OK, response time to the responses everybody!...
BTW, if you're joining in late I'm the one who took
us all on this merry little goose chase.
Keith E. Moore wrote:
> In article <332B8A44.BCD...@inreach.com>, Michael Pope wrote:
> >Allrightie, this has been a long time in coming. This is just
> >IMHO and reflects nobody's oppinions but my own. OK, here we go:
> >1) OLE-like system:
> >It's true. Think about it - unless you know a LOT about the typesetting
> >languages (and maybe not even then) you can't display a picture you drew
[my text clipped]
> Solaris, DEC-Unix and Linux will be the first three *IX systems
> to get Active-X. (Believe it or not, SCO will come _later_).
Active-X??? Who said ANYTHING about Active-X? I want a way to
exchange data, not crappy programs!!!... OK, OK, maybe M$ counts
OLE as ActiveX, but I DON'T.
> >2) A good IDE:
> >Don't you sometimes get tired of
> Actually, I find Visual Slickedit for Linux to be a nice system.
> also, you should really use DDD or xxgdb, 100x better than just gdb.
[my text snipped]
> Visual Slick has this. The only thing it does not have is Makefile
> generation, but anyone who has been programming for any time has
> a skeleton Makefile laying around that they just fill in.
Really? I'd like to know where I can get it...
> >3) "Hiding" the multi-user aspects
> >OK, this SEEMS far-fetched first, but hear me out.
[my text yet again snipped]
> Uhm... you will probably get nasty flames from this, but I'll try
> to be a little level-headed:
> Look at the docs for XDM. (Generally just switching to a new
> runlevel will set it up). Under RedHat, you can use the UserManager, and
> it has the option of a Blank Password. You can use the RunLevel Editor
> to switch to X-Windows Only also.
> All OS's today, including Windows'95 (if there is a network connection)
> ask for a Userid and password, so it is really pointless anyway to try
> to get rid of this.
> >like always with DOS. Utilities run with shell scripts could be
> >suid'ed/or temporarily log in as root and allow you to control
> >Of course, in the setup the inclusion of said login account, login
> >and utilities is COMPLETELY optional (say, maybe for a 'desktop system'
> Please... let's not revert to DOS. We are not competing with insecure
> OS's, even Microsoft has had to start tightening it's security on
> even it's desktop OS's. Corporate America does not trust it's
Who said anything about employees? This particular beast is intended
more for home use.
> >4) Standardized interface
> >Although not enforced (like Micro$oft) it should be encouraged to have
> >a Windows-like interface, reguardless of the toolkit. This will make
> >it easier on just about everyone...
> It's called the CDE, and it's available for Linux.
That's called bloat, and it costs $250.
> >Wait, wait, I've got a BETTER idea!!!
> >INSTEAD of hardcoding the location of, say, the menu bars, or the scroll
> >bars, we could have a toolkit read them in from a configuration file!
> >way everything's exactally where everyone wants it for themselves!!!
> Even TheNextLevel does this.
Unless you're talking about configuring the WM I'd love to hear
how you do this.
> >5) Clipboard
> >We need one for everything (though the Motif clipboard works OK), that's
> >compatible with the Linux OLE I proposed a moment ago. 'nuff said.
> That's a whole different discussion.
For what I'm proposing, no it isn't.
> >6) Control Panels
> >Although we have the good Glint (only really good part of Red Hat IMHO)
> >we need a control-panel for /etc and other
> >key configuration repositories. Also, there should be a text-only
> >version for criticle stuff (i.e., you were logged in as root, were
> >drinking late one night, don't remember what you did but you woke up
> >at the console and /usr/X11R6 had ceased to exist...) and text-only
> >stuff (i.e. Bash configuration).
> Guess you don't use RedHat.
Been wrestling with it for a week today. Finally got the damned
> >7) No disk caching
> >This should be a valid option (and should automatically be enabled in
> >'desktop configuration' option of installation that is afforementioned)
> >would automatically sync the disk during read/writes, thus preventing
[snipping my text, yet again]
> Uhm... you're just going off into lala land now... actually you
> COULD set the sync deamon to 1 second, but it would cut some of the
> incredible speed improvements Linux has over other OS's.
I mount my disks sync and it isn't that bad... actually the
performance is pretty dang good. Besideswhich, this would
> >8) Automated floppy mounting/CD-ROM mounting
> >Although I've been told we have this via the supermount package, I don't
> >think it works quite right with the current kernels. This should
> >be maintained by someone in the kernel team (no, I'm not volunteering,
> >if I were to do so it would destroy half the test-users machines when
> >boot up... I just sort of have that 'magic programming charm' :)
> Why? Just use the MTOOLS and you don't need to mount the floppies.
I wasn't aware of that fact. I appologize.
> As for the CDROM, I have had NT lose the CDROM (i.e. is always
> unavailable until next reboot).
> I prefer having to mount the CDROM, however I DO have a button on
> my desktop to do it, and of course I allow normal users to mount the
> CDROM (nosuid, of course).
So? The mounting system isn't going to be disabled if you don't
want it to be. I imagine that this would probably be selected
at compile time or boot time (when in module form) from a config
time, defaulting (at the lack of both of those) to a mounting version,
because if it gets to that point chances are there could be problems
with the file systems.
> >9) Shared library aliasing
> >There should be a way to 'alias' a SO as another. For example, Motif
> >is compatible with Motif 1.2, yet you need libXm.so.1.2.4 to run Motif
> >1.2.4 dynamically linked applications, even if you have libXm.so.2.0.x !
> >Although I've heard they have their reasons for making it not work like
> >this you should still be able to 'alias' it (but cover the thing in
> >'danger, not liable for blah blah blah' messages :) )
> Wow, you really have no clue. Just toss in a symbolic link, actually
> if the Motif you got didn't sym-link to 1.2, you got a bad distribution.
Wow, you've never even tried it!!!
I just did it right now. Didn't work. ldconfig runs from
SONAME, which is HARD-CODED into the library. Now,
you may be using a different Motif than I am. I'm
using Jan. '97 Infomagic Moo-Tiff.
> >10) Office suite -
> >Not the bloated stuff that's coming out for Windows. I'm pretty sure
> >that we can muster together a decent Word Processor with most core
> >in 1 executable (>5 MB) if dynamically linked. Same for a spreadsheet
> >Access/DBase-like database application. Throw in a few extras (i.e.
> >spellchecker, OLE-ish stuff for Linux, paint program) we'd probably
> >be able to put something together in the 40-50 meg range, installed.
> Applix, StarOffice, Clique, CorelJava, others still coming.
Bloat, bloat, neverheardofit, bloat, name some (w/o bloat).
Please note that I said 40-50 meg range, not 450 meg range.
> >11) Graphics built-in to the kernel/Real-Time stuff
> >Although this is being worked on, I believe that this is quite
> >neccessary. This is more a pat-on-the-back to the developers of these
> >kernel add-ons than anything else.
> That would be the single largest mistake ever made. Even Gates
> has admitted that moving the Graphics to the kernel may have been
> a mistake with NT, it has caused him nothing but grief since it's
A graphics API. I'm not talking about hard-wiring X into the kernel,
as a matter of fact I like the shell prompt. This would allow
things such as Doom, Quake, and maybe even XFree86 access the
screen without a suid bit neccessary.
> >12) In-application configuration
> >It isn't very fun for any novice (and many hackers) to hunt through
> >RC files to change word-wrap and the like. A good configuration system
> >built into the application to re-write RC files as neccessary would be
> Up to the program.
Perhaps, but I'd still like it as a standard.
> >13) Drag-n-Drop
> >We have this, but nobody (and I mean NOBODY) supports the same
> >OffiX has one, Motif has another, and there's gotta be a dozen more...
> >seems to write their own whenever they make a program! Can't we agree
> >on something as fundamental as this?...
> Fundamental to you, "fluff" to others.
Like who? Other than you and other people used to the shell prompt.
In order to topple M$ we need to bring Linux to the masses.
[my tirade ending snipped]
> I could care less if it becomes viable for the Masses, I would like
> it to be viable for alot of people, but Linux is a superb OS, that
> has more going for it than any other OS out there. Pigeon-holing it
> into a single type of Interface because it would be easier for someone
> who doesn't know how to set his/her wall-clock would be the
> wrong thing to do.
Ahhh, yes. And then what will happen? Linux growth will stagnate,
and probably taper off. A backwards slide will begin, with many
commercial vendors dying along the way and you'll be set two
years back, with little more than GNU and what was previously
written to keep you company.
[rest of my tirade snipped]
[rest of his tirade snipped]
Well, that's it folks. Again, I await your response. Chances
are in a few days (or hours, depending on how feisty I feel :))
I'll be posting a general response
read more »