Linux SUCKS and should never be used by human beings.

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: nweaver
how many core PHP problems are there (i.e. the php code itself) versus how many home grown PHP devs don't understand what they are doing and don't learn to code correctly.

Hence me using the term bad PHP.

But there are enough problems in PHP core for me to want to avoid it if at all possible, and use the hardened version when I can't avoid it.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: M00T
Closed source equates to reinventing the wheel over and over again, unless you have the money to "license" the "invention."

Open source is the right direction for making human progress. I only wish the fundamental ideas could be implemented in other aspects of our lives.

If think it is very clear from looking at the state of linux desktop that is reinventing the square wheel over and over again.

 

[Nothinman]

If think it is very clear from looking at the state of linux desktop that is reinventing the square wheel over and over again.

My Linux wheel seems perfectly round to me. It definitely rolls better than any MS wheels I had in the past.

 

[Markbnj]

Nothinman...

But history doesn't seem to support that. Closed software has had just as many exploits, if not more, than open software over the years.

If that is true then it is supportive of the idea, since there has been much more closed source software sold and used than open source. Frankly, for a developer, it is so intuitive that access to source code makes it easier to understand how a program works, and thus easier to find places where it doesn't work, that you're going to have to work very hard to convince me that access to source doesn't increase the likelihood of exploits.

If you think it's to fight MS then you're probably wrong. Linux has been replacing commercial unix boxes much more than Windows over the years because the transition is easier. And IBM, HP and Sun are all losing business for their closed software by supporting Linux.

In retrospect I think you're right here. They definitely did need to convert off of their proprietary nix versions. Of course, they are well on their way to making their in-house Linux offerings into proprietary versions.

It works as well as WEP does for wifi, it'll probably protect you from the casual driver by but that's about it.

No correlation, not sure what your point is. You want to continue arguing that the best way to protect something is to make how it works public, then you still have a ways to go in my view.

We're talking about Linux in general, it's just that the server end of the spectrum is already almost 100% covered by GPL'd drivers. OSS drivers are the only way to get good long-term support for the hardware, manufacturers have already proven that many times by discontinuing support for something and leaving everyone who owns it out to dry.

Yeah, well you don't need all those OEM devices on most servers. Server applications are a natural for Linux. In fact, if the Linux community implemented .NET I would probably never use Windows on a server again.

All that proves is that we need better programmers over all. And forums are one of the best examples because everyone seems to want to write their own and with the popularity of PHP and ASP.NET it's too easy to get one started without having any clue at all. But without knowing what exploit was used you can't determine if having the source would have helped, the forums could have been doing something really stupid like having a URL or POST data with admin=0/1 in it to determine admins.

That's like saying that all we need to prevent highway deaths is better drivers . The forum in question wasn't an obscure one, and there have been other examples.

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1918295,00.asp
http://www.php-collab.org/blog/index.ph...05/09/23/community-forum-hacked-again/

You don't have to reimplement your entire company's business practices, but if you're going to release Linux software, especially kernel modules, you've got to either GPL your software or be prepared to defend your decision a lot.

Right, understood, but does this have anything to do with companies deciding to support or not support Linux? Inquiring minds want to know . If a company thinks a binary driver is the right way to go, shouldn't you still be happy that they are supporting Linux, rather than bashing them for daring to step off the dogma train?

Spoken like a true business man, but if you're going to spit in the face of the ideals of those you're trying to sell to, don't expect your products to be very popular.

It's mostly an economic statement, not a statement of business interest. The point is that the interests of a vendor and its customers are alligned around what the customer wants, and what the vendor provides. If the Linux "community" values certain ideals, and there are enough of them ready to pay to see those upheld, then there will be vendors there to do business. If, on the other hand, the Linux community is mostly about an anti-capitalist philosophy then it will become a footnote, as in that small type at the bottom of the page that nobody pays attention to.

Of course there is a standard and McDonald's food is barely above the "edible" line on that standard. Sure you'll eat it if you're hungry enough, but that doesn't make it good.

No, there isn't, not from an economic perspective. You want to get twenty chefs together and have them establish a food quality standard that says McDonald's sucks, then fine. You'll get no objection from me. But in an economic transaction, an exchange of value in a free market, such arbitrary and subjective standards are meaningless. Value is determined solely by the willingness of one party to pay another party for a good or service. Thus my assertion that for millions of people with certain needs, McDonalds makes the best hamburger. One of the greatest things about capitalism is that we don't empower self-appointed judges to decide what does or doesn't have value. If you like that idea move to France .

And most of them have paid the price in one way or another, how many people under 25 have actually heard of Lotus? MS lets them be successful for as long as they don't want to be in that market, once MS decides to go that route you need to start looking for alternative forms of income.

So your point is that Microsoft killed Lotus? I don't think many observers over the last twenty years would agree. Lotus got distracted and left a huge hole for Excel to occupy. I wonder why MS hasn't been successful in killing off Intuit with Money, or Adobe with... umm... Acrylic?

Of course they do with Vista, but you were talking about XP and in a few years Vista will be in the same position anyway. The only thing that works out of the box on this machine in XP is the hard disk and I'm actually surprised that did since it's SATA.

I see this assertion from Linux types all the time. Rather than debate it with you, I'll simply state for the record that I have six windows XP machines here at the house, and have managed another fifty or sixty at various work sites, and with the exception of some HP printers and devices like TV Tuners, everything works out of the box. Those that don't either come with install disks, or are trivial to update from the web.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: yuchai

Originally posted by: Tick

Originally posted by: yuchai
First question to OP: Name one valuable skill that you have that did not require you to spend time reading about or have anyone teach you.

Second question to OP: When you started using Windows, did you have to install it yourself from scratch and also had to setup an FTP server right away?

Third question to OP: When "fumbling with Windows" to figure things out, did you end up with an unusable Windows installation at least once?

1) Cooking. Learned by trial and error. Think I've made maybe 2 unedible meals ever.

2) No, but I did install software right away. Besides, I was like 7 at the time.

3) I've never killed my install.

1. Before you started cooking, you have never eaten any food before? You have never seen someone cook before? You have never heard anyone talk about cooking methods before? Point is, you spent more time on it than you think you had.

2. Well, you partially proved my point here. I mean, what you're trying to do here (setting up an ftp server) isn't exactly a regular desktop activity. I bet most people who use Windows on a regular basis don't know how to share a file on a LAN.

3. You're either not being truthful or are very very lucky. But not everyone is as lucky as you are. Personally I have done it many times when trying to "figure things out" in Windows. No doubt the probability of it happening would have been much lower if I just read about it or if someone showed me how to do it.

1) Cooking is easy I think. Follow recipes and you're usually good to go. IT's one of those things where there's no hard line that says "you screwed up, meal will be dumped" whereas a computer will just crash when it hits a wall.

2) I think even at this age sometimes I struggle with Windows XP's extremely retarded Simple File sharing. Sometimes my files just won't show up on the network or I can't browse the network, and so I resort to using a second computer to do this...

3) The first time I tried installing Windows 98, I was in 7th grade. Installation froze and I remember that you're able to reboot and installation will resume, but instead rebooting resulted in failure. The drive couldn't even be read. Great.

I think when I built my first computer in freshman year of HS I had to install Win 98 at least 4 - 5 times in the first week before I got a flawless installation. I'm not saying the installation didn't work, but I just wanted it tweaked the right way.

Even after working in IT, installing XP is still not a flawless process. I still miss things here and there, and I miss things here and there when I install Ubuntu/Fedora Core.

 

[Nothinman]

If that is true then it is supportive of the idea, since there has been much more closed source software sold and used than open source.

Sales numbers mean nothing, especially since there's probably more closed software used on closed networks and non-networked hosts.

Frankly, for a developer, it is so intuitive that access to source code makes it easier to understand how a program works, and thus easier to find places where it doesn't work, that you're going to have to work very hard to convince me that access to source doesn't increase the likelihood of exploits.

Being able to spot a buffer overflow and actually being able to exploit it are very different.

In retrospect I think you're right here. They definitely did need to convert off of their proprietary nix versions. Of course, they are well on their way to making their in-house Linux offerings into proprietary versions.

Not at all, most of them are releasing more GPL'd code the longer they work with Linux.

No correlation, not sure what your point is. You want to continue arguing that the best way to protect something is to make how it works public, then you still have a ways to go in my view.

Just because you know how a lock works doesn't automatically mean that you can pick it. If the security of your device or software relies on the attacker not knowing what they're doing it's fundamentally flawed. And eventually someone will figure out how it works and you'll most likely have to redesign your product or seek legal methods to keep things under wraps and we saw how well that worked for DeCSS.

Yeah, well you don't need all those OEM devices on most servers. Server applications are a natural for Linux. In fact, if the Linux community implemented .NET I would probably never use Windows on a server again.

Sure you do, infact I would say that OEM services are needed more on servers because of the need to get hardware replaced quickly in the event of a problem. Software support varies by product but at my last job we did make use of our RH support contracts.

As for .NET, have you ever heard of Mono? The client portion is the main focus but there are people working on the ASP.NET side of it too.

That's like saying that all we need to prevent highway deaths is better drivers

Which is largely true, you can only do so much to protect people from themselves. Although programming is substantially more difficult than driving.

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1918295,00.asp

That article seems to pretty much blame unpatched holes and poor deployment of security patches by administrators. As most Windows admins will tell you, you can't blame anyone but the administrator if their software isn't patched. =) And phpBB has a reputation rivaling that of IIS and Sendmail, if the same developers worked on a closed source forum I'd be willing to bet that they'd have just as many problems.

Right, understood, but does this have anything to do with companies deciding to support or not support Linux? Inquiring minds want to know . If a company thinks a binary driver is the right way to go, shouldn't you still be happy that they are supporting Linux, rather than bashing them for daring to step off the dogma train?

In general no, because they're making my system more difficult to use. If it's the only option available I'll use it but I won't like it. And with offers like this[1] what's the problem?

It's mostly an economic statement, not a statement of business interest. The point is that the interests of a vendor and its customers are alligned around what the customer wants, and what the vendor provides. If the Linux "community" values certain ideals, and there are enough of them ready to pay to see those upheld, then there will be vendors there to do business. If, on the other hand, the Linux community is mostly about an anti-capitalist philosophy then it will become a footnote, as in that small type at the bottom of the page that nobody pays attention to.

A lot of the time you don't have a choice though. And most of the community isn't against capitalism, whether you make money off of the software or hardware is irrelevant as long as we have the ability to use the devices as we wish.

No, there isn't, not from an economic perspective. You want to get twenty chefs together and have them establish a food quality standard that says McDonald's sucks, then fine. You'll get no objection from me.

I think the fact that the meat the McDonald's uses comes in containers labeled "fit for human consumption" instead of "USDA Grade A" negates the need for a commitee's decision.

Value is determined solely by the willingness of one party to pay another party for a good or service. Thus my assertion that for millions of people with certain needs, McDonalds makes the best hamburger.

I dare you to go into a McDonald's and ask random people if they think McDonald's makes the best burger and I will guarantee that absolutely none of them say yes.

So your point is that Microsoft killed Lotus? I don't think many observers over the last twenty years would agree. Lotus got distracted and left a huge hole for Excel to occupy. I wonder why MS hasn't been successful in killing off Intuit with Money, or Adobe with... umm... Acrylic?

Well I had never even heard of Acrylic until now but it seems that they only released the first betas in mid 2005.

I see this assertion from Linux types all the time. Rather than debate it with you, I'll simply state for the record that I have six windows XP machines here at the house, and have managed another fifty or sixty at various work sites, and with the exception of some HP printers and devices like TV Tuners, everything works out of the box. Those that don't either come with install disks, or are trivial to update from the web.

Then you must be as tired of hearing that as I am of hearing about how hard it is to install the nVidia driver on Linux. =) I used to work on the helpdesk for a company with just under a thousand employees so I've done my share of Windows installs and it's never as easy as it should be. One of the best was Compaq onboard NICs that were just rebranded Intel chipsets but the Intel drivers wouldn't work because Compaq changed the PCI-IDs. Obviously that's not MS' fault, but the Linux Intel drivers worked fine and the Windows ones didn't.

And I didn't get any discs for this machine since I bought the parts from a friend and updating/installing drivers from the web is difficult when the NIC doesn't work out of the box.

[1] http://kerneltrap.org/node/7636

 

[nweaver]

Originally posted by: Markbnj

Of course they do with Vista, but you were talking about XP and in a few years Vista will be in the same position anyway. The only thing that works out of the box on this machine in XP is the hard disk and I'm actually surprised that did since it's SATA.

I see this assertion from Linux types all the time. Rather than debate it with you, I'll simply state for the record that I have six windows XP machines here at the house, and have managed another fifty or sixty at various work sites, and with the exception of some HP printers and devices like TV Tuners, everything works out of the box. Those that don't either come with install disks, or are trivial to update from the web.

My Dell D810 Laptop...default WinXPSP2 CD install...I needed: 3d Drivers (couldn't get native widescreen support) NIC drivers, Wireless NIC drivers, and sound drivers.
Default Ubuntu 6.10 install, I needed....nothing. I had Wireless, wired lan, I had sound, I had native widescreen support (the only thing I lacked was 3d acceleration, but I don't need/use that on my work laptop anyway).

Easy to install from the web, unless it's your only box, and you have a burner or thumbdrive (Dell did not provide those drivers on CD, only a restore CD for XP Home)

 

[MercenaryForHire]

I'm shocked that this thread is still going. I thought the mods would have locked the trollfest by now.

- M4H

 

[Markbnj]

Nothinman... we're deep in semantics now, and I have about 40 more use cases to write . You make some good points, but much of it is philosophy that I just don't agree with. I don't think we're going to convince each other. For example...

Just because you know how a lock works doesn't automatically mean that you can pick it. If the security of your device or software relies on the attacker not knowing what they're doing it's fundamentally flawed. And eventually someone will figure out how it works and you'll most likely have to redesign your product or seek legal methods to keep things under wraps and we saw how well that worked for DeCSS.

Figuring out how a lock works is the equivalent of disassembling a program to find holes in it. So how many lock makers publish detailed schematics of their locks on the web at release, to encourage people to figure out how to pick them? I don't know the answer, and I'm not looking, but I have my suspicions.

Even if I grant all your points, the FOSS world is still 50% driven by idegology, not technical or economic merit. That's enough for me to view it skeptically.

 

[Nothinman]

Figuring out how a lock works is the equivalent of disassembling a program to find holes in it. So how many lock makers publish detailed schematics of their locks on the web at release, to encourage people to figure out how to pick them? I don't know the answer, and I'm not looking, but I have my suspicions.

I don't doubt that many don't, but wouldn't you agree that if a lock relies on attacker ignorance as one of it's main features that it's misdesigned?

Even if I grant all your points, the FOSS world is still 50% driven by idegology, not technical or economic merit. That's enough for me to view it skeptically.

Just like the rest of the world. For better or worse people do a lot of things because of their beliefs and until we get saved from our barbarism by logic that won't change. =)

And even if someone is motivated by ideology, what's it matter? Just about every OSS project is managed as a meritocracy anyway so you only get to commit changes once you've proven that you can do the technical aspects of the job.

 

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
I'm shocked that this thread is still going. I thought the mods would have locked the trollfest by now.

- M4H

Lol, this thread is SO pointless, OP just doesn't get that if you do figure out linux it provides more freedom compared windows, OSX, etc. It's a niche product, so if you don't like it don't use it, some people DO like it, so live and let live and shut up!

 

[Markbnj]

I don't doubt that many don't, but wouldn't you agree that if a lock relies on attacker ignorance as one of it's main features that it's misdesigned?

I never said obscurity was a "main feature." The main features of the lock, or any software program, don't rely on obscurity. But if security is a goal, then obscurity makes it easier.

 

[Nothinman]

I never said obscurity was a "main feature." The main features of the lock, or any software program, don't rely on obscurity. But if security is a goal, then obscurity makes it easier.

IMO the only thing it makes easier is managers forcing developers to release products with known defects because "No one will ever figure that out.".

 

[EricMartello]

Originally posted by: Tick
Linux SUCKS. Why? Because:

1) Command lines/Lack of GUI's

Why the fvck would I want to use a command line? I have a modern computer, capable of displaying color and icons. Why should their be a command line? And further, why doesn't everything have a gui? Gui's are good, and easy, and don't require me to learn commands. Yey for Gui's.

2)Root/sudo is stupid.

Why on earth should I have to deal with either using sudo or running as root to actually use my programs? I still can't get a lot of programs to run because they keep whining about permissions. What ever happened to good old admin accounts? Why does sudo break everything?

3)Apt-get

Now this is just plane stupid. Why is it so damn hard to install anything? I have a desktop, why not do it the way it should be done? I get the installer icon, click on it, press forward a few times, wait, and have a nice icon on my desktop. Why isn't it done this way?

4)Compiling

Again, stupid. Just give me a fvcking installer program. None of this compiling sh1t.




Come on Linux. The rest of the world has moved beyond 1990. It's time for you to do so also. I'm giving up and installing windows.

In the context of using Linux as a desktop OS, both MacOS and Windows are far superior in just about every way, yes, even stability...but Linux has its place.

1) You can use the X Windowing system, which is like a slow version of Windows95, but the command line is pretty much where it's at in Linux. Yes, it sucks for anything other than running a server...but when you are using it for its intended purpose, server admin, believe it or not it is actually better. Compare remote admin using SSH vs using a graphical interface like TightVNC - the text only interface is faster and more reliable.

2) Yeah I can't disagree with you here. Linux is secure when properly configured, but the increased security isn't deployed quite as gracefully as possible. It can make for some tedious trouble-shooting when you are trying to figure out why something isn't working due to security permissions being too high for one program or too low for another.

3) Linux offers many choices here, and my preference is Yum. All you need is Yum and the URLs of the repository mirrors you want to use. Once you have this set up, installing, updating and uninstalling apps is pretty easy: yum install <app name> Yum also can be set up to automatically update all system software regularly, which I find handy.

4) If you are using a popular version of Linux, chances are that most software is available in an RPM package - no compiling needed. Linux is, after all, open source, so many programs for it are released as source. Compiling the software is a bit more involved than an installer, but you do end up with software that is built for your system.

I wouldn't use Linux on my desktop system - for that it's too clunky and UNSTABLE. You can argue that till your outta breath, but compared to WindowsXP or MacOS, the GUI implementation of Linux is far behind.

On the flipside, I wouldn't bother running Windows on a server...MacOS, being based on BSD, may work, but linux is my choice.

 

[WT]

I just installed Linspire 5 on a customer PC on Saturday (they had a borked bootleg XP on it previously) and ran the CNR updates, and that was the flat out easiest install I have ever had. It detected everything ... no driver CDs needed whatsoever. Linspire is not a hardcore users OS, but for users familiar with Windows, its none too shabby.

 

[nweaver]

Originally posted by: EricMartello
[
In the context of using Linux as a desktop OS, both MacOS and Windows are far superior in just about every way, yes, even stability...but Linux has its place.

1) You can use the X Windowing system, which is like a slow version of Windows95, but the command line is pretty much where it's at in Linux. Yes, it sucks for anything other than running a server...but when you are using it for its intended purpose, server admin, believe it or not it is actually better. Compare remote admin using SSH vs using a graphical interface like TightVNC - the text only interface is faster and more reliable.

Windows 95? Eh...maybe in redhat7, but my Gnome with Beryl is a shade better then 95. Not to mention, X is a VASTLY superior item. the ablility to forward X over SSH, and open a GUI program across the internet is HUGE.

2) Yeah I can't disagree with you here. Linux is secure when properly configured, but the increased security isn't deployed quite as gracefully as possible. It can make for some tedious trouble-shooting when you are trying to figure out why something isn't working due to security permissions being too high for one program or too low for another.

Not any harder then figuring out problems with services. Easier, tbh, as PS with switches is faster/easier (imho) then tesk manager, or some third party task list. Linux filesystem permissions are pretty easy imho (but then, so are NTFS permissions)

3) Linux offers many choices here, and my preference is Yum. All you need is Yum and the URLs of the repository mirrors you want to use. Once you have this set up, installing, updating and uninstalling apps is pretty easy: yum install <app name> Yum also can be set up to automatically update all system software regularly, which I find handy.

Yum isn't bad, but it's a cludgy addon compared to apt (again, imho). Apt is faster and easier. cludgy or not, it kicks the crap out of "download some random .exe from the internet, install, and hope it doesn't hork my system"

4) If you are using a popular version of Linux, chances are that most software is available in an RPM package - no compiling needed. Linux is, after all, open source, so many programs for it are released as source. Compiling the software is a bit more involved than an installer, but you do end up with software that is built for your system.

Right there. There is so VERY little reason to need to compile programs from scratch. Binaries are quicker, easier, and usually work just fine. You compile when you have specific runtime options, need a bugfix in a nightly build, or are a developer.

I wouldn't use Linux on my desktop system - for that it's too clunky and UNSTABLE. You can argue that till your outta breath, but compared to WindowsXP or MacOS, the GUI implementation of Linux is far behind.

Sure, bucause I don't like running just the GUI app across the internet, or flipping windows, trasparency, eyecandy, reliablity (X hasn't crashed on me in months, and the one time it did was because I did something dumb), scalability (you can actully hook multiple boxes into the same x server and make one huge monitor from the dual head cards of multiple linux boxes, and play a game like Quake), etc. Explorer crashes on me several times in a week if I'm using windows heavily. Gnome hasn't ever, and random apps are easier to kill without killing the session (thanks for integrating EVERYTHING into explorer).

On the flipside, I wouldn't bother running Windows on a server...MacOS, being based on BSD, may work, but linux is my choice.

Makes a great server...for many things. Makes a lousy exchange server host

I'm a "right tool for the right job" kinda guy.

 

[Nothinman]

1) You can use the X Windowing system, which is like a slow version of Windows95, but the command line is pretty much where it's at in Linux. Yes, it sucks for anything other than running a server...but when you are using it for its intended purpose, server admin, believe it or not it is actually better. Compare remote admin using SSH vs using a graphical interface like TightVNC - the text only interface is faster and more reliable.

You're retarded, X is many magnitudes better than Win95 or even WinXP. X hasn't been considered slow since ~1995 and with Vista the GUI large chunks of the drivers have been moved to userspace so the difference is even less than before.

2) Yeah I can't disagree with you here. Linux is secure when properly configured, but the increased security isn't deployed quite as gracefully as possible. It can make for some tedious trouble-shooting when you are trying to figure out why something isn't working due to security permissions being too high for one program or too low for another.

You're complaining about Linux being too secure and not secure enough at the same time, please?

I wouldn't use Linux on my desktop system - for that it's too clunky and UNSTABLE. You can argue that till your outta breath, but compared to WindowsXP or MacOS, the GUI implementation of Linux is far behind.

Once again I say you're retarded, I've been using Linux on my desktop for years and it's been plenty stable.

On the flipside, I wouldn't bother running Windows on a server...MacOS, being based on BSD, may work, but linux is my choice.

Actually it's based on NeXT, the userspace is based on FreeBSD but the real core is based on Mach from NexT.

 

[alocurto]

I use windows and I am a HUGE Microsoft fan. However, I have used Linux and I have no idea what you are talking about. Go download the new version of Fedora, install it (using the graphical version if you like) and run it. You will find it works well, detects most hardware and has a great GUI.

 

[gsellis]

I understand what Tick is saying. What I would give for a GUI device manager...

/installed xubuntu last week and Orinoco and D-Link cards are driving me crazy. Love the fact I have the default or KDE desktop and runs on a PIII 600 w/ 128MB!

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
Actually it's based on NeXT, the userspace is based on FreeBSD but the real core is based on Mach from NexT.

It's more complicated than that. The kernel is XNU, based on Mach and BSD.

 

[Nothinman]

What I would give for a GUI device manager...

Why? I never have to fiddle with my devices in Linux. Occasionally you have to figure out and install an additional module, but that's about it. 95% of the functionality of the Windows device manager is useless these days since all of the resources are automatically setup for you and you can't change them anyway.

It's more complicated than that.

Go figure...

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

What I would give for a GUI device manager...

Why? I never have to fiddle with my devices in Linux. Occasionally you have to figure out and install an additional module, but that's about it. 95% of the functionality of the Windows device manager is useless these days since all of the resources are automatically setup for you and you can't change them anyway.

It is hard isolating a problem when you are not sure if the device is recognized or not and if the driver is working. I had fits with my D-Link not working, than magically working, then not working again. I gave up on the Orinoco the other night. It seems to be on and working, but it will not get a DHCP address. Works in XP with the WEP key. Hard to isolate the issue without something to consolidate what is working. I "have" a GUI for the network connection, but it is not that smart (or at least appears not to be - how to choose between WEP and WPA/WPA2 is not obvious.)

 

[IdaGno]

Originally posted by: dighn
command line is actually very powerful if you are familiar with it. you can chain up commands using pipes and IO redirection to do some pretty complex stuff on the fly. it also lends itself very well to automation by scripting. and commands are sometimes just plain easier to use, for example it's just quicker to type the grep command to search within a bunch of files than to right click a directory, press search, type in the text, set the parameters etc. or it's quicker to go mkdir blah than to right click, siwtch to keyboard and type in blah

IOW, & this is the thing to remember re *nix: it's BY Programmers & FOR programmers.

Windows is for everyone else.

 

[Nothinman]

It is hard isolating a problem when you are not sure if the device is recognized or not and if the driver is working. I had fits with my D-Link not working, than magically working, then not working again. I gave up on the Orinoco the other night. It seems to be on and working, but it will not get a DHCP address. Works in XP with the WEP key. Hard to isolate the issue without something to consolidate what is working. I "have" a GUI for the network connection, but it is not that smart (or at least appears not to be - how to choose between WEP and WPA/WPA2 is not obvious.)

Well I doubt a device manager would help you with that, if the module loads and initializes the device then any device manager would show it as working even if it won't get a DHCP address for you. And if you want to talk about a non-obvious wifi UI take a look the crap MS gives you with XP. I can never find what I'm looking for in that thing.

As a fan of the CLI I'm used to doing a bit of research first and then using the right commands to configure the device, like iwconfig for wifi interfaces for example.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: IdaGno

Originally posted by: dighn
command line is actually very powerful if you are familiar with it. you can chain up commands using pipes and IO redirection to do some pretty complex stuff on the fly. it also lends itself very well to automation by scripting. and commands are sometimes just plain easier to use, for example it's just quicker to type the grep command to search within a bunch of files than to right click a directory, press search, type in the text, set the parameters etc. or it's quicker to go mkdir blah than to right click, siwtch to keyboard and type in blah

IOW, & this is the thing to remember re *nix: it's BY Programmers & FOR programmers.

Windows is for everyone else.

Incorrect. I use Ubuntu on my laptop 100% and I know absolutely zero about programming.

My parents and brother manage to screw up their Windows boxes.