Make a limited XP account without losing settings?
in [Design]
|
From: Grant on 28 Jul 2010 00:23 On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 10:36:02 -0700, "Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgroups(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >Thanks Mr. Nobody -- while I do use Linux a bit here and there, I'm not >experienced enough to know what the thinking was behind the way the file >structure is built and I appreciate your explanation there. > >Today's "average Linux user" -- who's just installing, e.g., Ubuntu on a >single machine that's typically only used by a few people at most -- is likely >to be a little overwhelmed by all the "large scale" thinking that went into >*NIX's design -- particularly when coming form a Windows background, which >started as a single-user system and tends to kick and scream a bit when >dragged into a multi-user scenario (particularly simultaneous multiple users >via, e.g., Windows Terminal Server). > >I think I slightly prefer the "one big directory structure" approach of *NIX >rather than a bunch of drive letters, although I can see pros and cons of >each. It's rather annoying that under, e.g., GNOME, sure, you can use the >file explorer to wander around a Samba-based network, but if you open up, say, >\\MyServer\\SomeShare\foo.txt, when you then turn around and fire up >OpenOffice Writer the actual Unix path is now something like >~/.gvfs/MyServer/SomeShare/foo.txt -- few applications will let you type in, >e.g., smb://MyServer/SomeShare/foo.txt directly. Most annoying... :-( What, you'd like to type in "smb://MyServer/SomeShare/foo.txt" to your web browser and have it connect to the local filesystem and find it, offer editing or word processing? Wonder if this is where Google is heading for? A new and different view of the OS? Might even make sense... Grant.
From: Charlie E. on 28 Jul 2010 11:30 On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 10:44:43 -0700, "Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgroups(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >"Joerg" <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote in message >news:8b8epnF9t7U1(a)mid.individual.net... >> Even Windows (usually) lets you decide where to put a program. Unless >> the program installer is written very restrictively which sometimes is >> the case with CAD. > >That's really more "broken" than "restrictive." :-) > >ORCAD doesn't work quite right if you install it into a directory that has >spaces in the path... including, of course, "c:\program files." (By default >it wants to install to something like c:\cadence\spb_16.5.) > >This fact alone suggests to me that there's a serious problem with the folks >in charge of developing and maintaining ORCAD (...long file names/those with >space in them started with Windows 95 in... 1995...); they've really got to be >scrapping the bottom of the Windows programmers barrel! > >---Joel No, it is because modern Orcad uses Allegro as the PCB side of things, and Allegro is largely developed on Unix workstations where such things were/are verbotten. Since there is code in these things that is MUCH older than '95, you need to be careful about spaces and long filenames... ;-) Charlie
From: Joerg on 28 Jul 2010 14:18 Grant wrote: > On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 09:11:29 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> Grant wrote: >>> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 16:48:31 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> Grant wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 14:03:24 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Joel Koltner wrote: >>>>>>> "Grant" <omg(a)grrr.id.au> wrote in message >>>>> ... >>>>> >From a serious CAD user it can be expected that he or she understands >>>>>> the basics of file management. In fact, gEDA was written completely >>>>>> Linux-centric, ports to Windows have largely failed because some not so >>>>>> compatible code must have been employed (in laymen's terms). Yet even >>>>>> gEDA does what every CAD does, store libraries in program directories. >>>>> Well that's plain stupid. >>>>> >>>> Care to explain why? >>> Linux is multi-user, there's system wide rules need to be followed so >>> that the system can protect the users from themselves and other users. >>> >>> Even when there's only one user account, that user is isolated from >>> damaging the OS, simply by not allowing the user to write anywhere they >>> please ;) >>> >>> If you install and run a CAD program under your user area, you may >>> do anything you like, as it has no impact on the system (apart from >>> using resources). Stuff in your own area follows your rules. >>> >> Usually I do that. I have a directory "Programs", then sub-directories >> "Electric", "Editors", Utilities" and so on. Works fine. But >> occasionally programs come with a crippled installer and will only >> install under the Windows default "Program Files". > > Windows always had that issue of mixing programs and data. And the > silly idea that made any file executable by associating the filetype > with a program. > > Unix is fundamentally different, in that if you sent me a raw script, > it would not be executable until I told it to be. It's difficult to > convey this basic and simple idea across to someone grew up with > ms-dos + windows. > There's people who grew up in DOS and (grudgingly) Windows who are perfectly happy with that arrangement. > Linux is inherently safer, when one follows the rules of mostly > acting through a user account. However, the last few year's of > populist *ubuntu advertising has produced a heap of Linux users > with no clue as to 'normal' operation of a unix-like OS. The > ubuntu crowd sometimes tried to contribute to linux, but there > suggestions came way too late, the issues were already solved. > > On top of all that, instead of creating their own distro, they > simply repackage Debian. That makes ubuntu yet another useless > derivative distro, only they got some notice because anybody, > anywhere could write and ask for a couple hundred CDs delivered > free, to use as bird scare reflectors on their orchards ;^) In California birds are more high-tech and remain completely unfazed by dangling CDs, depending on the code on there :-) >> >>> But I'm guessing you CAD app didn't come as source, therefore you >>> had no choice as to where it was compiled to run. and which directories >>> it uses for data files. >>> >>> This is a difference between Linux and windows. Under Linux, people >>> compile their applications and have control over the app's runtime >>> resource allocation. >>> >> I know, and that's another reason why I prefer Windows. I do analog and >> RF engineering. So I neither have the inclination nor the time to piece >> together this, that and the other thing, re-write stuff here and there, >> and then compile. > > There's a lot of very scientific tools on Linux, via the university > unix labs and engineering or math depts. In academia, yes. Industry, not. Mainly because lots of connected hardware simply won't run under Linux and because the PC architecture supports legacy stuff. Well, at least up to XP it does so people stick with XP until they fix the "modern" OSes. >> Even Windows (usually) lets you decide where to put a program. Unless >> the program installer is written very restrictively which sometimes is >> the case with CAD. > > But windows still lets you mix program and data, you cannot run windows > from a CD, you cannot run windows securely. It's quite safe in a VM. Other than that it's all a matter of discipline. Yeah, some fluffy web sites won't properly run on this here PC but every time the anti-virus SW runs I get zero warnings. >> >>> If you're running some commercial binary, you're not fully in control >>> of your own system. >>> >> Question is: Do I want to be? > > sometimes, sometimes not -- because there is a standard to follow, > large applications are distributed as precompiled binaries, the ones > I'm likely to use are well behaved: vmware, java, the web browsers. > > Because compiling large apps is time consuming. Debian acts as the > repository for most of the free Linux software, even I don't use > Debian, I may find a source tarball there and compile it for my > Linux box. > > Compiling from source is what gives users freedom with unix-like OS. > > Can modify the source too. True, sometimes I miss that. Often cosmetic things such as a hideous typo in one program where they wrote mHz but it's really meggeehoitzes. But for us non-programmers a re-write and re-compile is a rather daunting task. My world is trainsistahs :-) >> >>> Under unix or linux there's three places you might add an application, >>> in the system area for all users, under /usr/local, again for all users, >>> or create a ~/bin and run the app from user area. Most Linux apps >>> distributed as source give you that choice, which is setup as a normal >>> part of compiling the app for your machine. >>> >> With a properly configured installer I can write it to just about >> anywhere on Windows. Unfortunately one must live with the installer the >> CAD company furnishes. > > Yup. But you're not seeing the point about not doing any damage to > the OS? > A well respected software won't, and I am rather picky about what I'll let onto the PC. I was never the type that needed the latest and greatest gizmo right away. For example, it took us until this week Friday when we will become able to do DVD-recordings from TV-channels. And only because the VCR begins to fall apart. > Know what modern windows do now? They keep each different version > of a .dll ever produced available on the OS disk, just so the program > works with the various toolchains they've released over the years. > > If you're running Vista or Win7, do a right-click -> properties on > c:\windows\winsxs, where this madness resides on your hard drive. > > On this win7 x64 box I type on, there's 42,421 files consuming 6.38GB > disk space, call that efficient, good, sane? Windows is falling apart > when they need this type of workaround to stay around. MSFT is simply > not able to draw a line in the sand and start at some new point. > Simple solution for me: I drew the line in the sand myself, with XP. I successfully sat out Vista and may just as well sit out Win7 unless it gets fixed. Meaning able to properly run all legacy SW. > I can install Slackware x64 complete with several desktops, application > suites and full compiler toolset on about the same space windows uses > just to perform its application fixups with. > > Every time we Linux users update to a later version of out favourite > distro, we get a brand new set of libraries, and all the applications > are compiled against that know set of libraries. The windows binary > only plus backwards compatibility is groaning at the seams and only > practical because of the low price of memory -- but windows users pay > a performance price for that mess, which gets bigger and worse over > time. >>> The reason for compiling apps is that a machine might be big or little >>> ended CPU, different system libraries, shell, *BSD, Linux or Solaris! >> >> I don't want to compile :-) > > Ahh, you really do want to run on automatic ;') Anyway, you don't have > to compile. That's why you use a distro, they compile most everything > for you, and large apps will provide a precompiled package (.rpm, .deb) > for the biggie distros, plus a generic binary tarball that'll work on > most distros. I guess that's why Synaptic exists, for us non-programmers. And I have to say, installing a new SW under Linux that way sure is easier than with Windows. Check a box, wait a little, done. >>>>>> Meaning user libs and non-custom libs get splintered up. What's wrong >>>>>> with allowing write access to the lib directory? >>>>> Question is, which lib directory. >>>>> >>>>> The proper place for writable system libraries is /var/lib/$appname :) >>>>> >>>>> For example, my Slackware-11 box has: >>>>> >>>>> grant(a)deltree:~$ ls /var/lib >>>>> arpd/ bsdgames/ elm/ logrotate/ misc/ mysql/ nfs/ rpm/ stunnel/ xdm/ xkb/ >>>>> >>>>> The program may create its own directory there and allow user access >>>>> and writing. It's difficult to find an exception to the standard >>>>> unix rules for basic layout (Sorry, I forget the exact name, >>>>> hierarchical file system or similar) that's been around for a >>>>> decade or more. >>>>> >>>>> Simple, no? >>>>> >>>> All I can say is that I asked in the gEDA group why I can't have the std >>>> libs and mine in one default place and the answer was pretty much, well, >>>> that I can't easily do that. And that I should just log in sudo. >>> That's the windows solution, run as admin all the time. We don't do >>> that with Linux, it's bad for many reasons. And, by saying log in >>> sudo, sounds like that *ubuntu windows wannabe nonsense? Indicates >>> you don't compile the app (I guess it's commercial binary), thus have >>> no control over where it wants to keep things. >> >> This was said by hardcore Linux users. And yes, I am using Ubuntu. > > Hardcore? Nah, just people who appreciate the difference between > a toy OS trying to grow up to be unix, and the 'real' thing. Even > Apple is running unix now (their 'new' OS is based on the *BSD code). Ok, but Apple has no market share to write home about in industry and engineering. They do with journalists though. >> >>>> But it didn't matter anymore anyhow because gschem bungles refdeses upon >>>> auto-annotate. That's a big no-no in CAD. >>> I'm still trying to pick a freebie circuit and PCB CAD, only single >>> sided and two-layer through hole plated required. The eagle size >>> limit (80x100mm) is a wee bit small. No budget for CAD 'cos only >>> hobby level that might grow, into something. And, I'm on low income, >>> retired, sorta. >> >> Well, since you know Linux well you might want to look into gEDA then. >> It's ok for digital stuff, just IMHO not for hardcore RF and analog. > > If don't do much RF, do some analog where I care about the layout, > and some digital where I care a little less about layout, and power > stuff that might be as bad as RF? > It'll probably be ok as long as you do not need to hardcode opamp or transistor array instantiations. IOW where it would be ok if the auto-annotation routine turns U3A into U7B and U3B into U13A. It's just that people like me usually can't have that happen. >> There is a good newsgroup for it: >> >> gmane.comp.cad.geda.user > > Okay, thanks. >> Another open source CAD that I think is even better is Kicad, which >> AFAIR comes in Windows and Linux installer versions. So you don't have >> to compile anything. > > Compiling is not evil :) Can be time consuming for large apps though. > > I compile small apps, as it takes about the same effort as installing > precompiled, and I get to choose where it goes. I've done it myself, years ago, bought the Microsoft C compiler for hundreds of bucks. Worked. But I usually don't have the time and I get stuck much easier with software writing than someone like you who is obviously proficient in it. A bad or not found header file would already throw me a curve. >>>>> Users may have private libraries under /home/username/whatever >>>>>> I don't want an OS to tell me what I can't and cannot do, just like I >>>>>> don't want a car to decide when to shift :-) >>>>> There are standards out there that define a framework for these things, >>>>> of course it is not rigid, as there's no Linux Incorporated controlling >>>>> this stuff. Each application author has a choice of what standards to >>>>> follow. A high end CAD system should follow the standard patterns for >>>>> flexible target OS. (I haven't used CAD for 17 years, no idea what's >>>>> what these days). >>>>> >>>> Well, I live with CAD for 24 years now :-) >>> Last I worked in design, it was maybe 15-20% CAD for schematic and PCB, >>> then software to define the product, often variations on same hardware >>> for different product end applications. Then there was another product >>> 30-40k lines of assembler that I worked on, off and on for nine years >>> until the hardware was no longer produced. Started on cp/m box with 8" >>> floppies and ended on a win3 box with hard drive and 3.5" floppies... >> >> Wow, last time I saw 8" floppies was on a Racal Redac CAD system that >> ran on a VAX. But I couldn't get reasonable time-slots on it so drew my >> (large) schematic by hand. > > Oh, my cp/m box was only for programming, we were still doing layouts > with tape and donuts back then -- by hand on over a 2x 0.1" grid on a > lightbox. But I was doing layouts like that for years, once or twice > did a red/blue double-sided layout, not so easy -- but the company had > lots of the red/blue tapes, so I tried it. > > My first look at CAD was pcad, on a '286 PC-AT running at 6MHz, with > the full 640kB of memory (we had to import a 128kB full slot memory > card before the CAD program would load, boss bought the PC-ATs on > grey market before their official release in .au). My first really heavy CAD use was with Futurenet-Dash on the original IBM-PC. Yup, at 4.77MHz CPU clock. Worked like a champ. >>>>> It's not about deciding when to shift, more about expecting the shift >>>>> to have a standard H plus extras (reverse and fifth) pattern (or paddles, >>>>> or gated semi-auto) and be roughly in the same spot (or two), within >>>>> reach of the driver. >>>>> >>>>> You know, standards, so many to choose from ;) >>>>> >>>> I don't care which place they are in, or which side the steering wheel >>>> is on. As long as there is no automatic transmission. >>> Fair enough :) My current car is auto, first time, I think I prefer >>> manuals, that annoying delay, waiting for the transmission to decide >>> it's time to shift... >>> >> Wait until the road ices up, that when the "fun" begins in an automatic :-) > > No snow where I live :) We do get some black ice. I had more fun > in the wet with my last car, manual with a limited slip diff :) > > Driving in rain this morning, only problem was putting the foot down > too hard on accel pedal and losing acceleration, not enough to drift > sideways very far though. Just the usual surprise how slippery the > roads are when wet. > > > Anyway, compiling your own stuff on Linux is like driving a manual, > easy to do once you see how simple it usually is :) > > > But for large apps, a waste of time, they're usually a binary > install to sensible places, /usr/local (most common), /usr > (though might interfere with system), /opt/app_name (usually > freeform, outside the rules or conventions) and /home/username, > which is only good if there's no data or libs to be shared with > other users. > > Stuff under /home/username is also restricted on what system services > it can access. > > My, much OT writing here... > Yeah, but it could help younger engineers get up to speed. Thanks for explaining things. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: Joel Koltner on 28 Jul 2010 15:20 "Grant" <omg(a)grrr.id.au> wrote in message news:pmbv46tde87afi5e53th01073glo9co3tg(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 10:36:02 -0700, "Joel Koltner" > <zapwireDASHgroups(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>It's rather annoying that under, e.g., GNOME, sure, you can use the >>file explorer to wander around a Samba-based network, but if you open up, >>say, >>\\MyServer\\SomeShare\foo.txt, when you then turn around and fire up >>OpenOffice Writer the actual Unix path is now something like >>~/.gvfs/MyServer/SomeShare/foo.txt -- few applications will let you type in, >>e.g., smb://MyServer/SomeShare/foo.txt directly. Most annoying... :-( > > What, you'd like to type in "smb://MyServer/SomeShare/foo.txt" to your > web browser and have it connect to the local filesystem and find it, > offer editing or word processing? Not quite -- I want to be able to type in smb://MyServer/SomeShare/foo.txt into *OpenOffice* or *GEdit* and have it work. And since Gnome conveniently places icons for Samba mounts on your desktop, I'd like those links to show up in the file dialogs of OpenOffice, etc. (just like shortcuts in Windows do) -- which they don't. Oh, and while I'm complaining about file requestor dialogs, it sure would be nice if they were rather more consistent -- in Windows it's a *very* rare program that doesn't use the stock system file requestor, yet apparently on *NIX there is no such stock Widget, so you have a large handful of different ones... some let you create, rename, copy, and perform other operations on files while they're open (as Windows does -- heck, Windows will let you open up a new file in an entirely different program, if it strikes your fancy, from a Save As... file requestor!), whereas some won't. Most annoying -- you have to adjust your thinking to the "lowest common denominator." I certainly wouldn't object to typing it into FireFox and having it fire up the program associated with text files... I think it pretty much already does that; I was amazed that I could browse to http://SomeServer/stream.mp3 (a raw MP3 stream) and it already had a plug-in that started playing music from within the browser. ---Joel
From: Joel Koltner on 28 Jul 2010 15:29
"Charlie E." <edmondson(a)ieee.org> wrote in message news:75j056d5rc75gb1dhff3kulq9rvj54eo8m(a)4ax.com... > No, it is because modern Orcad uses Allegro as the PCB side of things, > and Allegro is largely developed on Unix workstations where such > things were/are verbotten. Since there is code in these things that > is MUCH older than '95, you need to be careful about spaces and long > filenames... ;-) Someone with a much stronger Unix background than I will have to chime in and mention when most Unices began supporting (file systems with) spaces in filenames. I don't recall if the ones I used in school back in the early '90s did or not, but by the time I was playing with Linux on PCs about a decade later they all sure did!* I don't expect software houses to always provide "zero day" support for new features within an OS; I realize these things can take significant time when you have a lot of legacy code. It's just that we're talking FIFTEEN YEARS now -- I would be so horribly embarassed to work for or manage a company that took that long to get around to updating their code... Do you get free maintenance upgrades to ORCAD for life as a former employee, Charlie? :-) ---Joel * I do remember, back in 1990, one professor who was bucking the trend at the university and had his lab machines running VMS when the rest of campus was some flavor of Unix or a Microsoft OS. I played with it for a couple of hours and was quite convinced I didn't want much more to do with it... and I'm almost positive it didn't support spaces in filenames. :-) |