On Wed, 07 Jun 2017 15:02:19 +0100, T i m wrote:

On Wed, 07 Jun 2017 12:49:03 +0100, Mark
wrote:

snip

Basically, most of what 'most people' are expected to deal with (in a
technical sense) is typically done via the GUI. That means it can be
managed by solutions often found by trial-and error.

Would you be happy building a house using "trial-and-error" or doing
any other major DIY project in this way?

Do you only do those things you know how to do then?

It depends on the consequences of getting it wrong. I normally like
to be prepared as best I can for a task.

I wouldn't.

Ah. So, not a 'pioneer' at any level?

At some levels.

When I was at secondary school in woodwork classes we were given the
choice of making book-ends or a bathroom cabinet. Because I didn't
read (for fun) I didn't need any book-ends and because I didn't own a
bathroom I didn't want a bathroom cabinet either, what I didn't have
but did want was a boat. My teacher asked him if I had ever built a
boat before and I said I had not. Then he asked how I knew I was able
to built one and I wouldn't know till I tried. So, I built the boat
(and still have it) because I knew I had the basic skills I needed to
do something I had never done before. Same with building the kitcar
after doing all the bits individually on different vehicles over the
years.

You did have the basic skills so it wasn't entirely "trial and error"

--snip--

With Linux and it's greater reliance on the CLI to do such things (and
with very little that would be intuitive to anyone who wasn't a
programmer or used to dealing with such systems), it is less easy /
likely for anyone to fix something using trial-and-error, rather than
the '1000 monkeys' solution.

Again Linux is great for people who are prepared to learn it, not for
the monkeys.

Not 'again', 'exactly'. So, you have to look at the *typical* userbase
for most desktop OS's and then consider just how much involvement and
'learning' you might consider to be a minimum requirement. My point
was that it *is* (unquestionably) easier to lean something that you
can explore than something that heads more traditional study.

I am not talking about the "typical" userbase, but people who want to
explore things in more depth. And people can explore Linux.


This is coming from someone who built his first IBM PC/AT clone
running MSDOS 5 and OS fairly familiar with editing a *couple* of
startup batch files and using a few basic CLI commands.

Great. But DOS/Windows is limited for DIY'ers since it's all closed
source.

But that is just the OS itself, there is nothing stopping people
writing other modules like drivers and applications.

True.


Installing and maintaining several DOS's ... CPM, OS2, Apples OS / OSX
and NOS's like Windows 3.11, Lan Manager, Netware and NT Server,
offered very little in the way of preparation for installing and
running Linux.

Of course, it's a different OS.

But why should it be so different re user-administration, especially
in 2017? The answer is 'it shouldn't' and if all the people working on
Linux stuff, doing their own thing, forking distros every which way,
spent time refining the admin GUI to be more, 'GUI' then maybe my list
could include Linux?

Why should it be the same? Talking about Windows, Microsoft make
changes at every version.

And it is my prediction that one day it might, making any counter
argument pretty mute?

Maybe if I'd ever had to work on a mainframe or a Unix machine over my
40 years in IT support, Linux wouldn't have appeared so different /
difficult?

It does take some effort to learn, but what doesn't.

Something that can be intuitively explored is easier to lean than
something that can't.

So?

You can't build
Windows kernels yourself or modify the source code.

And most wouldn't want to (including me), ever.

I am talking about just administering the OS from an admin-users POV.
So, that's not developer or end user just using what they are given
with it all working (as well as it can be).

So I am talking people like me who might like to be able to fix more
of the many things that often don't work on Linux with hardware OOTB
that work with Windows OOTB because in most cases there is official
support for Windows from the hardware manufacturers and software
writers.

If your talking drivers then I doubt Linux drivers are harder to write
than those for Windows (although I've not done either (yet)).

Linux is currently still that harsh square peg in the generally
friendly round hole that is Windows (OSX / Android) world.

I think we'll need to agree to disagree about this.

Slowly though the square is being rounded (as even I have seen over a
good few years now from not being able to install Linux and even get
it working, installing it and having some things working (wired
Ethernet if not Wireless, some video display rather than none) to it
generally working as long as you are a bit lucky).

FWIW I've not had too much trouble installing Linux.

My point is that *my* low level skills re Linux admin haven't really
improved yet my ability to get to a fully working (basic) machine has.

That's progress :-)

Regards,
Mark