Text 13551, 84 rader
Skriven 2014-03-31 16:59:46 av Nicholas Boel (1:154/701)
  Kommentar till text 13439 av Björn Felten (2:203/2)
Ärende: Support for XP terminating
==================================
Hello Björn,

On 31 Mar 14 06:09, Björn Felten wrote to Nicholas Boel:

 NB>> Is it possible linux applications don't (and never) wanted that
 NB>> GUI approach to configure an application?

 BF>    Of course it is. I have used linux from the very beginning (in the
 BF> mid 1990s -- as a Swede I was proud that a neighbour from Finland
 BF> could make such an amazing product)) and all the times I was told that
 BF> if you don't understand it get the fuck off and go back to your damn
 BF> Windows.

Heh. In the past 10+ years I've been using it, I've never been told that, but I
suppose there are some out there that would probably say things like that.

 NB>> There are plenty of linux applications that have a GUI config
 NB>> program.

 BF>    That's the problem. Plenty. They all have different approaches to
 BF> it.

That's kind of the point of linux and the "freedom of choice." Then again, if
that one piece of software isn't to your liking, there's most likely other
applications to choose from that do the job as well. Pick and choose till you
find one you like.

 NB>> Most of those were built for a GUI, though. Most command line
 NB>> utilities were never made for a GUI, therefore the need of a
 NB>> config file is present. I've always thought that was pretty easy
 NB>> to understand. *shrug*

 BF>    Shrug away as much as you like, but most people don't like the
 BF> concept of a very special config file that you don't know where to
 BF> find or what format the program requires. The program knows it, so
 BF> it's easy to let it do the work for you, but the hard-core linux
 BF> developers obviously think that if you want to use their program you'd
 BF> fucking better read the MAN and learn how to config it.

I've grown accustomed to (and now actually prefer it) reading man pages and
editing config files. It's definitely up to the user to decide. Then again, you
can "get the fuck off and go back to your damn Windows," too. :)

 NB>> Examples please?

 BF>    Seriously? Have you never tried to e.g. change the standard
 BF> WORKGROUP workgroup setting in Samba without knowing how to edit the
 BF> text file? Or change the default (seriously corrupt) DNS settings from
 BF> what you get with DHCP from your ISP to the much better 8.8.8.8 and
 BF> 8.8.4.4?

Something like that would most likely be in /etc/smb.conf or
/etc/samba/smb.conf depending on what distrobution you're using. From what I
remember, the workgroup setting is usually one of the first settings in that
configuration file.

As for the default DNS settings, those can be changed in /etc/dhcpcd.conf, or
/etc/hosts, for aliases-to-address mappings.

The thing is, I didn't know any of that when I started out. I didn't need to.
Most distros do the work for you, unless you need to change something to be
system specific. When that happens, that's when you begin to learn what needs
to be done to make things work.

Having used DOS and Windows 3.11 for Workgroups in my starting days, and moving
on to Win95, 98, 2000, XP, Vista, and 7, it took me quite awhile to learn
linux, as it is quite different. The interest to learn it has to be there,
though, in order to continue making progress.

 NB>> I'm not sure I see what you mean

 BF>    That much I understand. I get that a lot from the linux people. So
 BF> unfortunate -- it wouldn't take much to get Ubuntu overtake the entire
 BF> Windows world if only they could overcome their Windowfobia.

You have to be patient and willing to learn, is really all the advice I can
give. If you jump in assuming and expecting everything to be exactly like
Windows, you will be severely disappointed.

Regards,
Nick

--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20130910
 * Origin: Dark Sorrow | darksorrow.us (1:154/701)