When a local Currys closed down, I made the mistake of buying a Humax
video recorder.
I've never liked it - it takes forever to start up from cold and lights
the same red led to show both "off" and "recording". Utterly stupid
design and just one of the weirdly incompetent human interface
decisions.

Because whatever incompetent body that replaced the BBC in transmitter
site planning (Ofcom?) excelled themselves, we are now plagued by a
relay for BBC Wales nearby and in line with and thus much stronger than
Winter Hill. This makes tuning up any TV apparatus a nightmare. This may
or may not be relevant.

When setting up a programme to record, within the last few weeks the
Humax has now started deciding it will record the Welsh channel as well
as the English. So I've been having to go through and delete lots of
duplicate recordings.

Today when trying to set up to record tonight's political debate (we
look after even older people than us) it decided that it couldn't record
the Winter Hill channel because it already had two channels set to
record. Having scrolled through all the channels in the recording
schedule and finding nothing pre-programmed, it occurred to me that the
clash was with the two BBC Wales channels (HD and SD?) in the list which
it was waiting to set up. Accepting the only option of deleting the
English recording and allowing a Welsh lets it record, so we may be OK.

I wonder if anyone else has seen anything like this and whether there
may have been a recent over the air software update that has caused it.
Or is it my finger trouble?
--
Bill

On 04/06/2017 13:40, Bill wrote:
When a local Currys closed down, I made the mistake of buying a Humax
video recorder.
I've never liked it - it takes forever to start up from cold and lights
the same red led to show both "off" and "recording". Utterly stupid
design and just one of the weirdly incompetent human interface decisions.

Which model?

On Sunday, 4 June 2017 14:02:36 UTC+1, Clive George wrote:
On 04/06/2017 13:40, Bill wrote:
When a local Currys closed down, I made the mistake of buying a Humax
video recorder.
I've never liked it - it takes forever to start up from cold and lights
the same red led to show both "off" and "recording". Utterly stupid
design and just one of the weirdly incompetent human interface decisions.

Which model?

I guess it's not a betamax or u-matic.


NT

On 04/06/2017 13:40, Bill wrote:
When a local Currys closed down, I made the mistake of buying a Humax
video recorder.
I've never liked it - it takes forever to start up from cold and lights
the same red led to show both "off" and "recording". Utterly stupid
design and just one of the weirdly incompetent human interface decisions.

Because whatever incompetent body that replaced the BBC in transmitter
site planning (Ofcom?) excelled themselves, we are now plagued by a
relay for BBC Wales nearby and in line with and thus much stronger than
Winter Hill. This makes tuning up any TV apparatus a nightmare. This may
or may not be relevant.

When setting up a programme to record, within the last few weeks the
Humax has now started deciding it will record the Welsh channel as well
as the English. So I've been having to go through and delete lots of
duplicate recordings.

Today when trying to set up to record tonight's political debate (we
look after even older people than us) it decided that it couldn't record
the Winter Hill channel because it already had two channels set to
record. Having scrolled through all the channels in the recording
schedule and finding nothing pre-programmed, it occurred to me that the
clash was with the two BBC Wales channels (HD and SD?) in the list which
it was waiting to set up. Accepting the only option of deleting the
English recording and allowing a Welsh lets it record, so we may be OK.

I wonder if anyone else has seen anything like this and whether there
may have been a recent over the air software update that has caused it.
Or is it my finger trouble?

Do a full retune and delete the channels you don't want. Preferably a
'manual' retune so you only get the channels from your preferred
transmitter.

--
Max Demian

In message , Clive
George writes
On 04/06/2017 13:40, Bill wrote:
When a local Currys closed down, I made the mistake of buying a Humax
video recorder.
I've never liked it - it takes forever to start up from cold and
lights the same red led to show both "off" and "recording". Utterly
stupid design and just one of the weirdly incompetent human interface
decisions.

Which model?

2000T. The delay in finding it was because I don't want to disturb or
brave the old ladies in the lounge and couldn't immediately locate the
manuals on my backup server. That's another thing I need to improve.
--
Bill

On 04/06/17 15:02, Bill wrote:
In message , Clive
George writes
On 04/06/2017 13:40, Bill wrote:
When a local Currys closed down, I made the mistake of buying a Humax
video recorder.
I've never liked it - it takes forever to start up from cold and
lights the same red led to show both "off" and "recording". Utterly
stupid design and just one of the weirdly incompetent human
interface decisions.

Which model?

2000T. The delay in finding it was because I don't want to disturb or
brave the old ladies in the lounge and couldn't immediately locate the
manuals on my backup server. That's another thing I need to improve.

I use a PC equipped with a Hauppage USB TV tuner.

Running linux and Kaffeine.

I can record as many stations simultaneously as I have USB dongles to
tune the multiplexes to

Recorded videos are (edited with openshot to remove the adverts and)
stored on my headless domestic server (linux) (built from a scrap PC
gifted to me by my PC supplier, as it was obsolete and unsaleable) which
runs minidlna so the smart TV can 'see' the whole 500GB video library.

I have no DVD player.

DVDs are ripped on as PC as soon as they are bough, by Handbrake, and
stored on the server.

There is now just one remote and a TV screen connected by mains
networked plugs (WiFi proved unreliable for all te streaming I do) in
the living room...

It turns out that this is about the lowest box count and remote count
that works.

Mindlna does audio too. and so does the TV.

I must get a hifi amp to add to it all.

If you have a desktop PC,and a smart TV then getting the dongles aint
expensive, and building a server out of an old XP machine (needs little
CPU or RAM, just serious disk) is cheep.

And you then have a permanent online library of ALL your DVDs, plus the
functionality of a TV recorder that will do as many channels as you add
dongles up to the five that represent all the UK muxes in general.

And its a heck of a sight easier to set up recording schedules with a
mouse and keyboard than a sodding remote.


--
To ban Christmas, simply give turkeys the vote.

In message , Tim+
writes
Max Demian Wrote in message:
In answer to:
Today when trying to set up to record tonight's political debate (we
look after even older people than us) it decided that it couldn't record
the Winter Hill channel because it already had two channels set to
record. Having scrolled through all the channels in the recording
schedule and finding nothing pre-programmed, it occurred to me that the
clash was with the two BBC Wales channels (HD and SD?) in the list which
it was waiting to set up. Accepting the only option of deleting the
English recording and allowing a Welsh lets it record, so we may be OK.

I wonder if anyone else has seen anything like this and whether there
may have been a recent over the air software update that has caused it.
Or is it my finger trouble?

Do a full retune and delete the channels you don't want. Preferably a
'manual' retune so you only get the channels from your preferred
transmitter.

--
Max Demian


+1.

If you go to http://www.digitaluk.co.uk you should be able to work
out exactly which channels you need to scan.

If your aerial can pick up more than one transmitter doing an
auto-scan can make a right dog's dinner of your channel line
up.

Yes, I'm afraid I'll have to do this, but it will necessitate finding
some undisturbed time with access to the room the recorder is in.

Somehow, every single device we have here responds differently in the
way it has to be set up - even the Sony TV is different from the (older)
Sony recorder that we have under the telly as a standby device.

I was really wondering if anyone else with a Humax 2000T had noticed a
change in its behaviour in the last few weeks. It never used to program
2 or 3 instances of the same programme simultaneously on different
channels. This seems to happen whether or not the broadcasts are at the
same or different times.
If someone else has one of these recorders that doesn't do this then
I'll have to try to find what button I've pressed that I shouldn't.

--
Bill

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
I use a PC equipped with a Hauppage USB TV tuner.

Running linux and Kaffeine.

I can record as many stations simultaneously as I have USB dongles to
tune the multiplexes to

Recorded videos are (edited with openshot to remove the adverts and)
stored on my headless domestic server (linux) (built from a scrap PC
gifted to me by my PC supplier, as it was obsolete and unsaleable)
which runs minidlna so the smart TV can 'see' the whole 500GB video
library.

I have no DVD player.

DVDs are ripped on as PC as soon as they are bough, by Handbrake, and
stored on the server.

There is now just one remote and a TV screen connected by mains
networked plugs (WiFi proved unreliable for all te streaming I do) in
the living room...

It turns out that this is about the lowest box count and remote count
that works.

That sounds very interesting, although I have doubts about it being
appropriate for the circumstances here. SWMBO can just about stop and
start playback of recordings once I have them all set up and ready. She
won't use any sort of computer and the smartphone I got for her remains
unused.

I might fire up a Linux machine and have a look at Kaffeine. I assume
that when you refer to usb dongles in the 3rd para, you are meaning
dongled usb tuners?
--
Bill

On 04/06/17 17:24, Bill wrote:
In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
I use a PC equipped with a Hauppage USB TV tuner.

Running linux and Kaffeine.

I can record as many stations simultaneously as I have USB dongles to
tune the multiplexes to

Recorded videos are (edited with openshot to remove the adverts and)
stored on my headless domestic server (linux) (built from a scrap PC
gifted to me by my PC supplier, as it was obsolete and unsaleable)
which runs minidlna so the smart TV can 'see' the whole 500GB video
library.

I have no DVD player.

DVDs are ripped on as PC as soon as they are bough, by Handbrake, and
stored on the server.

There is now just one remote and a TV screen connected by mains
networked plugs (WiFi proved unreliable for all te streaming I do) in
the living room...

It turns out that this is about the lowest box count and remote count
that works.

That sounds very interesting, although I have doubts about it being
appropriate for the circumstances here. SWMBO can just about stop and
start playback of recordings once I have them all set up and ready. She
won't use any sort of computer and the smartphone I got for her remains
unused.

I might fire up a Linux machine and have a look at Kaffeine. I assume
that when you refer to usb dongles in the 3rd para, you are meaning
dongled usb tuners?

Correct. Hauppage do em for normal digital TV and a new one that does HD
as well

There's several different TV player for linux. MeTV, mythTV XRDBC VLC.

from memory. Maybe even that ghastly pile of turds Totem

For me I prefer everything - computer data, pictures music videos - all
on the server where I can auto back them up and use a TV to play the
multimedia or PC, and a PC to edit the personal data stuff

In fact you could using a wireless keyboard and mouse simply use the TV
as a monitor for that server, although I think you would need speakers
as well.




--
Of what good are dead warriors? €¦ Warriors are those who desire battle
more than peace. Those who seek battle despite peace. Those who thump
their spears on the ground and talk of honor. Those who leap high the
battle dance and dream of glory €¦ The good of dead warriors, Mother, is
that they are dead.
Sheri S Tepper: The Awakeners.

Or vcr, or video 2000 or vhs or long play vcr or Technicolour reel to reel
or video 8 or...
chuckle.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
wrote in message
...
On Sunday, 4 June 2017 14:02:36 UTC+1, Clive George wrote:
On 04/06/2017 13:40, Bill wrote:
When a local Currys closed down, I made the mistake of buying a Humax
video recorder.
I've never liked it - it takes forever to start up from cold and lights
the same red led to show both "off" and "recording". Utterly stupid
design and just one of the weirdly incompetent human interface
decisions.

Which model?

I guess it's not a betamax or u-matic.


NT

En el artículo , Bill
escribió:

Because whatever incompetent body that replaced the BBC in transmitter
site planning (Ofcom?) excelled themselves, we are now plagued by a
relay for BBC Wales nearby and in line with and thus much stronger than
Winter Hill.

That's Storeton or Moel-y-Parc. I had the exact same problem

This makes tuning up any TV apparatus a nightmare.

Older stuff will assign channels from both transmitters, this is what
you're seeing. Newer stuff will either put the duplicates up in channel
800+ or ask you which transmitter you want to use.

I wonder if anyone else has seen anything like this

yes

and whether there
may have been a recent over the air software update that has caused it.
Or is it my finger trouble?

I think you're probably getting better reception because of the good
weather, and the Humax is now able to detect the extra transmitter and
is adding the channels from that when it tunes.

I fixed it two ways for different kit:

1) for a Topfield PVR, I put an 18dB attenuator in line with the aerial
cable. This worked to filter out the weaker signal from Moel-y-parc such
that Winter Hill was the only transmitter detected

2) for another device, I ignored the auto-tuner and manually added the
channels using the information found at

https://ukfree.tv/transmitters/tv/Winter_Hill

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) "Between two evils, I always pick
(")_(") the one I never tried before." - Mae West

In message , Mike Tomlinson
writes
En el artículo , Bill
escribió:

Because whatever incompetent body that replaced the BBC in transmitter
site planning (Ofcom?) excelled themselves, we are now plagued by a
relay for BBC Wales nearby and in line with and thus much stronger than
Winter Hill.

That's Storeton or Moel-y-Parc. I had the exact same problem

Yes, Storeton in front of the aerial and Moel-y-Parc aimed at the back.
I am fairly sure that I remember that when planning permission was
finally granted for Storeton, one condition was that it would not relay
Welsh transmissions, but I haven't been able to find any record of the
permission.

This makes tuning up any TV apparatus a nightmare.

Older stuff will assign channels from both transmitters, this is what
you're seeing. Newer stuff will either put the duplicates up in
channel 800+ or ask you which transmitter you want to use.

I wonder if anyone else has seen anything like this

yes

and whether there
may have been a recent over the air software update that has caused it.
Or is it my finger trouble?

I think you're probably getting better reception because of the good
weather, and the Humax is now able to detect the extra transmitter and
is adding the channels from that when it tunes.

It has put one of the Welsh transmissions on 801, but the other is in
the normal list. It hasn't been a problem juggling the channels round
so that BBC1NW is 1, BBC2 is 2 and so on.

It never used to record anything but the channel and programme that it
was programmed for, but now it seems to want to record the programme
selected plus the same programme on a different channel and from a
different transmitter. That's why it would be helpful if anyone with a
similar Humax and multiple channels with the same programme could
confirm it hasn't happened to them.

I fixed it two ways for different kit:

1) for a Topfield PVR, I put an 18dB attenuator in line with the aerial
cable. This worked to filter out the weaker signal from Moel-y-parc
such that Winter Hill was the only transmitter detected

2) for another device, I ignored the auto-tuner and manually added the
channels using the information found at

https://ukfree.tv/transmitters/tv/Winter_Hill

Thanks, When I have full access to the TV, I'll fiddle around.

I do know of one local elderly lady who has reverted totally from TV to
radio, and most others round here have moved from Freeview to Freesat.
I do have a biggish dish mounted on the garage but will probably now
never embark on my plan of steering it by stepper motors interfaced with
a PC that would log satellite positions. That once seemed like a good
idea, but I never got round to investigating and re-purposing the old
industrial printers' motors.
--
Bill

En el artículo , Bill
escribió:

Yes, Storeton in front of the aerial and Moel-y-Parc aimed at the back.

I had the same problem despite the aerial pointing straight at Winter
Hill with Moel-y-Parc behind. They're both horizontally polarised,
unfortunately.

http://www.aerialsandtv.com/moelyparctx.html

http://www.aerialsandtv.com/winterhilltx.html

Maybe you'd benefit from a more directional aerial - one that is more
capable of rejecting the unwanted signal from Moel. There's an aerial
fitter that contributes to these groups, he may chip in.

You should also try posting to uk.tech.digital-tv. There's a bunch of
very knowledgeable and helpful people there.

It never used to record anything but the channel and programme that it
was programmed for, but now it seems to want to record the programme
selected plus the same programme on a different channel and from a
different transmitter

I think you need to delete the duplicate channels from the channel list
by hand

[Freesat]

I do have a biggish dish mounted on the garage but will probably now
never embark on my plan of steering it by stepper motors interfaced with
a PC that would log satellite positions. That once seemed like a good
idea, but I never got round to investigating and re-purposing the old
industrial printers' motors.

Why do it yourself when there are commercial motorised dishes widely
available, plus support in the STBs for finding satellites? Google
DiSEqC.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) "Between two evils, I always pick
(")_(") the one I never tried before." - Mae West

On 04/06/2017 15:31, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 04/06/17 15:02, Bill wrote:
In message , Clive
George writes
On 04/06/2017 13:40, Bill wrote:
When a local Currys closed down, I made the mistake of buying a
Humax video recorder.
I've never liked it - it takes forever to start up from cold and
lights the same red led to show both "off" and "recording". Utterly
stupid design and just one of the weirdly incompetent human
interface decisions.

Which model?

2000T. The delay in finding it was because I don't want to disturb or
brave the old ladies in the lounge and couldn't immediately locate the
manuals on my backup server. That's another thing I need to improve.

I use a PC equipped with a Hauppage USB TV tuner.


No longer made ??

Running linux and Kaffeine.

Not exactly an easy-to-use option for most.

And you then have a permanent online library of ALL your DVDs, plus the
functionality of a TV recorder that will do as many channels as you add
dongles up to the five that represent all the UK muxes in general.

There aren't enough hours in the day to watch the many hours of nonsense
I have recorded on my simple, easy to use Humax HD Fox T2.


And its a heck of a sight easier to set up recording schedules with a
mouse and keyboard than a sodding remote.

Are you being serious ?. Setting up a once-off or series recording
is just one button press on my Humax.

On 05/06/17 17:40, Andrew wrote:
On 04/06/2017 15:31, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 04/06/17 15:02, Bill wrote:
In message , Clive
George writes
On 04/06/2017 13:40, Bill wrote:
When a local Currys closed down, I made the mistake of buying a
Humax video recorder.
I've never liked it - it takes forever to start up from cold and
lights the same red led to show both "off" and "recording". Utterly
stupid design and just one of the weirdly incompetent human
interface decisions.

Which model?

2000T. The delay in finding it was because I don't want to disturb or
brave the old ladies in the lounge and couldn't immediately locate the
manuals on my backup server. That's another thing I need to improve.

I use a PC equipped with a Hauppage USB TV tuner.


No longer made ??


still made in 57 different flavours

Running linux and Kaffeine.

Not exactly an easy-to-use option for most.

This is UK-d-i-y.

Not home-owners consumer items wankfestr


And you then have a permanent online library of ALL your DVDs, plus the
functionality of a TV recorder that will do as many channels as you add
dongles up to the five that represent all the UK muxes in general.

There aren't enough hours in the day to watch the many hours of nonsense
I have recorded on my simple, easy to use Humax HD Fox T2.


And its a heck of a sight easier to set up recording schedules with a
mouse and keyboard than a sodding remote.

Are you being serious ?. Setting up a once-off or series recording
is just one button press on my Humax.

If you can navigate to the right page and have the remote



--
"Corbyn talks about equality, justice, opportunity, health care, peace,
community, compassion, investment, security, housing...."
"What kind of person is not interested in those things?"

"Jeremy Corbyn?"

On 05/06/2017 19:38, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 05/06/17 17:40, Andrew wrote:
On 04/06/2017 15:31, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 04/06/17 15:02, Bill wrote:
In message , Clive
George writes
On 04/06/2017 13:40, Bill wrote:
When a local Currys closed down, I made the mistake of buying a
Humax video recorder.
I've never liked it - it takes forever to start up from cold and
lights the same red led to show both "off" and "recording". Utterly
stupid design and just one of the weirdly incompetent human
interface decisions.

Which model?

2000T. The delay in finding it was because I don't want to disturb or
brave the old ladies in the lounge and couldn't immediately locate the
manuals on my backup server. That's another thing I need to improve.

I use a PC equipped with a Hauppage USB TV tuner.


No longer made ??


still made in 57 different flavours

Running linux and Kaffeine.

Not exactly an easy-to-use option for most.

This is UK-d-i-y.


Linux is definately *not* DIY. Windows and Apple stuff is.

Not home-owners consumer items wankfestr


And you then have a permanent online library of ALL your DVDs, plus the
functionality of a TV recorder that will do as many channels as you add
dongles up to the five that represent all the UK muxes in general.

There aren't enough hours in the day to watch the many hours of nonsense
I have recorded on my simple, easy to use Humax HD Fox T2.


And its a heck of a sight easier to set up recording schedules with a
mouse and keyboard than a sodding remote.

Are you being serious ?. Setting up a once-off or series recording
is just one button press on my Humax.

If you can navigate to the right page and have the remote

On 05/06/17 19:50, Andrew wrote:
On 05/06/2017 19:38, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 05/06/17 17:40, Andrew wrote:

This is UK-d-i-y.


Linux is definately *not* DIY. Windows and Apple stuff is.

Oh dear.

No,. there is nothing to be done on Apple. Thats 'take it to the apple
center' stuff

Windows is what it is. You cant really configure it much.

You certainly cant BUILD anything useful with it easily.

Building a NAS style home server out of an old XP tower with some extra
disk is really a lot less challenging than installing a toilet.


--
You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a
kind word alone.

Al Capone

On Mon, 5 Jun 2017 20:45:39 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 05/06/17 19:50, Andrew wrote:
On 05/06/2017 19:38, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 05/06/17 17:40, Andrew wrote:

This is UK-d-i-y.


Linux is definately *not* DIY. Windows and Apple stuff is.

Oh dear.

No,. there is nothing to be done on Apple. Thats 'take it to the apple
center' stuff

Windows is what it is. You cant really configure it much.

You certainly cant BUILD anything useful with it easily.

Building a NAS style home server out of an old XP tower with some extra
disk is really a lot less challenging than installing a toilet.

Where is my stalking net cop Clive George when we want him?

Here TNP goes again, bringing Linux advocacy to a group that looks
like he would rather keep his heavily biased thoughts to himself?

Cheers, T i m

On 05/06/2017 21:06, T i m wrote:

Where is my stalking net cop Clive George when we want him?

Turnip is killfiled because there's no hope for him.

On Mon, 5 Jun 2017 21:25:23 +0100, Clive George
wrote:

On 05/06/2017 21:06, T i m wrote:

Where is my stalking net cop Clive George when we want him?

Turnip is killfiled because there's no hope for him.

Any chance you could do the same for me please? At least it wouldn't
still look like you were stalking me. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On Monday, 5 June 2017 20:45:42 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 05/06/17 19:50, Andrew wrote:
On 05/06/2017 19:38, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 05/06/17 17:40, Andrew wrote:

This is UK-d-i-y.


Linux is definately *not* DIY. Windows and Apple stuff is.

Oh dear.

No,. there is nothing to be done on Apple. Thats 'take it to the apple
center' stuff

Windows is what it is. You cant really configure it much.

You certainly cant BUILD anything useful with it easily.

Building a NAS style home server out of an old XP tower with some extra
disk is really a lot less challenging than installing a toilet.

Linux is the one OS some people do diy. It's the only major one one can.


NT

In message , Mike Tomlinson
writes
En el artículo , Bill
escribió:

Yes, Storeton in front of the aerial and Moel-y-Parc aimed at the back.

I had the same problem despite the aerial pointing straight at Winter
Hill with Moel-y-Parc behind. They're both horizontally polarised,
unfortunately.

As is the Welsh relay from Storeton which is in a straight line from
Winter Hill to here. The English relay which Storeton was originally
built to provide is about a quarter of the power, vertically polarised
and points the other way, so that is fine.


You should also try posting to uk.tech.digital-tv. There's a bunch of
very knowledgeable and helpful people there.

I did post there some years ago. The lady with the problem with her set
top box that I asked about preferred to give up TV altogether rather
than spend any money or look at it further. She remains happy with radio
alone.

I think you need to delete the duplicate channels from the channel list
by hand

Yes.



[Freesat]

I do have a biggish dish mounted on the garage but will probably now
never embark on my plan of steering it by stepper motors interfaced with
a PC that would log satellite positions. That once seemed like a good
idea, but I never got round to investigating and re-purposing the old
industrial printers' motors.

Why do it yourself when there are commercial motorised dishes widely
available, plus support in the STBs for finding satellites? Google
DiSEqC.

Hmmm. DiSEqC looks interesting, but the person who wanted to watch
different satellites has now left the area, so my incentive has gone.

I have this elderly dish, but I was never sure that the arc it followed
was accurate. I even brought in some "professionals" but they couldn't
improve on what I'd achieved.
So, the mad idea was to build a new drive assembly using stepper motors
and set it mapping the sky and recording repeatable positions where it
found satellites, then a manual revisit to them all to work out what
they were and perhaps even watch something.
But, as often happens, I ran out of time and enthusiasm, the receiver
became obsolete, and the replacement receiver, LNB's and the printers
containing the motors have just gathered dust ever since.
Just one more example in my rich pattern of failed useless-but-fun
projects. I really must clear out the shed.
--
Bill

On Mon, 5 Jun 2017 15:14:55 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

snip

Linux is the one OS some people do diy.

Linus certainly did. ;-)

It's the only major one one can.

Especially if one is into programming.

The thing (that some of the Linux geeks can't understand) is that I'm
not into programming and never have been. Ok, I've done a bit of BASIC
on the PDP11 we had a 300 baud model link to when at college and on my
ZX81's, Spectrum and BBC B, but it became very apparent very quickly
that I was better with a soldering iron than I was with a keyboard.

I have done a bit of (very simple) programming on the Arduinos and I
'like' the way you interface with it (unlike the BBC micro:bit that is
a bit weird) and it is a buzz when something works, but I don't really
have to time, interest (and therefore) attention span to actually make
stuff that anyone else might consider 'good'.

Because so much of the Arduino stuff is already out there as examples
or to download, I have found that whilst I can generally make all the
different hardware modules work, I can't make the programming work to
tie all the hardware together nicely.

Like I was working on a project with a mate that could fade up and
down his marine fish tank lights with one set controlled over a
bluetooth link. We had the (LED) lamps controlled nicely, the BT link
working and, the RTC module set and displaying the right date and time
on an I2C linked LCD display, it was just that I didn't have the
skills (or time / interest to learn them).

Luckily I have a mate who is a very good programmer who is happy to
Teamviewer into my PC and pull all the modules together. He doesn't
know much about electronics so is happy for what I can show him in
return. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On Mon, 5 Jun 2017 19:50:57 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

On 05/06/2017 19:38, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 05/06/17 17:40, Andrew wrote:
On 04/06/2017 15:31, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 04/06/17 15:02, Bill wrote:
In message , Clive
George writes
On 04/06/2017 13:40, Bill wrote:
When a local Currys closed down, I made the mistake of buying a
Humax video recorder.
I've never liked it - it takes forever to start up from cold and
lights the same red led to show both "off" and "recording". Utterly
stupid design and just one of the weirdly incompetent human
interface decisions.

Which model?

2000T. The delay in finding it was because I don't want to disturb or
brave the old ladies in the lounge and couldn't immediately locate the
manuals on my backup server. That's another thing I need to improve.

I use a PC equipped with a Hauppage USB TV tuner.


No longer made ??


still made in 57 different flavours

Running linux and Kaffeine.

Not exactly an easy-to-use option for most.

This is UK-d-i-y.


Linux is definately *not* DIY. Windows and Apple stuff is.

Linux is definitely DIY! Windows not so much.

On Tue, 06 Jun 2017 15:06:27 +0100, Mark
wrote:

On Mon, 5 Jun 2017 19:50:57 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

snip

Linux is definately *not* DIY. Windows and Apple stuff is.

Linux is definitely DIY! Windows not so much.


I think the right answer is a function of what you expect / have to
get involved in, so in that respect (and for me and many worse than
me), dealing with Windows is about as far as 'most people' care or are
able to 'diy' on an OS.

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.

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.

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.

Part of autoexec.bat was to call Automenu.bat and it was all pretty
well menu based from then on (for me at home and the 35 users I looked
after on the PC's and LAN I built and installed at work).

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.

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?

Cheers, T i m

On Tue, 06 Jun 2017 21:32:21 +0100, T i m wrote:

On Tue, 06 Jun 2017 15:06:27 +0100, Mark
wrote:

On Mon, 5 Jun 2017 19:50:57 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

snip

Linux is definately *not* DIY. Windows and Apple stuff is.

Linux is definitely DIY! Windows not so much.


I think the right answer is a function of what you expect / have to
get involved in, so in that respect (and for me and many worse than
me), dealing with Windows is about as far as 'most people' care or are
able to 'diy' on an OS.

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? I wouldn't.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

I wouldn't.

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

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.

So I did something I had never done before with little in the way of
guidance from anyone and by just following some basic plans and
general building guideline (like which glue was best and how to bend
timber without a steambox etc).

My point was that much of what I had to do was for me and at that
time, 'trial and error' as such, because that principal doesn't
stipulate the ratio of error to trial. If you read Johns TV Box Wiki
you will see he made mistakes because he hadn't made that actual thing
before, even though he had done most of the processes before. That was
the 'error' in 'trial and error'.

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.


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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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).

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.

It seems that many of the Linux zealots can't or don't want to
acknowledge the weakness at this level and simply think that making
people have to do something (learn how to use the OS at a lower level)
is a realistic / practical solution to the issue, rather than simply
bringing Linux up to speed in 2017. ;-(

Cheers, T i m

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

On Wed, 07 Jun 2017 15:35:50 +0100, Mark
wrote:

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.

Of course, but unless you are skilled / trained / experienced or just
naturally good at something, for many there will be an element of
'trial and error' involved.

Nowhere is this more relevant than here in a d-i-y group where many
solutions are no more than ideas or guesstimations.

"I've not tried this myself but have you tried doing ... "

I wouldn't.

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

At some levels.

Well quite ... so, one assumes if what you are attempting isn't
something experienced or skilled at, there will be an element of
'exploration' in it's application? We call that 'trial and error'. ;-)

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"

No, but 'trial and error' isn't a definitive thing is it. My point was
I wasn't *fully* conversant with all the steps or the processes
required that might be involved.

It's exactly the same as my previous admin exposure to all the OS /
NOS's I listed and how *none* of them gave me much in the way of
experience when it comes to Linux. I can't think of any other similar
experience where doing something similar put me in such an unfamiliar
situation?



--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.

Ah, you are talking then of those who *want* to take on a new hobby or
interest versus those (like me) who are only doing what we have to do
because of 'needs must'.

Statement: I have no interested *whatsoever* in any OS.

An OS to me is a means to an end and should, under ideal
circumstances, be completely transparent. In the same way I maintain
my own vehicles and domestic appliances but I don't do so because I
*want* to, but because I often find it more convenient, cheaper and
with a better outcome, than getting someone else to do it.

And people can explore Linux.

No they can't, well, not at the level I am talking about and for the
people I'm talking about.

Example. Yesterday a mate mentioned a netbook that his Mrs had bought
for a grandkid a while ago had been mainly left unused because it was
very slow / not working properly. So I brought it home and have been
playing with it inbetween other stuff. So far I have installed loads
of updates, run various AV / malware scans etc etc but am left with
some ~30% background CPU utilisation. I have updated the video driver
and checked for updates for the BIOS and other hardware drivers and
I've done so without going anywhere near the CLI. Even if I was to
screw say the video driver up the chances are I could fix it via some
GUI based Safe Mode etc.

snip

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?

Because that is what people want and that is the purpose of a desktop
OS isn't it, to serve people?

Talking about Windows, Microsoft make
changes at every version.

And the Linux distros don't? And at least any changes made by MS /
Apple / Google are done because of some central / organised decision,
not because several people in several sheds who in general aren't
talking to each other, thought (personally) something would be a good
idea? Look at Canonical forcing Unity on all Ubuntu users, even those
*not* using portable devices and touch screens and then insisting it
would stay like that for good. Now I understand they are now going to
drop Unity and go to something else? And what of all the 'marmite'
alternative Linux subsystems that are being argued about within the
Linux community?

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?

Well, that counters your entire argument doesn't it?

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)).

Agreed. And the point is that you don't generally need to write your
own driver for hardware under Windows because the manufacturers know
that they really need to supply drivers for their hardware to be
sellable to 80% of the market.

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.

I don't think we do, or if we do then may I suggest you don't often
mix with real people trying to manage both Linux or Windows PC's?

If Linux was comparable to Windows (or OSX / Android) for the
admin-user to manage then surely someone who has worked in OT support
and building PC's and networks for over 30 years would have less
trouble with Linux eh? Don't you think if I could install Linux as
easily as I can install and then make-work with all my hardware (as
easily as I generally can with Windows) I would? The answer to that id
you are still confused is 'Of course I would'. Who wouldn't want
something that was current, 'more secure' and FREE, if it allowed them
to do all they want just as easily as they could on something that
wasn't all those things?

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.

Nor have I, so much and these days' but I'm not even / really talking
about the straight installation on 'Linux friendly' (known or
otherwise) hardware. I'm talking about the many million people who
take their fully functioning Linux laptop and then try to get it to
batch scan from their network printer, or access the iTunes store, or
upgrade the BIOS or interface with their GPS or many many other
devices.

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 :-)

*Exactly*, but said progress is something that few Linux zealots seem
to think is required, until it happens then they boast about it when
in many cases it's no more than Linux catching up with the likes of
Windows.

'Look at all the games we can run on Linux under Steam!' ...Yeah,
great, only 10 years after you could run all the games on Steam on
Windows but better late than never eh? ;-)

By comparison, more reasonable admin's who by definition (of
reasonable) will use whatever OS best suits them or the needs at the
time, do see / admit the limitations of all the OS's and will
willingly concede when something is wrong. Like, very few admin-users
will say they prefer W8.1 over say W7 or see any real advantage
running W10 over 7.

So, in an effort to see if this ~20% (currently) background CPU
utilisation is coming from on this Atom powered HP netbook, I'm now
going to see if I can boot it from my Linux Mint boot USB stick and
then if I can and it actually runs, see if I can find and load a
system monitor and see what Linux thinks of it?

There is a possibility that say Mint Mate 32 bit would run better on
this 2GB 1.6Mhz dual core atom than W10 64 bit but even if it did, I
understand the lad needs MS Office for school ... ;-(

Cheers, T i m

On Wed, 07 Jun 2017 18:41:40 +0100, T i m wrote:

On Wed, 07 Jun 2017 15:35:50 +0100, Mark
wrote:

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.

Of course, but unless you are skilled / trained / experienced or just
naturally good at something, for many there will be an element of
'trial and error' involved.

OK. But there's a limit to the amount of "trial-and-error" I am happy
with.

--snip--

It's exactly the same as my previous admin exposure to all the OS /
NOS's I listed and how *none* of them gave me much in the way of
experience when it comes to Linux. I can't think of any other similar
experience where doing something similar put me in such an unfamiliar
situation?

It's difficult to think of a good analogy for Operating Systems. But
there are major differences between them. It's not ideal, but it's
the way it is. For my work I've needed to learn (in depth) about
several operating systems so I guess I am not a typical user.



--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.

Ah, you are talking then of those who *want* to take on a new hobby or
interest versus those (like me) who are only doing what we have to do
because of 'needs must'.

Statement: I have no interested *whatsoever* in any OS.

An OS to me is a means to an end and should, under ideal
circumstances, be completely transparent. In the same way I maintain
my own vehicles and domestic appliances but I don't do so because I
*want* to, but because I often find it more convenient, cheaper and
with a better outcome, than getting someone else to do it.

And people can explore Linux.

No they can't, well, not at the level I am talking about and for the
people I'm talking about.

Example. Yesterday a mate mentioned a netbook that his Mrs had bought
for a grandkid a while ago had been mainly left unused because it was
very slow / not working properly. So I brought it home and have been
playing with it inbetween other stuff. So far I have installed loads
of updates, run various AV / malware scans etc etc but am left with
some ~30% background CPU utilisation. I have updated the video driver
and checked for updates for the BIOS and other hardware drivers and
I've done so without going anywhere near the CLI. Even if I was to
screw say the video driver up the chances are I could fix it via some
GUI based Safe Mode etc.

But, whatever OS it runs, there must be a way of checking what is
gobbling CPU and GIYF ;-)


snip

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?

Because that is what people want and that is the purpose of a desktop
OS isn't it, to serve people?

Talking about Windows, Microsoft make
changes at every version.

And the Linux distros don't? And at least any changes made by MS /
Apple / Google are done because of some central / organised decision,
not because several people in several sheds who in general aren't
talking to each other, thought (personally) something would be a good
idea? Look at Canonical forcing Unity on all Ubuntu users, even those
*not* using portable devices and touch screens and then insisting it
would stay like that for good. Now I understand they are now going to
drop Unity and go to something else? And what of all the 'marmite'
alternative Linux subsystems that are being argued about within the
Linux community?

FWIW: I use Ubuntu but have not installed Unity.


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?

Well, that counters your entire argument doesn't it?

I don;t think 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)).

Agreed. And the point is that you don't generally need to write your
own driver for hardware under Windows because the manufacturers know
that they really need to supply drivers for their hardware to be
sellable to 80% of the market.

But some hardware manufacturers stop support for some products. For
example I had a scanner that the manufacturer stopped providing
drivers beyond XP.


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.

I don't think we do, or if we do then may I suggest you don't often
mix with real people trying to manage both Linux or Windows PC's?

I think I mix with some real people ;-)

If Linux was comparable to Windows (or OSX / Android) for the
admin-user to manage then surely someone who has worked in OT support
and building PC's and networks for over 30 years would have less
trouble with Linux eh? Don't you think if I could install Linux as
easily as I can install and then make-work with all my hardware (as
easily as I generally can with Windows) I would? The answer to that id
you are still confused is 'Of course I would'. Who wouldn't want
something that was current, 'more secure' and FREE, if it allowed them
to do all they want just as easily as they could on something that
wasn't all those things?

I'm not sure I follow this entirely. I find Linux works with most
hardware, as well as Windows does.


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.

Nor have I, so much and these days' but I'm not even / really talking
about the straight installation on 'Linux friendly' (known or
otherwise) hardware. I'm talking about the many million people who
take their fully functioning Linux laptop and then try to get it to
batch scan from their network printer, or access the iTunes store, or
upgrade the BIOS or interface with their GPS or many many other
devices.

Not all these things are trivial to do with Windows either.


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 :-)

*Exactly*, but said progress is something that few Linux zealots seem
to think is required, until it happens then they boast about it when
in many cases it's no more than Linux catching up with the likes of
Windows.

'Look at all the games we can run on Linux under Steam!' ...Yeah,
great, only 10 years after you could run all the games on Steam on
Windows but better late than never eh? ;-)

Windows has become a "standard" and hence gets the games.

By comparison, more reasonable admin's who by definition (of
reasonable) will use whatever OS best suits them or the needs at the
time, do see / admit the limitations of all the OS's and will
willingly concede when something is wrong. Like, very few admin-users
will say they prefer W8.1 over say W7 or see any real advantage
running W10 over 7.

IMHO Win8.1 is better than W7 for performance. As long as you hide
the awful default UI.

So, in an effort to see if this ~20% (currently) background CPU
utilisation is coming from on this Atom powered HP netbook, I'm now
going to see if I can boot it from my Linux Mint boot USB stick and
then if I can and it actually runs, see if I can find and load a
system monitor and see what Linux thinks of it?

There is a possibility that say Mint Mate 32 bit would run better on
this 2GB 1.6Mhz dual core atom than W10 64 bit but even if it did, I
understand the lad needs MS Office for school ... ;-(

My instinct would be that Linux would run better on a low-end system
like this. If you lad needs an Office application then why not try
LibreOffice? I can create/read all MS office files.

Cheers,
Mark

In article ,
Mark wrote:
Of course, but unless you are skilled / trained / experienced or just
naturally good at something, for many there will be an element of
'trial and error' involved.

OK. But there's a limit to the amount of "trial-and-error" I am happy
with.

It makes sense with anything like this to draw it out to scale first. Does
take some time - but far easier with a decent CAD etc programme than doing
it by hand. You also get a good ideal of how well balanced etc it looks.
Not so easy when done on the back of a fag packet.

--
*Reality is the illusion that occurs due to the lack of alcohol *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Thu, 08 Jun 2017 14:09:04 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Mark wrote:
Of course, but unless you are skilled / trained / experienced or just
naturally good at something, for many there will be an element of
'trial and error' involved.

OK. But there's a limit to the amount of "trial-and-error" I am happy
with.

It makes sense with anything like this to draw it out to scale first. Does
take some time - but far easier with a decent CAD etc programme than doing
it by hand. You also get a good ideal of how well balanced etc it looks.
Not so easy when done on the back of a fag packet.

Draw what out to scsle? This sub-thread is about Operating Systems
;-)