I'm giving up on Ubuntu now ...

Met-AL

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 9, 2002
Messages
7,889
Amazing, that is my exact same story. Ubuntu on my laptop. Had to do some wireless driver wrapping crap. I needed step by step instructions, couldnt find any instructions that actually worked.

I asked, I got told to go use the search, the information is out there. LOL, go use the search.. that's the first thing I always do. I ask only after I can't find the info I need.

..back to Windows I went. Running Vista on my laptop and am loving it.
 

TechieSooner

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
7,601
nearly all sources on the web for getting help are far far too assuming, like, to compile a driver for my WiFi card(which shouldnt be happening in the first place, yes i researched it before i bought it) i needed to go to console and was told to make a directory....then type...(wait, problem here is where and what is the console and how do i create a directory!!??)

Same exact thing I managed to find. Creating a directory and some more simple things like that wasn't my problem, but your post is spot on... everything truely is assuming!

I'll still say though, as a server (especially a web server where after configured you more or less just need FTP access), Linux is great. And cheap.

As a desktop OS it hasn't arrived (And to be honest- I never think it will). The supposed positive side of Linux (open source) is also the greatest downside, in a way. Every guy out there thinks he can come up with a distro that is better than the rest, so you end up with these many distros...
What needs to happen is someone needs to unify the front and combine all efforts into a single project. Yet still being open source, there are those that would eventually break off thinking they can do it better, and you end up where you started.

Just a big spiral IMO, but the only way it can become the #1 OS is to rally the troops and get them all under one banner.
 

LstBrunnenG

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 3, 2003
Messages
6,677
My problem isn't with the number of distros, I actually find that I use different distros (ie Gentoo and Ubuntu) for different things. I am dismayed by the number of incomplete software projects that all attempt to do the same thing. I tried Amarok, Rhythmbox, QuodLibet, Totem, MPlayer GUI and a few other media players, and none were as good as WMP11. Now I won't deny when MPlayer is king when it comes to console media players, but for a GUI I expect something a little more robust.
 

Cheetoz

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 3, 2003
Messages
1,972
. I am dismayed by the number of incomplete software projects that all attempt to do the same thing.

i feel the same. I'd rather have a few options of stable programs, than a vast selection of buggy software.

.
Now I won't deny when MPlayer is king when it comes to console media players, but for a GUI I expect something a little more robust.

I felt SMplayer front-end looks great.

A GUI encourages and enables stupidity.
lmao!
I'm tired of people wanting linux to be like windows. they're the ones that should adapt to something new.
 

Verge

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 27, 2001
Messages
7,542
Perhaps part of the reason is that Linux with a GUI is the exact opposite of Windows?

Windows: 100% of stuff can be done with the GUI, much less than that without the GUI.
Linux: 100% of stuff can be done with the command line, possibly 50% with the GUI.

Fact is, average Joe won't learn how to use a command line for anything, on any computer. In Linux, that's great - he won't be able to break a huge amount of stuff, because most admin functionality exists on the command line only. On Windows? He can wreck the lot.


no, you can do everything in windows from the command line...

and yes you can browse web pages from terminal in linux.. it's called lynx(but they make lynx for windows too)
 

SuperSubZero

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 21, 2000
Messages
3,780
I'm tinkering with Ubuntu 7.10 and I ran into two issues that pretty much confirmed why Linux is where it is:

I was trying to get a good desktop resolution, and I chose one that wasn't supported. The window manager of course went all distorted and unusable, and I just said "Oh gah, I guess I'll boot to VGA mode." ...In Ubuntu, there *is* no "boot to VGA mode." There is only a rescue console, which is just a prompt. I have to type something? What do I type? Luckily I had web access on another PC nearby and could look up the command, but seriously, this is just foolish. Out-of-spec resolution changes are common, common enough that Windows has had "VGA mode" as a rescue option for years. Heck, I was recently screwing with OS/2 (circa 1996) and even THAT has a VGA mode recovery option. The funny thing with Ubuntu is that it's not even a VGA recovery, it's a complete X re-configure. To get VGA back, I have to know *every* device X wants to configure. I don't want to set up my mouse, and my keyboard, and my regional settings, and my shoe size.. I WANT VGA. I was reading about BulletProofX, and of course the developers assume the user is stupid, and can't possibly KNOW they want VGA mode, so instead of just putting a VGA option on the boot menu, they are talking about auto-detect and "what if we make it go to VGA if they reboot without logging in" and whatever. This is all stupid. Put a VGA mode boot on the GRUB menu and be done with it. Linux can do that, right?

I downloaded Seamonkey, since I like it's email and I hang out on IRC sometimes. I installed Flash also. I know Flash is a little screwy, but I hadn't installed Adblock yet, and inevitably I hit some Flash that crashed the browser. Seamonkey closed, and I was promptly automatically logged out of the system. Um.. what? Everything closed and I was logged out, because of some bad Flash? What if I had open applications? Gone. For the record, I don't think Flash in Windows has crashed on me in years, and the last time Flash crashed in OS/2 it only crashed the browser, it didn't crash the OS. Oh did I say that? I was in Seamonkey a separate time, and I clicked a link, and Ubuntu froze absolutely solid. Had to power cycle to clear it.

This is on an install of Ubuntu literally days old with no other 3rd party software on it. I haven't really been using it since.
 

Bones

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 11, 2000
Messages
1,220
I WANT VGA. I was reading about BulletProofX, and of course the developers assume the user is stupid, and can't possibly KNOW they want VGA mode, so instead of just putting a VGA option on the boot menu, they are talking about auto-detect and "what if we make it go to VGA if they reboot without logging in" and whatever. This is all stupid. Put a VGA mode boot on the GRUB menu and be done with it. Linux can do that, right?

The only reason you want a "VGA mode" boot option is because you know what it is useful for. I know some Windows users who don't, and have no idea that a special menu is available during Windows boot by pressing a special key. You are clearly more Windows-proficient than these users, and you are asking for a feature that caters towards your superior knowledge. Got news for you - knowledgeable Linux users want the same for Linux-based operating systems.

In your case, a reboot and complete X reconfig wasn't necessary to get a useable graphics mode. A simple xrandr command would have worked. You didn't know that at the time, and it isn't your fault that you didn't. Doesn't make it any less frustrating though, does it?

It's a matter of perspective.
 

SuperSubZero

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 21, 2000
Messages
3,780
The only reason you want a "VGA mode" boot option is because you know what it is useful for. I know some Windows users who don't, and have no idea that a special menu is available during Windows boot by pressing a special key.
F8 has been around since Win95, and is hardly "special".
f8.jpg

It only stopped being plain obvious in the last few years. It's still mentioned in the manuals.

In your case, a reboot and complete X reconfig wasn't necessary to get a useable graphics mode. A simple xrandr command would have worked. You didn't know that at the time, and it isn't your fault that you didn't. Doesn't make it any less frustrating though, does it?
I was going to put a cute quip here about how Ubuntu's own website says to run something else, but since their site is conveniently down, I only have google's cached page:
http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cach...ofX+ubuntu+VGA+mode&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=10&gl=us

"Currently Ubuntu support has the user re-run dpkg-reconfigure, but this is confusing and too technical for many users, who complain about this. So the sooner we can move away from requiring that, the better."

That is what Ubuntu says to do to get VGA mode. If you believe you know better than the people who make the product, perhaps you should tell them.
 

Bones

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 11, 2000
Messages
1,220
F8 has been around since Win95, and is hardly "special".
f8.jpg

It only stopped being plain obvious in the last few years. It's still mentioned in the manuals.
It seems to be rude to tell people to RTFM, no matter how correct that advice is.

I was going to put a cute quip here about how Ubuntu's own website says to run something else, but since their site is conveniently down, I only have google's cached page:
http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cach...ofX+ubuntu+VGA+mode&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=10&gl=us

"Currently Ubuntu support has the user re-run dpkg-reconfigure, but this is confusing and too technical for many users, who complain about this. So the sooner we can move away from requiring that, the better."

That is what Ubuntu says to do to get VGA mode. If you believe you know better than the people who make the product, perhaps you should tell them.

That's one correct way to make a permanent fix. Using xrandr is not a permanent fix, it just gets the X server back into a usable state from which the user can make the fix. Different approach, Linux is flush with those.
 

mwarps

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 6, 2002
Messages
7,065
I'm tinkering with Ubuntu 7.10 and I ran into two issues that pretty much confirmed why Linux is where it is:

I was trying to get a good desktop resolution, and I chose one that wasn't supported. The window manager of course went all distorted and unusable....


This is all stupid. Put a VGA mode boot on the GRUB menu and be done with it. Linux can do that, right?

Generally when looking to change settings, it's a good idea to know 're doing.. Just a thought. Unless you know exactly what your hardware is capable of, you shouldn't screw with something. This is a general computer principle.

Unless something drastic has changed in the last few years, Ctrl Alt MinusKey will drop you down to the next resolution in X.

grub is totally unrelated to the x-window system. If you'd like grub to control the screen resolution, I suggest using runlevel 3 as opposed to 5. Though running ubuntu under that configuration, while valid, would be a big of a waste of diskspace.
 

:LJ:

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 6, 2002
Messages
1,348
no, you can do everything in windows from the command line...


OK, I'll admit my knowledge of the Windows command line is probably fairly lacking, but there are a few things I'm pretty sure you can't do:
  1. Change the computer name
  2. Alter swap file configuration
  3. Install hardware drivers (manually, not using an installer)
  4. Alter non-simple network settings (additional IP addresses, firewall config etc)
Just a few things that hit my brain at this late hour. I'm fully open to being wrong, though (but only if you tell me how they can be done, not just a "yeah, I can do that").

EDIT: Oh, and writing a script to automate the GUI doesn't count.
 

ashmedai

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
12,402
OK, I'll admit my knowledge of the Windows command line is probably fairly lacking, but there are a few things I'm pretty sure you can't do:
  1. Change the computer name
  2. Alter swap file configuration
  3. Install hardware drivers (manually, not using an installer)
  4. Alter non-simple network settings (additional IP addresses, firewall config etc)
Just a few things that hit my brain at this late hour. I'm fully open to being wrong, though (but only if you tell me how they can be done, not just a "yeah, I can do that").

EDIT: Oh, and writing a script to automate the GUI doesn't count.

It's a bunch of 1s and 0s on the hard drive. You can do just about anything to your data if you're stubborn enough about getting it done.

I don't do those things via command line. Why? More buttons to push.
 
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
975
My problem isn't with the number of distros, I actually find that I use different distros (ie Gentoo and Ubuntu) for different things. I am dismayed by the number of incomplete software projects that all attempt to do the same thing. I tried Amarok, Rhythmbox, QuodLibet, Totem, MPlayer GUI and a few other media players, and none were as good as WMP11. Now I won't deny when MPlayer is king when it comes to console media players, but for a GUI I expect something a little more robust.

>___________________< even when I use windows I wont use it, I find it too bloaty, and using foobar2000 and VLC are a better combination and uses far less resources. Although amarok2000 and VLC are the best combination IMHO.
 

Xipher

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 15, 2004
Messages
2,621
OK, I'll admit my knowledge of the Windows command line is probably fairly lacking, but there are a few things I'm pretty sure you can't do:
  1. Change the computer name
  2. Alter swap file configuration
  3. Install hardware drivers (manually, not using an installer)
  4. Alter non-simple network settings (additional IP addresses, firewall config etc)
Just a few things that hit my brain at this late hour. I'm fully open to being wrong, though (but only if you tell me how they can be done, not just a "yeah, I can do that").

EDIT: Oh, and writing a script to automate the GUI doesn't count.

First and last, use netsh
Don't know about the other two.

I use netsh ever once in a while at work, I sure as heck don't want to bind 20+ IPs by hand so I just wrote a bash script to generate the netsh lines I need to bind the IPs. Using bash on *nix to automate stuff for Windows, I love it.
 

pxc

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 22, 2000
Messages
33,064
  1. Alter swap file configuration
  2. Install hardware drivers (manually, not using an installer)
Swap file size is automatic, although occasionally someone may want to change the drive it's on or turn it off. It's trivial to do from the GUI and it's not something one would do on a regular basis.

Hardware driver installation on both Linux and Windows has the benefit of mostly automatic detection for a wide class of devices. I'm not sure under Windows why you would want to bypass stick the CD in the drive and let Windows load the drivers automatically, or the very good device manager if you simply want to install/update the driver (I use it very often to escape bloated utilities that come in installers).

Both of those seem like nit-picks against Windows because you often or always have no choice but to use the command line under Linux for those types of things.

The thing I think when I have to type several (long) commands in a row to get something working on Linux is (for something that doesn't require any custom options or decisions): *every single person has to do all this*?!?!? LOL It's a happy and unusual surprise when someone bothers to package an install script. Honestly, a lot of OSS just doesn't get what's generally considered ease of use. Declaring that people who prefer to do things with the least hassle are wrong is just another symptom of that wrong-headedness.
 

SuperSubZero

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 21, 2000
Messages
3,780
Generally when looking to change settings, it's a good idea to know 're doing.. Just a thought. Unless you know exactly what your hardware is capable of, you shouldn't screw with something. This is a general computer principle.
I recently put XP64 on my laptop. XP64 can run on laptops just peachy. I installed video drivers that had no reason not to work. The drivers either did not install properly, or have a bug, because instead of showing me the login screen on reboot, it showed me a white screen. I effectively could not interface with the OS at all. What saved me from this was booting to VGA mode and uninstalling the offending driver. (a later beta version of the driver works fine)

Unless something drastic has changed in the last few years, Ctrl Alt MinusKey will drop you down to the next resolution in X.
This is not something a new Linux user can know. It's not shown anywhere.

grub is totally unrelated to the x-window system
This is the point of offering a troubleshooting option at grub. No matter how broken X can get, grub still works and is visible. A "VGA mode" boot option here would be perfect.
 

Bones

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 11, 2000
Messages
1,220
<snip> Both of those seem like nit-picks against Windows because you often or always have no choice but to use the command line under Linux for those types of things. <snip>

Good point, the command line interface isn't a comfortable place for somebody who doesn't know how to use it. But I think that the mindset that equates command line use to failure is wrong. CLI is an excellent interface, and it is still in widespread use because it is the best interface for some tasks.

Declaring that people who prefer to do things with the least hassle are wrong is just another symptom of that wrong-headedness.

I agree. The command line is less hassle than a gui for some things. Declaring otherwise is a symptom of wrong-headedness. ;) Whether or not it is newbie-friendly is a different matter entirely; these are separate issues.
 

GreNME

2[H]4U
Joined
May 18, 2002
Messages
2,604
Swap file size is automatic, although occasionally someone may want to change the drive it's on or turn it off. It's trivial to do from the GUI and it's not something one would do on a regular basis.

And if I want to update or change a driver? Look, I understand and use the GUI most of the time, but in terms of comparison saying that you can do all of the things in CLI that you can do in GUI in Windows is just incorrect. Microsoft is actually aware of this, hence the advent of PowerShell and the CLI capabilities in their newer line of products like Exchange Server 2007. They are getting closer to being able to do all things via CLI that you can do with GUI, but they aren't there yet.

Both of those seem like nit-picks against Windows because you often or always have no choice but to use the command line under Linux for those types of things.

I don't know about anyone else's preferences, but honestly I work with Windows almost exclusively every day at my job and I often wish I could drop down to CLI and write some automation scripts for a few of my support tasks. I've taken to trying out the abilities of AutoIT (not a program, not quite a language, kind of a framework) to cover stuff that is otherwise more difficult to do with just VB/BAT/WMI scripting.

The thing I think when I have to type several (long) commands in a row to get something working on Linux is (for something that doesn't require any custom options or decisions): *every single person has to do all this*?!?!?
No.

LOL It's a happy and unusual surprise when someone bothers to package an install script. Honestly, a lot of OSS just doesn't get what's generally considered ease of use. Declaring that people who prefer to do things with the least hassle are wrong is just another symptom of that wrong-headedness.

Not everything is more hassle in *nix world, and implying such is either intellectual dishonesty or ignorance. I am head of a Windows infrastructure at work, and the machine I'm typing this post on is a Windows machine, so I can state with pretty good certainty that I'm not a Linux proselytizer. However, every now and then, and SJConsultant can vouch for me on this, I find myself saying (to myself), "I really wish I could do the same thing with this that I'd do on Linux... it's so much easier."

Hmmm, some things I find easier on a *nix server than a Windows one:
  1. Monitoring e-mail traffic real-time. Not the filtering on A/V, but actually checking the in-out traffic as it happens, either by domain or even by user.
  2. Mounting separate drives as a folder. Not connecting to other drives, because that's about the same for each. Mounting as a folder (like the user folder), though, I've found easier in *nix.
  3. Website administration. Pretty much all of it. Even SharePoint, which has practically fool-proof management features, still seems more cumbersome to me (though I do like it lots). I freely admit this might be influenced by my experience having worked at a *nix website support call center early on in my career.
  4. Still haven't found a win32 equivalent of grep, ps, or even top, though I have found OSS ports of the first two for use on my Win systems.
  5. Speaking of CLI: command history and aliasing are so much simpler in *nix. PowerShell is a close second, though, for the Windows side.

Things I find easier in Windows:
  1. Still haven't found an easy version of ipconfig release/renew on *nix
  2. Device Manager is definitely nifty and works far better than its early implementations, and I find it slightly easier than the Gnome and KDE equivalents
  3. I tend to think that compmgmt.msc never gets enough credit for how cool it is
  4. (since I used Apache for *nix) Outlook FTW in the "killer app" department. Though I will say that I think Entourage (Mac version of Outlook) does Exchange WebDAV connections better than Outlook, I've yet to find an OSS equivalent to all I do with Outlook.
  5. Active Directory Users and Computers. Short, simple, and sweet. My only complaint is how it can get cluttered when in the wrong hands, but you can't program out user error no matter how hard you try, no?

There. That's five and five off the top of my head, though I'm sure I missed a whole bunch. Basically, what I'm saying is that neither reign supreme over the other in terms of ease-of-use. They do, however, have totally different approaches to problems on each system, despite their similaries "under the hood." It's really cool, though, to see how so many approaches to issues cross over between the two on the majority basis, even though the names or paths might differ.

I'm a Windows guy who works in a Windows shop, but I have to say that a lot of the complaints I hear about *nix usually tend to the "it's not Windows" line of thinking, and all I can say to that is "of course not, it never claimed to be." That's like complaining that the strawberry ice cream cone you ordered isn't chocolate.
 

TechieSooner

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
7,601
[*]Change the computer name
QUOTE]

Also believe netdom can be used to change that...


mwarps said:
Generally when looking to change settings, it's a good idea to know 're doing.. Just a thought. Unless you know exactly what your hardware is capable of, you shouldn't screw with something. This is a general computer principle.
Once more- we are talking about the stinking resolution!
I know as a fact my 19" Widescreen can do 1440x900. The manufacturer knows it. Windows supports it. Yet in Linux it has to be so damned hard!
 

nobody_here

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
8,878
[*]Change the computer name

Also believe netdom can be used to change that...



Once more- we are talking about the stinking resolution!
I know as a fact my 19" Widescreen can do 1440x900. The manufacturer knows it. Windows supports it. Yet in Linux it has to be so damned hard!

yeah, what gives with this....why cant he just right click the desktop and choose a resolution?

anything less is inexcusable
 

pxc

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 22, 2000
Messages
33,064
Not everything is more hassle in *nix world, and implying such is either intellectual dishonesty or ignorance.
That's not what I said or implied. I mentioned the hassle of entering several long statements in a row and how using the GUI is easy in the 2 cases I quoted. I'm not going to bother responding to your whole post because the quoted portion above captures the gist of your misrepresentation.

In context, I said that counting the GUI functionality as a negative because a Linux user has no alternative "seem like nit-picks against Windows". Disagree with that if you want, but don't go making up stuff.

And yes, it is absolutely ridiculous to expect users to type in long sequences of commands in a terminal. Just because you can do it doesn't make it better. Give me an installer any day of the week for software, the less hassle the better.

But I understand some people are partial to Linux, even with the glaring usability problems staring right at 'em. You may love the command prompt, but most people loathe it. If there's an easier way to do something in the GUI, I prefer that although I use the command line in Linux (far too often IMO), in Windows and also in PowerShell.
 

Vashypooh

2[H]4U
Joined
May 25, 2006
Messages
2,495
yeah, what gives with this....why cant he just right click the desktop and choose a resolution?

anything less is inexcusable

In my experience this stems from the monitor either being connected by a VGA cable and not DVI, Faulty EDID, or video card drivers not configured correctly.

Windows does the same crap on a computer until video card drivers are installed.
 

pxc

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 22, 2000
Messages
33,064
I know as a fact my 19" Widescreen can do 1440x900. The manufacturer knows it. Windows supports it. Yet in Linux it has to be so damned hard!
Wait until you get to the fun part of fixing that from a command prompt. It's the better way. If you don't believe that, read the posts above! :p
 

Whatsisname

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Nov 15, 2000
Messages
10,202
look at just about every respectable scientific paper written in the past 20 years. They usually aren't written in MS Word, they are usually written in (La)Tex, a purely text based application. The best part is, documents produced with LaTeX look far more professional than those with MS Word.

Perhaps people don't agree with you because supporting idiots is their job? Seriously, how can you create a professional letterhead type document with only a text based application. I have enough eyestrain problems as it is without a screen full of ascii text, thanks. Cleartype for the win, and gui's and pictures too!.

In fact, the reason I like linux at all is because of Beryl. Eye candy > * :).
 

Whatsisname

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Nov 15, 2000
Messages
10,202
why do you need a gui movie player? Is there something inherently wrong with having a terminal open all the time and running mplayer whenever you want to watch a movie?

Now I won't deny when MPlayer is king when it comes to console media players, but for a GUI I expect something a little more robust.
 

Whatsisname

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Nov 15, 2000
Messages
10,202
1) dhclient eth0 (or whatever interface) will do that
2) lspci and lsusb are usually all you really need, and lspci identifies devices even if it doesnt have drivers
3) compmgmt is pretty good
5) I'd take a good ldap setup over active directory, much easier to manage, backup, and restore if you hose it.

Things I find easier in Windows:
  1. Still haven't found an easy version of ipconfig release/renew on *nix
  2. Device Manager is definitely nifty and works far better than its early implementations, and I find it slightly easier than the Gnome and KDE equivalents
  3. I tend to think that compmgmt.msc never gets enough credit for how cool it is
  4. (since I used Apache for *nix) Outlook FTW in the "killer app" department. Though I will say that I think Entourage (Mac version of Outlook) does Exchange WebDAV connections better than Outlook, I've yet to find an OSS equivalent to all I do with Outlook.
  5. Active Directory Users and Computers. Short, simple, and sweet. My only complaint is how it can get cluttered when in the wrong hands, but you can't program out user error no matter how hard you try, no?
 

Whatsisname

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Nov 15, 2000
Messages
10,202
the reason the sequences of commands is better is because anyone can automate anything into an installer or script, not just people that have already invested thousands into msdn for documentation to write installers

And yes, it is absolutely ridiculous to expect users to type in long sequences of commands in a terminal. Just because you can do it doesn't make it better. Give me an installer any day of the week for software, the less hassle the better.
 

pxc

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 22, 2000
Messages
33,064
the reason the sequences of commands is better is because anyone can automate anything into an installer or script, not just people that have already invested thousands into msdn for documentation to write installers
MSDN and Windows Installer are free. Even if they were not, it costs nothing to make a batch file and use regsvr under Windows.

It's funny that *anyone* can automate it but the author chooses not to. :p It's annoying.
 

:LJ:

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 6, 2002
Messages
1,348
It's a bunch of 1s and 0s on the hard drive. You can do just about anything to your data if you're stubborn enough about getting it done.

I don't do those things via command line. Why? More buttons to push.

This is an utterly moronic comment. I wasn't suggesting that you should do these things with the command line (although there are valid reasons for doing so). I wasn't even suggesting that these are things it would be useful for someone to do at all. I was responding to the assertion that one can do anything with the CLI on Windows that the GUI is capable of, which is patently false (thank you to the guy who mentioned PowerShell....if you could already do everything with the CLI in Windows, there would be no need for such a development).

However, for what it's worth, these are all things I've needed to do on both Windows and Linux machines.
 

Met-AL

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 9, 2002
Messages
7,889
Maybe Whatsisname needs a GUI webbrowser so he doesn't have 6 posts in a row cause he can't click the "add quote" icon. :rolleyes:

look at just about every respectable scientific paper written in the past 20 years. They usually aren't written in MS Word, they are usually written in (La)Tex, a purely text based application. The best part is, documents produced with LaTeX look far more professional than those with MS Word.

If find it odd that you base the respectfulness of a "scientific paper" on what application the paper was written with instead of the content of the "scientific paper" instead. What about those scientists that are more leet than you that use a Mac instead?

why do you need a gui movie player? Is there something inherently wrong with having a terminal open all the time and running mplayer whenever you want to watch a movie?

Bah, you noobs and your terminals. A REAL dork watches movies with a punch card reader.

Terminals... :rolleyes: gimme a break.

Why need a GUI layer? How about this, it's almost 2008, it's not about need anymore, it's about want. We are not running 8-bit 8k 6502 based computers anymore, they are capable of a GUI.

I recently put XP64 on my laptop. XP64 can run on laptops just peachy. I installed video drivers that had no reason not to work. The drivers either did not install properly, or have a bug, because instead of showing me the login screen on reboot, it showed me a white screen. I effectively could not interface with the OS at all. What saved me from this was booting to VGA mode and uninstalling the offending driver. (a later beta version of the driver works fine)
Often, laptop hardware, especially graphics systems and motherboards are customized by the laptop manufacturer and off the shelf reference drivers from AMD/ATI and nVidia don't always support them. Laptops should use drivers from the laptop manufacturer, which sadly, are often several versions behind the reference drivers.
 

Monkey God

Mangina Full of Sand
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
6,723
OK, I'll admit my knowledge of the Windows command line is probably fairly lacking, but there are a few things I'm pretty sure you can't do:
  1. Change the computer name
  2. Alter swap file configuration
  3. Install hardware drivers (manually, not using an installer)
  4. Alter non-simple network settings (additional IP addresses, firewall config etc)
Just a few things that hit my brain at this late hour. I'm fully open to being wrong, though (but only if you tell me how they can be done, not just a "yeah, I can do that").

EDIT: Oh, and writing a script to automate the GUI doesn't count.

Some people already responded to this, but yes you can do all that from command line. I find amusing that many people think that because windows focuses on using the GUI for most purposes that somehow the command line just doesn't do anything any more...

The same people who claim linux is so much better because of the power of the command line. Um, ok.
 

:LJ:

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 6, 2002
Messages
1,348
Some people already responded to this, but yes you can do all that from command line. I find amusing that many people think that because windows focuses on using the GUI for most purposes that somehow the command line just doesn't do anything any more...

The same people who claim linux is so much better because of the power of the command line. Um, ok.

I already said that I don't mind being wrong about it. However, I also said that you'd have to tell me how. I'd love to know how to install device drivers from the command line without running a GUI application. If you're too shy to post it here, PM me. And yes, there are many cases where the standard "stick a CD in and leave Windows to it" approach doesn't work. But regardless....read the post again. There are functions in Windows that are only available from the GUI. That is a fact. Microsoft have even stated it themselves. It amazes me that people here would rather argue the toss over individual points than focus on the larger issue.

I'm not claiming that Linux is so much better because of the CLI. I don't believe I've said that at all. There are many reasons it works so much better for me (and many of my customers), but the CLI is not always one of them.

Perhaps you ought to use more text-based applications for a little while. It might enable you to read with more clarity and comprehension.
 

Met-AL

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 9, 2002
Messages
7,889
I'm not claiming that Linux is so much better because of the CLI. I don't believe I've said that at all. There are many reasons it works so much better for me (and many of my customers), but the CLI is not always one of them.

You don't have to say it, it's implied. The thread is a debate about Windows, Windows users, and Ubuntu. You posted what you did implying that Linux is better because of the CLI.

What would be the other reason to post that in this thread?
 
Top