Novell Desktop Linux 10: getting closer to a toss up between Linux & Windows?

On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 18:13:39 GMT,
(The little lost angel) wrote:

On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 20:01:49 -0500, George Macdonald
wrote:

I've heard people describe Windows menuing interface as intuitive - what
utter tripe!... consistent *can* be its strength if programmers don't
wander too far. While I think we're all aware of the strengths of a CLI,
any suggestion of going without a GUI would be absurd - Jan's GUI avoidance
is err, perverted.:-)

The strange thing is GUIs are aplenty on his screenshots....

I'm impressed.Ô_ó

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

George Macdonald wrote in part:
But it sounds to me like Jan is trying to "sell" a vertical
solution to end users - most people can't cope with anything
more than a browser.

Agreed. I believe that people should choose their own tools.
Only they know enough to decide for themselves. But I also
believe that all alternatives should be presented.

I don't think I could go "back" to something like `links`
- sounds like wearing a hair shirt to me.:-)

Of course there's no disputing taste. But I have my choice
of browsers, and I almost always prefer `links` (I migrated
from lynx a few years ago). Pages load quicker, without
distracting backgrounds, fonts, photographs/ads.


On the subject of M$ dependency, I came across this last night:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...021200942.html
$22Billion and this is what they came up with! I can't

There's a correction on the top of the page, that's 22
_million_ devcost. Still, your point is well taken.
It's at least a 220 jobyear effort.

see any mention of what the actual dependency is -- ActiveX
maybe? -- but it's odd that they only mention Mac users as
those who are excluded.

They probably don't have data for Linux. It could be ActiveX
or some binary applet that gets dropped. It might be a simple IE
dependancy. I think MS-IE for Mac has been on-again, off-again.

In any case, I think it's appalling. That project spec should
have had target platforms that would include the Mac, Suns
and non-IE browsers. Especially since AFAIK the NIST still
considers MS-IE insecure and recommends alternatives be used.

-- Robert

On a sunny day (Thu, 16 Feb 2006 06:16:48 -0500) it happened George Macdonald
wrote in
:

On the subject of M$ dependency, I came across this last night:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...021200942.html
$22Billion and this is what they came up with! I can't see any mention of
what the actual dependency is -- ActiveX maybe? -- but it's odd that they
only mention Mac users as those who are excluded.

Well look at it the bright way, by not having MS and not 400 Billion in grants
you save 500 Billion on MS software.
Where do you think the gov gets the 400B from anyways ;-)

(MS sells for 4G $, taxes .4G$ and YOU pay for the 4G$ by buying all those
E M P E R O R no clothes apps).

And, as the subject is the new Novell desktop, at least SOME will agree with
me that THIS:
http://www.novell.com/linux/xglrelease/
does not add a lot to 'functionality'.
Indeed it is just a waterhead on the same box with the same apps.

As for the ftp server (your other reply), yes I understand a bit the stress
you poor MS victims must be under, now that every website, every movie, every
email, and every link can take over your box and destroy years of work.
My condolences....
Now with 4 years and servers online and a LOT of usage not ONE external 'event'
did anything to my Linux box.
I read emails, download files, open attachments, and have a good firewall
(iptables).

As to the ftp server, I notice the old kernel and system worked (!!!) and this
one does not.
Only from inet.d it does not work, so now it (proftpd) runs standalone.
Tested from the US.
So, yes, MS soft makes one paranoia, it helps to sell anti-virus soft.
Just like Bush makes the world paranoia for Iran, that helps to put oil
prices higher and sell weapons.
Paranoia sells, if not only for tinfoil hats.

You have been had (not only with that GUI when he cut DRDOS 6 away from
under Windows).

On a sunny day (Thu, 16 Feb 2006 14:29:06 GMT) it happened Robert Redelmeier
wrote in
:

George Macdonald wrote in part:
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 12:49:38 GMT, Jan Panteltje
Yes make fun of it, I put some desktop shots here,
as ftp seems to have been censored in the US ;-)

Censored? I don't think so - you just don't know how to do
it apparently.

I agree Jan's ftpd looked very misconfigured. I tried it
from three different machines, one in Europe.

If you were expecting people to run an FTP to download *your*
files, which could be infections for all we know, and then
run them through a viewer program you're as daft as a brush.

I disagree. I fully expect something as simple as a viewer
to be free of exploits, if not entirely bug-free. I won't
blame data for malevolence. Users have responsibilities too.

As for the content, I still don't know what you're trying to
present he so you have a few graphical interface progs
which run under X. So bloody what? You think we've never
seen an X application before?

Agreed. I wasn't sure what the point was, other than it seemed
Jan had a borderless shell running, and X apps pasted overtop
(perhaps without stealing focus?).

Yes focus follows mouse (always, no click).
The point is the 6 virtual screens (pager on top right), one with
icons for when you need to click (netscape is easier to click for some
reason, actually it is firefox), one with whatever text files (C sources
manuals, config files, log files) that you are working on AT THAT
MOMENT (and I have many times ALL of these files open), not cluttered
in idiotic Billy little windows overlapping, but each in a nice rxvt, in ONE
virtual screen.
So much easier, and some GUI apps in their own virtual screen.
Even worked with MS Visual studio to create a C++ program?
Man what a nuissance

Just run gcc in one rxvt and have the sources in the other etc, and
you only need half the size monitor.

MS windows with ever smaller windows in windows is just so stupid...
you will need glasses and a mouse movent stabilizer ...

I agree completely, MS sort of assumes users are idiots.
That is why we here say 'written by idiots for idiots' about MS soft.
Here kids from 8 years up who can just spell LOVE xterms.
They WANT power of the PC.
MS degrades people to dumb ones who cannot write or speak, and only
point at things.. now think of the age group....

To learn to drive a car you need a license, maybe it would be not such
a bad idea to give some basic training in those Unix commands at the
schools, not just in Apple GUIs.
Because the younger they learn the better the chance they will be able
to play the game later on.

When old and blind and mute they can always refer back to the eye or nose driven
point and click to say:" 'I am happy' 'I am not'.

Efficient? I would like to see that astronomical number representing the
number of hours people spend flipping in front of the MS box 're-installing' that OS.
To do WHAT? torture them again !!!!
hehe

On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 14:29:06 GMT, Robert Redelmeier
wrote:

George Macdonald wrote in part:
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 12:49:38 GMT, Jan Panteltje
Yes make fun of it, I put some desktop shots here,
as ftp seems to have been censored in the US ;-)

Censored? I don't think so - you just don't know how to do
it apparently.

I agree Jan's ftpd looked very misconfigured. I tried it
from three different machines, one in Europe.

If you were expecting people to run an FTP to download *your*
files, which could be infections for all we know, and then
run them through a viewer program you're as daft as a brush.

I disagree. I fully expect something as simple as a viewer
to be free of exploits, if not entirely bug-free. I won't
blame data for malevolence. Users have responsibilities too.

I think you've lived with the "luxury" of being M$-free at home for too
long Robert.:-) As for responsibilities, yes... but we've all been caught
at one time or another - zero-day is what it is.;-)

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 14:21:09 GMT, Robert Redelmeier
wrote:

George Macdonald wrote in part:
But it sounds to me like Jan is trying to "sell" a vertical
solution to end users - most people can't cope with anything
more than a browser.

Agreed. I believe that people should choose their own tools.
Only they know enough to decide for themselves. But I also
believe that all alternatives should be presented.

I don't think I could go "back" to something like `links`
- sounds like wearing a hair shirt to me.:-)

Of course there's no disputing taste. But I have my choice
of browsers, and I almost always prefer `links` (I migrated
from lynx a few years ago). Pages load quicker, without
distracting backgrounds, fonts, photographs/ads.

I've been surprised/stunned by the uptake of the graphical browser as a
sort of universal interface to just about any application you want. Corps
love it: low training/edu cost; IT takes back control, of computing
resource *and* data... and over WAN, not just local. When application
server was first talked of I poo-poo'd it but the interest/enthusiasm I'm
seeing is causing me to rethink.


On the subject of M$ dependency, I came across this last night:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...021200942.html
$22Billion and this is what they came up with! I can't

There's a correction on the top of the page, that's 22
_million_ devcost. Still, your point is well taken.
It's at least a 220 jobyear effort.

see any mention of what the actual dependency is -- ActiveX
maybe? -- but it's odd that they only mention Mac users as
those who are excluded.

They probably don't have data for Linux. It could be ActiveX
or some binary applet that gets dropped. It might be a simple IE
dependancy. I think MS-IE for Mac has been on-again, off-again.

In any case, I think it's appalling. That project spec should
have had target platforms that would include the Mac, Suns
and non-IE browsers. Especially since AFAIK the NIST still
considers MS-IE insecure and recommends alternatives be used.

Based on my comments above on potential browser ubiquity, this situation
needs to be fixed *badly* and *quickly* - I mean the mechanisms and their
standardization not just this one example. I see there's a project,
already available in Beta, for an ActiveX plugin for
Mozilla/Firefox/Seamonkey but while maybe useful... wrong end of the horse
IMO.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

George Macdonald wrote in part:
I think you've lived with the "luxury" of being M$-free
at home for too long Robert.:-)

Well, what can I say

As for responsibilities, yes... but we've all been caught
at one time or another - zero-day is what it is.;-)

Not sure what you're saying. I've never "caught" anything.
Not even on my poxy work MS-Win2k box. It's locked down pretty
tight, autoadmin'd, and useless for anything except MS-Office.
Like I said, basically useless. I do real work on a Sun.

Alot like 20 years ago when I had a 3278 for PROFS, and
a PC for real work. Ah, PROFS. Now _that_ was a _real_
mail system. Push, not store-and-fwd.

-- Robert

On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 01:57:50 GMT, Robert Redelmeier
wrote:

George Macdonald wrote in part:
I think you've lived with the "luxury" of being M$-free
at home for too long Robert.:-)

Well, what can I say

As for responsibilities, yes... but we've all been caught
at one time or another - zero-day is what it is.;-)

Not sure what you're saying. I've never "caught" anything.
Not even on my poxy work MS-Win2k box. It's locked down pretty
tight, autoadmin'd, and useless for anything except MS-Office.
Like I said, basically useless. I do real work on a Sun.

Well I'll err confess to getting caught a couple of times:
laziness/ignorance on virus defns update, trusting others too much,
ignorance of ports for blocking as well as zero-day. I still remember my
first virus umm, vividly - Indonesia Emas and I was its first report to
Symantec... got it off a floppy which had just come off a client's
laptop.:-(

Alot like 20 years ago when I had a 3278 for PROFS, and
a PC for real work. Ah, PROFS. Now _that_ was a _real_
mail system. Push, not store-and-fwd.

I hated that stuff - we were in minis at the time.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 18:55:20 GMT, Jan Panteltje
wrote:

On a sunny day (Thu, 16 Feb 2006 06:16:48 -0500) it happened George Macdonald
wrote in
:

On the subject of M$ dependency, I came across this last night:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...021200942.html
$22Billion and this is what they came up with! I can't see any mention of
what the actual dependency is -- ActiveX maybe? -- but it's odd that they
only mention Mac users as those who are excluded.

Well look at it the bright way, by not having MS and not 400 Billion in grants
you save 500 Billion on MS software.
Where do you think the gov gets the 400B from anyways ;-)

(MS sells for 4G $, taxes .4G$ and YOU pay for the 4G$ by buying all those
E M P E R O R no clothes apps).

I'm afraid the above is much too cryptic for me - might help if you
proof-read your posts instead of shooting from the hip. I've no more love
of M$ than you but this is the world we live in - ignoring M$, their
interface to apps and file formats is like farting against thunder.

And, as the subject is the new Novell desktop, at least SOME will agree with
me that THIS:
http://www.novell.com/linux/xglrelease/
does not add a lot to 'functionality'.
Indeed it is just a waterhead on the same box with the same apps.

It's what users like. Tell the bankruptcy court: "people don't need GUIs".

As for the ftp server (your other reply), yes I understand a bit the stress
you poor MS victims must be under, now that every website, every movie, every
email, and every link can take over your box and destroy years of work.
My condolences....
Now with 4 years and servers online and a LOT of usage not ONE external 'event'
did anything to my Linux box.
I read emails, download files, open attachments, and have a good firewall
(iptables).

You really think Unix/Linux is safer than Windows? It's only a smaller
target. When... *if* it grows up... look out!

As to the ftp server, I notice the old kernel and system worked (!!!) and this
one does not.
Only from inet.d it does not work, so now it (proftpd) runs standalone.
Tested from the US.
So, yes, MS soft makes one paranoia, it helps to sell anti-virus soft.
Just like Bush makes the world paranoia for Iran, that helps to put oil
prices higher and sell weapons.
Paranoia sells, if not only for tinfoil hats.

Save the political crap... oh and do tell why Dutch emigration applications
are skyrocketing?

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

George Macdonald wrote in part:
You really think Unix/Linux is safer than Windows? It's only
a smaller target. When... *if* it grows up... look out!

I can't speak for Jan, but I truly believe Unix/Linux in intrinsicly safer:

1) Open source code ensures continual review. "With enough
eyeballs, all bugs are shallow" [Linus]. Some [OpenBSD]
have been through rigorous line-by-line. Obscurity (closed
source) is not security.

2) Designed and built as multi-user, multi-process assuming hostility.
Users have been beating on root since dirt was new.

3) Very few vendor drivers.

4) Wider variety of apps. More targets. None with as negligent defaults as MS.

5) Running as unpriv user is normal.


There probably are more. But it boils down into two camps:
A) fewer bugs; B) working privilege isolation.

Save the political crap... oh and do tell why Dutch
emigration applications are skyrocketing?

And this after 200+ years of the risk-tolerant
leaving and stratifying the genertic base.


-- Robert