Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Linux-Trolling-In-2003 HOWTO

By regeya in Op-Ed
Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 03:29:35 AM EST
Tags: Software (all tags)
Software

Ever since the market crash a couple of years ago, we've seen a lot of anti-Linux sentiment, much of it mere trolling (and not very good trolling, at that). At first, most of it was just trolling against Linux-centric companies that folded, and tying those failures with the success and failure of Linux in general. Thankfully, that thread has died, but the trolling that still takes place is loaded with antiquated concepts that need to die. Rather than rehash the tired old troll items, it's time to consider new items to troll on!


The funny thing about most the current trolls is that there's really not any sense behind any of them. The thing that makes for a good anti-Linux troll isn't just writing nonsense that the newbies can agree with; the thing that makes for a good troll is writing something that more experienced users (hopefully the loud, obnoxious ones) can agree with.

With that in mind, I've dumped all the old trolls for this discussion (X being too hard to configure, not enough standardization between distros, etc.) and have gone on to new subjects. It is my sincere hope that you can find some inspiration here, and come up with some good anti-Linux stories on your own! Hopefully, armed with this ammunition, you can even go on to such fine publications as ZDNet and OSNews!

Without further ado, here's my list.

  • Change the display system.

    With projects like DirectFB quickly building a Linux-centric display system that work more closely with kernel-level code (and porting toolkits like GTK+ over) some of the issues such as configuring XFree86 could, conceivably, come to an end. The real trick here is that other operating systems (such as, say, FreeBSD) will have a harder time working with the new system. But, hey, keep in mind that most people who berate Free Software for being too complex usually harp from the I-used-Red-Hat-and-heres-what-was-too-hard perspective. If you can convince these people that DirectFB might be something worth looking at, they'll more than likely start screaming about why we're not using this system. I mean, it has everything the anti-X people want: it's lower-level, it's not a "network hog", and most importantly, it's not X.

  • Change the filesystem layout.

    This is something people always harp on. No, they can't be bothered to learn about how the LFS (Linux Filesystem Standard) works; they have to change this because it's too confusing. Let's take a cue from OS X. Advocate laying out the filesystem like OS X! People see Aqua, drool all over it, and automatically assume that OS X is obviously easier; most raving OS X advocates I've argued with aren't OS X users at all (I am, and am not fond of Aqua or a number of features.) Little do most Linux newbs know that OS X simply hides a lot of complexity from the user, and is actually much more complex than the average Linux distribution.

    It's not important for the average raving Linux newbie to know this, though. Nor do they have to understand that Apple keeps things simple by keeping tight control over both the software and the hardware. All they have to know is that it's a hell of a lot easier to install and run OS X on a Quicksilver G4 than it is to install Linux on that brand-new eMachines computer they picked up at their local Sam's Club.

  • Dynamically load and unload fonts.

    It really doesn't matter at all that PostScript fonts come closer to being "professional" than TrueType fonts; what you need to do is advocate dropping anything other than TrueType, and give the user the ability to change the fontlist by putting TrueType fonts in and take TrueType fonts out of a folder in the filesystem. As we all know, people change their fontlists at least 20 times a day. ;-D

    It's been pointed out that fontconfig already does this. I was aware of this, but I'm always glad to see people giving helpful suggestions (thanks!) I have to wonder, though, if that's the right thing to do. Should this be left to a separate library, or be part of the underlying display system? I go with the latter, but I very well could be alone.

  • Dump the stupid soundservers!

    This one's actually pretty good, and one that I agree with. KDE uses aRts; GNOME used ESD and I'm guessing uses either ESD or something newer now. The real kicker is that they're completely incompatible. The point behind these soundservers was to get around drivers that couldn't handle more than one audio stream at a time, and to provide a consistent audio interface across platforms. As the saying goes, "Standards are good. Let's make one!"

    Until someone comes up with a real standard, let's advocate dumping the soundservers altogether. Hell, if you want to infuriate the quit-using-so-many-libraries whiners, advocate using SDL.

  • KDE? GNOME? Let's dump both!

    If you'd like to infuriate both sides of the free-desktop war, point out the "licensing issues" with Qt (what licensing issues? I see no problems, other than not being able to base closed-source apps on Qt without paying a licensing fee; other than that, it's Free) and the "suckiness" of GTK+. This is almost tired territory at this point, but it's still fun, IMHO. And besides, there's a shred of thruth here: as long as there's a KDE and there's a GNOME, both sides will just concentrate on whipping their dead horses without branching out in new directions.

    That's all I can come up with at the moment. So stop harping on the number of text editors, since we all know Windows has more text editors than Linux, and stop harping on X, because there are alternatives on the horizon! Instead, start harping on why "we're" not taking new directions. I guarantee you it'll be a much fresher gripe than you'll read on ZDNet, OSNews, or even Freshmeat. Thanks for your kind attention, and happy trolling!

  • Sponsors

    Voxel dot net
    o Managed Hosting
    o VoxCAST Content Delivery
    o Raw Infrastructure

    Login

    Poll
    Trolling on Linux
    o Needed a fresh perspective. Thanks! 23%
    o Was just fine the way it was. 13%
    o What? You don't love the GPL and Linux unconditionally? You bastard! 34%
    o NetBSD is the future 28%

    Votes: 89
    Results | Other Polls

    Related Links
    o ZDNet
    o Freshmeat
    o DirectFB
    o GTK+
    o XFree86
    o FreeBSD
    o fontconfig
    o SDL
    o Also by regeya


    Display: Sort:
    Linux-Trolling-In-2003 HOWTO | 212 comments (155 topical, 57 editorial, 0 hidden)
    +1 if you re-section to Humor (nt) (3.00 / 2) (#4)
    by A Proud American on Mon Apr 07, 2003 at 03:34:13 PM EST



    ____________________________
    The weak are killed and eaten...


    Lunis idiots aside. (3.00 / 4) (#8)
    by tkatchev on Mon Apr 07, 2003 at 03:41:47 PM EST

    All your "points" are in fact 100% valid and until they are implemented Lunis will remain the braindead bug-ridden shite that it is.

    P.S. I, too, am a Lunis user, unfortunately. I hate it.

    P.P.S. GTK doesn't "suck". In fact, I believe it is the only worthwhile and well-coded piece of software in all of 10 gigabytes of Lunis.

       -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.

    GTK doesn't suck (none / 0) (#23)
    by x3nophil3 on Mon Apr 07, 2003 at 05:28:21 PM EST

    Do you still have to synchronize GUI calls across threads by writing majik bytes into a pipe? That sucked...

    POSIX 1.c? Nah, too well designed. Let's use a nasty old UNIX IPC hack instead...

    [ Parent ]

    Who cares. (none / 0) (#28)
    by tkatchev on Mon Apr 07, 2003 at 06:56:34 PM EST

    Write a kernel that doesn't suck, and then maybe we can talk.

    Threads under Lunis is like strapping a jet engine to a go-cart.

       -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
    [ Parent ]

    Bah! (4.66 / 3) (#30)
    by kraant on Mon Apr 07, 2003 at 07:43:25 PM EST

    Threads are for people who don't know how to do IPC properly.
    --
    "kraant, open source guru" -- tumeric
    Never In Our Names...
    [ Parent ]
    Not true (4.00 / 1) (#31)
    by x3nophil3 on Mon Apr 07, 2003 at 07:54:10 PM EST

    I've used threads extensively under linux. They work great in the kernel.

    The bitch is the user-mode libraries. In some cases they even break POSIX (getppid() was totally fucked up last I checked). I got into an argument with Alan Cox about this at OLS once. He won. I'm convinced it is really a user-mode problem, the linux VM is getting pretty decent.

    Of course threads under Windows are also quite fucked up. Gotta love per-thread message and APC queues. What a lovely broken way of doing things...

    [ Parent ]

    also, (4.80 / 5) (#18)
    by pb on Mon Apr 07, 2003 at 04:37:56 PM EST

    Suggest unstable and/or alpha-level software as the solution to all linux problems (some of these programs fall under other categories in your list); the list includes Fresco, Wine, Reiserfs (or at least it did), XPde etc., etc...
    ---
    "See what the drooling, ravening, flesh-eating hordes^W^W^W^WKuro5hin.org readers have to say."
    -- pwhysall
    I'm a linux zealot (4.75 / 4) (#19)
    by dark on Mon Apr 07, 2003 at 04:46:43 PM EST

    None of this infuriated me in the least. I don't think it's good trolling material.

    then perhaps (3.00 / 1) (#21)
    by pb on Mon Apr 07, 2003 at 04:57:48 PM EST

    you need to look up the definition of "troll" first, and also note that regeya is aiming his material at more experienced linux users, not newbies.

    This is the sort of thing that is commonly referred to on /. as "+5, Insightful" or "+5, Interesting", but gets responses from (the seven) old-timers and clueful people like "Why was this @*(& modded up??"
    ---
    "See what the drooling, ravening, flesh-eating hordes^W^W^W^WKuro5hin.org readers have to say."
    -- pwhysall
    [ Parent ]

    Hmm. (4.00 / 1) (#29)
    by dark on Mon Apr 07, 2003 at 07:30:17 PM EST

    I think you're using a different definition of trolling than the author is. He introduced it as a form of "anti-Linux sentiment", not as some kind of in-joke for Linux veterans. Also, on one of the points he says, "This one's actually pretty good, and one that I agree with". That doesn't match your definition at all. Thirdly, how can you aim "trolling for newbies" at experienced users? Your definition is aimed at newbies by definition.

    I much prefer my definition of trolling: "to explore, in an electronic forum, the subtle distinction between being an idiot and pretending to be an idiot."

    I don't think he was using that one either, though :)

    [ Parent ]

    trolling for replies... (4.00 / 1) (#35)
    by pb on Mon Apr 07, 2003 at 09:15:08 PM EST

    Your definition is pretty good; I'd say the general idea is to craft a post to elicit the most possible responses, and/or cause the most strife. If you espouse just about any position on some linux matter loud enough, and it doesn't look like a pre-existing troll, you're bound to get responses.
    ---
    "See what the drooling, ravening, flesh-eating hordes^W^W^W^WKuro5hin.org readers have to say."
    -- pwhysall
    [ Parent ]
    The Advantages to Apathy (none / 0) (#202)
    by brianscott on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 04:26:22 PM EST



    [ Parent ]
    Results are in; dark is dying. (4.33 / 3) (#38)
    by regeya on Mon Apr 07, 2003 at 09:56:00 PM EST

    Hello. I am regeya from Nigeria. I have access to over $35USD. Please give me your checking account number so we can begin laundering money through your account.

    Don't take everything in the article at face value. :-D

    [ yokelpunk | kuro5hin diary ]
    [ Parent ]

    Linux (4.42 / 19) (#32)
    by ComradeFork on Mon Apr 07, 2003 at 08:32:09 PM EST

    I don't know why you like linux so much, I tried it and it's got these really awful editors, Vi and Emacs. Nobody can use them for any serious work because they don't have good debugging capabilities.

    People also toy around with dumb languages such as Lisp (too many parenthesis), Python (whitespace!), Perl (line noise), and C (buggy language). If it had something like Visual Basic, I think Linux would take off really fast.

    The filesystem is a mess, the only sensible way of organising it would be to have the global packages in root as appdirs, not scattered all over /usr/bin and /usr/lib.

    Speaking of X, it is quite ridiculous for many applications to take up more than 800x600 by default, as this is the standard resolution. The kernel is quite pathetic, with bad latency issues.

    The config files should be in a nice tree structure, such as the Windows registry. Instead they are scattered over /etc, /usr/share, among other places. The format of the config files is different among them.

    M'kay?

    Please excuse my ass, I have laughed it off (nt) (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by schwong on Mon Apr 07, 2003 at 09:04:53 PM EST



    [ Parent ]
    Clearly a Windows User (1.16 / 6) (#36)
    by TerranceDaktill on Mon Apr 07, 2003 at 09:26:42 PM EST

    Go use a modern Linux distribution (Redhat 9.0, Mandrake 9.1, Debian 3.0)and then come back and post your findings. Most of the points you raise are higly subjective and what you're used to in your cosy Windows world.

    [ Parent ]
    Did you read the article? (nt) (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by llimllib on Mon Apr 07, 2003 at 09:34:40 PM EST



    Peace.
    [ Parent ]
    Yeah I agree (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Anonymous 23477 on Mon Apr 07, 2003 at 10:31:58 PM EST

    The "files scattered all over" is more of an issue ot:
    1) Bad packaging by the author, the Debian package system puts them in one place, and RPM is coming around too.
    2)Its different from windows. Unix was designed with a different mindset. By having the binaries concentrated in 6 directories you limit the junk in your PATH which is very important on the command line in a secure environment.

    [ Parent ]
    Well (5.00 / 5) (#52)
    by ComradeFork on Tue Apr 08, 2003 at 12:24:31 AM EST

    I'm sorry. I didn't intend for my comments to be taken seriously. Did you notice the title of this article?

    [ Parent ]
    Heh (5.00 / 7) (#53)
    by 5pectre on Tue Apr 08, 2003 at 12:31:55 AM EST

    I tried it and it's got these really awful editors, Vi and Emacs. Nobody can use them for any serious work

    Good Troll +5, extra points for actually getting replies from people who thought you were serious.

    "Let us kill the English, their concept of individual rights might undermine the power of our beloved tyrants!!" - Lisa Simpson [ -1.50 / -7.74]

    [ Parent ]

    blah (2.00 / 4) (#86)
    by adequate nathan on Tue Apr 08, 2003 at 11:05:42 AM EST

    I don't remember you ever congratulating me on a successful troll.

    Nathan
    "For me -- ugghhh, arrgghh."
    -Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, in Frank magazine, Jan. 20th 2003

    Join the petition: Rusty! Make dumped stories & discussion public!
    [ Parent ]

    Context, dude /nt (none / 0) (#165)
    by greenrd on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 07:55:46 AM EST


    "Capitalism is the absurd belief that the worst of men, for the worst of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all." -- John Maynard Keynes
    [ Parent ]
    You dipstick (5.00 / 7) (#62)
    by starsky on Tue Apr 08, 2003 at 07:16:13 AM EST

    Your zealotry blinded you to a troll in an article about trolling. Genius.

    [ Parent ]
    YHBT. YHL. HAND. [nt] (none / 0) (#147)
    by Pihkal on Wed Apr 09, 2003 at 12:20:14 PM EST

    YHBT. YHL. HAND.

    "I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered!"
    -- Number 6
    [ Parent ]
    Vi (none / 0) (#45)
    by kpaul on Mon Apr 07, 2003 at 10:58:09 PM EST

    I use vi when tweaking pages on a server a lot of times. It's a lot quicker (to me) than having to download a file, make the changes, then re-upload it to the server.

    Admitedly, it is awkward and confusing, but that's one of the things I like about Unix-esque OSs - they make you think sometimes.

    Also, I don't think I know more than a handful of the commands for vi, but it still saves me time...


    2014 Halloween Costumes
    [ Parent ]
    vi is like masturbation (5.00 / 10) (#60)
    by trane on Tue Apr 08, 2003 at 04:58:31 AM EST

    it's not as good as the alternative, but it's always available.

    [ Parent ]
    I use Vi all the time [nt] (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by 5pectre on Tue Apr 08, 2003 at 08:28:53 AM EST



    "Let us kill the English, their concept of individual rights might undermine the power of our beloved tyrants!!" - Lisa Simpson [ -1.50 / -7.74]

    [ Parent ]
    but vim is just awesome. [nt] (none / 0) (#85)
    by tang gnat on Tue Apr 08, 2003 at 10:54:39 AM EST



    [ Parent ]
    Cant get viruses from it too (n/t) (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by seeS on Tue Apr 08, 2003 at 11:03:59 PM EST


    --
    Where's a policeman when you need one to blame the World Wide Web?
    [ Parent ]
    Even though you are a smelly trool, (2.50 / 2) (#74)
    by tkatchev on Tue Apr 08, 2003 at 10:19:47 AM EST

    I agree with one of your points:

    The Lunis kernel is indeed a ghod-awful waste of oxygen. Never in my life have I seen such a poorly coded 50-megabyte mess of pure, unadulterated crappy code.

       -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
    [ Parent ]

    Gtk+ (4.00 / 2) (#41)
    by 5pectre on Mon Apr 07, 2003 at 10:19:01 PM EST

    doesn't suck.

    Meh, I don't get all this nonsense about "don't use linux!" or "use linux!". Use whatever you want. I use gnu/linux because:

    • It does what i want
    • It does it cheaper
    • It is more in line with my philosophy
    • It works
    • It encourages development of useful skills
    • The l33t skillz I learnt using gnu/linux got me my job
    • If something is broken I can fix it myself, I don't have to wait for the manufacturer
    If you don't want to use it then don't, you have a choice, just don't moan at people who do and for christ sake stop moaning about the software that you do use, if you don't like it either find different software, write your own or petition developers to make improvements.

    Another thing I like about Free Software in general is that constructive criticism is always welcome and there is a good chance that any feature request you make will end up in the software sooner rather than later. When was the last time you got a feature included in a mainstream app?

    *feeling very trolled*

    "Let us kill the English, their concept of individual rights might undermine the power of our beloved tyrants!!" - Lisa Simpson [ -1.50 / -7.74]

    You post a bunch of lies (2.27 / 11) (#42)
    by remann on Mon Apr 07, 2003 at 10:29:38 PM EST

    *PROVE* that it does it cheaper. Linux is not about cost, it's about speading years reading manuals to just compile a modem driver.

    *PROVE* that is is in line with anybody's philosophy. GNU is communist crap invented by a bunch of redneck hippies.

    *PROVE* that it encourages any skills besides the skill of pinning your rage while GD doesn't compile on your xfont server.

    *PROVE* that you can fix anything broken on linux. Many developers obfuscate their code deliberatly to keep people from modifying code they were forced to redistribute because of the virus known as GPL.

    You, sir, post a lot of nonsense on this discussion board. We at kuro5hin value facts, and links. Please, *PROVE* you assertions or I will have no choise but to assume you are a mere troll.

    [ Parent ]

    Close, but just not adequate. (n/t) (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by gordonjcp on Tue Apr 08, 2003 at 07:28:58 AM EST


    Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll bore you rigid with fishing stories for the rest of your life.


    [ Parent ]
    Hahahah (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by Ranieri on Tue Apr 08, 2003 at 07:37:23 AM EST

    Sorry, as a troll this is mediocre at best.
    --
    Taste cold steel, feeble cannon restraint rope!
    [ Parent ]
    Stab Me With a Spork (none / 0) (#201)
    by brianscott on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 04:19:17 PM EST

    Actually, I thought it was terrible. Much to blunt.

    [ Parent ]
    Heh. (4.66 / 3) (#44)
    by regeya on Mon Apr 07, 2003 at 10:54:24 PM EST

    I used Linux in college because I had to deal with UNIX, didn't feel like spending time in the Uni labs. Nowadays, a lot of what I learned I use when dealing with OS X. I never knew, after a major change that left me working with macs, that I'd be working with Unix-type OSes anyway. :-D

    [ yokelpunk | kuro5hin diary ]
    [ Parent ]

    LFS (4.28 / 7) (#47)
    by ZorbaTHut on Mon Apr 07, 2003 at 11:42:42 PM EST

    I've got to admit, I'm firmly in the camp of "WTF is up with the Linux filesystem". Now, note that I'm not saying Windows' is the perfect filesystem. However, my ideal filesystem does one very important thing - installs programs in single place (I don't care if you call it a directory or a folder) so you can delete it easily.

    Windows isn't great with this - some programs have a tendency to spit DLLs into your Windows installation - but I've never seen a program where you couldn't take care of 99% of the space usage by just wiping the program's directory, and I've only seen one program where doing this caused problems.

    Linux, on the other hand . . . dear god. Make the pain stop. You install a program, and it dumps all its files inside the same gargantuan directory with every single binary for every single other program on your system. (Okay. Except the ones that came with the distribution. Those are dumped in a different gargantuan directory.) Then it spits a few config files who-knows-where in your path, maybe makes its own config directory in a third apparently unrelated location, and informs you that its invasion of your hard drive is complete, so you can now delete the source.

    Disclaimer: it might be better now. I haven't played with anything non-Windows for about a year. And I'm combining the painful behavior of several different programs into one - as I remember, Apache's the one that throws config files in unexpected places, MySQL put its databases someplace I had to search for, and the "binary dumps" I'm referring to are /usr/bin and /usr/local/bin.

    So here's my question - why's it designed like this, is it really as bad as it looks like to me, are there any plans to change it, are there any good reasons for it being like this, or am I totally wrong and it's doing something totally different?

    This isn't a flame, it's an honest question - this one problem has frustrated me several times to the point of giving up on Linux again ;)

    I'm no power user, but I don't have this problem. (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by schwong on Tue Apr 08, 2003 at 12:05:43 AM EST

    I mainly use Linux as a server, although I develop applications on my Linux box too.

    Red Hat has a lot of bloat, but I don't run into problems installing programs. I mainly write Java, so I have the SDK, a separate JRE, Sun ONE Studio (it's graphical!), Apache, Tomcat, and mySQL. Of these, only mySQL casts its net of files far and wide across my directory structure; all the others are much more well behaved than any given sample of my Windows programs.

    As far as a solution for mySQL, install it on another system, attach it to the ethernet, put it in a closet, lock the door, and never, ever speak of it again.

    [ Parent ]

    Or (none / 0) (#169)
    by tzanger on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 09:07:57 AM EST

    As far as a solution for mySQL, install it on another system, attach it to the ethernet, put it in a closet, lock the door, and never, ever speak of it again.

    Or install something far more sane like PostgreSQL where you can actually take the knowlege you learn from it and apply it to other standard RDBMSes.



    [ Parent ]
    OS X (5.00 / 5) (#56)
    by b1t r0t on Tue Apr 08, 2003 at 02:41:42 AM EST

    installs programs in single place (I don't care if you call it a directory or a folder) so you can delete it easily.

    You mean like in OS X, in which apps are normally an entire directory structure which appears as a single icon? Even in 9.x and earlier, most apps were still a single icon. (Except the Microsoft apps, which installed their bloat all over the place.) I forget how bad Windoze users have it all the time, and when I remember, I try to forget it again. The registry is evil.

    -- Indymedia: the fanfiction.net of journalism.
    [ Parent ]

    OS X (none / 0) (#117)
    by ZorbaTHut on Tue Apr 08, 2003 at 06:41:45 PM EST

    I'd forgotten to mention this, and I'd actually been meaning to. Yes, exactly like this. 9.x did it beautifully (to the point where an "installer" was a self-extracting archive, and moving an installation took no more than moving the directory).

    I don't mind the registry too much - it *could* be worse (take a look at Linux :P) but it also could be a lot better. It's a tolerable evil for me, though if someone came up with a way to get rid of it, I'd be all for it.

    [ Parent ]

    It's an evil philosophy thing (4.75 / 4) (#59)
    by xL on Tue Apr 08, 2003 at 04:11:44 AM EST

    You see, distribution creators of Unix systems actually all think like FreeBSD, that there is a functionally complete "World" of software that is being kept nice and tidy by the Guru Meditators On The Mountain. They will split this world into what looks like a sensible way to describe smaller "components", continents and countries so to say. All the development efforts of the distribution maker go into making this whole World a visibly coherent and controllable system.

    The World that is the distribution, so the makers think, is so functionally complete that there can be no sensible reason to install software that isn't already available within this distribution. If you do, you are on your own. Woe upon the user that wants to run one program in a different version than what is provided by the distribution, for he will be out-of-sync for the world and therefor he does not exist as far as the distribution is now concerned.

    The funny thing is, this wouldn't happen if distributions weren't so keen on dumping such a complete environment on people's laps, much more of this would regulate itself. But they can't because they have to compete and who wants a distribution where you first have to download half of your software?

    Another thing that troubles Unix system is tremendous inter-dependency. Windows programs, generally speaking, just link to the Microsoft stuff and that is it. The dependencies of the average Gnome program cross at least 4 packages provided by different creators. Each a moving target of its own. Newer versions of existing programs also tend to immediately rely on features of a newer version of the parent component, so it is hard to avoid complexity here.



    [ Parent ]

    interdependency good (none / 0) (#156)
    by kubalaa on Wed Apr 09, 2003 at 06:15:32 PM EST

    I mean, isn't that the whole point of shared libraries? In the windows world, sure most things only depend on windows, but you could have the same effect in linux by unifying all the kde/gnome etc libraries and calling that "windows".

    [ Parent ]
    oh yeah (none / 0) (#162)
    by xL on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 02:53:07 AM EST

    It would be, if backward and forward compatibility were a design goal. We can't even get that right for libc, an API which is older than I am.

    [ Parent ]
    Know about --prefix? (5.00 / 4) (#72)
    by hardburn on Tue Apr 08, 2003 at 09:52:14 AM EST

    Almost anything you install from source (anything that has a proper './configure' script, anyway) can take a '--prefix=$SOME_DIR' option. I routinely use '--prefix=/usr/local/$SUB_DIR' to install programs in a specific directory. I have all of KDE3 installed to /usr/local/kde on my system.

    The '/opt' dir in LFS was created for that specific purpose, but a lot of systems don't make good use of it (the Red Hat/Mandrake/SuSE crowd usually use it well, but not the Debian/Slackware people--though this is changing).

    If you're installing by package manager, don't worry about nuking an entire directory to get rid of a program. You have a package manager for the specific reason of making things like that easy.


    ----
    while($story = K5::Story->new()) { $story->vote(-1) if($story->section() == $POLITICS); }


    [ Parent ]
    --prefix (none / 0) (#116)
    by ZorbaTHut on Tue Apr 08, 2003 at 06:40:01 PM EST

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but won't you then have to change the path to be able to run programs directly? Or, alternatively, type something like ncftp/ncftp instead of being able to just write ncftp?

    I imagine package manager makes everything easier, but there's the problem of programs that don't come in package form. Or is there? Can package managers assimilate makefiles now? I never had great success with them, and so I sort of stopped trying :P

    [ Parent ]

    Depends (4.00 / 1) (#130)
    by hardburn on Tue Apr 08, 2003 at 11:41:26 PM EST

    Yes, you'll have to change the path. Or you can create links from (say) /usr/local/bin into the real position (have a script that removes broken links in /usr/local and you should be OK for just nuking the directory structure). Or maybe it's a GUI program that you'll just be calling it from a menu, so it won't really matter.

    Some programs come with a 'make rpm' or 'make deb' target that will build the RPM or DEB for your system, but the orginal developers would have to include this functionality. If there is a tool for automatically generating a package from an unaltered make file, RPM would have it long before DEB does. RPM is a much simpler format than DEB (at the cost of flexibility). There's just too much you have to add to a program to get a working DEB to have an automatic tool do it for you.


    ----
    while($story = K5::Story->new()) { $story->vote(-1) if($story->section() == $POLITICS); }


    [ Parent ]
    Or use symlinks (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Jaritsu on Wed Apr 09, 2003 at 01:58:08 PM EST

    You can usually symlink the important binaries into somewhere in the path.

    Also note that alot of the larger apps still put themselves into unique directories, including X, apache, open office, mozilla and samba This is still standard practice for anything that creates a larger program suite. Most apps just create a binary, a config and a and maybe a lib or 2. Its sorta how like in windows you have things like calc notepad and wordpad in the windows root directory.

    At least in alot of linux based OS's it seperates the executables from the libs and configs, take a look at all the variety of filetypes in the WINNT and WINNT/SYSTEM32 folders sometime.

    "Jaritsu, have you stopped beating your wife yet?" - Kintanon
    [ Parent ]

    GNU Stow (4.00 / 1) (#173)
    by WWWWolf on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 10:13:11 AM EST

    I imagine package manager makes everything easier, but there's the problem of programs that don't come in package form. Or is there? Can package managers assimilate makefiles now?
    GNU Stow is a program that can be easily used to manage everything that's built with Autotools configure --prefix thing...

    Basically you install a package like this. Untar, cd in, then...

    1. ./configure --prefix=/usr/local/stow/packagename-1.0
    2. make; make install
    3. cd /usr/local/stow
    4. stow packagename-1.0
    ...after which you have all appropriate symlinks all across /usr/local tree.

    To uninstall:

    1. cd /usr/local/stow
    2. stow -D packagename-1.0
    3. rm -rf packagename-1.0
    I've found stow is just perfect program to build stuff out of CVS =)

    There are also numerous other programs that do something like this. Heard of. Not know any by name. The Other Site had reviews of them some time ago. I think.

    -- Weyfour WWWWolf, a lupine technomancer from the cold north...


    [ Parent ]
    Serious answer. (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by tkatchev on Tue Apr 08, 2003 at 10:14:57 AM EST

    The idiots who worked with the first PDP Unix (no offence meant here, really) didn't think about things like that, since they typically used only 5-10 simple text-mode applications.

    Now, when Lunis came around, nobody bothered to think this through -- 'cause, Unix is so geeky and all, and hey, at least it isn't Micro$$$hloth.

       -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
    [ Parent ]

    whether you like it or not, (4.66 / 3) (#81)
    by pb on Tue Apr 08, 2003 at 10:41:54 AM EST

    there is some method to the madness--your typical Unix  system has a place for everything, and everything in its place. Couple this with the fact that you can mount partitions into directories in the filesystem, and you end up with a very flexible hierarchy.

    If you wish to uninstall software in Unix, it's probably best to do so through some reasonable interface, like a package manager, or possibly the makefile you used to build it ("make uninstall"); this is equivalent to running an uninstaller in Windows, sans registry.

    As for the policies of individual applications, these are more often than not specified in the man pages, and/or in the documentation; if all else fails, you might be able to query your package management software and obtain a complete list of where it installed stuff.

    For the real control freaks in the audience, there are systems that combine both approaches--they have a hierarchy for the applications, and the normal unix hierarchy just symlinks into that, or something. (eww!)
    ---
    "See what the drooling, ravening, flesh-eating hordes^W^W^W^WKuro5hin.org readers have to say."
    -- pwhysall
    [ Parent ]

    uh, make uninstall? (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Jaritsu on Tue Apr 08, 2003 at 11:45:11 AM EST

    If your not using a package app such as rpm or dpkg then I dont see any problem.

    Personally, I started out using stampede way back, and package managers were such a joke nobody ever used them. Once I went the way of HP-UX as a sysadmin for I realized that knowing how to maintain a good source directory was kinda important, and thanked god that I never got dependant on using something like dpkg and instead learned how to set configure parameters and CCFLAGS.

    After a build just do a "make clean" and keep the source around or tar.bz it up if your tight on space. I have even redid a build just to get my system to do a proper make uninstall.

    If your unsure about a lib or a group of libs then you can do a quick run through a for loop using ldd and grep to determine if any binaries in your path need it. And if your a sucker for keeping everything in its place then just set the prefix to somewhere unique every build and set the path and ld.so.conf after a build. Of course I would imagine that this would get so old so fast that you would just realize that its a wasted effort and having binaries and libs in thier own colaberated directories isnt really that bad of an idea.

    As a habbit, I prefix anything system dependant into /usr and if I am building something that the system does not need I put it into /usr/local. This way I know that I can kill /usr/local/lib completely and know my system will still boot and do everything I need it to.

    Also, I notice that alot of packaged samba / apache installs dump everything into shared directories, whereas the source builds into a default unique prefix (i.e. /usr/local/samba... etc) and you can keep your configs wherever the hell you want and just symlink em to a place that makes the system happy.

    As far as I am concerned you could never, ever make anything in linux as much of a mess as the whole regestry thing in wintendo. Thanks, but no thanks.

    "Jaritsu, have you stopped beating your wife yet?" - Kintanon
    [ Parent ]

    You are soo right. (4.33 / 3) (#95)
    by tkatchev on Tue Apr 08, 2003 at 12:30:42 PM EST

    And if only all us geeks get together, we could build a space stations out of old tin cans and garbage juice.


       -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
    [ Parent ]

    "Do lots of extra stuff" vs registry (none / 0) (#115)
    by ZorbaTHut on Tue Apr 08, 2003 at 06:37:11 PM EST

    Well, here's the problem with your suggestions. Yes, they work. However, they take a lot of extra work. I don't even know what you're *talking* about with half of that :P With Windows, there's three ways to uninstall something. There's an "uninstall" link in the start menu, if you're lucky. If you're not, go to the control panel and choose "add/remove program". And if all else fails, just find the program and delete the directory. It'll be fine. Note that *none* of these methods make the *installation* process any different.

    I don't want to keep the entire source around so I can do a make uninstall - 99% of that data is unimportant. The uninstall program could contain all its data in a few kb. Why keep a few megs of source around?

    As for the registry, I don't mind the registry mess because it uses almost no CPU or RAM or HD space - and I don't modify it, so what do I care if it gets messy? :P

    [ Parent ]

    Tomatoes vs Tomatoes (none / 0) (#142)
    by Jaritsu on Wed Apr 09, 2003 at 11:17:31 AM EST

    I don't want to keep the entire source around so I can do a make uninstall - 99% of that data is unimportant. The uninstall program could contain all its data in a few kb. Why keep a few megs of source around?

    If you are concerned with bloat, don't use windows :)

    That "99% of that data" is removed when you do a make clean. and source files are usually very small, a 300k source directory can build to be a quite a few megs worth of binaries and libs, doing a make clean removes the built data so you can keep the source and configured Makefile around incase you need to rebuild or do a make uninstall, and is pretty much the reason behind the "make clean" exsistance. Not to mention that source is raw text and compresses like no ones buisness. If you want you can just re tar.bz it up with a "tar -cvIf"

    As for "alot of work", well you say tomatoes, I say tomatoes... wait, that only works when you say it out loud, but you get the idea. Whats "work" to you just isn't work to me, and what seems to be extra or oddball steps really becomes second nature pretty quick and the end result, to me, justifies the means.

    Not that this is something I have to to often, since I usually am pretty familiar with whats on my OS, but you could verify if anything needs a lib by setting a variable to any binaries in your path, and doing a quick "for i in $foo; do; ldd $i |grep libname; done" If anything returns, then you know that its being used. Easy.

    Uninstall methods in windows can and usually do leave alot of crap behind, and you just dont have alot of control over the regestry, ask anyone who has had to deal with uninstalling spyware or adware. Anyone ever have to deal with "commonname"? ugh, never again... There are ways of completely taking control away from the user in windows and this sucks.

    I was just trying to point out to the original poster that having items an in shared directories realy isnt that big of a deal, but if he wanted to its fairly easy to sort it out. Its not complicated, just a bit difrent than what he was used to. Im not saying its better but to me it just makes sense.

    "Jaritsu, have you stopped beating your wife yet?" - Kintanon
    [ Parent ]

    Are you sure it's uninstalled? (none / 0) (#152)
    by hardburn on Wed Apr 09, 2003 at 04:56:20 PM EST

    There's an "uninstall" link in the start menu, if you're lucky. If you're not, go to the control panel and choose "add/remove program". And if all else fails, just find the program and delete the directory. It'll be fine. Note that *none* of these methods make the *installation* process any different.

    It's much, much more difficult to uninstall programs in Windows than that. Sure, you may think that uninstaller got rid of everything, but chances are there are rementants of that program left around your system. Especially in your registry. I'd be willing to put up with this (we have really big hard drives these days, after all), except these extra files and registry entries tend to slow down the whole system.

    'rpm -e', 'apt-get remove', or 'make uninstall' might not be as user-freindly, but they also have a higher tendency to work correctly. Even if they do leave a file here or there, the system itself will carry on without a performance hit.

    By the way:

    $ du -hs /usr/src
    5.0G /usr/src

    I really, really like source code.


    ----
    while($story = K5::Story->new()) { $story->vote(-1) if($story->section() == $POLITICS); }


    [ Parent ]
    uninstalling (none / 0) (#157)
    by ZorbaTHut on Wed Apr 09, 2003 at 07:29:58 PM EST

    It gets rid of virtually everything :P I don't require my system to work at perfect efficiency, and I really haven't seen these performance hits everyone talks about - a new installation of Windows, once I have everything I want to use installs, performs very similarly to the old one. To me, the "Windows gets slower because programs don't uninstall themselves properly" sounds like an urban myth. Or perhaps the result of people who have never heard of a defragmenter.

    I don't have a problem with uninstallers not being as user-friendly (okay, I do, but that's an unrelated rant) - the problem is when they don't exist, or when they require you to, say, cart around 5gb of source in the process. I've got better use for 5gb of space than holding uninstallers ;)

    [ Parent ]

    "Urban Myth" (none / 0) (#159)
    by hardburn on Wed Apr 09, 2003 at 11:31:07 PM EST

    I don't know what else to blame Windows systems' tendency to slow down over time (Win9x ones, anyway--I don't touch XP). I defrag my hard drive once a week, so that can't be it. I'm willing to concede that it might not be imperfect uninstallers, but I don't see any other canidiates.

    I don't keep 5GB of source code around for uninstallation. I do it because I like having source code for its own sake.


    ----
    while($story = K5::Story->new()) { $story->vote(-1) if($story->section() == $POLITICS); }


    [ Parent ]
    slowing down over time (none / 0) (#161)
    by ZorbaTHut on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 02:17:49 AM EST

    Personally, I blame it on people installing things that they use infrequently but still sit around memory-resident. I do a pretty good job of keeping my startup clean, and I wipe the adware once in a while (although the last two times I've gone on an adware hunt I haven't found any - not sure if I should be proud or worried.)

    The number of times I've cut a Windows box's boot time in third by ripping out a bunch of the things that are running . . . yeah. Quite often.

    When I set up a new box, I already know what I'm putting on it - the same things I had on the last one. Since I don't have much dead weight, the new one ends up being about the same speed.

    Except for Win9x. Those actually *do* slow down, and no, I don't know why ;) I haven't experienced that with Win2k or XP, though.

    [ Parent ]

    Not an urban myth. (none / 0) (#177)
    by Jaritsu on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 11:34:06 AM EST

    Ask anyone if a new install of windows runs faster than thier previous.

    I've used apps when I was at Bayer that let you view changes to the regestry in real time. The app I remember uing was called "regview" I think, but when I look for it on the net I get something difrent, so I may be mistaken. In anycase, this  lets you see that the system is pretty dependant on this POS and if your regestry bloats from around 13 megs on a new install to 40+ then you can see where some of this slowdown occurs.

    Applications like Word need to look up just about every setting in the regestry, and it can start taking 2x-3x as long when the regestry bloats up. Goto open the options dialog box, and you wind up waiting on what winds up being a compounded amount of time since every option has to be read from the registry.

    My biggest question is why?. Maybe its easy for the programmers, maybe its lazyness on thier part. or maybe its the only option available to them. Personally, I never saw much wrong with config files.

    "Jaritsu, have you stopped beating your wife yet?" - Kintanon
    [ Parent ]

    True, but . . . (none / 0) (#190)
    by ZorbaTHut on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 07:04:21 PM EST

    . . . my feeling is that Windows's slowdown isn't caused by people uninstalling things badly, it's caused by people completely failing to uninstall things at all. I've seen systems booting several dozen programs at startup (and at least a dozen spyware programs).

    Size of a database doesn't necessarily have much to do with speed. Yes, the registry gets bloated - I'm not sure I believe that this will slow it down that much, however.

    And I'm not sure why Word looks up so much in the registry, this is the first I've heard about it. However, I don't use Word :P If Word is designed to do things that make it horrifically slow, I don't think it's Windows' fault - it would be like complaining that Windows is slow because your program has to read the entire contents of your hard drive every time you start it. Bad design.

    There's one thing the registry does that's very nice, and that's allow you to make user-specific preferences. Doesn't matter much in Win9x, but in WinNT this can be a highly desired feature. Yes, this could be done with config files, but it would take a little extra work, and said work is already done in the registry.

    [ Parent ]

    More importantly (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by riceowlguy on Mon Apr 14, 2003 at 05:02:21 PM EST

    it's done once, debugged once, and left in place - and made available to all applications. While the registry is indimidating at first, once you figure it out, it's kind of nice to have one interface to application settings, as opposed to Linux where you don't know where they are in the first place and once you do find them, you have to figure out a different format (maybe).

    "Nothing says 'Move to Florida' quite like fireboming somebody's car." - a friend
    [ Parent ]

    Terminology (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by riceowlguy on Tue Apr 08, 2003 at 02:56:32 PM EST

    We need to figure out something other than "filesystem" to describe how a Linux installation and it's files are organized on a hard drive. As far as the rest of the computer science establishment is concerned, "filesystem" means how the computer maps files and directories onto a physical medium (i.e. platter, track and sector). And I don't see anything particularly wrong with ext3, except they haven't brought back versioning yet.

    "Nothing says 'Move to Florida' quite like fireboming somebody's car." - a friend
    [ Parent ]

    re: Terminology (none / 0) (#118)
    by ZorbaTHut on Tue Apr 08, 2003 at 06:43:33 PM EST

    Agreed. When I was looking for information on this subject through Google . . . well, I ended up getting distracted by some interesting information on ReiserFS, but I didn't find what I was looking for :P

    [ Parent ]
    It's not terrible at all (none / 0) (#168)
    by tzanger on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 09:06:41 AM EST

    The package manager (Deb, RPM, hell even Slackware .tgz) keep track of where each file went and which package it belongs to.

    This is pretty much identical to Win32 -- Win32 puts files in /Program Files/[Appname] but what it does NOT do a good job of keeping track of is registry changes, DLL overwrites, file associations, etc. InstallShield and its ilk have tried but they all fail because the majority of application programmers just don't try to keep their apps organized.

    Contrast this back to Linux -- ALL programs you install are in /usr/local/bin. ALL system admin programs you install are in /usr/local/sbin. Configurations are in /etc or /usr/local/etc. Stuff that comes with teh base system is in /bin, /usr/bin, /sbin and /usr/sbin. Yeah they're spread out but it's done following standard Unix filesystem organization rules. /usr/* is there because you can mount it from remote and share the exact same apps across a thousand computers without issue. /bin and /sbin are what's required to boot and run the system before networking can be brought up.

    With respect to libraries (DLLs) -- on Linux you can have 12 different versions of a library and not have your apps get confused. Simply not possible on Win32.

    On Linux/Unix it makes sense if you take a minute to look at it from the bigger perspective. Win32 tries to laugh away the issues and falls flat on its face with a dozen of its own.



    [ Parent ]
    This might help you (none / 0) (#208)
    by gadha on Mon Apr 14, 2003 at 09:00:30 AM EST

    Understand why/how/where... Filesystem Hierarchy Standard

    [ Parent ]
    The world would be so much nicer if.. (3.80 / 5) (#48)
    by Talez on Mon Apr 07, 2003 at 11:43:42 PM EST

    Everyone stopped using Windows and Linux and used BeOS instead.

    Then Be inc could be revived and the BeOS faithful could rule the world with an iron hard drive!

    Si in Googlis non est, ergo non est

    Not very good trolling (4.00 / 1) (#54)
    by seeS on Tue Apr 08, 2003 at 12:51:45 AM EST

    I didn't see a new spin on the editor wars, I didn't see you mention some obscure feature that BeOS has which makes the best thing since CP/M was around.

    Everyone really knows there was the TRS-80, then there was a gradual decline. It no longer matters anymore.
    --
    Where's a policeman when you need one to blame the World Wide Web?

    This kind of meta-trolling is beneficial (4.85 / 7) (#58)
    by xL on Tue Apr 08, 2003 at 03:57:17 AM EST

    I think it's always a good idea to challenge people who swim in the Linux mainstream to think outside the box. Most ideas remain just that, ideas. Others are given a spin and sometimes, amazingly, they succeed. This is how you get improvement.

    The more damaging category of meta-trolls is one you left out: Challenging the mainstream to exchange a cornerstone of the mainstream's software library with one adopted from another existing operating environment. Extra points if there are no obvious benefits except almost enough compatibility with the foreign platform to have some reference applications cross compile. The most extensive examples of such meta-trolls gone haywire:

    • Mono
    • Gnustep
    • Whatever they're calling AmigaOS now
    I'm sure other examples can be found. I was tempted to include WINE in this list, but that project doesn't have delusions of grandeur in so far as they're going for compatibility, not offering the impression of a viable programming platform (although incidents of wine libraries being used as an excuse not to actually port some software to linux have already occured).

    There are also some old relics that will never die as good trolling material. It never fails to amaze me how much kneejerking still goes on with these subjects:

    • GNU/Linux
    • Comparing apt-get to rpm
    • Countering that rpm is dpkg and not apt-get
    • The Qt license
    • $DESKTOP_ENVIRONMENT is bloated
    • .so-Hell is just as bad as DLL-hell
    It's also notable that groups working on projects with loudly proclaimed design goals that include things like "$ABSTRACT-purity" or "security" are more vulnerable to trolling. Debianites and Slackwarezers are more easily trolled than Redhatmen. FreeBSDenizens are more easily lured than Linuxers. And OpenBSD fanatics are a prize catch in this respect. As are people doing Python, Scheme or best of all Java. Hope that helps.

    Slack-ers (4.00 / 1) (#92)
    by schlouse on Tue Apr 08, 2003 at 11:55:05 AM EST

    are some of the most chilled out around! Are you kidding? When was the last time you saw a Slackware-Debian flamewar that was anything besides generally benign and probably pretty funny discussion? Many of the people running Linux before many knew what the hell it even was were running Slack. I tend to think that generally it's a very non-political distro, maybe because it's put out by one guy that's been doing it forever who doesn't give a shit about politics himself.

    All you have to do is go to any kind of OSS site now to watch Redhat-Debian flamewars occur almost daily. Boring.

    Mark S.

    [ Parent ]

    Bah, Debian or Slack users, same deal... (none / 0) (#134)
    by Gooba42 on Wed Apr 09, 2003 at 03:52:53 AM EST

    I got my little sister running on a Linux machine temporarily, she's since gone back because of her new, unsupported webcam. It happened to be running Mandrake.

    The Slackware and Debian crowd seems to spend a lot more time bitching about how a "real" Linux user should be compiling from source, etc. and attacking other Linux users for their choice of distribution. For Mandrake or Red Hat, I dunno... I haven't seen their users go out of their way to tell someone else how their distro (or person) is inferior because it's lower on the geek scale.

    For the record, I'm running Gentoo on my machine now which leaves me 90% excluded from the "compile your own source" argument and about 99.9% outside of the scope of the apt vs. rpm stuff. You hear only sporadic noise about ebuilds/emerge but nothing like the wars mentioned above.

    [ Parent ]

    Gentooers can be fun too (none / 0) (#137)
    by xL on Wed Apr 09, 2003 at 06:24:30 AM EST

    Had a couple of coworkers who started doing gentoo on their laptops. Just to be a dolt, at the same time I installed what in this geek-scale thing is probably universally regarded the "lamebrain loser distro" Mandrake. A couple of weeks went by where the average conversation went like "Hey can you mail me X?" - "I can't, my gnome is broken so evolution won't work" - *reassuring smile*. It really started to be fun when I was actually running more current software from RPM than they were emerging. And I bloody hate Mandrake ;).

    [ Parent ]
    It works, right? (none / 0) (#154)
    by Gooba42 on Wed Apr 09, 2003 at 05:18:08 PM EST

    I don't understand the users who are out to "convert" the world to their particular distro. In a very practical sense, I don't care what tool you use for whatever it is you do. If you're unhappy with it I can give recommendations or if you're an unproductive employee I can make demands but otherwise it doesn't make any difference.

    I installed Gentoo more or less on a whim because Windows dual booting had nuked Mandrake and my install disks were somehow corrupted so I picked up Gentoo. So far, so good but it still has an air of experimentalism to it.

    i.e. PHP 4.3.1 doesn't emerge on my machine...no one seems to be sure why and the only way to make it work properly is to forbid it from even thinking about Apache 2 and turn off all the optimization possible. After doing this, for whatever reason emerge decided to downgrade PHP again and then still notifies me anytime I look for upgrades that PHP is an old version.

    It's only my personal website and recreation at stake so it's not a big deal for me but it could be annoying as an admin or power user to get a supposedly superoptimized distribution and then have to de-optimize to make it function.


    [ Parent ]

    Inaccurate (none / 0) (#138)
    by dark on Wed Apr 09, 2003 at 07:25:58 AM EST

    Compiling from source is not the Debian way. apt-get is the Debian way. You're just making stuff up.

    [ Parent ]
    On that particular gripe perhaps... (none / 0) (#153)
    by Gooba42 on Wed Apr 09, 2003 at 05:03:20 PM EST

    The "etc" included all of the other "One True Way" arguments.

    It still seems to be a lot of "we like it this way and you should too, or else you're an idiot and why do I even bother talking to you?"

    [ Parent ]

    you forgot... (none / 0) (#124)
    by KiTaSuMbA on Tue Apr 08, 2003 at 08:26:09 PM EST

    the gentooists...
    Although usually a bunch of cheerful people that don't take this stuff seriously there have been emerging trolls over a debian - gentoo war about who's got the best dep control and *BSD afficionados coming over to claim "prime work"...
    You linux copiers.. you finally saw the light of the ports and what you do with it? This "portage" mock-up...
    When I see ths phrase in a discussion I can't stop laughing anymore... ;-)
     
    There is no Dopaminergic Pepperoni Kabal!
    [ Parent ]
    Should I feel proud, or baited? hmmmm (4.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Fountain Pen Converter on Wed Apr 09, 2003 at 02:31:37 AM EST

    And OpenBSD fanatics are a prize catch in this respect. As are people doing Python, Scheme or best of all Java. Hope that helps.

    OK, it being 2AM in my particular timezone, I guess I will bite. Is this statement to imply that people toing Python, Scheme, and Java are easy to troll, or hard to troll, and thus particularly satisfying to troll successfully? Or is it to indicate that once successfully trolled, individuals of said groups flame and flail with a vengence unknown to mere mortals of other categories?

    Being a Scheme, Python, and Java person myself, I would like to believe the former, though certainly I can see the latter. It does seem to me that Python and Scheme people would be harder to troll. While vocal minorities, they seem to be generally mellow, and also so convinced that they are doing The Right Thing that they feel no need to rise to the bait.

    Oh, and Java people? They are just too proud that they are fighting the Empire of Darkness to worry all that much about being loyal denizens of the Realm of Insufficiant Light



    ----------------------------------------
    Always striving to have a point.
    [ Parent ]
    It's a troll disguised as a compliment (none / 0) (#136)
    by xL on Wed Apr 09, 2003 at 06:18:22 AM EST

    "Pure" technology, or "beautiful" programming languages just have this inclination to attract people who become strongly advocative. Those who knew hardship doubly so. Recovering windows users may be fiercer linux advocates than those who used, say, SunOS before.

    [ Parent ]
    You don't really back up your assertions, however. (none / 0) (#191)
    by Anonymous 7324 on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 07:44:00 PM EST

    Recovering windows users may be fiercer linux advocates than those who used, say, SunOS before.

    Does 'pure' technology attract more strongly 'advocative' people, or do people become more advocative after wallowing in the stench of something like Windows?

    After all, if you were born and grew up on Linux, you never knew first-hand how bad it was out there, whereas coming from Windows, one has a contrast. Who will more greatly advocate the benefits of running water? Someone who has had it all his life? Or someone from a region or country so impoverished that they've always had to wash themselves in some polluted stream ten miles away, and now enjoy the conveniences of clean hot and cold water on tap?

    I assert that converts are more vocal because they've seen and experienced first hand just how bad some of the technology they've escaped is.

    [ Parent ]

    Two words (none / 0) (#195)
    by xL on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 04:14:26 AM EST

    Macintosh Users. Most Maccers, especially during the high days of Mac advocacy in the nineties, never actually used Windows themselves extensively. They got the Mac, they loved it, saw Windows at their neighbor's computer and felt superior. It can happen.

    I, too, actually never had anything to do with Windows except see friends and relatives wallow in grief by using it. I went from VIC20 to C64 to Amiga to ST to Mac to IRIX to Linux. I don't have to suffer the pain that is Windows directly if I can learn its suckiness through the suffering of others.

    You don't need to go to a concert to know that the Spice Girls are not your favourite band.

    [ Parent ]

    True Story (4.13 / 15) (#75)
    by sllort on Tue Apr 08, 2003 at 10:20:13 AM EST

    Yesterday I went to H&R Block to get my taxes done. I walked in at noon and said "I'm here for my noon appointment". She looked me up and said "It's one o'clock". I said "No, my appointment is at noon". She said "Well, it's one o'clock right now".

    I looked at my watch. It was one o'clock. I realized that back on my desktop at work was a Linux computer that had not adjusted for daylights savings time.

    I looked at this woman and said "Sorry, my computer's clock was off". She said "that's impossible, all of our computers fixed themselves". Then she pointed to the Windows 98 computer on her desktop with the correct time. I said "my computer runs Linux". She said "I'm sorry...?". I said:

    "So am I".

    True story.
    --
    Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.

    You forgot the zing![n/t] (none / 0) (#82)
    by mahoney on Tue Apr 08, 2003 at 10:43:13 AM EST



    [ Parent ]
    Nice try! (4.00 / 5) (#83)
    by lorcha on Tue Apr 08, 2003 at 10:47:07 AM EST

    Except that Linux adjusts for Daylight Savings Time automatically. My machine does, anyhow. And thanks to the builtin NTP utility, my machine's clock is always correct to within a few milliseconds.

    Next?

    --
    צדק--אין ערבים, אין פיגועים
    [ Parent ]

    So what? (5.00 / 8) (#94)
    by sllort on Tue Apr 08, 2003 at 12:05:10 PM EST

    That's great that your copy of Linux is set up to fix the problem. My story was about my copy of Linux. Specifically Redhat 7.3, which out of the box doesn't adjust for daylights savings time.

    See, with Windows, every copy fixes the problem automatically. With Linux this is not true. I can prove this with the single example of the computer on my desktop.

    Your statement is completely irrelevant as well as being annoying... which means that you've trolled beautifully, in a trolling article.

    Well done! I give you a 5.
    --
    Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.
    [ Parent ]

    My real troll (none / 0) (#102)
    by lorcha on Tue Apr 08, 2003 at 02:01:19 PM EST

    Your statement is completely irrelevant as well as being annoying... which means that you've trolled beautifully, in a trolling article.
    Oh shit! I didn't realize this was a contest to see if I could troll back! If that's the case, my real troll is here.

    Get one of those and maybe you won't be so late for future meetings.

    --
    צדק--אין ערבים, אין פיגועים
    [ Parent ]

    actually (4.66 / 3) (#114)
    by FieryTaco on Tue Apr 08, 2003 at 06:35:26 PM EST

    I had win 95 on my machine and it was on during the fall time change for daylight savings. So at 2:00 AM it turned back to 1:00 AM. Then again at 2:00 AM it turned back to 1:00 AM. Then again at 2:00 AM it turned back to 1:00 AM. It was cool.

    Unix doesn't keep time wrt to timezones. Things like timezones, daylight savings and what not are entirely determined in the presentation layer. Unix systems keep track of the time in seconds from Jan 1, 1970 UTC. They don't "change" the time at daylight savings, they just know that it's proper to pretend that it's earlier than it really is. And the really cool Unix's actually slew the time rather than step it by an hour so that things that are dependant on the concept that time flows in one direction actually work correctly.

    [ Parent ]

    Bad parallel... (none / 0) (#135)
    by Gooba42 on Wed Apr 09, 2003 at 04:21:59 AM EST

    When they bought their copy of Windows how many versions/distributions did they consider?

    Does it behave correctly by default when set to UTC or will it change the clock for Daylight Saving Time ?

    [ Parent ]

    Your point is irrelavent too (none / 0) (#170)
    by tzanger on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 09:14:50 AM EST

    If that woman had been running Win95, she'd still be at 1am.

    Just because you don't want to run a modern OS doesn't mean that the OS today sucks. Nice try, though.



    [ Parent ]
    RH7.3 can adjust for DST (none / 0) (#174)
    by tuffy on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 10:14:48 AM EST

    If you set "system clock uses UTC" at install time, or with "redhat-config-time", Red Hat will seamlessly adjust for DST for you. If you don't set it, Red Hat just assumes your BIOS or some other mechanism (like NTP) will adjust the time for you when DST rolls around.

    [ Parent ]
    Out of 30 (none / 0) (#96)
    by chupacabra on Tue Apr 08, 2003 at 12:46:36 PM EST

    Linux Boxes that I have control over, only one did not change for Daylight savings time. The old Woody box. Any Modern Distro should handle it.

    Too many skeletons in other peoples closets..

    Where did that baby goat go?
    [ Parent ]

    My setup (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by sllort on Tue Apr 08, 2003 at 12:50:41 PM EST

    Redhat 7.3, default install with lots of security related patches.

    [root@sllortbox root]# hwclock
    Tue 08 Apr 2003 11:14:39 AM EDT  0.574149 seconds
    [root@sllortbox root]# date
    Tue Apr  8 11:45:35 EDT 2003
    [root@sllortbox root]#set | grep TZ
    [root@sllortbox root]#

    --
    Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.
    [ Parent ]
    Wow, you suck. (4.00 / 2) (#99)
    by regeya on Tue Apr 08, 2003 at 01:18:36 PM EST

    You are harping on old problems that have already been fixed. The point I was trying to get across is that people should harp on new things now.

    You lose!


    [ yokelpunk | kuro5hin diary ]
    [ Parent ]

    You're right (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by sllort on Tue Apr 08, 2003 at 01:33:45 PM EST

    Trolling is a science, not an art. I have failed to follow your rigidly defined rules. I fail it!
    --
    Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.
    [ Parent ]
    Stick to the main subject, silly. (none / 0) (#120)
    by regeya on Tue Apr 08, 2003 at 07:23:07 PM EST

    Admit it; you were using tired, old material. That's what I was writing about! This isn't 1998 anymore; I know that that material still works on a lot of rabid GNUbies (who, after all, have to spend copious amounts of time refuting your ridiculous claims) but the rest of us are getting bored.

    [ yokelpunk | kuro5hin diary ]
    [ Parent ]

    Fixed? (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by greenrd on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 07:58:03 AM EST

    Fixed? I'm still seeing this problem on redhat 7.3 with most of the updates applied - which a lot of people are still using (not me, but my housemates are).

    The weirdest thing is, it does adjust for British Summer Time, but it adjusts in the wrong direction!! I shit you not!


    "Capitalism is the absurd belief that the worst of men, for the worst of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all." -- John Maynard Keynes
    [ Parent ]

    7.3? (none / 0) (#185)
    by regeya on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 04:44:22 PM EST

    You still suck, son.

    [ yokelpunk | kuro5hin diary ]
    [ Parent ]

    Heh. (none / 0) (#172)
    by WWWWolf on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 10:03:52 AM EST

    I realized that back on my desktop at work was a Linux computer that had not adjusted for daylights savings time.
    I'm not sure if I remember this right, but back when I was still on a 486 running both Linux and Windows 95, the actual date when DST started had changed. Linux showed the DST automatically correctly but Windows always lagged behind. There was a fix for this, but nobody here bothered with it. =)

    It's always a fight when two programs try to do the same thing =) Windows and Linux both correct the hardware clock, which means that I always get the wrong time twice a year...

    ...except that it hasn't happened this year yet. Wonder if Win98SE is broken too? And I wonder if Windows can be set to use UTC on the hardware too...

    -- Weyfour WWWWolf, a lupine technomancer from the cold north...


    [ Parent ]
    My Problem with Daylights Savings Time (none / 0) (#200)
    by brianscott on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 03:43:27 PM EST

    I had the opposite problem. On Windows, I unchecked the Automatically Adjust for Daylights Savings (since I live outside the U.S.). Yet it would constantly adjust it anyway. Really annoying.

    [ Parent ]
    we gnaw. (4.38 / 21) (#76)
    by sllort on Tue Apr 08, 2003 at 10:27:50 AM EST

    nibble nibble munchkin. the M$FT is so big yes. it controls, controls all. the people they walk by i see their feet though my window. their feet swing by the bars on my window. pretty feet shiny shoes. swish swish. are they going to work? i WILL NOT go to work. M$FT is at work. M$FT controls the pretty feet people. controls their money their futures.

    i sit and rebuld my kernel. my CPU thrums. the kernel it is the key. we hack the linux yes good. 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, ...2.6!!!!!!!!! the M$FT it fears the linux. spreads lies. says the linux comes with no warranty. THE WARRANTY IT IS BAD! it goes into your pores. steals your power. the kernel is good. the kernel will rise and slay the M$FT. when the itching comes i think about the linux. it helps.

    i hack a driver for my dvd-rom. it does not work. i debug. it does not work. i delete the old source. and start again. i recompile. it does not work. on M$FT the dvd-rom is plug and play. that is how they get you. get behind your eyes. start the itching. so i hack the driver. i hack, we hack: we gnaw. gnaw at the ropes of slavery. the ropes of M$FT. pretty feet people, we will save you.

    the itching comes...
    --
    Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.

    Microsoft (3.75 / 4) (#80)
    by b1t r0t on Tue Apr 08, 2003 at 10:41:06 AM EST

    microsoft it hurts us precioussss...

    -- Indymedia: the fanfiction.net of journalism.
    [ Parent ]
    Itchy. Tasty. (none / 0) (#167)
    by RainyRat on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 08:04:19 AM EST




    Eagles may soar, but rats seldom get sucked into jet engines.
    [ Parent ]
    +1, hilarious (3.18 / 11) (#78)
    by Filthy Socialist Hippy on Tue Apr 08, 2003 at 10:35:58 AM EST

    Are people still using that commie operating system?  I thought we cleared this up:
    • Terrorists use file sharing to finance their slaying of American babies.
    • lunix (shut up about BSD, they're all the same) supports file sharing.
    • Therefore lunix is only used by terrorists.
    Go ahead and have a debate, but I absolutely guarantee that in three years time, after the long overdue Palladium arrives to save us from foreign terrorist pirates, lunix will only be used by appropriately licensed and closely monitored individuals, and by criminals.

    --
    leftist, you don't love America, you love what America with all its wealth and power can be if you turn it into a socialist state. - thelizman
    Right conclusion, wrongheaded reasoning (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by LordEq on Tue Apr 08, 2003 at 11:10:33 AM EST

    * Therefore lunix is only used by terrorists.

    Of course LUnix is only used by terrorists.  Garage-sale C64's are all those cave-dwellers can afford!

    Proudly feeding trolls since '95!



    --LordEq

    "That's what K5's about. Hippies and narcs cavorting together." --panck
    [ Parent ]
    No need to troll (2.20 / 5) (#84)
    by SleepDirt on Tue Apr 08, 2003 at 10:52:38 AM EST

    Linux is pretty much irrelevant. I'm not sure why anyone would waste their time trying to come up with reasons not to use Linux when really not many people want to, even though it's free and widely available.

    "In a closed society where everybody's guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity." - Hunter S. Thompson
    'On the fly' (4.66 / 3) (#89)
    by schlouse on Tue Apr 08, 2003 at 11:22:07 AM EST

    Another good one: Everything should be able to be switched on the fly. The kernel preemption patch should be able to be turned on and off via a GNOME control panel applet, for example. And the different scheduler implementations and the VM should be able to be similarly configured.

    You could have this particular troll going on so many fronts it's not even funny. After things get going try to turn some of them against each other. Then let me know about it so I can watch from the sidelines...

    Mark S.

    the article itself seems like a perfect troll (4.66 / 3) (#90)
    by sanketh on Tue Apr 08, 2003 at 11:34:11 AM EST

    Looking at the sort of discussion that the article has generated, it looks like a perfect troll itself.

    Me, I like the way the article used the topic of trolling to put forth some plainly opinionated viewpoints. There's this sarcastic guise of trolling throughout but fundamentally it's an article on the author's views of what's new and hot in linux or something to that effect.

    anyway, gr8 article either way. +1 for sure. also, the discussion that it has generated is so comic (look at it, there's the 'why the fuck do you use linux?' kinda question, then the 'why the fuck LFS?' and the other extreme, the pro-linux camp - it's been all over the place) that it can form an article for Humor by itself.


    == Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us.

    Posted yesterday? (1.00 / 2) (#148)
    by steveftoth on Wed Apr 09, 2003 at 12:31:50 PM EST

    I thought this was posted yesterday.  Yawn.  

    The last thing we need to do is teach the trolls anything.  If you want to teach the trolls could you please teach them spelling and grammer first?

    [ Parent ]

    Oh, really? (none / 0) (#211)
    by RadiantMatrix on Wed Apr 16, 2003 at 12:14:56 AM EST

    could you please teach them spelling and grammer first?
    Looks like you could use a spelling and grammar lesson yourself.

    ----------
    I don't like spam - Parent ]

    metatroll ! (none / 0) (#197)
    by maluke on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 05:21:08 AM EST

    dictionary.com/meta

    meta
    /me't*/ or /may't*/ or (Commonwealth) /mee't*/ adj.,pref. [from analytic philosophy] One level of description up. A metasyntactic variable is a variable in notation used to describe syntax, and meta-language is language used to describe language.

    so this was a metatroll!

    [ Parent ]

    3 of my boxes are RedHat 7.2 and they adjusted. (3.00 / 2) (#97)
    by chupacabra on Tue Apr 08, 2003 at 12:50:05 PM EST

    Oh I get it. This never really happened. You are just trolling.

    Too many skeletons in other peoples closets..

    Where did that baby goat go?

    You don't address real issues (4.26 / 19) (#110)
    by Jack Wagner on Tue Apr 08, 2003 at 05:34:47 PM EST

    What you talk about may be issues for your average tech-head but as a consulatant for many Fortune 500 companies I can tell you the real world is very different.

    1) Customers need support for their software, they need to be able to call someone when they are unable to configure their renice values for their X-server, not depend on a bunch of 15 year olds in a Usenet newsgroup. Does Linux come with Linus Torvalds phone number?

    2) Customers need a point and click way to configure their software. I can't expect some little phone secretary to edit her resolv.conf file every time she wants to check her email.

    3) Users need to be able to install software without understanding arcane compiler switches. If they can't click on an install icon then go for some coffee they can't use Linux.

    4) With the anti terrorism zeitgeist in the world right now many people don't want to be invloved with compaies who support socialist beliefs and as most of the Linux coders are socialists this is a big problem in corporate America. You can bash Microsoft and Apple all you want but those are true American companies.

    5) Users need to have software that adheres to industry ISO9000 standards. Like Microsoft Word or Microsoft Exchange server. In the real business world you can't expect them to try to get by with Latex files or impossible to use hex editors when they need to comunicate with their customers.

    As an expert who is down in the trenches, so to speak, those are just a few of the objections I get when I offer up Linux solutions to my clientel. The Linux crowd would do well to address these pressing issues.

    Warmest regards,
    --Jack

    Wagner LLC Consulting - Getting it right the first time

    Uh hello. (4.00 / 4) (#111)
    by tkatchev on Tue Apr 08, 2003 at 05:46:24 PM EST

    Will I be the first to point out that "Fortune 500" in no way relates to the "real world"?

    "Fortune 500" is at this point the last refuge of totalitarian communism besides Kim Jong Il.

    In reality, what is stopping Lunis from gaining acceptance is this:

    1. Support for quality Unicode TTF fonts out of the box.
    2. Support for all charsets, alphabets and keyboard layouts out of the box, *without* editing config files. Like in the latest WinXP.
    3. An MS-DOC reader that actually works and supports Unicode.
    4. 3D acceleration support out of the box.

       -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
    [ Parent ]

    She's watching with ses yeux! (1.00 / 2) (#131)
    by medham on Wed Apr 09, 2003 at 01:49:02 AM EST

    And she's loving him with that body, I just know it.

    The real 'medham' has userid 6831.
    [ Parent ]

    All alphabets? (none / 0) (#180)
    by pin0cchio on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 12:30:48 PM EST

    1. Support for quality Unicode TTF fonts out of the box.

    What problems have you had with fontconfig?

    2. Support for all charsets, alphabets and keyboard layouts out of the box, *without* editing config files. Like in the latest WinXP.

    Where can I find the Esperanto keyboard layout in Windows? Worse yet, where can I get support for an alphabet so obscure that it hasn't yet made it into Unicode? I sure can't get it from Windows.

    3. An MS-DOC reader that actually works and supports Unicode.

    What specific problem have you had with wvWare? Have you reported it to the maintainers?

    4. 3D acceleration support out of the box.

    Does Windows XP come with a driver for your recent 3D card out of the box?
    lj65
    [ Parent ]

    Mandrake.... (none / 0) (#192)
    by VrtlCybr2000 on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 11:44:37 PM EST

    1. Got that!
    2. Got that!
    3. Got that!
    4 Had that, it worked great with my old 3Dfx, with my nVidia I need to d/l the drivers and run them...  er, and I guess I do need to edit one line in my XF86Config file....

    Wow!  I'm such a whore to my OS!  I should switch to WindowsXP!  What?  I have to buy MS Office, download the language kits, and *still* download nVidia drivers????   Fuck that!

    [ Parent ]

    ISO9000 (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by xL on Tue Apr 08, 2003 at 06:05:29 PM EST

    Oh how could I forget this one, the finest of corporate mega-trolls out there? It's ok if you have a failing organization with sub-standard engineering and a hapless support process, as long as you document it you're ok. And there's companies making metric truckloads of money selling other companies on the idea that they need it.

    On a sidenote, the number 500 in "fortune 500" stands for something I think. I think it is a top number of a number oodles greater than that that represents the entire market segment. Catering to the needs of only that top, although admittedly a great way to make money, does not breed a better OS necessarily. Fortune 500 companies have the tendency to demand the features that external consultants like yourself tell them they should demand.

    At the end of the line, a Fortune 500 company is just a Very Big Company. I can't imagine that, as I see the amount of blinded cluelessness increase every step I take up the scale of Big Companies almost exponentially with their size, fortune 500 companies are anything other than politically driven chaos systems of favors, kickbacks, vested interests, neophobia and right out schizophrenia. Like every other company out there, just bigger so there's more of it and it moves more slowly.

    [ Parent ]

    Linux (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by TheOnlyCoolTim on Tue Apr 08, 2003 at 08:21:47 PM EST

    Does Linux have any problems with the Daylight Savings Time switchover? I know my Windows machine handles it perfectly...

    Tim
    "We are trapped in the belly of this horrible machine, and the machine is bleeding to death."
    [ Parent ]

    Gentoo & Debain (none / 0) (#176)
    by nurikochan on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 10:58:17 AM EST

    I have two Gentoo boxes sitting in the room right now:

    • One with the system clock set to follow UTC and then translating to local time. This computer handled things perfectly during the recent daylight savings "jump forward."
    • The other set to local time since it has to dual boot Windows. Linux handled the jump well, but Windows also tried to update the clock when he rebooted into Windows...

    I also used to have a Debian system which handled it well...



    [ Parent ]
    D'oh (none / 0) (#193)
    by TheOnlyCoolTim on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 12:43:52 AM EST

    Look up JACK WAGNER's diary history and you will see why I made that silly comment.

    Tim
    "We are trapped in the belly of this horrible machine, and the machine is bleeding to death."
    [ Parent ]

    No problem (none / 0) (#182)
    by Cro Magnon on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 02:31:18 PM EST

    My Slackware box handled it perfectly.
    Information wants to be beer.
    [ Parent ]
    Socialists ? (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by salsaman on Wed Apr 09, 2003 at 08:13:07 AM EST

    4) With the anti terrorism zeitgeist in the world right now many people don't want to be invloved with compaies who support socialist beliefs and as most of the Linux coders are socialists this is a big problem in corporate America. You can bash Microsoft and Apple all you want but those are true American companies.

    Most Linux coders are socialists ? Do you have any proof of that ? And I fail to see the link between socialism and terrorism. Would you care to explain it to me ?

    [ Parent ]

    Socialists ? (4.50 / 6) (#144)
    by idiot boy on Wed Apr 09, 2003 at 12:10:59 PM EST

    I fail to see the link between socialism and terrorism. Would you care to explain it to me ?

    It's obvious isn't it? Terrorists disagree with George Bush, socialists disagree with George Bush, therefore socialists are necessarily terrorists.

    Doesn't take a genius to work that one out ;).

    --
    Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself
    [ Parent ]

    or believe it... (none / 0) (#163)
    by mikelist on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 06:46:18 AM EST

    ...which is why it will become an axiom.

    [ Parent ]
    Now _that's_ a troll! (5.00 / 4) (#141)
    by dachshund on Wed Apr 09, 2003 at 10:36:10 AM EST

    Sorry it took me so long to get this complement out... I had to format it in Latex and import it into my Lynx browser.

    Now where's that resolv.conf file?

    [ Parent ]

    There is a problem with your website , Jack (none / 0) (#146)
    by Edgy Loner on Wed Apr 09, 2003 at 12:12:43 PM EST

    I wanted to get some contact information. You see I'm also involved with a Fortune 500 consulting firm. It's lead by Ex-King Zog of Albania, maybe you've heard of us Zog Consulting. Anyway what you said made a lot of sense and I wanted to talk with you as I think you could really bring a lot to the Zog team. I just got some domain selling outfit's page. Probably a Linux issue. Get back to me and we can talk. Ciao.

    This is not my beautiful house.
    This is not my beautiful knife.
    [ Parent ]
    <b>Fantastic!</b> (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by ScheissGeyser on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 09:51:30 AM EST

    I've browsed for a long time, and never been moved to comment before now, but that was a superb troll. Congratulations, Mr. Wagner...
    Joining in is fun. I like fun.
    [ Parent ]
    Red Hat support contract (none / 0) (#179)
    by pin0cchio on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 12:28:33 PM EST

    Does Linux come with Linus Torvalds phone number?

    No, but a Red Hat Linux support contract does come with Red Hat's phone number.

    Customers need a point and click way to configure their software.

    I thought Red Hat Linux already had GUI configuration for most common aspects of home or office use.

    Users need to be able to install software without understanding arcane compiler switches. If they can't click on an install icon then go for some coffee they can't use Linux.

    I haven't used Red Hat in a while (trapped behind windows), but I wouldn't be surprised if it's any harder than right-clicking the .rpm file and choosing "Install". And even for source tarballs, I've rarely had much of a problem with just untarring it and then ./configure && make && su -c make install


    lj65
    [ Parent ]
    Lost touch with the intent (5.00 / 1) (#209)
    by Gregor Samsa on Mon Apr 14, 2003 at 12:20:02 PM EST

    I have tried for years to use any number of Linux distros on a desktop. I have been inevitably frustrated at some stage of the game. So frustrated that I was forced back to MS. I then realized what the problem was. Linux was/is created by people who handle the technical side of things. It is very good at that. My first choice for server applications. Putting together sales presentations on the run or writing letters to clients...I'm sorry, it doesn't cut the mustard. I know there are applications but who can use them without extensive training? Ease of use is rock bottom for most workers in non-IT fields. Accounting doesn't ask you to produce a financial statement, why should they be forced to learn command line jargon to get software on their machines? There is no perfect software. Some systems are better than others for certain applications. Let's admit it and move on. Being a Windows, Linux, KDE, Gnome, etc zealot is silly!

    [ Parent ]
    A 'professional' ought to know better (none / 0) (#186)
    by woobieman29 on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 05:00:11 PM EST

    Hey Jack, I certainly appreciate your views on these issues, but you really need to get current on the state of affairs before posting something this inaccurate. For the record, I am also a professional in this field, and savvy enough to know that there is no single tool that works in every situation. Microsoft works wonderfully in some situations, Linux works better in many others. Here are some more up-to-date views on the topics that you brought up:

    1) Customers need support for their software, they need to be able to call someone when they are unable to configure their renice values for their X-server, not depend on a bunch of 15 year olds in a Usenet newsgroup. Does Linux come with Linus Torvalds phone number?

    Sounds like the best distribution in this instance would be to use Red Hat Linux Jack. They have a fabulous support organization that in my experience is head and shoulders above Microsoft's. No you can't have Linus' phone number, but last time I checked a copy of Windows doesn't come with Bill Gates' or Steve Ballmers either.

    2) Customers need a point and click way to configure their software. I can't expect some little phone secretary to edit her resolv.conf file every time she wants to check her email.

    Sorry Jack, but with any Distribution that uses either the Debian apt-get package system or something similar like urpmi in Mandrake software installation and configuration is now easier on Linux than Windows. I recommend that you take an older computer and install Mandrake 9.1 on it to see how easy system administration can really be. If my 68 year old computer phobic mother can do it, anyone can.

    3) Users need to be able to install software without understanding arcane compiler switches. If they can't click on an install icon then go for some coffee they can't use Linux.

    See my comment above. With a modern version of any of the desktop oriented distributions (mainly Red Hat and Mandrake, plus others I haven't tried) You can use a point and click interface to install and configure new software directly over your internet connection - and you don't have to reboot to start using it either.

    4) With the anti terrorism zeitgeist in the world right now many people don't want to be invloved with compaies who support socialist beliefs and as most of the Linux coders are socialists this is a big problem in corporate America. You can bash Microsoft and Apple all you want but those are true American companies.

    Uhhhh... You forgot to mention who these 'Socialist Companies' are? IBM? Sun?? Red Hat?? Please expand on this, as otherwise it looks like perhaps you are ill-informed. Yes, Linux has been developed in large part by a diverse group of developers from around the world, but all of these people devote thier own time either voluntarily, or for pay in the case of people working for companies like Red Hat, Mandrake, IBM, Sun...etc. I for one am very much a democratic capitalist and Linux has served me well.

    5) Users need to have software that adheres to industry ISO9000 standards. Like Microsoft Word or Microsoft Exchange server. In the real business world you can't expect them to try to get by with Latex files or impossible to use hex editors when they need to comunicate with their customers.

    Perhaps there are people that need to use MS Word and Exchange, and for them Windows will likely be a fitting choice on the desktop. But once again you are behind the times as far as Linux is concerned. If you need to connect to an Exchange server (instead of using the true standards, such as IMAP, POP and SMTP) you can do so with Linux using the Ximian connector for the Evolution mail client. There are several professional quality word processors, probably most interesting to you would be the OpenOffice suite of tools that let you work seamlessly with native MS Office files.

    If these truly are the 'expert' views that you offer up to your clientel Jack, you are doing them a disservice if you do not update your knowledge to current levels. I mean absolutely no offense by this statement Jack, I just feel that as a professional in this industry you owe it to yourself and your customers to be better informed.

    Regards, Michael

    [ Parent ]

    It wouldn't be complete with a (4.50 / 6) (#121)
    by TerranceDaktill on Tue Apr 08, 2003 at 07:38:24 PM EST

    BSD troll. BSD is the superior OS. Linux users hate Microsoft, BSD users love Unix.

    (Not that I believe the above but a discussion board without that crap seems somewhat incomplete).

    Old Windoze advert trolled.. (none / 0) (#196)
    by martin on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 05:00:42 AM EST

    MS-Windows Advert (you may remember it..)
    Where do you want to go tomorrow.

    GNU/Linux version
    Where do you want to go today.

    *BSD version
    You guys coming or what?

    [ Parent ]

    Where do you want to go today? (none / 0) (#212)
    by RadiantMatrix on Wed Apr 16, 2003 at 12:29:15 AM EST

    I believe that statement is the MS Ad. My favorite responses are:
    • To a pub!
    • Um, outside?
    • Anywhere to spend the $200 I saved by not buying Windows.

    ----------
    I don't like spam - Parent ]

    Oh, go on (4.00 / 4) (#122)
    by TerranceDaktill on Tue Apr 08, 2003 at 07:41:12 PM EST



    Required Linux Changes (4.66 / 9) (#126)
    by gdanjo on Tue Apr 08, 2003 at 09:11:37 PM EST

    I too have a list of changes required:

    • Change the default windows browser. Both KDE and Gnome don't browse Windows very well.
    • Change the device driver structure. The old one is not self-assembling.
    • Change the scheduler. I'm tired of waiting O(1) seconds, I hear windows is O(0.95).
    • Unify endianness. By forcing x86 boxes to be big-endian, we can expose all endian related bugs.
    • Change the stack direction. Stacks should go up not friggin down!
    • Unify all libraries. I want lib-a to lib-z and that's it!
    • Change the resource allocation strategy. I have a new algorithm called "5hok & Ore" which guarantees a successful resource request (currently in Alpha testing).
    • Change the mouse pointer behaviour. I sometimes click on X when I meant to click on O, what's that all about? You a friggin programmer or what?!
    • ...
    • Profit!

    Dan ...
    "Death - oh! fair and `guiling copesmate Death!
    Be not a malais'd beggar; claim this bloody jester!"
    -ToT

    I like that resource allocation strategy (none / 0) (#139)
    by porkchop_d_clown on Wed Apr 09, 2003 at 07:44:27 AM EST

    That's what I do at dinner...


    --
    Note that the depiction of the president as a deranged or Nazi paranoid is coming mostly from people who constantly tell us how passionately they
    [ Parent ]

    my dinner strategy (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by gdanjo on Wed Apr 09, 2003 at 09:38:05 PM EST

    We have large dinner plates at my mum's place so my strategy is "Stock and Gorge".

    My weapons are a standard issue butter knife (round-edged with plastic handle) and a "4 pronged cluster knife" (fork).

    Note that these are for home-plate defense only. I use my fingers to eat.

    Dan ...
    "Death - oh! fair and `guiling copesmate Death!
    Be not a malais'd beggar; claim this bloody jester!"
    -ToT
    [ Parent ]

    Sorry. (4.66 / 6) (#127)
    by Hired Goons on Tue Apr 08, 2003 at 09:20:09 PM EST

    We can't dump GNOME now, since Sun has officially made it the official UNIX GUI by adding it to Solaris 9.
    You calling that feature a bug? THWAK
    Linux (2.80 / 5) (#132)
    by medham on Wed Apr 09, 2003 at 01:51:57 AM EST

    Doesn't display the vertical integration of the Windows devices--in fact, one could claim that its process is decidedly post-partum, echt.

    Far-off, most secret, and inviolate Rose of Windows/Thee I adore!

    The real 'medham' has userid 6831.

    I don't care... (2.66 / 3) (#160)
    by tang gnat on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 01:35:00 AM EST

    I don't care if you people like this story. It's not the kind of thing that should be posted.

    Then what should? (5.00 / 2) (#206)
    by glor on Sat Apr 12, 2003 at 09:16:45 AM EST

    So you say that K5 should not post articles that its readers like, but post instead articles that reflect well on its readership?

    --
    Disclaimer: I am not the most intelligent kuron.
    [ Parent ]

    Unaware of the nature of free software (none / 0) (#164)
    by pelliott on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 07:15:02 AM EST

    The author seems blissfully unaware that no person or organization has the power to enforce any of his prescriptions. If the leader of a free software project makes changes that large number of developers do not like, then the project will fork. The branch with the changes will be successful only if large number of users like the changes. Even if the modified branch is successful, the conservative branch may continue to exist as long as there are users that use it and developers willing to maintain it. No one can dictate the direction free software will take on the basis of their "bright ideas" or prejudices. Successful project leaders are well aware of this and are careful to lead only in a direction that the people are willing to go. Thus the direction of free software is determined by the informed experience of a large number of people. Call it Freedom or Anarchy, people with bright ideas about what software should be "dumped" or what radical bright ideas should be implemented do not have quite the influence that they think they should have.
    ---- There is no Religion Higher than Truth.
    Wrong thread? (none / 0) (#205)
    by GuruWannabe on Sat Apr 12, 2003 at 08:27:49 AM EST

    I thought this was a thread on how to more effectively troll Linux zealots. Did we somehow transition over to serious suggestions about how to "improve" Linux by making it more like Windows?

    [ Parent ]
    linux is good, but so are games. (4.50 / 2) (#175)
    by ibbie on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 10:41:39 AM EST

    hey, i have a hard time not liking a system which features an error message along the lines of

    you do not exist. go away.

    however, i've found that if you want to hit die hards where it hurts, go for broke: mention linux's horrible selection of games. yes, it does have a few keen games (unreal tournament, quake 3, duke nukem forever, and neverwinter nights is in beta test), but that's not a drop in the bucket to a dedicated everquest junkie like myself. the fact that it's being ported to OS X now (it's being beta tested at the moment) will probably get me to make "the switch", when nothing else could have.

    linux is fun, linux is a dream to develop on, and for the games it does natively support, it's beautiful. however, the selection is not quite there yet, folks. you can yell "soon!" all you like, but until "soon!" becomes "now!", i can't rm -rf /mnt/win2k.

    --
    george washington not only chopped down his father's cherry tree, but he also admitted doing it. now, do you know why his father didn't punish him? because george still had the axe in his hand.
    Agreed (none / 0) (#178)
    by Mr.Surly on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 11:47:05 AM EST

    I use linux at work and at home, and the _only_reason I still boot Windows (and rarely at that) is to play a Half-Life mod.  I've been tinkering with Wine with limited success, but most of my 'doze games will run in Linux now.

    Additionally, I bought Tuxracer commercial, and UT2003 looks good.

    Oh, and I run Linux primarily because I do a lot of development

    [ Parent ]

    Actually, I think that's a general UNIX message... (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by geesquared on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 02:24:03 PM EST

    hey, i have a hard time not liking a system which features an error message along the lines of
    you do not exist. go away.

    Actually I got that back in the day on my school's BSD-based mainframe. I also got the error message:

    I don't exist. I'm confused.

    Pretty darn philosophical Something akin to "I don't think, therefore I'm not" I think. Computers are the anti-Descartes.

    Games are a pretty important part of computing, to be sure. I own a bunch of Linux games, mostly from dearly departed Loki (which, amongst the overly-trolled Linux company flameout stories is a real doosy). I got Unreal Tournament to run for a while, too.

    Eventually, I moved back to Windows... even swallowed my pride and bought XP, because I got tired of dual booting Windows 2000 and 98. It's important to be able to vent the pent up frustration that arise when using product by certain manufacturers via a little virtual carnage now and again.

    I still keep Linux partition up for goofing around, and run it on my server, though.



    [ Parent ]
    Everquest (none / 0) (#183)
    by Znork on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 03:58:55 PM EST

    Actually, Everquest works nicely on Linux with Transgamings WineX, and has for quite some while.

    [ Parent ]
    Linus has so many problems (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by Sloppy on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 04:24:02 PM EST

    For starters, will someone please think of the children?!? The mascot is totally inappropriate. That penguin is bloated from overeating too much herring. This is not a good example to set for our obese kids.

    Linus' TCP/IP stack is nonstandard. All the other OSes copy theirs from BDSM, because it's the standard.

    Linus' license imposes conditions on you, so it is not truly free software.

    It's bad for the economy to not spend money on your OS. Trying to recreate the Soviet collapse, are we?

    It's not a Microkernel, so you can't load drivers on the fly. That's why Linus got an F in his online OS class, and got chewed out by his teacher on Usenet in front of everybody, totally disgraced.

    The Netcraft survey. Need I say more?
    "RSA, 2048, seeks sexy young entropic lover, for several clock cycles of prime passion..."

    RE: Linus ... (none / 0) (#189)
    by runlevel0 on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 06:08:14 PM EST

    Hey, I agree with point #1, Tux sux really.
    This penguin is annoying.
    It's high time for a new logo !!1!!


    [ Parent ]
    I suggest (none / 0) (#199)
    by X3nocide on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 11:14:24 AM EST

    Giving him a workout and a rocket launcher. Hey, it worked for Toonami!

    pwnguin.net
    [ Parent ]
    Dumbass. (1.00 / 2) (#207)
    by tkatchev on Sun Apr 13, 2003 at 12:20:03 PM EST

    Sit down, you get a D-.

    Please try again; but this time, at least try to rise above the intellectual level of a baboon.

       -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
    [ Parent ]

    i'm surprised... (5.00 / 2) (#187)
    by damballah on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 05:20:14 PM EST

    that nobody hasn't caught the communist connection regarding red hat . what do u guys need? a picture of a star like the one found in the chinese flag? Coincidences? things taken out of context? i think not, my friend.

    goddamn bolsheviks are taking over our faltering economy.

    *******************************************
    " I apologize for this long comment. I didn't have the time to make it any shorter. " - Blaise Pascal

    " zombie accounts promote an unhealthy interest in the occult among our younger readers. " -

    I did (none / 0) (#188)
    by runlevel0 on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 06:05:16 PM EST

    Sure, so I got straight to google and sought for a Red Flag Linux distro to download
    (Hey it's not a joke, it does *really* exist)

    [ Parent ]
    Alsa interface (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by drquick on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 08:54:04 AM EST

    The alsa sound driver has a native interface that accepts multiple sound sources. Strangely arts and esd programmers haven't realised that.

    Slight problem (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by regeya on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 10:52:38 PM EST

    ALSA is the Advanced Linux Sound Architecture. GNOME and KDE are both aimed at things that, yes, are Linux, and yet, Not Linux. Not everyone is jumping to include ALSA support. In fact, you could say that the ALSA people don't give a flying fuck whether or not their drivers are used in anything other than Linux.

    [ yokelpunk | kuro5hin diary ]
    [ Parent ]

    Network transparency (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by DrEvil on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 11:14:14 PM EST

    arts and esd serve another role that steams beyond mixing the audio from multiple applications. And that role is network audio: Export an application over X and now your audio can come too.

    [ Parent ]
    Linux-Trolling-In-2003 HOWTO | 212 comments (155 topical, 57 editorial, 0 hidden)
    Display: Sort:

    kuro5hin.org

    [XML]
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
    See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
    Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
    Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
    My heart's the long stairs.

    Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!