Re: A 'clean' OS?

From: nameless (namelyouress@myrealbclothesox.com)
Date: 02/17/03


From: "nameless" <namelyouress@myrealbclothesox.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 21:32:00 GMT

Colonel Sam Flagg, U.S. Army Intelligence (ret) wrote:

> In article <xcb4a.42128$9U3.36531@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
> namelyouress@myrealbclothesox.com says...
>> To[r+]onado wrote:
>>
>>> Mandrake is not the only [Linux] distro available,
>>> even though it is the user-friendliest.
>>
>> Is this true? I find myself confused when I read all the reviews,
>> opinions, information, and criticisms of the various distros. Some
>> people say SuSe is the easiest to use, others say [insert flavor
>> here], and so on.
>>
>> I've been "wanting to" try Linux for eons, but distro choice is one
>> thing that has been holding me back. I know I don't have the time or
>> patience to try three or four different flavors of Linux, so if I
>> made the splash, I'd "need" for it to be something that didn't
>> disgust me straight off.
>>
>>> You would be amazed to see how user friendly Linux can be.
>>> There is practically nothing you can do in Windows that you can't
>>> make it in Linux in a more productive way. All system/security
>>> settings can be configured/modified through panels and GUI's
>>> similar to those that are being used in Windows
>>
>> This surprises me. Based on what I've heard, using Linux is
>> equivalent to resigning yourself to constant CLI use, and ASCII
>> configuration file editing.
>>
>>
>
> lol.
>
> I have proved this point time and time again. I can edit a .conf file
> in a CLI, start/stop say Apache much faster than a Windows NT Admin
> can do the same for say IIS, with less steps.
>
> Just for the sake of argument, let's start from scratch on a RedHat
> reconfiguration to a website, say you want to add the ability to view
> indexes on a particular web directory.
>
> 1/2) From a command line, there's one less step, from a GUI X-Windows
> desktop, you need to open a terminal, so there's 1/2 steps, depending
> on how you're using your server.
>
> 3) vi /usr/local/apache/conf/httpd.conf
>
> 4) when that opens, simply type: / <enter> type the name of the
> website at the "/" say: /internetwarzone.org <enter> "vi" will find
> the website virtually hosted in the conf file.
>
> 5) in the <directory> option, add "indexes" by using the cursor to go
> to the position to add it, hit "i", type "indexes", hit escape.
>
> 6) hit ":", then "wq", then <enter>
>
> The conf file was modified, now run:
>
> # /usr/local/apache/bin/apachectl restart
>
> You're done. That's either 5 or 6 steps.
>
> Windows guys? Can you narrow it down to 5 or 6?
>
> Even if we split this up to each <enter> constitutes a step, the above
> would be either 6 or 7 steps. If we do that, the Windows Admin that
> thinks he/she can do it in less steps needs to count every click,
> which would constitute an <enter> command.

That's great, but I'm afraid it misses the point. I don't want to spend
half my waking hours learning vague configuration parameters in the
first place!

I have installed Apache on WinXP, and (yes) got it to work. However, I
found it very clumsy to learn and configure. GUIs are easy to criticize
as "crutches" and slow, but that argument goes both ways. If you don't
know or can't remember a particular configuration parm, it's almost
assured that your work would be faster (and less error prone) with a
GUI.

Besides, the two are not mutually exclusive. The best thing would be to
have a GUI which served to edit an ASCII configuration file, which you
could opt to alter manually.

-- 
Free, simple, and effective encryption: <http://snurl.com/clipsecure>
Reliable partitioning and imaging: <http://www.bootitng.com>
Improve Outlook Express for free: <http://jump.to/oe-quotefix>
Trustworthy Computing: You can trust it to be insecure.


Relevant Pages

  • Re: A clean OS?
    ... start/stop say Apache much faster than a Windows NT Admin ... >> the website virtually hosted in the conf file. ... or make more mistakes in a GUI because pointing and clicking is so ... And that's an option in Unix, whereby it's not an option in Windows, ...
    (alt.computer.security)
  • Re: Linux here we come.
    ... It may well be better than nothing, but it is not better than Windows ... editing a text-based configuration file or typing a thousand switches ... what's wrong with command line? ... because great GUI application couldn't create mirror ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Dithering over
    ... should be using a command line to perform tasks instead of a GUI. ... running nano, navigating to where the .conf file is, editing that with ... The thing is, something like Ubuntu does what most people need to do very simply, and pretty much anything you want if you fiddle, considerably more reliably than Windows can. ...
    (uk.rec.cars.modifications)
  • Re: regsvr32 error code 0x80004002
    ... configuration file. ... Regarding DLL hell, I want to talk it from another perspective. ... Per-application Configuration on Windows XP ... To have it work, you must install Application ...
    (microsoft.public.vc.mfc)
  • Re: A clean OS?
    ... > patience to try three or four different flavors of Linux, ... >> There is practically nothing you can do in Windows that you can't make ... virtually hosted in the conf file. ... the position to add it, hit "i", type "indexes", hit escape. ...
    (alt.computer.security)