Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 10:32:33 +1030 From: Greg Lehey <grog@FreeBSD.org> To: Anthony Atkielski <anthony@atkielski.com>, "Andrew C. Hornback" <achornback@worldnet.att.net> Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>, Steve Brown <gtabug@prayforwind.com>, Chip <chip@wiegand.org>, questions@FreeBSD.ORG, setantae <setantae@submonkey.net>, Kenneth Wayne Culver <culverk@wam.umd.edu>, Andre` Niel Cameron <AndreC@Axxs.net>, Toomas Aas <toomas.aas@raad.tartu.ee>, Ken Bolingbroke <hacker@bolingbroke.com>, FreeBSD Questions <freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: home pc use Message-ID: <20011121103233.K76318@monorchid.lemis.com> In-Reply-To: <00b401c17203$caba2630$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <004601c17205$1dc2e780$6600000a@ach.domain> <009201c171fe$d273a270$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <012001c171b5$ac8d86a0$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <012701c17216$9e31df00$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <00a601c17202$0f9af880$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <00c801c17205$1175f2b0$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <001f01c171cf$430e8ac0$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <005f01c171bf$c4d06b10$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <012501c171b5$dcd9b900$0a00000a@atkielski.com> References: <20011120114236.GA76431@rhadamanth> <005f01c171bf$c4d06b10$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <3BF9B12B.3D521A4D@nycap.rr.com> <0111191831240Q.60958@chip.wiegand.org> <20011119220243.A268@prayforwind.com> <009a01c171a9$4eedbee0$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <20011120023948.A92409@xor.obsecurity.org> <00df01c171b0$2a938be0$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <20011120024747.A92560@xor.obsecurity.org> <012501c171b5$dcd9b900$0a00000a@atkielski.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
OK, this is getting beyond anything reasonable. Unless something new
occurs, this will be my last message on the subject. Please also note
that this shouldn't be on -questions; it's a discussion, and there's
no evidence you're even trying to solve what technical problems you
might have.
On Tuesday, 20 November 2001 at 13:34:53 +0100, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> Ceri writes:
>
>> It's a window manager. Try it, it's in the ports tree.
>
> Maybe some other time. I've had my fill of window managers for the
> time being.
Are you planning to use only the console interface?
>> Yes, FreeBSD is suited for server use, but I find it perfectly
>> adequate for my dekstop needs as well.
>
> It may be, if your needs are very limited. I have more than 100
> applications that I use on Windows,
All at the same time?
> though, and there is just no way to get the equivalent on
> FreeBSD--nor do I have any motivation to try to do so.
Obviously if you're happy with Microsoft, there's no reason to change.
I have 5 machines in my office, four of them running FreeBSD. Three
of these run a series of X displays spread across 5 21" screens, and I
currently have 67 windows open. The fourth machine is a laptop which
currently has 12 windows open; I count it separately because I don't
normally control it from the same keyboard/mouse pair. The machines
don't crash. The laptop was last rebooted 12 days ago at the other
end of the world.
The fifth machine runs Microsoft. I am required to use it for my
work. I currently have 6 windows open: four Netscape, one Mail, one
"Network Dialer" (a function which FreeBSD performs automatically).
Using this machine is like pulling teeth. It offers me none of the
functionality of my FreeBSD machine, it mutilates the mail I send out,
and it generally puts me in a bad mood. Why would I want this?
> When you've seen one or two dispatchers, you've seen them all.
Well, no, but it's not exactly relevant to this discussion.
> The fundamental architecture of UNIX is very well know, even by
> people who don't use it. After all, it has been around for thirty
> years, and it's pretty straightforward. It is thus very easy and
> valid to make "sweeping comments" concerning UNIX, whether or not
> one happens to be one of the world's five greatest experts on the
> system.
>
> What surprises and amuses me is that so many people here do not
> realize this.
I think you're misinterpreting the messages you get. I find your
comments somewhat ill-informed, which is why I'm going to the trouble
to reply to this.
> Maybe UNIX is the only OS they've ever used.
There aren't too many operating systems I haven't used.
On Tuesday, 20 November 2001 at 15:25:37 +0100, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> Ceri writes:
>
>> Who said anything about cloning Windows ?
>
> I did. A realistic GUI environment for me would have to be a
> virtual clone of Windows, because virtually all the applications I
> use are Windows-only applications.
Under these circumstances, I'm surprised that you even try something
else.
>> You come here and basically say ``All window managers suck.''
>
> In a world dominated by Microsoft Windows, any window manager that
> does not replicate Windows functionality effectively sucks, from the
> standpoint of the average end user.
I think you're looking from your standpoint. But note that the
average user is also very badly educated about computers. When that
changes, software will get better than the current Microsoft junk.
> This may not be a pleasant thought, but it is a hard reality. I may
> not like everything about Windows, but I do accept that it is the
> standard against which all other window systems must be measured.
You're certainly in a minority there. I'd like to say it's the lowest
common denominator, but that's not correct: Microsoft is off on a
tangent to the way I want to work.
>> I suggest a window manager that doesn't suck, and you say ``I've
>> had my fill''.
>
> I heard great things about KDE, too, but it turned out to be a
> disappointment.
First, I need to make the point that KDE is not an unreliable window
manager. The problems you are having are yours, not those of a
specific software component. People have been trying to help you, but
you don't seem to want help.
Having said that, I hate KDE. It tries to look too much like
Microsoft, which I think is the wrong paradigm. Such window managers
don't scale. I put it on my daughter's laptop, thinking she might
find it interesting, but she went back to fvwm2.
Oh yes, she has Microsoft on her laptop too. She hardly uses it.
> So did the default window manager.
Default window manager? There isn't one.
> I can't devote my life to trying to make UNIX look like Windows.
No, you should learn to use it to its best advantage.
> There are lots of other things that UNIX is good for, and I have no
> pressing desire to prove that UNIX can be "just as good" as Windows.
Of course not. Why lessen its usefulness?
> That's what I'm doing, although I've discovered that this list, at
> least, is nearly useless for that purpose. One need only read your
> own post, and others like it, and distill the real, useful
> information they contain, if any, to see how poorly this list
> fulfills its nominal role.
It's a two-way street. If you don't try to solve your own problems,
nobody else will help you for long. As I've said, I'm bowing out.
On Tuesday, 20 November 2001 at 21:50:57 +0100, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> Ceri writes:
>
>> I refute your assumption that a system that doesn't run Windows
>> applications is useless.
>
> If you can get by without any Windows applications, your refutation
> is valid. But most people need to run at least a few Windows
> applications,
Why? I wouldn't run any at all if I were not forced to.
>> There you go again. Window Managers Do Not Run Applications. All
>> you need is an X server to run Netscape.
>
> Maybe I'm confused. How do you run an X server or an application
> within it without a window manager?
Well, I wouldn't recommend running without a window manager, though
I've seen exactly this in a production environment. Start the X
server and put the following in the .xinitrc:
netscape
That's all. No borders, no menus, just netscape.
On Tuesday, 20 November 2001 at 21:29:25 +0100, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> Kenneth writes:
>
>> Not everyone wants their systems to look like and feel like
>> windows.
>
> Maybe, but you'd never know that from the fervor with which UNIX
> users (or newbies, at least) rush to install GUI environments on
> their machines.
There's a difference between looking like Microsoft and running a GUI.
> Maybe I should take a poll: How many FreeBSD users here are
> satisfied with just the standard command-line interface and
> interactions through terminal-style remote programs like telnet or
> ssh? I'll raise my hand, but I daresay that I won't see too many
> other hands going up.
Wrong question. "How many FreeBSD users need Microsoft applications
to get their work done?".
>> I for one would never have installed FreeBSD on my computers 5 or 6
>> years ago if it had looked like windows.
>
> I installed FreeBSD specifically with the intent of leaving it in
> its native state. It's a server, not a desktop. If I want to throw
> away vast amounts of horsepower putting drop shadows and sparkly
> highlights on screen icons, I'll do it on my Windows desktop system
This seems to contradict what you've said above.
> (heck, do I have a choice?).
Of course you do.
>> What were you disappointed by?
>
> The raggedness and instability of the windows environments. KDE2
> was all flash and no substance. Pretty icons and graphics,
> obviously influenced by Redmond, but with none of the stability of a
> real Windows system. For example, the task bar would get stuck,
> with only the background painted, or icons would freeze on the
> screen, or all sorts of other weird anomalies. It just had a junky
> feel to it.
Why are you blaming FreeBSD for KDE?
> Long ago, I saw a very simple windowed desktop on DEC UNIX systems,
> if I remember correctly. Can anyone tell me what sort of
> environment that was?
Could have been twm.
> I don't need something fancy, just something that will let me run
> programs that require an X environment. I don't care if I hear
> lovely chimes when I double-click on icons, and I don't need to have
> a menu of 3,245 desktop themes to choose from.
Try fvwm2.
>> What exactly do you want to know how to do, I didn't read your
>> original post, but I'll read your response to this mail, I'm sure I
>> can help you with most of your problems; as I still remember the
>> problems I had when I made the switch (And never went back)
>
> I've asked a number of questions, and often I either got no answer
> at all, or vague or incomplete answers.
Or ones you've ignored.
> The problem of a mysterious reboot during the night is one of them:
> My system rebooted abruptly sometime during the night, on one single
> occasion, which has not been repeated. There seems to be no
> evidence of what happened; I asked here if there was any place where
> I could look for clues, but didn't get much of an answer. The
> system was running setiathome, and a cron job was executing (I know
> this from the last screen output by top on a remote terminal before
> the system went down). Nothing else. The system has been in the
> same state on many other occasions, but no reboots have occurred.
Well, I sent you a reply with many details and recommendations. What
did you do about it? In the time this thread has been going on, I
heard from somebody else complaining about the same problems. I
pointed him to the same information. He tried it, it worked.
On Tuesday, 20 November 2001 at 23:56:34 +0100, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> Ceri writes:
>
>> That's not the situation you described though, is it?
>
> It's exactly the situation I described.
>
>> You said :
>> `` I would not run any X server on a large system
>> with many users connected; let the users gobble
>> resources on their own workstations, not on the
>> central system.''
>>
>> If, however, you are running the X server on the
>> same machine, then the server and workstation are
>> one and the same.
>
> Yes, and if there are other users connected to the machine, then the situation I
> described obtains.
>
>> However, I think you are failing to realise that the X server and
>> the workstation are always one and the same.
>
> But the workstation and the server (the server being the UNIX system running the
> clients) are not. I meant server in the sense of the central system serving
> many users.
>
>> Each user runs their own X server.
>
> If the user is running the X server on the console of his FreeBSD
> system, then everything is running on a single machine. This
> appears to be the way many people do it, from what I've read here.
> And so a multiuser timesharing system is essentially being used as a
> simple desktop.
That depends on how you use the machine. If you want a "simple
desktop", what else would you use? My machines also run a number of
servers as well. I don't know what you're trying to say here, but it
appears to be an attempt to divert attention from an obvious
contradiction.
> Kind of like using MVS as an adding machine.
I can't see any similarity.
>> I'll say it again, in case you still don't get it : The X server
>> runs on the workstation.
>
> But the workstation and the UNIX server are usually one and the
> same, in the configurations being discussed here. If you are
> running KDE, typically it is running on the console of the same
> machine that runs the X clients, as I understand it.
There are significant differences. As I say, I have five, sometimes
six screens connected to one pair of input devices. They're spread
across two, maybe three machines, but the clients are running on many
more, currently about fourteen machines.
> So everything is running on one machine ... just like a desktop.
I still don't know what you're trying to say or prove with this
statement.
> I supposed you could split things over two machines, but is anyone
> really doing that?
Yes, as I said. But even for those who don't, the flexibility is
important. It means that if they want to do so, they can.
> To run a GUI, you need intimate communication with the hardware.
Understand that a real operating system is not one big monolithic blob
from the interrupt handlers up to the widgets. It's modular. Looking
from this viewpoint, your statement doesn't really say anything
useful.
>> As in, each user runs their own X server on their own workstation,
>> the machine that all the users they are logged into doesn't run an
>> X server at all, it runs X clients.
>
> These two machines may be one and the same.
This is a feature, not a bug.
On Tuesday, 20 November 2001 at 12:22:37 +0100, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> Kris writes:
>
>> This is a tautological statement ("code which needs to do more
>> complicated things is more complicated and larger").
>
> It is indeed, and yet many people still manage to ignore the reality
> of it. There is a (religious) belief among many that their
> preferred OS will somehow be able to maintain a complex GUI
> environment without any of the complexity of code or potential
> instability that goes with it. Obviously, this cannot be, and yet
> they continue to believe it.
You'll always find people like that. If you are implying that it
applies to the majority (or even a large minority) of FreeBSD users,
you're wrong.
>> This is an overgeneralization; under FreeBSD it's very rare for a
>> window manager bug to "take out the OS". Even if the X server
>> crashes the system still runs.
>
> You'd think so. But it worried me tremendously that, while simply
> trying to change a font in KDE, the entire system crashed. It
> should not be possible for an application like a windows manager to
> crash the kernel.
Correct.
> The fact that this was possible worries me because it casts a shadow
> on the security of the kernel--how could a user application manage
> to crash the system like that?
Well, show us the dump and we'll tell you. And we'll fix it.
On Tuesday, 20 November 2001 at 21:41:49 +0100, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> Ken writes:
>
>> The problem I see is that you really haven't
>> tried enough to make such a determination.
>
> I don't have to. Statistically, there is no reason to suspect
> hardware unless and until everything else has been eliminated.
>
> If someone hits you in the rear end at an intersection, which makes
> more sense: (1) tearing down the car in a garage to test the
> transmission in careful detail, in order to make sure that the car
> wasn't stuck in Drive; or (2) testing the driver for alcohol in his
> blood?
How does this relate to the case at hand? Here you have been told
that crashes during cron jobs are frequently disk related, that your
chip set has known issues with the disk controller, and the version of
FreeBSD you're running doesn't have a workaround installed.
On Tuesday, 20 November 2001 at 23:16:44 +0100, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> Ken writes:
>
>> Face it, countless people use KDE. You're whining about all these
>> bugs, how it's not stable, etc. Yet, all these other people,
>> myself included, are just using it. So you couldn't get it to
>> work... Hardware fault? Driver bugs? User error? Take your
>> pick.
>
> Okay, what did I do wrong?
You didn't try to find the cause of the crash.
>> And you wonder why people aren't falling over themselves to help
>> you out of their own goodwill.
>
> Some of them are more worried about trying to defend their religion
> with personal attacks.
I don't see that.
Greg
--
See complete headers for address and phone numbers
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20011121103233.K76318>