactos on openprojects. I would like to be more on IRC, but I don't know when there is a chance of anyone else beeing on this channel. Could we publish such information on the website? - Casper |
|
From: Jason F. <jas...@ya...> - 2002-06-05 09:48:39
|
Ok how about this: people can register as users on reactos.com. Then they can put down the times they're most likely to be on irc, with their timezone too. Then when you go to Communication, under the IRC section it can identify a list of times, who'll most likely be there during those times and, of course, the times when most people are on IRC. - Jason --- Casper Hornstrup <ch...@us...> wrote: > fre, 2002-05-31 kl. 16:31 skrev Steven Edwards: > > I would be more then happy to moderate if more of our > > developers/subscribers used #reactos on openprojects. > > I would like to be more on IRC, but I don't know when there is a > chance > of anyone else beeing on this channel. Could we publish such > information > on the website? > > - Casper > > > > _______________________________________________________________ > > Don't miss the 2002 Sprint PCS Application Developer's Conference > August 25-28 in Las Vegas -- > http://devcon.sprintpcs.com/adp/index.cfm > > _______________________________________________ > reactos-kernel mailing list > rea...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/reactos-kernel __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com |
|
From: Adrian S. <aa...@ha...> - 2002-05-31 14:36:14
|
This is my first message to any ReactOS list, so please don't kill me For its point being so minor. On Thu, May 30, 2002 11:25 PM, Patrick Mauritz wrote: >but I'm getting off-topic... >the win32 GDI is only partially better, it still lacks: > - network transparency (please in a better, more highlevel way than this > X mess) I've always thought that win32 isn't trying to achieve network transparency in the gdi, that seems like an odd place to do it. Rather win32 is becoming network transparent at the component level first through COM/DCOM and now through .NET. -- Adrian Sloan aa...@ha... |
|
From: Patrick M. <ox...@st...> - 2002-05-31 15:22:20
|
On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 08:40:40AM -0600, Adrian Sloan wrote: > I've always thought that win32 isn't trying to achieve network > transparency in the > gdi, that seems like an odd place to do it. Rather win32 is becoming see win2k terminal server (aka citrix server), doing exactly that > network transparent > at the component level first through COM/DCOM and now through .NET. that would suggest that each and every single control is exported over COM/DCOM - with every other path (like direct calls) purged or at least declared "obsolete"... oh, and btw. - it'll break backward compatibility... patrick mauritz |
|
From: Robert K. <ro...@ko...> - 2002-06-03 20:48:27
|
Seems like an excelent Idea. I would also subscribe that list. I think its a must have and an institution. Casper Hornstrup schrieb: > This thread is turning into a flamewar. Jason, how about setting up > os...@re... mailing list for these discussions? They pop up once > in a while, and as the number of subscribers increase, I expect we'll > see them more often. I would subscribe to this list, but then I can > automagically route them to the not-so-important-reactos-stuff folder > ;o) > > - Casper > > _______________________________________________________________ > > Don't miss the 2002 Sprint PCS Application Developer's Conference > August 25-28 in Las Vegas -- http://devcon.sprintpcs.com/adp/index.cfm > > _______________________________________________ > reactos-kernel mailing list > rea...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/reactos-kernel |
|
From: Thomas J. H. <shi...@sh...> - 2002-05-30 12:50:18
|
At 01:16 PM 5/30/2002 +0200, Joachim Breuer writeth:
>Now I will pipe in here...
Me too...
>Jason Filby <jas...@ya...> writes:
>
>Linux *administrators* got used to powerful features of the command
>line; my administrating of said winboxen would take at least twice as
>long without cygwin available (copy all files meeting certain criteria
>from here to there *keeping their relative pathnames* is something cmd
>and the explorer are not really good at - ideas welcome).
How about XCOPY? It is a highly versatile copy command that I use
regularly for backup purposes onto other drives/systems.
>Cygwin would *almost* be an solution if win's console werent utterly
>broken (by design). Please do not try to argue with me on that, repeat
>after me, win's console (as it is implemented today in 2k) is UNUSABLE
>for a command line power user. (Selection behaviour, size change
>restrictions are the major showstoppers). OK so maybe I can run the
>cygwin shell in an XTerm with it all sitting on 55+ compatibility
>layers, but the fact remains that the not-worked-around basic OS
>concept in that area is broken.
I've used Linux, DOS, Win3.x, Win95/98/Me/NT/2000 and have had no problems
or difficulties with the command prompt under Windows. Linux may have a
powerful set of features, but I have never used more than 20% of them.
That says that there are too many features for me. My home environment is
DOS and over the years I have written several hundred batch files to aid me
in day-to-day chores. I consider myself a "power user" and place heavy
demands on the command line every single day (unless I'm busy writing a few
thousand lines of code).
>BTW: If anyone feels like seriously thinking abouth some of these
>'limitations' I could certainly flesh out a wishlist for 'doze from an
>unix administrator's point of view.
I know there are limitations, but I have only had to write programs on
occasion to do what I want to do. Particularly, pipes are extremely
limited with base OS commands (hence I wrote a program called PIPE) and
directory depth is limited (haven't bothered to write a program). Really,
most of the problems with the command line/batch files have to do with
backwards campatibility issues to DOS v3.0 than anything else. Microsoft's
trying to make people move to VBScript (yuck) so they can get rid of the
Console API, but we can thank large companies that demand command prompt
functionality and so both still exist (which is good for the rest of us :)
Hope this helps!
Thomas J. Hruska -- shi...@sh...
Shining Light Productions -- "Meeting the needs of fellow programmers"
http://www.shininglightpro.com/
|
|
From: Joachim B. <jmb...@gm...> - 2002-05-31 05:02:45
|
"Thomas J. Hruska" <shi...@sh...> writes:
> At 01:16 PM 5/30/2002 +0200, Joachim Breuer writeth:
>>Now I will pipe in here...
>
> Me too...
>
>>Jason Filby <jas...@ya...> writes:
>>
>>Linux *administrators* got used to powerful features of the command
>>line; my administrating of said winboxen would take at least twice as
>>long without cygwin available (copy all files meeting certain criteria
>>from here to there *keeping their relative pathnames* is something cmd
>>and the explorer are not really good at - ideas welcome).
>
> How about XCOPY? It is a highly versatile copy command that I use
> regularly for backup purposes onto other drives/systems.
How do I feed my file list to xcopy? I'm not being facetious, I just
can't find it in the docs. How do I build the file list in the first
place, come to that... And then I'd probably have to fit it on the
command line, which has the (from my point of view) misfeature that
wildcard expansion is done within every single utility instead of the
shell.
foreach f ( `find . -name '*.foo' -cnewer 'whatever' | xargs grep -l 'string'` ); do
g=/somewhere/else/$f:s!pattern!whatever!
if [[ -f $g ]]; then
echo Updating $g
fi
cp $f $g
done
>>Cygwin would *almost* be an solution if win's console werent utterly
>>broken (by design). Please do not try to argue with me on that, repeat
>>after me, win's console (as it is implemented today in 2k) is UNUSABLE
>>for a command line power user. (Selection behaviour, size change
>>restrictions are the major showstoppers). OK so maybe I can run the
>>cygwin shell in an XTerm with it all sitting on 55+ compatibility
>>layers, but the fact remains that the not-worked-around basic OS
>>concept in that area is broken.
>
> I've used Linux, DOS, Win3.x, Win95/98/Me/NT/2000 and have had no problems
> or difficulties with the command prompt under Windows. Linux may have a
> powerful set of features, but I have never used more than 20% of them.
> That says that there are too many features for me. My home environment is
> DOS and over the years I have written several hundred batch files to aid me
> in day-to-day chores. I consider myself a "power user" and place heavy
> demands on the command line every single day (unless I'm busy writing a few
> thousand lines of code).
I use things like that for everyday work - and I really would miss the
"rope". This is not meant to be an offence, I'd just like to underline
that, even if it is only me who uses these features, I still miss them
where they're not available.
But scripting was not really my point, I'm used to a certain level of
command line editing (Ctrl-R foo [backward search to last command line
containing foo - it starts searching while you type, Ctrl-R again to
go to the next match, ...]) etc. pp. - These are just examples and I
really don't want to argue about it.
Let me try to put it this way: What I like about unix is not the
specific property that I have filename completion in ftp urls if I
choose so, but rather the concept that it is possible to add ftp
filename completion by calling ftp, feeding it commands and parsing
its output. Again I do not (only) like the specific feature of
programmable completion but rather that I can "plug together" unix
command line utilities arbitrarily using pipes and command line
insertion.
If other people do not require these features, fine be me - but why
should the fact that maybe 80% of the end users never touch them
deprive me of their long term availability? (Now I'm sounding personal
again... how do I put this diplomatically?)
To be very blunt: Sometimes people discussing reactos seem to say
"Let's not do this, it's featuritis". I fully agree with that basic
stance, but I would like to make a point that certain
concepts/features currently known from the unix environment cannot
easily be emulated, and so for me do not fall under "featuritis".
For those familiar with language theory: If you lack i.e. recursion
you cannot do certain things, no matter how hard you try.
>>BTW: If anyone feels like seriously thinking abouth some of these
>>'limitations' I could certainly flesh out a wishlist for 'doze from an
>>unix administrator's point of view.
>
> I know there are limitations, but I have only had to write programs on
> occasion to do what I want to do. Particularly, pipes are extremely
> limited with base OS commands (hence I wrote a program called PIPE) and
> directory depth is limited (haven't bothered to write a program). Really,
> most of the problems with the command line/batch files have to do with
> backwards campatibility issues to DOS v3.0 than anything else. Microsoft's
> trying to make people move to VBScript (yuck) so they can get rid of the
> Console API, but we can thank large companies that demand command prompt
> functionality and so both still exist (which is good for the rest of us :)
Which is what I'd dream of: Looks like win to the user, feels like
unix to the administrator. Today windows just feels "foreign" to me,
no matter how much I do with it...
To hopefully do away with the misunderstanding: Of course unifying
today's diversity of OSs is an important goal, and being able to run
all that existing software people are already used to on an open
platform will be a brilliant state of affairs.
I just want to say that I will be completely exhilerated when I can
administrate a "windows" box by leveraging all of the experience I
have with unix/posix interfaces. - Gagh, sounds like pointy haired
talk again... hope you get my drift.
Allright, I'll be quiet about that for now.
So long,
Joe
--
"I use emacs, which might be thought of as a thermonuclear
word processor."
-- Neal Stephenson, "In the beginning... was the command line"
|
|
From: KJK::Hyperion <no...@li...> - 2002-06-02 15:11:16
|
At 13.16 30/05/2002, you wrote: >Cygwin would *almost* be an solution if win's console werent utterly >broken (by design). Please do not try to argue with me on that, repeat >after me, win's console (as it is implemented today in 2k) is UNUSABLE for >a command line power user. (Selection behaviour, size change restrictions >are the major showstoppers). Not only from the user perspective, also from a programmer's point of view. The most important missing features are the slave-master model, and a single stream, for both data and control codes (the only advantage in using two separate streams is being able to print binary data... useless). Even DOS was better in this respect, when you could easily filter the console operations by simply hooking an interrupt, and embed ANSI codes in your batch files and printf strings for colored text and such >I certainly wouldn't mind an open OS that can run M$-Ware, but if in that >OS the concious design decision is made that all apps developable for that >OS must also run under Windows - i.e. it is conciously limited in certain >areas - I certainly wonder about its usefulness. A "windows compatibility >certification mode" (or just "win32ss visible only mode"), maybe >per-process, would certainly be useful - but if I want to do "cmd.exe -c >type diskimage > \dev\fd0" why won't you let me? or copy \dev\zero A:. man CreateProcess. ssh -n foo WinWord.exe \\bar\usr\home\bill\baz.doc. The possibilities are endless. The last example is especially interesting: it starts Word on the remote machine foo through ssh, using the local display, opening a file from bill's home directory, on the remote machine bar, through SMB >BTW: If anyone feels like seriously thinking abouth some of these >'limitations' I could certainly flesh out a wishlist for 'doze from an >unix administrator's point of view. I'm interested. I have a few in mind, but I want to hear the opinion of someone more experienced first |
|
From: KJK::Hyperion <no...@li...> - 2002-06-02 18:18:24
|
At 18.04 02/06/2002, you wrote: > > or copy \dev\zero A:. man CreateProcess. ssh -n foo WinWord.exe > > \\bar\usr\home\bill\baz.doc. The possibilities are endless. >Convince Microsoft that there are enough customers that would pay for >these featues. who cares what Microsoft does? we don't work for them |
|
From: Casper H. <ch...@us...> - 2002-06-02 18:30:47
|
s=F8n, 2002-06-02 kl. 19:56 skrev KJK::Hyperion: > At 18.04 02/06/2002, you wrote: > > > or copy \dev\zero A:. man CreateProcess. ssh -n foo WinWord.exe > > > \\bar\usr\home\bill\baz.doc. The possibilities are endless. > >Convince Microsoft that there are enough customers that would pay for=20 > >these featues. >=20 > who cares what Microsoft does? we don't work for them Sorry, I read it as a critisism of Microsoft not providing these features. - Casper |
|
From: Casper H. <ch...@us...> - 2002-06-02 16:14:12
|
s=F8n, 2002-06-02 kl. 15:40 skrev KJK::Hyperion: > At 13.16 30/05/2002, you wrote: > >type diskimage > \dev\fd0" why won't you let me? >=20 > or copy \dev\zero A:. man CreateProcess. ssh -n foo WinWord.exe=20 > \\bar\usr\home\bill\baz.doc. The possibilities are endless. Convince Microsoft that there are enough customers that would pay for these featues. > The last example is especially interesting: it starts Word on the remote = machine foo=20 > through ssh, using the local display, opening a file from bill's home=20 > directory, on the remote machine bar, through SMB Something similar can be accomplished with Windows XP's remote desktop. You connect to foo from your client. You then get your desktop like you would have logged on to foo locally. - Casper |
|
From: Joachim B. <jmb...@gm...> - 2002-06-03 09:42:16
|
Casper Hornstrup <ch...@us...> writes:
> s=F8n, 2002-06-02 kl. 15:40 skrev KJK::Hyperion:
>> ssh -n foo WinWord.exe \\bar\usr\home\bill\baz.doc. The
>> possibilities are endless.
>
> Convince Microsoft that there are enough customers that would pay for
> these featues.
>
>> The last example is especially interesting: it starts Word on the remote=
machine foo=20
>> through ssh, using the local display, opening a file from bill's home=20
>> directory, on the remote machine bar, through SMB
>
> Something similar can be accomplished with Windows XP's remote desktop.
> You connect to foo from your client. You then get your desktop like you
> would have logged on to foo locally.
That's one other point of 'conceptual divergence' I have with win32: I
do not want to redirect a whole desktop just to make 3 clicks in an
admin application which should really have a (convenient) gui-less
interface as well, anyway... Just my opinion.
For me, it is easier and less time consuming to do
ssh root@wedgedbox -c \
"killall -TERM sendmail; sleep 10; killall -KILL sendmail; \
sleep 5; /etc/rc.d/init.d/sendmail restart"
than
vnc -bla -blo winbox / Terminal Services / ...
[login]
[start control app, TaskMan, whatever]
[click, clack, cluck]
[logout]
The point being that I can run the ssh command and then do something
else, maybe check on its output a minute later, whereas desktop
redirection requires me to actually "use" a GUI tunneled through a
(usually) high-latency line - and that always sucks. I do not
particularly care for X, but ssh/X-Forwarding is still handling single
X apps at least a bit more gracefully than the Win remote desktop
stuff I've seen so far. And I don't see much of a point of running the
whole desktop remotely - although I do find it useful to be able to do
so to "help" customers or check up their account settings (autostart,
program icons/links, ...)
"Remotely" for me as used above is "beyond a WAN" - running remote
desktops on a LAN is something I regularly do, where X still feels
more 'local' than Terminal Services to me.
Again, today *ix gives me a choice: ssh command line, ssh X-Forwarding
of single apps, VNC for the complete desktop.
So long,
Joe
--=20
"I use emacs, which might be thought of as a thermonuclear
word processor."
-- Neal Stephenson, "In the beginning... was the command line"
|
|
From: Frohwalt E. <ma...@fr...> - 2002-06-03 10:07:26
|
> Again, today *ix gives me a choice: ssh command line, ssh X-Forwarding
> of single apps, VNC for the complete desktop.
Ah, this probably is the whole point of this discussion: Having a choice.
I think Reactos will give us at least:
- command line (as stated earlier in this thread, Reactos will probably have some
useful console as opposed to Windows)
- Remote desktop (For sure somebody will port VNC to ReactOS)
So what about "Forwarding of single applications?"
This is one feature I used intensiveley on Unix. I often had applications from three or four hosts open. (Backup software from the
machine with the tape drive, Editor on the machine with the files - because "remote editor" is faster than "local editor with remote
files", one shell on the machine I was compiling for, etc.)
I wonder whether such a thing could be built into Reactos. Even if it turns out to be hackish and sluggish, something like that
would be incredibly useful. However, the techical difficulties for such a hack are probably extremly huge.
Cheers,
Froh
|
|
From: Patrick M. <ox...@st...> - 2002-06-03 11:04:04
|
On Mon, Jun 03, 2002 at 12:04:54PM +0200, Frohwalt Egerer wrote:
> This is one feature I used intensiveley on Unix. I often had
> applications from three or four hosts open. (Backup software from the
> machine with the tape drive, Editor on the machine with the files -
> because "remote editor" is faster than "local editor with remote
> files", one shell on the machine I was compiling for, etc.)
>
> I wonder whether such a thing could be built into Reactos. Even if it
> turns out to be hackish and sluggish, something like that
> would be incredibly useful. However, the techical difficulties for
> such a hack are probably extremly huge.
hmm... console apps should be no problem -> ssh.
so let's look into the gdi/user32-application case:
- provide a GDI which sends the stuff to network, probably as "simple"
as a video device driver providing it
- provide it as a user32/gdi combo, allowing it to send information
about controls instead of line-by-line stuff.
it'd be way more trouble than the first idea to implement, but it
has two advantages: a) less network traffic, b) the possibility to
implement the stuff that high-level (think of a unix-client implementing
that GUI with gtk)
patrick mauritz
--
,------------------------------------------------------------------------.
> In the Beginning there was nothing, which exploded - Yeah right... <
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
> The Forthcoming OpenBIOS | www.freiburg.linux.de/openbios <
`------------------------------------------------------------------------'
|
|
From: KJK::Hyperion <no...@li...> - 2002-06-04 05:32:17
|
At 13.03 03/06/2002, you wrote: >so let's look into the gdi/user32-application case: > - provide a GDI which sends the stuff to network, probably as "simple" > as a video device driver providing it this has been already done... sort of. See Sun's PCI Coprocessor: a PC squeezed to the size of a PCI card, plugged in a Sun computer. Sun provides drivers for Windows to use Solaris's X server as the coprocessor's display. Fullscreen only, of course > - provide it as a user32/gdi combo, allowing it to send information > about controls instead of line-by-line stuff. I have gathered and/or thought of some ideas on this: - remote window stations, i.e. a process can be associated with the \\foo\windows\Winsta0 window station to receive input and display graphics using the devices of the machine foo. The window station is shared over NetBIOS, through an UNC provider - another useful addition could be the support for multiple interactive window stations, each associated with a different set of devices. IIRC, this isn't possible yet, because of limitations of the HID architecture - some parts of Windows aren't particularly "network friendly". The most important and most difficult is the clipboard, for obvious reasons. Luckily, "handles" returned by clipboard functions aren't directly usable as pointers, but must be "locked" first. This gives us a chance to copy the data across the network, if necessary (i.e. if the last copy/cut operation was made on the remote machine), an instant before it is used. Marshalling unknown clipboard formats is always possible, because the size of a clipboard memory object is always known. I haven't investigated OLE clipboard formats yet - another issue: in X11, IIRC, all windows are owned by the window manager. In Windows, instead, windows are owned by the threads that created them. This is easy to solve, but a bit expensive: mirror every thread owning windows on the machine that contains the display, or have a single thread serving all remote windows There's more for sure, but this is what I can recall at the moment |
|
From: Robert K. <ro...@ko...> - 2002-06-03 21:09:16
|
Note: For OS/2 there exists a program called XFree86. It runs for years an X-server on an OS/2 without PM(=Windowing). It seems to use the framebuffer through a mmapping ?? the same can happen to ReactOS and everyone can choose its graphicsserver. |
|
From: Yuri P. <pro...@fr...> - 2002-06-04 02:52:48
|
On Mon, 03 Jun 2002 23:10:22 +0200, Robert K. wrote: >Note: >For OS/2 there exists a program called XFree86. It runs >for years an X-server on an OS/2 without PM(=Windowing). >It seems to use the framebuffer through a mmapping ?? > >the same can happen to ReactOS and everyone can choose its graphicsserver. Well. XFreeOS2 uses its own videodrivers (as original XFree86), so I need pm videodriver and xfreeos2 videodriver (but, also presented alpha dive videodriver wich allows to use pm drivers). I prefer to have on videodriver for whole system. |
|
From: Koert v. d. V. <ko...@ic...> - 2002-05-28 11:20:53
|
[snip] > > After looking through reams of unhelpful (and sometimes contradictory) Linux > FAQs and other DOCs, I ventured onto some Linux forums where I was told to > "RTFM" (by people with 5 inch thick glasses, a permanent hunch and acne that > would make a leopard feel jealous, I have no doubt). > > The Linux command line is unhelpful, unfriendly and unforgiving. Maybe it > was useful in the past (to save disk space, processor power, memory, etc.) > to use an OS with a minimal amount of messages, but times have changed. We > live in an age where the minimum spec processor you can buy (at least in the > UK) is 1 GHz and systems come with 512MB RAM standard. > > Linux may be good as a web server. Apache is an excellent program, but > people will be able to run the win32 version on ReactOS soon so what > possible use will Linux have then? (except maybe as a firewall - wow!). > You are exagerating here. For management tasks I prefer a commandline over a GUI. A commandline interface is usually easier to design, and is therefore often more informative. I really dislike using the mouse, and I feel I am forced to use it in a GUI. Linux is a perfect server-machine, though it has several disadvantages running it as a desktop OS. At home all my files are stored on my Debian server, which is also webserver, mail-server, filewall, router, etc... To work i use a windows machine. More and more often i find myself working on the server via Putty, because of it's wonderfull commandline interface... What use does a webserver have, wasting it's precious processorcycles on maintaining a desktopwindow? I guess the only enviroment that justifies a GUI (or more specifict to win32, the GDI) is a desktop machine. |
|
From: Stuart U. <man...@ki...> - 2002-05-28 15:09:19
|
Koert van der Veer wrote: >[snip] > >>After looking through reams of unhelpful (and sometimes contradictory) >> >Linux > >>FAQs and other DOCs, I ventured onto some Linux forums where I was told to >>"RTFM" (by people with 5 inch thick glasses, a permanent hunch and acne >> >that > >>would make a leopard feel jealous, I have no doubt). >> >>The Linux command line is unhelpful, unfriendly and unforgiving. Maybe it >>was useful in the past (to save disk space, processor power, memory, etc.) >>to use an OS with a minimal amount of messages, but times have changed. We >>live in an age where the minimum spec processor you can buy (at least in >> >the > >>UK) is 1 GHz and systems come with 512MB RAM standard. >> >>Linux may be good as a web server. Apache is an excellent program, but >>people will be able to run the win32 version on ReactOS soon so what >>possible use will Linux have then? (except maybe as a firewall - wow!). >> > >You are exagerating here. For management tasks I prefer a commandline over a >GUI. A commandline interface is usually easier to design, and is therefore >often more informative. I really dislike using the mouse, and I feel I am >forced to use it in a GUI. >Linux is a perfect server-machine, though it has several disadvantages >running it as a desktop OS. At home all my files are stored on my Debian >server, which is also webserver, mail-server, filewall, router, etc... To >work i use a windows machine. More and more often i find myself working on >the server via Putty, because of it's wonderfull commandline interface... > >What use does a webserver have, wasting it's precious processorcycles on >maintaining a desktopwindow? I guess the only enviroment that justifies a >GUI (or more specifict to win32, the GDI) is a desktop machine. > > >_______________________________________________________________ > >Don't miss the 2002 Sprint PCS Application Developer's Conference >August 25-28 in Las Vegas -- http://devcon.sprintpcs.com/adp/index.cfm > >_______________________________________________ >reactos-kernel mailing list >rea...@li... >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/reactos-kernel > > I suppose it depends who you're targetting Reactos for. What i'd like to see is Reactos having an option to the end user - Do you want the gdi installed/enabled or not? (So if your using reactos as a server, the cpu isn't being "hogged" by the gdi) I find a gui quite useful when administering things. I can actually see whats going on rather than looking at text on a terminal (Though it really depends what thing you are administering/monitoring, and if you're some newbie or not). Although i do find commandlines very powerful when i want to do something complicated, and the gui is essentially restricted and cannot work for me. What i find hard is to actually use linux as a dekstop - I just don't get the same feeling, and i'm constantly thinking how will i run Windows Game X on it, or Y program. I simply can't get used to it, and i keep reverting to using windows. I'd like to use linux, but i just can't get to grips with it. |
|
From: Steven E. <Ste...@ya...> - 2002-05-28 16:35:56
|
/bitchslap KILL THIS THREAD NOW. We've had this discussion before and it has been debated over and over on slashdot. If you want to argue NT vs LINUX take it there. Thanks Steven "Every revolution was once a thought in one man's mind" - Ralph Waldo Emerson |
|
From: Nick D. <nic...@ya...> - 2002-05-29 14:31:52
|
Sh*t. Sorry Steven. It was kind of my bad. Didn't read your msg till just now. It was win32 & ros vs. Linux anways. :-) -- Nick Date Bath, England, UK ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steven Edwards" <Ste...@ya...> To: <rea...@li...> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 5:35 PM Subject: RE: [ros-kernel] Forward: "ReactOS is too limited" > /bitchslap > > KILL THIS THREAD NOW. We've had this discussion before and it has been > debated over and over on slashdot. If you want to argue NT vs LINUX take > it there. > > Thanks > Steven > > "Every revolution was once a thought in one man's mind" > - Ralph Waldo Emerson > > > _______________________________________________________________ > > Don't miss the 2002 Sprint PCS Application Developer's Conference > August 25-28 in Las Vegas -- http://devcon.sprintpcs.com/adp/index.cfm > > _______________________________________________ > reactos-kernel mailing list > rea...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/reactos-kernel --- Outgoing mail is certified virus free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.365 / Virus Database: 202 - Release Date: 24/05/2002 _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com |
|
From: Steven E. <ste...@ya...> - 2002-05-29 16:33:38
|
> Sh*t. Sorry Steven. It was kind of my bad. Didn't > read your msg till just > now. Its alright. We need to get ros-general back up so we can have these heated debates. Anyone heard any info about that? Phillip you still alive? Thanks Steven __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com |
