Re: Re: From: "Christopher Taylor" <[email protected]>

Richard.Corfield.Admin-XZoyATsUNX5Wk0Htik3J/[email protected] wrote:

>You have basicly asked that Linux be Windows. That Linux look and work
>like Windows, and do nothing different.
>
Regarding this guy's request for better Linux support for
Windows filesharing, you may have a point. But with all
*other* requests of his, I strongly disagree with you.

At least, if I understand his requests correctly.
--

> If this is what you want, then
>why not just buy Windows? It best matches your stated requirements. (PS.
>My requirements do not include anywhere that Linux displace all Windows)
>
Mine neither, per-se: but I *do* want to see Micro$oft weakened
to the point that it is no longer able to continue it's hostile
assault on the Linux world.
--

>
>
>Linux is based on a different model to Windows of old, and even MS
>admit in places that the "File Sharing" and "Network Neighbourhood"
>models don't really scale and are not really ideal ways of thinking.
>
Once again, when it comes to the "Network Neighborhood" stuff,
I agree with you. If Linux doesn't have *that* feature, then I
don't need it. NFS is far superior.

Though I do want NFS to be made a bit easier-to use, both for
non-guru command-line users, as well as for people who want
to do it from the GUI.
--

>
>
>Traditional UNIX is a centrally managed multi-user system. You don't need
>to share drives in such an environment, all your storage is visible in
>the filesystem tree and you work in project shared directories, or allow
>others access to bits of your home directory. A nice thing on UNIX I
>remember is the special directory, ~/public_html, where you could
>publish to the web as http://hostname/~user/. 
>
>As a user, you don't care how the storage physically manifests itself. Oh,
>and having all home directories and therefore user data in one place
>really makes backup far simpler to manage than on Windows of old. Good
>to see Microsoft seeing the light there and reimplementing /home in
>modern Windows.
>
--
You may not care, but some people do.

For those who *do* care, all they have to do is type "df",
and that information gets displayed on the screen.

What is lacking currently is the ability to find this
information via the GUI. But hey, if "df" works, then
the information is there. All someone has to do is
write a graphical front-end to it.
--

>
>
>I can see an unfortunate possible situation where Microsoft take all the
>good ideas from Linux/UNIX, and Linux tries so much to be like Windows
>of old, and not at all scary to Windows converts, that it loses all
>these good things.
>
--
I'm more worried about *another* possible future: one
in which Micro$oft succeeds in their plot to use
monopolostic practices to grab one stronghold from
the Linux community after another: and is able to
do it because the Linux community does nothing to
stop them.

And if you're wishing for Micro$oft to just happily
co-exist with the Linux community you may as well
wish for a pot of gold to fall out of the sky and
hit you on the head. Allright, allright. Maybe your
Micro$oft wish will come true, but it's very unlikely.

Sad fact is, until Micro$oft stops it's assault on
Linux, we have no choice but to maintain a counter-
assault. That means we *do* have to work on winning
over converts from the Windows community.

That does not mean giving Windows users everything
that they used to have on Windows. But it *does* mean
giving them something *else* that will cause them
never to *miss* what they had on Windows.
--

>Another possible future, if the network connectivity
>improves enough, is that we all move to centrally managed systems with
>only thin terminals at home and work - then it won't matter and we get
>all the remote access, backup, maintenance and security benefits of
>having a (hopefuly) good network admin without each of us having to be
>a network admin.
>

Naw naw naw: that would be a step *backwards*. And a
huge one.

If we returned to that status-quo, then we'd also be
returning to the days that you can not work unless you
have the connections. And no matter how hard you try to
make sure there are connections to every place where
someone might want to work, you'll always miss a spot.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against terminals. They
definitely do have a place and are irreplacable: but
personal workstations *also* have a place and are
*also* irreplacable.
--

>
>
>As for wanting setup.exe like install. Its a lot more complex than that.
>Linux is designed to take advantage of code sharing, shared libraries,
>reuse of programatic code between applications. This has been solved by
>using a dependency based package system. It may have its difficulties.
>
--
I agree, we need to keep this dependency-based system. But
that doesn't mean we can't do it in a way that's a bit more
transparent to the non-geek user.
--