Re: OT: my new PC rocks!!
From: Beth (BethStone21_at_hotmail.NOSPICEDHAM.com)
Date: 01/01/04
- Next message: Ed Beroset: "Re: OT: my new PC rocks!!"
- Previous message: Beth: "Re: OT: my new PC rocks!!"
- Maybe in reply to: Beth: "Re: OT: my new PC rocks!!"
- Next in thread: Herbert Kleebauer: "Re: OT: my new PC rocks!!"
- Reply: Herbert Kleebauer: "Re: OT: my new PC rocks!!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 15:16:08 -0000
Ed Beroset wrote:
> If you can't be bothered to read the documentation *before*
> installation,
Well, there's wrong presumption #1: I always read documentation and
"read me" files...I am here today, in fact, _specifically_ because I
read manuals...it was because I read a "how to write computer games"
book that I was able to save the day when my father forgot to bring
back a tape player for a ZX81 that was the first time I touched a
computer...it was because I _did_ read the "Commodore 64 user
manual" - which, in those days, actually did contain whole chapters on
how to program things like sprites and sounds in BASIC (an amazing
little manual, as anyone who followed it will probably back me up
on...only one chapter bothers with the "plug this in here" bits - the
stuff you _only_ get in user manuals these days - and the rest was a
pretty fun introduction to programming with example code
:)...blah-blah-blah...
I'm about to reply to someone else here who asked "How did you know
that LIB is merely LINK renamed?"...nope, not psychic ability...Hutch
_does_ completely explain all about this stuff in the supplied text
files...all you have to do is "RTFM" and every MASM32 user should
strictly knows this without me mentioning it to them because, "of
course", they've all read the "read me" files first...I _did_ that
(well, okay, more a case of "read and use simultaneously", I
suppose...I didn't read everything before starting but read _some_,
tried out what it was talking about, read some more and that sort of
thing...that's the closest I usually get to not reading the fine
manual and being impatient ;)...now, hands up who else had actually
done that? Now, be honest...yup, as I thought, a vast ocean of NO
hands being raised in the air ;)...
In fact, when I get one of those "flat pack furniture" things, I
always read the instructions and make sure I completely know what to
do before I attempt anything...
It does happen sometimes but it's a _rare_ occasion where I march on
in without first reading the supplied documentation...I _always_
"RTFM"...I'm a woman and don't find asking someone for directions or
reading a manual for information to be in any way some "evil affront
to my ego and pride"...oh, I know examples of plenty of men who think
like that (one reason why I'm almost "religious" in reading
documentation before proceeding; My little brother bought himself one
of those fancy hi-fi systems - costing quite a bit of money - and was
so impatient and eager, he switched it on...oh dear, no wonder it
didn't work, he'd forgot to put the speakers in...right, plug them
in...oh, it still isn't working...so, he comes to tell me what's wrong
and can I help...of course, I go straight to the "installation"
instructions as the very first thing I do...and there, on page 2, in
BIG red letters: "DO NOT POWER THE SYSTEM UP WITHOUT THE SPEAKERS
CONNECTED, AS THIS MAY CAUSE PERMANENT DAMAGE"...granted, that's a
pretty dumb design...but due to nothing more than a minute's
impatience at most, my little brother now had to pack it all back up,
send it back with a grovelling "please can you send another one" and
then, weeks later, they did send him a replacement...and he's actually
_very lucky_ there because, technically, as he caused the damage then
they weren't really obligated to replace it at all...I think the
company also thought "that's an incredibly dumb design" and felt pity
or they had so many complaints about this bizarre "design decision"
that it was policy to replace them all,lest get a bad name for
shipping out such dumb equipment and refusing to replace it...anyway,
I know from this _exactly_ what it can cost not to _read first_ before
proceeding...my brother certainly lost weeks of his time for a minute
or so's impatience and it was quite possible that they could have
refused the replacement and his impatience could easily have cost him
over a grand (that's £1,000) of his money too if they'd refused...I
remember this incident well because, understandably, my brother had
been quite upset by the whole thing...but, then again, he did bring it
on himself by not reading the manual first - and I'd advise that, if
you read nothing else, always at least glance at the first few pages
where they have the BIG RED LETTER warnings about not doing
such-and-such - and, well, I couldn't do anything about it...he'd
broken it before I'd even seen the thing for the first time
;)...indeed, we are from Venus on this topic, whereas men are from
Mars...
There isn't anything in the Red Hat manual regards "how to deal with a
recursive kernel panic during CD integrity testing" nor is anything
written about "how to avoid the whole system rebooting the second the
install program attempts to access the hard drive for formatting"...as
the fact that the previous version of Red Hat installed 100% perfectly
fine on _exactly the same machine_ (only the most minor of changes has
happened since, in adding an extra hard drive and a better CD-ROM and
that sort of thing...but the base CPU, motherboard and so forth have
not changed one bit) suggests, there's also nothing in the manuals to
suggest that it shouldn't work on a perfectly typical configuration
that the previous version didn't have the slightest problem
with...and, note, it _is_ obviously something more complicated going
on here because that previous version of Red Hat is now _ALSO_
refusing to re-install back onto the machine...
I'm not the greatest expert in these things ("software" is my forte :)
but I know enough about the PC architecture to connect up IDE drives
and slot in new cards and so forth...I can't see that anything is
wrong here...and, in a sense, it can't really be wrong because the
install program doesn't immediately crash but crashes _after_ asking
all the install questions...hence, I know for a fact that the video
card is installed correctly because the install program is detecting
it 100% (it gets the "amount of video RAM" figure wrong but that's
because I have a "version 2" of the model where an extra few MB were
added, which is mentioned on the video card box...which, by the way, I
keep...I have the box and the manual for most things - those that
don't have this is because I got it as a "second hand spare part" from
a friend who _doesn't_ keep these things - exactly so that I _can_
"RTFM" when things don't seem to be working...which _does_ come in
handy because, as I told Frank, I can actually answer those "vertical
rate" questions XConfigurator asks by reading the side of the monitor
box (which I've "recycled" as a simple storage box for old things I
want out of the way but not thrown out in the attic :))...and that
"Disk Druid" reports the hard drives and partitions exactly right that
it's at least _reading_ from them correctly (it only explodes when it
attempts to _write_ to them ;)...
And I _did_ mention to Frank that, yes, I "did my research" by
checking up the "jumper settings" on the website (there was no manual
with one of the hard drives because it was "pre-installed" into
another machine and they simply didn't supply it...hence why I had to
use the internet to track down the exact jumper settings...note that
the thing is actually labelled with "MST", "SLV" and so forth that you
could guess it but I double-checked to make absolutely 100% sure that
the jumper settings are correct)...
Randy's hit the nail on the head in that, well, I don't actually know
_what_ question to ask here...it just crashes...there's no
particularly obvious or logical reason why it should (I mean, it reads
the hard drives perfectly well with that "Disk Druid" thing and the
figures are 100% correct that it's reading them correctly...but the
second it attempts _writing_ then it reboots ungracefully...now, as I
say, I'm not a "hardware" person really and so this may be an
"ignorant question" in your eyes but is there some class of problem
where things _read_ okay with an IDE drive but completely crash when
_writing_...I thought maybe the "jumper settings" might effect that
but I have checked them and they _are_ completely correct)...but it's
a completely consistent crash - always happening in the same place -
so at least that fact might help diagnose the problem maybe...
> then why should any sane person believe that providing you
> written documentation *after* an unsuccessful installation attempt
would
> be anything but a mutual waste of time?
Well, first, the "after" bit is wrong...I _do_ RTFM...perhaps not
always religiously 100% of the time but I'll put money down that I'm
far, far better than most (maybe even _including you_) because I have
seen a number of incidents where not reading it lead to catastrophe
(you know, I actually _still_ read over "how to use a mouse" chapters
in manuals...I _like_ to read and I have, on occasion, found
interesting things in those chapters people skip over because it
wasn't as "obvious" as people may imagine)...and I'm a programmer
right here and right now because of "manuals" and "how to" books
exclusively...I was not particularly greatly interested in computers
or programming until I was faced with a problem where I knew I could
solve it by getting a "how to program" book and then reading it...if
that book had not existed, then I _would_ be doing something
completely different...in a sense, I was "forced" by a situation to
try programming and then found I quite liked it _through doing_...I
had absolutely no great interest in the idea prior to that...it came
to me, I did not go to it...without certain books - like the C64 user
manual - I wouldn't be doing any of this right now...it was because I
always "RTFM" _before_ I even went near a computer that has made me a
programmer...I don't avoid it, I don't _want_ to avoid it because it
was that Love of reading such things that has dumped here today in
this discussion itself...saying "RTFM" to me is like telling a bird in
flight: "flap your wings!"...like, sure, I _know_ already...that's
exactly how I got into the air in the first place...
You talk about "attitude" but you're the one immediately dumping me
into some imagined "stereotype" immediately because there appears to
be some "can't install Linux = must be ignorant, must not read things,
must be a bit stupid, must be clueless, etc." formula working in your
head...after all, in that other post, you accused _me_ of "not giving
enough information"..._me_ guilty of "not saying enough"? Of being
"too silent"? I mean, did your brain even engage on the concept of
considering who you were talking to - but, surely, you know as well as
anyone here that this has to be the _worst_ description of myself that
probably anyone's ever attempted on this group to suggest "she doesn't
say much and you have to prompt her to give fuller answers all the
time" - rather than some "put the Great Unwashed into the pigeon-hole
and then insult the pigeon-hole" knee-jerk reaction?
Anyway, I've a feeling this won't go anywhere to push this point so
I'll drop it...but feel free to ponder over whether my "constructive
criticism in the form of a joke" (motivated by a _frustration_ that I
can't get the right answer because I really _do_ want to get Linux up
and running soonest possible to get to some actual _work_ with it ;)
or your "your name's not down on the list, so you're not coming into
the Linux member's only club" is the most damaging "attitude" to have
for the promotion of Linux...okay, perhaps I shouldn't have been quite
so "harsh" in the way I wrote that stuff but even if I'd been a
hundred times worse, I personally believe that this strange "member's
only" attitude is far, far more damaging and, I'd stick my neck out
and hazard a guess (listening to many people repeat similar stories
and a general "why do Linux people seem to want to make you feel
unwelcome?" comment when this topic arises), that it's this "member's
only", "elitist", "I've found my own little niche and I'm not sharing
it" - you know, like Goths would immediately start dressing normally
if everyone else started dressing like them because it's being
"obscure" that they want...that whole "I have a secret and no-one else
knows it" kind of deal - attitude that's causing most of the "popular
acceptance" problem with Linux...a bit like the Star Trek films would
never be watched by anyone outside the "Trek" community, if the
Trekkies insisted that you also had to dress up in Starfleet uniform
and pretend to be Mr.Spock before you're allowed to go into the cinema
or rent the DVD...I mean, if people want to lay down such conditions
then don't be surprised when many people simply go: "oh, alright...if
that's the way things are, then I'll just go watch a different film
instead and avoid Star Trek altogether"...
> An "ignorant question," IMHO,
> is one that ought not to be asked because it has already been asked
and
> answered a thousand times.
Really? Brilliant...where has this question - my exact problem - been
asked and answered a thousand times before? Please, tell me where and
I'll immediately go there and get things working straight
away...pardon my ignorance but I had no idea that everyone had asked
about this same exact problem a thousand times before...I mean, why
didn't you just provide me with the link to the website or forum or
whatever straight away and saved us all a lot of time? That would be
excellent...post up the URL and then we can bring this entire thread
to an end straight away...
> I note that you have an HLA FAQ on your web
> site. What is your response to someone who asks, "Why don't you
rewrite
> HLA so it works under DOS?"
Randy actually always replies to that question and states that he
believes "DOS is dead" and that teaching people about DOS would not be
useful to their education, as it is now increasingly likely that DOS
skills will NOT be particularly useful in getting jobs...I don't agree
completely with Randy's opinion here, mind you, as it can still serve
a useful - if limited - purpose...but, then again, I still use a
Commodore 64 emulator (though, this is not as daft as people may
initially think...remember those bitmapped graphics I had before?
Well, they were monochrome...most PC stuff works with 24-bit images
and so forth but what I needed was the simple bit patterns...hmmm,
that C64 character editor uses monochrome graphics and spits out the
hex values...as I say, these things _can_ still serve a useful - if
very limited - purpose on occasion...it wouldn't be much of a useful
"general purpose" thing, granted, but for this particular task, the
C64 programs were actually far more appropriate than the PC
programs...and I'm actually working on some more interesting example
programs to post here which demonstrates "UDG" graphics...that is, the
sort of "graphics in text mode" that used to dominate those old
8-bitters...watch this space as that should be a fun little
program...delibrately a bit "retro" but designed to "plug the gap"
that "old skoolers" learnt on those older machines but is usually
absent on PCs...yup, bringing "colour clash" to a PC near you soon!!
;)...
> > They (including me) want to shove a CD into the drive
> > and everything is pretty much automatic after that point. RH comes
> > close (on occasion), but Linux still has a ways to go in this
regard.
>
> People tell me that Mandrake is a little easier for ease of
> installation. Also, is it Linux or users' knowledge that should be
> upgraded? Linux is just software, but human knowledge is truly
> valuable. If I had a choice between making cars that can't cross
the
> center line of the road or educating drivers to let them know why
they
> shouldn't, I am pretty sure I'd prefer educating drivers.
Essentially, you're right...but, fundamentally, you aren't describing
humans...whether it _should_ be the case or not, this is NOT the case
in practice...
You know, they _are_ developing cars that drive themselves and won't
cross the centre line...it was a research and development company that
I was working for when living in Germany and I almost got run over by
exactly such a car being "road tested"...well, actually, NOT run over
by such a car because, I'm glad to say, the prototype was working well
and did slow down until I got out of the way (being a prototype, they
ran it around the "internal" roads of the company premises - which are
normally absent of cars (all the employees park their cars and
wouldn't be driving at that time...only the "rush hours" of coming in
and going away from work were when these small "internal" roads ever
got used ;) that people _usually_ walk in the middle of the road, lest
you think me a bit strange for doing that - and it was crawling around
at no more than 5mph, anyway...so it wasn't particularly dangerous but
I still had to get out of its way before the car's computer would be
willing to start moving again...which is, of course, what it was
designed to be doing :)...
They are developing that car exactly because road traffic accident
statistics demonstrate that - if it could only be perfected to be
entirely reliable and trustworthy (the big "if" that I'm wondering
where it could _ever_ be made that good...but, obviously, some people
thought it was at least worth a try to see if it could be done ;) -
your average human doesn't work like that...my own work was exactly
because far too many Americans think wearing a seatbelt is a
"violation of their rights" or something (well, it's all
nationalities, to be fair, it's just that the American statistics were
about ten times worse than anywhere else...much like the American gun
statistics are about a hundred times worse than most other
places)...if enough humans had the sense to always wear a seat-belt
then that would have put me out of a job there...and, note, in this
case, as it's people's lives we're talking about, I'd have been happy
to have been made redundent there...as, after all, I can find work
elsewhere (they had enough projects that I would have been given one
of those instead :)...but you can't reclaim a life once it's lost, as
that's only in computer games where that happens...
I mean, yes, indeed...if everyone in the world was a fully qualified
car mechanic who's passed the "advanced" driving test because they
have the driving skills of formula 1 drivers but, yet, the patience
and sense to not go racing around everywhere...if every single child
was educated - and _actually listened_ - not to play near roads or run
out into the middle of them...heck, that would massively clean up road
traffic accidents statistics in a big way...
That's perfectly accurate and quite logical...but it won't happen...it
couldn't happen...not everyone has the time...not everyone,
unfortunately, has the ability to absorb all the necessary
information...
People aren't automatons...and, more importantly, try as you might,
you will never succeed (other than some sci-fi "cyborg implants" but
even then it might still be impossible without completely replacing
all of their human parts :) in ever making everyone in a uniform
automaton...I'd also suggest it's a terrible idea...but that's
actually quite immaterial because it's an impossibility,
anyway...every sueing everyone else has not in any way made for a
safer society...more laws just makes for more crime and they _never_
actually get on top of that problem - because it would require dealing
with issues like poverty that politicians are unwilling to tackle,
lest alienate themselves from the well-off majority of voters who'd
kick them out if they tried to "spread the wealth" via taxes...
The universe is a little more complicated than that...people far too
chaotic and free-willed (but, to be fair, NOT "random" and NOT
"anarchic", even if goths and punks and others continually insist that
they are ;)...it won't work and it can't work...the facts don't match
this "automaton" theory and, sorry, it's this "the world can be made
into some perfect clockwork machine of perfection where every
automaton knows their place in the uniform universe" theory that's the
thing that has to give...more laws only makes for more
criminals...more wars only increase the amount of unrest...if you
don't believe this, then, fine, _try it_...or sit back and watch
Bush's "peace" make anti-Americanism and unrest and wars increase...
Do you know Aesop's fable about the bundle of sticks? They are all
good stories to read but Aesop just had a total handle on handing out
timeless wisdoms in the morals of his stories...they are absolutely
ancient and only getting older...but the relevence never diminshes
(not least because Aesop was clever to make sure that it couldn't but
substituting animals for people...animals are always the same and
there's no "baggage" because of the passage of fashions of the
time...some mistakenly believe he used animals because the stories
were intended for children but, then again, reconsider that notion
after similarly noting Orwell used animals - for similar purposes - in
his "Animal Farm", when - though it _can_ be read as a straight story,
true enough - he was clearly simply using the animals to examine and
discuss _politics_ with suitable "detachment" from the human
race...much like practically all sci-fi shows and movies use "aliens"
as a metaphor for certain types of people and attitudes...detached
enough for you to see that they are, in fact, harpooning perhaps _you
yourself_ with their little metaphors...I've seen many "elitist"
people look down their noses at this sort of thing..."oh, it's that
sci-fi nonsense...oh, it's a cartoon with animals so it must be for
children"...being all snobbish and "I'm so bloody superior" about
things...when, in fact, the last laugh is totally on them...Aesop and
Orwell are being a hundred times smarter than they think...so stuck up
their own arses that even something so simple as a "metaphor" flies
straight over their heads...the use of animals in these things is a
"living (extended) metaphor"...and some people think they are sooo
bloody clever to poo-poo over these things because they are "clearly
for kids"...ha! They have no idea just how big a fool they make
themselves look to not even recognise the simplest and most obvious
use of metaphor there could be...to replace a person with a
metaphorical "animal stereotype" for detachment, comparison and to
clarify the message more clearly...straight over their heads...which
is the "karma" you get for being "snobbish" and thinking things are
"too childish" for someone of such "intelligent stature"...for such
people, I can only remind them where the last laugh really
resides...probably on an episode of the Simpsons; Yes, a "childish"
cartoon that probably makes better social commentary than all the
contemporary high-brow "art" films and stage plays who walk around
with their nose in the air and their heads up their own self-indulgent
arses put together...
> > As for the whole attitude thing, once the Linux crowd realizes
that
> > they're not going to win the desktop until they *change* this
attitude
> > in people, Linux will do a lot better. And they're not going to
change
> > it by telling people RTFM....
>
> Perhaps it's useful to consider why Linux is popular in the first
place.
>
> 1. It is open source, meaning that anybody who wants to and is
capable
> of doing so can examine and modify the very core of the operating
system.
A minor issue with the vast majority of computer users...hey, don't
get me wrong, I'm a programmer and, thus, this point is fantastic to
me and I'm all for the GPL and OpenSource(tm) and all that...but I -
nor you - qualify as "everyone" by any means...
The majority both probably wouldn't want to...and most would not have
the capability (or inclination to obtain the capability) for this
point to have any direct impact on them whatsoever...
Now, it's _still_ good for such users, though, to know that
"OpenSource(tm)" is a system that permits _others_ to do such things
_on their behalf_, so to speak...that is, they can enjoy the benefits
of the "thousand eyes" principle, constantly keeping an eye on the
source code of the program they regularly use, even if they themselves
couldn't read an ounce of that source code - nor would want to -
themselves...that is, in a sense, one of the whole founding principles
of "open source" development...one person can "improve", make it
available to others and everyone can benefit from this improvement
(usually at no cost or much inconvenience to themselves but for a
quick download :)...and this process rolls on - ping-ponging back and
forth between developers - where _everyone_ benefits from the
_combined_ effort...
But you can only push this point so far when it comes to
_reality_...most people are not interested...even more just don't have
the capability...of those who are interested and are capable, only a
small handful would be going near "the very core of the operating
system", as you put it...or perhaps what someone wants to do simply
doesn't fit in with what's there...I'd like an open-source Linux-like
OS but with a slightly different design and a GUI "built-in" a la
Windows...but I can't really introduce this to Linux without basically
turning it into a completely different project that, in fact, it
probably makes more sense to just "start again" with a completely
different project so as not to "pollute" what Linux already is for
those who don't want to go this quite "radical" path...and so on and
so forth...this point _is_ important but it's not half as "crucial" as
it's often made out to be...simply making something "open source" does
not somehow grant it entry into Mount Olympus with god-like attributes
and great powers...OpenSource is the "conduit" through which great
things can become reality...it, alone, isn't the great thing itself...
> 2. It costs nothing.
This point actually kind of works in reverse for me...what I mean is,
because it costs absolutely nothing, you've got to wonder why it isn't
doing a hundred times _better_ than this...because if I stood outside
some store on a main road and just started handing out "free gifts" -
"here, have some free money on me!" - then people would happily take
them...it might even cause a "pedestrian jam" because queues of people
develop, waiting to get their "free gifts and money"...after all, if
you've the time to spare, you might as well queue...because if the
gift or money is good then: "woohoo! Free gifts and money!!"...if it's
crap, well, that's a shame but you didn't pay for it so just give it
away or throw it away if no-one will take it off you...
And then, Windows _is_ crap in many places and many, many people don't
really like it all that much..."tolerating" it, perhaps, but in no
means "in Love" with Microsoft one iota...and many voice how - even if
Windows is "okay" in their opinion - it's simply a bad idea to have a
lack of "biodiversity" and monopolistic control and so forth...
Yes, costing nothing _is_ a plus point for Linux...being but a
download away _is_ a plus point for Linux...all that free software -
amounting to thousands of dollars if you took the Microsoft
equivalents - that's "as standard" with a Linux distribution...that's
a major "plus point"...
In fact, these are such big "plus points", you actually have to start
questioning "why on Earth isn't Linux doing a hundred times better
than this?"...so, as I say, this point tends to raise the reverse in
me...why isn't it doing even better still? What is so major a "minus
point" about Linux that it is seemingly "cancelling out" a heck of a
lot of really big and major "plus points"? Windows having more support
and software is undoubtedly part of it but it can't just be that, as
Linux isn't all that bad in comparison and could "catch up" were more
people involved...and, well, if it were only this, then wouldn't Apple
be doing even more badly still rather than being the next biggest
share after PCs?
> 3. It doesn't require the user to implement costly and unwanted
upgrades
> at arbitary intervals.
But if you do try - as I did - things blow up in my face and people
say "RTFM"...except, smart-arse, the manual doesn't say anything about
this whatsoever...there is no "here's where we left in the delibrate
bugs and what to do to avoid them"...it's clearly NOT supposed to be
doing this at all...this isn't a case of not running the install
program properly (slightly impossible that, in fact, because you stick
in the CD and it auto-runs and then you click on the options you want
with the whole process completely automated)...this is a case of some
hardware issue causing the install program troubles that it simply
crashes, reboots and otherwise goes AWOL on me...
> 4. It is more secure than alternatives.
FreeBSD is more secure than Linux...but, granted, Linux is more secure
than Windows...although, _any_ system can be made insecure by a
"clueless" user deciding to change all the settings to dagnerous
settings...I'm surprised considering your earlier points that you've
not made the point that this is surely a place where _education_ is
most crucial and it really is a very bad idea to try to swap
"education" for some poor automated substitute...security is an issue
where _intelligence_ is a handy device and, even in the most stupid
people, there's more brains in the user to detect "suspect" things
than the machine can ever comprehend...fooling a machine is a "no
brainer" once you know how to side-step whatever automated defences
there may be...though humans don't represent a perfect security
solution by any means, this is the one area where "paranoia" and
detecting that something "looks a bit suspect and dodgy to me" - nice
"human" attributes there - actually comes in really handy...
> 5. It can run easily on old hardware.
That point can really work both ways...not that I'm one for speaking
in Microsoft's voice but they might counter this with something like:
"well, it works on old hardware so easily because it's not properly
exploiting the full capabilities of modern machines...therefore, those
who do have _modern_ hardware are being 'held back' to accomodate
this"...as I am actually a _supporter_ of what's being done with
Linux - something you still don't seem to realise - I'm caution using
this point because it can be turned on its head (granted, you can then
turn the point on its head once more with: "ah, but you can re-compile
Linux specifically for your hardware because it's opensource"...which
is a nice little point that the Windows people would have trouble
countering because that is a fundamental problem with closed
source...it has to be "pre-compiled" to some hardware target - in
ignorance of what it'll actually find once it reaches the machine -
while providing source code does mean that it can be compiled more
_specifically_ to the final target system :)...
> 6. It is easy to install on many platforms.
Well, clearly not always...in case you forget, it's not installing on
my platform...and, sorry, it has nothing to do with not "RTFM"...this
sort of thing is a technical and hardware issue and isn't mentioned in
the manual...
Plus, how do you think I managed to get the OS on this machine before?
Or how do you think I managed to: download it, check the MD5 sums,
burn the ISO images, repartition and format the hard drives,
blah-blah-blah, if I've never "RTFM" and I'm completely "ignorant"?
Don't you get it? This isn't a "stupidity" problem...this is some sort
of "hardware conflict" problem or something similar (obviously, I'm
not totally sure what it is or that would instantly tell me what to do
to fix it...but suddenly rebooting half-way through the install is NOT
a case of me being "dumb bimbo" in pressing the wrong button because I
haven't learnt how to read...now, I might have wrongly connected
something inside the PC's box or something like that...but I've
"cannabilised" and "Frankenstein-ed" plenty of machines that worked
perfectly well that I can assure you that it's not some "dumb mistake"
because I'm not that ignorant and am very careful about being logical,
methodical and systematic about things (comes from lots of debugging
there ;)...
> Why is Windows popular? I'm not a Linux zealot, but I've found it
to be
> very useful and very cost effective. I think it's great to make it
more
> useable but sometimes "RTFM" really is the best answer.
In this case, though, it's a pathetic useless answer...sorry, I know
you don't really mean any harm or anything...but it really is a
totally "not helpful" reply...telling me how many times you've managed
to install Linux without problem does not, unfortunately, suddenly
make it all work perfectly on my machine...indeed, _if only_ we did
live in a world where solutions were so easy...we'd all just wait for
Bill Gates to say: "I managed to make billions of dollars today" and
then, magically, we're all billionaires...woohoo!! ;)
And regards "I think it's great to make it more useable" then that's
actually why I need Linux installed to make a small - but Hopefully
useful - contribution in doing exactly that...note, Randy's the one
who's actually shown interest in my "cross-GUI library" ideas...but it
should be possible to also have a NASM version too...as the
fundamental way these "cross-platform library" things work is
available to _any_ language, in fact...all an assembler (or compiler)
really needs to be capable of is running on both Windows and Linux
(for slightly obvious reasons :)...the actual "portability" comes from
structuring the code in a certain way...HLA's "bells and whistles" -
and the fact that Randy's already fought half the battle with the
"standard library" as it is now - help with this...but the basic idea
could transfer to a NASM version...the nature of this "cross-GUI
library" is to _level_ the two platforms as equal by simply extending
the same "re-compile without modification" thing that ANSI C and HLA
already possess...ANSI C stops short of GUIs because the standard has
to take account of platforms that don't have GUIs (they use C inside
washing machines, for example ;)...as I hinted heavily to Randy that I
think he's now picked up my point, there's no such restriction on
HLA...in fact, we _know_ that the platforms it currently works for
_do_ have GUIs (and if you get it working with X-Windows then you
really have got wide "portability" there because X-Windows itself is
designed to work across a wide array of hardware itself :)...it's not
without "issues", mind you...Windows needs "window classes" and
"window procedures", while X doesn't want "window classes" and simply
doesn't care whether you use procedures for your windows or not (it
leaves that decision up to the programmer :)...working to smooth these
things out in a "transparent" way (without being too "overbearing", if
you catch my drift, of implementing something that does far too much),
that'll require some thinking and work (though, I've done lots of the
thinking already, even though the Linux machine isn't working
:)...but, then, Rome was not built in a day...
Beth :)
- Next message: Ed Beroset: "Re: OT: my new PC rocks!!"
- Previous message: Beth: "Re: OT: my new PC rocks!!"
- Maybe in reply to: Beth: "Re: OT: my new PC rocks!!"
- Next in thread: Herbert Kleebauer: "Re: OT: my new PC rocks!!"
- Reply: Herbert Kleebauer: "Re: OT: my new PC rocks!!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
