Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Iduno]

I mean, I wasn't comparing it to Scientology because it's a good idea. But I can aim for more obvious snark in the future.

Also, it's a long-shot, but does anyone know about fixing an old Nintendo Wii? It refuses to recognize the remotes. I can re-sync them, but turning on the Wii de-syncs them again, which makes doing literally anything in the menu impossible. I can't find anything online.

[scourge728]

You could buy another for like 10 bucks

[wierd]

I meant, running a server isn't something the majority of users do

You might be surprised.  Do you have a DVR in your living room? Did you know it is a DLNA server? (and likely runs some variant of linux or VSX underneath?) How about a Wifi router? Got one of those? Those usually run an embedded linux, and frequently run a SAMBA server, and sometimes a DLNA server.

I have 2 NAS products on my network, and have one adapted into a general purpose mini-server.

"Servers" are all over the place.  They are getting integrated into more and more things.

[Trekkin]

I meant, running a server isn't something the majority of users do

Yeah. My point, in turn, was that anything that a user wants to do in Windows is so far removed from anything resembling actual computation that their specific wants are basically irrelevant, so calling Windows 10 better than Linux on the grounds that it can more effectively insulate users from their own incompetence and still let them run some programs is perhaps disingenuous when it still needs a Linux system to show them Facebook and lolcats and send their emails and so forth.

[Reelya]

EDIT for brevity:

the term "serious computation" is not a thing with an actual meaning. I can do arbitrary computations on a Windows box. But then you can just say "ah but they're not serious computations" which is a "no true Scotsman" argument.

BTW If you're using Python or another high-level language on a Linux box and going on about how only Linux provides "serious computation" then that would be ... a bad joke. You should only use C or C++ if you're that invested. High-level languages are a kludge so that the user doesn't need to know the underlying structures of the computation process. Using high-level languages is exactly the same trade-off as running Windows instead of Linux. Here's a hint: in the data-centers it's all c/c++ as well as Linux. People who run high-level languages on a single Linux box then think they're being elite is a bad joke. What you would in effect be getting is a lot of time wasted maintaining the system, and it runs slower than it would if you just spent the time learning C++ and ran it on any old OS.

People use Windows rather than Linux for the same reason people buy bottled beer rather than always home-brewing beer. Sure, the home-brew is cheaper, but then you have to account for labor time/value, which makes it not worth it. Don't knock Windows users unless you also bake your own bread and brew your own beer, change your own oil on your car, etc etc etc. These things are specialized services people buy for all the same reason.

[Trekkin]

People who run high-level languages on a single Linux box then think they're being elite is a bad joke.

All of our (current) code is C++, and while it can run on a single processor for debugging purposes, it's run for production purposes on large computing clusters, almost all of which run Linux.

You've got my argument backwards, I think. I'm not saying running on Linux is some mark of being some sort of elite computer user; I actually agree with you that in a single-processor context there's no point to absolutely optimizing how fast an individual user sees their lolcats or types their novel in Starbucks or whatever they're doing, so for most (non-CS) people's purposes the relative strengths of their operating system aren't distinguishable from just the random noise in their workflow, and the absolute wall-clock differences are so small they'd lose more time by switching than they'd gain over the course of their career.

My point, in response to Japa's comment, was that Windows' ubiquity in contexts where the OS doesn't matter is not really a good argument for it being better, just more familiar, and those contexts still use Linux devices anyway, so there's a question of what "general everyday usage" really means. On a light workday, I might use six CPU-years of cluster time, all necessarily on Linux systems because all the clusters I work with, and every cluster I've ever seen maintained by professionals, run on Linux. Now, you can go find two thousand-odd people who used Word all day and thereby claim that "general everyday usage" favors Windows, but they'd not be noticeably impaired by switching except in terms of familiarity.

So yes, there are Linux users who are doing silly things with Python on single processors. My point was that there are not professionally maintained computing resources using Windows, at least not ones where people are accountable for their performance, so can we really say that Windows is better because it's used where it doesn't matter?

[Reelya]

Rather than any one OS being "better" I'd put in "right tool for the job".

Windows and other more 'managed' OS's are popular for the same reasons I mentioned high-level vs low-level languages. It's wrong to just say "windows is used when OS speed doesn't matter", because the correct response is "Windows is used when you need the OS to get out of your way and just let you do the task-focused thing you want".

Large enterprises also tend to roll out Windows desktops across their organization, and large enterprises aren't just a bunch of dummies, they have carefully calculated the efficiencies and costs involved, on a cross-enterprise level across thousands of machines and determined that rolling out Windows is the most efficient use of resources, given the entire range of factors. In context, they've determined that windows is "best". "best" is not just about how fast one box crunches numbers, it's about total resource investment and cost across the lifetime of all machines on your network. Sure, Linux wins in scaled data-centers, but it's objectively failed in winning in the enterprise desktop environment, which is what it needs to win to prove that it's a viable alternative to desktop Windows.

Windows is objectively better at being that thing enterprises need than Linux is. If Windows was only the "doesn't matter OS" as you state, and Linux was objectively better at some things, Linux would be chosen by the bean-counters in the big companies. But it ain't.

Windows or other OS's with more "hand-rails" are popular not because people are stupid, but because it's a more efficient use of the user's time to have tools that just work right out of the box and don't require you to waste time learning a manuals-worth of stuff you literally don't need to know. Windows and Mac are popular because of labor specialization, a fundamental economic principle that drives higher productivity.

Sure, everyone using Linux would be a slightly better use of computer resources but it'd be a dumb-ass approach because that fails to account for the user's time resources, so it would in fact be a comprehension fail of the big picture. People make conscious decisions to specialize their domain of knowledge. It's not a failure of the system when a large amount of people decide that learning the inner workings of their tools is a waste of time they could spend mastering their own area of expertise instead. Why should a painter who wants to use a computer learn what is effectively half a university's degree worth of computer specific knowlege needed to properly run something like Linux, when they could spend that time doing art and becoming a better artist? That's why in context, Windows is better in that circumstance.

Which is "better" is entirely relative on a case-by-case basis. It's like asking whether a screwdriver is better than a hammer. Depends on the user and the job needed to be done. Windows or Linux isn't "better" in some platonic sense, because "better" only exists relative to some need. We can say that Linux is generally a better choice for data-center scale computation and that Windows is generally a better choice for a desktop machine. That claim isn't in any way saying "Windows is better than Linux". Just, often it's the best choice.

[Trekkin]

We're doing that thing again where we're belligerently agreeing with each other, you know; do recall that this all started with me disagreeing with the statement that in "general everyday usage, Windows 10 outshines Linux by miles."

So, yes, I agree that there are cases in which Windows is better, and the majority of non-computational users -- that is to say, users for which processing power a secondary concern -- certainly prefer either a Windows box or a Mac. I just don't think that we can take that popularity as evidence that Windows itself is better in the sort of ways that matter for a majority of individual users, because they depend partly on factors external to the OS itself, familiarity being foremost among them. If you're the people in charge of making thousands of computers serve the needs of thousands of untrained people, you absolutely want to set up the interface that's as close as possible to what those users are familiar with, because that keeps tech support needs down. Whether those tools are better or worse is secondary because the time your users take to familiarize themselves with new tools is vastly more than the total difference in speed over their careers -- but that's not a property of the OS and more relevantly isn't necessarily true of someone setting up a machine for their own use, depending on what they intend to do with it and how much they need to learn anyway. The same contrast is true of certain types of security; if the sysadmin is also the only user, a lot of Windows' handrails will do little except slow them down.

I'm not saying everyone should use Linux. I am saying that "general everyday usage" overlaps significantly with the use cases in which you want to notice the OS as little as possible, so claiming that Windows "outshines" Linux there is not necessarily meaningful for home users, especially ones who are consciously considering what operating system to use. I'm not saying Japa's original statement was necessarily wrong, only that it is a poor argument to make in the first place.

[Arx]

Alright, I have a fairly non-generic not-conventional-PC question.

I have a Xiaomi Mi 4. The screen apparently spontaneously cracked this morning - at least, I did nothing with it other than putting it in my pocket, unlocking a gate and getting in a car, and when I took it out again the screen was cracked.

Over the course of the next 30 minutes or so, the capacitance layer [thing] degenerated to total failure. The display functions fine.

Without doing a screen replacement, is there a way I can jury-rig the capacitance to run again for long enough to do a quick backup? I'm able to do a full reversible teardown of pretty much everything except the screen, which is glued in and I hate messing with glue. I don't need the phone to function again after that, nor does it need to function for long.

I'll be entirely unsurprised if such a scheme doesn't exist, but I thought I'd check in case some of you tech junkies know a plausible hack.

[Lord Shonus]

This sounds like a tablet or phone of some sort. If so, you can almost always connect a wired mouse to the charge port for input. Probably requires an adapter.

[BigD145]

Alright, I have a fairly non-generic not-conventional-PC question.

I have a Xiaomi Mi 4. The screen apparently spontaneously cracked this morning - at least, I did nothing with it other than putting it in my pocket, unlocking a gate and getting in a car, and when I took it out again the screen was cracked.

Over the course of the next 30 minutes or so, the capacitance layer [thing] degenerated to total failure. The display functions fine.

Without doing a screen replacement, is there a way I can jury-rig the capacitance to run again for long enough to do a quick backup? I'm able to do a full reversible teardown of pretty much everything except the screen, which is glued in and I hate messing with glue. I don't need the phone to function again after that, nor does it need to function for long.

I'll be entirely unsurprised if such a scheme doesn't exist, but I thought I'd check in case some of you tech junkies know a plausible hack.

What do you need to backup? You can pull info off with a standard computer although this assumes you turned on usb debugging on the phone itself.
dr.fone
easus
mobisaver
apowersoft
google

Most options require debug and/or root before your screen got messed up.

[wierd]

You can do a full phone backup without root on anything newer than icecream sandwich over USB as long as adb debugging is enabled.

https://9to5google.com/2017/11/04/how-to-backup-restore-android-device-data-android-basics/

An otg dongle will let you connect a mouse.

https://www.amazon.com/UGREEN-Adapter-Samsung-Controller-Android/dp/B00N9S9Z0G/ref=mp_s_a_1_1_sspa?crid=3Q2L3149Y2MKV&keywords=otg+cable&qid=1557280386&s=gateway&sprefix=otg&sr=8-1-spons&psc=1

[Parsely]

When you run into a specific app asking for permission and you get that screen that says "Do you want to allow this app to make changes?", is there any way to get details about what exactly the app needs permission to do? Or on Windows is it all or nothing when it comes to app privileges?

[wierd]

If you have your device rooted, there are apps to set/revoke privs.

The thing is, many apps request things they really have no business asking for, and/or, the granularity of permissions is dangerous. (eg, "Allow access to SD card" so that the camera app can save pictures, also allows it to read or write anything else it wants to...  "Access to contacts" allows it to harvest all your phone numbers you have programmed in. Etc. Etc.. Etc..  The idea of "restrictive" permissions is not something google seems to have considered when designing android. You know, the methodology of "minimum permissions to do exactly the thing it says it does, and NOTHING else". Instead, it allows apps to vacuum up data and do whatever the fuck it wants with it.

Hilariously enough, if you have set up adopted storage (and again, have root access and know how to use linux effectively) you can set file system permissions that keep such applications honest. (Camera app ONLY has permissions to the DCIM folder tree, etc.) This is because each app is assigned a numeric system user identity that you can set or revoke permission with.

Really though, you should honestly just treat the phone like it is a compromised listening bug. About as much so as an amazon echo, or a google home.  That's the way it is designed, and intended to operate. Don't do things with it that you feel might compromise your privacy. best advice.

[Parsely]

What about on a Windows 10 desktop PC?