www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - [OT] Which IDE / Editor do you use?

reply "Namespace" <rswhite4 googlemail.com> writes:
Just out of interest.

I use Sublime 2, Notepad++ and as IDE currently Mono-D. But I 
will try this evening VisualD.
Sep 13 2013
next sibling parent "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> writes:
vim
Sep 13 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent "Orfeo" <orfeo.davia gmail.com> writes:
gvim
Sep 13 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent "Misu" <misugi-pwnu live.fr> writes:
On Friday, 13 September 2013 at 19:48:18 UTC, Namespace wrote:

 Just out of interest.

 I use Sublime 2, Notepad++ and as IDE currently Mono-D. But I 
 will try this evening VisualD.


Mono-D
Sep 13 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Peter Alexander" <peter.alexander.au gmail.com> writes:
Sublime 3 on OSX
Sep 13 2013
next sibling parent reply "Namespace" <rswhite4 googlemail.com> writes:
On Friday, 13 September 2013 at 19:51:34 UTC, Peter Alexander 
wrote:

 Sublime 3 on OSX


No IDE?
Sep 13 2013
parent "Peter Alexander" <peter.alexander.au gmail.com> writes:
On Friday, 13 September 2013 at 20:07:51 UTC, Namespace wrote:

 On Friday, 13 September 2013 at 19:51:34 UTC, Peter Alexander 
 wrote:

 Sublime 3 on OSX


 No IDE?


No, I'm on OSX and Visual Studio is the only IDE I find bearable. 
All the others I've tried are clunky and slow with little 
benefits (XCode, Eclipse, MonoDevelop)

I haven't tried Mono-D in a while though, so maybe I'll give it 
another go.
Sep 13 2013
prev sibling parent reply Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2013-09-13 21:51, Peter Alexander wrote:

 Sublime 3 on OSX


Not TextMate on Mac OS X, you're mad :)

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
Sep 14 2013
parent reply "Peter Alexander" <peter.alexander.au gmail.com> writes:
On Saturday, 14 September 2013 at 12:38:35 UTC, Jacob Carlborg 
wrote:

 On 2013-09-13 21:51, Peter Alexander wrote:

 Sublime 3 on OSX


 Not TextMate on Mac OS X, you're mad :)


What does TextMate do better than Sublime? (genuine question)
Sep 14 2013
next sibling parent Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2013-09-14 16:42, Peter Alexander wrote:


 What does TextMate do better than Sublime? (genuine question)


I guess I'm more used to TextMate. I like all the snippets and commands. 
Also that it's easy to customize by adding and changing snippets and 
commands.

It can output results of commands to an HTML view/window. That in 
combination with it's support for the txmt URL scheme makes it easy to 
have error message you can click on which points back to the source code.

This HTML view is extremely useful. It can also be used to show test 
results, example: http://jqr.github.io/images/posts/rspec_runner.jpg

It's also used together with git to show diffs, logs, statuses and so on.

I can easily run scripts like Ruby and other languages.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
Sep 14 2013
prev sibling parent reply Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2013-09-14 16:42, Peter Alexander wrote:


 What does TextMate do better than Sublime? (genuine question)


* It shows file icons and SCM status in the side bar.
* TextMate 2 has built in support for downloading new bundles. With 
Sublime I need to download some Python thing and run to be able to 
download new languages

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
Sep 14 2013
parent reply "Peter Alexander" <peter.alexander.au gmail.com> writes:
On Saturday, 14 September 2013 at 19:19:16 UTC, Jacob Carlborg 
wrote:

 On 2013-09-14 16:42, Peter Alexander wrote:


 What does TextMate do better than Sublime? (genuine question)


 * It shows file icons and SCM status in the side bar.
 * TextMate 2 has built in support for downloading new bundles. 
 With Sublime I need to download some Python thing and run to be 
 able to download new languages


For bundles/packages in Sublime, I recommend everyone install the 
Package Control package. I'm surprised it's not built-in by now 
because every package uses it (1559 packages atm)

https://sublime.wbond.net/
Sep 14 2013
parent reply Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2013-09-14 22:32, Peter Alexander wrote:


 For bundles/packages in Sublime, I recommend everyone install the
 Package Control package. I'm surprised it's not built-in by now because
 every package uses it (1559 packages atm)

 https://sublime.wbond.net/


Yes, that's the one I'm talking about.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
Sep 14 2013
parent reply "Peter Alexander" <peter.alexander.au gmail.com> writes:
On Saturday, 14 September 2013 at 21:34:12 UTC, Jacob Carlborg 
wrote:

 On 2013-09-14 22:32, Peter Alexander wrote:


 For bundles/packages in Sublime, I recommend everyone install 
 the
 Package Control package. I'm surprised it's not built-in by 
 now because
 every package uses it (1559 packages atm)

 https://sublime.wbond.net/


 Yes, that's the one I'm talking about.


Sorry, thought you meant that you had to run a Python script for 
every package, my bad.
Sep 14 2013
parent Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2013-09-14 23:53, Peter Alexander wrote:


 Sorry, thought you meant that you had to run a Python script for every
 package, my bad.


I had to run a Python script once, to install the package manager.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
Sep 15 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> writes:
On 9/13/13, Namespace <rswhite4 googlemail.com> wrote:

 Just out of interest.


Scite: http://www.scintilla.org/SciTE.html

I use it because it's easy to configure, starts fast, loads big files
fast (compared to e.g. Sublime text), it seems to not break on any
funky new git-head version of D, and it's open-source.
Sep 13 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent "Craig Dillabaugh" <cdillaba cg.scs.carleton.ca> writes:
On Friday, 13 September 2013 at 19:48:18 UTC, Namespace wrote:

 Just out of interest.


Kate on Linux, Notepad++ on Windows.
Sep 13 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Justin Whear <justin economicmodeling.com> writes:
vim and gvim on linux.
Sep 13 2013
parent reply Justin Whear <justin economicmodeling.com> writes:
On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 20:02:02 +0000, Justin Whear wrote:


 vim and gvim on linux.


Unix is my IDE.
Sep 13 2013
parent reply "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> writes:
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 08:38:49PM +0000, Justin Whear wrote:

 On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 20:02:02 +0000, Justin Whear wrote:
 

 vim and gvim on linux.


 
 Unix is my IDE.


+1, I like that!! :)

I'm gonna hafta start saying that from now on, whenever people ask me
about IDEs.


T

-- 
Государство делает вид, что платит нам
зарплату, а мы делаем вид, что работаем.
Sep 13 2013
parent reply "monarch_dodra" <monarchdodra gmail.com> writes:
On Friday, 13 September 2013 at 20:58:06 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

 On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 08:38:49PM +0000, Justin Whear wrote:

 On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 20:02:02 +0000, Justin Whear wrote:
 

 vim and gvim on linux.


 
 Unix is my IDE.


 +1, I like that!! :)

 I'm gonna hafta start saying that from now on, whenever people 
 ask me
 about IDEs.


 T


notepad++ on windows.

kate on linux. Though I do *try* to learn vim (as in, be 
efficient with it, not quite there yet).
Sep 13 2013
next sibling parent reply "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> writes:
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 11:00:49PM +0200, monarch_dodra wrote:

 On Friday, 13 September 2013 at 20:58:06 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 08:38:49PM +0000, Justin Whear wrote:

On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 20:02:02 +0000, Justin Whear wrote:


 vim and gvim on linux.


Unix is my IDE.


+1, I like that!! :)

I'm gonna hafta start saying that from now on, whenever people ask
me
about IDEs.


T


 
 notepad++ on windows.
 
 kate on linux. Though I do *try* to learn vim (as in, be efficient
 with it, not quite there yet).


vim (and all vi-derived editors) is... shall we say, a unique beast all
its own. It requires a different *mode* of thinking (har har) than your
usual GUI-based editors.  In most other editors, you think in terms of
"move cursor here, type some characters, move cursor there, hit delete a
few times", etc..  But in vi(m), you operate on a different level of
abstraction. Rather than thinking in terms of individual cursor
movements and single-character operations, you're thinking in terms of
abstract editing operations: "go to the word that begins with 'vo',
replace the word with 'int', go back to the start of the paragraph, open
a new line of text above it", etc..

For many years, I hated vi, vim, and all of its ilk. I found them all
very foreign and counterintuitive, and therefore unproductive. It wasn't
until my supervisor at my first job persuaded me to try it, that I
finally, reluctantly, sat down to learn it for real. At first, I hated
its modality -- being used to the *other* kind of editors all my life
till then, I found myself fighting with vi's modality all the time --
because I was still thinking in the other mindset, you see. But most of
the machines I had to work with at the time didn't have a
sufficiently-sane editor on it (for a while I was copying pico onto
every machine I lay my hands on, but that grew tiresome), except vi,
which was installed by default on Solaris. So I was forced to use vi a
lot.

And then it started to grow on me. I found myself thinking more and more
in terms of abstract operations like I described above, rather than
individual cursor movements and keypresses. And I started acquiring that
twitch in my left little finger that wants to hit ESC every now and
then, for no good reason. :-P

Nowadays, I find myself handicapped when using any non-vi editor. What,
you mean I have to take my hands off their usual place on the keyboard
just to move the cursor?! Why does every keypress modify the text?! Why
doesn't hitting ESC put me in navigation mode?! Why doesn't ':wq' work?!
Why can't I move down by 12 paragraphs instead of hitting the down key
120 times?! (Which, incidentally, takes only 3 keystrokes in vim:
'12}'.)

*shrug*


T

-- 
Acid falls with the rain; with love comes the pain.
Sep 13 2013
parent reply Justin Whear <justin economicmodeling.com> writes:
On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 14:29:02 -0700, H. S. Teoh wrote:


 On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 11:00:49PM +0200, monarch_dodra wrote:
 vim (and all vi-derived editors) is... shall we say, a unique beast all
 its own. It requires a different *mode* of thinking (har har) than your
 usual GUI-based editors.  In most other editors, you think in terms of
 "move cursor here, type some characters, move cursor there, hit delete a
 few times", etc..  But in vi(m), you operate on a different level of
 abstraction. Rather than thinking in terms of individual cursor
 movements and single-character operations, you're thinking in terms of
 abstract editing operations: "go to the word that begins with 'vo',
 replace the word with 'int', go back to the start of the paragraph, open
 a new line of text above it", etc..


I've introduced a few young developers to Vim and the major hole that 
they tend to fall into is printing out a list of vim "keyboard 
shortcuts", because that's how other editors work: you memorize a bunch 
of arbitrary key combinations.  So the thing that I emphasize is learning 
Vim's *language*.  Say you already know that "d" means delete--whenever 
you learn a new noun such as "e" (end of word), you can combine the two:  
"de" (delete to end of the word).  The same applies when you learn a new 
verb, e.g. "y" for "yank" (copy): "ye" copies from the cursor to the end 
of the word.  Then mix it up with adjectives like counts ("d5e", delete 
to five word endings) or "i" and "a" (inside and around, "di{" for 
"delete inside this block").
Sep 13 2013
parent reply "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> writes:
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 09:48:05PM +0000, Justin Whear wrote:

 On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 14:29:02 -0700, H. S. Teoh wrote:
 

 vim (and all vi-derived editors) is... shall we say, a unique beast
 all its own. It requires a different *mode* of thinking (har har)
 than your usual GUI-based editors.  In most other editors, you think
 in terms of "move cursor here, type some characters, move cursor
 there, hit delete a few times", etc..  But in vi(m), you operate on
 a different level of abstraction. Rather than thinking in terms of
 individual cursor movements and single-character operations, you're
 thinking in terms of abstract editing operations: "go to the word
 that begins with 'vo', replace the word with 'int', go back to the
 start of the paragraph, open a new line of text above it", etc..


 
 I've introduced a few young developers to Vim and the major hole that
 they tend to fall into is printing out a list of vim "keyboard
 shortcuts", because that's how other editors work: you memorize a
 bunch of arbitrary key combinations.  So the thing that I emphasize is
 learning Vim's *language*.


Mmm, I like that description! You're right, it's actually a language,
not just a bunch of shortcuts. That's why is far more expressive than a
shortcut-based editor. You'd need an exponential number of shortcuts
just to keep up with all the possibilities -- clearly impractical.



 Say you already know that "d" means delete--whenever you learn a new
 noun such as "e" (end of word), you can combine the two:  "de" (delete
 to end of the word).  The same applies when you learn a new verb, e.g.
 "y" for "yank" (copy): "ye" copies from the cursor to the end of the
 word.  Then mix it up with adjectives like counts ("d5e", delete to
 five word endings) or "i" and "a" (inside and around, "di{" for
 "delete inside this block").


Heh. Can you believe this is the first time I've heard of 'e', in spite
of having used vim for more than a decade? ;-) Here I've been using w
and W and thinking they were good enough... I learned something new
today.


T

-- 
MAS = Mana Ada Sistem?
Sep 13 2013
next sibling parent Arjan <arjan ask.me> writes:
On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 00:10:30 +0200, H. S. Teoh <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx>  
wrote:


 Heh. Can you believe this is the first time I've heard of 'e', in spite
 of having used vim for more than a decade?  Here I've been using w
 and W and thinking they were good enough... I learned something new
 today.


Just to share: Bram Molenaar about '7 Habits For Effective Text Editing  
2.0' http://youtu.be/eX9m3g5J-XA of course using vim.

You might learn more than one thing ;-)
Sep 13 2013
prev sibling parent reply "Wyatt" <wyatt.epp gmail.com> writes:
On Friday, 13 September 2013 at 22:11:52 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

 On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 09:48:05PM +0000, Justin Whear wrote:

 I've introduced a few young developers to Vim and the major 
 hole that
 they tend to fall into is printing out a list of vim "keyboard
 shortcuts", because that's how other editors work: you 
 memorize a
 bunch of arbitrary key combinations.  So the thing that I 
 emphasize is
 learning Vim's *language*.


 Mmm, I like that description! You're right, it's actually a 
 language,
 not just a bunch of shortcuts. That's why is far more 
 expressive than a
 shortcut-based editor. You'd need an exponential number of 
 shortcuts
 just to keep up with all the possibilities -- clearly 
 impractical.


I'm surprised this hasn't come up yet: 
http://stackoverflow.com/a/1220118/432364
Probably one of the more famous SO answers ever.

Also, this cheat sheet is pretty much the best: 
http://www.viemu.com/vi-vim-cheat-sheet.gif

-Wyatt
Sep 16 2013
parent "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> writes:
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 01:28:07PM +0200, Wyatt wrote:

 On Friday, 13 September 2013 at 22:11:52 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 09:48:05PM +0000, Justin Whear wrote:

I've introduced a few young developers to Vim and the major hole
that they tend to fall into is printing out a list of vim "keyboard
shortcuts", because that's how other editors work: you memorize a
bunch of arbitrary key combinations.  So the thing that I emphasize
is learning Vim's *language*.


Mmm, I like that description! You're right, it's actually a language,
not just a bunch of shortcuts. That's why is far more expressive than
a shortcut-based editor. You'd need an exponential number of
shortcuts just to keep up with all the possibilities -- clearly
impractical.


 I'm surprised this hasn't come up yet:
 http://stackoverflow.com/a/1220118/432364
 Probably one of the more famous SO answers ever.


Whoa. Most epic SO answer ever! Thanks for the link, I'm bookmarking it,
even if just for posterity.  :)



 Also, this cheat sheet is pretty much the best:
 http://www.viemu.com/vi-vim-cheat-sheet.gif


[...]

Nice, thanks!


T

-- 
Your inconsistency is the only consistent thing about you! -- KD
Sep 16 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent Russel Winder <russel winder.org.uk> writes:
On Fri, 2013-09-13 at 14:29 -0700, H. S. Teoh wrote:
[=E2=80=A6]

 Why can't I move down by 12 paragraphs instead of hitting the down key
 120 times?! (Which, incidentally, takes only 3 keystrokes in vim:
 '12}'.)


OK Vim beats Emacs on that one, for Emacs it Esc 1 2 Ctrl+Down, 4
keystrokes.

--=20
Russel.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder ekiga.n=
et
41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel winder.org.uk
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder
Sep 14 2013
prev sibling parent reply Russel Winder <russel winder.org.uk> writes:
On Sat, 2013-09-14 at 09:53 +0100, Russel Winder wrote:
[=E2=80=A6]

 OK Vim beats Emacs on that one, for Emacs it Esc 1 2 Ctrl+Down, 4
 keystrokes.


Of course Vim is completely unusable since it relies on using monospace
fonts, where everyone one knows that reading is best done with
proportional fonts.

<yes-this-is-a-bit-of-an-intentional-troll/>

:-)


--=20
Russel.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder ekiga.n=
et
41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel winder.org.uk
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder
Sep 14 2013
parent Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 12:42:45 +0100
Russel Winder <russel winder.org.uk> wrote:


 On Sat, 2013-09-14 at 09:53 +0100, Russel Winder wrote:
 [=E2=80=A6]

 OK Vim beats Emacs on that one, for Emacs it Esc 1 2 Ctrl+Down, 4
 keystrokes.


=20
 Of course Vim is completely unusable since it relies on using
 monospace fonts, where everyone one knows that reading is best done
 with proportional fonts.
=20
 <yes-this-is-a-bit-of-an-intentional-troll/>
=20
 :-)
=20
=20


Actually, there's a way to make proportional fonts work just fine for
code:

http://nickgravgaard.com/elastictabstops/

I'm totally sold on the idea of elastic tabstops. I just wish Scintilla
would support them so I can actually *use* them in my editor.
Sep 14 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent Jos van Uden <usenet fwend.com> writes:
On 13-9-2013 21:48, Namespace wrote:

 Just out of interest.

 I use Sublime 2, Notepad++ and as IDE currently Mono-D. But I will try this
evening VisualD.



Notepad++.

I've installed Visual Studio Shell + Visual-D but haven't used it much yet.
Sep 13 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent Jordi Sayol <g.sayol yahoo.es> writes:
Geany

http://www.geany.org/
Sep 13 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
MicroEmacs

https://github.com/DigitalMars/med

https://github.com/DigitalMars/me
Sep 13 2013
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 9/13/2013 1:29 PM, Walter Bright wrote:

 MicroEmacs

 https://github.com/DigitalMars/med

 https://github.com/DigitalMars/me


BTW, one veery nice thing about ME is I can run it from a remote console
window. 
Also, it works exactly the same on every machine/operating system I've owned 
(ok, I never ported it to the ipod) - DOS, OS/2, Unix, Linux, every Windows 
flavor, various notebook computers, etc.
Sep 13 2013
next sibling parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 9/13/13 1:37 PM, Walter Bright wrote:

 On 9/13/2013 1:29 PM, Walter Bright wrote:

 MicroEmacs

 https://github.com/DigitalMars/med

 https://github.com/DigitalMars/me


 BTW, one veery nice thing about ME is I can run it from a remote console
 window. Also, it works exactly the same on every machine/operating
 system I've owned (ok, I never ported it to the ipod) - DOS, OS/2, Unix,
 Linux, every Windows flavor, various notebook computers, etc.


No syntax highlighting...

Andrei
Sep 13 2013
next sibling parent reply "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> writes:
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 01:40:02PM -0700, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

 On 9/13/13 1:37 PM, Walter Bright wrote:

On 9/13/2013 1:29 PM, Walter Bright wrote:

MicroEmacs

https://github.com/DigitalMars/med

https://github.com/DigitalMars/me


BTW, one veery nice thing about ME is I can run it from a remote console
window. Also, it works exactly the same on every machine/operating
system I've owned (ok, I never ported it to the ipod) - DOS, OS/2, Unix,
Linux, every Windows flavor, various notebook computers, etc.


 
 No syntax highlighting...


[...]

Syntax highlighting hurts my eyes. I've been using vim in black-on-white
for more than a decade now. (Well, more accurately, black on an almost
fully saturated off-white, but that's irrelevant.)


T

-- 
Doubt is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Sep 13 2013
next sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 9/13/2013 1:58 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:

 Syntax highlighting hurts my eyes. I've been using vim in black-on-white
 for more than a decade now. (Well, more accurately, black on an almost
 fully saturated off-white, but that's irrelevant.)


I tend to agree. I think syntax highlighting looks better if it's a subtle
color 
change, not a glaring one. Unfortunately, in text mode, color palette is very 
limited.
Sep 13 2013
next sibling parent reply "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> writes:
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 02:35:07PM -0700, Walter Bright wrote:

 On 9/13/2013 1:58 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:

Syntax highlighting hurts my eyes. I've been using vim in
black-on-white for more than a decade now. (Well, more accurately,
black on an almost fully saturated off-white, but that's irrelevant.)


 
 I tend to agree. I think syntax highlighting looks better if it's a
 subtle color change, not a glaring one. Unfortunately, in text mode,
 color palette is very limited.


Xterm has a 256-color mode that can be used for subtler highlighting, I
suppose. But still, syntax highlighting to me is merely something
peripheral, and I'm a minimalist. Besides, 256-color mode isn't always
supported when you're working over ssh.

Not to mention, syntax highlighting falls down upon encountering q{}
blocks.  (It *can* be made to highlight those as well, I suppose, but it
leads to the awkward situation where you can't tell whether that's code
or a string literal.)


T

-- 
If you look at a thing nine hundred and ninety-nine times, you are perfectly
safe; if you look at it the thousandth time, you are in frightful danger of
seeing it for the first time. -- G. K. Chesterton
Sep 13 2013
parent reply "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> writes:
On Friday, 13 September 2013 at 21:45:06 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

 Xterm has a 256-color mode that can be used for subtler


You can do a palette swap in hardware text mode too (fiddling the 
vga palette registers, I think it is the same as in mode 13h but 
it's been a looooong time since I've played with that), the linux 
console in vga text mode (see man console_codes(4)), and in 
Windows console:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms686039%28v=vs.85%29.aspx


Perhaps bad practice to change that stuff, at least not without 
changing it back when you're done, but it is doable.


Actually, my biggest problem with linux is how terrible the 
operating system is compared to DOS and Windows. I'm not even 
kidding, the unix terminal debacle sucks (maybe good when you had 
various hardware, but it is weak next to what the PC hardware 
offers), the available system facilities suck (Win32 is plenty 
usable and reliably there! Even on linux, using a Windows .exe 
tends to work better than using a linux binary - exe's just work 
there thanks to wine, whereas linux binaries always have some 
incompatibility).

Eh I'm getting off topic.
Sep 13 2013
next sibling parent reply "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> writes:
On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 12:09:35AM +0200, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:

 On Friday, 13 September 2013 at 21:45:06 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

Xterm has a 256-color mode that can be used for subtler


 
 You can do a palette swap in hardware text mode too (fiddling the
 vga palette registers, I think it is the same as in mode 13h but
 it's been a looooong time since I've played with that), the linux
 console in vga text mode (see man console_codes(4)), and in Windows
 console:
 http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms686039%28v=vs.85%29.aspx
 
 
 Perhaps bad practice to change that stuff, at least not without
 changing it back when you're done, but it is doable.
 
 
 Actually, my biggest problem with linux is how terrible the
 operating system is compared to DOS and Windows. I'm not even
 kidding, the unix terminal debacle sucks (maybe good when you had
 various hardware, but it is weak next to what the PC hardware
 offers), the available system facilities suck (Win32 is plenty
 usable and reliably there! Even on linux, using a Windows .exe tends
 to work better than using a linux binary - exe's just work there
 thanks to wine, whereas linux binaries always have some
 incompatibility).


Really?  The only time I've actually had trouble with linux binaries is
when there's a problem with libc upgrades (the most disastrous one being
the libc5 -> libc6 upgrade, as I remember it). On Windows, when
installing stuff I used to always get messages like "this installer
wants to overwrite the file C:\\windows\system\asdf1234.dll, proceed
(y/n)?" -- which totally freaks me out. I mean, I don't even know what
on earth that file is supposed to do, and to top it off it's often the
same few files that every other installer and his neighbour's download
utility wants to overwrite for no discernible reason. They don't call it
"DLL hell" for no reason, I suppose. And then once I make the choice
just by pure blind guessing, the installation just barges onward with no
indication whatsoever as to whether it actually worked, or some subtle
problem was introduced to the system. Needless to say, I find myself
reformatting and reinstalling windows all the time, which I suspect is
due to these kinds of dependency problems. (But TBH, the last time I
touched windows in any serious way was almost 15 years ago, so none of
the above may be true anymore.)

Having said that, though, linux *is* more geared to building from source
than anything else, so downloading random "linux" binaries tends to not
work very well. Manually downloading binaries is a windows-centric
concept, methinks. It works OK when there's only a small number of
possible OS configurations in Windows (esp. with MS's obsession with
backward-compatibility), but linux's customizability means you're
dealing with an exponential number of mutually-incompatible OS
configurations -- binary compatibility goes out the window right there.

Building from source, OTOH, tends to work pretty well, if you can get
the thing to compile at all. (Thanks to apt-get, this is relatively
painless nowadays, once you figure out which libraries are needed... I
remember the early days before apt was born. It was a nightmare chasing
down all those package dependencies *transitively*, esp. when I had to
use sneakernet to download packages from my school's network due to a
2400 baud internet connection at home -- impractical for downloading big
source packages.) Nowadays, with people finally learning how to handle
.so versioning and ABI compatibility properly, these kinds of problems
are no longer a big issue for me, as long as I can build from source.
Binary distribution is still a royal pain, though. IMO it *inherently*
doesn't work very well in the linux ecosystem, which is definitely more
favorable towards open source software.



 Eh I'm getting off topic.


Isn't this thread already [OT]? ;-)


T

-- 
Obviously, some things aren't very obvious.
Sep 13 2013
next sibling parent reply "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> writes:
On Friday, 13 September 2013 at 22:29:28 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

 The only time I've actually had trouble with linux binaries is 
 when there's a problem with libc upgrades


The biggest offender for my home computer is gtk and glib. libc 
can be painful too - especially with work computers that stick to 
a particular version in the name of stability (I don't blame 
them, updating software is an exercise in pain. Even when they 
don't outright break things, so often they've changed it, now it 
sucks.).

But all those glib whatevers really kill me.



 On Windows, when
 installing stuff I used to always get messages like "this 
 installer


That's not such a problem anymore since Vista. The system does 
some magic rewrites so those naughty programs think they are 
writing to system folders, but are actually pretty isolated.

Still worries me on Linux though! "just run sudo make install", 
and trust you not to do anything wrong? Nope!


On both systems, I don't like installing programs. Whenever I 
can, I like to keep the application in its own folder and run it 
as my limited user account only (e.g., unzip dmd.zip, run 
./dmd2/linux/bin32/dmd. it just worked! and any versions can live 
side by side! and it didn't overwrite anything else another 
program might rely on! WIN!)


 Having said that, though, linux *is* more geared to building 
 from source than anything else


That'd be great if you didn't have to recreate the original 
author's environment on your computer, or wait seemingly forever 
for ./configure to run, then wait forever again for make to run, 
just to see if the program even does what you want it to do.

This is why my D programs usually just have a few files you can 
drop in. So I say "get my simpledisplay.d and color.d" and you 
don't have to install it, you don't have to download the same 
libraries I have, you just grab those two files and

dmd yourapp.d simpledisplay.d color.d

and boom, it *should* work. While I do have some other libs 
installed, various C headers and so forth, I think it is 
unreasonable to ask you, my user, to have all that too.


If modularity and DRY are at odds, I prefer to err on the side of 
fewer dependencies.


 but linux's customizability means


eh to an extent yes, but my custom window manager shouldn't mean 
your notepad program doesn't work. Maybe some special features 
won't be the same, but my preference in one location shouldn't 
break core functionality in another. There is a reasonable common 
denominator here - people don't customize their ELF loaders 
(much). They don't hack their kernels so the syscall numbers 
don't match. Those things actually work, so nobody really cares.

Why do people use other sound servers/modules or gui libraries? 
Because the default is broken. Not because they disagree, but 
because it is *broken*. So then everyone does their own fixes to 
work around it... and that leads to pain.

So it isn't end user customizability that cause the problem. It 
is mid-user patching a broken core.


 Isn't this thread already [OT]? ;-)


yeah but it wasn't meant to be a rant thread! oh well.
Sep 13 2013
parent reply "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> writes:
On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 02:54:55AM +0200, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:

 On Friday, 13 September 2013 at 22:29:28 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

The only time I've actually had trouble with linux binaries is
when there's a problem with libc upgrades


 
 The biggest offender for my home computer is gtk and glib. libc can
 be painful too - especially with work computers that stick to a
 particular version in the name of stability (I don't blame them,
 updating software is an exercise in pain. Even when they don't
 outright break things, so often they've changed it, now it sucks.).
 
 But all those glib whatevers really kill me.


You're right. Building GTK apps require 102 dependencies that may or may
not be the exact version the app needs to actually compile. This is
another reason I stay away from GUI apps. They're fat, require a
veritable labyrinth of dependencies that may or may not work, and is
bound to a GUI, generally in an unscriptable way. No thanks. Compiling,
installing, and using a CLI app is far easier and in many cases more
powerful. If I wanted the eye-candy, I'd go to Windows -- they have
better eye-candy.

(Well, I did install Compiz with the 3D rotating cube interface once,
just for some Linux fanboyistic bragging, but ... actually use that for
my everyday tasks? Nah...)



On Windows, when installing stuff I used to always get messages like
"this installer


 
 That's not such a problem anymore since Vista. The system does some
 magic rewrites so those naughty programs think they are writing to
 system folders, but are actually pretty isolated.


Ah, figures. My wife's laptop is still running XP. *shrug* It does what
she wants, and I don't see why I should replace it with new expensive
hardware just so I can run Vista (or whatever), for no real added
functionality. But it's good to know they finally got their act
together.



 Still worries me on Linux though! "just run sudo make install", and
 trust you not to do anything wrong? Nope!


I *never* do that. I always tell it to install to a different non-system
$PREFIX. If it can't, I just delete it outright (or, if I desperately
need it, put it inside a chroot).



 On both systems, I don't like installing programs. Whenever I can, I
 like to keep the application in its own folder and run it as my
 limited user account only


Me too.



 (e.g., unzip dmd.zip, run ./dmd2/linux/bin32/dmd. it just worked! and
 any versions can live side by side! and it didn't overwrite anything
 else another program might rely on! WIN!)


+1. :) DMD seriously trumps gcc and its ilk in this area, by a looong
shot. You don't realize what a flimsy fortress of cards gcc can be until
you've tried to install it by hand. It requires 150 different files
installed in 50 scattered locations (along with the 25 requisite
./configure parameters), and if even one of them is wrong, it won't
work.

When the gcc makefile actually works (and it can be a real challenge to
get it to this point, as it's a rather sensitive soul with very high and
demanding standards), it does work like a charm. But when it *doesn't*,
well ... you may not have any hair left after the ordeal, shall we say.

DMD, OTOH, is surprisingly easy to build, and can be run from just about
anywhere. I usually just run it straight from dmd/src.



Having said that, though, linux *is* more geared to building from
source than anything else


 
 That'd be great if you didn't have to recreate the original author's
 environment on your computer, or wait seemingly forever for
 ./configure to run, then wait forever again for make to run, just to
 see if the program even does what you want it to do.


Yeah, autotools... that patch upon the patch to a broken bandage over a
festering wound on a patch to a bandage over a primitive system
stretched beyond its simplistic design... OK OK, I'll refrain from
another build system rant here. :-P



 This is why my D programs usually just have a few files you can drop
 in. So I say "get my simpledisplay.d and color.d" and you don't have
 to install it, you don't have to download the same libraries I have,
 you just grab those two files and
 
 dmd yourapp.d simpledisplay.d color.d
 
 and boom, it *should* work. While I do have some other libs
 installed, various C headers and so forth, I think it is
 unreasonable to ask you, my user, to have all that too.


Speaking of which, dmd git HEAD appears to have broken terminal.d
sometime recently... if you don't mind could you take a look at it? It's
complaining about some template mismatch or some such. :-(



 If modularity and DRY are at odds, I prefer to err on the side of
 fewer dependencies.


Well, dub is proposed to be a solution to this kind of problems, but I
haven't really felt the need to use it yet. So far, I've been OK with
just downloading D libraries in some local directory and building stuff
from source. But then again, I haven't gotten to the point where my D
code is big enough and complex enough to face these kinds of issues yet,
so who knows. *shrug*



but linux's customizability means


 
 eh to an extent yes, but my custom window manager shouldn't mean
 your notepad program doesn't work. Maybe some special features won't
 be the same, but my preference in one location shouldn't break core
 functionality in another. There is a reasonable common denominator
 here - people don't customize their ELF loaders (much). They don't
 hack their kernels so the syscall numbers don't match. Those things
 actually work, so nobody really cares.
 
 Why do people use other sound servers/modules or gui libraries?
 Because the default is broken. Not because they disagree, but
 because it is *broken*. So then everyone does their own fixes to
 work around it... and that leads to pain.


Yeah, sound servers have never worked well for me either. I don't even
bother with them nowadays. I usually hate whatever sounds an app makes
anyway, so if sound outright doesn't work, so much the better. As long
as mpg123 / mplayer works, and I can listen to music of my own choice
(instead of whatever dreary soundtrack or cartoon popping sounds the app
author feels I must endure through), and as long as skype can pick up my
voice and transmit the other person's voice, that's good enough.



 So it isn't end user customizability that cause the problem. It is
 mid-user patching a broken core.


I dunno, I find that ALSA works pretty well these days. It has come a
long way since its original inception, when it would mysteriously fail
to work for inscrutable reasons, and then just as mysteriously start
working again upon the next upgrade. Most apps that interface directly
with ALSA tend to Just Work(tm), whereas apps that expect this or that
soundserver to be running generally *don't* work, or don't work very
well.



Isn't this thread already [OT]? ;-)


 
 yeah but it wasn't meant to be a rant thread! oh well.


Hehe... rant threads are fun! As long as people don't take them too
seriously, that is.


T

-- 
What is Matter, what is Mind? Never Mind, it doesn't Matter.
Sep 14 2013
next sibling parent reply Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 01:11:52 -0700
"H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:

 
 (instead of whatever dreary soundtrack or cartoon popping sounds the
 app author feels I must endure through),


I hate those sounds. Disc ripping/authoring software seems to be the
worst, with their patronizing new age-y jingles every time anything
finishes/fails.


 and as long as skype can
 pick up my voice and transmit the other person's voice, that's good
 enough.
 


Is the Skype software any less dreadful on Linux than it is on Windows?
It used to be that even the close button doesn't work properly, *by
design*. But last I looked, the damn thing no longer even *allowed* you
to end the glitchy resource-draining process *at all*. And that's just
one small aspect of the program.

I love the Skype service, but (at least on windows) the software seems
committed to forging new ground in "crapware". The android version
didn't seem nearly as bad though, but even that had a *lot* of user
comments posted about its overall quality and reliability taking a
steep nosedive. That was about a year ago though.
Sep 14 2013
parent reply "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> writes:
On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 04:49:23AM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
[...]

 and as long as skype can pick up my voice and transmit the other
 person's voice, that's good enough.
 


 
 Is the Skype software any less dreadful on Linux than it is on
 Windows?


Nope. It's worse, actually. Linux support is spotty, and there have been
debacles where Linux support was under consideration to be dropped.
Fortunately, they didn't. But it tends to fall behind the Windows
version, so weird quirks may pop up every now and then. Plus, it's
*still* a 32-bit app. :-(

Having said that, though, the latest incarnation of the Linux version
actually has native Debian packages, which makes the ordeal a lot less
painful than before, when you have to manually hunt down dependent
libraries.



 It used to be that even the close button doesn't work properly, *by
 design*. But last I looked, the damn thing no longer even *allowed*
 you to end the glitchy resource-draining process *at all*. And that's
 just one small aspect of the program.


Fortunately, in Linux there's 'killall -9 skype'. :)

Well, that's usually not necessary, since selecting "exit" from the main
menu (as opposed to merely closing the window) actually does logout
*and* terminate the skype process.



 I love the Skype service, but (at least on windows) the software seems
 committed to forging new ground in "crapware". The android version
 didn't seem nearly as bad though, but even that had a *lot* of user
 comments posted about its overall quality and reliability taking a
 steep nosedive. That was about a year ago though.


You will probably not be very pleased with the Linux version either,
then. :) But at least, recent versions have gotten their act together
and can now do a saner job of detecting your camera/microphone devices.
It used to be very unreliable and required lots of manual tweaking and
babysitting.


T

-- 
Public parking: euphemism for paid parking. -- Flora
Sep 14 2013
parent reply Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 03:59:36 -0700
"H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:


 On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 04:49:23AM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 [...]

 and as long as skype can pick up my voice and transmit the other
 person's voice, that's good enough.
 


 
 Is the Skype software any less dreadful on Linux than it is on
 Windows?


 
 Nope. It's worse, actually. Linux support is spotty, and there have
 been debacles where Linux support was under consideration to be
 dropped. Fortunately, they didn't. But it tends to fall behind the
 Windows version, so weird quirks may pop up every now and then. Plus,
 it's *still* a 32-bit app. :-(
 


Ugh, I've been convinced for some time that Skype needs to be a
*service*, not a "service plus god awful proprietary application".

Maybe they already do, but they *really* need to allow other people to
write Skype clients. Because they're clearly incompetent at it, and
while their *service* is great (well, aside from willfully handing all
your correspondence over to the government without any due process
whatsoever) their own client applications are by far the biggest
liability to their own business (aside from the Google-like lack of
respect for user privacy...but almost nobody cares about that anyway,
so it's less of a threat to them than their own broken client
applications are.)


 

 It used to be that even the close button doesn't work properly, *by
 design*. But last I looked, the damn thing no longer even *allowed*
 you to end the glitchy resource-draining process *at all*. And
 that's just one small aspect of the program.


 
 Fortunately, in Linux there's 'killall -9 skype'. :)
 
 Well, that's usually not necessary, since selecting "exit" from the
 main menu (as opposed to merely closing the window) actually does
 logout *and* terminate the skype process.
 


That's what the Windows version *used* to be like, back when it was
*less* terrible. Last I saw, the damn thing didn't even *have* an
"exit" command anymore.
Sep 14 2013
next sibling parent reply "Paolo Invernizzi" <paolo.invernizzi gmail.com> writes:
On Saturday, 14 September 2013 at 19:46:29 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
wrote:


 Ugh, I've been convinced for some time that Skype needs to be a
 *service*, not a "service plus god awful proprietary 
 application".

 Maybe they already do, but they *really* need to allow other 
 people to
 write Skype clients. Because they're clearly incompetent at it, 
 and
 while their *service* is great (well, aside from willfully 
 handing all
 your correspondence over to the government without any due 
 process
 whatsoever) their own client applications are by far the biggest
 liability to their own business (aside from the Google-like 
 lack of
 respect for user privacy...but almost nobody cares about that 
 anyway,
 so it's less of a threat to them than their own broken client
 applications are.)


That /was/ possible, and  our company is using the engine /naked/ 
on linux, but...

https://support.skype.com/en/faq/FA12322/what-is-skypekit

Now MS is ending that game, or at least it seems so.

  - Paolo
Sep 14 2013
parent Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 22:02:46 +0200
"Paolo Invernizzi" <paolo.invernizzi gmail.com> wrote:

 
 That /was/ possible, and  our company is using the engine /naked/ 
 on linux, but...
 
 https://support.skype.com/en/faq/FA12322/what-is-skypekit
 
 Now MS is ending that game, or at least it seems so.
 


Hmm, I had no idea MS had acquired it (or that eBay had owned it
before). That would seem to explain why Skype doesn't appear to be able
to make up their minds on things :/
Sep 14 2013
prev sibling parent Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2013-09-14 21:46, Nick Sabalausky wrote:


 Ugh, I've been convinced for some time that Skype needs to be a
 *service*, not a "service plus god awful proprietary application".

 Maybe they already do, but they *really* need to allow other people to
 write Skype clients. Because they're clearly incompetent at it, and
 while their *service* is great (well, aside from willfully handing all
 your correspondence over to the government without any due process
 whatsoever) their own client applications are by far the biggest
 liability to their own business (aside from the Google-like lack of
 respect for user privacy...but almost nobody cares about that anyway,
 so it's less of a threat to them than their own broken client
 applications are.)


I'm using Adium as a Skype client. But unfortunately the standard Skupe 
client needs to run as well, which sucks.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
Sep 15 2013
prev sibling parent "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> writes:
On Saturday, 14 September 2013 at 08:13:13 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

 installing, and using a CLI app is far easier and in many cases 
 more powerful.


I tried to find a program for the recent thing and couldn't - I 
wanted to view a Microsoft .doc file.

I ended up just opening it in vi and searching for ascii text. It 
worked!



 I *never* do that. I always tell it to install to a different 
 non-system $PREFIX.


I've been starting to get in this habit.... hmmm maybe I should 
just set the environment variable in my bashrc so i don't have to 
think about it.

That's not a bad idea.


 Speaking of which, dmd git HEAD appears to have broken 
 terminal.d sometime recently


dmd's update? blargh i'll try it later.




 and as long as skype can pick up my voice and transmit the 
 other person's voice


...to the NSA lol
Sep 14 2013
prev sibling parent reply Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 15:28:03 -0700
"H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:

 
 On Windows, when
 installing stuff I used to always get messages like "this installer
 wants to overwrite the file C:\\windows\system\asdf1234.dll, proceed
 (y/n)?" -- which totally freaks me out.


I use windows basically every day, and I haven't seen that happen since
the 90's.


 
 Building from source, OTOH, tends to work pretty well, if you can get
 the thing to compile at all. (Thanks to apt-get, this is relatively
 painless nowadays, once you figure out which libraries are needed...


That last part is the real problem though. Typing "wget
http://blahblah && unzip blahblah && cd blahblah && ./configure && make
&& make install" may be easy(-ish), but not when you're collecting all
the libs (or worse: non-lib dependencies, which then leads you into
recursion), and the right versions of all, until the
sllloooowwww ./configure or make process finally quits bitching about
shit.

(And why the freak do I need to re-./configure for every single program
that needs compiled? Shouldn't something in autotools already *know* my
system details and not have to re-detect *everything* every single
time? "Checking X...", "Checking Y...", "Is Z sane..."...? Why? Every
other damn autotools-based project *already* checked those every time
I compiled them! It's like opening my car door twenty thousand times to
make sure "Yup...it's still a car!". If certain changes might go
unnoticed then fine, give me a way to force a re-check if really
needed.)

When I discover I need to build a linux program from source and can't
just apt-get it or something, I usually just turn away and look for
something else. Discovering an alternate program that *is* in the repo
is faster and easier than playing "dependency scavenger hunt".

Before tools like apt-get/yum came around, I had actually sworn off
Linux entirely, largely because of those sorts of problems (which were
only *slightly* less painful with rpm/deb).
Sep 13 2013
next sibling parent "deadalnix" <deadalnix gmail.com> writes:
On Saturday, 14 September 2013 at 05:54:10 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
wrote:

 On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 15:28:03 -0700
 "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:

 
 On Windows, when
 installing stuff I used to always get messages like "this 
 installer
 wants to overwrite the file C:\\windows\system\asdf1234.dll, 
 proceed
 (y/n)?" -- which totally freaks me out.


 I use windows basically every day, and I haven't seen that 
 happen since
 the 90's.


1


 
 Building from source, OTOH, tends to work pretty well, if you 
 can get
 the thing to compile at all. (Thanks to apt-get, this is 
 relatively
 painless nowadays, once you figure out which libraries are 
 needed...


 That last part is the real problem though. Typing "wget
 http://blahblah && unzip blahblah && cd blahblah && ./configure 
 && make
 && make install" may be easy(-ish), but not when you're 
 collecting all
 the libs (or worse: non-lib dependencies, which then leads you 
 into
 recursion), and the right versions of all, until the
 sllloooowwww ./configure or make process finally quits bitching 
 about
 shit.


2

2 is just as true as 1.
Sep 13 2013
prev sibling parent reply Artur Skawina <art.08.09 gmail.com> writes:
On 09/14/13 07:53, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 (And why the freak do I need to re-./configure for every single program
 that needs compiled? Shouldn't something in autotools already *know* my
 system details and not have to re-detect *everything* every single
 time? "Checking X...", "Checking Y...", "Is Z sane..."...? Why? Every
 other damn autotools-based project *already* checked those every time
 I compiled them! It's like opening my car door twenty thousand times to
 make sure "Yup...it's still a car!". If certain changes might go
 unnoticed then fine, give me a way to force a re-check if really
 needed.)


This is a (system) configuration issue. The support for persistent caches
is there, it just needs to be enabled. [1] But then /you/ have to deal
with invalidating the cache when something changes (which, in theory,
means after /every/ sw install or upgrade).

artur

[1] for example, using a /etc/config.site file like:
------------------------------------------------------------------------


test -z "$SKIP_CONFIG_CACHE" || return 0

if test "$cache_file" = /dev/null -o "$cache_file" = 'config.cache' ; then
   PFIX=`$CC -v 2>&1 | awk ' /version /{ print$1$3"-"$4 }'`
   SFIX=`(set | grep '^ac_.*env' | grep -v '=$' | sort ; uname -mo ) | sha1sum
| cut -f1 -d' '`
   cache_file="/var/cache/config.cache/$PFIX-$SFIX"
fi
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sep 14 2013
parent Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 21:13:22 +0200
Artur Skawina <art.08.09 gmail.com> wrote:


 On 09/14/13 07:53, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 (And why the freak do I need to re-./configure for every single
 program that needs compiled? Shouldn't something in autotools
 already *know* my system details and not have to re-detect
 *everything* every single time? "Checking X...", "Checking Y...",
 "Is Z sane..."...? Why? Every other damn autotools-based project
 *already* checked those every time I compiled them! It's like
 opening my car door twenty thousand times to make sure "Yup...it's
 still a car!". If certain changes might go unnoticed then fine,
 give me a way to force a re-check if really needed.)


 
 This is a (system) configuration issue. The support for persistent
 caches is there, it just needs to be enabled. [1] But then /you/ have
 to deal with invalidating the cache when something changes (which, in
 theory, means after /every/ sw install or upgrade).
 


Hmm, you'd think a software install/upgrade would be able to just
simply notify the system that it may have affected the X, Y or Z
configuration. (Of course *that* could end up going wrong, but still...)

Still, good to know that's at least there.


 
 [1] for example, using a /etc/config.site file like:
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

 
 test -z "$SKIP_CONFIG_CACHE" || return 0
 
 if test "$cache_file" = /dev/null -o "$cache_file" = 'config.cache' ;
 then PFIX=`$CC -v 2>&1 | awk ' /version /{ print$1$3"-"$4 }'`
    SFIX=`(set | grep '^ac_.*env' | grep -v '=$' | sort ; uname -mo )
 | sha1sum | cut -f1 -d' '`
 cache_file="/var/cache/config.cache/$PFIX-$SFIX" fi
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------


Yeesh. That's why I like D for any non-trivial scripting ;)

(Yea, I know, it's all "complain, complain, complain" with me today ;) )
Sep 14 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 9/13/13 3:09 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:

 Actually, my biggest problem with linux is how terrible the operating
 system is compared to DOS and Windows. I'm not even kidding, the unix
 terminal debacle sucks (maybe good when you had various hardware, but it
 is weak next to what the PC hardware offers), the available system
 facilities suck (Win32 is plenty usable and reliably there! Even on
 linux, using a Windows .exe tends to work better than using a linux
 binary - exe's just work there thanks to wine, whereas linux binaries
 always have some incompatibility).


Sure... wait, what?

It's like I woke up and it's backward day :o). 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backwards_(Red_Dwarf_episode)


Andrei
Sep 13 2013
next sibling parent Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com> writes:
On 13 September 2013 23:32, Andrei Alexandrescu
<SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote:

 On 9/13/13 3:09 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:

 Actually, my biggest problem with linux is how terrible the operating
 system is compared to DOS and Windows. I'm not even kidding, the unix
 terminal debacle sucks (maybe good when you had various hardware, but it
 is weak next to what the PC hardware offers), the available system
 facilities suck (Win32 is plenty usable and reliably there! Even on
 linux, using a Windows .exe tends to work better than using a linux
 binary - exe's just work there thanks to wine, whereas linux binaries
 always have some incompatibility).



 Sure... wait, what?

 It's like I woke up and it's backward day :o).
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backwards_(Red_Dwarf_episode)


I too am confused.  I'd say it is the complete opposite too (in my
experience :-)

-- 
Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';
Sep 13 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:
On Friday, September 13, 2013 23:55:53 Iain Buclaw wrote:

 On 13 September 2013 23:32, Andrei Alexandrescu
 
 <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote:

 On 9/13/13 3:09 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:

 Actually, my biggest problem with linux is how terrible the operating
 system is compared to DOS and Windows. I'm not even kidding, the unix
 terminal debacle sucks (maybe good when you had various hardware, but it
 is weak next to what the PC hardware offers), the available system
 facilities suck (Win32 is plenty usable and reliably there! Even on
 linux, using a Windows .exe tends to work better than using a linux
 binary - exe's just work there thanks to wine, whereas linux binaries
 always have some incompatibility).


 
 Sure... wait, what?
 
 It's like I woke up and it's backward day :o).
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backwards_(Red_Dwarf_episode)


 
 I too am confused. I'd say it is the complete opposite too (in my
 experience :-)


I guess that it's a matter of perspective. Personally, I find the Windows/DOS 
shell to be completely unusable and use git-bash when I'm forced to use 
Windows. Windows definitely has some things going for it (e.g. its graphics 
engine creams the horror that is X.org IMHO), but on the whole, I find that 
Linux is just way better for a power user like myself. Windows doesn't even 
come close to cutting it.

- Jonathan M Davis
Sep 13 2013
next sibling parent Paulo Pinto <pjmlp progtools.org> writes:
Am 14.09.2013 01:56, schrieb Jonathan M Davis:

 On Friday, September 13, 2013 23:55:53 Iain Buclaw wrote:

 On 13 September 2013 23:32, Andrei Alexandrescu

 <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote:

 On 9/13/13 3:09 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:

 Actually, my biggest problem with linux is how terrible the operating
 system is compared to DOS and Windows. I'm not even kidding, the unix
 terminal debacle sucks (maybe good when you had various hardware, but it
 is weak next to what the PC hardware offers), the available system
 facilities suck (Win32 is plenty usable and reliably there! Even on
 linux, using a Windows .exe tends to work better than using a linux
 binary - exe's just work there thanks to wine, whereas linux binaries
 always have some incompatibility).


 Sure... wait, what?

 It's like I woke up and it's backward day :o).
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backwards_(Red_Dwarf_episode)


 I too am confused. I'd say it is the complete opposite too (in my
 experience :-)


 I guess that it's a matter of perspective. Personally, I find the Windows/DOS
 shell to be completely unusable and use git-bash when I'm forced to use
 Windows. Windows definitely has some things going for it (e.g. its graphics
 engine creams the horror that is X.org IMHO), but on the whole, I find that
 Linux is just way better for a power user like myself. Windows doesn't even
 come close to cutting it.

 - Jonathan M Davis


Powershell
Sep 14 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 19:56:14 -0400
"Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg gmx.com> wrote:

 
 I guess that it's a matter of perspective. Personally, I find the
 Windows/DOS shell to be completely unusable and use git-bash when I'm
 forced to use Windows. Windows definitely has some things going for
 it (e.g. its graphics engine creams the horror that is X.org IMHO),
 but on the whole, I find that Linux is just way better for a power
 user like myself. Windows doesn't even come close to cutting it.
 


While I definitely prefer bash to the windows prompt overall, there are
some places where I think windows makes the linux cmdline look bad.
Like launching a GUI program instead of a CLI:

Windows (nice):
% program-cli file.txt
% program-gui file.txt

Linux (wtf?!):
% program-cli file.txt
% program-gui file.txt >/dev/null 2>%1 &

But that's not always right - sometimes you need this instead:
% gksudo program-gui file.txt >/dev/null 2>%1 &

But that's not always right either. On some systems it's:
% kdesudo program-gui file.txt >/dev/null 2>%1 &

Of course, Linux *also* provides many ways to do it *wrong*, which are
naturally more convenient:



% program-gui file.txt >/dev/null 2>%1



% program-gui file.txt >/dev/null &


% program-gui file.txt &




% sudo program-gui file.txt >/dev/null 2>%1 &

On my Linux systems I like to stick these into one of my bin
directories (trying to do this from memory, so I may not have it
exactly right):

% cat gui

"$*" >/dev/null 2>%1 &

% cat gsudo


gksudo "$*" >/dev/null 2>%1 &

Then it's just...
% gui kate stuff.d
% gsudo kate /some/system/file

...Until the next time I'm on a different unix machine and have to
remember to use the full magic incantation again.
Sep 14 2013
next sibling parent Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:
On Saturday, September 14, 2013 04:23:35 Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 19:56:14 -0400
 
 "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg gmx.com> wrote:

 I guess that it's a matter of perspective. Personally, I find the
 Windows/DOS shell to be completely unusable and use git-bash when I'm
 forced to use Windows. Windows definitely has some things going for
 it (e.g. its graphics engine creams the horror that is X.org IMHO),
 but on the whole, I find that Linux is just way better for a power
 user like myself. Windows doesn't even come close to cutting it.


 
 While I definitely prefer bash to the windows prompt overall, there are
 some places where I think windows makes the linux cmdline look bad.
 Like launching a GUI program instead of a CLI:
 
 Windows (nice):
 % program-cli file.txt
 % program-gui file.txt
 
 Linux (wtf?!):
 % program-cli file.txt
 % program-gui file.txt >/dev/null 2>%1 &


I actually often find that convenient, because that means that I can get the 
output from a GUI program when I need it (generally when there's a problem 
with it). And if I want to run a GUI program but don't want any output to 
stdout, I usually just use Alt+F2 to start it (which works in KDE - as I 
understand it, other DEs have similar facilities). So, I rarely start GUI 
programs other than gvim from the command line. And gvim actually acts the way 
that you want. Oddly, it doesn't even require & to avoid having it take over 
the shell, which I have mixed feelings about.

And while I can understand your annoyance, I'd expect there to be more 
problems in general if GUI programs were treated differently than other 
programs when run from the command line. Then you'd have to have a way to get 
the CLI behavior for a GUI program when you needed it rather than having 
everything just work the same, wheras right now, you just have to learn one 
way of doing things.

But it is true that it's often the case that starting a GUI program from the 
command line in Linux results in a lot more output than you want if you're 
just trying to run it.

- Jonathan M Davis
Sep 14 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> writes:
On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 04:23:35AM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 19:56:14 -0400
 "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg gmx.com> wrote:

 
 I guess that it's a matter of perspective. Personally, I find the
 Windows/DOS shell to be completely unusable and use git-bash when
 I'm forced to use Windows. Windows definitely has some things going
 for it (e.g. its graphics engine creams the horror that is X.org
 IMHO), but on the whole, I find that Linux is just way better for a
 power user like myself. Windows doesn't even come close to cutting
 it.
 


 
 While I definitely prefer bash to the windows prompt overall, there
 are some places where I think windows makes the linux cmdline look
 bad.  Like launching a GUI program instead of a CLI:
 
 Windows (nice):
 % program-cli file.txt
 % program-gui file.txt
 
 Linux (wtf?!):
 % program-cli file.txt
 % program-gui file.txt >/dev/null 2>%1 &


That's only if you don't care about the output of the GUI program, which
is usually an indication of errors.

Well, unless the GUI program uses one of those stupid chatty toolkits
that like to spew EVERYTHING to stdout/stderr, no matter how inane. It
violates the rule that programs should be silent by default, and verbose
only when asked to be or when an error condition is important enough to
warrant soliciting the user's attention.

But even then, I usually don't care about these random spews. They can
be useful if the GUI program segfaults (which GUI programs are somehow
very likely to, for some reason), then you at least have a possibly
useful error message. Sending everything into /dev/null by default is a
bit counterproductive.

One situation where they can be annoying is when you're switching
between vim (of course) and the gui program, and the random spewage
messes up vim's TUI, then the solution is to hit ctrl-L, which *most*
properly-written TUI programs understand as "something threw up all over
your terminal, please repaint" (I believe ncurses has a default handler
for this, which is nice since all ncurses-based TUIs will respond to
ctrl-L in this way).

But badly-behaved GUI programs like this I usually just start from a
different terminal instead of the one I'm working on, so that the
spewage doesn't bother me (and is still there for me to look at if the
GUI program crashes, as they're all prone to, and I feel like looking
into why they did). Ratpoison is really useful for this, since it's just
two keystrokes to open a new terminal or switch to an existing dedicated
spewage terminal, then start the GUI app, then two keystrokes to go back
to your "main" terminal. Done this way, you don't even need to put the &
at the end of the command (though I still do just out of habit).

And if I need to start multiple GUI apps from the same spewage terminal,
I just ctrl-Z to suspend the first one, 'bg' to background it (the
afterthought equivalent of &), then start the second app. Or better yet,
with ratpoison, since it's just two keystrokes to open a new terminal,
I'd just open a new terminal, start the gui app with just a single &,
then *kill* that terminal (also just 2 keystrokes in ratpoison) so that
the OS sends all output to /dev/null for me without me ever needing to
name /dev/null manually. :) That's 4 keystrokes compared to that idiotic
verbose bash syntax for redirecting stdin/stderr to /dev/null (which I'm
no fan of, just for the record), that takes ... let's see... 15+
keystrokes. Ratpoison FTW. :)



 But that's not always right - sometimes you need this instead:
 % gksudo program-gui file.txt >/dev/null 2>%1 &


GUI programs that need sudo privileges are Teh Evil. I avoid them like
the plague. Unless they're the system package manager, but in that case
I'd use the CLI equivalents anyway, so this baroque dance is never
necessary for me. :-P



 But that's not always right either. On some systems it's:
 % kdesudo program-gui file.txt >/dev/null 2>%1 &


I have an intense hatred of anything GUI that asks for root privileges.
GUI apps are just too fragile, too fat, too crash-prone, to entrust with
root privileges. I have no confidence they will not also have nasty bugs
that destroys or overwrites system files (a pet peeve of mine is gui
programs that insist on creating stuff in $HOME that isn't their own
app-specific dotfile or under their own dedicated dotdirectory -- some
of them are quite insistent at recreating this detritus even after I
manually delete them -- how am I to know if they won't do this to system
files too?). So I never, ever, use gksudo or kdesudo. For me, root ==
strictly CLI-only.



 Of course, Linux *also* provides many ways to do it *wrong*, which are
 naturally more convenient:
 


 % program-gui file.txt >/dev/null 2>%1
 


 % program-gui file.txt >/dev/null &
 

 % program-gui file.txt &


[...]

None of this are an issue if you've a fast way to starting up /
switching to a specific terminal dedicated for containing spewage. :)

(Of course, the fact the majority of gui programs love spewing like this
is a sign of a fundamental pathology common to such programs, but that
belongs in another rant. :-P It's one of the many reasons I have an
aversion to all things GUI. In fact, in *my* book, a proper GUI program
should automatically detach itself from the terminal at startup -- there
are well-known, standard ways of doing this, but alas, most GUI
developers don't care enough to do it.)


T

-- 
Designer clothes: how to cover less by paying more.
Sep 14 2013
parent reply Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 03:08:32 -0700
"H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:


 On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 04:23:35AM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 
 Windows (nice):
 % program-cli file.txt
 % program-gui file.txt
 
 Linux (wtf?!):
 % program-cli file.txt
 % program-gui file.txt >/dev/null 2>%1 &


 
 That's only if you don't care about the output of the GUI program,
 which is usually an indication of errors.
 
 Well, unless the GUI program uses one of those stupid chatty toolkits
 that like to spew EVERYTHING to stdout/stderr, no matter how inane. It
 violates the rule that programs should be silent by default, and
 verbose only when asked to be or when an error condition is important
 enough to warrant soliciting the user's attention.
 
 But even then, I usually don't care about these random spews. They can
 be useful if the GUI program segfaults (which GUI programs are somehow
 very likely to, for some reason), then you at least have a possibly
 useful error message. Sending everything into /dev/null by default is
 a bit counterproductive.
 


I do agree that being able to access the stdout/err of a GUI is a good
thing. I just don't usually care ;), and frankly I think that fact just
further underscores my point that launching GUI apps on Linux isn't
handled particularly great.

Even assuming the usefulness of accessing stdout/err of a GUI, I still
don't think plastering it all to the active interactive shell that
launched it is a particularly sane default. There's gotta be better
ways: Like logging it all (either as opt-in or opt-out logging - I
don't care as long as it's consistent.) Or maybe a /proc/stdout/[pid]
and /proc/stderr/[pid].  And then maybe a combined /proc/all/stdout. I
dunno, something. There's gotta be a better way.

Windows knows when a program is GUI or CLI, I think that helps give it
a leg up in (potentially) addressing the matter nicely (even if it does
currently just throw away all GUI stdout/err, AFAIK). I know
situation-specific behaviors are somewhat anti-Unix, but I think GUI vs
CLI is significant enough to justify a certain amount of differences
(And it's not like Unix doesn't have alternate behaviors where
appropriate - ex: some files have finite size and some "files" don't,
some are physically on HDD and some aren't. All perfectly justified
inconsistencies.)

Come to think of it, anyone have any idea if Plan 9 approached this
"launching gui apps" any differently than Linux? I'd be curious about
that.



 One situation where they can be annoying is when you're switching
 between vim (of course) and the gui program, and the random spewage
 messes up vim's TUI, then the solution is to hit ctrl-L, which *most*
 properly-written TUI programs understand as "something threw up all
 over your terminal, please repaint"


Cool tip! Thanks! I didn't know that. It'll certainly come in handy.



 And if I need to start multiple GUI apps from the same spewage
 terminal, I just ctrl-Z to suspend the first one, 'bg' to background
 it (the afterthought equivalent of &), then start the second app.


You know, I always keep forgetting about "bg". I always remember "fg"
because that's how I undo the mistake of hitting Ctrl-Z when I meant
Ctrl-C ;) But I keep forgetting I can stuff things into the background
after-the-fact. Which is weird - I first learned about "fg/bg" over a
decade ago :P



 Or
 better yet, with ratpoison, since it's just two keystrokes to open a
 new terminal, I'd just open a new terminal, start the gui app with
 just a single &, then *kill* that terminal (also just 2 keystrokes in
 ratpoison) so that the OS sends all output to /dev/null for me
 without me ever needing to name /dev/null manually. :) That's 4
 keystrokes compared to that idiotic verbose bash syntax for
 redirecting stdin/stderr to /dev/null (which I'm no fan of, just for
 the record), that takes ... let's see... 15+ keystrokes. Ratpoison
 FTW. :)
 


Ehh, while I'm sure that's easy, it seems like more thought/steps than
really *should* be necessary in most cases.


 

 But that's not always right - sometimes you need this instead:
 % gksudo program-gui file.txt >/dev/null 2>%1 &


 
 GUI programs that need sudo privileges are Teh Evil. I avoid them like
 the plague. Unless they're the system package manager, but in that
 case I'd use the CLI equivalents anyway, so this baroque dance is
 never necessary for me. :-P


Well, I like my GUI-based text editors, and I like to be able to edit
configuration files when I need to (not that I like *needing* to). So
you do the math ;)


 

 But that's not always right either. On some systems it's:
 % kdesudo program-gui file.txt >/dev/null 2>%1 &


 
 I have an intense hatred of anything GUI that asks for root
 privileges. GUI apps are just too fragile, too fat, too crash-prone,
 to entrust with root privileges.


That may be a fair point. But I've been in the (perhaps bad) habit of
running Windows as admin since forever, and it hasn't killed me, so
ehh, whatever. ;)



 I have no confidence they will not
 also have nasty bugs that destroys or overwrites system files (a pet
 peeve of mine is gui programs that insist on creating stuff in $HOME
 that isn't their own app-specific dotfile or under their own
 dedicated dotdirectory


Actually, windows apps are pretty bad with that too. Probably even
worse since Windows is *supposed* to have at least two separate
equivalents to $HOME for each user:

- The well-known "My Documents" for files the user *explicitly* creates
  and saves (equivalent to the non-hidden files in $HOME, and usually
  something like "C:\Users\{user name}\Documents" on Vista and up)

- And a separate %APPDATA% for any data a program implicitly saves
  (equivalent to the hidden files in $HOME). Settings, game saves,
  persistent user-specific caches, etc. (Usually something like
  "C:\Users\{user name}\AppData\Roaming" on Vista and up.)

(There's actually more, including a non-roaming machine-specific
directory, and a common parent directory of all of them that's unique
to the user and ultimately contains *all* the user-centric data...at
least the user-centric data that isn't in the registry. But those two
above are the real key ones.)

But a lot of windows programs just spew all their shit into the
user-centric "My Documents" instead of "%APPDATA%/AppFooBar" where it
all belongs. Even Microsoft's own Visual Studio does this (unless
they've fixed it - they apparently change everything in every version
anyway). So then *MY* *DOCUMENTS* gets cluttered with random shit I
know perfectly well *I* didn't create. So I have to create a "MyDocs"
subdirectory to use as my *real* "My Documents". But I can't tell
Windows it's my real "My Documents" or everything will start spamming
that directory instead (Unless the program is *really* poorly behaved
and hard-codes something like "C:\Users\{user name}\Documents", though
I don't know how rare/common that is.)

Ugh...I don't know how I managed to learn that much random shit about
Windows...<g>



 Of course, Linux *also* provides many ways to do it *wrong*, which
 are naturally more convenient:
 


 [...]
 
 None of this are an issue if you've a fast way to starting up /
 switching to a specific terminal dedicated for containing spewage. :)
 


Yea, but then you have to actually *do* that ;)


 (Of course, the fact the majority of gui programs love spewing like
 this is a sign of a fundamental pathology common to such programs,
 but that belongs in another rant. :-P


They appear to use stdout/err as a logfile. I guess that could be
convenient during development, but...ugh.


 It's one of the many reasons I
 have an aversion to all things GUI. In fact, in *my* book, a proper
 GUI program should automatically detach itself from the terminal at
 startup -- there are well-known, standard ways of doing this, but
 alas, most GUI developers don't care enough to do it.)
 


I would buy that book ;) Actually though, do you have a link regarding
that auto-detaching?
Sep 14 2013
parent "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> writes:
On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 12:53:24AM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 03:08:32 -0700
 "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:


[...]

 It's one of the many reasons I have an aversion to all things GUI.
 In fact, in *my* book, a proper GUI program should automatically
 detach itself from the terminal at startup -- there are well-known,
 standard ways of doing this, but alas, most GUI developers don't
 care enough to do it.)
 


 
 I would buy that book ;) Actually though, do you have a link regarding
 that auto-detaching?


Well... it's actually very simple:

	int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
		if (fork()==0) {
			/* debugMode gets all the spewage, since
			 * presumably the GUI developer actually cares
			 * about that stuff. */
			if (!debugMode) {
				/* Swallow all spewage */
				fclose(stdin);
				fclose(stdout);
				fclose(stderr);
			}

			/* GUI code doesn't need to run in terminal */
			startGui();
		}

		/* So return control back to shell immediately. */
		exit(0);
	}

:)

Though, granted, you probably want to reopen stdin/stdout/stderr
(possibly as /dev/null) in case something chokes on errors caused by
writing to a closed file descriptor. But in C, nobody cares about the
return code of printf anyway, so this is mostly a non-issue.

(Of course, Unix does have a few dark corners, and here is one of them
that catches most people unaware. Consider what happens after you call
fclose on stdin/stdout/stderr. Unix, by convention, assigns them to file
descriptors 0, 1, and 2. Since they are now closed, if you then open
other resource files, say, a database file (via whatever DB library
you're using), it gets assigned the lowest unused file descriptor, that
is, 0, then 1, etc.. Now consider what happens when there are random
printf's scattered all over the code, and you're unlucky enough to have
your DB file's fd assigned to 1.)


T

-- 
First Rule of History: History doesn't repeat itself -- historians merely
repeat each other.
Sep 15 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "deadalnix" <deadalnix gmail.com> writes:
On Saturday, 14 September 2013 at 08:23:54 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
wrote:

 On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 19:56:14 -0400
 "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg gmx.com> wrote:

 
 I guess that it's a matter of perspective. Personally, I find 
 the
 Windows/DOS shell to be completely unusable and use git-bash 
 when I'm
 forced to use Windows. Windows definitely has some things 
 going for
 it (e.g. its graphics engine creams the horror that is X.org 
 IMHO),
 but on the whole, I find that Linux is just way better for a 
 power
 user like myself. Windows doesn't even come close to cutting 
 it.
 


 While I definitely prefer bash to the windows prompt overall, 
 there are
 some places where I think windows makes the linux cmdline look 
 bad.
 Like launching a GUI program instead of a CLI:

 Windows (nice):
 % program-cli file.txt
 % program-gui file.txt

 Linux (wtf?!):
 % program-cli file.txt
 % program-gui file.txt >/dev/null 2>%1 &

 But that's not always right - sometimes you need this instead:
 % gksudo program-gui file.txt >/dev/null 2>%1 &

 But that's not always right either. On some systems it's:
 % kdesudo program-gui file.txt >/dev/null 2>%1 &

 Of course, Linux *also* provides many ways to do it *wrong*, 
 which are
 naturally more convenient:



 % program-gui file.txt >/dev/null 2>%1



 % program-gui file.txt >/dev/null &


 % program-gui file.txt &




 % sudo program-gui file.txt >/dev/null 2>%1 &

 On my Linux systems I like to stick these into one of my bin
 directories (trying to do this from memory, so I may not have it
 exactly right):

 % cat gui

 "$*" >/dev/null 2>%1 &

 % cat gsudo


 gksudo "$*" >/dev/null 2>%1 &

 Then it's just...
 % gui kate stuff.d
 % gsudo kate /some/system/file

 ...Until the next time I'm on a different unix machine and have 
 to
 remember to use the full magic incantation again.


You are either dishonest or a complete morron. By respect for 
you, I'll pick the first one.
Sep 14 2013
parent Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 13:41:48 +0200
"deadalnix" <deadalnix gmail.com> wrote:

 
 You are either dishonest or a complete morron. By respect for 
 you, I'll pick the first one.


Huh? Is there some user-spoofing going on here?
Sep 14 2013
prev sibling parent reply Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2013-09-14 10:23, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 19:56:14 -0400
 "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg gmx.com> wrote:

 I guess that it's a matter of perspective. Personally, I find the
 Windows/DOS shell to be completely unusable and use git-bash when I'm
 forced to use Windows. Windows definitely has some things going for
 it (e.g. its graphics engine creams the horror that is X.org IMHO),
 but on the whole, I find that Linux is just way better for a power
 user like myself. Windows doesn't even come close to cutting it.


 While I definitely prefer bash to the windows prompt overall, there are
 some places where I think windows makes the linux cmdline look bad.
 Like launching a GUI program instead of a CLI:

 Windows (nice):
 % program-cli file.txt
 % program-gui file.txt

 Linux (wtf?!):
 % program-cli file.txt
 % program-gui file.txt >/dev/null 2>%1 &


On Mac OS X I usually use "open" command to open a file in the default 
application.

$ open file.txt

Or I can explicitly specify the application:

open -a /Applications/TextEdit.app foo.txt

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
Sep 15 2013
parent reply Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 11:38:09 +0200
Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> wrote:


 On 2013-09-14 10:23, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 While I definitely prefer bash to the windows prompt overall, there
 are some places where I think windows makes the linux cmdline look
 bad. Like launching a GUI program instead of a CLI:

 Windows (nice):
 % program-cli file.txt
 % program-gui file.txt

 Linux (wtf?!):
 % program-cli file.txt
 % program-gui file.txt >/dev/null 2>%1 &


 
 On Mac OS X I usually use "open" command to open a file in the
 default application.
 
 $ open file.txt
 


Windows actually does the same thing, except the filename *is* the
command:

$ file.txt

And yea, either way, "open file.txt" or "file.txt", it is kinda nice.
Although I find I use it very rarely, oddly enough.



 Or I can explicitly specify the application:
 
 open -a /Applications/TextEdit.app foo.txt
 


Hmm. What's the benefit over just doing this?:

$ /Applications/TextEdit.app foo.txt
Sep 15 2013
parent reply Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2013-09-15 11:52, Nick Sabalausky wrote:


 Windows actually does the same thing, except the filename *is* the
 command:

 $ file.txt

 And yea, either way, "open file.txt" or "file.txt", it is kinda nice.
 Although I find I use it very rarely, oddly enough.


I mostly use "open" to open a directory in the file browser:

$ open .

That's especially useful when opening hidden folders. When opening text 
documents or source code, most of the time I open with TextMate, which 
has it's own command:

$ mate main.d

By default the shell will not wait for the application. I can force the 
shell to wait with the -w flag, this is useful when writing git commit 
messages.


 Hmm. What's the benefit over just doing this?:

 $ /Applications/TextEdit.app foo.txt


$ /Applications/TextEdit.app foo.txt
-bash: /Applications/TextEdit.app: Is a directory

.app "files" are bundles, that is, directories which Finder and other 
tools treat specially.

The actual executable is located at 
/Applications/TextEdit.app/Contents/MacOS/TextEdit

In the case of TextEdit, running:

$ /Applications/TextEdit.app/Contents/MacOS/TextEdit foo.txt

Will complain that foo.txt doesn't exist. The shell will also wait until 
the application terminates. Running through "open" the shell will not 
wait for the application and it will open the document properly.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
Sep 15 2013
parent reply Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 12:46:29 +0200
Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> wrote:


 On 2013-09-15 11:52, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 

 Windows actually does the same thing, except the filename *is* the
 command:

 $ file.txt

 And yea, either way, "open file.txt" or "file.txt", it is kinda
 nice. Although I find I use it very rarely, oddly enough.


 
 I mostly use "open" to open a directory in the file browser:
 
 $ open .
 
 That's especially useful when opening hidden folders. 


Yea, that one I picked up a few weeks ago when I first tried to test
the release builder script on OSX. I couldn't for the life of me figure
out how to get Finder to show the temp directory, so a little bit of
web searching led me to that. But I didn't know it worked for files,
too.

The windows version is (for directories only):
$ explorer .



 Hmm. What's the benefit over just doing this?:

 $ /Applications/TextEdit.app foo.txt


 
 $ /Applications/TextEdit.app foo.txt
 -bash: /Applications/TextEdit.app: Is a directory
 
 .app "files" are bundles, that is, directories which Finder and other 
 tools treat specially.
 
 The actual executable is located at 
 /Applications/TextEdit.app/Contents/MacOS/TextEdit
 


Ahh, ok. I knew about bundles, but I didn't know the command line
didn't do the same special handling for them, too.



 In the case of TextEdit, running:
 
 $ /Applications/TextEdit.app/Contents/MacOS/TextEdit foo.txt
 
 Will complain that foo.txt doesn't exist. The shell will also wait
 until the application terminates. Running through "open" the shell
 will not wait for the application and it will open the document
 properly.
 


I see, that's interesting. So it does have a special way to launch an
app asynchronously without the "&" at the end of the command line. Does
it also gag stdout/stderr?

Am I correct in assuming "open" is specifically an OSX thing, and not
something inherited from BSD?
Sep 15 2013
parent reply Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2013-09-15 13:12, Nick Sabalausky wrote:


 Yea, that one I picked up a few weeks ago when I first tried to test
 the release builder script on OSX. I couldn't for the life of me figure
 out how to get Finder to show the temp directory, so a little bit of
 web searching led me to that. But I didn't know it worked for files,
 too.


In Path Finder, which I use instead of Finder, I have a menu and toolbar 
button for showing hidden files.


 The windows version is (for directories only):
 $ explorer .


Didn't know about that.


 Ahh, ok. I knew about bundles, but I didn't know the command line
 didn't do the same special handling for them, too.


It depends on the tool. Most standard Unix tools will treat them as 
directories. Apple modifies some tools to add Mac specific features. For 
example, the modified most of the developer tools to add support for 
universal binaries.


 I see, that's interesting. So it does have a special way to launch an
 app asynchronously without the "&" at the end of the command line. Does
 it also gag stdout/stderr?


No, not if it's launched through "open". Standard Mac application (built 
with Objective-C using XCode) will use the NSLog function. This prints 
to a standard log file, which can be view using 
/Applications/Utilities/Console.app

Although cross-platform application may gag out text all over the place. 
They usually all fail on Mac OS X. No unified toolbar, no dialog sheets 
and so on.


 Am I correct in assuming "open" is specifically an OSX thing, and not
 something inherited from BSD?


Yes, from the man page:

HISTORY
      First appeared in NextStep.

https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/Darwin/Reference/ManPages/man1/open.1.html

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
Sep 15 2013
next sibling parent Johannes Pfau <nospam example.com> writes:
Am Sun, 15 Sep 2013 13:56:52 +0200
schrieb Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com>:


 Yes, from the man page:
 
 HISTORY
       First appeared in NextStep.
 
 https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/Darwin/Reference/ManPages/man1/open.1.html
 


There's xdg-open for linux though, which works in exactly the same way.
Sep 15 2013
prev sibling parent Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 13:56:52 +0200
Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> wrote:


 On 2013-09-15 13:12, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 

 The windows version is (for directories only):
 $ explorer .


 
 Didn't know about that.
 


I didn't either until I tried it a few seconds before writing that ;)
But I had a hunch!
Sep 15 2013
prev sibling parent reply "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> writes:
On Friday, 13 September 2013 at 23:56:26 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
wrote:

 Personally, I find the Windows/DOS
 shell to be completely unusable and use git-bash when I'm


cmd.exe is indeed painful to use. I blame it's weird history and 
tab completion. It has them so you want to use it.... but they 
are weird.

The commands don't bother me, the different quoting and (lack 
of?) looping don't bother me - I prefer to just use D for 
anything more than a line or three of shell anyway - but the 
history and compleition are really annoying.

Linux's greatest asset is gnu readline.


 Windows definitely has some things going for it (e.g. its 
 graphics engine creams the horror that is X.org IMHO)


hell yes, and MIDI actually works there too! Ever try to use 
linux with a soundblaster 16? Sounded horrible. Worse yet, try to 
set up midi softsynth with ALSA. So much stupid crap.
Sep 14 2013
parent Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 17:08:56 +0200
"Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> wrote:


 On Friday, 13 September 2013 at 23:56:26 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
 wrote:

 Personally, I find the Windows/DOS
 shell to be completely unusable and use git-bash when I'm


 
 cmd.exe is indeed painful to use. I blame it's weird history and 
 tab completion. It has them so you want to use it.... but they 
 are weird.
 


I think they help make cmd.exe usable, but you're right, they are
weird. And limited.

The history does at least seem to have a certain logic to it, but in
practice I usually find it more confusing than bash's or, uhhh,
whatever BSD's default shell is.

In fact, after I got over my initial shock (only a few minutes), I
started to grock the logic of BSD's shell history, and I'm starting to
like it more than bash's history. So easy to call up the command you
want, even if it's old: Just type the beginning and then "up/down"
automatically filters to that prefix. Nice. The redirection system has
some interesting points too, although I'm not familiar enough with that
aspect yet (as opposed to bash) to really judge it.



 The commands don't bother me, the different quoting and (lack 
 of?) looping don't bother me - I prefer to just use D for 
 anything more than a line or three of shell anyway - but the 
 history and compleition are really annoying.
 


Yea. And as far as the commands go, it's easy enough to install the
Windows port of all the basic Gnu tools. So I can tee stuff, and pipe
to grep and such just as well on Windows as I can on Linux. And
piping/redirection works fine on cmd.exe, pretty much identical to bash
actually.

So I'm actually fairly comfortable on the Windows command line, all
things considered. My biggest beefs are that I can't resize the
terminal's width or copy-paste without the mouse, but there's a million
alternate front-ends to cmd.exe which do that stuff just fine. I even
have a couple installed, I'm just too lazy to change my habit of
always reaching for cmd.exe ;)
Sep 14 2013
prev sibling parent reply "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> writes:
On Friday, 13 September 2013 at 22:32:30 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:

 Sure... wait, what?


Download a random binary off the internet. Odds are, if it is an 
exe, it will work. Even if you're on linux, you can run it with 
wine.

If it is a linux binary, good luck. Even a relatively simple 
program like dmd can't be relied upon: on the CentOS box at one 
of my jobs, I had to build from source due to a libc 
incompatibility.

And if it is a gui program, whew, all bets are off! I even have 
programs on my desktop that worked last year, and segfault now. 
Apparently an unrelated update had an ABI incompatibility in gtk. 
Gimp still works (and works quite well), but qemu's new gtk gui 
segfaults, a video game emulator I have runs but the menu all of 
a sudden overlaps the game video, and abiword refuses to start.

These aren't even off the internet, these are things I compiled 
myself less than two years ago!


Contrast to Windows, where programs I wrote while using win98 
still tend to work.



Then, get into features. Contrast the Windows support with the 
linux support in my terminal.d
https://github.com/adamdruppe/misc-stuff-including-D-programming-language-web-stuff/blob/master/terminal.d


The first several *hundred* lines are dealing with random 
incompatibilities in unix terminals, from keys sending different 
sequences (and, of course, the infamous nonsense in 
differentiating the user pressing the esc key from something like 
F1 or another input escape sequence) to dealing with random 
output rules. The KeyRelease event is never fired there, and the 
KeyPress for various keys doesn't actually work either, despite 
the actual PC hardware sending those codes.

And there's features not present either: determining the current 
color so you can get better contrast. Gotta depend on the user 
setting an environment variable. (You can't even use palette 

which adjusts the whole system palette. Nope, it will happily put 
light yellow on a white background and you can't tell if it is 
doing that.) Oh, and the fad of semi-transparent terminal 
windows. Please, give me a break. But that's user silliness, not 
the OS, so I'll forgive it.

Anyway, you also can't resize the cursor well, say to indicate 
insert vs overstrike mode. The PC hardware supports it.... but 
Linux assumes you're on a random glass terminal, and accessing 
the actual capabilities of PC hardware is clunky at best.

(You could spin this as a benefit, "look, cross-hardware 
compatibility!" And that's great, it really is, but it could be 
done so much better with graceful degradation techniques, not 
saying "sorry PC users, you can't do that".)


And drawing, oh my. Long story short, coming from DOS or Windows 
to the glorious land of various buggy, incompatible vt100 
emulators is such a shock.


Wanna talk about audio or GUIs, whether high performance or just 
asking for a consistent user experience to grab some basic data? 
Prepare to descend directly into hell, do not pass go, do not 
collect $200.



PS I've used exclusively Linux on my desktop for about a decade 
now. I like a *lot* about it, especially now that I have so many 
hacked up programs (custom taskbar, slightly modified Blackbox 
window manager, a hotkey listener, my own libraries, etc. etc. 
etc.).

But at the same time, using it for all this time after having so 
much fun in the DOS+Windows world has made me see a lot of 
faults. And many of them have gotten worse - what the hell is 
PulseAudio anyway?
Sep 13 2013
next sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 9/13/2013 5:39 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:

 And drawing, oh my. Long story short, coming from DOS or Windows to the
glorious
 land of various buggy, incompatible vt100 emulators is such a shock.


Yeah, I've thought about taking the tty/kbd code from ME and making a phobos 
module out of it. So many annoying problems that can be abstracted away.
Sep 13 2013
parent reply Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:
On Sep 13, 2013, at 6:23 PM, Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> =
wrote:


 On 9/13/2013 5:39 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:

 And drawing, oh my. Long story short, coming from DOS or Windows to =




the glorious

 land of various buggy, incompatible vt100 emulators is such a shock.


=20
 Yeah, I've thought about taking the tty/kbd code from ME and making a =


phobos module out of it. So many annoying problems that can be =
abstracted away.

Is nurses not sufficient?  I've only used it for making roguelikes, but =
it made working with a text terminal quite easy.=
Sep 13 2013
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 9/13/2013 7:00 PM, Sean Kelly wrote:

 On Sep 13, 2013, at 6:23 PM, Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com>
 wrote:


 On 9/13/2013 5:39 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:

 And drawing, oh my. Long story short, coming from DOS or Windows to the
 glorious land of various buggy, incompatible vt100 emulators is such a
 shock.


 Yeah, I've thought about taking the tty/kbd code from ME and making a
 phobos module out of it. So many annoying problems that can be abstracted
 away.


 Is nurses not sufficient?  I've only used it for making roguelikes, but it
 made working with a text terminal quite easy.



Those cross platform libraries never work cross platform without far more pain 
than just rolling your own.
Sep 13 2013
parent "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> writes:
On Saturday, 14 September 2013 at 04:49:09 UTC, Walter Bright 
wrote:

 Those cross platform libraries never work cross platform 
 without far more pain than just rolling your own.


Aye, and you've really gotta understand what's going on anyway to 
use the library effectively. Why doesn't it do this? Why is this 
code buggy? By the time you've figured that out, you've done the 
same work as diy anyway!
Sep 14 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com> writes:
On Sep 14, 2013 1:40 AM, "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> wrote:

 On Friday, 13 September 2013 at 22:32:30 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

 Sure... wait, what?



 Download a random binary off the internet. Odds are, if it is an exe, it


will work. Even if you're on linux, you can run it with wine.

 If it is a linux binary, good luck. Even a relatively simple program like


dmd can't be relied upon: on the CentOS box at one of my jobs, I had to
build from source due to a libc incompatibility.

 And if it is a gui program, whew, all bets are off! I even have programs


on my desktop that worked last year, and segfault now. Apparently an
unrelated update had an ABI incompatibility in gtk. Gimp still works (and
works quite well), but qemu's new gtk gui segfaults, a video game emulator
I have runs but the menu all of a sudden overlaps the game video, and
abiword refuses to start.

 These aren't even off the internet, these are things I compiled myself


less than two years ago!


So then recompile after you do a distribution upgrade.  Assuming you still
have the original code kicking round.  Even then GIMP and QEMU are readily
available through most Linux distribution repositories.  Stuck on some
company version of binary software? Hate to be someone who gets stuck in
that situation. But then I wouldn't reluctantly accept the blobs either.


 Then, get into features. Contrast the Windows support with the linux


support in my terminal.d


https://github.com/adamdruppe/misc-stuff-including-D-programming-language-web-stuff/blob/master/terminal.d


I'll be sure to look, but one bad thing doesn't mean everything's bad
(heck, for each bad thing you can say about one OS, there is some equally
bad thing to say about the other).


 Wanna talk about audio or GUIs, whether high performance or just asking


for a consistent user experience to grab some basic data? Prepare to
descend directly into hell, do not pass go, do not collect $200.


There's a lot the that does good - such as because of close bindings to
ATK, all GTK applications are accessible for all, but when you also give
people the choice to make their own custom widgets or place input
boxes/labels in ridiculous places, then  accessibilty goes downhill
quickly.  Windows is pretty Stonehenge when it comes to accessibility too,
so no cookies to either side.


 But at the same time, using it for all this time after having so much fun


in the DOS+Windows world has made me see a lot of faults. And many of them
have gotten worse - what the hell is PulseAudio anyway?

Essentially pulse is what Mir or Wayland will be to X in probably a year or
two.  It's a layer that talks to and interacts with ALSA, SDL, JACK, etc
applications and allows you to centrally manage them despite competing
incompatibility between the libraries - oh, and it does soft mixing for
hardware that is incapable of processing more than one sound at once - if
you remember the days when you'd be listening to music but couldn't hear
any sounds from sauerbraten, or whatever Linux games you were into.  :)

Regards
-- 
Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';



 Sep 13 2013



  parent reply "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com>  writes:


On Saturday, 14 September 2013 at 02:56:52 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:

 So then recompile after you do a distribution upgrade.


Of course there's ways around it, but talk about an enormous 
hassle.


 I'll be sure to look, but one bad thing doesn't mean 
 everything's bad


Like I said, I've been a Linux user for a long time, and that's 
by choice! But I still envy a lot of what Windows gets right and 
still long for the good old days of DOS where it was just you, 
the hardware, and a little tiny helper library that was there if 
you needed it.


 if you remember the days when you'd be listening to music but 
 couldn't hear any sounds from sauerbraten


Actually, that's still the way things are on my system (there is 
the alsa stuff, but the OSS emulation actually works better. Get 
that.).... and over the years, I've come to see it as a feature!

See, I would keep one program running just to thwart random Flash 
crap from spewing noise. Now I use noscript, but still I've come 
to like locking the speakers with another program.



 Sep 13 2013



 next sibling parent reply "dusr" <dusr d.usr>  writes:


 Like I said, I've been a Linux user for a long time, and that's 
 by choice! But I still envy a lot of what Windows gets right 
 and still long for the good old days of DOS where it was just 
 you, the hardware, and a little tiny helper library that was 
 there if you needed it.


I've used debian from woody to squeeze, then I moved back to 
windows7.
Windows is better.



 Sep 13 2013



  parent reply Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com>  writes:


On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 06:37:49 +0200
"dusr" <dusr d.usr> wrote:


 Like I said, I've been a Linux user for a long time, and that's 
 by choice! But I still envy a lot of what Windows gets right 
 and still long for the good old days of DOS where it was just 
 you, the hardware, and a little tiny helper library that was 
 there if you needed it.


 
 I've used debian from woody to squeeze, then I moved back to 
 windows7.
 Windows is better.


Heh, I'm sort of the opposite. I've been using Windows from 3.11
through 7, and from Vista onward I've started to really hate Windows
more and more (If I wanted to be running a Mac, I'd have gotten a
Mac, not two versions of "New Windows: Apple-Envy Edition" followed by
"Microsoft UI-Of-The-Month Club").

Meanwhile, I've been using Linux more and more for testing and servers,
and I'm looking at switching my main OS over to...probably Debian 7,
with wine and VirtualBox for the occasional things that don't come in
Linux flavor. I just wish I could get a Linux file manager I liked.



 Sep 13 2013



 next sibling parent reply "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx>  writes:


On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 02:14:49AM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 06:37:49 +0200
 "dusr" <dusr d.usr> wrote:
 

 Like I said, I've been a Linux user for a long time, and that's by
 choice! But I still envy a lot of what Windows gets right and
 still long for the good old days of DOS where it was just you, the
 hardware, and a little tiny helper library that was there if you
 needed it.


 
 I've used debian from woody to squeeze, then I moved back to
 windows7.  Windows is better.




To each his own, I guess. For me, I couldn't stand 5 minutes of using
*any* version of Windows (unless putty was installed on it :-P).

The caveat, of course, is that I don't use what the "typical" user uses,
like GTK or KDE or whatever it is that comes by default on Debian these
days.  The first thing I do in the installer is to unselect all
X11-related packages and do a minimal GUI-less install, then
hand-install a bare bones version of X11, selecting the absolute minimum
packages to be just enough to run ratpoison, and go on from there. So my
experience is probably rather different from yours. :)



 Heh, I'm sort of the opposite. I've been using Windows from 3.11
 through 7, and from Vista onward I've started to really hate Windows
 more and more (If I wanted to be running a Mac, I'd have gotten a
 Mac, not two versions of "New Windows: Apple-Envy Edition" followed by
 "Microsoft UI-Of-The-Month Club").
 
 Meanwhile, I've been using Linux more and more for testing and servers,
 and I'm looking at switching my main OS over to...probably Debian 7,
 with wine and VirtualBox for the occasional things that don't come in
 Linux flavor. I just wish I could get a Linux file manager I liked.


A Linux file manager? You mean bash? ;-)

OK, OK, I kid. Bash does have its annoyances, I admit (my latest bash
pet peeve is broken bash_completion scripts that break tab-completion so
you can't autocomplete filenames anymore where a filename is actually
expected).  What about midnight commander? The only file manager I could
tolerate back in the old DOS days was Norton Commander, which MC was
modelled after. You might like it. Maybe. (But I haven't really used it
that much since I came to do things purely in the shell instead, as the
shell can handle just about everything MC can, and much more. DOS was a
cartoon caricature of what a *real* shell can do, by comparison, so NC
was quite the relief from the suffering when using DOS. But on a
full-fledged shell, MC kinda loses that necessity. So you may or may not
find MC that much better after all. YMMV, caveat emptor, etc., apply.)

Or, failing that, you could write a killer file manager app in D, and we
could take over the world. :-P


T

-- 
For every argument for something, there is always an equal and opposite
argument against it. Debates don't give answers, only wounded or
inflated egos.



 Sep 14 2013



  parent reply Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com>  writes:


On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 00:11:25 -0700
"H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:


 On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 02:14:49AM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 I just wish I could get a Linux file manager I liked.


 
 A Linux file manager? You mean bash? ;-)
 


Heh, well, that actually *is* my favorite out of all the Linux file
managers!


 What about midnight commander? The only file
 manager I could tolerate back in the old DOS days was Norton
 Commander, which MC was modelled after. You might like it. Maybe.


I've tried Total Commander on Windows, which is another program modeled
after Norton Commander. It's probably the only file manager in the
world that's even less to my taste than OSX's Finder. However, I do
keep it around because its multiple-file-renaming tool is freaking
awesome.

What I'd really like to find is something I can at least configure to
basically be "XP's Explorer, but less buggy and inefficient". And
that's including something like TortoiseGit. So yea, probably a very
tall order.

Anything based off Nautilus (which seems to count for most of them) are
pretty far off the mark from what I'm looking for. They're *usable* and
bear a similar resemblance to what I want, but the details of it are
all goofy, and whenever that's all I have available I find myself just
doing everything from the commandline instead. (Sometimes I figure that
must be the same reason so many linux users swear by the CLI for file
management - all linux's GUI ones suck!)

The best I've found so far is KDE4's Dolphin, but it's still no
Explorer rival, has nothing like Tortoise (to my knowledge), it still
has some irritating goofiness (ex: the horizontal scrolling in the
tree-view panel is every bit as broken-by-design as in Vista's
Explorer), and there's some other things, plus I don't like
KDE4 :(   (And I'd rather not have to pull in the bloat of KDE4 just for
a file manager.)

To me, a GUI file manager is like a keyboard and a text-editor: I rely
on it so much that I need it to be *just right* or else it becomes a
major bottleneck instead of a tool. Heck, I don't even like Win7's
Explorer, really. Even after I configured/hacked the hell out of it, it
still has some irritating Mac-like tendencies. Still beats Dolphin
though :/



 DOS was a cartoon caricature of
 what a *real* shell can do, by comparison


I would tend to agree. ;)

Although, at the time, I had came to DOS from Apple 2's "Applesoft
BASIC", so I didn't see DOS that way until many years later.


 so NC was quite the relief
 from the suffering when using DOS.


Yea, I can believe that.


 Or, failing that, you could write a killer file manager app in D, and
 we could take over the world. :-P
 


Honestly, unless I find something that fits the bill, that's one of the
top projects in my pile of "pet projects I want to do if I ever have
time for stuff I can't rationalize as being vaguely work-related."



 Sep 14 2013



 next sibling parent reply Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com>  writes:


On Saturday, September 14, 2013 05:43:14 Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 The best I've found so far is KDE4's Dolphin, but it's still no
 Explorer rival, has nothing like Tortoise (to my knowledge), it still
 has some irritating goofiness (ex: the horizontal scrolling in the
 tree-view panel is every bit as broken-by-design as in Vista's
 Explorer), and there's some other things, plus I don't like
 KDE4 :(   (And I'd rather not have to pull in the bloat of KDE4 just for
 a file manager.)


I'm a diehard Konqueror fan myself, but I also use KDE as my DE and really 
like it. I'd probably be a bit lost without Konqueror, because then I'd have 
to find separate programs for all of the various protocols that Konqueror 
supports on top of file:// (e.g. ftp and samba). It'll also do svn, cvs, and 
the like if you want to, though I never use GUIs for source control.

- Jonathan M Davis



 Sep 14 2013



  parent reply Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com>  writes:


On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 09:27:59 -0700
Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> wrote:


 On Saturday, September 14, 2013 05:43:14 Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 The best I've found so far is KDE4's Dolphin, but it's still no
 Explorer rival, has nothing like Tortoise (to my knowledge), it
 still has some irritating goofiness (ex: the horizontal scrolling
 in the tree-view panel is every bit as broken-by-design as in
 Vista's Explorer), and there's some other things, plus I don't like
 KDE4 :(   (And I'd rather not have to pull in the bloat of KDE4
 just for a file manager.)


 
 I'm a diehard Konqueror fan myself, but I also use KDE as my DE and
 really like it. I'd probably be a bit lost without Konqueror, because
 then I'd have to find separate programs for all of the various
 protocols that Konqueror supports on top of file:// (e.g. ftp and
 samba). It'll also do svn, cvs, and the like if you want to, though I
 never use GUIs for source control.
 


I kinda liked KDE3 (and GNOME 2 wasn't too bad either, for the most
part). My non-server Linux installations tend to be either Trinity or
XFCE these days.

I never thought to try Konqueror as a file manager. My mind always
associates it with web browsing.



 Sep 14 2013



  parent reply Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com>  writes:


On Saturday, September 14, 2013 15:53:18 Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 I never thought to try Konqueror as a file manager. My mind always
 associates it with web browsing.


I actually use it for both, but it's definitely a power user file browser. I've 
never quite groked why they created Dolphin, because Konqueror is so much 
better than anything else that I've used (though obviously YMMV) that it just 
seems weird to me that you'd even consider creating another one, let alone 
another one that you'd make the default. I think that they were trying to make 
a file browser that was more newbie-centric, but I don't know. I haven't even 
opened Dolphin in ages.

- Jonathan m Davis



 Sep 14 2013



  parent reply Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com>  writes:


On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 14:16:50 -0700
Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> wrote:


 I've never quite groked why they created Dolphin, because
 Konqueror is so much better than anything else that I've used (though
 obviously YMMV) that it just seems weird to me that you'd even
 consider creating another one, let alone another one that you'd make
 the default. I think that they were trying to make a file browser
 that was more newbie-centric, but I don't know.


I would imagine that's probably the reason. After all, Dolphin is
easily the most explorer-like file manager I've seen on Linux. Heck,
like I said, it even managed to replicate Vista's misguided
auto-horizontal-scrolling "feature" in the tree-view panel.

And besides, KDE and GNOME have always been about giving a more
Windows-like (or mac-like) feel to Linux, and in no small part for
the sake of new Linux users. Plus, the latest ones, KDE4 and GNOME3
were largely about re-designing things in hopes of making them easier
still. (At least that's been my understanding.)



 Sep 14 2013



  parent reply Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com>  writes:


On Saturday, September 14, 2013 22:00:02 Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 And besides, KDE and GNOME have always been about giving a more
 Windows-like (or mac-like) feel to Linux, and in no small part for
 the sake of new Linux users. Plus, the latest ones, KDE4 and GNOME3
 were largely about re-designing things in hopes of making them easier
 still. (At least that's been my understanding.)


KDE 4 was more about redesigning KDE's architecture. They went with a less 
cartoony look and feel by default than they had for KDE 3, but ultimately, KDE 
4 is a _lot_ like KDE 3, only built in a much cleaner and modular manner 
underneat the hood. It's main problem was that the developers released it when 
it still wasn't really ready (because the app developers wouldn't port to it 
until they released, and KDE 4 wouldn't really be ready until the app 
developers had ported stuff to it and found bugs - a bit of a catch 22), so 
initially, KDE 4 had a _lot_ of problems, which gave it a bit of a bad rep. 
But at this point, it works as well as KDE 3 did, and most of the features are 
essentially the same. Some aspects of both KDE 3 and KDE 4 are quite Windows-
like (albeit generally more feature-full than what Windows provides for the 
same thing), though I think that it's more a case of simply not redesigning 
things that didn't need redesigning rather than trying to emulate Windows.

As for Gnome 3, I don't know what they're smoking. It's one of the most 
bizarre DEs ever - enough so that there are at least two major Gnome 2 clones 
floating around (IIRC, one is actually a fork of gnome 2, and the other is a 
fork of gnome 3 made to look like gnome 2), and a lot people seem to hate 
Gnome 3. At least KDE hasn't tried to completely change its basic UI paradigms 
like Gnome 3 did.

Oh well. Unfortunately, DEs tend to end up being an almost religious argument. 
I'm a big fan of KDE, so that's what I tend to promote, and I really don't 
understand some of what the Unity and Gnome guys have been up to (or the 
Windows 8 guys for that matter), as I'm of the opinion that the basic UI 
paradigms that we've had since Win95 (if not before) really don't need to be 
redesigned. We've had plenty of incremental improvements over the years, which 
is great, but it seems like the UI guys just can't accept that you don't need 
to keep completely redesigning stuff. It's not like we redesign door knobs or 
pots all the time. We found basic designs for them which work, and we've stuck 
with them, and at most, new designs are variations on the same basic design 
rather than being completely new. Unfortunately, it seems like the UI guys 
just can't accept that UIs are the same.

- Jonathan M Davis



 Sep 14 2013



 next sibling parent reply Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com>  writes:


On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 20:44:45 -0700
Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> wrote:


 On Saturday, September 14, 2013 22:00:02 Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 And besides, KDE and GNOME have always been about giving a more
 Windows-like (or mac-like) feel to Linux, and in no small part for
 the sake of new Linux users. Plus, the latest ones, KDE4 and GNOME3
 were largely about re-designing things in hopes of making them
 easier still. (At least that's been my understanding.)


 
 KDE 4 was more about redesigning KDE's architecture. They went with a
 less cartoony look and feel by default than they had for KDE 3, but
 ultimately, KDE 4 is a _lot_ like KDE 3, only built in a much cleaner
 and modular manner underneat the hood. It's main problem was that the
 developers released it when it still wasn't really ready (because the
 app developers wouldn't port to it until they released, and KDE 4
 wouldn't really be ready until the app developers had ported stuff to
 it and found bugs - a bit of a catch 22), so initially, KDE 4 had a
 _lot_ of problems, which gave it a bit of a bad rep. But at this
 point, it works as well as KDE 3 did, and most of the features are
 essentially the same. Some aspects of both KDE 3 and KDE 4 are quite
 Windows- like (albeit generally more feature-full than what Windows
 provides for the same thing), though I think that it's more a case of
 simply not redesigning things that didn't need redesigning rather
 than trying to emulate Windows.
 


Hmm, maybe KDE4 really has finally been sorted out, but when I tried it
it *wasn't* a particularly early version. I'm pretty sure it was around
4.5-ish, give or take a point release. By that point people were saying
the issues had been ironed out. But it was still kinda buggy (ex: the
desktop just plain didn't work approx ~60% or so of the times I booted
- entirely by random AFAICS), a bit slow, things were inconsistent,
lots of little "lack of polish" things, and I didn't like the whole
notification system (which didn't seem very well-made anyway. Ex: there
were sooo many times I thought a directory copy was finished and then
several second later...Oh look, a giant interruption telling me, among
several other oversized stacked up bits of info I don't care about,
that *now* the file copy is done).

But I dunno, this was part of Kubuntu, and I understand Canonical
tended to treat that as a second-class version, so maybe they'd messed
it up somehow?



 Oh well. Unfortunately, DEs tend to end up being an almost religious
 argument. I'm a big fan of KDE, so that's what I tend to promote, and
 I really don't understand some of what the Unity and Gnome guys have
 been up to (or the Windows 8 guys for that matter),


I really need to at least give Unity a try. I've avoided it because I
didn't like the goals/motivations/theories they had been giving for it,
but I don't *actually* know how it works. I should at least fire up a
new scratch VM with a Live Disc iso and find out.

Windows 8 is just plain insane. After using it, I could have easily
mistaken it for a bad prank if I hadn't already known better. It seems
to be a clear reflection of MS's famed lack of internal coherence. It's
as if they're just flailing around randomly as part of some last-ditch
pre-mortem spasms. That's the only way I can think to account for it.



 as I'm of the
 opinion that the basic UI paradigms that we've had since Win95 (if
 not before) really don't need to be redesigned. We've had plenty of
 incremental improvements over the years, which is great, but it seems
 like the UI guys just can't accept that you don't need to keep
 completely redesigning stuff. It's not like we redesign door knobs or
 pots all the time. We found basic designs for them which work, and
 we've stuck with them, and at most, new designs are variations on the
 same basic design rather than being completely new. Unfortunately, it
 seems like the UI guys just can't accept that UIs are the same.
 


Agreed. I've seen a lot of fanboyism about "it's the future, just
accept it" and how I'm horrible for not being interested in trying to
adapt myself to it. I've already posted my feelings on it here:

https://semitwist.com/articles/article/view/don-t-be-a-trend-chump

Put simply, you're absolutely right about gratuitous redesigns: It
used to be people *understood* how "time-tested and battle-proven;
tried and true" was a reason to *use* something, not compulsively
abandon it out of some irrational fear of "passe".



 Sep 14 2013



  parent reply Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com>  writes:


On Sunday, September 15, 2013 02:36:33 Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 Hmm, maybe KDE4 really has finally been sorted out, but when I tried it
 it *wasn't* a particularly early version. I'm pretty sure it was around
 4.5-ish, give or take a point release. By that point people were saying
 the issues had been ironed out. But it was still kinda buggy (ex: the
 desktop just plain didn't work approx ~60% or so of the times I booted
 - entirely by random AFAICS), a bit slow, things were inconsistent,
 lots of little "lack of polish" things, and I didn't like the whole
 notification system (which didn't seem very well-made anyway. Ex: there
 were sooo many times I thought a directory copy was finished and then
 several second later...Oh look, a giant interruption telling me, among
 several other oversized stacked up bits of info I don't care about,
 that *now* the file copy is done).


You can customize KDE quite a bit, including what notifications you get. So, 
you should be able to get rid of all of the notifications that you don't want 
by tweaking the settings in whatever program is sending the notification. For 
the most part, I have no problem with them though. They generally pop up on 
the task bar and then disappear a few seconds later.

But as to whether, KDE will work well enough for you or suit your tastes at 
this point, I have no idea. Overall, KDE 4 has improved quite a lot over time 
and bugs get fixed every release, but new bugs get introduced sometimes as 
well, so how much you're going to be annoyed by bugs is going to depend a lot 
on what you're doing I suspect.

I think that almost all of the bugs that I've dealt with in KDE for quite a 
while now have been in kmail (their move to akonadi for the backend has been 
an unmitigated disaster IMHO - the whole semantic desktop thing that they're 
trying to do with kdepim has been horribly implemented and we would have been 
much better off without it). Unfortunately, I don't like the UIs of any of the 
mail readers that I've tried anywhere near as much. They're all missing 
features that I really like in kmail. I'll probably just have to write my own 
mail reader one of these days to get one that both has the features I want and 
doesn't have any serious problems.


 But I dunno, this was part of Kubuntu, and I understand Canonical
 tended to treat that as a second-class version, so maybe they'd messed
 it up somehow?



From what I've heard, Kubuntu is one of the worst KDE distros out there, but I 


haven't done much with it, and I've never done much with debian-based distros 
in general. These days, I use Arch.

- Jonathan M Davis



 Sep 15 2013



 next sibling parent reply Paulo Pinto <pjmlp progtools.org>  writes:


Am 15.09.2013 09:50, schrieb Jonathan M Davis:

 ...

From what I've heard, Kubuntu is one of the worst KDE distros out there, but I


 haven't done much with it, and I've never done much with debian-based distros
 in general. These days, I use Arch.

 - Jonathan M Davis


Mandrake and SuSE were the best ones for KDE.

Mandrake is now gone. Mandriva does not count.

SuSE screwed themselves by making patent agreements with Microsoft, thus 
moving the community away from them.

So nowadays I think even with its second class treatment, Kubuntu still 
tends to be the best option for most KDE users that want proper 
mainstream hardware support on their distributions.

--
Paulo



 Sep 15 2013



  parent reply Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com>  writes:


On Sunday, September 15, 2013 10:22:13 Paulo Pinto wrote:

 Am 15.09.2013 09:50, schrieb Jonathan M Davis:

 ...
 

From what I've heard, Kubuntu is one of the worst KDE distros out there,
but I>>


 haven't done much with it, and I've never done much with debian-based
 distros in general. These days, I use Arch.
 
 - Jonathan M Davis


 
 Mandrake and SuSE were the best ones for KDE.
 
 Mandrake is now gone. Mandriva does not count.
 
 SuSE screwed themselves by making patent agreements with Microsoft, thus
 moving the community away from them.
 
 So nowadays I think even with its second class treatment, Kubuntu still
 tends to be the best option for most KDE users that want proper
 mainstream hardware support on their distributions.


As I understand it, a large portion of OpenSuSE users are KDE users rather 
than gnome users, and I've almost never heard anyone say anything good about 
Kubuntu as far as KDE goes. Almost everyone who talks about it seems to talk 
about how poor a KDE distro it is. I used to use OpenSuSE, and I really have 
no complaints about their support of KDE. They actually seem to really go the 
extra mile to make sure that everything is well integrated and works. And 
while there were certainly complaints about their patent agreements with 
Microsoft, I'm not aware of much negative actually coming from that. I'm not 
even sure that any of those are still in effect, particularly since SuSE was 
sold. I'm quite surprised to see someone claiming that Kubuntu is better than 
OpenSuSE with regards to KDE.

- Jonathan M Davis



 Sep 15 2013



 next sibling parent reply Arjan <arjan ask.me>  writes:


On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 10:48:38 +0200, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com>  
wrote:


 As I understand it, a large portion of OpenSuSE users are KDE users  
 rather
 than gnome users, and I've almost never heard anyone say anything good  
 about
 Kubuntu as far as KDE goes. Almost everyone who talks about it seems to  
 talk
 about how poor a KDE distro it is. I used to use OpenSuSE, and I really  
 have
 no complaints about their support of KDE. They actually seem to really  
 go the
 extra mile to make sure that everything is well integrated and works. And
 while there were certainly complaints about their patent agreements with
 Microsoft, I'm not aware of much negative actually coming from that. I'm  
 not
 even sure that any of those are still in effect, particularly since SuSE  
 was
 sold. I'm quite surprised to see someone claiming that Kubuntu is better  
 than
 OpenSuSE with regards to KDE.


I'm a very happy longtime OpenSuSE KDE user. IMO it is the best linux  
distro out there for desktop use, they are very serious about supporting  
KDE. OpenSuSE is really very very stable. They have also a LTS version  
called 'Evergreen' which is of high quality. Besides this the OBS (open  
build service) is a great initiative which I think should be used to make  
distro native packages of DMD available.

just my 0.02

 



 Sep 15 2013



  parent reply Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com>  writes:


On Sep 15, 2013 11:45 AM, "Arjan" <arjan ask.me> wrote:

 On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 10:48:38 +0200, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com>


wrote:

 As I understand it, a large portion of OpenSuSE users are KDE users




rather

 than gnome users, and I've almost never heard anyone say anything good




about

 Kubuntu as far as KDE goes. Almost everyone who talks about it seems to




talk

 about how poor a KDE distro it is. I used to use OpenSuSE, and I really




have

 no complaints about their support of KDE. They actually seem to really




go the

 extra mile to make sure that everything is well integrated and works. And
 while there were certainly complaints about their patent agreements with
 Microsoft, I'm not aware of much negative actually coming from that. I'm




not

 even sure that any of those are still in effect, particularly since SuSE




was

 sold. I'm quite surprised to see someone claiming that Kubuntu is better




than

 OpenSuSE with regards to KDE.



 I'm a very happy longtime OpenSuSE KDE user. IMO it is the best linux


distro out there for desktop use, they are very serious about supporting
KDE. OpenSuSE is really very very stable. They have also a LTS version
called 'Evergreen' which is of high quality. Besides this the OBS (open
build service) is a great initiative which I think should be used to make
distro native packages of DMD available.


Don't think I've come across OBS before, how does that differ from, say,
PPAs?

Regards
-- 
Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';



 Sep 15 2013



  parent  Arjan <arjan ask.me>  writes:


On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 12:51:01 +0200, Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com> wrote:


 Besides this the OBS (open build service) is a great initiative which I  
 think should be used to make distro native packages of DMD available.
  >
 Don't think I've come across OBS before, how does that differ from, say,  
 PPAs?


I don't know PPA that well, I have limited knowledge of OBS but IFAIK OBS  
is able to deliver multiple package types for multiple distro for multiple  
distro versions.

For example: I needed the HDF5 libs which were not available in the distro  
or packman repos. I went to build.opensuse.org and search for 'HDF5' and  
voila: http://software.opensuse.org/package/libhdf5-8
This one provides only rpm based distros.

An other example build for a variety of distros:
https://build.opensuse.org/package/show?package=openvas-scanner&project=security%3AOpenVAS%3ASTABLE%3Av4

http://openbuildservice.org/ 'learn how to use it' button is a nice  
introduction video.



 Sep 15 2013



prev sibling  parent  Paulo Pinto <pjmlp progtools.org>  writes:


Am 15.09.2013 10:48, schrieb Jonathan M Davis:

 On Sunday, September 15, 2013 10:22:13 Paulo Pinto wrote:

 Am 15.09.2013 09:50, schrieb Jonathan M Davis:

 ...


From what I've heard, Kubuntu is one of the worst KDE distros out there,
 but I>>


 haven't done much with it, and I've never done much with debian-based
 distros in general. These days, I use Arch.

 - Jonathan M Davis


 Mandrake and SuSE were the best ones for KDE.

 Mandrake is now gone. Mandriva does not count.

 SuSE screwed themselves by making patent agreements with Microsoft, thus
 moving the community away from them.

 So nowadays I think even with its second class treatment, Kubuntu still
 tends to be the best option for most KDE users that want proper
 mainstream hardware support on their distributions.


 As I understand it, a large portion of OpenSuSE users are KDE users rather
 than gnome users, and I've almost never heard anyone say anything good about
 Kubuntu as far as KDE goes. Almost everyone who talks about it seems to talk
 about how poor a KDE distro it is. I used to use OpenSuSE, and I really have
 no complaints about their support of KDE. They actually seem to really go the
 extra mile to make sure that everything is well integrated and works. And
 while there were certainly complaints about their patent agreements with
 Microsoft, I'm not aware of much negative actually coming from that. I'm not
 even sure that any of those are still in effect, particularly since SuSE was
 sold. I'm quite surprised to see someone claiming that Kubuntu is better than
 OpenSuSE with regards to KDE.

 - Jonathan M Davis


I did not say that.

I said that because of the Microsoft agreement, many SuSE users left the 
distribution and went elsewhere.

Additionally, that (K)Ubuntu happens to have better hardware support 
than SuSE, specially in terms of laptops.

SuSE used to be the home of many KDE and Qt developers, and had a huge 
community in Europe, specially in Germany, its home country.

Nowadays you see them trying to sell themselves together with SAP for 
enterprise deployments and I have no clue how good the KDE support still is.

--
Paulo



 Sep 15 2013



prev sibling  parent  Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com>  writes:


On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 00:50:18 -0700
Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> wrote:

 
 But as to whether, KDE will work well enough for you or suit your
 tastes at this point, I have no idea. Overall, KDE 4 has improved
 quite a lot over time and bugs get fixed every release, but new bugs
 get introduced sometimes as well, so how much you're going to be
 annoyed by bugs is going to depend a lot on what you're doing I
 suspect.
 


It probably is worth at least another try. Looks like there have been a
considerable number of releases since I last tried (not surprised, it
was a few years ago).


 I think that almost all of the bugs that I've dealt with in KDE for
 quite a while now have been in kmail (their move to akonadi for the
 backend has been an unmitigated disaster IMHO - the whole semantic
 desktop thing that they're trying to do with kdepim has been horribly
 implemented and we would have been much better off without it).
 Unfortunately, I don't like the UIs of any of the mail readers that
 I've tried anywhere near as much. They're all missing features that I
 really like in kmail. I'll probably just have to write my own mail
 reader one of these days to get one that both has the features I want
 and doesn't have any serious problems.
 


Heh, we may have to collaborate. I've been using Claws Mail, just to
finally get off Outlook Express, but it's terribly buggy (at least on
Windows). And yet it's *still* my favorite out of everything I've
tried, even over Thunderbird :/


 But I dunno, this was part of Kubuntu, and I understand Canonical
 tended to treat that as a second-class version, so maybe they'd
 messed it up somehow?


 

From what I've heard, Kubuntu is one of the worst KDE distros out
there, but I 


 haven't done much with it, and I've never done much with debian-based
 distros in general. These days, I use Arch.
 


Yea, I don't know if they even still make Kubuntu. Arch is something
I've been meaning to keep an eye on, but I'm not ready to leave Debian
just yet. It's familiar. And gets the job done. And I don't really
have any big complaints about it (aside from the unordered Toy Story
naming system! But that's minor.) And I've got other things to do
besides try out distros ;)



 Sep 15 2013



prev sibling  parent reply "Dicebot" <public dicebot.lv>  writes:


On Sunday, 15 September 2013 at 03:44:59 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
wrote:

 As for Gnome 3, I don't know what they're smoking. It's one of 
 the most
 bizarre DEs ever


After I have switched to Gnome Shell I can't use any other 
desktop manager comfortably. It is truly revolutionary, main 
problem is that people almost never want revolutions and mostly 
stick to their habits. Ones that suffer badly with Gnome Shell :)



 Sep 15 2013



 next sibling parent  Paulo Pinto <pjmlp progtools.org>  writes:


Am 15.09.2013 18:50, schrieb Dicebot:

 On Sunday, 15 September 2013 at 03:44:59 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:

 As for Gnome 3, I don't know what they're smoking. It's one of the most
 bizarre DEs ever


 After I have switched to Gnome Shell I can't use any other desktop
 manager comfortably. It is truly revolutionary, main problem is that
 people almost never want revolutions and mostly stick to their habits.
 Ones that suffer badly with Gnome Shell :)


This applies to programming languages as well. :)



 Sep 15 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent  Jordi Sayol <g.sayol yahoo.es>  writes:


On 15/09/13 18:50, Dicebot wrote:

 On Sunday, 15 September 2013 at 03:44:59 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:

 As for Gnome 3, I don't know what they're smoking. It's one of the most
 bizarre DEs ever


 
 After I have switched to Gnome Shell I can't use any other desktop manager
comfortably. It is truly revolutionary, main problem is that people almost
never want revolutions and mostly stick to their habits. Ones that suffer badly
with Gnome Shell :)
 


My case. I use Mate desktop.

http://mate-desktop.org/about/

-- 
Jordi Sayol



 Sep 15 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent reply Joseph Rushton Wakeling <joseph.wakeling webdrake.net>  writes:


On 15/09/13 18:50, Dicebot wrote:

 After I have switched to Gnome Shell I can't use any other desktop manager
 comfortably. It is truly revolutionary, main problem is that people almost
never
 want revolutions and mostly stick to their habits. Ones that suffer badly with
 Gnome Shell :)


Oh dear.  Does that mean that you and I are doomed to eternal conflict, as I'm
a 
Unity user and really rather like it? :-)



 Sep 15 2013



  parent reply "Dicebot" <public dicebot.lv>  writes:


On Sunday, 15 September 2013 at 17:20:42 UTC, Joseph Rushton 
Wakeling wrote:

 On 15/09/13 18:50, Dicebot wrote:

 After I have switched to Gnome Shell I can't use any other 
 desktop manager
 comfortably. It is truly revolutionary, main problem is that 
 people almost never
 want revolutions and mostly stick to their habits. Ones that 
 suffer badly with
 Gnome Shell :)


 Oh dear.  Does that mean that you and I are doomed to eternal 
 conflict, as I'm a Unity user and really rather like it? :-)


Probably :) Well, Unity uses similar principles in many 
directions though I do like Gnome 3 decision to remove system 
tray completely and focus on robust notification system instead - 
that was the main decision factor for me when trying both it and 
Unity. (also default style aesthetics but that is configurable 
and hardly that important)



 Sep 15 2013



  parent reply Joseph Rushton Wakeling <joseph.wakeling webdrake.net>  writes:


On 15/09/13 19:28, Dicebot wrote:

 Probably :) Well, Unity uses similar principles in many directions though I do
 like Gnome 3 decision to remove system tray completely and focus on robust
 notification system instead - that was the main decision factor for me when
 trying both it and Unity. (also default style aesthetics but that is
 configurable and hardly that important)


I confess that I've never actually used Gnome 3 ... who knows, I might love it
:-)

I was a long-standing KDE user but I started getting curious about Unity 
round-about the Ubuntu 11.10 release -- I tried it out and thought "OK, this is 
interesting, I see where they're going, but it's not quite usable for me." 
When 
12.04 came out it had been really well polished, I fell in love with it and 
switched over.

Initially the relative lack of config options felt a bit irritating, but I was 
surprised how quickly I ceased to miss them.

I'm quite excited about the whole "convergence" idea that Ubuntu is pushing for 
a common UI and operating system across multiple devices, which is another good 
motivation for me to stick with Unity.



 Sep 15 2013



  parent reply "Dicebot" <public dicebot.lv>  writes:


On Sunday, 15 September 2013 at 18:44:21 UTC, Joseph Rushton 
Wakeling wrote:

 I'm quite excited about the whole "convergence" idea that 
 Ubuntu is pushing for a common UI and operating system across 
 multiple devices, which is another good motivation for me to 
 stick with Unity.


Haha, guess what Gnome developers say? "We want it to become 
Gnome OS" :P



 Sep 15 2013



  parent  Joseph Rushton Wakeling <joseph.wakeling webdrake.net>  writes:


On 15/09/13 20:50, Dicebot wrote:

 Haha, guess what Gnome developers say? "We want it to become Gnome OS" :P


Yes, and this is something I hope they really succeed at.  The computing world 
is going to be much more fun if it's based around different competing free 
operating systems rather than proprietary ones.



 Sep 15 2013



prev sibling  parent reply "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com>  writes:


On Sunday, 15 September 2013 at 16:50:50 UTC, Dicebot wrote:

 After I have switched to Gnome Shell I can't use any other 
 desktop manager comfortably.


This is actually feel about my custom setup based on the Blackbox 
window manager. It has a lot of little differences from the other 
common options:

1) sloppy focus. omg it is so much better than click to focus

2) no click to raise. omg it is so much better, I actually have 
control over the window's z-order! And alt+click to move windows 
is soooo convenient.

3) my hotkeys rock. Keyboard control over moving, sizing, hiding, 
etc., and a one press hotkey to launch my beloved rxvt.

4) I have both the roll up (shading) option and the disappearing 
(iconification/minimize) option, as well as multiple workspaces. 
KDE did the workspaces too, they aren't that special, but being 
able to get a window off the taskbar when I want to is pretty 
sweet.

also shading it while keeping focus and being able to manipulate 
another window with the mouse at the same time can be pretty boss.

5) The menu, which I rarely use since rxvt rox, is on right click 
anywhere on the background. No space used by a start button or 
quick launch, so I can have my typical 20+ windows open at once 
and not crowd up the taskbar to uselessness.



and a bunch of other little things. While any one of these 
individually isn't a revolution, I sure like it better than kde 
or windows or anything else I've tried.



 Sep 15 2013



 next sibling parent reply "Dicebot" <public dicebot.lv>  writes:


On Sunday, 15 September 2013 at 17:32:49 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:

 On Sunday, 15 September 2013 at 16:50:50 UTC, Dicebot wrote:

 After I have switched to Gnome Shell I can't use any other 
 desktop manager comfortably.


 This is actually feel about my custom setup based on the 
 Blackbox window manager. It has a lot of little differences 
 from the other common options:

 1) sloppy focus. omg it is so much better than click to focus
 ...


What made me fall in love with Gnome 3 was not some small things 
I can configure / hack on any windows manager, it is the major 
effort towards single idea "you don't want to see your wm when 
you work". Distinction between application mode and overview is 
awesome for similar reasons different vim modes are awesome. Also 
removing all bloat from screen to notifications. All helps to 
maintain the context (and I have always had lot of problems with 
concentration)



 Sep 15 2013



  parent reply "Michael" <pr m1xa.com>  writes:


KDE, Gnome, Unity, Xfce.... wtf?

Win 8.1 rocks)



 Sep 15 2013



 next sibling parent reply "Dicebot" <public dicebot.lv>  writes:


On Sunday, 15 September 2013 at 18:21:35 UTC, Michael wrote:

 KDE, Gnome, Unity, Xfce.... wtf?

 Win 8.1 rocks)


I was astonished when had a look at Win 8 preview and have 
noticed basically Shell / Unity overview as a start screen with 
only major difference that they have managed to make it ugly as 
hell :P



 Sep 15 2013



  parent  "Michael" <pr m1xa.com>  writes:


On Sunday, 15 September 2013 at 18:24:11 UTC, Dicebot wrote:

 On Sunday, 15 September 2013 at 18:21:35 UTC, Michael wrote:

 KDE, Gnome, Unity, Xfce.... wtf?

 Win 8.1 rocks)


 I was astonished when had a look at Win 8 preview and have 
 noticed basically Shell / Unity overview as a start screen with 
 only major difference that they have managed to make it ugly as 
 hell :P


When I working as usual I don't care about UI of OS.
I care about a OS API. Win 8.1 maybe come with something 
disturbing changes, so I'm waiting a final release.

In Win 8.1 UI is better than 8.0.
On Debian - Xfce ;)



 Sep 15 2013



prev sibling  parent  Paulo Pinto <pjmlp progtools.org>  writes:


Am 15.09.2013 20:21, schrieb Michael:

 KDE, Gnome, Unity, Xfce.... wtf?

 Win 8.1 rocks)


Workbench



 Sep 15 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent reply "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx>  writes:


On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 07:32:48PM +0200, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:

 On Sunday, 15 September 2013 at 16:50:50 UTC, Dicebot wrote:

After I have switched to Gnome Shell I can't use any other desktop
manager comfortably.


 
 This is actually feel about my custom setup based on the Blackbox
 window manager. It has a lot of little differences from the other
 common options:
 
 1) sloppy focus. omg it is so much better than click to focus


Back when I was still using a GUI, sloppy focus was one of the only
things that made it tolerable to use.

<rant>
Have you ever tried to configure sloppy focus on Windows? I have. I
don't know if it's still possible, but there used to be a setting for
this. Unfortunately... EVERYTHING breaks once you turn it on. And by
everything, I mean, literally, EVERYTHING. You've no idea how much
click-to-focus is unconsciously assumed by just about every Windows app
that ever existed. When that assumption breaks, all the flaws and
misdesigns of typical badly-written GUI code come to the forefront.
Don't try it at home; it will leave you scarred for life.
</rant>



 2) no click to raise. omg it is so much better, I actually have
 control over the window's z-order! And alt+click to move windows is
 soooo convenient.
 
 3) my hotkeys rock. Keyboard control over moving, sizing, hiding,
 etc., and a one press hotkey to launch my beloved rxvt.


In ratpoison it's a two-key combination to launch a terminal, and of
course I have that defaulted to rxvt-unicode.



 4) I have both the roll up (shading) option and the disappearing
 (iconification/minimize) option, as well as multiple workspaces. KDE
 did the workspaces too, they aren't that special, but being able to
 get a window off the taskbar when I want to is pretty sweet.


<rant about inability to do this in Windows deleted/> ;-)



 also shading it while keeping focus and being able to manipulate
 another window with the mouse at the same time can be pretty boss.


Cool.



 5) The menu, which I rarely use since rxvt rox, is on right click
 anywhere on the background. No space used by a start button or quick
 launch, so I can have my typical 20+ windows open at once and not
 crowd up the taskbar to uselessness.


[...]

Heh. I just use 'bg', 'jobs', and 'fg' on a single terminal. :) Usually,
though, I have a bunch of terminals open, each dedicated to a specific
purpose, and within each a number of suspended jobs managed by the
aforementioned commands.


T

-- 
All men are mortal. Socrates is mortal. Therefore all men are Socrates.



 Sep 15 2013



  parent reply "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com>  writes:


On Monday, 16 September 2013 at 01:48:31 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

 Have you ever tried to configure sloppy focus on Windows?


yup. It kinda works until you get the idiot apps that raise 
themselves whenever they get focus! Which are a lot of them. Ugh.


 <rant about inability to do this in Windows deleted/> ;-)


I think you can with add ons...


 Heh. I just use 'bg', 'jobs', and 'fg' on a single terminal. :)


Yeah, I do that sometimes too, but you can get output mixed 
together! And you can't easily watch for updates without that. So 
I like to use windows and gnu screen. The windows actually come 
and go, as I just reattach a running screen session when needed.

I also really like the taskbar as a way to see everything (not 
iconfied in this workspace) at once. Blackbox doesn't have one by 
default, which is actually why I played with KDE at first for a 
while, but I got sick of that so I wrote my own. Nothing fancy 
(I'm tempted to port it to D though and add a few little 
features), but gives me at-a-glance updates and an easy way to 
find certain tasks.

My custom taskbar also disappears on workspaces 6, 7, and 8, 
which I use to display full-screen rdesktop and VM instances. By 
spinning my mouse wheel on the edge of the screen, I can pretend 
to be on various Windows boxes too!


I always have at least one xterm open with a screen session: 0 = 
where I run mplayer and other media players for background sound. 
1 = mutt. 2 = alsamixer. 3 = elvis on a note-to-self file.

Then there's three gaim windows: the buddy list, the #d chatroom, 
and a chat with myself (Where I dump extra notes, and if someone 
else IMs me, it goes in that window instead of popping up a new 
one so much better.)

And usually gimp for looking at work mockups.


And everything else is random projects in rxvts or xterms 
(depending on if I need unicode or not - my rxvt doesn't support 
utf8). They are generally screen for bigger, longer running 
things, 0 = vim with all relevant source files open, screen 1 
maybe make or debugger or ssh session, depending on the job.

I currently have 28 copies of rxvt and/or xterm open, just stuff 
I'll get back to eventually.


I actually used to run a second copy of X as well, on vt8, for 
full screen games, but I haven't played full screen games for a 
long time. I'd do a separate copy so it wouldn't mess up my other 
windows when changing the resolution or crashing.


Switching between the rxvts is easy btw: I can click them on the 
mousebar, wheel to a new workspace, or I have a bunch of keyboard 
shortcuts set up, all using the Windows key. Then at times I run 
nested screens, especially on the laptop.


Anyway though I love it because I can have so many more things 
open than I could ever handle on other systems.



 Sep 15 2013



 next sibling parent reply "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx>  writes:


On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 04:04:24AM +0200, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:

 On Monday, 16 September 2013 at 01:48:31 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

Have you ever tried to configure sloppy focus on Windows?


 
 yup. It kinda works until you get the idiot apps that raise
 themselves whenever they get focus! Which are a lot of them. Ugh.


Exactly. A major annoyance when you're trying to type something while
looking at something else in another window for reference.


[...]

Heh. I just use 'bg', 'jobs', and 'fg' on a single terminal. :)


 
 Yeah, I do that sometimes too, but you can get output mixed
 together! And you can't easily watch for updates without that. So I
 like to use windows and gnu screen. The windows actually come and
 go, as I just reattach a running screen session when needed.


GNU screen is pretty awesome. But it has some warts that makes me not
use it by default:

- Its default escape sequence is extremely annoying (ctrl-A clashes with
  bash's go-to-beginning-of-line, which I use literally *all* the time).
  Switching it to something like ctrl-U makes it more tolerable.

- It doesn't seem to pick up terminal settings correctly sometimes.
  Which results in needing to set $TERM manually, or type
  `TERM=rxvt-unicode program args`, instead of just `program args`.
  Quite annoying.


[...]

 I always have at least one xterm open with a screen session: 0 =
 where I run mplayer and other media players for background sound. 1
 = mutt. 2 = alsamixer. 3 = elvis on a note-to-self file.


Heh, my ratpoison setup is pretty similar to your screen setup
(ratpoison is essentially X11 windows inside GNU screen) : 0 = main rxvt
(terminal for generic stuff, like poking around $HOME, reading manpages,
editing TODO lists, etc.), 1 = browser, 2,3,... = other dedicated stuff,
depending on what I'm working on.  Currently I have 2 = media players, 3
= D-related stuff (mostly for browsing Phobos when I need to look up
something, or pulling git HEAD for dmd/druntime/phobos when I'm feeling
bored).

Within each rxvt, I usually have vim opened to whatever I'm working on.
I don't actually have multiple suspended jobs except when I'm working on
something intensive, like working on a Phobos pull while editing
/tmp/test.d for testing various implementation details, sometimes with
`objdump -D | less` viewing the disassembly of some problematic code, or
a manpage I'm referencing.


[...]

 And everything else is random projects in rxvts or xterms (depending
 on if I need unicode or not - my rxvt doesn't support utf8). They
 are generally screen for bigger, longer running things, 0 = vim with
 all relevant source files open, screen 1 maybe make or debugger or
 ssh session, depending on the job.
 
 I currently have 28 copies of rxvt and/or xterm open, just stuff
 I'll get back to eventually.


Whoa, that's a lot. I usually have only 3-4 things open at a time,
sometimes more (at work usually 6-7), but ratpoison is annoying in that
having more than 9 things open causes slow switching 'cos you can't just
do ctrl-T <digit>. It slows me down enough to lose the advantage of fast
keyboard-driven switching, so I avoid it.



 I actually used to run a second copy of X as well, on vt8, for full
 screen games, but I haven't played full screen games for a long
 time. I'd do a separate copy so it wouldn't mess up my other windows
 when changing the resolution or crashing.


Heh. I used to have *three* X servers running, keyed to vt7, vt8, vt9,
for 3 simultaneous login sessions, multiplexed by xdm. I still use xdm
for X sessions, but nowadays I only have one instance of X running --
it's sorta a historical accident, xdm at some point in the past somehow
stopped working properly with multiple local X servers (either that, or
the X server didn't like other copies of itself running on the same
machine), and I gave up trying to make them coexist peacefully, so I
adapted my usage pattern to fit in a single session instead.

(Why multiple sessions, you ask? 'cos at one point I was experimenting
with different WM setups to see which one(s) I like better, but I still
wanted to continue working on whatever it is I was working on without
interruption, so having multiple copies of X running allowed me to keep
one long-running session for the continuing work, and other sessions
that come and go as I play around with stuff. It also made it less prone
to X11 upgrade problems -- there was a time when every other X server
upgrade carried a risk of outright breaking into little pieces, but I
like to live on the bleeding edge so I always upgrade everything. Having
multiple sessions open means I can continue doing stuff with the
long-running session while trying to fix the broken X server instead of
getting interrupted and dropping back to the Linux consoles.)



 Switching between the rxvts is easy btw: I can click them on the
 mousebar, wheel to a new workspace, or I have a bunch of keyboard
 shortcuts set up, all using the Windows key. Then at times I run
 nested screens, especially on the laptop.


In ratpoison, it's just `ctrl-T <digit>` to switch between them.

TBH, I'm still not quite happy with the choice of escape sequence. If I
had my way, I'd rather have <windowsKey> <F1..F12> instead. Maybe one of
these days I'll write a D replacement for ratpoison that does just that.
(Ratpoison does let you configure the escape key, but it doesn't work
with <windowsKey> for some stupid reason).



 Anyway though I love it because I can have so many more things open
 than I could ever handle on other systems.


Yeah, people can rant and rave about how Linux sux and what-not, but the
fact of the matter is, I could run 3 copies of X11, each with 15 windows
open on a Pentium with 128MB RAM, and be fully functional, whereas it
takes every last drop of juice the system's got just for Windows'98 to
run without taking 3 seconds to paint the screen pixel-by-pixel every
time you open/close a window. Of course, this is an unfair comparison,
because those 3 copies of X11 are running twm, which, besides ratpoison,
is as minimal as you can get, whereas Windows'98 is running some
resource hungry graphics-intensive GUI. But the point is that the system
lets you use a minimal WM should you choose to, rather than in Windows
where you *have* to use whatever MS has decided everyone must use, and
it's too-bad-so-sad if you need to upgrade your hardware just to be able
to continue using it.


T

-- 
MSDOS = MicroSoft's Denial Of Service



 Sep 15 2013



  parent reply "PauloPinto" <pjmlp progtools.org>  writes:


On Monday, 16 September 2013 at 03:48:58 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

 On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 04:04:24AM +0200, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:

 [...]. But the point is that


 the system
 lets you use a minimal WM should you choose to, rather than in 
 Windows
 where you *have* to use whatever MS has decided everyone must 
 use, and
 it's too-bad-so-sad if you need to upgrade your hardware just 
 to be able
 to continue using it.


 T


This is not true. Windows supported alternative window managers 
since the begging.

There were a few alternative ones like LiteSTEP and Stardock, 
just that mainstream users hardly feel the need to change the 
window manager.

This is not specific of Microsoft, all proper GUI based OS work 
this way, only UNIX does not, because X was an afterthought 
anyway.

--
Paulo



 Sep 15 2013



  parent  Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com>  writes:


On 2013-09-16 08:19, PauloPinto wrote:


 There were a few alternative ones like LiteSTEP and Stardock, just that
 mainstream users hardly feel the need to change the window manager.


I used LiteStep for a while, when I still was running Windows. Quite 
nice actually. When you have finally configured it they way you like.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg



 Sep 15 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent reply Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com>  writes:


On Sep 16, 2013 4:50 AM, "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:

 On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 04:04:24AM +0200, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:

 On Monday, 16 September 2013 at 01:48:31 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

Have you ever tried to configure sloppy focus on Windows?


 yup. It kinda works until you get the idiot apps that raise
 themselves whenever they get focus! Which are a lot of them. Ugh.


 Exactly. A major annoyance when you're trying to type something while
 looking at something else in another window for reference.


 [...]

Heh. I just use 'bg', 'jobs', and 'fg' on a single terminal. :)


 Yeah, I do that sometimes too, but you can get output mixed
 together! And you can't easily watch for updates without that. So I
 like to use windows and gnu screen. The windows actually come and
 go, as I just reattach a running screen session when needed.


 GNU screen is pretty awesome. But it has some warts that makes me not
 use it by default:

 - Its default escape sequence is extremely annoying (ctrl-A clashes with
   bash's go-to-beginning-of-line, which I use literally *all* the time).
   Switching it to something like ctrl-U makes it more tolerable.

 - It doesn't seem to pick up terminal settings correctly sometimes.
   Which results in needing to set $TERM manually, or type
   `TERM=rxvt-unicode program args`, instead of just `program args`.
   Quite annoying.


Someone did suggest an alternative to GNU screen that is being actively
developed on (GNU Screen is kinda regarded as unmaintainable) but I forget
the name of it.

Regards
-- 
Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';



 Sep 16 2013



  parent reply "Dicebot" <public dicebot.lv>  writes:


On Monday, 16 September 2013 at 07:43:15 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:

 Someone did suggest an alternative to GNU screen that is being 
 actively
 developed on (GNU Screen is kinda regarded as unmaintainable) 
 but I forget
 the name of it.

 Regards


tmux?



 Sep 16 2013



  parent  Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com>  writes:


On 16 September 2013 08:58, Dicebot <public dicebot.lv> wrote:

 On Monday, 16 September 2013 at 07:43:15 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:

 Someone did suggest an alternative to GNU screen that is being actively
 developed on (GNU Screen is kinda regarded as unmaintainable) but I forget
 the name of it.

 Regards



 tmux?


That sounds about right,

-- 
Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';



 Sep 16 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent  "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx>  writes:


On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 08:43:00AM +0100, Iain Buclaw wrote:

 On Sep 16, 2013 4:50 AM, "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:


[...]

 GNU screen is pretty awesome. But it has some warts that makes me
 not use it by default:

 - Its default escape sequence is extremely annoying (ctrl-A clashes
   with bash's go-to-beginning-of-line, which I use literally *all*
   the time).  Switching it to something like ctrl-U makes it more
   tolerable.

 - It doesn't seem to pick up terminal settings correctly sometimes.
   Which results in needing to set $TERM manually, or type
   `TERM=rxvt-unicode program args`, instead of just `program args`.
   Quite annoying.


 
 Someone did suggest an alternative to GNU screen that is being
 actively developed on (GNU Screen is kinda regarded as unmaintainable)
 but I forget the name of it.


[...]

Hmm. Now I'm tempted to write a GNU screen clone in D. Could be the next
killer D app. ;-)


T

-- 
There are two ways to write error-free programs; only the third one works.



 Sep 16 2013



prev sibling  parent reply "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx>  writes:


On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 10:24:18AM -0400, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:

 On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 08:47:32PM -0700, H. S. Teoh wrote:

 - Its default escape sequence is extremely annoying (ctrl-A clashes
   with bash's go-to-beginning-of-line, which I use literally *all*
   the time).  Switching it to something like ctrl-U makes it more
   tolerable.


 
 I never really got into using C-a for start of line. I just use
 the home key. (I prefer the arrows to hjkl too!)


I used to prefer those too. But I eventually found that it slows me down
because I have to constantly move my right hand over to the keypad and
back. With C-a and C-e for home/end, I never have to lift my hands off
the keyboard. It's a miniscule time savings, but it does add up when
you're editing a complex command-line pipeline.



 - It doesn't seem to pick up terminal settings correctly sometimes.
   Which results in needing to set $TERM manually, or type
   `TERM=rxvt-unicode program args`, instead of just `program args`.
   Quite annoying.


 
 Yeah, I've had trouble with this too and got around it by messing
 with .rc files. My .vimrc
 
 
 if $TERM=='screen'
   set ttymouse=xterm
 endif
 
 for example. (There's more $TERM hacks in there too.)
 
 I also changed the escape when puttying in to C-s. The main reason is
 the laptop's keyboard is laid out differently, so the same finger
 position for C-a on the desktop hits s on the laptop.


Eek. I use C-s frequently for throttling program output; it would suck
to have to escape it! But yeah, the fact that it's configurable is
pretty nice. I have my remote screen keyed to C-u, and local screen
left as C-a (though ostensibly I should change that since it clashes
with C-a as home), and it's nice to be able to suspend exactly the right
screen when they are nested inside each other.

On that note, some pretty strange things can happen when you're inside
nested screens on the same host, and you try to screen -D between them.
:-P



 But a second nice benefit is I can nest screens: use the C-s to switch
 top level ones and then screen -d -r my project screens, and C-a them.
 Pretty boss.


Yep.



 My putty shortcut on the laptop also runs screen -S -something laptop,
 thus creating a screen if needed and reattaching if it is already
 present.


Hmm, maybe I should start doing that. It would greatly lessen the
annoyance of working remotely from a flaky wifi connection that
disconnects every 5 mins for no good reason. Screen is one of those
things that make ssh sessions even usable on such connections, since
otherwise the constant disconnection makes it pretty much unusable.



 So whenever I open that putty window, it goes right back to where I
 was... and of course, screen -r laptop works on the desktop too if I
 forget to handle something.
 
 Really convenient, and works across network disconnects. I love it.


Yeah, it makes it actually possible to get things done over those flaky
wifi connections in hole-in-a-hole cafs. Otherwise you're spending 90%
of the time reconnecting and getting back to where you were, instead of
actually getting stuff done.



 Whoa, that's a lot. I usually have only 3-4 things open at a time,


 
 The thing with me is I kinda hate closing things. If I leave it open,
 then when I finally get around to looking at it again, I can kinda
 pick up where I left off.
 
 Otherwise, I'll forget it even exists!


True dat. I really need to get cracking on writing my D replacement for
ratpoison... ratpoison is nice and everything but it does have annoying
limitations and bugs. One of the most annoying things about it is its
inability to handle UTF-8 (in this day and age! seriously!). The other
is the inability to handle raw keysyms (see below).


[...]

 Heh. I used to have *three* X servers running, keyed to vt7, vt8,
 vt9, for 3 simultaneous login sessions, multiplexed by xdm. I still
 use xdm


 
 oh man i haven't used xdm for a while. I used to have a cool diskless
 terminal setup in my house. Old pentium 1 computers whose hard drives
 died repurposed into netbooting from my linux box.


Nice! Hmm maybe I should start doing that.

My last hardware upgrade was done a bit too hastily... and I ended up
with an unsupported 3D integrated card on the mobo that doesn't work
with the Linux ATI drivers (well, it works, but no 3D accel, which
sucks). Worse yet, my previous mobo had a *supported* ATI card, but it
was AGP and the new mobo is PCIe (a little detail I overlooked while
researching the parts to upgrade). So maybe I can reconnect the
monitor/keyboard to the old mobo and have it serve as an X terminal, and
have the new mobo serving as a headless compute server, then I can have
the best of both worlds!



 (BTW there was a place where getting xorg.conf right was a pain! Not
 to mention other nfs and kernel stuff. I saw more kernel panics while
 setting that up than I saw blue screens of death in the time I used
 windows 95.)


Really? I never had a kernel panic from misconfigured X11. But the X
server itself *did* crash in horrible ways... in the old days before
KVM, it would segfault and drop me back in the Linux console, but with
the graphics card stuck in graphics mode and no way of switching it back
('cos the kernel didn't know how to do the mode switch). Pretty
annoying, since the kernel (and every else) actually still works, and I
can ssh into it, etc., but it's unusable from the desk and requires a
hard reboot to fix.



 But then I could just hit the button in the other rooms and get a nice
 X login screen presented, and my same blackbox based desktop a few
 seconds later. I liked it.


Nice! Makes me wanna collect used PCs from various people to reservice
as X terminals. That would be really nice.



 But with my last desktop hardware failure - a bad power supply killed
 the motherboard - I decided to finally dive into a 64 bit kernel and
 with that came updated distro that killed the whole diskless setup.
 
 Maybe some day I'll redo it, but I don't really remember how it worked
 and don't want to spend days figuring it out again. I'll just stick to
 my Windows laptop :<


Well, nowadays X.org is pretty good about autodetecting most settings,
so you rarely need a config file anymore. Dunno about diskless X11,
though, that might be a bit trickier.



 (Why multiple sessions, you ask? 'cos at one point I was
 experimenting with different WM setups to see which one(s) I like
 better, but I still wanted to continue working on whatever it is I
 was working on without interruption, so having multiple copies of X
 running allowed me to keep


 
 xnest is pretty cool too for playing with window managers.
 

 getting interrupted and dropping back to the Linux consoles.)


 
 Linux consoles rock so much btw. I really enjoy the time I spend on
 them - when the above mentioned motherboard died, I went back to my
 old computer for a while and since I was accustomed to Linux by that
 point, I passed on the Win98.


I *would* just use the Linux console -- it's lightweight, stable, and
pretty efficient unlike X11, but it doesn't support unicode fonts.
That's a showstopper for me.



 But, that computer was too slow to run the bloated X11. So I just used
 linux consoles. And it was *awesome*.
 
 1) I had most the same programs I use all the time anyway, but now
 they were prettier! I really like the way vga text mode looks. 80x25
 is a bit small, but it is workable and really beautiful.


Heh.  My current rxvt is configured with very large fonts in full-screen
so that the resolution is 105*42. If I could, I'd make that 80*whatever.
I'm pretty comfortable working with 80 columns, though 25 lines *is*
rather cramped once you start using split panes in vim.



 2) I used some text mode replacements for other graphics programs,
 like naim instead of gaim. Worked pretty well, though I didn't stick
 to it once I fixed my newer computer.  (Did however write my own p2p
 messenger that was beautiful and didn't have AOLs servers to depend
 on. Sadly, I lost it though, the people I chatted with refused to use
 it :( Now one of them wants to get on custom stuff again, thanks NSA,
 but I can't find that code. Meh, eventually I'll just rewrite it in D
 anyway. (The original was written in C.))


Hooray for rewriting old lost projects in D. :) You'd probably get it
back up and running faster anyway, thanks to D's awesome features.



 3) Less idiocy with incompatible terminals. TERM=linux believe it or
 not, just works, everywhere I tried it.


Really? It never used to work when I was logging remotely from Solaris.
But nowadays, I don't know if anyone even uses Solaris anymore, so I
guess it's moot. TERM=xterm tends to work a lot better, actually (even
in rxvt, which is AFAICT a backwards-compatible extension of xterm).



 I'm tempted to go back to that for a while, but I probably can't avoid
 needing to open something in gimp or firefox for a couple weeks
 straight anymore.


What I'd *really* like, is to extend the Linux console to handle inline
graphics (rounded to the next largest multiple of the character tile
size). Well, it sorta already supports that (e.g., bootup logo), but it
just needs support in the shell and ELinks. Then I'd dump X11 altogether
and just use the console. :) It would save so much memory for other
stuff, esp. at my old work PC which is starting to show signs of being
unable to keep up with the latest bloat everybody and his neighbour's
dog is adding to the browser.



 TBH, I'm still not quite happy with the choice of escape sequence.
 If I had my way, I'd rather have <windowsKey> <F1..F12> instead.
 Maybe one of these days I'll write a D replacement for ratpoison
 that does just that.


 
 Probably not too hard to just hack the source.


Yeah, but it's written in (rather ugly) C, and has other design
limitations as well. If I were to do anything about it, I'd rather just
rewrite it in D.



 (Ratpoison does let you configure the escape key, but it doesn't
 work with <windowsKey> for some stupid reason).


 
 xev tells me the Windows key's keysyms are
 
  keycode 133 (keysym 0xffeb, Super_L)
  keycode 134 (keysym 0xffec, Super_R)
 
 
 The bbkeys program I uses calls it Mod4 in its config file.
 
 Maybe one of those names will help?


No, it's a fundamental design flaw in ratpoison that it can only use
non-modifier keys for the escape key (why such a lame choice, is beyond
my ability to fathom). I'd probably end up rewriting a lot of code just
to make it work. Which, if I'm going to do it at all, I rather rewrite
in D instead.



 Yeah, people can rant and rave about how Linux sux and what-not, but
 the fact of the matter is, I could run 3 copies of X11, each with 15
 windows open on a Pentium with 128MB RAM, and be fully functional,
 whereas it takes every last drop of juice the system's got just for
 Windows'98 to


 
 It's not even the memory that is good for me: it is the more efficient
 layouts.  The Windows taskbar gets unusable with more than about 10
 windows (especially on XP+, where it hides entries or combines them.
 Ugh, the point of the taskbar is that everything is visible at once!)


I never liked the taskbar. I think it's a wrong design choice. Ratpoison
had it right -- C-w and it shows a popup at the top right corner of the
screen containing a *vertical* list of windows with full names.  Trying
to cram everything into a *horizontal* bar just doesn't scale beyond 10
items or so. At least a vertical list, given a small enough font, can
support at least 25 items, probably more like 40, before a scrollbar is
even needed.



 lets you use a minimal WM should you choose to, rather than in
 Windows where you *have* to use whatever MS has decided everyone
 must use, and


 
 you can do that in Windows too, actually, though of course it is rare
 to see in practice.


OK, I learned something new today. :) Haven't used Windows in any
significant way for the last almost 20 years, so I admit to being a bit
out of touch with the current state of things. :-P


T

-- 
I am a consultant. My job is to make your job redundant. -- Mr Tom



 Sep 16 2013



  parent reply "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com>  writes:


On Monday, 16 September 2013 at 17:04:46 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

 It's a miniscule time savings, but it does add up when you're 
 editing a complex command-line pipeline.


You know what would actually be huge for me? The mouse. If you 
have a 200 character command line, just clicking it would be so 
nice.

I'm sure there's some ctrl+meta+alt that can do it too, but I 
don't know my emacs (and readline's vi mode is weak).


Eventually I'll finish my terminal emulator that will include 
that kind of thing. Probably on a wild combo like ctrl+alt+click 
so I don't accidentally trigger it when I don't want to. But I'm 
not in a huge rush to write that since I actually quite like rxvt 
and xterm.



 Eek. I use C-s frequently for throttling program output; it 
 would suck to have to escape it!



heh, I use gigantic scroll back buffers for that whenever I can.


 inability to handle UTF-8 (in this day and age! seriously!).


The X server doesn't make utf-8 easy... I was looking into utf8 
input for simpledisplay.d and it is kinda complicated. (Another 
advantage Windows has - it's been unicode aware for a long time.)

But, how much do you really need for a window manager?


 have the new mobo serving as a headless compute server, then I 
 can have the best of both worlds!


yes!

(BTW, I just hit esc after typing that. I'm on the website, but 
that's my vi habit - enter something, then immediately hit esc to 
get back to command mode. When I was a vi newb I spent most my 
time in insert mode, but now I'm only rarely in there - just long 
enough to actually insert, then it is back to command 
immediately.)



 Really? I never had a kernel panic from misconfigured X11.


The kernel panics were from earlier in the boot process. For 
example, NFS over my at the time 10mbps hub was very unreliable, 
so it went to mount the root filesystem, lost some packets, and 
kernel panicked.

IIRC I ended up fixing that by making nfs use tcp connections 
rather than the unreliable udp datagrams.


Of course, X wasn't easy either. It didn't autoconfigure right, 
the driver that was supposed to work for the chip didn't (the 
screen would be garbled), and the other settings are just whoooo. 
I can only imagine how awful it was before then - at least my 
monitors weren't at risk of frying themselves. (or was that a 
myth too? i don't know but i'd believe it)

It did work with the vesa driver though pretty reliably, but that 
couldn't max out the potential of that 1 MB of video ram! But 
that's ok 800x600 looks good anyway.


 annoying, since the kernel (and every else) actually still 
 works, and I can ssh into it, etc., but it's unusable from the 
 desk and


Maybe svgalib could have helped there too. But yeah, X.org my old 
motherboard would do something similarly annoying: all input and 
output at the desktop would freeze dead, all of it, but I could 
still ssh into the machine so clearly the kernel was still alive.

Even switching vt wouldn't work, X locked up and took the 
hardware with it. Sometimes, kill -9 X via ssh would fix it, but 
sometimes that just left it in another indeterminate state that 
wouldn't recover properly either, forcing the reboot.


The weird thing though is sometimes, if I just left it alone for 
30 mins or so, it would actually fix itself. Maybe had to do with 
power management, i don't know.

My new motherboard is a lot saner. Other than the alsa volume 
control problem (pretty minor all things considered) it has 
worked very well.

But I guess we'll see if it continues to when it is 5 years old 
too. My pentium 1 box, now 16 years old, works flawlessly to this 
day. But cliched as it is, they don't make 'em like they used to.




 Well, nowadays X.org is pretty good about autodetecting most 
 settings,


Indeed, I was pleasantly surprised with the 64 bit install almost 
just working. I still installed the proprietary nvidia driver for 
3d acceleration, but at least it all came up.

The diskless fun was several years ago, I'm sure it'd be better 
now.



 pretty efficient unlike X11, but it doesn't support unicode 
 fonts.


You sure? I thought it does now, if you enable the kernel 
framebuffer. (Now I like the vga text mode, so no framebuffer for 
me, but I'm pretty sure the new stuff is workable there.)


 Hooray for rewriting old lost projects in D. :) You'd probably 
 get it back up and running faster anyway, thanks to D's awesome 
 features.


I can use my own terminal.d instead of ncurses too, yay.


 What I'd *really* like, is to extend the Linux console to 
 handle inline
 graphics (rounded to the next largest multiple of the character 
 tile size).


Heh, I've been thinking about that too. Part of the reason 
terminal.d has an enum { linear, cellular } is due to a design 
I've been pondering (and, of course, it matches right up to the 
alternate screen feature of linux terminals too).

If graphics were available in linear mode, cat file.png would go 
right ahead and draw it out there. Or something like that, it'd 
probably need an escape sequence to enable graphic mode to be 
sane.

And then cellular mode would be a framebuffer as well as a text 
buffer.

Believe it or not, the BIOS on DOS used to kinda support all 
this! If you switched to mode 13h and printf()'d, at least using 
Digital Mars C, maybe it is a dm runtime feature rather than the 
BIOS or DOS or whatever, but if you did that, the text would 
indeed output, and you can still write graphics.

In mode 3, vga text mode, the graphics stuff would just be 
swallowed and/or replaced by alternate text (omg I have a program 
that renders arbitrary images to ascii art. If you run a .mpg 
through it, you can actually watch movies on a text terminal! 
tempting to try to write that... but i'd prolly just keep it 
simple), but if you're in a graphics capable window and cat 
image, sure, let's show it.


I almost think I saw a terminal program that did that. But I want 
to write my own terminal emulator and specification anyway.


 Which, if I'm going to do it at all, I rather rewrite in D 
 instead.


aye


 Ratpoison had it right -- C-w and it shows a popup at the top 
 right corner of the screen containing a *vertical* list of 
 windows with full names.


Yeah, I have something similar on my windows key + tab hotkey as 
well as right as middle click on the edge of the screen.

But what's important about the task bar is you can see it without 
asking for a popup. So then, say, I get an IM and it adds a * to 
the left side of the name, and now I can see it without making an 
effort.

The other nice thing is the programs stay in a certain space. 
Most the titles on my thing are just 'rxvt' - pretty useless. But 
I know the one on the left is one thing, the one in the middle is 
another, etc.

And of course, gnu screen with C-a " does the list too, which is 
great.


  Trying
 to cram everything into a *horizontal* bar just doesn't scale 
 beyond 10 items or so.


I have 17 open on this workspace and can even read the names! My 
custom taskbar though is 16 pixels tall, writes out the names in 
fixed-10 font (normally I'd consider that way too small to read, 
but it looks good down there), has only two pixels padding 
between the buttons, and almost no nonsense: no start button, 
quick launch bar, notification area. It does have a clock, I like 
clocks, but it consumes only about 40 pixels.

One of the reasons I did my own though was that all other 
taskbars indeed couldn't scale. They made stupid decisions with 
too many windows and wasted space with too few.

  At least a vertical list, given a small enough

 font, can
 support at least 25 items, probably more like 40, before a 
 scrollbar is
 even needed.




blargh i need to stop dreaming of and talking about my ideal 
linux and get to work! lol



 Sep 16 2013



 next sibling parent reply "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx>  writes:


On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 09:53:34PM +0200, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:

 On Monday, 16 September 2013 at 17:04:46 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

It's a miniscule time savings, but it does add up when you're
editing a complex command-line pipeline.


 
 You know what would actually be huge for me? The mouse. If you have
 a 200 character command line, just clicking it would be so nice.
 
 I'm sure there's some ctrl+meta+alt that can do it too, but I don't
 know my emacs (and readline's vi mode is weak).


There's a vi mode to readline??

My ideal, actually, would be to liberate the command-line from its
single-line restriction. It would be in insert mode by default, to cater
for the common case, but hitting ESC would put it into navigation mode,
where you can use vi movement keys to navigate. You could construct the
command in a block (almost like a one-off shell script) before
committing and executing it.



 Eventually I'll finish my terminal emulator that will include that
 kind of thing. Probably on a wild combo like ctrl+alt+click so I
 don't accidentally trigger it when I don't want to. But I'm not in a
 huge rush to write that since I actually quite like rxvt and xterm.


I'm a huge fan of rxvt-unicode. No need to switch between (non-unicode)
rxvt and xterm, it handles it all.



Eek. I use C-s frequently for throttling program output; it would
suck to have to escape it!


 
 
 heh, I use gigantic scroll back buffers for that whenever I can.


Well, I do too, but still, sometimes you kinda want a fast key combo to
freeze the output from an accidental infinite loop while logged in over
a slow ssh connection. It's not so nice to have to disconnect and
reconnect just to stop the program (or wait for 5MB of the same text
repeated 10 million times to choke through the ssh link). Though I
suppose C-c does just as well by killing the program off.

In fact, now that I think of it, my use cases for C-s has drastically
diminished over the years. Maybe it's not as important as I remember it
is anymore. :-)



inability to handle UTF-8 (in this day and age! seriously!).


 
 The X server doesn't make utf-8 easy... I was looking into utf8
 input for simpledisplay.d and it is kinda complicated. (Another
 advantage Windows has - it's been unicode aware for a long time.)


True.



 But, how much do you really need for a window manager?


Just enough to be able to render window titles in UTF-8 correctly. It's
not really *that* important otherwise... it's very rare (if ever!) that
the WM will actually need to translate keyboard input into UTF-8, for
example. For the most part, it could just treat it as an opaque 8-bit
byte string.



have the new mobo serving as a headless compute server, then I can
have the best of both worlds!


 
 yes!
 
 (BTW, I just hit esc after typing that. I'm on the website, but
 that's my vi habit - enter something, then immediately hit esc to
 get back to command mode. When I was a vi newb I spent most my time
 in insert mode, but now I'm only rarely in there - just long enough
 to actually insert, then it is back to command immediately.)


When I first started learning vi, I steeled myself to learn it the
"right" way by only entering input mode when necessary. The learning
curve was a lot steeper that way, but then I also learned faster by not
acquiring n00b habits that must later be shed.

But yeah, my left little finger has acquired this twitch every now and
then to want to hit ESC, even when there's no reason to do so. :-P



Really? I never had a kernel panic from misconfigured X11.


 
 The kernel panics were from earlier in the boot process. For
 example, NFS over my at the time 10mbps hub was very unreliable, so
 it went to mount the root filesystem, lost some packets, and kernel
 panicked.
 
 IIRC I ended up fixing that by making nfs use tcp connections rather
 than the unreliable udp datagrams.


I see. Thanks for the tip, I'll have to keep that in mind in case I run
into similar issues. :)



 Of course, X wasn't easy either. It didn't autoconfigure right, the
 driver that was supposed to work for the chip didn't (the screen
 would be garbled), and the other settings are just whoooo. I can
 only imagine how awful it was before then - at least my monitors
 weren't at risk of frying themselves. (or was that a myth too? i
 don't know but i'd believe it)


All I remember was that the X server was so paranoid about not frying
your monitor that it often refused to use a resolution / refresh rate
that is clearly advertised in both monitor and video card manuals as
supported. I often had to feed fake values into the conf file just to
make it do what I want (though I may have inadvertently put my monitor
at risk of being fried -- never actually happened, though!).



 It did work with the vesa driver though pretty reliably, but that
 couldn't max out the potential of that 1 MB of video ram! But that's
 ok 800x600 looks good anyway.


I ran at 800x600 for many years, before I upgraded to a 1600x1200 LCD
monitor. Then 800x600 kinda... didn't fit very well. :-P



annoying, since the kernel (and every else) actually still works,
and I can ssh into it, etc., but it's unusable from the desk and


 
 Maybe svgalib could have helped there too. But yeah, X.org my old
 motherboard would do something similarly annoying: all input and
 output at the desktop would freeze dead, all of it, but I could
 still ssh into the machine so clearly the kernel was still alive.


Actually, it was X malfunctions like that that drove me to compile the
SysRq hack in the kernel, so when things went awry, I can hit
ctrl-SysRq-k to forcefully kill the X server. If that didn't help, I
could at least ctrl-SysRq-s to sync the disk buffers, then ctrl-SysRq-R
to force a reboot (the sync is so that I didn't have to wait 15 minutes
for fsck to run).



 Even switching vt wouldn't work, X locked up and took the hardware
 with it. Sometimes, kill -9 X via ssh would fix it, but sometimes
 that just left it in another indeterminate state that wouldn't
 recover properly either, forcing the reboot.


Yeah I remember doing some research on that. Apparently X leaves the
video card in graphics mode in a way that the kernel didn't know how to
undo, so good luck getting the console back. If your intuition of
exactly how the VT consoles worked was good enough, though, you could
login as root (blind), and restart X11, and sometimes it would come
back. Provided it didn't outright crash again immediately, that is. I
did try editing X11.conf blind once, in an attempt to fix things, but
that was a little too complex for me. :-P



 The weird thing though is sometimes, if I just left it alone for 30
 mins or so, it would actually fix itself. Maybe had to do with power
 management, i don't know.


Really? Never knew about that!



 My new motherboard is a lot saner. Other than the alsa volume
 control problem (pretty minor all things considered) it has worked
 very well.
 
 But I guess we'll see if it continues to when it is 5 years old too.
 My pentium 1 box, now 16 years old, works flawlessly to this day.
 But cliched as it is, they don't make 'em like they used to.


Hmph. My plan is for my current mobo to last for the next 5 years, if
not 10. I deliberately invested in an AMD hexacore so that it wouldn't
go out of date for a looong time. But we'll see if the hardware can hold
up that long.


[...]

pretty efficient unlike X11, but it doesn't support unicode fonts.


 
 You sure? I thought it does now, if you enable the kernel
 framebuffer. (Now I like the vga text mode, so no framebuffer for
 me, but I'm pretty sure the new stuff is workable there.)


Really? I remember trying it, but the non-ASCII characters came out all
wrong. Well, the kernel didn't *have* unicode fonts built-in, and there
was no way I know of to make it use .ttf, so I gave up.



Hooray for rewriting old lost projects in D. :) You'd probably get
it back up and running faster anyway, thanks to D's awesome
features.


 
 I can use my own terminal.d instead of ncurses too, yay.


Speaking of which, have you had a chance to look at the latest breakage
with DMD git HEAD yet? I'd file a regression on the bugtracker, but I
don't know enough about the internals of terminal.d to be able to tell
at a glance exactly what went wrong.



What I'd *really* like, is to extend the Linux console to handle
inline graphics (rounded to the next largest multiple of the
character tile size).


 
 Heh, I've been thinking about that too. Part of the reason
 terminal.d has an enum { linear, cellular } is due to a design I've
 been pondering (and, of course, it matches right up to the alternate
 screen feature of linux terminals too).
 
 If graphics were available in linear mode, cat file.png would go
 right ahead and draw it out there. Or something like that, it'd
 probably need an escape sequence to enable graphic mode to be sane.
 
 And then cellular mode would be a framebuffer as well as a text
 buffer.


I remember talking about this before (IIRC with you). If I could do it,
I might just be able to get rid of my GUI browser dependence once and
for all. :)



 Believe it or not, the BIOS on DOS used to kinda support all this!
 If you switched to mode 13h and printf()'d, at least using Digital
 Mars C, maybe it is a dm runtime feature rather than the BIOS or DOS
 or whatever, but if you did that, the text would indeed output, and
 you can still write graphics.


I do remember that feature in the BIOS, actually. I also remember it was
horrifically slow. In fact, I reinvented my own text output system in
assembly which was orders of magnitude faster.



 In mode 3, vga text mode, the graphics stuff would just be swallowed
 and/or replaced by alternate text (omg I have a program that renders
 arbitrary images to ascii art. If you run a .mpg through it, you can
 actually watch movies on a text terminal! tempting to try to write
 that... but i'd prolly just keep it simple), but if you're in a
 graphics capable window and cat image, sure, let's show it.


That would be cool. I'd be able to watch videos over an ssh terminal.
:-P Or play 3D games. :-P  (And feel nice and geeky about it.)



 I almost think I saw a terminal program that did that. But I want to
 write my own terminal emulator and specification anyway.


The first thing I'd do if I were to write a terminal spec is to get rid
of the stupid dependence on ESC as the terminal control escape code.
There are just too many legit user usages of ESC (such as vim!) for that
choice to be anything but a horrible one. If anything, I'd use an
invalid UTF-8 value like 0xFD so that it will never get mixed up with
literal output data. In fact, I'd use all the 1-byte invalid UTF code
points as terminal control sequences, for brevity.


[...]

 But what's important about the task bar is you can see it without
 asking for a popup. So then, say, I get an IM and it adds a * to the
 left side of the name, and now I can see it without making an
 effort.


I dunno, I prefer to explicitly check for messages when I want to,
rather than being constantly interrupted by dings and beeps and popups,
including on-screen text that changes. If anything, I'd have the * added
to the window name and I'd look for it when I actually feel like looking
at the window list.

I'm a pretty big fan of pull media rather than push media.



 The other nice thing is the programs stay in a certain space. Most
 the titles on my thing are just 'rxvt' - pretty useless. But I know
 the one on the left is one thing, the one in the middle is another,
 etc.


I never leave the title as 'rxvt'; I wrote a little program that writes
the escape sequence to change the window title to the command-line args,
and the first thing that I usually do upon firing up a new terminal is
to set its title to something meaningful.


[...]

 blargh i need to stop dreaming of and talking about my ideal linux
 and get to work! lol


Yeah I should stop talking about ratpoison replacements, and actually
go write one. In D. With ranges. :-P


T

-- 
Marketing: the art of convincing people to pay for what they didn't need
before which you can't deliver after.



 Sep 16 2013



 next sibling parent reply Justin Whear <justin economicmodeling.com>  writes:


On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 15:51:41 -0700, H. S. Teoh wrote:


 On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 09:53:34PM +0200, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:

 On Monday, 16 September 2013 at 17:04:46 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

It's a miniscule time savings, but it does add up when you're editing
a complex command-line pipeline.


 
 You know what would actually be huge for me? The mouse. If you have a
 200 character command line, just clicking it would be so nice.
 
 I'm sure there's some ctrl+meta+alt that can do it too, but I don't
 know my emacs (and readline's vi mode is weak).


 
 There's a vi mode to readline??
 
 My ideal, actually, would be to liberate the command-line from its
 single-line restriction. It would be in insert mode by default, to cater
 for the common case, but hitting ESC would put it into navigation mode,
 where you can use vi movement keys to navigate. You could construct the
 command in a block (almost like a one-off shell script) before
 committing and executing it.


Do you know about C-x C-e?  If EDITOR is set to "vi" it should open the 
current command in vi as a temp file, allow you to edit, and when you 
write and quit it'll execute it.  Not sure if this is Bash only or 
universal.



 Sep 16 2013



 next sibling parent  "John Colvin" <john.loughran.colvin gmail.com>  writes:


On Monday, 16 September 2013 at 23:35:00 UTC, Justin Whear wrote:

 On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 15:51:41 -0700, H. S. Teoh wrote:


 On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 09:53:34PM +0200, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:

 On Monday, 16 September 2013 at 17:04:46 UTC, H. S. Teoh 
 wrote:

It's a miniscule time savings, but it does add up when 
you're editing
a complex command-line pipeline.


 
 You know what would actually be huge for me? The mouse. If 
 you have a
 200 character command line, just clicking it would be so nice.
 
 I'm sure there's some ctrl+meta+alt that can do it too, but I 
 don't
 know my emacs (and readline's vi mode is weak).


 
 There's a vi mode to readline??
 
 My ideal, actually, would be to liberate the command-line from 
 its
 single-line restriction. It would be in insert mode by 
 default, to cater
 for the common case, but hitting ESC would put it into 
 navigation mode,
 where you can use vi movement keys to navigate. You could 
 construct the
 command in a block (almost like a one-off shell script) before
 committing and executing it.


 Do you know about C-x C-e?  If EDITOR is set to "vi" it should 
 open the
 current command in vi as a temp file, allow you to edit, and 
 when you
 write and quit it'll execute it.  Not sure if this is Bash only 
 or
 universal.


Bash only AFAIK, although there's probably alternatives for other 
shells. Nice feature, very useful :)



 Sep 16 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent  "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx>  writes:


On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 11:35:00PM +0000, Justin Whear wrote:

 On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 15:51:41 -0700, H. S. Teoh wrote:


[...]

 My ideal, actually, would be to liberate the command-line from its
 single-line restriction. It would be in insert mode by default, to
 cater for the common case, but hitting ESC would put it into
 navigation mode, where you can use vi movement keys to navigate. You
 could construct the command in a block (almost like a one-off shell
 script) before committing and executing it.


 
 Do you know about C-x C-e?  If EDITOR is set to "vi" it should open
 the current command in vi as a temp file, allow you to edit, and when
 you write and quit it'll execute it.  Not sure if this is Bash only or
 universal.


Whoa. My mind is blown.

I'm gonna hafta do this from now on. :) (OK, C-x C-e is so emacs-y, but
I do have $EDITOR set to vim, so I'll deal. ;-))


T

-- 
"I'm not childish; I'm just in touch with the child within!" - RL



 Sep 16 2013



prev sibling  parent  Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com>  writes:


On 2013-09-17 01:35, Justin Whear wrote:


 Do you know about C-x C-e?  If EDITOR is set to "vi" it should open the
 current command in vi as a temp file, allow you to edit, and when you
 write and quit it'll execute it.  Not sure if this is Bash only or
 universal.


OMG, it works with TextMate on Mac OS X. That is so cool :)

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg



 Sep 16 2013



prev sibling  parent reply "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com>  writes:


On Monday, 16 September 2013 at 22:53:04 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

 There's a vi mode to readline??


yeah, in bash you can enable it with

set -o vi

I've found some little problems with it, though your mileage may 
vary. One is that terminal escape sequences might mess it up. For 
example, in my rxvt, if I hit the end key, it uppercases the next 
few characters: my rxvt sends ^[[7~ on home, which the vi mode 
sees as 7~. But, in the default (emacs) mode, all these keys work.

So I think the escape sequence is being misinterpreted as a 
series of user input. On my xterm however, it works correctly.


Another weird thing is when you hit a number, so I hit 3, it says:

me arsd:~$ tESTING vi mode
<hit 3 now>
(arg: 3) tESTING vi mode

Which I guess isn't that bad, it is just different....

but here's something awesome: if you hit v, it actually brings up 
the actual vi (probably $EDITOR, since it loaded vim for me 
whereas my plain vi is elvis) to edit the command line!

That might just be your idea: edit it by hitting esc v.


So you know, I think it is time I give this another try. Time to 
edit bashrc...


 In fact, now that I think of it, my use cases for C-s has 
 drastically diminished over the years.


Aye, but I agree it is useful from time to time. I've used it on 
ssh too, or when building or running something like mplayer that 
just won't shut up long enough to scroll back.

BTW I used to not know about ^Q, so if I accidentally hit ^S, I'd 
get pissed at it freezing and not know what to do!


 Just enough to be able to render window titles in UTF-8 
 correctly.


eh, I'm not sure which X function does it, but that's small 
enough you could just render it as a pixmap and draw it that way. 
(This is the way gtk and qt do all text!)

On my github, you can also find stb_truetype.d which renders ttfs 
to little images without dependencies (it is a port of the 
stb_truetype.h public domain C file). The D api portion is still 
incomplete but there's enough there to use it, and I *think* I 
did unicode correctly.


 I see. Thanks for the tip, I'll have to keep that in mind in 
 case I run into similar issues. :)


there's a good chance you'll be ok with a switch/router instead 
of a hub. I actually got the hub so I could sniff the network 
traffic from my brother.... but I never actually did any of that 
and instead set it up as the upstairs hub, so I'd only have to 
run one long wire from the router downstairs.

But the problem is that hub was kinda slow and would get packet 
collisions fairly often. A switch, or maybe even a 10/100 hub, 
would probably work a lot better.


 I ran at 800x600 for many years, before I upgraded to a 
 1600x1200 LCD monitor.


that's huge! The one I have now is 1280x1024, the biggest I've 
ever used. (I notice you are using 4:3 too. 4:3 rox.)



 Really? I remember trying it, but the non-ASCII characters came 
 out all wrong.


I might be wrong.


 Speaking of which, have you had a chance to look at the latest 
 breakage with DMD git HEAD yet?


I just did, and it worked, though I had to grab updated druntime 
and phobos too.

./dmd  -c ~/arsd/terminal.d  -I~/d/wtf/druntime-master/src/ 
-I~/d/wtf/phobos-master/

me arsd:~/d/wtf/dmd-master/src$


 I might just be able to get rid of my GUI browser dependence 
 once and for all. :)


arguably it'd still be a gui, since it'd need to run in graphics 
mode and all! Just a *great* gui.

I think links can actually be configured to run a svgamodelib 
helper program to display images one by one in the linux terminal 
too...


 I do remember that feature in the BIOS, actually. I also 
 remember it was horrifically slow. In fact, I reinvented
 my own text output system in
 assembly which was orders of magnitude faster.


Aye, all BIOS text output was brutally slow, I'm sure just about 
every DOS programmer did their own text output at one point or 
another!

In text mode, you just write to segment 0xb800, and in graphics 
mode what I did was blit some little bitmaps over. Wrote my own 
bitmap font editor too.


Actually, I recently ported some of my old DOS drawing stuff to 
D, called image_basicdrawing.d. Does bresenham's line algorithm, 
ellipses, and bitmapped text.

I haven't put it to github yet though because I'm pretty sure I 
copy/pasted half that code back in the day and thus aren't sure 
about the copyright status!



 The first thing I'd do if I were to write a terminal spec is to 
 get rid of the stupid dependence on ESC as the terminal control 
 escape code.


god yes, especially on input. This is another thing (omg back to 
the roots of this hijack!) that Windows just does so much better.

Raw console input on Windows is delivered as INPUT_RECORD structs:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms683499%28v=vs.85%29.aspx

which is nice and structured. Extensible, unambigious, and a lot 
less hideous than the mess of input sequences you can get on 
linux.

I guess it is less efficient over ssh, but it is so much simpler.


Though, an easy fix to the unix thing: make your esc key send it 
twice. So ^[^[ == user hit esc, similarly to how "\\" is `\`. At 
least then it won't be as messy. Sending it twice might even be 
more backward compatible since a lot of unix programs either 
specifically watch for the second esc, or at least ignore the 
second one already since that's a fairly common manual workaround 
for the crappy design.

If I was doing it from scratch, I'd probably say plain input is 
one byte, escape is either ^[ with ^[^[ the literal esc, or an 
invalid utf-8 byte like you said, though that might reduce error 
detection, and anything else is a struct: <ESC>size_of_struct 
type_of_event event_data....\n (or something).

The data could be binary or ascii, whatever, but this way you 
could skip it by only knowing the size (unlike the termcap mess 
on linux), it could embed arbitrary data in there, and is 
unambiguous.

Another thing that might be nice is to make sure it is all 
invalid utf bytes, but encoding data that way would get long. But 
then you could ignore it even if you missed the size - would be 
nice to recover a broken stream.


I'd do output similarly too. Escape sequences on output aren't 
nearly as nasty as on input - you probably don't output an esc 
character most the time - but still they should be structured 
enough so you can easily ignore unknown ones and be a little more 
binary safe.

Then you output a png image in that same set too!



 rather than being constantly interrupted by dings and beeps and 
 popups,


i love beeps lol

modprobe pcspkr



 I never leave the title as 'rxvt'; I wrote a little program 
 that writes the escape sequence to change the window title to 
 the command-line args,


I did one of those too (a shell script too lol) but I do it 
spacially or transiently anyway - my rxvts either live long 
enough that I get to know them by position on the taskbar, or 
they are gone so quickly that it doesn't matter.

Another hassle is screen sometimes doesn't propagate that 
correctly which is annoying too...


 Yeah I should stop talking about ratpoison replacements, and 
 actually go write one. In D. With ranges. :-P


lol ranges



 Sep 16 2013



 next sibling parent  "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com>  writes:


On Tuesday, 17 September 2013 at 00:03:34 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe 
wrote:

 set -o vi


better yet, edit ~/.inputrc and add

set editing-mode vi

in there. Then it works for other programs that use readline too 
like mysql! I almost forgot about that file, but there's a 
comment in there that I added some sequences for rxvt, so sweet.

That file might be a good thing to customize the hell out of.



 Sep 16 2013



prev sibling  parent reply "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx>  writes:


On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 02:03:33AM +0200, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:

 On Monday, 16 September 2013 at 22:53:04 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

There's a vi mode to readline??


 
 yeah, in bash you can enable it with
 
 set -o vi
 
 I've found some little problems with it, though your mileage may
 vary. One is that terminal escape sequences might mess it up. For
 example, in my rxvt, if I hit the end key, it uppercases the next
 few characters: my rxvt sends ^[[7~ on home, which the vi mode sees
 as 7~. But, in the default (emacs) mode, all these keys work.


Well, now that I just learned about C-x C-e in bash, I think I won't
need this anymore. :) Just need to set $EDITOR to vim, and off I go.


[...]

Just enough to be able to render window titles in UTF-8 correctly.


 
 eh, I'm not sure which X function does it, but that's small enough
 you could just render it as a pixmap and draw it that way. (This is
 the way gtk and qt do all text!)


No kidding! Never knew that. I guess that just shows how b0rken (or
antiquated) X11 font handling is. I remember reading through the
protocols for it... looks like a valiant attempt at future-proofing,
which fell flat because of the unpredictability of what the future might
hold. Premature generalization at its finest. :)



 On my github, you can also find stb_truetype.d which renders ttfs to
 little images without dependencies (it is a port of the
 stb_truetype.h public domain C file). The D api portion is still
 incomplete but there's enough there to use it, and I *think* I did
 unicode correctly.


Interesting! I'll have to check it out sometime.



I see. Thanks for the tip, I'll have to keep that in mind in case
I run into similar issues. :)


 
 there's a good chance you'll be ok with a switch/router instead of a
 hub. I actually got the hub so I could sniff the network traffic
 from my brother....


lol...



 but I never actually did any of that and instead set it up as the
 upstairs hub, so I'd only have to run one long wire from the router
 downstairs.


I still have an unused hub lying around, after replacing it with a
wireless router so that my wife doesn't need to constantly plug in stray
ethernet cables just to make her laptop work. Never realized collisions
can be so bad on a hub.


[...]

I ran at 800x600 for many years, before I upgraded to a 1600x1200
LCD monitor.


 
 that's huge! The one I have now is 1280x1024, the biggest I've ever
 used. (I notice you are using 4:3 too. 4:3 rox.)


I'm a stickler for 4:3. I *hate* those shortscreen monitors (aka
widescreen :-P). It feels like the top got chopped off. I value my
vertical real estate!


[...]

Speaking of which, have you had a chance to look at the latest
breakage with DMD git HEAD yet?


 
 I just did, and it worked, though I had to grab updated druntime and
 phobos too.
 
 ./dmd  -c ~/arsd/terminal.d  -I~/d/wtf/druntime-master/src/
 -I~/d/wtf/phobos-master/

 me arsd:~/d/wtf/dmd-master/src$


Hmm lemme try that again...

Yikes, I'm getting an ICE. :-(  Gah, looks like it's caused by
-property, which is b0rken anyway. I'll take it out of my build file.
Sorry for the false alarm!



I might just be able to get rid of my GUI browser dependence once
and for all. :)


 
 arguably it'd still be a gui, since it'd need to run in graphics
 mode and all! Just a *great* gui.


Right. :)


[...]

I do remember that feature in the BIOS, actually. I also remember it
was horrifically slow. In fact, I reinvented my own text output
system in assembly which was orders of magnitude faster.


 
 Aye, all BIOS text output was brutally slow, I'm sure just about
 every DOS programmer did their own text output at one point or
 another!


I wrote my text routines with 6-pixel wide fonts instead of the normal
8-pixel font, just so I could cram more text onto the screen. :-P
Needless to say, those were the days before I got a clue about
typography.



 In text mode, you just write to segment 0xb800, and in graphics mode
 what I did was blit some little bitmaps over. Wrote my own bitmap font
 editor too.


0xb800 -- I remember that! Brings back the memories!



 Actually, I recently ported some of my old DOS drawing stuff to D,
 called image_basicdrawing.d. Does bresenham's line algorithm,
 ellipses, and bitmapped text.
 
 I haven't put it to github yet though because I'm pretty sure I
 copy/pasted half that code back in the day and thus aren't sure
 about the copyright status!


Heh. I was on the other extreme... I reinvented everything from the
square wheel to the triangular peg in the round hole. It was free of
copyright issues, it's true. But it also mostly sucked. :-P



The first thing I'd do if I were to write a terminal spec is to
get rid of the stupid dependence on ESC as the terminal control
escape code.


 
 god yes, especially on input. This is another thing (omg back to the
 roots of this hijack!) that Windows just does so much better.
 
 Raw console input on Windows is delivered as INPUT_RECORD structs:
 
 http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms683499%28v=vs.85%29.aspx
 
 which is nice and structured. Extensible, unambigious, and a lot
 less hideous than the mess of input sequences you can get on linux.


Yeah... unfortunately the Unix obsession over everything being a byte
stream is coming back to byte us. ;-)



 I guess it is less efficient over ssh, but it is so much simpler.


ssh -C. :)

How would you intermix it with character data, though? That's the
problem with the Unix design. The control stream and the data stream is
intermixed, which is the source of much of the headaches in terminal
handling.



 Though, an easy fix to the unix thing: make your esc key send it
 twice. So ^[^[ == user hit esc, similarly to how "\\" is `\`. At
 least then it won't be as messy. Sending it twice might even be more
 backward compatible since a lot of unix programs either specifically
 watch for the second esc, or at least ignore the second one already
 since that's a fairly common manual workaround for the crappy
 design.


Hmm. I've gotta try that sometime. Does XKB support mappings like that?
Or that is to say, I'm pretty sure it does but I've no idea how to
configure that.



 If I was doing it from scratch, I'd probably say plain input is one
 byte, escape is either ^[ with ^[^[ the literal esc, or an invalid
 utf-8 byte like you said, though that might reduce error detection,
 and anything else is a struct: <ESC>size_of_struct type_of_event
 event_data....\n (or something).


But how would you intersperse structs in the middle of an input stream?

I suppose one way is to delimit it with invalid UTF-8 bytes like:

	0xFC <binary data> 0xFD

but then you have the problem of spewing random garbage to the screen if
somehow the 0xFC got lost in transit. Again, it's caused by the Unix
obsession of shoehorning everything into a byte stream. :-/



 The data could be binary or ascii, whatever, but this way you could
 skip it by only knowing the size (unlike the termcap mess on linux),
 it could embed arbitrary data in there, and is unambiguous.
 
 Another thing that might be nice is to make sure it is all invalid
 utf bytes, but encoding data that way would get long. But then you
 could ignore it even if you missed the size - would be nice to
 recover a broken stream.


Right. The best solution is to admit that the control stream and the
data stream are two different things, and use *two* streams for them.
But then you may have trouble with synchronizing the two should there be
network lag or packet reordering in between. Bah. Some days you just
can't win.



 I'd do output similarly too. Escape sequences on output aren't
 nearly as nasty as on input - you probably don't output an esc
 character most the time - but still they should be structured enough
 so you can easily ignore unknown ones and be a little more binary
 safe.


Yeah no kidding. Nothing like `cat binary.file` turning your terminal
settings into mush just because it happens to contain the wrong byte
sequences. :-/

But on second thoughts, aren't terminals over raw, unreliable
connections pass these days? As long as you have TCP, you should be
good to go. The stream API for terminals should automatically escape
*all* data, and have a separate set of APIs for sending control
sequences. That way the terminal library layer ensures data is always
correctly encoded. Writing raw data to a terminal is a dangerous
operation anyway.



 Then you output a png image in that same set too!
 
 

rather than being constantly interrupted by dings and beeps and
popups,


 
 i love beeps lol
 
 modprobe pcspkr


Heh. I'm the opposite. I hate beeps so much that I specifically
configured my kernel to *not* have the pcspkr module. :-P



I never leave the title as 'rxvt'; I wrote a little program that
writes the escape sequence to change the window title to the
command-line args,


 
 I did one of those too (a shell script too lol) but I do it
 spacially or transiently anyway - my rxvts either live long enough
 that I get to know them by position on the taskbar, or they are gone
 so quickly that it doesn't matter.
 
 Another hassle is screen sometimes doesn't propagate that correctly
 which is annoying too...


Yeah, that *is* annoying. But that's more annoying is programs that
randomly change the terminal title just 'cos they can. Thankfully,
ratpoison lets me hardcode a manually-specified name onto windows, which
causes the window's title string to be ignored. This way I can turn off
intrusive title changes without the offending program even realizing it.
:-P



Yeah I should stop talking about ratpoison replacements, and
actually go write one. In D. With ranges. :-P


 
 lol ranges


Well, ranges are one of D's big selling points, aren't they? :-P I mean
after all, a WM is basically a program that processes a *range* of X11
events, outputs a *range* of X11 requests, manages a *range* of windows,
etc...


T

-- 
Claiming that your operating system is the best in the world because
more people use it is like saying McDonalds makes the best food in the
world. -- Carl B. Constantine



 Sep 16 2013



  parent reply "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com>  writes:


On Tuesday, 17 September 2013 at 01:59:42 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

 No kidding! Never knew that. I guess that just shows how b0rken 
 (or antiquated) X11 font handling is.


indeed.


 0xb800 -- I remember that! Brings back the memories!


Oh yeah. This is half the fun of my minimal-d 
(http://arsdnet.net/dcode/minimal.zip) toy that runs on bare 
metal (after booting with grub) - I can do some of that stuff 
again!


 Heh. I was on the other extreme... I reinvented everything from 
 the square wheel to the triangular peg in the round hole.


Oh, I've done my share of that too, but my lines were so slow and 
Bresenham's algorithm was so fast, so I had to make the switch!


 How would you intermix it with character data, though?


If you have a reliable connection it isn't too bad. You can 
either define anything outside a struct to be character info or 
you can have an INPUT_TYPE_CHAR struct that showsit.


 That's the problem with the Unix design. The control stream and 
 the data stream is intermixed, which is the source of much of 
 the headaches in terminal handling.


Yup. I've thought before about doing up to five standard streams:

1) system control in, the event stream
2) user control in, a character stream
3) standard file in, a plain file. might be user control or might 
be another file
4) standard file out, might be the terminal or might be a file
5) interactive output, the terminal.



aren't necessarily the terminal. Suppose you want to edit a 
temporary file. You can'd do

echo "initial data" | vi

since that would be considered user input and be interpreted by 
vi as a command. So what you end up doing is something like this

echo "initial data" > /tmp/filexxx
vi /tmp/filexxx

And ditto on output, you'd tell vi to write to the tmpfile since 
redirecting stdout would screw up the user interactivity.

So the other files let you just set up pipes easily without 
necessarily hijacking the interactivity.


But, overall, I think unix does a pretty ok in this department - 
the system is simple, maybe too simple, but it gets the job done.


 Hmm. I've gotta try that sometime. Does XKB support mappings 
 like that?


I don't know.


 I suppose one way is to delimit it with invalid UTF-8 bytes 
 like:


yea.


 then you have the problem of spewing random garbage to the 
 screen if somehow the 0xFC got lost in transit.


Right... but the connections are reliable enough that we can 
probably get away with just leaving that to the other layer (tcp 
or whatever).


 But on second thoughts, aren't terminals over raw, unreliable
 connections passé these days? As long as you have TCP, you 
 should be good to go.


exactly


 Thankfully,ratpoison lets me hardcode a manually-specified name 
 onto windows, which causes the window's title string to be 
 ignored.


cool. Maybe I'll put that in my terminal emulator too...


 Well, ranges are one of D's big selling points, aren't they?


tbh I'm kinda meh on them. When they're great, they're great, but 
otherwise eh, no need to force them in when it isn't necessary.




BTW I did a lot of snippage here since I generally agree, but the 
big fun is I just spent the last half hour playing with the idea 
of doing my own terminal emulator again.

And you know, that might not be so hard. In just this short time, 
I got it started: in about 100 lines with simpledisplay.d and 
eventloop.d as helper libraries, I have it running a basic shell. 
The hard part is still coming: all the escape sequence nonsense, 
but that's kinda additive, I can just do each one as I come to 
them, making it more or less xterm compatible but just enough for 
the programs I use.... then start doing extensions!

Most the work is actually done by forkpty() apparently. It even 
handles echo automatically and I think it does line buffering 
too, I'll know more as I play with it. And of course, 
simpledisplay.d already does a lot of messy Xlib stuff and input 
events so this might not be that hard at all.

...until I get to the issue of utf8 font output lol.



 Sep 16 2013



  parent reply "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx>  writes:


On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 04:25:50AM +0200, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:

 On Tuesday, 17 September 2013 at 01:59:42 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:


[...]

Heh. I was on the other extreme... I reinvented everything from
the square wheel to the triangular peg in the round hole.


 
 Oh, I've done my share of that too, but my lines were so slow and
 Bresenham's algorithm was so fast, so I had to make the switch!


I never got that far. :-P



How would you intermix it with character data, though?


 
 If you have a reliable connection it isn't too bad. You can either
 define anything outside a struct to be character info or you can
 have an INPUT_TYPE_CHAR struct that showsit.


Actually, that gives me an idea. What if, instead of defaulting to
character data, the terminal input stream defaults to control
structures? That is, you're sending structs by default. Character data
would then be represented as a length followed by the data, and the
length would be chosen based on how much data is currently available.
So, say we use a single byte for length, then we can reserve lengths
with the high bit set to non-character control data, and values from
0-127 indicates how many subsequent data bytes follow.  Of course, a 0
length is kinda useless, but perhaps could be used for EOF or other such
indications. This lets us send up to 127 bytes of data (128 including
the length) per message, which should minimize the overhead of
defaulting to control mode instead of pure data mode.



That's the problem with the Unix design. The control stream and
the data stream is intermixed, which is the source of much of the
headaches in terminal handling.


 
 Yup. I've thought before about doing up to five standard streams:
 
 1) system control in, the event stream
 2) user control in, a character stream
 3) standard file in, a plain file. might be user control or might be
 another file
 4) standard file out, might be the terminal or might be a file
 5) interactive output, the terminal.
 

 necessarily the terminal. Suppose you want to edit a temporary file.
 You can'd do
 
 echo "initial data" | vi
 
 since that would be considered user input and be interpreted by vi
 as a command. So what you end up doing is something like this
 
 echo "initial data" > /tmp/filexxx
 vi /tmp/filexxx
 
 And ditto on output, you'd tell vi to write to the tmpfile since
 redirecting stdout would screw up the user interactivity.


I'm not sure what the bash syntax is, but couldn't you just pipe echo
to, say, fd 3 (altin?)? Assuming that vim is changed to understand that,
of course. If this convention becomes widely adopted, then it would
effectively become "non-terminal input".  Similarly, fd 4 could be used
as altout, for non-terminal output.

As a transition, programs could check if fd 3 and fd 4 are valid fd's;
if they are, then assume the shell (or whatever invoked the process)
knows about altin/altout and wants to send data along those channels,
and adapt accordingly.



 So the other files let you just set up pipes easily without
 necessarily hijacking the interactivity.


Yep. Though I think nowadays some programs already check whether
stdin/stdout is hooked up to a terminal (IIRC using one of those obscure
ioctl calls). I know for sure pagers like 'less' do it: if stdout is a
non-terminal, it simply pipes the data through without attempting to
page.



 But, overall, I think unix does a pretty ok in this department - the
 system is simple, maybe too simple, but it gets the job done.


Yeah, adding more stuff to it makes sense but may introduce a lot more
complexity.


[...]

Well, ranges are one of D's big selling points, aren't they?


 
 tbh I'm kinda meh on them. When they're great, they're great, but
 otherwise eh, no need to force them in when it isn't necessary.


I know. :) I was half-kidding.



 BTW I did a lot of snippage here since I generally agree, but the
 big fun is I just spent the last half hour playing with the idea of
 doing my own terminal emulator again.
 
 And you know, that might not be so hard. In just this short time, I
 got it started: in about 100 lines with simpledisplay.d and
 eventloop.d as helper libraries, I have it running a basic shell.
 The hard part is still coming: all the escape sequence nonsense, but
 that's kinda additive, I can just do each one as I come to them,
 making it more or less xterm compatible but just enough for the
 programs I use.... then start doing extensions!


Cool!



 Most the work is actually done by forkpty() apparently. It even
 handles echo automatically and I think it does line buffering too,
 I'll know more as I play with it. And of course, simpledisplay.d
 already does a lot of messy Xlib stuff and input events so this
 might not be that hard at all.
 
 ...until I get to the issue of utf8 font output lol.


Haha, yeah. If I were doing it, I'd say just do .ttf output from the
get-go, render it as an image, whatever, just don't even bother with the
antiquated X11 font handling. (FWIW I don't even use core X11 fonts on
my system anymore, and don't even bother installing them except those
that are absolutely, absolutely necessary for the thing to even start.)

Then when it comes time to add inline images, just treat it as a very
large character with a custom bitmap font. :-P


T

-- 
Long, long ago, the ancient Chinese invented a device that lets them see
through walls.  It was called the "window".



 Sep 17 2013



  parent reply "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com>  writes:


On Tuesday, 17 September 2013 at 17:01:55 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

 Actually, that gives me an idea. What if, instead of defaulting 
 to character data, the terminal input stream defaults to control
 structures?


hehe those who don't understand Windows are doomed to reinvent it 
:) :) :)


 the length) per message, which should minimize the overhead of
 defaulting to control mode instead of pure data mode.


I'm actually not sure if overhead is worth worrying about. On the 
input side, it'd be slow anyway since humans only type so fast, 
and on the output side if you transfer big updates at once the 
few bytes for length and type would be quickly irrelevant anyway.

Besides, we aren't on 300 baud serial lines!


 I'm not sure what the bash syntax is, but couldn't you just 
 pipe echo to, say, fd 3 (altin?)?


Yes, we'd just have to change the convention. I should patch vim 
myself!

It could probabaly be done with existing programs through named 
pipes too.


 Cool!


and it occurs to me that gnu screen is, at its core, just a 
terminal emulator. So... having a little terminal emulation 
library is useful for a bunch of things - a gnu screen 
replacement, a customized xterm, and perhaps even my own putty 
program for Windows. And embedding it in programs as a nice 
widget to use for some gui programming fun.

But wow, these escape sequences are even more annoying. I thought 
dealing with the input was a hassle, being on the other end is no 
walk in the park either!

However, I've implemented a handful and vim and bash are both 
kinda running. Some bugs in vim but it is usable.


 Haha, yeah. If I were doing it, I'd say just do .ttf output 
 from the get-go, render it as an image, whatever, just don't 
 even bother with the antiquated X11 font handling.


I thought about that, but I actually *like* the plain core font 
"fixed". (rxvt's default, at least on my system) I use it in a 
number of places and think it looks pretty good.

To the extent that I have two xterm shortcuts: one uses bitstream 
vera mono and the other uses plain old fixed-14.

Oh well, I'm rendering each character individually anyway, so 
switching won't be a problem.


 Then when it comes time to add inline images, just treat it as 
 a very large character with a custom bitmap font. :-P


indeed. Which brings up an idea too: you could just define custom 
bitmapped glyphs... arguably at this point you might as well just 
use xlib, but hey doing a printf("\033 magic bitmap stuff") is 
kinda enticing!



 Sep 17 2013



 next sibling parent reply "Michael" <pr m1xa.com>  writes:


 Besides, we aren't on 300 baud serial lines!


As backup line I have 56k dial-up modem ;)
We still trolling each other about IDE ?) Or Win 8.1 UI is the 
best UI?



 Sep 17 2013



  parent reply "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx>  writes:


On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 07:29:24AM +0200, Michael wrote:

Besides, we aren't on 300 baud serial lines!


 
 As backup line I have 56k dial-up modem ;)
 We still trolling each other about IDE ?) Or Win 8.1 UI is the best
 UI?


Linux is my IDE. ;-)


T

-- 
VI = Visual Irritation



 Sep 18 2013



  parent reply Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com>  writes:


On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 06:15:00 -0700
"H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:


 On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 07:29:24AM +0200, Michael wrote:

Besides, we aren't on 300 baud serial lines!


 
 As backup line I have 56k dial-up modem ;)
 We still trolling each other about IDE ?) Or Win 8.1 UI is the best
 UI?


 
 Linux is my IDE. ;-)
 


That line's been rolling around in my head lately, and although I don't
usually dev on Linux, it's occurred to me - my file manager is my IDE:

I launch my editor from it. I launch my CLI terminal from it. I manage
the project's file/structure with it (naturally). And the reason I've
never had any interest in IDE/VCS integration is because with
Tortoise* it's already integrated into my filemanager, where VCS
integration belongs, IMO.

Linux may yet become my IDE though. I've been wanting to get off
Windows for general everyday stuff (since Vista, each new version has
needed more and more tweaking to become tolerable). To that end, the
other day I was trying out the latest versions of a ton of DE's via
VM'ed Live discs. I was getting really frustrated for awhile, but
then I hit what seems to look really promising: Mint 15 with Xfce
4.10, Dolphin 4.10 and kdesdk-dolphin-plugins[1]. And maybe replace
xfce's WM with kwin if I can ever get that to work (Kwin seems to
work fine under the KDE4-based distros).

Dolphin seems to have fixed it's Vista-like goofiness with the
folder view's horizontal scrolling, and it really is pretty good for the
most part. The terminal panel is a brilliant idea (never noticed
before - maybe it's new since about 4.5ish?). I think there may
still be a few things needing improvement, but it appears fairly
usable so far.

As of the latest version, Xfce seems to be about the only DE that can
handle my side-mounted taskbar worth a darn. Plus it's nice and
lean/fast. A bit unpolished, same as most others, but like those others
still usable.

Mint seems to be the best Debian for a desktop (unless you want a
blatant OSX clone with slightly more straight-jacketing, in which case
Ubuntu's Unity seems surprisingly decent. Or GNOME 3 if you like to drop
acid. I really would recommend Unity for OSX fans that want to try
Linux - maybe with Docky if it works as advertised.) Although, if I ever
end up moving from Debian to Arch, Manjaro really looks worth watching.

[1] kdesdk-dolphin-plugins:
http://sebastian-doerner.de/2011/09/a-git-plugin-for-dolphin/

It's missing a few important features from TortoiseGit, but it's
leaner and a fundamentally better design. TortoiseGit (and to a much
larger extent, TortoiseHg) tends to forget it's supposed to be a
Tortoise* tool.



 Sep 18 2013



  parent reply "Wyatt" <wyatt.epp gmail.com>  writes:


On Wednesday, 18 September 2013 at 18:20:42 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
wrote:

 Dolphin seems to have fixed it's Vista-like goofiness with the
 folder view's horizontal scrolling, and it really is pretty 
 good for the most part.


Dolphin is pretty nice, though there are cases where Konqueror 
still runs circles around it. For example, if you want a 
horizontal split or more than one split.  Also, I don't think 
Dolphin has the file size view plugin, which is nice for finding 
hidden monsters in your ~.


 The terminal panel is a brilliant idea (never noticed
 before - maybe it's new since about 4.5ish?).


Hehe, this has been around since...at least KDE 3.4 (Before 
Dolphin was written). The shortcut is F4. :)


 As of the latest version, Xfce seems to be about the only DE 
 that can
 handle my side-mounted taskbar worth a darn.


Really?  I figured Plasma would probably be able to do a decent 
job.  :/  I guess they still haven't gotten it into shape.  Have 
you tried the 4.11 versions?


 Mint seems to be the best Debian for a desktop


I've been hearing good things about aptosid and Mepis lately, too.



 Sep 19 2013



 next sibling parent reply "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx>  writes:


On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 03:04:44PM +0200, Wyatt wrote:
[...]

 Dolphin is pretty nice, though there are cases where Konqueror still
 runs circles around it. For example, if you want a horizontal split
 or more than one split.  Also, I don't think Dolphin has the file
 size view plugin, which is nice for finding hidden monsters in your
 ~.


du ~ | sort -r -n | less

:-)


T

-- 
I think Debian's doing something wrong, `apt-get install pesticide',
doesn't seem to remove the bugs on my system! -- Mike Dresser



 Sep 19 2013



 next sibling parent reply "Wyatt" <wyatt.epp gmail.com>  writes:


On Thursday, 19 September 2013 at 14:27:14 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

 On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 03:04:44PM +0200, Wyatt wrote:
 [...]

 Dolphin is pretty nice, though there are cases where Konqueror 
 still
 runs circles around it. For example, if you want a horizontal 
 split
 or more than one split.  Also, I don't think Dolphin has the 
 file
 size view plugin, which is nice for finding hidden monsters in 
 your
 ~.


 du ~ | sort -r -n | less


That's nice if you want the size of _every_ individual file in 
your home. In kilobytes.  It's much less so for visualising where 
hotspot directories are, let alone seeing the large divisions 
within them or getting a sense of their relative magnitude.  It's 
accurate, but data that doesn't end with presentation useful for 
humans is next to worthless.

shopt -s dotglob; du -sm ~/* | sort -rn | less

...is a bit closer, but there's a lot of room for improvement.  
Even the KDE part isn't really optimal (for example, I think 
reducing the recursion one level would be a better default), but 
it plays to the strengths of the human visual system markedly 
better:
http://chrisjrob.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/konqueror-file-size-view.png

-Wyatt



 Sep 19 2013



 next sibling parent  "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx>  writes:


On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 05:01:18PM +0200, Wyatt wrote:

 On Thursday, 19 September 2013 at 14:27:14 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 03:04:44PM +0200, Wyatt wrote:
[...]

Dolphin is pretty nice, though there are cases where Konqueror still
runs circles around it. For example, if you want a horizontal split
or more than one split.  Also, I don't think Dolphin has the file
size view plugin, which is nice for finding hidden monsters in your
~.


du ~ | sort -r -n | less


 That's nice if you want the size of _every_ individual file in your
 home. In kilobytes.  It's much less so for visualising where hotspot
 directories are, let alone seeing the large divisions within them or
 getting a sense of their relative magnitude.  It's accurate, but
 data that doesn't end with presentation useful for humans is next to
 worthless.


Well, sort -r returns the heaviest entries at the top, which are
generally the directories that add up to the most weight. So it should
be relatively easy to narrow down to the entries of interest, which
should themselves be pretty big as well, so they will also appear close
to the top. The stuff towards the end are all the small files so they
can be ignored.

Of course, du -m may help with more readable numbers. :)



 shopt -s dotglob; du -sm ~/* | sort -rn | less
 
 ...is a bit closer, but there's a lot of room for improvement.  Even
 the KDE part isn't really optimal (for example, I think reducing the
 recursion one level would be a better default), but it plays to the
 strengths of the human visual system markedly better:
 http://chrisjrob.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/konqueror-file-size-view.png


[...]

Ah, that's nice. I didn't realize that's what the size plugin does.
Pretty nifty!


T

-- 
Debian GNU/Linux: Cray on your desktop.



 Sep 19 2013



prev sibling  parent  Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com>  writes:


On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 17:01:18 +0200
"Wyatt" <wyatt.epp gmail.com> wrote:

 
 ...is a bit closer, but there's a lot of room for improvement.  
 Even the KDE part isn't really optimal (for example, I think 
 reducing the recursion one level would be a better default), but 
 it plays to the strengths of the human visual system markedly 
 better:
 http://chrisjrob.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/konqueror-file-size-view.png
 


Oh wow, I've used similar tools on windows before, like WinDirStat. And
I love them, but that thing having the directory names *shown* without
needing to hover is a really nice improvement.

What's the apt package name for that? Or is it already in dolphin and
just needs enabled?



 Sep 19 2013



prev sibling  parent  "Minas" <minas_mina1990 hotmail.co.uk>  writes:


I use mono develop (on ubuntu).



 Sep 21 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent reply Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com>  writes:


On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 15:04:44 +0200
"Wyatt" <wyatt.epp gmail.com> wrote:


 On Wednesday, 18 September 2013 at 18:20:42 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
 wrote:

 Dolphin seems to have fixed it's Vista-like goofiness with the
 folder view's horizontal scrolling, and it really is pretty 
 good for the most part.


 
 Dolphin is pretty nice, though there are cases where Konqueror 
 still runs circles around it. For example, if you want a 
 horizontal split or more than one split


I do vastly prefer Konquerer's method of drag-selecting files in the
Details view (it's the same method as XP - although I did find a
registry hack to make Win7 *usually* do the same). I can at least live
with Dolphin's method, though.


 Also, I don't think 
 Dolphin has the file size view plugin, which is nice for finding 
 hidden monsters in your ~.


Ouch, I didn't notice that was missing. I would think that shouldn't be
too hard to add, though.

Konquerer tends to feel not quite as cleanly-designed as Dolphin, but I
definitely prefer Konquerer to all of the Nautilus-based ones. (The
Nautilus-based ones are usable, but at that point I'd just as soon use
the CLI for everything.)


 

 The terminal panel is a brilliant idea (never noticed
 before - maybe it's new since about 4.5ish?).


 
 Hehe, this has been around since...at least KDE 3.4 (Before 
 Dolphin was written). The shortcut is F4. :)
 


Heh, learn something new every day :)


 As of the latest version, Xfce seems to be about the only DE 
 that can
 handle my side-mounted taskbar worth a darn.


 Really?  I figured Plasma would probably be able to do a decent 
 job.  :/  I guess they still haven't gotten it into shape.  Have 
 you tried the 4.11 versions?
 


I tried Plasma 4.10 (the one that comes with Mint 15 KDE). Also tried
whatever it is that comes with the latest OpenSUSE (probably the same).
The task buttons work mostly fine, although they insist on
expanding/shrinking depending on how many windows are open. Which means
all but the first task buttons keep moving around. It's clearly a
deliberate design, but I don't like it.

However, the bigger problem is when you enlarge the side-mounted bar
enough that you can read the task labels, then some of the other
widgets on the panel grow enormous and take up a lot more vertical
real estate than they should, such as the clock (which I don't want
to get rid of or I'd never know what time it is ;) ).

And then the launcher icons (which seem to disappear after you use
them? What? A broken attempt to copy Win7's OSX-like pinning?) refuse to
sit side-by-side when the panel's side-mounted. So *each one*
takes up an entire row. And then they think "wow, I've got all this
horizontal space", so they grow bigger and take up even more vertical
real-estate. Xfce does the same by default, but as of 4.10 you can fix
it (awkwardly) by going into the panel's settings and (unintuitively)
increasing the number of *cough* "rows".

There's also a couple other things that bug me regardless of where it's
mounted:

- Plasma uses a *completely* different set of themes than kwin. AFAICT,
  you can't even make them use the same theme, you just have to find
  two that don't clash too badly. I was surprised that hasn't been
  fixed by now, but I guess it wasn't seen as an issue?

- Most of the plasma themes make the task button borders invisible
  until you hover. I'm sure that's an attempt to increase visual
  simplicity, but it just looks sloppy to me (especially when combined
  with how they auto-resize depending how many windows are open). And
  it increases the amount of visual-noise and "stuff" that happens just
  by moving the mouse pointer around (It's one of the reasons I
  dislike Win7's default configuration - just simply move the mouse and
  all sorts of shit happens and animates all around. It's all visual
  and cognitive clutter.)

I know side-mounted taskbars are kind of uncommon, and I never used to
use them (even though Windows has had very solid support for it as far
back as Win95 - and is still, unfortunately, the only DE IMO that
really gets the interface for adjusting the task panel right). But in
this age when you can't even get a monitor that isn't short-screen, I
think side-mounted taskbars are essential.

As soon as I got my laptop (the tallest screen I could find: 16:9...:/)
I compensated for the minuscule vertical space and excessive horizontal
space by moving the taskbar from the bottom to the left. Later, when I
started plugging the machine into my 4:3 external, I found that I liked
it side-mounted so much that I ended up keeping it that way even on 4:3.
Makes anything heavy on lines-of-text (web browser, word processor,
code editor, file manager) sooo much nicer.



 Mint seems to be the best Debian for a desktop


 
 I've been hearing good things about aptosid and Mepis lately, too.


Never heard of them. I'll take a look.



 Sep 19 2013



  parent  Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com>  writes:


On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 18:08:49 -0400
Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> wrote:


 On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 15:04:44 +0200
 "Wyatt" <wyatt.epp gmail.com> wrote:
 

 Also, I don't think 
 Dolphin has the file size view plugin, which is nice for finding 
 hidden monsters in your ~.


 
 Ouch, I didn't notice that was missing. I would think that shouldn't
 be too hard to add, though.
 


Nevermind, I thought you meant a column in the details view that shows
file size (which of course is there in the details view by default).



 Sep 19 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent reply Manu <turkeyman gmail.com>  writes:


On 20 September 2013 00:25, H. S. Teoh <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:


 On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 03:04:44PM +0200, Wyatt wrote:
 [...]

 Dolphin is pretty nice, though there are cases where Konqueror still
 runs circles around it. For example, if you want a horizontal split
 or more than one split.  Also, I don't think Dolphin has the file
 size view plugin, which is nice for finding hidden monsters in your
 ~.


 du ~ | sort -r -n | less


This is exactly why linux is shit.


:-)





 Sep 19 2013



  parent reply Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com>  writes:


On Fri, 20 Sep 2013 12:11:51 +1000
Manu <turkeyman gmail.com> wrote:


 On 20 September 2013 00:25, H. S. Teoh <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:
 

 On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 03:04:44PM +0200, Wyatt wrote:
 [...]

 Dolphin is pretty nice, though there are cases where Konqueror
 still runs circles around it. For example, if you want a
 horizontal split or more than one split.  Also, I don't think
 Dolphin has the file size view plugin, which is nice for finding
 hidden monsters in your ~.


 du ~ | sort -r -n | less


 
 This is exactly why linux is shit.
 
 
 :-)


It's exactly why those not fluent in Linux believe Linux is shit ;)

If all someone knows is HyperCard or AppleScript, D is going to look
like shit. "It sucks because I don't understand it, because it's not
at all like English!" When really, being so much different is part of
what *allows* it to be so much better, to surpass the limitations of
the more familiar models.

That said, there is a factor of learning curve and it is initially very
intimidating.



 Sep 19 2013



 next sibling parent  Manu <turkeyman gmail.com>  writes:


On 20 September 2013 14:23, Nick Sabalausky <
SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> wrote:


 On Fri, 20 Sep 2013 12:11:51 +1000
 Manu <turkeyman gmail.com> wrote:


 On 20 September 2013 00:25, H. S. Teoh <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:


 On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 03:04:44PM +0200, Wyatt wrote:
 [...]

 Dolphin is pretty nice, though there are cases where Konqueror
 still runs circles around it. For example, if you want a
 horizontal split or more than one split.  Also, I don't think
 Dolphin has the file size view plugin, which is nice for finding
 hidden monsters in your ~.


 du ~ | sort -r -n | less


 This is exactly why linux is shit.


 :-)


 It's exactly why those not fluent in Linux believe Linux is shit ;)

 If all someone knows is HyperCard or AppleScript, D is going to look
 like shit. "It sucks because I don't understand it, because it's not
 at all like English!" When really, being so much different is part of
 what *allows* it to be so much better, to surpass the limitations of
 the more familiar models.

 That said, there is a factor of learning curve and it is initially very
 intimidating.



When I was living in Finland, I NEVER heard a Finn go around saying
"English is shit, Finnish is way better! You just don't understand it, you
obviously need to take the time to learn it and then you'll see the
light!". Funnily enough, they all learn English. This is so they can talk
with... everybody else ;)

It might be fine for the few that know it, but the rest don't want to know
it, don't want to invest the time to learn it, and have no reason to do so.
This isn't a very good argument for why Linux is awesome, it's really just
evidence that Linux is completely inaccessible. I don't consider that a
positive attribute of basically anything.
I don't think there's any good reason for that line to make so little
sense. If the argument is that typing more characters is too hard and time
consuming, I'd then raise the question as to whether typing characters into
a shell is the best interface in the first place...?

Surely the amount of time invested into learning linux at that level, if
rather invested in working on a productive AND user-friendly solution to
your actual problem that the majority of people could also use... would
that be a better use of time? (not only for yourself, but for everyone?)

I like the idea of Linux, I'd like it to succeed, but I think the key
problem with Linux is precisely this sort of thinking.
The users/developers of Linux hold it back. I think they erroneously think
it's awesome, and INTENTIONALLY write software with interfaces like this,
thereby deliberately isolating themselves from everyone else, and then
wonder why everyone else isn't interested...

Ubuntu has done a lot to help in recent years, but whenever I use it, I
still can't get past the feeling that it's all just a facade. If any single
microscopic little thing goes wrong, then you're back at square-1.

I had a video card driver problem the other day. The bundled auto-update
app failed, and totally broke my computer.
I had to download kernel source, and run some scripts to compile some sort
of shim that made the video driver compatible with my kernel to get it
working again... absolutely astounding.



 Sep 19 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent reply "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx>  writes:


On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 04:56:29PM +1000, Manu wrote:

 On 20 September 2013 14:23, Nick Sabalausky <
 SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> wrote:
 

 On Fri, 20 Sep 2013 12:11:51 +1000
 Manu <turkeyman gmail.com> wrote:


 On 20 September 2013 00:25, H. S. Teoh <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:


 On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 03:04:44PM +0200, Wyatt wrote:
 [...]

 Dolphin is pretty nice, though there are cases where Konqueror
 still runs circles around it. For example, if you want a
 horizontal split or more than one split.  Also, I don't think
 Dolphin has the file size view plugin, which is nice for
 finding hidden monsters in your ~.


 du ~ | sort -r -n | less


 This is exactly why linux is shit.


 :-)


 It's exactly why those not fluent in Linux believe Linux is shit ;)




[...]

 I don't think there's any good reason for that line to make so little
 sense. If the argument is that typing more characters is too hard and
 time consuming, I'd then raise the question as to whether typing
 characters into a shell is the best interface in the first place...?


There is no argument here, actually. The problem is really historical --
names like 'du' or 'grep' or 'awk' meant something back in who knows
when, but they no longer mean anything to us today (well, those of us
not old enough *cough*). If I were to reinvent Unix today, I'd choose
better names for these things. But think about it, if the above line
were instead written like this:

	diskUsage $HOME | sort --reverse --numeric | pager

it would make so much more sense, wouldn't it? So the "nonsensical" part
is really just in the poor choice of naming, not an inherent weakness of
the interface.


[...]

 I had a video card driver problem the other day. The bundled auto-update
 app failed, and totally broke my computer.
 I had to download kernel source, and run some scripts to compile some sort
 of shim that made the video driver compatible with my kernel to get it
 working again... absolutely astounding.


Uh... you do realize that this is because Linux actually *lets* you fix
things? If something like this happened on Windows, the only real
solution is to nuke the system from orbit and start from ground zero
again (i.e. reinstall). One can hardly expect that repairing a broken
car engine should require no thought.

Speaking of which, I managed to totally break my computer last night /
this morning too. Well, actually, it was already broken 'cos I upgraded
udev to a version incompatible with my kernel (custom-built, so it's my
own fault :-P), but the hardy little thing just kept going. It was
causing subtle breakages like my printer mysteriously failing to work,
and when I finally figured out the problem, I downloaded a new kernel
and recompiled it. Only to forget that /vmlinuz was still pointing to
the old kernel (I didn't know this until later), so when I rebooted, it
dumped me in single-user mode with *nothing* under /dev. Since I have
/usr linked to a different mount point, and the mount failed (it
couldn't find /dev/sd*), I had only a barely working shell (nothing in
/usr/bin, etc., was accessible). No internet access either (eth0
couldn't be found -- anything requiring anything in /dev didn't work
'cos udev was dead).

Then I figured that I needed to mknod /dev/sd* so that I can mount my
main filesystem and at least begin to recover the system, but I didn't
remember what major/minor numbers to use. After poking around a bit (and
the whole point of this dreary tale is to make the point that even
during catastrophic failure, there is *still* a way to fix things... I
couldn't even begin to imagine what I'd do if Windows broke on me like
this -- since the GUI wouldn't even start, there'd be no way at all to
recover), I stumbled upon a lucky break: /proc/partitions lists
major/minor numbers and conveniently maps them to hard drive partitions.
A few mknod's later, my main FS was back up, and enough was functional
that I could actually recompile the kernel.  That turned out to be
unnecessary, though, because the mistake was in the /vmlinuz symlink,
not in the kernel itself.

Once I found that, the fix was trivial, and now I'm back in business.
:-P

The thing that a lot of people don't seem to realize is that even system
utilities and upgrade apps are written by people, and therefore prone to
stupid mistakes. Under such circumstances, what you need is the ability
to get under the hood and fix things when they go wrong... not to have
the hood welded shut and have only OS reinstallation as a recourse.
Because of that, I'd still prefer Linux with all its quirks than Windows
with all of its perfections, because on Linux I at least have a fighting
chance to fix stuff that breaks (as they inevitably will, regardless of
OS), whereas on Windows the only real recourse is the big red button.


T

-- 
My program has no bugs! Only undocumented features...



 Sep 20 2013



 next sibling parent  "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com>  writes:


On Friday, 20 September 2013 at 12:16:39 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

 There is no argument here, actually. The problem is really 
 historical -- names like 'du' or 'grep' or 'awk' meant
 something back in who knows  when, but they no longer mean
 anything to us today (well, those of us not old enough *cough*).


heh, though if you're inundated enough, these words take on a 
meaning of their own.

One time, I said "kill(1) the process" then went on to explain 
what kill is... and a person replied "you don't have to be so 
condescending, we know what kill means."

But, when writing it, I was still thinking kill is this foreign 
language and thus needed a definition for the newbies, in the 
same sense that grep would. I forgot 'kill' has a perfectly 
relevant meaning in everyday English....

Though I probably could have defended myself by retorting with 
kill -HUP. No, that doesn't terminate it, that makes it reread 
its configuration file. See, kill(1) just sends a signal. What's 
HUP mean? Hang up! It is sent when your terminal disconnects 
because that was literally hanging up the phone back in the day.

"but then why does that make it reread its config file"

lol



 	diskUsage $HOME | sort --reverse --numeric | pager


starting to look like Microsoft Powershell!

Interestingly though, powershell offers a lot of short, unix 
style aliases though. They know our habits can be hard to break.



 Uh... you do realize that this is because Linux actually *lets* 
 you fix things?


so does Windows.... it is different, things like safe mode or the 
recovery console, but you can do it if you know how.

Though Windows takes more care to avoid these mistakes in the 
first place too.



 Sep 20 2013



prev sibling  parent reply "JN" <666total wp.pl>  writes:


On Friday, 20 September 2013 at 12:16:39 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

 Uh... you do realize that this is because Linux actually *lets* 
 you fix
 things? If something like this happened on Windows, the only 
 real
 solution is to nuke the system from orbit and start from ground 
 zero
 again (i.e. reinstall). One can hardly expect that repairing a 
 broken
 car engine should require no thought.


When was the last time you used Windows? Since Vista, if a 
graphics driver crashes, I usually get a black screen for few 
seconds, then a nice window saying "The GPU driver has crashed, 
windows has restarted it". If it really breaks, it's a matter of 
going into Safe Mode and installing the driver again. But 
overall, Windows is almost uncrashable as long as you don't have 
a defective device.

On Linux? hah, bad driver will lock you out of the system, 
installations regularly break. Closing the system? Oh let me just 
flash random gibberish that looks like memory corruption, then 
some log messages where it's "FATAL ERROR" every third line. No 
thanks, I prefer my stable system.



 Sep 20 2013



 next sibling parent  "Wyatt" <wyatt.epp gmail.com>  writes:


On Friday, 20 September 2013 at 14:05:20 UTC, JN wrote:

 On Linux? hah, bad driver will lock you out of the system, 
 installations regularly break. Closing the system? Oh let me 
 just flash random gibberish that looks like memory corruption, 
 then some log messages where it's "FATAL ERROR" every third 
 line. No thanks, I prefer my stable system.


You sound like a Fedora user (in which case, you have my 
condolences).



 Sep 20 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent reply "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx>  writes:


On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 04:05:19PM +0200, JN wrote:

 On Friday, 20 September 2013 at 12:16:39 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

Uh... you do realize that this is because Linux actually *lets* you
fix things? If something like this happened on Windows, the only real
solution is to nuke the system from orbit and start from ground zero
again (i.e. reinstall). One can hardly expect that repairing a broken
car engine should require no thought.


 
 When was the last time you used Windows? Since Vista,


I haven't touched Windows since 98, so my experience is probably biased.
:)



 if a graphics driver crashes, I usually get a black screen for few
 seconds, then a nice window


Stop right there. When the graphics driver crashes, no window can be
displayed...



 saying "The GPU driver has crashed, windows has restarted it". If it
 really breaks, it's a matter of going into Safe Mode and installing
 the driver again. But overall, Windows is almost uncrashable as long
 as you don't have a defective device.


Windows is also unusable without a graphics mode to begin with.



 On Linux? hah, bad driver will lock you out of the system,


Ever heard of single-user mode? It's the same thing as "Safe Mode" (a
funny name, makes me think the system is normally unsafe), except that
it actually works when your graphics card doesn't work *at all*.
Windows' reliance on GUIs makes it almost impossible to fix when
something is wrong with the graphics adapter.



 installations regularly break. Closing the system? Oh let me just
 flash random gibberish that looks like memory corruption, then some
 log messages where it's "FATAL ERROR" every third line. No thanks, I
 prefer my stable system.


Never seen these problems before in the 15+ years I've been using Linux.
You must have been using a defective distro. ;-)

OTOH, I *rather* know about these so-called "fatal errors" (and fix
them!) than to live in utopic ignorance of the fact that something might
be wrong, all the while thinking that I'm using a "stable" system...
Maybe most people like to hide from problems and sweep them under the
carpet, but I prefer to be informed, even if it looks ugly on the
screen. But hey, each to his own.


T

-- 
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating system and
Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the world. -- Anonymous



 Sep 20 2013



  parent reply "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com>  writes:


On Friday, 20 September 2013 at 14:34:26 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

 Stop right there. When the graphics driver crashes, no window 
 can be displayed...


It restarts the driver or loads a simple, generic driver to work 
temporarily if that's impossible.


 Windows is also unusable without a graphics mode to begin with.


Not necessarily true, the newer professional/server versions can 
work without a gui or headless, and any version can run with a 
minimal graphics mode (such as with a generic VESA driver - safe 
mode) or even command line off a recovery disk.



 Sep 20 2013



  parent  "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx>  writes:


On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 04:42:11PM +0200, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:

 On Friday, 20 September 2013 at 14:34:26 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

Stop right there. When the graphics driver crashes, no window can
be displayed...


 
 It restarts the driver or loads a simple, generic driver to work
 temporarily if that's impossible.


When the mouse is also not working, it's a very very painful experience
to repair Windows... (yes, it happened to me before, which is why I have
a deep distrust of GUI-reliant OSes -- and that includes Linux distros
that require GUI apps to configure).



Windows is also unusable without a graphics mode to begin with.


 
 Not necessarily true, the newer professional/server versions can
 work without a gui or headless, and any version can run with a
 minimal graphics mode (such as with a generic VESA driver - safe
 mode)


GUIs, especially the kind that comes with Windows, are unusable when
there's a problem with the mouse, for example. When things go wrong, I
really *really* prefer a completely minimal UI, that is, text mode with
no rodent dependence. What I find troublesome with Windows is that so
many system-level operations require GUI utilities to access. So when
the GUI doesn't work for any reason (bad graphics card/driver, mouse
problems, etc.), you're basically screwed.

Or at least, that was the state of things when I left the Windows world.
Things may have changed since. :-)



 or even command line off a recovery disk.


Well, the same can be said of Linux too. :)


T

-- 
It won't be covered in the book. The source code has to be useful for
something, after all. -- Larry Wall



 Sep 20 2013



prev sibling  parent  Paulo Pinto <pjmlp progtools.org>  writes:


Am 20.09.2013 16:05, schrieb JN:

 On Friday, 20 September 2013 at 12:16:39 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

 Uh... you do realize that this is because Linux actually *lets* you fix
 things? If something like this happened on Windows, the only real
 solution is to nuke the system from orbit and start from ground zero
 again (i.e. reinstall). One can hardly expect that repairing a broken
 car engine should require no thought.


 When was the last time you used Windows? Since Vista, if a graphics
 driver crashes, I usually get a black screen for few seconds, then a
 nice window saying "The GPU driver has crashed, windows has restarted
 it". If it really breaks, it's a matter of going into Safe Mode and
 installing the driver again. But overall, Windows is almost uncrashable
 as long as you don't have a defective device.

 On Linux? hah, bad driver will lock you out of the system, installations
 regularly break. Closing the system? Oh let me just flash random
 gibberish that looks like memory corruption, then some log messages
 where it's "FATAL ERROR" every third line. No thanks, I prefer my stable
 system.


I have a better one that happened to me this year.

For religious reasons the distribution developers (Ubuntu) push an half 
done open source version of a wireless driver, that replaces the 
existing binary blob from the manufacturer.

Afterwards you loose the ability to connect to routers that only talk IPv4.

--
Paulo



 Sep 20 2013



prev sibling  parent reply Manu <turkeyman gmail.com>  writes:


On 20 September 2013 22:15, H. S. Teoh <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:


 On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 04:56:29PM +1000, Manu wrote:

 On 20 September 2013 14:23, Nick Sabalausky <
 SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> wrote:


 On Fri, 20 Sep 2013 12:11:51 +1000
 Manu <turkeyman gmail.com> wrote:


 On 20 September 2013 00:25, H. S. Teoh <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx>






 wrote:

 On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 03:04:44PM +0200, Wyatt wrote:
 [...]

 Dolphin is pretty nice, though there are cases where Konqueror
 still runs circles around it. For example, if you want a
 horizontal split or more than one split.  Also, I don't think
 Dolphin has the file size view plugin, which is nice for
 finding hidden monsters in your ~.


 du ~ | sort -r -n | less


 This is exactly why linux is shit.


 :-)


 It's exactly why those not fluent in Linux believe Linux is shit ;)




 [...]

 I don't think there's any good reason for that line to make so little
 sense. If the argument is that typing more characters is too hard and
 time consuming, I'd then raise the question as to whether typing
 characters into a shell is the best interface in the first place...?


 There is no argument here, actually. The problem is really historical --
 names like 'du' or 'grep' or 'awk' meant something back in who knows
 when, but they no longer mean anything to us today (well, those of us
 not old enough *cough*). If I were to reinvent Unix today, I'd choose
 better names for these things. But think about it, if the above line
 were instead written like this:

         diskUsage $HOME | sort --reverse --numeric | pager

 it would make so much more sense, wouldn't it? So the "nonsensical" part
 is really just in the poor choice of naming, not an inherent weakness of
 the interface.


I'd still argue that it is. It is how it is, and it's completely
prohibitive to casual or new users.
Where you attribute the cause is fairly irrelevant. I guess the 'inherent'
weakness is the natural tendency to abbreviate everything because too much
typing on the command line is not considered feasible.

[...]

 I had a video card driver problem the other day. The bundled auto-update
 app failed, and totally broke my computer.
 I had to download kernel source, and run some scripts to compile some


 sort

 of shim that made the video driver compatible with my kernel to get it
 working again... absolutely astounding.


 Uh... you do realize that this is because Linux actually *lets* you fix
 things? If something like this happened on Windows, the only real
 solution is to nuke the system from orbit and start from ground zero
 again (i.e. reinstall). One can hardly expect that repairing a broken
 car engine should require no thought.


Nothing like that has EVER happened to me in a few decades of windows.
In my experience asa linux user, these sort of problems are a daily chore.

Speaking of which, I managed to totally break my computer last night /

 this morning too.



No shit. Should I be surprised? ;)



 Well, actually, it was already broken 'cos I upgraded
 udev to a version incompatible with my kernel (custom-built, so it's my
 own fault :-P),



And it didn't pop up a dialog box saying "unable to install, incompatible
with your kernel"?



 but the hardy little thing just kept going. It was
 causing subtle breakages like my printer mysteriously failing to work,
 and when I finally figured out the problem, I downloaded a new kernel
 and recompiled it.



... speechless ;)



 Only to forget that /vmlinuz was still pointing to
 the old kernel (I didn't know this until later), so when I rebooted, it
 dumped me in single-user mode with *nothing* under /dev. Since I have
 /usr linked to a different mount point, and the mount failed (it
 couldn't find /dev/sd*), I had only a barely working shell (nothing in
 /usr/bin, etc., was accessible). No internet access either (eth0
 couldn't be found -- anything requiring anything in /dev didn't work
 'cos udev was dead).

 Then I figured that I needed to mknod /dev/sd* so that I can mount my
 main filesystem and at least begin to recover the system, but I didn't
 remember what major/minor numbers to use. After poking around a bit (and
 the whole point of this dreary tale is to make the point that even
 during catastrophic failure, there is *still* a way to fix things... I
 couldn't even begin to imagine what I'd do if Windows broke on me like
 this -- since the GUI wouldn't even start, there'd be no way at all to
 recover), I stumbled upon a lucky break: /proc/partitions lists
 major/minor numbers and conveniently maps them to hard drive partitions.
 A few mknod's later, my main FS was back up, and enough was functional
 that I could actually recompile the kernel.  That turned out to be
 unnecessary, though, because the mistake was in the /vmlinuz symlink,
 not in the kernel itself.

 Once I found that, the fix was trivial, and now I'm back in business.
 :-P


I rest my case.

The thing that a lot of people don't seem to realize is that even system

 utilities and upgrade apps are written by people, and therefore prone to
 stupid mistakes. Under such circumstances, what you need is the ability
 to get under the hood and fix things when they go wrong... not to have
 the hood welded shut and have only OS reinstallation as a recourse.
 Because of that, I'd still prefer Linux with all its quirks than Windows
 with all of its perfections, because on Linux I at least have a fighting
 chance to fix stuff that breaks (as they inevitably will, regardless of
 OS), whereas on Windows the only real recourse is the big red button.


I think the main difference is quality-assurance. Windows software is more
likely to be released only after it's reasonably proven that it works.

I might also challenge the continual assertion that Windows is completely
welded shut. The internals of windows are well understood.
It's possible for someone to be just as much of a windows nerd as a linux
nerd, it's all there if you want to dig through it. Most of the stuff under
the hood in windows is also in plain-text or registry keys, all of which
are easily accessible to anyone who knows what they're doing.
The distinction is though, that windows has successfully offered an os that
WORKS, thereby relieving end-users of that burden if they're not interested.

I'm not a mechanic, and I shouldn't have to be to drive a car.



 Sep 20 2013



 next sibling parent  "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com>  writes:


On Saturday, 21 September 2013 at 01:04:19 UTC, Manu wrote:

 I guess the 'inherent' weakness is the natural tendency
 to abbreviate everything because too much
 typing on the command line is not considered feasible.


eh that's what autocomplete is for.

But unix has a lot of silly abbreviations. Probably the most 
infamous:

to mount a drive, the command is "mount"

to unmount a drive, the command is.... "umount".



 Sep 20 2013



prev sibling  parent reply Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com>  writes:


On Sat, 21 Sep 2013 11:04:10 +1000
Manu <turkeyman gmail.com> wrote:


 On 20 September 2013 22:15, H. S. Teoh <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:

 There is no argument here, actually. The problem is really
 historical -- names like 'du' or 'grep' or 'awk' meant something
 back in who knows when, but they no longer mean anything to us
 today (well, those of us not old enough *cough*). If I were to
 reinvent Unix today, I'd choose better names for these things. But
 think about it, if the above line were instead written like this:

         diskUsage $HOME | sort --reverse --numeric | pager

 it would make so much more sense, wouldn't it? So the "nonsensical"
 part is really just in the poor choice of naming, not an inherent
 weakness of the interface.


 
 I'd still argue that it is. It is how it is, and it's completely
 prohibitive to casual or new users.


So? Does everything have to be targeted at new/casual users? Can't
experienced users have stuff that's made for them? Who ever said
command lines are still intended for everybody? Keep in mind, a
programmer is NOT a casual or new user. But in any case, please don't
mistake "Windows vs Linux" as a "one size fits all" topic, because you
seem to be steering things that way.

Rant: Seems to be a big trend in computing these days. Everything is all
about catering to Average Joe Numbskull and Little Miss Facebook, and to
hell anyone who has more advanced experience and needs where "usable
by anyone's grandmother" is the least of their concerns.

Average Joes need their tools, sure, but so do the rest of us.

You do realize that in the time you've spent taking a friendly OS
discussion and single-handedly trying[1] to turn it into yet another
ill-informed OS flamewar (congratulations, btw) you could have already
learned quite a bit about using a unix command line?

[1] Don't deny it. Your intent to bait was obvious a few posts back, but
due to your good standing here I've been giving you a chance.



 [...]

 I had a video card driver problem the other day. The bundled
 auto-update app failed, and totally broke my computer.
 I had to download kernel source, and run some scripts to compile
 some


 sort

 of shim that made the video driver compatible with my kernel to
 get it working again... absolutely astounding.


 Uh... you do realize that this is because Linux actually *lets* you
 fix things? If something like this happened on Windows, the only
 real solution is to nuke the system from orbit and start from
 ground zero again (i.e. reinstall). One can hardly expect that
 repairing a broken car engine should require no thought.


 
 Nothing like that has EVER happened to me in a few decades of windows.
 In my experience asa linux user, these sort of problems are a daily
 chore.
 


I've had stuff like that happen on Windows. Not on my own system within
the last few years, but over "a few decades"? Oh hell yea.

OTOH, I don't think I've had such trouble with Linux in at least as
long. I think 2002 was probably the last time.



 Speaking of which, I managed to totally break my computer last night /

 this morning too.


 
 
 No shit. Should I be surprised? ;)
 


[...]

 

 but the hardy little thing just kept going. It was
 causing subtle breakages like my printer mysteriously failing to
 work, and when I finally figured out the problem, I downloaded a
 new kernel and recompiled it.


 
 
 ... speechless ;)
 
 


[...]

 
 I rest my case.
 


Ok, now I know you're just trying to troll. But I've never seen you
troll before so you should know better.

He made it perfectly clear he had been messing around with his own
internals. *Plus* you know perfectly well messing around with Windows
internals can also lead to problems requiring expert-skill recovery
techniques, so really, you *know* that you know better, so cut the
shit.

Yes, Linux sucks. And guess what? So does Windows. I use both, by
choice. End of story.


 
 I think the main difference is quality-assurance. Windows software is
 more likely to be released only after it's reasonably proven that it
 works.
 


Like Debian.

And if you bring up some broken Linux distro, I'll bring up WinME, and
then we'll all have added a whole lot of usefulness to the discussion ;)



 I'm not a mechanic, and I shouldn't have to be to drive a car.
 


Strawman, in too many ways to be worth listing.



 Sep 21 2013



 next sibling parent reply Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com>  writes:


On Sat, 21 Sep 2013 05:05:41 -0400
Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> wrote:

 
 You do realize that in the time you've spent taking a friendly OS
 discussion and single-handedly trying[1] to turn it into yet another
 ill-informed OS flamewar (congratulations, btw) you could have already
 learned quite a bit about using a unix command line?
 
 [1] Don't deny it. Your intent to bait was obvious a few posts back,
 but due to your good standing here I've been giving you a chance.
 


That came out overly-harsh and not how I intended. ("Yea, no shit,
Nick") Uhh, yea...

What I mean is just, in this section of the thread, it has been
sounding as if you're simply flame-baiting or arguing for the sake of
arguing.

(And then I somehow managed to awkwardly weave that into a completely
different and not-terribly-important point about "time it takes", bleh,
whatever...)



 Sep 21 2013



 next sibling parent reply Paulo Pinto <pjmlp progtools.org>  writes:


Am 21.09.2013 12:12, schrieb Nick Sabalausky:

 On Sat, 21 Sep 2013 05:05:41 -0400
 Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> wrote:

 You do realize that in the time you've spent taking a friendly OS
 discussion and single-handedly trying[1] to turn it into yet another
 ill-informed OS flamewar (congratulations, btw) you could have already
 learned quite a bit about using a unix command line?

 [1] Don't deny it. Your intent to bait was obvious a few posts back,
 but due to your good standing here I've been giving you a chance.


 That came out overly-harsh and not how I intended. ("Yea, no shit,
 Nick") Uhh, yea...

 What I mean is just, in this section of the thread, it has been
 sounding as if you're simply flame-baiting or arguing for the sake of
 arguing.

 (And then I somehow managed to awkwardly weave that into a completely
 different and not-terribly-important point about "time it takes", bleh,
 whatever...)


Just yesterday I've watched a cool talk from Rich Hickey (clojure 
designer) about design and the time it takes to learn stuff.

http://www.infoq.com/presentations/Design-Composition-Performance

Basically, one of his messages is that nothing comes for free and 
learning requires effort.

He makes the remark that only in the software industry people seem to 
have the "learn in xxx days" mentality and suff for dummies.

--
Paulo



 Sep 21 2013



  parent  Joseph Rushton Wakeling <joseph.wakeling webdrake.net>  writes:


On 21/09/13 12:44, Paulo Pinto wrote:

 Basically, one of his messages is that nothing comes for free and learning
 requires effort.

 He makes the remark that only in the software industry people seem to have the
 "learn in xxx days" mentality and suff for dummies.


One reason I like D is because it gives you access to all the difficult 
concepts, but doesn't wrap them up in difficult or finnicky syntax.

Sometimes highly expert developers are not good at appreciating the difference.



 Sep 21 2013



prev sibling  parent  Joseph Rushton Wakeling <joseph.wakeling webdrake.net>  writes:


On 21/09/13 12:12, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 That came out overly-harsh and not how I intended. ("Yea, no shit,
 Nick") Uhh, yea...


Hah, and I just managed to write a huge long "Profundus Maximus" post in 
response to try and negotiate the peace ... :-P

http://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/warriorshtm/profundusmaximus.htm


 What I mean is just, in this section of the thread, it has been
 sounding as if you're simply flame-baiting or arguing for the sake of
 arguing.

 (And then I somehow managed to awkwardly weave that into a completely
 different and not-terribly-important point about "time it takes", bleh,
 whatever...)


Honestly, I think a bit of good-humoured trolling among friends is sometimes a 
good thing.  Keeps everyone on their toes and thinking ... :-)



 Sep 21 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent  Joseph Rushton Wakeling <joseph.wakeling webdrake.net>  writes:


On 21/09/13 11:05, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 So? Does everything have to be targeted at new/casual users? Can't
 experienced users have stuff that's made for them? Who ever said
 command lines are still intended for everybody? Keep in mind, a
 programmer is NOT a casual or new user. But in any case, please don't
 mistake "Windows vs Linux" as a "one size fits all" topic, because you
 seem to be steering things that way.


There's a difference between difficulty that is inherent, versus difficulty
that 
is unnecessary and arises out of a lack of concern for usability.

Or, in the case being discussed here, more likely it arises out of historical 
priorities that apply much less today.  I would imagine that back in the early 
days of UNIX, processing key-presses was much more expensive than it is today, 
and there was thus a strong functional benefit in minimizing the amount of 
typing.  (That still applies to an extent today if you're typing commands over
a 
slow ssh connection, for example.)

If we were designing command-line scripting from scratch, today, we'd do 
something very different and it would definitely be much more user-friendly,
and 
no one would lose from that -- both experts and novices would benefit.


 Rant: Seems to be a big trend in computing these days. Everything is all
 about catering to Average Joe Numbskull and Little Miss Facebook, and to
 hell anyone who has more advanced experience and needs where "usable
 by anyone's grandmother" is the least of their concerns.

 Average Joes need their tools, sure, but so do the rest of us.


Speaking as a hopefully non-average Joe ... making things usable by anyone's 
grandmother doesn't necessarily have to come at the cost of making things less 
good for experts.  Well-done usability design makes life easier for experts as 
well as for novices.

The problem is that because experts are as good as they are, they are much more 
capable of dealing with unnecessary complexity.  And, having mastered 
unnecessary complexity, it's then that bit more difficult to invest the time to 
learn a new, simpler way of doing things, because it means investing time to 
re-learn how to do stuff _you can already do_, and that learning curve means 
you'll go through a period of being less capable (because you're learning) than 
you are with your existing toolkit.  And then of course there's all the legacy 
stuff that does things using the old tools and which you know you'll have to 
keep using, so it's another reason to stick with what you know ... and thus 
lockin happens.

Case in point: C++ vs. D.  Is anyone here going to claim that, _as a language_, 
D is not significantly more user-friendly than C++?  Yet it's no less powerful 
-- in fact, the enhanced user-friendliness frees up experts to do more things 
better.


 You do realize that in the time you've spent taking a friendly OS
 discussion and single-handedly trying[1] to turn it into yet another
 ill-informed OS flamewar (congratulations, btw) you could have already
 learned quite a bit about using a unix command line?

 [1] Don't deny it. Your intent to bait was obvious a few posts back, but
 due to your good standing here I've been giving you a chance.


For what it's worth, I think you may have missed the humour of Manu's posts. 
Over-the-top criticism, in the right tone of voice, can be a pretty good way to 
get people who are used to a particular way of doing things to re-evaluate
their 
assumptions.  It's important to occasionally engage in mockery and caricature
of 
the things that we value, because it helps to re-engage our critical faculties 
about what is good and bad.

Specifically in this case: the user-friendliness of GNU/Linux distros has come
a 
_huge_ way in the last 10 years, but there's no reason why they shouldn't be 
every bit as surface-friendly (maybe even more so) than the popular commercial 
OS's while retaining all the power that experts need and want.  It's a terrible 
shame that more attention is not given to this surface-friendliness, and it's 
striking how resistant many old-school free software people are to 
usability-oriented improvements _that don't necessarily constrain them_.

** Example 1 **
I was a longstanding KDE user until with the 12.04 release of Ubuntu, I
switched 
over to using Unity.  I found it much more usable and effective in all sorts of 
ways, but initially I was frustrated because there were superficially less 
config options available.  It was striking how quickly I realized _I didn't
miss 
them_ and that most of that configurability I'd had with KDE was a distraction 
rather than something that assisted me.  As someone wrote round-about that
time, 
there's a tendency for customisability to be an excuse for lack of design.

** Example 2 **
The first GNU/Linux distro I ever installed on my own machine was Ubuntu 5.10, 
which I decided I should try out after seeing video of Mark Shuttleworth's talk 
at DebConf 2005.  Coming from Windows there was a fairly steep learning curve, 
but what buggered it for me was that my wireless card driver wasn't supported 
and getting it working involved a complicated procedure editing various config 
files to get the system to use a proprietary Windows driver. I just couldn't
get 
it to work.

Then, I tried OpenSUSE 10.0, which had YaST -- a GUI config tool which could 
handle all the complicated under-the-bonnet stuff I needed, it just needed to
be 
pointed to the proprietary driver and it would sort out the rest itself.

So, SUSE was what kept me using Linux, and after a period of finding all the 
ways to shoot myself in the foot (e.g. installing RPMs from 3rd-party repos and 
seeing how they'd break all my system dependencies...), and getting used to 
Linux-y ways of doing stuff rather than Windows-y, I got to the point where I 
switched back over to Ubuntu, was comfortable doing the command-line config for 
the wireless driver, and have never really looked back.

The point is, without a distro that catered to novices who had no clue how to 
use the command line, I'd have been sunk.  And as it is, I've been able to get 
to the point of becoming much more capable, thanks to there being a tool 
available that let me initially bypass the depth of complexity of the system.

** Example 3 **
... when colleagues first tried to get me to install Linux on my system, way 
back in 2001.  Much laughter in the office when I suggested that I thought 
Windows was a more effective, better-made OS.  By coincidence, the same day, we 
had a visitor coming to give a presentation which she had on a 1.44 MB floppy 
disk (I know, I know, this sounds like an archaelogical dig...).  Cue much 
amusement on my part as all the guys in the office tried to remember the 
command-line instructions to mount a floppy on Red Hat.  Today, of course, it's 
a given that if you insert a disk, your Linux distro should auto-detect and
work 
out how to mount it, but back then, this kind of usability issue wasn't really 
considered important -- even though auto-detection is just as beneficial to the 
expert as the novice.


 I had a video card driver problem the other day. The bundled
 auto-update app failed, and totally broke my computer.
 I had to download kernel source, and run some scripts to compile
 some


 sort

 of shim that made the video driver compatible with my kernel to
 get it working again... absolutely astounding.


 Uh... you do realize that this is because Linux actually *lets* you
 fix things? If something like this happened on Windows, the only
 real solution is to nuke the system from orbit and start from
 ground zero again (i.e. reinstall). One can hardly expect that
 repairing a broken car engine should require no thought.


 Nothing like that has EVER happened to me in a few decades of windows.
 In my experience asa linux user, these sort of problems are a daily
 chore.


 I've had stuff like that happen on Windows. Not on my own system within
 the last few years, but over "a few decades"? Oh hell yea.

 OTOH, I don't think I've had such trouble with Linux in at least as
 long. I think 2002 was probably the last time.


It's worth remembering that the ability to go under the bonnet and fix things, 
while in principle it's available to everyone, is not an advantage that's 
perceptible to many users.  To a great many users, _any_ breakage that can't be 
fixed through the regular OS GUI is a "take it to the experts or else just 
reinstall it" show-stopper.

So, if the _typical_ problems of your OS require under-the-bonnet maintenance, 
then this is a usability problem that it's worth trying to address.


 Speaking of which, I managed to totally break my computer last night /

 this morning too.



 No shit. Should I be surprised? ;)


 [...]

 but the hardy little thing just kept going. It was
 causing subtle breakages like my printer mysteriously failing to
 work, and when I finally figured out the problem, I downloaded a
 new kernel and recompiled it.


 ... speechless ;)


 [...]

 I rest my case.


 Ok, now I know you're just trying to troll. But I've never seen you
 troll before so you should know better.

 He made it perfectly clear he had been messing around with his own
 internals. *Plus* you know perfectly well messing around with Windows
 internals can also lead to problems requiring expert-skill recovery
 techniques, so really, you *know* that you know better, so cut the
 shit.

 Yes, Linux sucks. And guess what? So does Windows. I use both, by
 choice. End of story.


I think it's generally true that (these days) most of the under-the-bonnet 
maintenance I have to do on GNU/Linux is down to the fact that I ask more of
the 
system than I do of Windows, and I do more risky stuff that requires me to take 
on more responsibility.  (In fact, I hardly use Windows at all these days, and
I 
ask my Ubuntu setup to do all sorts of things I'd never have dreamed of doing 
back when Windows was my main OS.)

On the other hand, I think it's daft not to recognize the fact that Windows is 
in many ways better at helping the user avoid having to go beneath the surface 
to fix problems, and that surface-level friendliness makes a big difference in 
how easy it is to use in practice.  It solves _more users' problems more of the 
time_.

This ought to be somewhere GNU/Linux can clean up, because it ought to be 
possible to have that surface friendliness while also being _easier_ to go
under 
the hood.  (Though as I discovered as a novice Linux user, that ease of going 
under the hood can be also a great way to screw things up for yourself.  It's a 
bit like giving someone a handful of basic martial arts moves can be a great
way 
to get them beaten up...)


 I think the main difference is quality-assurance. Windows software is
 more likely to be released only after it's reasonably proven that it
 works.


 Like Debian.


Debian's QA is different to that of Windows.  Debian test to ensure that the 
software is bug-free -- they don't as a rule consider usability challenges to
be 
bugs, and they will sometimes favour inferior technical solutions for 
non-technical reasons (e.g. driver licensing).

I actually think that they're right to have that strong free software focus,
and 
that in the long term it also results in better software, but on a short-term 
basis it does result in more user-facing problems.

Whereas, whatever extensive criticisms one can make of Microsoft Windows, one 
thing that has to be acknowledged is that they have a very strong focus on 
minimizing user-facing problems or making it trivial to deal with them.

Bottom line: we all know that GNU/Linux is fundamentally a better OS than 
Windows.  We all know that many of the claims about user-friendliness are FUD, 
and that many of the real problems arise out of Windows lock-in in the
computing 
space (driver support being the most obvious).  But there are certain usability 
issues that are particularly damaging for non-technical users, which do arise 
much more regularly on GNU/Linux than on Windows systems, and we shouldn't deny 
this or claim that it's tolerable.  It's a fair criticism that there are not 
enough actors in the GNU/Linux world focusing on design for usability, and this 
ought to change.

Best wishes,

     -- Joe



 Sep 21 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent reply Manu <turkeyman gmail.com>  writes:


On 21 September 2013 19:05, Nick Sabalausky <
SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> wrote:


 On Sat, 21 Sep 2013 11:04:10 +1000
 Manu <turkeyman gmail.com> wrote:


 On 20 September 2013 22:15, H. S. Teoh <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:

 There is no argument here, actually. The problem is really
 historical -- names like 'du' or 'grep' or 'awk' meant something
 back in who knows when, but they no longer mean anything to us
 today (well, those of us not old enough *cough*). If I were to
 reinvent Unix today, I'd choose better names for these things. But
 think about it, if the above line were instead written like this:

         diskUsage $HOME | sort --reverse --numeric | pager

 it would make so much more sense, wouldn't it? So the "nonsensical"
 part is really just in the poor choice of naming, not an inherent
 weakness of the interface.


 I'd still argue that it is. It is how it is, and it's completely
 prohibitive to casual or new users.


 So? Does everything have to be targeted at new/casual users? Can't
 experienced users have stuff that's made for them? Who ever said
 command lines are still intended for everybody? Keep in mind, a
 programmer is NOT a casual or new user. But in any case, please don't
 mistake "Windows vs Linux" as a "one size fits all" topic, because you
 seem to be steering things that way.

 Rant: Seems to be a big trend in computing these days. Everything is all
 about catering to Average Joe Numbskull and Little Miss Facebook, and to
 hell anyone who has more advanced experience and needs where "usable
 by anyone's grandmother" is the least of their concerns.

 Average Joes need their tools, sure, but so do the rest of us.

 You do realize that in the time you've spent taking a friendly OS
 discussion and single-handedly trying[1] to turn it into yet another
 ill-informed OS flamewar (congratulations, btw) you could have already
 learned quite a bit about using a unix command line?

 [1] Don't deny it. Your intent to bait was obvious a few posts back, but
 due to your good standing here I've been giving you a chance.


;)
Sure, I do like to stir the pot to some extent, I won't deny that, but my
primary position in this thread is actually just a recount of my own
experience trying to use linux _productively_.
I just reviewed my last few posts, I don't think I was being particularly
unreasonable. I'm trying to use linux, right now, and it's frustrating. If
it just worked, I wouldn't be frustrated.

I've said about 3 times already, and I'll say again, I actually *really*
like the idea of linux, I really do wish to see it succeed. I've made deals
with myself on numerous occasions to try and force myself to adapt.
The problem is, every time I make a good solid effort, I just become
frustrated with inevitable problems, and end up wasting so much time. And
the end point, even if I were somewhat more expert at fighting the OS, is
I'm left with a suite of tools which are simply inferior and less
productive by a huge huge margin to what I'm used to. I wish this weren't
the case. (I've already acknowledged loads of cool projects that look
promising, but isn't that ALWAYS the way with linux? And I'm talking about
things that were rock solid over 10 years ago)
Philosophically, I hate windows, apple, and everything they stand for. I'd
love to be all-out linux. I'm honestly just expressing my frustration with
the offering, and that people seem to genuinely think it's okay.
I'm not flame baiting (well, maybe a little bit, just because it always
gets a good reaction), I don't think my criticisms are unrealistic. And
they're not even really baits, I'm just sharing personal experience.

I'm also not 'average-joe-numskull', at least I don't like to think I am,
but that doesn't mean I want to know how a car is built, and then in turn
how each individual part was built, and how to fix it, before I can have
confidence it will get me to Sydney in one piece.
I don't actually really care about how linux works, or any of the little
bits and pieces that form it's awkward foundation... and I shouldn't need
to in order to like the premise of an open system, and want to use it on
that merit alone.
I don't actually enjoy OPERATING a computer, I enjoy the creative process
of working, and getting work done. Solving interesting problems. If the
computer gets in my way, it has failed me at some level.
That might sound strange coming from a software engineer, but I guess
that's how I see it. I just don't have the patience to mess with my OS
anymore.
I enjoyed _operating_ my Amiga 15-20 years ago. You should have seen how
pimp my desktop was!
I don't like operating computers anymore, I like using them.

I likewise don't want to know how the video driver interacts with the
kernel, and that I'm supposed to download source code to manually build
some driver shim to correct a fault of the system auto-update tool failing
to resolve a dependency correctly.
Or my re-mapped hotkeys mysteriously reverting to their default settings
every few minutes after I map them for no apparent reason (I don't even
know where to start looking for that).
Or half the software on my PC looking ugly and broken while half of it
looks fine (I tracked this down to the theme control panel not properly
applying style settings to both gnome and Qt, it managed to leave Qt
styling in an invalid state, somehow).

I can't count the number of times that linux has crapped out by applying a
large update all at once in the last 5 years.
I think the daily linux users apply a small number of updates regularly,
and it seems to work better that way. But for someone who primarily uses
windows, when I switch to linux it wants to install a crap load of updates
all at once, and it often goes wrong.
I suspect updating versions 1 -> 2 -> 3 -> 4 is the common path, but
updating 1 -> 3 -> 4 -> 9 it not so well tested, and often fails.

You can try and dismiss this all, and go "yeah well, obviously it's hard
for people to find the time to work on this and that and make it as solid
as what a commercial company can possible achieve with loads of money, and
everyone is disconnected little groups just trying to cooperate and
communication is hard and", blah blah, but in *practise*, it doesn't make
one bit of difference to me.. it always breaks on me for one reason or
another, and wastes my time. And there are few things more frustrating to
me than having me time wasted by problems that were otherwise solved
decades ago...

In a lot of ways, in this thread I'm effectively venting frustration, sorry
if you're offended by it.
I'm still using linux, right now even, trying to overcome some issues with
my opengl rendering driver; versioning problems perhaps, wrangling
extensions, trying to understand how the drivers relate to the problems,
and where the source of various pieces of the puzzle all stem, if it's
reasonable to expect various extensions to be present in conjunction or if
I absolutely need to consider every single one of them in isolation.
Why is my opengl driver reporting version 3.3? My PC is really modern...
and my OpenGL code works on windows.
I have fuck-all tools available, it's near impossible to debug. Something
that I know would take me 5 minutes in windows with that toolset has taken
me a whole day so far...
I honestly don't understand how linux users think it's okay. That's not
inflammatory, it's legitimate amazement.
The only way I can reason that people can be happy being so unproductive,
is that they don't actually know what it's like to be really productive in
the first place. (see: my comment prior about the mouse scroll-wheel)
That might sound insulting, accusing people of being unproductive when I'm
sure they feel like they are, and I'm almost certainly wrong, sure, they're
probably just adapted to a totally different flow, but I just can't see it,
and I have no other working theories.

If I had visual studio and PIX, I would take a screen capture, clicked on
the bad pixel, it would immediately present a stack of every rendering
event contributing to that pixel, and the entire state of the rendering
hardware at every step of the way, and I'd find the problem in a couple of
minutes.
Here, I find myself writing heaps of code just to debug my code! Seriously?

</endrant>

(disclaimer: you caught me after dinner, and a few wine's down, which may
have resulted in a few extra paragraphs ;)


 [...]

 I had a video card driver problem the other day. The bundled
 auto-update app failed, and totally broke my computer.
 I had to download kernel source, and run some scripts to compile
 some


 sort

 of shim that made the video driver compatible with my kernel to
 get it working again... absolutely astounding.


 Uh... you do realize that this is because Linux actually *lets* you
 fix things? If something like this happened on Windows, the only
 real solution is to nuke the system from orbit and start from
 ground zero again (i.e. reinstall). One can hardly expect that
 repairing a broken car engine should require no thought.


 Nothing like that has EVER happened to me in a few decades of windows.
 In my experience asa linux user, these sort of problems are a daily
 chore.


 I've had stuff like that happen on Windows. Not on my own system within
 the last few years, but over "a few decades"? Oh hell yea.

 OTOH, I don't think I've had such trouble with Linux in at least as
 long. I think 2002 was probably the last time.


I have a strong suspicion that linux works better if you use it daily.
I'm starting to realise a pattern emerging that things tend to fuck up
after I perform a bulk round of updates.
This tends to happen more often as an in-frequent linux user. Every time I
boot it up, it wants to update loads of stuff.
I suspect the installation tools handle incremental updates better than
when you're skipping over a bunch of intermediate revisions... at least,
that's my current working theory.
That said, I don't think that excuses the situation. It's broken, and it
wastes my time. That's the bottom line. I don't have a PhD in linux, and
when it breaks, it's very time consuming for me to fix it.


 Speaking of which, I managed to totally break my computer last night /

 this morning too.



 No shit. Should I be surprised? ;)


 [...]

 but the hardy little thing just kept going. It was
 causing subtle breakages like my printer mysteriously failing to
 work, and when I finally figured out the problem, I downloaded a
 new kernel and recompiled it.



 ... speechless ;)


 [...]

 I rest my case.


 Ok, now I know you're just trying to troll. But I've never seen you
 troll before so you should know better.


Those 2 comments are about 30% trolling, and 70% amazement that people
think this story is actually okay.
There's also an element of sympathy, the idea that he managed to break his
computer is not foreign to me; it's expected ;) (even if he did go slightly
out of his way to do so)

I can very happily say, I have NEVER compiled a windows kernel.

Objectively though, I'd like to think that this whole scenario described
simply shouldn't have been possible under any normal usage scenario in the
first place.
There's obviously a whole bunch of fail-safe's that are totally missing for
your problem to arise in the first place.
This is possibly the core of most of my points in this thread too.

I'm going to say again, that I do understand WHY linux is how it is, I also
consider it a valiant effort/experiment.
I like it in theory, I like it in essence, but it just never manages to
deliver in practise. At some point, I have to admit that it's just
unacceptable so many years down the line.
I don't like the direction MS are taking windows at all. More than ever, I
really want to become a full-time linux user and embrace the choice that it
offers in many aspects... but first, I just want it to work!
And I shouldn't have to work to make it work.

He made it perfectly clear he had been messing around with his own

 internals. *Plus* you know perfectly well messing around with Windows
 internals can also lead to problems requiring expert-skill recovery
 techniques, so really, you *know* that you know better, so cut the
 shit.

 Yes, Linux sucks. And guess what? So does Windows. I use both, by
 choice. End of story.


This point. This is the part I object.
Again, I'm just recounting my experience/frustrations.
If i were flaming/trolling/baiting, I would be trying to say that linux is
shit, windows is awesome, you suck for liking linux, blah blah. I'm not.
Actually, I'm not happy with windows at all. But it has just one critical
advantage, it WORKS (at least, out of the box).


 I think the main difference is quality-assurance. Windows software is
 more likely to be released only after it's reasonably proven that it
 works.


 Like Debian.


I've tried to use debian, precisely for this alleged stability.
My experience was a whole bunch of software that was simply out of date.
Modern software/tools doesn't actually work against the out-dated packages.
And the result is even less features than the cutting edge releases.
I'm sure it's great if I just want to run a webserver and vi. Sadly I'm a
user-facing software developer, and that requires being on the cutting edge
of computer technology.
Basically, my experience was that if it's not in the debian package
repository, even if you do manage to get it to work, it's likely LESS
stable than on a cutting-edge distro since it's rarely tested against such
outdated libraries.
Maybe this isn't the case anymore, but it was last time I gave it a shot.

And if you bring up some broken Linux distro, I'll bring up WinME, and

 then we'll all have added a whole lot of usefulness to the discussion ;)


I don't think that's a fair comparison at all, that's like saying there was
one broken version of ubuntu 10 years ago, but it's all better now...


 I'm not a mechanic, and I shouldn't have to be to drive a car.


 Strawman, in too many ways to be worth listing.


I can't agree. I just want to do my work uninterrupted.
If my car breaks down half way to Sydney, I'd better hope to god I have
phone reception, because I'll have to start calling mechanics and service
people to get me moving again, and let's just hope I wasn't pressed to make
some sort of deadline...
That's seems like a pretty realistic analogy to me.



 Sep 21 2013



 next sibling parent reply "Peter Alexander" <peter.alexander.au gmail.com>  writes:


On Saturday, 21 September 2013 at 15:07:17 UTC, Manu wrote:

 I have fuck-all tools available, it's near impossible to debug. 
 Something
 that I know would take me 5 minutes in windows with that 
 toolset has taken
 me a whole day so far...
 I honestly don't understand how linux users think it's okay.


Well, you aren't alone. Valve recently announced that they're 
working on a Linux debugger. They wouldn't bother wasting time 
and money doing that if the debugging experience on Linux was any 
good. As far as I'm aware, they're not working on a debugger for 
Windows, and I can only assume that's because debugging on 
Windows is bearable.



 Sep 21 2013



  parent  Manu <turkeyman gmail.com>  writes:


On 22 September 2013 01:38, Peter Alexander <peter.alexander.au gmail.com>wrote:


 On Saturday, 21 September 2013 at 15:07:17 UTC, Manu wrote:


 I have fuck-all tools available, it's near impossible to debug. Something
 that I know would take me 5 minutes in windows with that toolset has taken
 me a whole day so far...
 I honestly don't understand how linux users think it's okay.


 Well, you aren't alone. Valve recently announced that they're working on a
 Linux debugger. They wouldn't bother wasting time and money doing that if
 the debugging experience on Linux was any good. As far as I'm aware,
 they're not working on a debugger for Windows, and I can only assume that's
 because debugging on Windows is bearable.


Yeah, there is discussion about this in another thread somewhere else.
I'm very much looking forward to what they bring to the table. But like I
said before, I fear they've got a LOT of catching up to do...



 Sep 21 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent  Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com>  writes:


On Sun, 22 Sep 2013 01:07:08 +1000
Manu <turkeyman gmail.com> wrote:


[...lots of stuff snipped...]


Believe it or not, my opinions on Linux, Windows and everyday usability
are actually very, very similar to yours (including the vague
impression that Linux GUIs are just facades - which they actually sort
of are just by design, but I digress).

In fact, all that stuff is why I'm still on Windows for my main system.
Luckily, things like driver issues and major failures haven't been an
issue for me on Linux for quite some time. But it's other
everyday-productivity things like finding a filemanager and taskbar
that aren't too rough-around-the-edges (because I rely on them *sooo*
heavily), Tortoise-like VCS integration (I don't understand how
people can use Git's command line for anything non-trivial), non-manual
HDD SMART monitoring like HD Sentinel, etc. Finding suitable
replacements for all these things I use every day takes some work, and
I'm still not entirely finished.

And even when I do find what seems to be the best, it isn't always as
good as Windows: For example, there is *no* taskbar on Linux I've found
that's as well-designed as the one Windows has already had for nearly
20 years. There are a bunch of OSX-dock-alikes that, I assume, might do
a good job of emulating the OSX experience (I haven't tried since I
never liked the dock). But over a decade since I first tried them, the
taskbars in KDE, XFCE, etc still don't quite match the quality of
design that MS already had in Windows 95.

That said, I do find that Xfce 4.10 is good enough to be acceptable for
me, but it still isn't up to Windows standards.

The odd thing is, I've been finding that each new version of post-XP
Windows has required more and more effort to undo all of their...what I
find to be productivity-hindering UI "enhancements". So Windows is
requiring more and more effort (for me), and simultaneously I've been
getting more and more proficient with the ever-improving Linux (due to
my server work and doing cross-platform testing), and I don't see any
signs of MS or Linux altering their current trajectories. So the
writing's on the wall, as it were, and for me Linux is becoming a
better bet for everyday productivity. (But this is all just "FWIW" side
comments, not an argument of Linux being "better".)

I think it was mainly your reaction to H. S. Teoh's story that irked
me. It's kinda like watching a mechanic rebuild the engine of some
"known to be gearhead-friendly" car just because he'd been trying to
squeeze out some extra horsepower and erroneously saying "Wow, that
must be a bad brand of car if you have to muck with the engine just to
drive it."

Also, I disagree with your implication that a command line actually
needs to be more user-friendly in more ways than just less cryptic
names. Obviously I wouldn't have a problem if the commandline actually
was more usable to everyone (naturally that'd be a good thing), but I
don't think that's a significant issue, being that it *is* the command
line after all, and non-experts would mostly just stick to GUIs anyway.


 I'm also not 'average-joe-numskull', at least I don't like to think I
 am,


As far as I'm concerned, a programmer is by definition *not* an
average-joe-numskull. If you can write one line of code, run it, and
properly understand it, you're already waaay more advanced than 90% of
computer users.


The only way I can reason that people can be happy being so
unproductive, is that they don't actually know what it's like to be
really productive in the first place. (see: my comment prior about the
mouse scroll-wheel)


I must have missed that mouse scroll-wheel comment and I can't seem to
find it. What was it again?

FWIW, And I find this somewhat ironic: I find the mouse scroll-wheel to
be FAR more usable on Linux than Windows. On linux you just point to
what you want to scroll and...scroll it. On windows you have to go out
of your way to give the desired control focus (clicking on some
innocuous part of it, tabbing to it, whatever) and only *then* will the
scrollwheel actually do its job. Then you want to scroll something
else? Repeat the process. Imagine if you had to do that to right-click!
I actually find that scrolling issue to really get in my way quite
frequently when trying to do work on Windows. :(  I was able to fix
that on XP, but not on 7.



If I had visual studio and PIX, I would take a screen capture, clicked
on the bad pixel, it would immediately present a stack of every
rendering event contributing to that pixel, and the entire state of
the rendering hardware at every step of the way, and I'd find the
problem in a couple of minutes.


Whoa, now that's pretty damn cool. I'd never heard of PIX before.


I have a strong suspicion that linux works better if you use it daily.
I'm starting to realise a pattern emerging that things tend to fuck up
after I perform a bulk round of updates.


I've learned through pain, even in Windows land (heck, so much software
is cross platform these days anyway), that software updates are
opportunities for things to go wrong (or to force ill-conceived UI
changes that hurt my productivity, but that's another matter).

Regardless of OS, I've ended up in the habit of avoiding software
updates unless I have a real reason to (which is a shame, because I
*like* security updates). *Especially* on the server: Sysadmins have a
reputation for not updating as much as the programmers would like, but
I totally understand it because I run my server the same way: If it's
already working, then updating...say...PHP, can only end up breaking
five hundred things, and then guess who has to drop everything and fix
it? ;)


 I can very happily say, I have NEVER compiled a windows kernel.


I can say the same about Linux kernels. I'm afraid to, and don't ever
want to have to, and I've really never needed to. I hear it's easy and,
honestly, I'm sure it is. But, ehh, at best it could only be a bore.


I've tried to use debian, precisely for this alleged stability.
My experience was a whole bunch of software that was simply out of
date.


Yea, that *is* the tradeoff they're famous for making. It'd be great if
they didn't have to but, meh.

That's actually the reason I've just switched to Mint for desktop
Linux. Being based on Ubuntu, it lacks Debian's "out-of-date from day
one", but it also lacks Ubuntu's FOSS religiousness and their seeming
ambivalence towards anything but Unity (An OSX-clone, in my
observation - which is great if you like OSX, but, eh).

On the server I'm still Debian though, because stability is everything
there. Heck my server is still back on Debian 6 just because I haven't
wanted to deal with the risk of breakage updating to Deb 7 (which I
*do* really need to bite the bullet and just get done, I know that).


 And if you bring up some broken Linux distro, I'll bring up WinME,
 and then we'll all have added a whole lot of usefulness to the
 discussion ;) 


I don't think that's a fair comparison at all, that's like saying
there was one broken version of ubuntu 10 years ago, but it's all
better now...


IMO, Linux in general was pretty bad 10 years ago. I gave it a genuine
try and ran away screaming...



 Sep 21 2013



prev sibling  parent reply Bruno Medeiros <brunodomedeiros+dng gmail.com>  writes:


On 21/09/2013 16:07, Manu wrote:

 I'm also not 'average-joe-numskull', at least I don't like to think I
 am, but that doesn't mean I want to know how a car is built, and then in
 turn how each individual part was built, and how to fix it, before I can
 have confidence it will get me to Sydney in one piece.
 I don't actually really care about how linux works, or any of the little
 bits and pieces that form it's awkward foundation... and I shouldn't
 need to in order to like the premise of an open system, and want to use
 it on that merit alone.
 I don't actually enjoy OPERATING a computer, I enjoy the creative
 process of working, and getting work done. Solving interesting problems.
 If the computer gets in my way, it has failed me at some level.
 That might sound strange coming from a software engineer, but I guess
 that's how I see it. I just don't have the patience to mess with my OS
 anymore.


My feelings exactly. I learned about Linux and studied it when I was in 
high-school (Windows 98/Me era), and I was quite excited about it. 
Windows was more shite those days, and I knew Linux was not for the 
average user, but I thought that once I learned it well enough (shell, 
network, configuring partitions, automounting, the X server, etc.), it 
would be worthwhile to use.
That wasn't the case unfortunately. There was always new stuff that 
would come up that you would need to learn how to configure, or need to 
thinker, or there would be shortcomings in application functionality. 
After a certain point it was just annoying. It might be "fun" for people 
who get kicks out of working the innards of a system and being closer to 
how things work, but on my computer I wanted to either have my leisure 
time, or get real work done. And spending time configuring stuff (that 
in Windows just worked out of the box) is not a productive use of one's 
time in any way, shape or form.

True, this was like 10 years ago and Linux distros got better, but so 
has Windows, and nowdays there is little motivation now for me to try a 
different OS/desktop-environment.

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - Software Engineer



 Sep 23 2013



  parent reply "Dicebot" <public dicebot.lv>  writes:


On Monday, 23 September 2013 at 11:52:28 UTC, Bruno Medeiros 
wrote:

 On 21/09/2013 16:07, Manu wrote:

 ...


 My feelings exactly. I learned about Linux and studied it when 
 I was in high-school (Windows 98/Me era), and I was quite 
 excited about it. Windows was more shite those days, and I knew 
 Linux was not for the average user, but I thought that once I 
 learned it well enough (shell, network, configuring partitions, 
 automounting, the X server, etc.), it would be worthwhile to 
 use.
 That wasn't the case unfortunately. There was always new stuff 
 that would come up that you would need to learn how to 
 configure, or need to thinker, or there would be shortcomings 
 in application functionality. After a certain point it was just 
 annoying. It might be "fun" for people who get kicks out of 
 working the innards of a system and being closer to how things 
 work, but on my computer I wanted to either have my leisure 
 time, or get real work done. And spending time configuring 
 stuff (that in Windows just worked out of the box) is not a 
 productive use of one's time in any way, shape or form.

 True, this was like 10 years ago and Linux distros got better, 
 but so has Windows, and nowdays there is little motivation now 
 for me to try a different OS/desktop-environment.


Ironically, this is exactly the reason I have never succeeded in 
using the Windows for daily work. Amount of manual configuration 
and subverting the defaults needed to make it actually usable for 
my programming flow is outstanding. In the same time on my Linux 
distro it is mostly `pacman -Sy gnome gnome-extra xorg-server 
nvidia dlang vim git` and I am ready to work on a fresh install.



 Sep 23 2013



 next sibling parent reply "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx>  writes:


On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 02:01:02PM +0200, Dicebot wrote:

 On Monday, 23 September 2013 at 11:52:28 UTC, Bruno Medeiros wrote:

On 21/09/2013 16:07, Manu wrote:

...


My feelings exactly. I learned about Linux and studied it when I
was in high-school (Windows 98/Me era), and I was quite excited
about it. Windows was more shite those days, and I knew Linux was
not for the average user, but I thought that once I learned it
well enough (shell, network, configuring partitions, automounting,
the X server, etc.), it would be worthwhile to use.
That wasn't the case unfortunately. There was always new stuff
that would come up that you would need to learn how to configure,
or need to thinker, or there would be shortcomings in application
functionality. After a certain point it was just annoying. It
might be "fun" for people who get kicks out of working the innards
of a system and being closer to how things work, but on my
computer I wanted to either have my leisure time, or get real work
done. And spending time configuring stuff (that in Windows just
worked out of the box) is not a productive use of one's time in
any way, shape or form.

True, this was like 10 years ago and Linux distros got better, but
so has Windows, and nowdays there is little motivation now for me
to try a different OS/desktop-environment.


 
 Ironically, this is exactly the reason I have never succeeded in
 using the Windows for daily work. Amount of manual configuration and
 subverting the defaults needed to make it actually usable for my
 programming flow is outstanding. In the same time on my Linux distro
 it is mostly `pacman -Sy gnome gnome-extra xorg-server nvidia dlang
 vim git` and I am ready to work on a fresh install.


Ditto.

I'm surprised at people talking about the amount of time spent
configuring stuff on Linux, etc., because it's never happened to me! I
mean, OK, in the early days you had to manually configure X11 and deal
with all of the obscure problems, but that's no longer the case today.
All I have to do is 'apt-get install <package>' and it Just Works(tm).

I do like to tweak stuff -- and this is where Windows falls flat for me,
'cos it forces you to work a certain way, and when you go outside of
that, things just stop working or it becomes an uphill battle
(disclaimer: I haven't touched Windows for over a decade, so this may no
longer be true today) -- but the default settings installed by apt-get
*do* work. So I've no idea what people are talking about when they
complain about needing to tweak this and that by hand. Linux *lets* you
tweak stuff by hand, but, at least as far as Debian is concerned, the
defaults pretty much Just Work.

The whole bit about me recompiling the kernel and stuff -- the whole
point was that I *wanted* to run a custom kernel, and Linux lets me do
that. On Windows, this isn't even an option to begin with. The stock
Debian kernel actually just works out of the box -- and had I wanted to,
I could have just used that instead and never needed to do anything
else.


T

-- 
INTEL = Only half of "intelligence".



 Sep 23 2013



 next sibling parent  Bruno Medeiros <brunodomedeiros+dng gmail.com>  writes:


On 23/09/2013 15:50, H. S. Teoh wrote:

 I'm surprised at people talking about the amount of time spent
 configuring stuff on Linux, etc., because it's never happened to me! I
 mean, OK, in the early days you had to manually configure X11 and deal
 with all of the obscure problems, but that's no longer the case today.
 All I have to do is 'apt-get install <package>' and it Just Works(tm).


Yeah, that was several years ago. Nowadays the hardware support and 
configuration seems to work straight out from the box as well.
The remaining reasons that keep me away from Linux are other now.

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - Software Engineer



 Sep 23 2013



prev sibling  parent reply Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com>  writes:


On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 07:50:43 -0700
"H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:


 On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 02:01:02PM +0200, Dicebot wrote:

 
 Ironically, this is exactly the reason I have never succeeded in
 using the Windows for daily work. Amount of manual configuration and
 subverting the defaults needed to make it actually usable for my
 programming flow is outstanding. In the same time on my Linux distro
 it is mostly `pacman -Sy gnome gnome-extra xorg-server nvidia dlang
 vim git` and I am ready to work on a fresh install.


 
 Ditto.


Similar here, at least these days. Last time I got a new system, it had
Win7 preinstalled. I'd already been using Windows as my primary
system (for ages), but it took me about *a week or two* of googling and
tweaking and third party hacks before I had finally got it to a point
that was more or less usable (but still frequently irritating and
impractical).


 
 I'm surprised at people talking about the amount of time spent
 configuring stuff on Linux, etc., because it's never happened to me! I
 mean, OK, in the early days you had to manually configure X11 and deal
 with all of the obscure problems, but that's no longer the case today.
 All I have to do is 'apt-get install <package>' and it Just Works(tm).
 


Yea, I find installing software is often (not always, but often)
*easier* on Linux these days, thanks to apt and such. It used to be a
nightmare of dependency issues in the days of dpkg/rpm[1]. But now,
most of the time it's just one trivial command. Done. Or if you prefer
GUIs, the...uhh...what's it called, Synaptec?, is just as easy, *and*
good for discoverability: It's basically a freeware app store, but
Linux had it even *before* iOS.

And when you install a GUI app it puts *one* item in the "start menu",
not "Company Name -> Program Name -> Tons of Junk including docs and an
uninstall link that's right next to the launch link"

Of course, sometimes windows is still easier, too. I get so frustrated
when I discover some Posix program through the web and it gives *no*
indication how to download or install it because they just assume
it's already in everyone's distro repos and that everyone knows what
their distro named the package, and that you're installing it *on* the
same Posix distro you're already familiar with.

For example, last night I tried to install the cmdline 7z on an OSX
machine, and after nearly an hour of completely useless *official*
webpages, and screwing around with sources, etc, I gave up.

[1] Of course I know dpkg/rpm are still there under the hood.


 I do like to tweak stuff -- and this is where Windows falls flat for
 me, 'cos it forces you to work a certain way, and when you go outside
 of that, things just stop working or it becomes an uphill battle
 (disclaimer: I haven't touched Windows for over a decade, so this may
 no longer be true today)


That's actually *more* true now than it was with XP. MS used to be
pretty big on preferences, customization, etc (maybe not *AS* much as
Linux, but still). But lately they've been very noticeably trying to
become Apple/Mozilla, complete with forcing every change on everybody
and minimizing how much they'll allow you to revert any of their
endless stream of crazy "UI flavor of the month" ideas.



 Sep 23 2013



  parent reply "Craig Dillabaugh" <cdillaba cg.scs.carleton.ca>  writes:


On Monday, 23 September 2013 at 21:21:23 UTC, Nick Sabalausky
wrote:

clip


 Yea, I find installing software is often (not always, but often)
 *easier* on Linux these days, thanks to apt and such. It used 
 to be a
 nightmare of dependency issues in the days of dpkg/rpm[1]. But 
 now,
 most of the time it's just one trivial command. Done. Or if you 
 prefer
 GUIs, the...uhh...what's it called, Synaptec?, is just as easy, 
 *and*
 good for discoverability: It's basically a freeware app store, 
 but
 Linux had it even *before* iOS.


Just a short story to reinforce the above point.  In our Grad Lab
at school the girl I sat beside was also the system admin.  One
day I was working and I needed a piece of software that wasn't
installed on my computer. So I asked her if she could install it
when she had the chance.

She said "sure" and asked me for the PC name I was working on so
I to told her, and then I said, "No great rush, but can you let
me know when you have it installed". Without a pause she just
said, "It's already installed".  I typed the command and the
program started.  Total time 6 or 7 seconds.

I was very impressed (the lab computers ran Ubuntu).

Craig



 Sep 23 2013



  parent  Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org>  writes:


On 9/23/13 5:30 PM, Craig Dillabaugh wrote:

 On Monday, 23 September 2013 at 21:21:23 UTC, Nick Sabalausky
 wrote:

 clip


 Yea, I find installing software is often (not always, but often)
 *easier* on Linux these days, thanks to apt and such. It used to be a
 nightmare of dependency issues in the days of dpkg/rpm[1]. But now,
 most of the time it's just one trivial command. Done. Or if you prefer
 GUIs, the...uhh...what's it called, Synaptec?, is just as easy, *and*
 good for discoverability: It's basically a freeware app store, but
 Linux had it even *before* iOS.


 Just a short story to reinforce the above point.  In our Grad Lab
 at school the girl I sat beside was also the system admin.  One
 day I was working and I needed a piece of software that wasn't
 installed on my computer. So I asked her if she could install it
 when she had the chance.

 She said "sure" and asked me for the PC name I was working on so
 I to told her, and then I said, "No great rush, but can you let
 me know when you have it installed". Without a pause she just
 said, "It's already installed".  I typed the command and the
 program started.  Total time 6 or 7 seconds.

 I was very impressed (the lab computers ran Ubuntu).


Marriage material! :o)

Andrei



 Sep 23 2013



prev sibling  parent reply Timon Gehr <timon.gehr gmx.ch>  writes:


On 09/23/2013 02:01 PM, Dicebot wrote:

 ...

 Ironically, this is exactly the reason I have never succeeded in using
 the Windows for daily work. Amount of manual configuration and
 subverting the defaults needed to make it actually usable for my
 programming flow is outstanding. ...


I have never figured out how to even get it into that state, but it 
might have been lack of motivation. I had to work under Windows a while 
last year. It does not work for me, no matter how loudly one might 
assert it does. Eg. the (default?) file system is a joke. It will lock 
files, not even tell you in which unimportant program it is still 
considered open, and prevent you from getting work done. The OS has to 
mandate an awkward UI that eg. randomly hides windows behind other 
windows in a way that induces hair-pulling or wastes screen space and 
power for useless colour effects on overly thick margins and "title 
bars". (Not to speak of the task bar, which eats up significant screen 
space just in order to offer a really lousy interface to everything.) 
One needs to be a master in handling of the pointing device in order not 
to accidentally miss some button at the other end of the screen (that 
should have been a named command in the first place) and wreak random 
havoc that swaps around some windows or re-configures the current GUI 
application into a state that one likes (even) less than the one before. 
Resetting this requires careful research, with multiple roundtrips to a 
search engine in order to look at awkward procedural descriptions of how 
to access the "Blah-Configuration-Whatever-Dialog" referred to in the 
last step, in the most unexpected places. (The descriptions are always 
text only and imprecise.) And those are just a few examples. A lot of 
trivial and less trivial things I attempted to do under Windows ended up 
feeling exactly that way. There's so much time wasted for random 
micro-management not at all related to the task at hand.

I'd rather deal with compatibility issues. (I rarely had to though.)

I am well aware of, and respect the fact that some need to use Windows 
because it happens to be compatible with some Software they need or want 
to rely on, but I cannot relate to any statements attributing any kind 
of positive quality to the experience offered by the OS itself.

(This is from a guy who installed his first non-Windows system three 
years ago.)



 Sep 23 2013



  parent  "Dicebot" <public dicebot.lv>  writes:


On Monday, 23 September 2013 at 23:42:39 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:

 I have never figured out how to even get it into that state, 
 but it might have been lack of motivation. I had to work under 
 Windows a while last year.


Yeah, one week I simply went into stubborn "I want to make it 
work" rampage and after finding and installing dozen of 3d-party 
tweaks/tools (like multiple desktops implementation, SFTP mount, 
file handle tracker etc) and integrating cygwin into PowerShell 
it was almost fine. I have spent a week for it and still had no 
slightest idea if all that 3d party stuff is not actually a 
malware behind the scene. Also there still does not seem to be a 
single good Jabber client for Windows (with voice&video support).

It is not surprising I have soon abandoned it :)



 Sep 24 2013



prev sibling  parent  Manu <turkeyman gmail.com>  writes:


On 21 September 2013 21:27, Joseph Rushton Wakeling <
joseph.wakeling webdrake.net> wrote:


 Specifically in this case: the user-friendliness of GNU/Linux distros has
 come a _huge_ way in the last 10 years, but there's no reason why they
 shouldn't be every bit as surface-friendly (maybe even more so) than the
 popular commercial OS's while retaining all the power that experts need and
 want.  It's a terrible shame that more attention is not given to this
 surface-friendliness, and it's striking how resistant many old-school free
 software people are to usability-oriented improvements _that don't
 necessarily constrain them_.

 ** Example 1 **
 I was a longstanding KDE user until with the 12.04 release of Ubuntu, I
 switched over to using Unity.  I found it much more usable and effective in
 all sorts of ways, but initially I was frustrated because there were
 superficially less config options available.  It was striking how quickly I
 realized _I didn't miss them_ and that most of that configurability I'd had
 with KDE was a distraction rather than something that assisted me.  As
 someone wrote round-about that time, there's a tendency for customisability
 to be an excuse for lack of design.


I really like this point. It's something I think I'll definitely keep in
mind in the future. I'm certainly guilty of this myself; "surely people
would prefer the option" when I'm writing some code.
But in reality, in almost every piece of software I use myself, even as a
'power user', I tend to use it in it's default configuration.

What this really highlights is that I'm a terrible UX coder myself :P



 Sep 21 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent  Russel Winder <russel winder.org.uk>  writes:


On Fri, 2013-09-20 at 12:11 +1000, Manu wrote:

 On 20 September 2013 00:25, H. S. Teoh <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:
=20

 On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 03:04:44PM +0200, Wyatt wrote:
 [...]

 Dolphin is pretty nice, though there are cases where Konqueror still
 runs circles around it. For example, if you want a horizontal split
 or more than one split.  Also, I don't think Dolphin has the file
 size view plugin, which is nice for finding hidden monsters in your
 ~.


 du ~ | sort -r -n | less


=20
 This is exactly why linux is shit.


s/linux/posix compliant operating system/


=20
 :-)


But remember everything you eat has almost certainly been grown using
that exact substance.

--=20
Russel.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder ekiga.n=
et
41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel winder.org.uk
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder



 Sep 20 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent reply Manu <turkeyman gmail.com>  writes:


On 20 September 2013 20:52, Russel Winder <russel winder.org.uk> wrote:


 On Fri, 2013-09-20 at 12:11 +1000, Manu wrote:

 On 20 September 2013 00:25, H. S. Teoh <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:


 On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 03:04:44PM +0200, Wyatt wrote:
 [...]

 Dolphin is pretty nice, though there are cases where Konqueror still
 runs circles around it. For example, if you want a horizontal split
 or more than one split.  Also, I don't think Dolphin has the file
 size view plugin, which is nice for finding hidden monsters in your
 ~.


 du ~ | sort -r -n | less


 This is exactly why linux is shit.


 s/linux/posix compliant operating system/


 :-)


 But remember everything you eat has almost certainly been grown using
 that exact substance.


I think you've gotta be pretty lucky these days if everything you eat is
actually grown in that substance...
Commercial agriculture isn't what it used to be...



 Sep 20 2013



  parent reply "PauloPinto" <pjmlp progtools.org>  writes:


On Friday, 20 September 2013 at 11:35:54 UTC, Manu wrote:

 On 20 September 2013 20:52, Russel Winder 
 <russel winder.org.uk> wrote:


 On Fri, 2013-09-20 at 12:11 +1000, Manu wrote:

 On 20 September 2013 00:25, H. S. Teoh 
 <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:


 On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 03:04:44PM +0200, Wyatt wrote:
 [...]

 Dolphin is pretty nice, though there are cases where 
 Konqueror still
 runs circles around it. For example, if you want a 
 horizontal split
 or more than one split.  Also, I don't think Dolphin has 
 the file
 size view plugin, which is nice for finding hidden 
 monsters in your
 ~.


 du ~ | sort -r -n | less


 This is exactly why linux is shit.


 s/linux/posix compliant operating system/


 :-)


 But remember everything you eat has almost certainly been 
 grown using
 that exact substance.


 I think you've gotta be pretty lucky these days if everything 
 you eat is
 actually grown in that substance...
 Commercial agriculture isn't what it used to be...


Here in Germany, there are always lot of discussions about the
current state of affairs.



 Sep 20 2013



  parent reply Manu <turkeyman gmail.com>  writes:


On 20 September 2013 23:47, PauloPinto <pjmlp progtools.org> wrote:


 On Friday, 20 September 2013 at 11:35:54 UTC, Manu wrote:


 On 20 September 2013 20:52, Russel Winder <russel winder.org.uk> wrote:

  On Fri, 2013-09-20 at 12:11 +1000, Manu wrote:

 On 20 September 2013 00:25, H. S. Teoh > <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx>


 wrote:

 On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 03:04:44PM +0200, Wyatt wrote:
 [...]

 Dolphin is pretty nice, though there are cases where > > >






 Konqueror still

 runs circles around it. For example, if you want a > > >






 horizontal split

 or more than one split.  Also, I don't think Dolphin has > > > the






 file

 size view plugin, which is nice for finding hidden > > > monsters






 in your

 ~.


 du ~ | sort -r -n | less


 This is exactly why linux is shit.


 s/linux/posix compliant operating system/


 :-)


 But remember everything you eat has almost certainly been grown using
 that exact substance.


 I think you've gotta be pretty lucky these days if everything you eat is
 actually grown in that substance...
 Commercial agriculture isn't what it used to be...


 Here in Germany, there are always lot of discussions about the
 current state of affairs.


I wish the rest of us could say the same.
We're a pathetic patsy nation that just does whatever the yanks tell us to.



 Sep 20 2013



  parent  "David Eagen" <davideagen mailinator.com>  writes:


On Saturday, 21 September 2013 at 01:05:02 UTC, Manu wrote:

 I wish the rest of us could say the same.
 We're a pathetic patsy nation that just does whatever the yanks 
 tell us to.


But we're suckers for Aussie and English accents. We'll be so 
distracted by how you sound that we won't pay attention to what 
you say.

Yank 1: Did he just ask us to put our military under their 
generals?
Yank 2: Did you hear they way he said "today you will serve us"? 
That was awesome! This guy's great, we should do whatever he 
wants!



 Sep 20 2013



prev sibling  parent  Danni Coy <danni.coy gmail.com>  writes:


On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Manu <turkeyman gmail.com> wrote:

 On 20 September 2013 00:25, H. S. Teoh <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:

 On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 03:04:44PM +0200, Wyatt wrote:
 [...]

 Dolphin is pretty nice, though there are cases where Konqueror still
 runs circles around it. For example, if you want a horizontal split
 or more than one split.  Also, I don't think Dolphin has the file
 size view plugin, which is nice for finding hidden monsters in your
 ~.


 du ~ | sort -r -n | less



 This is exactly why linux is shit.



 :-)




By far the best way of doing that I have found of dealing with that
problem is the program filelight. I have tried to find something as
good on windows but so far no dice.

As far as I can tell Dolphin was an attempt to take the best features
of konqueror and make them discoverable if not as flexible.



 Sep 21 2013



prev sibling  parent reply "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx>  writes:


On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 03:01:26AM +0200, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:

 On Tuesday, 17 September 2013 at 17:01:55 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

Actually, that gives me an idea. What if, instead of defaulting to
character data, the terminal input stream defaults to control
structures?


 
 hehe those who don't understand Windows are doomed to reinvent it :)
 :) :)


lol... though it makes me think of the latest C++ proposals as "those
who don't understand D are doomed to reinvent it, poorly". :-P



the length) per message, which should minimize the overhead of
defaulting to control mode instead of pure data mode.


 
 I'm actually not sure if overhead is worth worrying about. On the
 input side, it'd be slow anyway since humans only type so fast, and
 on the output side if you transfer big updates at once the few bytes
 for length and type would be quickly irrelevant anyway.
 
 Besides, we aren't on 300 baud serial lines!


Well, having 1 control byte per 127 data bytes is pretty good throughput
in my book.

And even though we aren't on 300 baud serial lines, sometimes I *do*
wanna transfer large amounts of text into a terminal as fast as I can,
for example:

	http://eusebeia.dyndns.org/bashcp

Though granted, that is so rare as to be almost not worth considering.
:-P



I'm not sure what the bash syntax is, but couldn't you just pipe
echo to, say, fd 3 (altin?)?


 
 Yes, we'd just have to change the convention. I should patch vim
 myself!
 
 It could probabaly be done with existing programs through named
 pipes too.


Hmm, good point! Though I'm not sure what will happen if you run vim on
a named pipe, and it tries to mmap it. :-P


[...]

 and it occurs to me that gnu screen is, at its core, just a terminal
 emulator. So... having a little terminal emulation library is useful
 for a bunch of things - a gnu screen replacement, a customized
 xterm, and perhaps even my own putty program for Windows. And
 embedding it in programs as a nice widget to use for some gui
 programming fun.


And having it available as a *library* makes it very powerful -- you can
use it for all sorts of things, like you said.


[...]

Haha, yeah. If I were doing it, I'd say just do .ttf output from
the get-go, render it as an image, whatever, just don't even
bother with the antiquated X11 font handling.


 
 I thought about that, but I actually *like* the plain core font
 "fixed". (rxvt's default, at least on my system) I use it in a
 number of places and think it looks pretty good.


To each his own. I can't stand the core fonts. Esp. since they don't
come in 18pt size. :-P  Which I kinda need 'cos my screen resolution is
1600x1200, and a 10-pixel-wide font is unreadably microscopic. Plus,
they don't include quite enough Unicode glyphs for my needs (actually,
do they even support unicode at all?!).



 To the extent that I have two xterm shortcuts: one uses bitstream
 vera mono and the other uses plain old fixed-14.
 
 Oh well, I'm rendering each character individually anyway, so
 switching won't be a problem.


Make it pluggable. :)



Then when it comes time to add inline images, just treat it as a
very large character with a custom bitmap font. :-P


 
 indeed. Which brings up an idea too: you could just define custom
 bitmapped glyphs... arguably at this point you might as well just
 use xlib, but hey doing a printf("\033 magic bitmap stuff") is kinda
 enticing!


I remember in the old DOS days, some games would load up custom graphics
into the video card's text font buffer, so that they can draw sprites
just by writing the corresponding characters into the video card's text
buffer.  You can get very fast drawing rates since the video card does
most of the work for you (and you only need to transfer 1 byte per 8x8
block of pixels instead of 8 bytes or more).

You can even get around the multiple-of-8 placement limitation on the
sprites by loading suitably shifted copies of it into the font buffer
(though it does take up precious character mapping space, so you can
only do that with a small number of sprites).


T

-- 
Elegant or ugly code as well as fine or rude sentences have something in
common: they don't depend on the language. -- Luca De Vitis



 Sep 18 2013



 next sibling parent reply Paulo Pinto <pjmlp progtools.org>  writes:


Am 18.09.2013 22:31, schrieb H. S. Teoh:

 On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 03:01:26AM +0200, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:

 On Tuesday, 17 September 2013 at 17:01:55 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

 Actually, that gives me an idea. What if, instead of defaulting to
 character data, the terminal input stream defaults to control
 structures?


 hehe those who don't understand Windows are doomed to reinvent it :)
 :) :)


 lol... though it makes me think of the latest C++ proposals as "those
 who don't understand D are doomed to reinvent it, poorly". :-P


Even though I bought the updated version of "The C++ Programming 
Language", I've started to get the feeling that the C++ standard might 
get into the same direction as ANSI Extended Pascal.

It gets updated, but besides a few places in the world, developers will 
eventually stop caring.

I agree with Andrei's statement at Going Native. Even if C++14 and 
eventually C++17 make developer's life easier, you still need to know
all archaic issues all the way back to C, to be able to tackle any 
issues that come up.



 I remember in the old DOS days, some games would load up custom graphics
 into the video card's text font buffer, so that they can draw sprites
 just by writing the corresponding characters into the video card's text
 buffer.  You can get very fast drawing rates since the video card does
 most of the work for you (and you only need to transfer 1 byte per 8x8
 block of pixels instead of 8 bytes or more).


In the Amiga was even better, thanks to the custom blitter chips. Just 
set up the required information and start a few DMA operations.

Nowadays, you can get a similar effect with a few shaders.

--
Paulo



 Sep 18 2013



  parent reply "growler" <growlercab gmail.com>  writes:


On Wednesday, 18 September 2013 at 20:46:00 UTC, Paulo Pinto 
wrote:

 Am 18.09.2013 22:31, schrieb H. S. Teoh:

 On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 03:01:26AM +0200, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:

 On Tuesday, 17 September 2013 at 17:01:55 UTC, H. S. Teoh 
 wrote:

 Actually, that gives me an idea. What if, instead of 
 defaulting to
 character data, the terminal input stream defaults to control
 structures?


 hehe those who don't understand Windows are doomed to 
 reinvent it :)
 :) :)


 lol... though it makes me think of the latest C++ proposals as 
 "those
 who don't understand D are doomed to reinvent it, poorly". :-P


 Even though I bought the updated version of "The C++ 
 Programming Language", I've started to get the feeling that the 
 C++ standard might get into the same direction as ANSI Extended 
 Pascal.

 It gets updated, but besides a few places in the world, 
 developers will eventually stop caring.

 I agree with Andrei's statement at Going Native. Even if C++14 
 and eventually C++17 make developer's life easier, you still 
 need to know
 all archaic issues all the way back to C, to be able to tackle 
 any issues that come up.



 I remember in the old DOS days, some games would load up 
 custom graphics
 into the video card's text font buffer, so that they can draw 
 sprites
 just by writing the corresponding characters into the video 
 card's text
 buffer.  You can get very fast drawing rates since the video 
 card does
 most of the work for you (and you only need to transfer 1 byte 
 per 8x8
 block of pixels instead of 8 bytes or more).


 In the Amiga was even better, thanks to the custom blitter 
 chips. Just set up the required information and start a few DMA 
 operations.

 Nowadays, you can get a similar effect with a few shaders.

 --
 Paulo


Did someone say Amiga? :D

The first consumer PC that had a programmable GPU...with only 3 
instructions.

WAIT, MOVE, SKIP.

WAIT (for the raster to reach a line)
MOVE (some data, 16-bits from memory)
SKIP (...can't remember exactly what this did, rarely used it. I 
think was to skip instructions in the copper list.)



 Sep 18 2013



  parent  Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com>  writes:


On 19 September 2013 00:03, growler <growlercab gmail.com> wrote:

 On Wednesday, 18 September 2013 at 20:46:00 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:

 Am 18.09.2013 22:31, schrieb H. S. Teoh:

 On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 03:01:26AM +0200, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:

 On Tuesday, 17 September 2013 at 17:01:55 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

 Actually, that gives me an idea. What if, instead of defaulting to
 character data, the terminal input stream defaults to control
 structures?



 hehe those who don't understand Windows are doomed to reinvent it :)
 :) :)



 lol... though it makes me think of the latest C++ proposals as "those
 who don't understand D are doomed to reinvent it, poorly". :-P



 Even though I bought the updated version of "The C++ Programming
 Language", I've started to get the feeling that the C++ standard might get
 into the same direction as ANSI Extended Pascal.

 It gets updated, but besides a few places in the world, developers will
 eventually stop caring.

 I agree with Andrei's statement at Going Native. Even if C++14 and
 eventually C++17 make developer's life easier, you still need to know
 all archaic issues all the way back to C, to be able to tackle any issues
 that come up.



 I remember in the old DOS days, some games would load up custom graphics
 into the video card's text font buffer, so that they can draw sprites
 just by writing the corresponding characters into the video card's text
 buffer.  You can get very fast drawing rates since the video card does
 most of the work for you (and you only need to transfer 1 byte per 8x8
 block of pixels instead of 8 bytes or more).


 In the Amiga was even better, thanks to the custom blitter chips. Just set
 up the required information and start a few DMA operations.

 Nowadays, you can get a similar effect with a few shaders.

 --
 Paulo



 Did someone say Amiga? :D

 The first consumer PC that had a programmable GPU...with only 3
 instructions.

 WAIT, MOVE, SKIP.

 WAIT (for the raster to reach a line)
 MOVE (some data, 16-bits from memory)
 SKIP (...can't remember exactly what this did, rarely used it. I think was
 to skip instructions in the copper list.)


Perhaps SKIP was used as a hack to add comments. ;-)

-- 
Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';



 Sep 18 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent reply Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com>  writes:


On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 13:31:48 -0700
"H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:

 
 I remember in the old DOS days, some games would load up custom
 graphics into the video card's text font buffer, so that they can
 draw sprites just by writing the corresponding characters into the
 video card's text buffer.  You can get very fast drawing rates since
 the video card does most of the work for you (and you only need to
 transfer 1 byte per 8x8 block of pixels instead of 8 bytes or more).
 


That's essentially the same strategy behind the graphics hardware in
most 8/16-bit consoles. Basically the ones from around SMS/NES and then
up until 3D. You can identify them from the grid-based
layouts (which were a huge improvement, for both gamers *and*
developers over the "carefully time your opcodes to adjust the
scanlines while they're being drawn" used by Atari VCS/2600 and, I'm
guessing, probably the ColecoVision and SG-1000, which is what make
them so amazingly affordable at the time).

In DOS, a lot of CGA/EGA/VGA games used a similar approach as
DOS-text-mode/NES/SMS/etc, but it had to be done in software.
Obviously in those cases it didn't reduce the amount of data sent to
the video card, but it did still reduce (significantly) the amount of
HDD and RAM required to store the levels, and it somewhat
simplified/reduced the amount of processing needed to render.

(I've done a bit of old-school homebrew, and got my real coding start
in DOS VGA gaming. Fascinating and incredibly fun stuff to develop for.
I'd love to design/build my own tile-based console someday, just for
the heck of it.)



 Sep 19 2013



 next sibling parent reply "PauloPinto" <pjmlp progtools.org>  writes:


On Thursday, 19 September 2013 at 07:24:19 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
wrote:

 On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 13:31:48 -0700
 "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:

 
 I remember in the old DOS days, some games would load up custom
 graphics into the video card's text font buffer, so that they 
 can
 draw sprites just by writing the corresponding characters into 
 the
 video card's text buffer.  You can get very fast drawing rates 
 since
 the video card does most of the work for you (and you only 
 need to
 transfer 1 byte per 8x8 block of pixels instead of 8 bytes or 
 more).
 


 That's essentially the same strategy behind the graphics 
 hardware in
 most 8/16-bit consoles. Basically the ones from around SMS/NES 
 and then
 up until 3D. You can identify them from the grid-based
 layouts (which were a huge improvement, for both gamers *and*
 developers over the "carefully time your opcodes to adjust the
 scanlines while they're being drawn" used by Atari VCS/2600 
 and, I'm
 guessing, probably the ColecoVision and SG-1000, which is what 
 make
 them so amazingly affordable at the time).

 In DOS, a lot of CGA/EGA/VGA games used a similar approach as
 DOS-text-mode/NES/SMS/etc, but it had to be done in software.
 Obviously in those cases it didn't reduce the amount of data 
 sent to
 the video card, but it did still reduce (significantly) the 
 amount of
 HDD and RAM required to store the levels, and it somewhat
 simplified/reduced the amount of processing needed to render.

 (I've done a bit of old-school homebrew, and got my real coding 
 start
 in DOS VGA gaming. Fascinating and incredibly fun stuff to 
 develop for.
 I'd love to design/build my own tile-based console someday, 
 just for
 the heck of it.)


You are not alone. These guys are still in business selling 
hardware just for that.

http://www.xgamestation.com/



 Sep 19 2013



  parent reply Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com>  writes:


On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 09:54:35 +0200
"PauloPinto" <pjmlp progtools.org> wrote:


 On Thursday, 19 September 2013 at 07:24:19 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
 wrote:

 That's essentially the same strategy behind the graphics 
 hardware in
 most 8/16-bit consoles. Basically the ones from around SMS/NES 
 and then
 up until 3D. You can identify them from the grid-based
 layouts (which were a huge improvement, for both gamers *and*
 developers over the "carefully time your opcodes to adjust the
 scanlines while they're being drawn" used by Atari VCS/2600 
 and, I'm
 guessing, probably the ColecoVision and SG-1000, which is what 
 make
 them so amazingly affordable at the time).

 In DOS, a lot of CGA/EGA/VGA games used a similar approach as
 DOS-text-mode/NES/SMS/etc, but it had to be done in software.
 Obviously in those cases it didn't reduce the amount of data 
 sent to
 the video card, but it did still reduce (significantly) the 
 amount of
 HDD and RAM required to store the levels, and it somewhat
 simplified/reduced the amount of processing needed to render.

 (I've done a bit of old-school homebrew, and got my real coding 
 start
 in DOS VGA gaming. Fascinating and incredibly fun stuff to 
 develop for.
 I'd love to design/build my own tile-based console someday, 
 just for
 the heck of it.)


 
 You are not alone. These guys are still in business selling 
 hardware just for that.
 
 http://www.xgamestation.com/


I wrote three of the demos and two of the drivers that are packaged
with the Hydra ;) Still have my prototype unit sitting on my desk here.
Unfortunately I don't have much (any) time for hardware tinkering these
days :(

Andre's old DOS-based gamedev books were key for me in going from
"BASIC-hobbyist who once tried to learn C" to finally grokking C and
doing more serious things.



 Sep 19 2013



  parent reply "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com>  writes:


On Thursday, 19 September 2013 at 11:53:50 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
wrote:

 Unfortunately I don't have much (any) time for hardware 
 tinkering these days :(


yeah... I never did real hardware - too rich for my blood - but 
I've written emulators, compilers, and assemblers for "hardware" 
I defined myself. It can be quite a blast, though it takes a 
while.... and it does kinda force you to ask: why not just do a 
library without all the weird bytesin the middle?

And practically, maybe that's right, but nothing beats the fun of 
doing it all yourself. (ditto for running on bare metal - you 
could do pretty much everything in userspace, but there's a part 
of sticking that floppy disk in and knowing it is all you.)



 Sep 19 2013



  parent reply Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com>  writes:


On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 16:58:44 +0200
"Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> wrote:


 On Thursday, 19 September 2013 at 11:53:50 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
 wrote:

 Unfortunately I don't have much (any) time for hardware 
 tinkering these days :(


 
 yeah... I never did real hardware - too rich for my blood -


It does tend to be a much more expensive hobby than software. :/


 but 
 I've written emulators, compilers, and assemblers for "hardware" 
 I defined myself. It can be quite a blast, though it takes a 
 while.... and it does kinda force you to ask: why not just do a 
 library without all the weird bytesin the middle?
 
 And practically, maybe that's right, but nothing beats the fun of 
 doing it all yourself. (ditto for running on bare metal - you 
 could do pretty much everything in userspace, but there's a part 
 of sticking that floppy disk in and knowing it is all you.)


Yea.



 Sep 19 2013



  parent  Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com>  writes:


On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 18:16:41 -0400
Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> wrote:


 On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 16:58:44 +0200
 "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> wrote:
 

 On Thursday, 19 September 2013 at 11:53:50 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
 wrote:

 Unfortunately I don't have much (any) time for hardware 
 tinkering these days :(


 
 yeah... I never did real hardware - too rich for my blood -


 
 It does tend to be a much more expensive hobby than software. :/
 


Almost anything is a more expensive hobby than software ;)



 Sep 19 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent reply Manu <turkeyman gmail.com>  writes:


On 19 September 2013 17:24, Nick Sabalausky <
SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> wrote:


 On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 13:31:48 -0700
 "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:

 I remember in the old DOS days, some games would load up custom
 graphics into the video card's text font buffer, so that they can
 draw sprites just by writing the corresponding characters into the
 video card's text buffer.  You can get very fast drawing rates since
 the video card does most of the work for you (and you only need to
 transfer 1 byte per 8x8 block of pixels instead of 8 bytes or more).


 That's essentially the same strategy behind the graphics hardware in
 most 8/16-bit consoles. Basically the ones from around SMS/NES and then
 up until 3D. You can identify them from the grid-based
 layouts (which were a huge improvement, for both gamers *and*
 developers over the "carefully time your opcodes to adjust the
 scanlines while they're being drawn" used by Atari VCS/2600 and, I'm
 guessing, probably the ColecoVision and SG-1000, which is what make
 them so amazingly affordable at the time).


Atari 2600 was the only scanline renderer I know of from that time, and it
certainly was made to be cheap!
ColecoVision and SG-x000 were not affordable by comparison to the 2600.

ColecoVision, Intellivision, Atari 5200, Atari 7800, NES, SMS (SG-1000 and
friends), Genesis, Snes, C64, etc, etc were all tile renderers, and the
first 5 items in that list didn't even have scroll-offset registers.

In DOS, a lot of CGA/EGA/VGA games used a similar approach as

 DOS-text-mode/NES/SMS/etc, but it had to be done in software.
 Obviously in those cases it didn't reduce the amount of data sent to
 the video card, but it did still reduce (significantly) the amount of
 HDD and RAM required to store the levels, and it somewhat
 simplified/reduced the amount of processing needed to render.

 (I've done a bit of old-school homebrew, and got my real coding start
 in DOS VGA gaming. Fascinating and incredibly fun stuff to develop for.
 I'd love to design/build my own tile-based console someday, just for
 the heck of it.)


Do it, it's surprisingly easy, but jolly good fun :)



 Sep 19 2013



  parent reply Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com>  writes:


On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 23:07:42 +1000
Manu <turkeyman gmail.com> wrote:


 On 19 September 2013 17:24, Nick Sabalausky <
 SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> wrote:
 

 On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 13:31:48 -0700
 "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:

 I remember in the old DOS days, some games would load up custom
 graphics into the video card's text font buffer, so that they can
 draw sprites just by writing the corresponding characters into the
 video card's text buffer.  You can get very fast drawing rates
 since the video card does most of the work for you (and you only
 need to transfer 1 byte per 8x8 block of pixels instead of 8
 bytes or more).


 That's essentially the same strategy behind the graphics hardware in
 most 8/16-bit consoles. Basically the ones from around SMS/NES and
 then up until 3D. You can identify them from the grid-based
 layouts (which were a huge improvement, for both gamers *and*
 developers over the "carefully time your opcodes to adjust the
 scanlines while they're being drawn" used by Atari VCS/2600 and, I'm
 guessing, probably the ColecoVision and SG-1000, which is what make
 them so amazingly affordable at the time).


 
 Atari 2600 was the only scanline renderer I know of from that time,
 and it certainly was made to be cheap!


It's a genuinely impressive feat of minimalistic engineering. And it
makes Pitfall all the more impressive.

Several years ago, I made a little semi-game for it. It wasn't really a
true game - there was no objective or score or game over - just a
player character, a one-screen room with wall collision[1] and two
objects that made you change color when you touched them (and then
change back upon pressing the button. Heh, yea, "the" button on the
controller ;) ).

I even designed and built a (not particularly reliable, b/c I forgot
to account for signal propagation delays) EEPROM burner, bought a
2600-cart PCB with IC socket, and ran the "game" on actual hardware :)
Cool stuff.

[1] That's another fascinating thing about the VCS/2600: Unlike
many later systems (at least to my knowledge), it had *pixel-perfect*
collision detection *in hardware*, as a trivial result of the
playfield/sprite *rendering* hardware.



 ColecoVision and SG-x000 were not affordable by comparison to the
 2600.
 
 ColecoVision, Intellivision, Atari 5200, Atari 7800, NES, SMS
 (SG-1000 and friends), Genesis, Snes, C64, etc, etc were all tile
 renderers, and the first 5 items in that list didn't even have
 scroll-offset registers.
 


Ahh, ok, I didn't know that about ColecoVision, SG-x000 or
Intellivision (or the later Ataris). I've never had much experience
with those ones  (even as just a player), so I was just guessing
based on what little I could remember of the graphics. I'm more familiar
with VCS/2600, NES, and to a lesser extent the SMS (beyond the SG-1000
era, so like Alex Kidd, Fantasy Zone, Phantasy Star, etc).

Come to think of it, I have played an SG-1000 game (involving a penguin
pushing an egg) that was very clearly tile-based. Actually looked very
CGA-like, come to think of it.



 In DOS, a lot of CGA/EGA/VGA games used a similar approach as

 DOS-text-mode/NES/SMS/etc, but it had to be done in software.
 Obviously in those cases it didn't reduce the amount of data sent to
 the video card, but it did still reduce (significantly) the amount
 of HDD and RAM required to store the levels, and it somewhat
 simplified/reduced the amount of processing needed to render.

 (I've done a bit of old-school homebrew, and got my real coding
 start in DOS VGA gaming. Fascinating and incredibly fun stuff to
 develop for. I'd love to design/build my own tile-based console
 someday, just for the heck of it.)


 
 Do it, it's surprisingly easy, but jolly good fun :)
 


Yea, it really is surprisingly easy, and I definitely want to. If you
understand low-level bit-manipulation, then you really understand the
core of that you need to know. The rest is pretty easy to pick up if
you already have that basic knowledge, since that's all digital
hardware really is - bit manipulation and logic gates.

You just have to remember to take into account:

1. Signal propagation delay (Probably the main reason my EEPROM burner
failed about 67% of its full image transfers - there were brief
intermittent bit flips, like 0->1->0, when the logic was *supposed* to
keep an output bit the same)

and 2. Remember to stick a capacitor across the GND and +5v (or
whatever voltage) pins of each IC (Which *improved* my burner's success
rate *up to* 33% of full images written versus a paltry 33% of *bytes*
written ;))



 Sep 19 2013



 next sibling parent reply "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com>  writes:


.... even more off topic lol

On Friday, 20 September 2013 at 01:02:59 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
wrote:

 Phantasy Star


man, great series there. 1,2, and 3 were kinda slow moving.... I 
think I had to grind over to like level 8 before I dared venture 
more than ten steps away from the town in phantasy star 1!

PS4 is one of the best games ever made though. It's like they 
looked at the best parts of all three, put them together, then 
saw the glaring flaw: you walked too bloody slowly - and fixed it!

Great game, it's the reason I had to have a Genesis.



 Sep 19 2013



 next sibling parent  Manu <turkeyman gmail.com>  writes:


On 20 September 2013 11:40, Adam D. Ruppe <destructionator gmail.com> wrote:


 .... even more off topic lol

 On Friday, 20 September 2013 at 01:02:59 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:


 Phantasy Star


 man, great series there. 1,2, and 3 were kinda slow moving.... I think I
 had to grind over to like level 8 before I dared venture more than ten
 steps away from the town in phantasy star 1!

 PS4 is one of the best games ever made though. It's like they looked at
 the best parts of all three, put them together, then saw the glaring flaw:
 you walked too bloody slowly - and fixed it!

 Great game, it's the reason I had to have a Genesis.


+1 ;)



 Sep 19 2013



prev sibling  parent reply Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com>  writes:


On Fri, 20 Sep 2013 03:40:09 +0200
"Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> wrote:


 .... even more off topic lol
 


I love offtopic. they're always the most interesting! (Maybe I'm just
burning out on code... :/ )



 On Friday, 20 September 2013 at 01:02:59 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
 wrote:

 Phantasy Star


 
 man, great series there. 1,2, and 3 were kinda slow moving.... I 
 think I had to grind over to like level 8 before I dared venture 
 more than ten steps away from the town in phantasy star 1!
 
 PS4 is one of the best games ever made though. It's like they 
 looked at the best parts of all three, put them together, then 
 saw the glaring flaw: you walked too bloody slowly - and fixed it!
 
 Great game, it's the reason I had to have a Genesis.


I've mainly just played the first one. I figured "Nick, just tackle one
at a time or else you *know* you'll never get anywhere in *any* of
them."

I got a good way into the first (before I got distracted and stopped),
and I find it very impressive considering it's on a system that competed
with the NES.

Very good game overall. (As long as you have some graph paper
and a pencil handy ;) ). And I really like what I've seen of 2, 3
and 4 so far. Definitely want to get around to them.

I could never really get into Phantasy Star Online though. Maybe it
was the lack of tiles. Tiles excite me :)



 Sep 19 2013



  parent reply "Wyatt" <wyatt.epp gmail.com>  writes:


On Friday, 20 September 2013 at 03:47:57 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
wrote:

 I got a good way into the first (before I got distracted and 
 stopped),
 and I find it very impressive considering it's on a system that 
 competed
 with the NES.


That's some classic 6502 vs. Z80 right there.  Master System 
especially set itself apart by having way more memory and better 
video hardware.  In general, Nintendo won by simply having better 
games (also, I prefer 2A03 sound to SN76489, though the YM2413 on 
the Mark III smokes both of them on the games that actually use 
it).

But the real kicker with Phantasy Star in particular, is it came 
out three days _before_ Final Fantasy, yet if you compare them 
side-by-side it's not even a fair contest.

-Wyatt



 Sep 20 2013



 next sibling parent reply "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com>  writes:


On Friday, 20 September 2013 at 14:07:36 UTC, Wyatt wrote:

 Final Fantasy


oh god, great game. I *still* play FF1 on the NES somewhat 
regularly - the classes and flexibility in the order that you do 
the fiends gives it a surprising amount of replay value. (well I 
was playing Phantasy Star IV a few weeks ago too; one of the 
reasons I haven't played many new games this century is that they 
had already achieved gaming perfection in the 90's and I'd just 
prefer to replay them!)

Anywho, FF1, the graphics are beautiful and the music, needless 
to say, legendary. It really amazes me how much magic they did 
with a random noise channel and three beeps.

Fantastic game, and probably THE reason I really got into playing 
in the first place.... and wanting to clone it is the main reason 
I got into programming.



 Sep 20 2013



 next sibling parent reply "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx>  writes:


On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 04:24:21PM +0200, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
[...]

 one of the reasons I haven't played many new games this century is
 that they had already achieved gaming perfection in the 90's and I'd
 just prefer to replay them!)


I dunno, I find that my good memories of those old games are quite
tainted by nostalgia. I remember firing up dosbox recently and playing
through some of my old favorite games, and discovering to my chagrin
that they are actually *not* as fun as I remember them, and they had
many annoyances that have been eliminated in modern games. Of course,
they weren't *that* bad -- I still had fun playing them -- but the
playing experience doesn't quite measure up to what my memory tells me.
Which makes me wonder if perhaps *all* my good memories of the good ole
days are fabricated by nostalgia, and not by real gaming perfection.

Of course, it's also true that many modern-day games are rather weak on
the gameplay side in spite of the heavy eye-candy and multimedia sfx. I
find that my favorite modern-day games are either very thought-heavy
puzzles, or remakes of old school games that retain the good parts of
the old game mechanics while improving on the annoyances that used to
plague those old games. A good example of the latter is the Gurk series.
While not perfect, it's also a joy to boil the gameplay down to the bare
essentials so that you're focusing on actually *playing*, rather than
drowning in a multipedia theatre of snazzy 3D effects and surround sound
and doing more movie-watching than actually playing. But of course, Gurk
is pretty nostalgic too, so maybe my perceptions are also being colored
by that. Hmm. :-/



 Anywho, FF1, the graphics are beautiful and the music, needless to
 say, legendary. It really amazes me how much magic they did with a
 random noise channel and three beeps.


[...]

The most creative source of sound that I remember, was an Apple II game
that deliberately used the floppy drive to make a grinding sound (IIRC
during takeoff in a flight sim type game).


T

-- 
Shin: (n.) A device for finding furniture in the dark.



 Sep 20 2013



  parent reply "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com>  writes:


On Friday, 20 September 2013 at 19:17:45 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

 I dunno, I find that my good memories of those old games are 
 quite tainted by nostalgia.


True in some cases, but in others I find myself able to 
appreciate them even more now. But I avoid the taint by playing 
them again every few years :)


 many annoyances that have been eliminated in modern games.


Oh, modern games have their own annoyances. For example, the NES 
would flash or glitch. The playstation three freezes up and 
disconnects its own CPU with its excessive heat.

I'll take the NES though, at least it didn't have such 
ridiculously long load and boot times!


Gameplay wise.... eh, the new games I like tend to be similar to 
the old games.



 The most creative source of sound that I remember, was an Apple 
 II game that deliberately used the floppy drive to make a 
 grinding sound (IIRC during takeoff in a flight sim type game).



There's a youtube channel devoted to stuff like that: this guy 
uses old computers grinding floppy drives to create all kinds of 
symphonies. Pretty cool... but I prefer the beeps!

BTW another nice thing about beep tracks and other stuff is you 
can hack on them. This is why I live MIDI so much (and why linux 
pisses me off so much with its absolutely crappy support for it) 
- you can tweak all kinds of parameters as it plays, modify 
files, silence tracks, all kinds of cool things that aren't 
practical with digital audio.

They also loop so well, I can set a video game song playing for 
30 minutes straight as real life background music and not get 
annoyed with it. Sometimes that works with mp3s too, but the 
video game ones are specifically made for infinite looping so 
there's no discontinuity as it goes around again.



 Sep 20 2013



  parent  Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com>  writes:


On Sat, 21 Sep 2013 03:29:59 +0200
"Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> wrote:


 On Friday, 20 September 2013 at 19:17:45 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

 I dunno, I find that my good memories of those old games are 
 quite tainted by nostalgia.


 
 True in some cases, but in others I find myself able to 
 appreciate them even more now. But I avoid the taint by playing 
 them again every few years :)
 


I agree. I don't really get when people say that older games are just
nostalgia. I mean, I'm sure it is for some people, but I genuinely do
like a lot of those other games even when I actually go back and replay
them (not *all* of course).

Yea, there are occasionally areas where those older games are rough
around the edges by today's standards. Ex: The mouse handling in
Lemmings 3 is really awkward, and save systems weren't always good in
the rare cases they existed at all. But most of these issues are either:

A. Obviated by save states

or B. Easier to put up with than extremely *inane* non-skippable
cutscenes (*cough*Assassin's Creed, Shift 2, and the original
non-blood-dragon FarCry 3*cough*), endless company logos, patronizing
tutorials, endless chatter, inability to use keyboard/mouse for FPSes
on systems with *actual USB ports* (ie every console FPS except CS:GO),
bad framerates *despite* being on hardware several orders of magnitude
more powerful (16-bit systems ran at 30 fps, there's *no* excuse for
bad framerates anymore - I'm looking at you Sonic. If you're having
framerate difficulties then quit being such graphics whores and tone
down all the effects and poly counts for godssakes, you're not
targeting 1991 hardware, you can make things run at least *that* well),
and all the other shit from so many modern games.

But back to the topic: I admit there are a few "retro" games I've
played and enjoyed SOOOO much over the years that I've started to just 
get tired of (like the NES Marios), but more often than not my reaction
isn't disappointment of "Ehh, I remember it being better" but
frequently one of these:

A. It's been too long since I've played this. It's really nice to get
back to games where you have to actually *think* and/or *try*. Man I
like this game.

B. Hmmm, I wasn't into this at the time, but all of a sudden it all
just "clicks" and I "get it" now. Sweet!

C. I never played/heard of this at the time, and that's a shame because
this is fantastic! (Ex: I'm currently going through a fan translation
of Monster World 4 on Genesis.)

Of course there *are* plenty of duds on those old systems, but that's
true of modern systems, too: Last Of Us[1], anyone? No thanks. God no.

However, all that said, there *is* a lot of modern stuff I like, too.
Just *some* of them off the top of my head:

- Rayman Origins/Legends
- Splinter Cell 1-3 (4's not terrible either, haven't played 5 or 6)
- 3D Dot Game Heroes
- Forza/Gran Turismo/Need for Speed: Shift 1
- Sonic Racing Transformed
- Sonic 4/Generations
- Limbo
- Hatsune Miku: Project Diva F
- BioShock (once you get past the completely worthless first ~20-30min)
- Portal 1 and 2
- Disgaea
- From Dust
- Kirby's Epic Yarn
- New Mario
- Kororinpa
- Pikmin
- Wii Sports Resort (believe it or not)
- Angry Birds in Space (believe it or not)
- Adventures of Big and Tiny (or something like that)
- Braid

So I'm not really a "new games" hater so much as an "idiotic bullcrap"
hater. There *are* good games being made; it's just there are also some
very irritating trends: For example, a *lot* of the modern AAA games
that are actually good, are complete and total shit for the first 30-60
minutes - *then* they become worthwhile. It's as if they're *trying* to
make their games leave a bad first impression.

Wanna see a *good* first impression? Play "Castlevania: Symphony of the
Night". But a lot of AAA devs take what leads to good first impressions
and do exactly the opposite. (BTW: No personal offense intended, Manu.
I don't know how long you've been there, but I actually love the first
two Max Paynes. I honestly do.)

[1] Last Of Us <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTsBn36yPrg> Ie "Lets
make a game about wandering from one empty, pointless room to the next,
to the next, to the next, while seeing how much inane whining you can
tolerate from the NPCs, and after every so many rooms of non-gameplay
force people to watch parts of a generic zombie movie with the only
distinction being a protagonist who's a grown male drama queeen ('What,
she's infected and lied to us?! Whine whine whine, bitch bitch bitch.')
and then watch the whole industry to praise it as an alleged
breakthrough in cinematic gaming" What horseshit. And yes, I've played
it, as well as Assassin's Creed 2 which isn't any better.

Last Of Us isn't even good as a zombie *movie*. It's more like "If JJ
Abrams made a zombie movie". Want a good zombie movie? Try Zombieland
or Sean of the Dead.

<pet peeve>Zombies are supernaturally reanimated corpses, not viral
infections. Supernatural: Cool. Virus: Boring.</pet peeve>


 many annoyances that have been eliminated in modern games.


 
 Oh, modern games have their own annoyances. For example, the NES 
 would flash or glitch. The playstation three freezes up and 
 disconnects its own CPU with its excessive heat.
 


So *that's* why it crashes more than any other console I've owned!
(Although I think another reason for that is that Crackle apparently
can't handle the clock being pushed a year ahead to kill Sony's
bullshit forced-telemarketing-to-paying-customers. Not that Crackle is
really worth using...)



 I'll take the NES though, at least it didn't have such 
 ridiculously long load and boot times!
 


I *LOVE* that about the NES. Here's what an NES game is like:

- Purchase game
- Open shrinkwrap
- Insert cart
- Push power
- (3rd party only) Wait <= 5 sec for copyright/legal screen(s)
- Wait <= 1 sec for title screen
- Press Start
- (Sometimes) Select save slot, player name
- Now playing game!!

This is what a typical AAA PS3 game is like:

- Push power
- Wait for health and safety warning to appear
- Wait for warning to go away
- Wait for system menu to appear
- Purchase game (I'll count this as one step. I think that's fair.)
- Download game
- Install game (Downloading *isn't* installing? On a *console*?)
- Wait for system menu to load list of games...one...by...one...
- Start game
- Download game update because Sony's infrastructure is too fucking
  stupid to send you the latest version in the first place.
- Wait for PS Eye/Motion health & safety warning even though nobody
  owns a PS Eye/Motion.
- Wait for first company logo to finish animating.
- Wait for second company logo to finish animating.
- Wait for third company logo to finish animating.
- ...etc...
- Wait for it to connect to network even though you're already logged
  into PSN and don't intend to play multiplayer.
- Wait for it to explain "Auto Saving" and show you what a "Saving"
  logo looks like
- Wait for it to load the title screen
- Wait for the title screen to animate in
(Are you *still* interested in playing at this point?)
- Press start
- A loading screen just to load the main menu
- Select an option
- Wait for the screen transition animation that some artist decided was
  necessary
- Select another option
...etc...
- Wait for game to load
- Surprise, it's a cutscene and you can't skip it.
- Wait for game to load for real
- Another cutscene
- Hope to heck *this* loading screen is for the first level
- The first level is a tutorial. After several lines of completely
  unnecessary dialog, some Sergeant is telling me how to push buttons.
  I can't kill him no matter how much I want to because the last three
  times I tried the tutorial restarted from the beginning (*cough*Call
  of Duty 4*cough*).
- Spend at least several minutes playing "Simon Says" with Mr.
  Chatterbox "Can't Get To The Freaking Point" Windbag. (*cough*Much,
  much more than just Call of Duty*cough*)
- Loading cutscene.
- Go to the kitchen and make a sandwich while more windbags ramble on
  about whiny bullshit I don't care about. Occasionally peek my head in
  to see if they're almost done. Ignore the controller rumbling itself
  off the edge of the table.
- More loading
- Bring my snack back to the living room
- First level starts, but by now I'm more interested in my food
- Finish eating, take control of the now-waiting player character
- Walk around a stage that doesn't have much of any gameplay, but maybe
  has some barely-interactive scripted sequences (with more
  blathering), or more interspersed cutscenes.
- Wait for next level to load
- It's now about 30-60 minutes from the first company logo (not from
  power on) and I finally get to start playing the *real* game. Or
  not...my laundry's probably done...

The bizarre thing is, I swear to god I'm *not* exaggerating any of
that. And that means somebody, somewhere, actually thought all that
bullshit was acceptable for the price of console + game. Yea, obviously
some of it is to be expected (downloading, various purchasing steps,
multi-tiered menu system), but most of it's just badly designed, badly
engineered bullshit.

I've played PUO-heavy DVDs that have far less bullcrap than that.


 
 Gameplay wise.... eh, the new games I like tend to be similar to 
 the old games.
 


Heh, that's often (though not always) my experience, too.


 
 They also loop so well, I can set a video game song playing for 
 30 minutes straight as real life background music and not get 
 annoyed with it.


Well, that depends on the song ;)

I can understand why parents got annoyed at us playing those games too
long, relegated them to the basement, etc... <g>

Journey to Silius had good music. And of course MegaMan and Sonic.


 Sometimes that works with mp3s too, but the 
 video game ones are specifically made for infinite looping so 
 there's no discontinuity as it goes around again.


Yea, that is true.



 Sep 21 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent  Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com>  writes:


On Fri, 20 Sep 2013 16:24:21 +0200
"Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> wrote:

 
 one of the 
 reasons I haven't played many new games this century is that they 
 had already achieved gaming perfection in the 90's and I'd just 
 prefer to replay them!)
 


Two words:
Rayman Legends



 Sep 20 2013



prev sibling  parent reply "Brian Schott" <briancschott gmail.com>  writes:


On Friday, 20 September 2013 at 14:24:22 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:

 Anywho, FF1, the graphics are beautiful and the music, needless 
 to say, legendary. It really amazes me how much magic they did 
 with a random noise channel and three beeps.


I hope you've heard of OCRemix.org. Tons of remixes of classic 
video game music.

I'm a big fan of Final Fantasy 6, and their new album "Balance 
and Ruin" is incredible.



 Sep 20 2013



 next sibling parent  "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com>  writes:


On Friday, 20 September 2013 at 22:41:41 UTC, Brian Schott wrote:

 I hope you've heard of OCRemix.org. Tons of remixes of classic 
 video game music.


Aye. I also have all kinds of .nsf, etc., and mp3s of many game 
songs. And back in the day, vgmusic.com was the best site ever: 
midis galore!


 I'm a big fan of Final Fantasy 6, and their new album "Balance 
 and Ruin" is incredible.


oooh! I haven't seen that yet. I have a lot of ff6 songs, the 
entire set from the game itself (brilliant, I love the 
originals), a few fan remixes, and some live performances by 
Uematsu's band, The Black Mages. So much awesomeness. If you 
haven't heard them, search on the youtube and prepare to love it.



 Sep 20 2013



prev sibling  parent reply Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com>  writes:


On Sat, 21 Sep 2013 00:41:39 +0200
"Brian Schott" <briancschott gmail.com> wrote:

 
 I hope you've heard of OCRemix.org. Tons of remixes of classic 
 video game music.
 


Yes. There's a lot of junk (lots and lots of amateur "techno" remixes),
but some real gems, too.

DJ Pretzel is fantastic.



 Sep 21 2013



  parent  Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com>  writes:


On Sat, 21 Sep 2013 04:21:24 -0400
Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> wrote:


 On Sat, 21 Sep 2013 00:41:39 +0200
 "Brian Schott" <briancschott gmail.com> wrote:

 
 I hope you've heard of OCRemix.org. Tons of remixes of classic 
 video game music.
 


 
 Yes. There's a lot of junk (lots and lots of amateur "techno"
 remixes), but some real gems, too.
 
 DJ Pretzel is fantastic.
 


Ehh, to clarify: OCRemix is awesome :)



 Sep 21 2013



prev sibling  parent  Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com>  writes:


On Fri, 20 Sep 2013 16:07:35 +0200
"Wyatt" <wyatt.epp gmail.com> wrote:


 On Friday, 20 September 2013 at 03:47:57 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
 wrote:

 I got a good way into the first (before I got distracted and 
 stopped),
 and I find it very impressive considering it's on a system that 
 competed
 with the NES.


 That's some classic 6502 vs. Z80 right there.  Master System 
 especially set itself apart by having way more memory and better 
 video hardware.  In general, Nintendo won by simply having better 
 games (also, I prefer 2A03 sound to SN76489, though the YM2413 on 
 the Mark III smokes both of them on the games that actually use 
 it).
 


Plus better marketing. The only time I'd ever heard of SMS (or
SG-x0000 for that matter) was from a friend who had it *after* the
Genesis/MegaDrive was already out. But NES was all over TV and
such.


 But the real kicker with Phantasy Star in particular, is it came 
 out three days _before_ Final Fantasy, yet if you compare them 
 side-by-side it's not even a fair contest.
 


Yea. (At least in a technical sense, I haven't played FF1 for more than
a few minutes.) FF1 looks only a little more advanced than an Apple 2
game, but PS1 looks much closer the TG-16/PC-Engine that came way later.
And the 3D dungeons? There's Genesis games that had that and still
didn't look as good, and NES has *nothing* like it IIRC unless you
count Shadowgate, which was a completely different approach anyway
(albeit fantastic).

I didn't know PS1's/FF1's releases were three days apart though, or that
PS was first. That's interesting.

Although, I wasn't really into RPGs at the time, but I've heard
that Dragon Quest was the *major* RPG series at the time, not Final
Fantasy. From what little I've seen of both, that sounds about right.
But even still, Dragon Quest still seems almost Apple 2 in comparison
to Phantasy Star.



 Sep 20 2013



prev sibling  parent reply Manu <turkeyman gmail.com>  writes:


On 20 September 2013 11:02, Nick Sabalausky <
SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> wrote:


 On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 23:07:42 +1000
 Manu <turkeyman gmail.com> wrote:


 On 19 September 2013 17:24, Nick Sabalausky <
 SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> wrote:


 On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 13:31:48 -0700
 "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:

 I remember in the old DOS days, some games would load up custom
 graphics into the video card's text font buffer, so that they can
 draw sprites just by writing the corresponding characters into the
 video card's text buffer.  You can get very fast drawing rates
 since the video card does most of the work for you (and you only
 need to transfer 1 byte per 8x8 block of pixels instead of 8
 bytes or more).


 That's essentially the same strategy behind the graphics hardware in
 most 8/16-bit consoles. Basically the ones from around SMS/NES and
 then up until 3D. You can identify them from the grid-based
 layouts (which were a huge improvement, for both gamers *and*
 developers over the "carefully time your opcodes to adjust the
 scanlines while they're being drawn" used by Atari VCS/2600 and, I'm
 guessing, probably the ColecoVision and SG-1000, which is what make
 them so amazingly affordable at the time).


 Atari 2600 was the only scanline renderer I know of from that time,
 and it certainly was made to be cheap!


 It's a genuinely impressive feat of minimalistic engineering. And it
 makes Pitfall all the more impressive.


That it was. I'm still amazed someone actually thought it was a viable
games platform, and even more amazed that so many developers made games for
it!
Fancy only having a couple of hundred cycles in the vblank, and just a
couple more cycles each hblank to perform 'game logic' ;)

Several years ago, I made a little semi-game for it. It wasn't really a

 true game - there was no objective or score or game over - just a
 player character, a one-screen room with wall collision[1] and two
 objects that made you change color when you touched them (and then
 change back upon pressing the button. Heh, yea, "the" button on the
 controller ;) ).

 I even designed and built a (not particularly reliable, b/c I forgot
 to account for signal propagation delays) EEPROM burner, bought a
 2600-cart PCB with IC socket, and ran the "game" on actual hardware :)
 Cool stuff.

 [1] That's another fascinating thing about the VCS/2600: Unlike
 many later systems (at least to my knowledge), it had *pixel-perfect*
 collision detection *in hardware*, as a trivial result of the
 playfield/sprite *rendering* hardware.


Nearly all systems from that era had pixel-perfect collision handled by the
rendering hardware in more or less the same way.
Anything with separates fields (tilemap vs sprites, sprite vs sprite) could
easily latch a bit when an intersection occurred.


 ColecoVision and SG-x000 were not affordable by comparison to the

 2600.

 ColecoVision, Intellivision, Atari 5200, Atari 7800, NES, SMS
 (SG-1000 and friends), Genesis, Snes, C64, etc, etc were all tile
 renderers, and the first 5 items in that list didn't even have
 scroll-offset registers.


 Ahh, ok, I didn't know that about ColecoVision, SG-x000 or
 Intellivision (or the later Ataris). I've never had much experience
 with those ones  (even as just a player), so I was just guessing
 based on what little I could remember of the graphics. I'm more familiar
 with VCS/2600, NES, and to a lesser extent the SMS (beyond the SG-1000
 era, so like Alex Kidd, Fantasy Zone, Phantasy Star, etc).

 Come to think of it, I have played an SG-1000 game (involving a penguin
 pushing an egg) that was very clearly tile-based. Actually looked very
 CGA-like, come to think of it.


The SMS was an awesome little piece of hardware... perhaps my favourite
vintage platform :)
The took the popular TMS9918 video chip (used in colecovision, sg-1000,
msx, and a bunch others), and with just a couple of minor tweaks made the
system WAY better than any of the others listed.
All they did was added a few bytes for a user-specified clut (rather than a
hard-coded colour table), made use of an unused bit in the tile gfx table
to select between a second clut (doubling the number of available colours),
and added a horizontal+vertical scroll register for the tilemap.
The difference this made in practise was huge, and it's barely any more
gates in the chip. I always wondered why TMS stopped so short of the mark...
I suppose adding a user-defined clut is more than 16 bytes though. Fixed
clut will just switch between some hard-wired resister circuits, a
user-clut requires some more video output circuitry, but resisters are
cheap... even back then.


 In DOS, a lot of CGA/EGA/VGA games used a similar approach as

 DOS-text-mode/NES/SMS/etc, but it had to be done in software.
 Obviously in those cases it didn't reduce the amount of data sent to
 the video card, but it did still reduce (significantly) the amount
 of HDD and RAM required to store the levels, and it somewhat
 simplified/reduced the amount of processing needed to render.

 (I've done a bit of old-school homebrew, and got my real coding
 start in DOS VGA gaming. Fascinating and incredibly fun stuff to
 develop for. I'd love to design/build my own tile-based console
 someday, just for the heck of it.)


 Do it, it's surprisingly easy, but jolly good fun :)


 Yea, it really is surprisingly easy, and I definitely want to. If you
 understand low-level bit-manipulation, then you really understand the
 core of that you need to know. The rest is pretty easy to pick up if
 you already have that basic knowledge, since that's all digital
 hardware really is - bit manipulation and logic gates.

 You just have to remember to take into account:

 1. Signal propagation delay (Probably the main reason my EEPROM burner
 failed about 67% of its full image transfers - there were brief
 intermittent bit flips, like 0->1->0, when the logic was *supposed* to
 keep an output bit the same)

 and 2. Remember to stick a capacitor across the GND and +5v (or
 whatever voltage) pins of each IC (Which *improved* my burner's success
 rate *up to* 33% of full images written versus a paltry 33% of *bytes*
 written ;))


Aye to that; I had a lot of problems with the gnd circuit on vintage
hardware. They were very poorly isolated, and the gnd circuit would often
feed-back through all manner of surprising places.
A capacitor will smooth it off a bit, maybe protect you against some
suddenly flipping bits, or at least delay it until after a bit value
sampling tick has happened.
Considering how tricky that stuff is in practise, I'd like to know more how
it extends to modern circuitry. surely modern hardware must be better
isolated...



 Sep 19 2013



  parent reply Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com>  writes:


On Fri, 20 Sep 2013 12:32:09 +1000
Manu <turkeyman gmail.com> wrote:


 On 20 September 2013 11:02, Nick Sabalausky <
 SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> wrote:
 

 On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 23:07:42 +1000
 Manu <turkeyman gmail.com> wrote:


 Atari 2600 was the only scanline renderer I know of from that
 time, and it certainly was made to be cheap!


 It's a genuinely impressive feat of minimalistic engineering. And it
 makes Pitfall all the more impressive.


 
 That it was. I'm still amazed someone actually thought it was a viable
 games platform, and even more amazed that so many developers made
 games for it!
 Fancy only having a couple of hundred cycles in the vblank, and just a
 couple more cycles each hblank to perform 'game logic' ;)
 


And the game logic (or at least the game-specific graphics kernel)
often *involved* no-ops as part of the logic! Just to get the TIA into
the desired position.

Counting cycles takes on a whole new meaning in that machine. They're
not just about performance, they're part of the logic.


 
 The SMS was an awesome little piece of hardware... perhaps my
 favourite vintage platform :)
 The took the popular TMS9918 video chip (used in colecovision,
 sg-1000, msx, and a bunch others), and with just a couple of minor
 tweaks made the system WAY better than any of the others listed.
 All they did was added a few bytes for a user-specified clut (rather
 than a hard-coded colour table), made use of an unused bit in the
 tile gfx table to select between a second clut (doubling the number
 of available colours), and added a horizontal+vertical scroll
 register for the tilemap. The difference this made in practise was
 huge, and it's barely any more gates in the chip. I always wondered
 why TMS stopped so short of the mark... I suppose adding a
 user-defined clut is more than 16 bytes though. Fixed clut will just
 switch between some hard-wired resister circuits, a user-clut
 requires some more video output circuitry, but resisters are cheap...
 even back then.
 


Fascinating. I had no idea.

I never did know much about the SMS. Even at the time, I only knew one
person who had one (which, at the time, was the only reason I even knew
it existed).


 
 Aye to that; I had a lot of problems with the gnd circuit on vintage
 hardware. They were very poorly isolated, and the gnd circuit would
 often feed-back through all manner of surprising places.
 A capacitor will smooth it off a bit, maybe protect you against some
 suddenly flipping bits, or at least delay it until after a bit value
 sampling tick has happened.
 Considering how tricky that stuff is in practise, I'd like to know
 more how it extends to modern circuitry. surely modern hardware must
 be better isolated...
 


A good question, I'd be curious too.

I understand that at physical scale of modern hardware they actually
have to take quantum phenomena into account. Which is kind of
mind-blowing. I have no idea how much that might relate to gnd
isolation though.

Maybe this just shows my naivety, but I wonder if modern clock speeds
might actually help dealing with gnd isolation. Ie, not enough time for
the signals to bounce enough to cause trouble? I'm probably just
speaking total BS though.



 Sep 19 2013



  parent  Manu <turkeyman gmail.com>  writes:


On 20 September 2013 14:10, Nick Sabalausky <
SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> wrote:


 On Fri, 20 Sep 2013 12:32:09 +1000
 Manu <turkeyman gmail.com> wrote:

 Aye to that; I had a lot of problems with the gnd circuit on vintage
 hardware. They were very poorly isolated, and the gnd circuit would
 often feed-back through all manner of surprising places.
 A capacitor will smooth it off a bit, maybe protect you against some
 suddenly flipping bits, or at least delay it until after a bit value
 sampling tick has happened.
 Considering how tricky that stuff is in practise, I'd like to know
 more how it extends to modern circuitry. surely modern hardware must
 be better isolated...


 A good question, I'd be curious too.

 I understand that at physical scale of modern hardware they actually
 have to take quantum phenomena into account. Which is kind of
 mind-blowing. I have no idea how much that might relate to gnd
 isolation though.

 Maybe this just shows my naivety, but I wonder if modern clock speeds
 might actually help dealing with gnd isolation. Ie, not enough time for
 the signals to bounce enough to cause trouble? I'm probably just
 speaking total BS though.


Heh, yeah.. nar, I don't think so.
I'm not an expert either, but I'd say just because the signal graph is
compressed horizontally, doesn't really make it simpler :) .. Timing is all
relative.
I think as your clock rate increases, you need to deal with MORE problems,
like resonance, and electromagnetic effects on neighbouring circuits.



 Sep 19 2013



prev sibling  parent reply "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com>  writes:


On Thursday, 19 September 2013 at 07:24:19 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
wrote:

 That's essentially the same strategy behind the graphics 
 hardware in most 8/16-bit consoles.


Something else I love from the good old days: palette swaps. 
(This is why color.d, previous image.d, has a separate class for 
IndexedImage - it isn't a true color image with limited colors. 
It is a whole new paradigm with rich semantics! You can saw entry 
1 == foreground and stick to that in your images and get some 
cool matching with the user's theme with ease.)

You could do so much with it to get cool looks, and it was fast. 
One of my favorite palette swap things was the old Nintendo game 
Dragon Warrior.

When your life ran low, it changed the font entry from white to 
red. But, of course, there's other places that used that entry 
too - the NES had only a 16 color palette (with only 4 colors per 
tile) so reuse was a necessity - so you'd have parts of the world 
changing to red too!

On one hand, that's a technical limitation, but on the other hand 
I thought it looked great and purposefully copied it for my 256 
color DOS rpg.

You could also show/hide things by changing palette entries to be 
black on black, you could do transitions to night time with a 
palette swap, the list goes on.

I love it.



 Sep 19 2013



 next sibling parent  "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx>  writes:


On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 04:55:06PM +0200, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
[...]

 Something else I love from the good old days: palette swaps.


Yeah! Those were cool! You could use exactly the same sprites, but
change the palette, to produce what looks like different sprites. :)


[...]

 When your life ran low, it changed the font entry from white to red.
 But, of course, there's other places that used that entry too - the
 NES had only a 16 color palette (with only 4 colors per tile) so
 reuse was a necessity - so you'd have parts of the world changing to
 red too!


[...]

Oh, that brings back memories of X11 running on 16-color EGA with a
palette... some applications would rewrite the palette in order to
better display a high-color image, so when you moved your mouse into the
window, the rest of the world turns into psychedelic colors, and when
you moved your mouse back out, the world turns sane but now the image
turns psychedelic.


T

-- 
Creativity is not an excuse for sloppiness.



 Sep 19 2013



prev sibling  parent  Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com>  writes:


On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 16:55:06 +0200
"Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> wrote:


 On Thursday, 19 September 2013 at 07:24:19 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
 wrote:

 That's essentially the same strategy behind the graphics 
 hardware in most 8/16-bit consoles.


 
 Something else I love from the good old days: palette swaps. 
 (This is why color.d, previous image.d, has a separate class for 
 IndexedImage - it isn't a true color image with limited colors. 
 It is a whole new paradigm with rich semantics! You can saw entry 
 1 == foreground and stick to that in your images and get some 
 cool matching with the user's theme with ease.)
 
 You could do so much with it to get cool looks, and it was fast. 
 One of my favorite palette swap things was the old Nintendo game 
 Dragon Warrior.
 
 When your life ran low, it changed the font entry from white to 
 red. But, of course, there's other places that used that entry 
 too - the NES had only a 16 color palette (with only 4 colors per 
 tile) so reuse was a necessity - so you'd have parts of the world 
 changing to red too!
 
 On one hand, that's a technical limitation, but on the other hand 
 I thought it looked great and purposefully copied it for my 256 
 color DOS rpg.
 
 You could also show/hide things by changing palette entries to be 
 black on black, you could do transitions to night time with a 
 palette swap, the list goes on.
 
 I love it.


Yup. The NES Mega Man games made very heavy use of that to fantastic
effect. Most notably changing Mega Man's color theme for each weapon,
but the levels made very intelligent use of it, too.

It was also a common trick in DOS VGA games, and really almost
anywhere you look in late-80's/early-90's gaming.

Palette swaps were a great way to get variety while inherently
*guaranteeing* consistency, not to mention the processor/bus/memory
savings.

That said, 16/24/32 bit color is *also* nice since you no longer have
to worry about managing and matching up palettes or getting the wrong
colors where you didn't expect it.



 Sep 19 2013



prev sibling  parent reply "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com>  writes:


On Wednesday, 18 September 2013 at 20:33:10 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

 And even though we aren't on 300 baud serial lines, sometimes I 
 *do* wanna transfer large amounts of text into a terminal as 
 fast as I can, for example:


actually, I do want some way to transfer files easily. Using scp 
and so on is kinda a pain, I would like to just

cat file > REMOTE_COMPUTER

and be done with it. scp is ok if you have keys set up on both 
sides and they are unix, but when you're on putty and just want 
to dump a file over to the Windows side, what I'd love is to hit 
a command and then get a save as prompt on the receiving end. Or, 
better yet, run a program right on it too.

If I get an email image, I want to view it or edit it, but can't 
really do that remotely. Even running xming, the transfer is so 
brutally slow (a lot of my emailed images are like 1024x4000), so 
I just prefer to send the compressed file over and let Windows 
show it natively.

Often the way I do it is to copy it over into /var/www/htdocs and 
then pop it open in Internet Explorer, but that's a hassle too 
(especially since mutt refuses to save attached files with 
permissions other than 600. Ugh!)

So that's something I'd do in my magic extension. Receive file 
from Windows, send file to it and possibly execute a command 
right off the bat, and probably have a clipboard interface too. 
(On Linux I have a program called xsel that does it. echo test | 
xsel, then middle click somewhere and it shows test. xsel > file, 
sends it out. Perfect! But X connections are kinds finicky, 
especially with screen where the DISPLAY isn't necessarily set 
right after detach/reattach.)

I'm reasonably sure there's file transfer protocols like this 
that already exist, but I have no idea how to use them... and 
hell doing it myself is easy enough.


 To each his own. I can't stand the core fonts. Esp. since they 
 don't come in 18pt size. :-P


yeah.... I like my monitor size, high resolution is crazy!


 Plus, they don't include quite enough Unicode glyphs for my 
 needs (actually, do they even support unicode at all?!).


not really, I don't think so anyway. They (at least on my box) 
have some iso 8859-1 characters, but not beyond that.



 Make it pluggable. :)


yes the way I'm doing it is there's an abstract class Terminal 
Emulator that does most the work and then calls a few abstract 
virtual functions that handles some high level stuff like redraw, 
change title, and then some public functions the outer class can 
do to drive the UI.

The abstract class also does delegates for read/write, so then I 
can forkpty and feed it that descriptor, or spawn a child like 
ssh or plink and talk to something remotely, (I hope, I haven't 
tried this yet, but it should work.)


 I remember in the old DOS days, some games would load up custom 
 graphics into the video card's text font buffer, so that they 
 can draw sprites just by writing the corresponding characters 
 into the video card's text buffer.


god yes, and even the built in DOS graphics could be utterly 
beautiful. Or the OEM font as I guess it should be called. My 
image_basicdrawing.d embeds that font too because I like it lol.

BTW I'm pretty sure Unicode has a few user defined sections that 
would be ideal for this. You set a bitmap for your user defined 
characters and then send them right out. Though it makes me 
wonder: should it be a 1 bit bitmap? Or palette somehow? idk, for 
anti aliasing it seems to me you'd want to do a few bits that is 
just alpha, with the colors being defined elsewhere. But the NES 
had a sweet 4 color setup for its tiles!

Eh though, this is a text terminal, let's not go too nuts. The 
magic display image sequence can be full color.



 Sep 19 2013



 next sibling parent reply "Wyatt" <wyatt.epp gmail.com>  writes:


On Thursday, 19 September 2013 at 14:49:35 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe 
wrote:

 actually, I do want some way to transfer files easily. Using 
 scp and so on is kinda a pain, I would like to just

 cat file > REMOTE_COMPUTER

 and be done with it. scp is ok if you have keys set up on both 
 sides and they are unix, but when you're on putty and just want 
 to dump a file over to the Windows side, what I'd love is to 
 hit a command and then get a save as prompt on the receiving 
 end. Or, better yet, run a program right on it too.


At the lowest level, you could use netcat for this (and like a 
million other awesome/silly things).  An rsync daemon might also 
pinch hit here.  But it sounds like what you really want is a 
writable CIFS mount.  Or sshfs.

-Wyatt



 Sep 19 2013



  parent  Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com>  writes:


On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 17:17:24 +0200
"Wyatt" <wyatt.epp gmail.com> wrote:


 On Thursday, 19 September 2013 at 14:49:35 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe 
 wrote:

 actually, I do want some way to transfer files easily. Using 
 scp and so on is kinda a pain, I would like to just

 cat file > REMOTE_COMPUTER

 and be done with it. scp is ok if you have keys set up on both 
 sides and they are unix, but when you're on putty and just want 
 to dump a file over to the Windows side, what I'd love is to 
 hit a command and then get a save as prompt on the receiving 
 end. Or, better yet, run a program right on it too.


 At the lowest level, you could use netcat for this (and like a 
 million other awesome/silly things).  An rsync daemon might also 
 pinch hit here.  But it sounds like what you really want is a 
 writable CIFS mount.  Or sshfs.
 


I love sshfs.

Only thing is, I wish it were better integrated with ssh command lines.
I don't know it would work though. Maybe establishing an sshfs
connection would also establish a nickname you could prefix to commands
to execute them remotely, plus special attention for remote envars.
Something like:

joe home$ pwd
/etc/blah

joe home$ sshfs remoteuser myserver ...etc... --cli=ssh-myserver

joe home$ pwd
/etc/blah

joe home$ ssh-myserver pwd
/home/remoteuser

joe home$ echo $HOME
/home/joe

joe home$ echo $ssh-myserver->HOME
/home/remoteuser

joe home$ ssh-myserver echo $HOME
/home/joe

joe home$ ssh-myserver echo $ssh-myserver->HOME
/home/remoteuser

joe home$ cp ~/hello.d /mnt/myserver
joe home$ ssh-myserver cat hello.d
import std.stdio; void main() { writeln("hello"); }

joe home$ sshfs cli ssh-myserver
remoteuser myserver$ pwd
/home/remoteuser

remoteuser myserver$ echo $HOME
/home/remoteuser

remoteuser myserver$ -- Mostly just like a normal ssh prompt now, but
with bonuses (bonuses require special support on remote system)

remoteuser myserver$ ssh-client pwd
/etc/blah

remoteuser myserver$ echo $-<HOME
/home/joe

remoteuser myserver$ echo "Made on myserver" > /ssh-client/msg.txt
remoteuser myserver$ exit
joe home$ cat msg.txt
Made on myserver



 Sep 19 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent  "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx>  writes:


On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 04:49:34PM +0200, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:

 On Wednesday, 18 September 2013 at 20:33:10 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

And even though we aren't on 300 baud serial lines, sometimes I
*do* wanna transfer large amounts of text into a terminal as fast
as I can, for example:


 
 actually, I do want some way to transfer files easily. Using scp and
 so on is kinda a pain, I would like to just
 
 cat file > REMOTE_COMPUTER
 
 and be done with it.


Actually, didn't the old (X,Y,Z)MODEM protocols support this? You'd run
a ZMODEM utility on the remote end, then switch your local ZMODEM client
to receive mode, and they'd sync and transfer the file transparently.

I'm pretty sure this should be possible over the SSH protocol as well,
it just needs client-side support.



 scp is ok if you have keys set up on both sides and they are unix, but
 when you're on putty and just want to dump a file over to the Windows
 side, what I'd love is to hit a command and then get a save as prompt
 on the receiving end. Or, better yet, run a program right on it too.


Hmm. Maybe the way to do it is to have ssh forward some fixed port
number, say 20001 or some such, then have the local ssh client listen to
this port for incoming connections. On the remote end, write a client
that connects to this port, does handshake and transfers (or receive)
the file. The local ssh client would then trigger whatever local Windows
function it is to handle downloads. Then on the remote end you'd do:

	ssh-send myfile

and it connects to port 20001, then the local ssh client picks up the
connection, receives the file, and opens the dialogue to prompt what to
do with it.

Sending would work the same way: say we forward port 20001 in both
directions, then to send a file, you'd run ssh-recv on the remote end,
which listens to the *remote* port 20001, then the local client can
connect to it and transfer the file.

The file would even be encrypted over the connection since everything
passes through the ssh tunnel.


[...]

Plus, they don't include quite enough Unicode glyphs for my needs
(actually, do they even support unicode at all?!).


 
 not really, I don't think so anyway. They (at least on my box) have
 some iso 8859-1 characters, but not beyond that.


Yeah, so it's unusable for me. :-(


[...]

I remember in the old DOS days, some games would load up custom
graphics into the video card's text font buffer, so that they can
draw sprites just by writing the corresponding characters into the
video card's text buffer.


 
 god yes, and even the built in DOS graphics could be utterly
 beautiful. Or the OEM font as I guess it should be called. My
 image_basicdrawing.d embeds that font too because I like it lol.
 
 BTW I'm pretty sure Unicode has a few user defined sections that
 would be ideal for this. You set a bitmap for your user defined
 characters and then send them right out. Though it makes me wonder:
 should it be a 1 bit bitmap? Or palette somehow? idk, for anti
 aliasing it seems to me you'd want to do a few bits that is just
 alpha, with the colors being defined elsewhere. But the NES had a
 sweet 4 color setup for its tiles!
 
 Eh though, this is a text terminal, let's not go too nuts.


Right, 'cos then the next thing you know, you'd be wanting to support
arbitrary-sized bitmaps, which then leads to it being used for fonts,
which then turns into a proportional font layout problem, which then
turns into a GUI, reinvented. :-P



 The magic display image sequence can be full color.


Yep.


T

-- 
Chance favours the prepared mind. -- Louis Pasteur



 Sep 19 2013



prev sibling  parent reply Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com>  writes:


On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 16:49:34 +0200
"Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> wrote:


 On Wednesday, 18 September 2013 at 20:33:10 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

 Plus, they don't include quite enough Unicode glyphs for my 
 needs (actually, do they even support unicode at all?!).


 
 not really, I don't think so anyway. They (at least on my box) 
 have some iso 8859-1 characters, but not beyond that.
 


I've always felt text rendering engines should be able to automatically
fallback to another font for any characters that aren't in the selected
font. (Ideally with a user-configurable chain of fallbacks, similar to
CSS, but selected on a per-character basis.) Because showing the right
character in a mismatched font has *got* to be better than not showing
the character at all and a generic "missing font" glyph.

Besides, even with the same font, it's not as if there's really all
*that* much consistency between, ex., latin, cyrillic, hiragana,
hangool, arabic, aincient egyptian...uhhh...klingon...etc.


 
 BTW I'm pretty sure Unicode has a few user defined sections that 
 would be ideal for this. You set a bitmap for your user defined 
 characters and then send them right out.


Unicode even has (experimental, last I checked) pages defined for a
variety of common (and not-so-common) non-text symbols. The four
playing card suits, methods of transportation, etc.



 Sep 19 2013



 next sibling parent  Russel Winder <russel winder.org.uk>  writes:


On Thu, 2013-09-19 at 21:43 -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
[=E2=80=A6]

 I've always felt text rendering engines should be able to automatically
 fallback to another font for any characters that aren't in the selected
 font. (Ideally with a user-configurable chain of fallbacks, similar to
 CSS, but selected on a per-character basis.) Because showing the right
 character in a mismatched font has *got* to be better than not showing
 the character at all and a generic "missing font" glyph.


Cairo and Pango already do effectively this based on Fontconfig don't
they?

[=E2=80=A6]

--=20
Russel.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder ekiga.n=
et
41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel winder.org.uk
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder



 Sep 20 2013



prev sibling  parent reply "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx>  writes:


On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 09:43:33PM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 16:49:34 +0200
 "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> wrote:
 

 On Wednesday, 18 September 2013 at 20:33:10 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

 Plus, they don't include quite enough Unicode glyphs for my 
 needs (actually, do they even support unicode at all?!).


 
 not really, I don't think so anyway. They (at least on my box) 
 have some iso 8859-1 characters, but not beyond that.
 


 
 I've always felt text rendering engines should be able to
 automatically fallback to another font for any characters that aren't
 in the selected font. (Ideally with a user-configurable chain of
 fallbacks, similar to CSS, but selected on a per-character basis.)
 Because showing the right character in a mismatched font has *got* to
 be better than not showing the character at all and a generic "missing
 font" glyph.


Opera actually does this. But sometimes it can backfire, like the time
when my default font didn't contain the glyph for the  symbol, and
opera used a 5-pixel-wide substitute scaled up to 18 pixels with
horrible, horrible antialiasing artifacts that made it nigh unreadable.

But then again, Opera didn't exactly provide a way to specify the order
of font resolution either, so that didn't help. I agree that *sane*
fallback fonts (with configurable fallback order!) would be much better
than just a black blob of ink (or pixels).


[...]

 BTW I'm pretty sure Unicode has a few user defined sections that
 would be ideal for this. You set a bitmap for your user defined
 characters and then send them right out.


 
 Unicode even has (experimental, last I checked) pages defined for a
 variety of common (and not-so-common) non-text symbols. The four
 playing card suits, methods of transportation, etc.


That's no longer experimental. Even within the BMP alone (U+0 ..
U+FFFF), there are entire codepages dedicated to symbols, dingbats,
etc.. Any modern Unicode font should have most of these symbols by
default (though unlikely *all* -- there are *that* many of them!).

Better yet, there's the Private Use region that you can map to basically
anything you want, including a range in the BMP (U+E000 .. U+F8FF)
consisting of a whopping 6400 code points. Just the thing you need for
custom bitmaps and other fun stuff. :)


T

-- 
Which is worse: ignorance or apathy? Who knows? Who cares? -- Erich Schubert



 Sep 20 2013



  parent  Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com>  writes:


On Fri, 20 Sep 2013 12:24:16 -0700
"H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:

 
 But then again, Opera didn't exactly provide a way to specify the
 order of font resolution either, so that didn't help. I agree that
 *sane* fallback fonts (with configurable fallback order!) would be
 much better than just a black blob of ink (or pixels).
 


Actually, I'm thinking now, maybe font fallbacks should be specified in
terms of "Font X's fallback is Font Y or otherwise Font Z". Ie, the
chain of fallbacks for missing glyphs should be a property of the font
itself. Obviously user-editable, *but* with sensible defaults, since
that would be a *lot* of fonts/fallbacks to manually configure.


 
 [...]

 BTW I'm pretty sure Unicode has a few user defined sections that
 would be ideal for this. You set a bitmap for your user defined
 characters and then send them right out.


 
 Unicode even has (experimental, last I checked) pages defined for a
 variety of common (and not-so-common) non-text symbols. The four
 playing card suits, methods of transportation, etc.


 
 That's no longer experimental. Even within the BMP alone (U+0 ..
 U+FFFF), there are entire codepages dedicated to symbols, dingbats,


Hey now, just 'cause someone wants to use non-text glyphs doesn't mean
you should go calling him a dingbat! ;)

(j/k, of course)



 Sep 20 2013



prev sibling  parent reply "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx>  writes:


On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 08:51:13PM -0400, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:

 BTW my terminal emulator is moving along pretty well...
 
 I'm posting this message from it now. On Windows! (It is talking to my
 linux box over an ssh connection. It pipes to/from plink.exe to get
 its data.)
 
 Still a few bugs. In mutt, there's some lines too tall. I think the
 cursor isn't erasing properly as it draws the line with a xor brush.
 And it feels slow on Windows, tho that could be because I'm on an ssh
 link right now, out of the house.
 
 But one of the cool features is I implemented an xterm escape
 sequence... that doesn't actually work in my xterm... that changes the
 cursor shape, and I added a few lines to my .vimrc so the cursor
 changes in insert mode.
 
 It kinda feels like gvim, but it is just plain vim over a simple ssh
 connection. Boss.
 
 Speaking of vim and bugs, if I scroll past long lines, that glitches
 too, but eh it is usable.
 
 So yeah, how exciting, now I'll start adding extensions, and be able
 to use them right over ssh thanks to the Windows one compiling. (It
 also works reasonably well over remote X - I have it pretty efficient,
 only redrawing what it must, even using an XImage for true type fonts.
 But now I'll have all the flexibility I might want.)


This is really late, but I meant to ask, is your code up in github? I'd
like to play around with it a bit.


T

-- 
Famous last words: I wonder what will happen if I do *this*...



 Sep 27 2013



 next sibling parent  "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com>  writes:


On Friday, 27 September 2013 at 17:41:46 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

 This is really late, but I meant to ask, is your code up in 
 github? I'd like to play around with it a bit.


Not yet, I'm actually working on it right now though, trying to 
get X copy/paste working. What an obscure process with just xlib!

I just got paste basically working, after I get copy working I'll 
post it and email you or something.

After that, my basic xterm replacement will be set up. Then it is 
bugs and extensions. I'm still trying to think of a good way to 
do the extensions - I'd ideally like something that would just be 
ignored by xterm for compatibility sake, but failing that, at 
least I need an activation sequence that no other program would 
even put out.

I'm kinda leaning toward something like \033[?5000h to activate 
it - xterm uses 1000h for its mouse extension function and i 
believe ignores ones in that pattern it doesn't know. Then once 
magic mode is activated it can just look for invalid unicode 
characters to activate a command, perhaps even using a simple 
checksum so cat /dev/random isn't likely to trigger them. (This 
would be a lot easier if I didn't care at all about compatibility 
with existing unix programs!) Worst case, we can use an 
environment variable to signal the library to never send magic 
commands, so at least then xterm won't get trash.

anyway yeah i'll post it later and let you know.



 Sep 27 2013



prev sibling  parent reply "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com>  writes:


BTW does the email address in your from header work? I just sent 
you a message.



 Sep 27 2013



  parent  "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx>  writes:


On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 01:03:39AM +0200, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:

 BTW does the email address in your from header work? I just sent you
 a message.


Yes I got it.

Just haven't been able to do anything about it yet -- the ship's on fire
again, proverbially speaking, at work. (No surprise, it's a large and
complex system written in C with smatterings of C++, which has passed
through dozens of hands. I leave the current state of the code to your
imagination.)


T

-- 
"You are a very disagreeable person." "NO."



 Sep 27 2013



prev sibling  parent reply Peter Williams <pwil3058 bigpond.net.au>  writes:


On 16/09/13 11:47, H. S. Teoh wrote:

 On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 07:32:48PM +0200, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:

 On Sunday, 15 September 2013 at 16:50:50 UTC, Dicebot wrote:

 After I have switched to Gnome Shell I can't use any other desktop
 manager comfortably.


 This is actually feel about my custom setup based on the Blackbox
 window manager. It has a lot of little differences from the other
 common options:

 1) sloppy focus. omg it is so much better than click to focus


 Back when I was still using a GUI, sloppy focus was one of the only
 things that made it tolerable to use.


I kind of agree but I use "focus follows mouse" rather than sloppy.  I 
could never understand why most windows managers make "click to change 
focus" the default as clicking inevitably raises the newly focussed 
window to the top as well as changing the focus.  This greatly reduces 
flexibility when managing overlapping windows.

Peter
PS One of the reasons that I dumped Gnome 3 for Cinnamon is that the 
Gnome people seem determined to remove all user configuration options 
(in the pursuit of an homogenous desktop) and I figured that it was only 
a matter of time before they removed the ability to choose what type of 
focus control one wanted.  They'd already removed the ability to 
configure some things that I always changed from the default.



 Sep 15 2013



  parent reply Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com>  writes:


On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 12:09:15 +1000
Peter Williams <pwil3058 bigpond.net.au> wrote:


 On 16/09/13 11:47, H. S. Teoh wrote:

 On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 07:32:48PM +0200, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:

 On Sunday, 15 September 2013 at 16:50:50 UTC, Dicebot wrote:

 After I have switched to Gnome Shell I can't use any other desktop
 manager comfortably.


 This is actually feel about my custom setup based on the Blackbox
 window manager. It has a lot of little differences from the other
 common options:

 1) sloppy focus. omg it is so much better than click to focus


 Back when I was still using a GUI, sloppy focus was one of the only
 things that made it tolerable to use.


 
 I kind of agree but I use "focus follows mouse" rather than sloppy.
 I could never understand why most windows managers make "click to
 change focus" the default as clicking inevitably raises the newly
 focussed window to the top as well as changing the focus.  This
 greatly reduces flexibility when managing overlapping windows.
 


While I'm happy with click-to-focus[1] due to my many years with
windows, I still have to say "click before the scroll wheel will
actually work" is one of the biggest, most ridiculous GUI design
blunders out there. It's exactly like requiring the user to click a
control before right-click/middle-click/ctrl-click will work.

I think I've mentioned this in other threads, but on XP I used
KatMouse[2] to fix that, and it was a HUGE usability improvement.
Unfortunately, on Win7 it only works a small fraction of the time. And
that's unlikely to change because it's closed source abandonware, just
like all-too-many freeware apps on windows. (Honestly, I never
understood the windows developer culture of producing closed-source
freeware.)

[1] As long as the click-to-focus isn't "click a button in a
different window and then click the same button *again* to make the
button actually *receive* the 'clicked' event."

[2] KatMouse: http://ehiti.de/katmouse/


 PS One of the reasons that I dumped Gnome 3 for Cinnamon is that the 
 Gnome people seem determined to remove all user configuration options 
 (in the pursuit of an homogenous desktop)


That's the main thing that's kept me away from GNOME 3. If I want
people stealing my ability to make my own choices and let them
unilaterally decide what I want on my behalf, then there's already
plenty of propriety Oses, both desktop and mobile, that are happy to do
that for me. (Oh, shit, but now I need to find a self-appointed vicar to
make *that* choice for me...)



 Sep 15 2013



  parent  Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com>  writes:


On 2013-09-16 05:57, Nick Sabalausky wrote:


 While I'm happy with click-to-focus[1] due to my many years with
 windows, I still have to say "click before the scroll wheel will
 actually work" is one of the biggest, most ridiculous GUI design
 blunders out there. It's exactly like requiring the user to click a
 control before right-click/middle-click/ctrl-click will work.

 I think I've mentioned this in other threads, but on XP I used
 KatMouse[2] to fix that, and it was a HUGE usability improvement.
 Unfortunately, on Win7 it only works a small fraction of the time. And
 that's unlikely to change because it's closed source abandonware, just
 like all-too-many freeware apps on windows. (Honestly, I never
 understood the windows developer culture of producing closed-source
 freeware.)


The most ridicules thing is having a window with two table views. To be 
able to scroll in these I have to click on the table view.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg



 Sep 15 2013



prev sibling  parent reply Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com>  writes:


On 2013-09-14 11:43, Nick Sabalausky wrote:


 I've tried Total Commander on Windows, which is another program modeled
 after Norton Commander. It's probably the only file manager in the
 world that's even less to my taste than OSX's Finder. However, I do
 keep it around because its multiple-file-renaming tool is freaking
 awesome.


Finder in Mac OS X sucks. In the next version of Mac OS X it's going to 
get tabs, finally. Actually who cares, I'm already using Path Finder 
since many years:

http://www.cocoatech.com/pathfinder/

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg



 Sep 15 2013



  parent reply Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com>  writes:


On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 16:52:40 +0200
Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> wrote:


 On 2013-09-14 11:43, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 

 I've tried Total Commander on Windows, which is another program
 modeled after Norton Commander. It's probably the only file manager
 in the world that's even less to my taste than OSX's Finder.
 However, I do keep it around because its multiple-file-renaming
 tool is freaking awesome.


 
 Finder in Mac OS X sucks. In the next version of Mac OS X it's going
 to get tabs, finally. Actually who cares, I'm already using Path
 Finder since many years:
 
 http://www.cocoatech.com/pathfinder/
 


Nice. If I ever end up with another Mac for one reason or another, I'm
totally getting that program.



 Sep 15 2013



  parent  Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com>  writes:


On 2013-09-15 22:23, Nick Sabalausky wrote:


 Nice. If I ever end up with another Mac for one reason or another, I'm
 totally getting that program.


Even if it costs money it's totally worth it.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg



 Sep 15 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent reply Paulo Pinto <pjmlp progtools.org>  writes:


Am 14.09.2013 08:14, schrieb Nick Sabalausky:

 On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 06:37:49 +0200
 "dusr" <dusr d.usr> wrote:


 Like I said, I've been a Linux user for a long time, and that's
 by choice! But I still envy a lot of what Windows gets right
 and still long for the good old days of DOS where it was just
 you, the hardware, and a little tiny helper library that was
 there if you needed it.


 I've used debian from woody to squeeze, then I moved back to
 windows7.
 Windows is better.


 Heh, I'm sort of the opposite. I've been using Windows from 3.11
 through 7, and from Vista onward I've started to really hate Windows
 more and more (If I wanted to be running a Mac, I'd have gotten a
 Mac, not two versions of "New Windows: Apple-Envy Edition" followed by
 "Microsoft UI-Of-The-Month Club").

 Meanwhile, I've been using Linux more and more for testing and servers,
 and I'm looking at switching my main OS over to...probably Debian 7,
 with wine and VirtualBox for the occasional things that don't come in
 Linux flavor. I just wish I could get a Linux file manager I liked.


The main problem with Linux distributions, is that even in 2013, it 
won't work properly in laptops.

Wireless chipsets, battery use and graphic cards (specially hybrid like 
optimus) are still a problem.

Personally I only use Linux on servers, VMs, or laptops sold with Linux 
support.

As an example, last April, an Ubuntu update borked my wireless driver, 
because of religious FOSS. Ubuntu developers changed the binary broadcom 
driver, working flawlessly, for the open source one, which was still 
half done.

There is a discussion about it on their forums, if you want a link for it.

So nowadays I rather use systems for work, that value my up time.

--
Paulo



 Sep 14 2013



 next sibling parent reply Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com>  writes:


On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 09:19:42 +0200
Paulo Pinto <pjmlp progtools.org> wrote:


 Am 14.09.2013 08:14, schrieb Nick Sabalausky:

 Heh, I'm sort of the opposite. I've been using Windows from 3.11
 through 7, and from Vista onward I've started to really hate Windows
 more and more (If I wanted to be running a Mac, I'd have gotten a
 Mac, not two versions of "New Windows: Apple-Envy Edition" followed
 by "Microsoft UI-Of-The-Month Club").

 Meanwhile, I've been using Linux more and more for testing and
 servers, and I'm looking at switching my main OS over to...probably
 Debian 7, with wine and VirtualBox for the occasional things that
 don't come in Linux flavor. I just wish I could get a Linux file
 manager I liked.


 
 The main problem with Linux distributions, is that even in 2013, it 
 won't work properly in laptops.
 
 Wireless chipsets, battery use and graphic cards (specially hybrid
 like optimus) are still a problem.
 


Really? That's all rather discouraging. As of last year, my primary
system is now a laptop, and my concern about laptop-related issues was
the main reason I ended up sticking with the factory-installed Win7
instead of upgrading back to XP.


 laptops sold with Linux support.


Those exist?

I've long heard stories about such things, but they seem to be like
unicorns or mermaids or bigfoot...fantasy creatures you only ever hear
tales "through the grapevine" about. Not so much real evidence or
first-hand accounts.


 As an example, last April, an Ubuntu update borked my wireless
 driver, because of religious FOSS. Ubuntu developers changed the
 binary broadcom driver, working flawlessly, for the open source one,
 which was still half done.
 
 There is a discussion about it on their forums, if you want a link
 for it.
 


Well, I don't use Ubuntu anymore for my Linux boxes. Migrated upstream
to Debian. Any idea if one of the less religious distros (like Mint)
would be decent for a laptop, or are non-OSS drivers merely one issue?



 Sep 14 2013



 next sibling parent reply "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx>  writes:


On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 05:58:51AM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 09:19:42 +0200
 Paulo Pinto <pjmlp progtools.org> wrote:


[...]

 laptops sold with Linux support.


 
 Those exist?
 
 I've long heard stories about such things, but they seem to be like
 unicorns or mermaids or bigfoot...fantasy creatures you only ever hear
 tales "through the grapevine" about. Not so much real evidence or
 first-hand accounts.


I used to own one of them. It came preinstalled with Debian, so I'd like
to say to all the accusations of FOSS zealotry: so there! ;-)

It does have some binary blobs for a few device drivers, though, but
that didn't pose a problem 'cos they were custom-installed by the
manufacturers, so apt-get upgrade left them alone for the most part.

It worked pretty well as a laptop -- I of course nuked the default GUI
configuration and installed my own (at the time I was still into vtwm --
this was before my ratpoison days -- so it wasn't *too* foreign from the
preinstalled setup). But then the warranty expired, and so did the PSU.
I took it in for repair once, which was extremely expensive, but it
didn't last very long after. That was when I acquired a strong distaste
for laptops -- I learned that they have basically *no* user-serviceable
parts, and even something as simple as installing a different hard drive
(simple on a desktop, anyway) required custom tools that only laptop
manufacturers or repair shops have access to. Besides, even if you could
find the tools, laptop parts generally aren't sold in the consumer
market anyway, and they are also very model-specific, so there's no such
thing as going out to buy a replacement for a failing part. It's take it
in to the repair shop and pay an arm and a leg for the repair which
exceeds the cost of buying a new laptop. Sigh...



 As an example, last April, an Ubuntu update borked my wireless
 driver, because of religious FOSS. Ubuntu developers changed the
 binary broadcom driver, working flawlessly, for the open source one,
 which was still half done.
 
 There is a discussion about it on their forums, if you want a link
 for it.
 


 
 Well, I don't use Ubuntu anymore for my Linux boxes. Migrated upstream
 to Debian. Any idea if one of the less religious distros (like Mint)
 would be decent for a laptop, or are non-OSS drivers merely one issue?


I'd advise caution and very *very* thorough research before purchasing a
laptop. Some laptops have hardware with no known Linux drivers (not even
binary blobs), so no matter which distro you choose, it wouldn't work.
One approach might be to look up a laptop model known to have been used
by a Linux-preinstalled manufacturer -- then you know there are drivers
for it out there somewhere. Suitable googling should be able to get you
downloadable blobs and installation instructions. Sadly, hardware
support for Linux is still spotty esp. for newly-released hardware, as
most manufacturers tend to prefer working with proprietary-backed OSes
first (esp. if some new features are developed in tandem between them).

(Caveat: I swore off laptops since 6-7 years ago, so my information may
be outdated.)


T

-- 
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.



 Sep 14 2013



  parent  Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com>  writes:


On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 03:23:21 -0700
"H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:

 
 That was when I
 acquired a strong distaste for laptops -- I learned that they have
 basically *no* user-serviceable parts



Yea, that is the one thing I really hate about laptops.

*Other* than that, they're like desktops that you can realistically
unplug and take with you (abiet with a sub-par keyboard and pointing
device when you're using it on-the-go - but that's better than the
"nothing" you get on-the-go with a desktop).



 Sep 14 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent reply Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com>  writes:


On Sep 14, 2013 11:25 AM, "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:

 On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 05:58:51AM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 09:19:42 +0200
 Paulo Pinto <pjmlp progtools.org> wrote:


 [...]

 laptops sold with Linux support.


 Those exist?

 I've long heard stories about such things, but they seem to be like
 unicorns or mermaids or bigfoot...fantasy creatures you only ever hear
 tales "through the grapevine" about. Not so much real evidence or
 first-hand accounts.


 I used to own one of them. It came preinstalled with Debian, so I'd like
 to say to all the accusations of FOSS zealotry: so there! ;-)

 It does have some binary blobs for a few device drivers, though, but
 that didn't pose a problem 'cos they were custom-installed by the
 manufacturers, so apt-get upgrade left them alone for the most part.

 It worked pretty well as a laptop -- I of course nuked the default GUI
 configuration and installed my own (at the time I was still into vtwm --
 this was before my ratpoison days -- so it wasn't *too* foreign from the
 preinstalled setup). But then the warranty expired, and so did the PSU.
 I took it in for repair once, which was extremely expensive, but it
 didn't last very long after. That was when I acquired a strong distaste
 for laptops -- I learned that they have basically *no* user-serviceable
 parts, and even something as simple as installing a different hard drive
 (simple on a desktop, anyway) required custom tools that only laptop
 manufacturers or repair shops have access to. Besides, even if you could
 find the tools, laptop parts generally aren't sold in the consumer
 market anyway, and they are also very model-specific, so there's no such
 thing as going out to buy a replacement for a failing part. It's take it
 in to the repair shop and pay an arm and a leg for the repair which
 exceeds the cost of buying a new laptop. Sigh...



 As an example, last April, an Ubuntu update borked my wireless
 driver, because of religious FOSS. Ubuntu developers changed the
 binary broadcom driver, working flawlessly, for the open source one,
 which was still half done.

 There is a discussion about it on their forums, if you want a link
 for it.


 Well, I don't use Ubuntu anymore for my Linux boxes. Migrated upstream
 to Debian. Any idea if one of the less religious distros (like Mint)
 would be decent for a laptop, or are non-OSS drivers merely one issue?


 I'd advise caution and very *very* thorough research before purchasing a
 laptop. Some laptops have hardware with no known Linux drivers (not even
 binary blobs), so no matter which distro you choose, it wouldn't work.


Some manufacturers even actively work against Linux at the hardware level.

http://linuxologist.com/02hardware/even-more-incriminating-evidence-in-the-foxconn-debacle/

Regards
-- 
Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';



 Sep 14 2013



  parent reply Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com>  writes:


On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 11:31:44 +0100
Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com> wrote:

 
 Some manufacturers even actively work against Linux at the hardware
 level.
 
 http://linuxologist.com/02hardware/even-more-incriminating-evidence-in-the-foxconn-debacle/
 


Yea. I don't know this will just turn out to just be more Palladium-like
anti-MS FUD, but UEFI really worries me. To the point where I'd be very
hesitant to buy any computer with Win8 pre-installed. (Not that I'd
want to pay the MS tax anyway for an OS I'd immediately wipe off of the
HDD.)



 Sep 14 2013



  parent reply Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com>  writes:


On Sep 15, 2013 12:55 AM, "Nick Sabalausky" <
SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> wrote:

 On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 11:31:44 +0100
 Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com> wrote:

 Some manufacturers even actively work against Linux at the hardware
 level.




http://linuxologist.com/02hardware/even-more-incriminating-evidence-in-the-foxconn-debacle/


 Yea. I don't know this will just turn out to just be more Palladium-like
 anti-MS FUD, but UEFI really worries me. To the point where I'd be very
 hesitant to buy any computer with Win8 pre-installed. (Not that I'd
 want to pay the MS tax anyway for an OS I'd immediately wipe off of the
 HDD.)


I've actually taken a rash decision and won't buy another x86/x86_64 device
again (going full ARM in the next years once my current kit reaches it's
end of life).

Regards
-- 
Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';



 Sep 15 2013



  parent reply Paulo Pinto <pjmlp progtools.org>  writes:


Am 15.09.2013 12:09, schrieb Iain Buclaw:

 On Sep 15, 2013 12:55 AM, "Nick Sabalausky"
 <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com
 <mailto:SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com>> wrote:
  >
  > On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 11:31:44 +0100
  > Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com <mailto:ibuclaw ubuntu.com>> wrote:
  > >
  > > Some manufacturers even actively work against Linux at the hardware
  > > level.
  > >
  > >
 http://linuxologist.com/02hardware/even-more-incriminating-evidence-in-the-foxconn-debacle/
  > >
  >
  > Yea. I don't know this will just turn out to just be more Palladium-like
  > anti-MS FUD, but UEFI really worries me. To the point where I'd be very
  > hesitant to buy any computer with Win8 pre-installed. (Not that I'd
  > want to pay the MS tax anyway for an OS I'd immediately wipe off of the
  > HDD.)
  >

 I've actually taken a rash decision and won't buy another x86/x86_64
 device again (going full ARM in the next years once my current kit
 reaches it's end of life).

 Regards
 --
 Iain Buclaw

 *(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';


Using a Raspberry Pi as desktop?



 Sep 15 2013



  parent  Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com>  writes:


On 15 September 2013 16:54, Paulo Pinto <pjmlp progtools.org> wrote:

 Am 15.09.2013 12:09, schrieb Iain Buclaw:

 On Sep 15, 2013 12:55 AM, "Nick Sabalausky"
 <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com

 <mailto:SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com>> wrote:
  >
  > On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 11:31:44 +0100
  > Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com <mailto:ibuclaw ubuntu.com>> wrote:
  > >
  > > Some manufacturers even actively work against Linux at the hardware
  > > level.
  > >
  > >

 http://linuxologist.com/02hardware/even-more-incriminating-evidence-in-the-foxconn-debacle/
  > >
  >
  > Yea. I don't know this will just turn out to just be more
 Palladium-like
  > anti-MS FUD, but UEFI really worries me. To the point where I'd be very
  > hesitant to buy any computer with Win8 pre-installed. (Not that I'd
  > want to pay the MS tax anyway for an OS I'd immediately wipe off of the
  > HDD.)
  >

 I've actually taken a rash decision and won't buy another x86/x86_64
 device again (going full ARM in the next years once my current kit
 reaches it's end of life).

 Regards
 --
 Iain Buclaw

 *(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';


 Using a Raspberry Pi as desktop?


Nah, not nearly powerful enough for my daily usage.

Got a sheevaplug that I use as a NFS server/Wireless AP.  A Trimslice
that is a useable desktop - but haven't pick it up much as I don't
have a monitor kicking around to connect to it.

Later next month am getting a Parallella board that should replace my
development laptop. :-)

-- 
Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';



 Sep 15 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent reply Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com>  writes:


On Saturday, September 14, 2013 05:58:51 Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 Those exist?
 
 I've long heard stories about such things, but they seem to be like
 unicorns or mermaids or bigfoot...fantasy creatures you only ever hear
 tales "through the grapevine" about. Not so much real evidence or
 first-hand accounts.


Lenovo and Dell certainly used to, but I don't know about right now. One 
company that's definitely still doing it though is System76 (who is one of the 
Linux Action Show's sponsors). _All_ of the systems that they build are built 
specifically for Linux (both desktop and laptop). They don't even sell anything 
with Windows on it. I always build my own desktops, but the next time that I'm 
in the market for a laptop, I'll probably end up getting one from them.

www.system76.com

- Jonathan M Davis



 Sep 14 2013



 next sibling parent  "Justin Whear" <justin economicmodeling.com>  writes:


On Saturday, 14 September 2013 at 16:20:21 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
wrote:

 On Saturday, September 14, 2013 05:58:51 Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 Those exist?
 
 I've long heard stories about such things, but they seem to be 
 like
 unicorns or mermaids or bigfoot...fantasy creatures you only 
 ever hear
 tales "through the grapevine" about. Not so much real evidence 
 or
 first-hand accounts.


 Lenovo and Dell certainly used to, but I don't know about right 
 now. One
 company that's definitely still doing it though is System76 
 (who is one of the
 Linux Action Show's sponsors). _All_ of the systems that they 
 build are built
 specifically for Linux (both desktop and laptop). They don't 
 even sell anything
 with Windows on it. I always build my own desktops, but the 
 next time that I'm
 in the market for a laptop, I'll probably end up getting one 
 from them.

 www.system76.com

 - Jonathan M Davis


My work laptop: http://www.dell.com/us/business/p/xps-13-linux/pd
Well made, works out of the box.  I hook it up to two large 
external monitors and a real keyboard when I'm at my desk.



 Sep 14 2013



prev sibling  parent  Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com>  writes:


On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 09:20:04 -0700
Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> wrote:


 On Saturday, September 14, 2013 05:58:51 Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 Those exist?
 
 I've long heard stories about such things, but they seem to be like
 unicorns or mermaids or bigfoot...fantasy creatures you only ever
 hear tales "through the grapevine" about. Not so much real evidence
 or first-hand accounts.


 
 Lenovo and Dell certainly used to, but I don't know about right now.
 One company that's definitely still doing it though is System76 (who
 is one of the Linux Action Show's sponsors). _All_ of the systems
 that they build are built specifically for Linux (both desktop and
 laptop). They don't even sell anything with Windows on it. I always
 build my own desktops, but the next time that I'm in the market for a
 laptop, I'll probably end up getting one from them.
 
 www.system76.com
 


Hmm, that sounds awesome, in many ways, but they appear to be very
expensive. Their *cheapest* one is over $800. I certainly don't need a
full i7. (I'm on a two-core Intel B960 right now, and it's plenty fast
for anything I do, The *only* beef I have with it the ridiculous lack of
hardware virtualization - so no 64-bit VMs. But there's an even cheaper
model now with an AMD IIRC - so that would have the hardware
virtualization, and other specs at least as good as my current one, all
for less than $300 for the entire machine. An $800 laptop these days
would be overkill unless I was doing CG animations, or professional HD
video editing/compositing, or something like that...or using Eclipse...)

Don't really need the 1080 resolution either since I'm usually on an
external monitor - 1080 would make everything way too small on a
15" anyway.



 Sep 14 2013



prev sibling  parent  Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com>  writes:


On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 05:58:51 -0400
Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> wrote:


 On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 09:19:42 +0200
 Paulo Pinto <pjmlp progtools.org> wrote:

 
 The main problem with Linux distributions, is that even in 2013, it 
 won't work properly in laptops.
 
 Wireless chipsets, battery use and graphic cards (specially hybrid
 like optimus) are still a problem.
 


 
 Really? That's all rather discouraging. As of last year, my primary
 system is now a laptop, and my concern about laptop-related issues was
 the main reason I ended up sticking with the factory-installed Win7
 instead of upgrading back to XP.
 



Oooh, Score!! According to h-node.org (thanks for the link, Iain), my
laptop is already rated "A-platinum":

http://h-node.org/notebooks/view/en/1199/X54-C/1/1/Asus/undef/undef/notebook/undef/undef/amd64/undef

:)



 Sep 14 2013



prev sibling  parent reply Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com>  writes:


On Sep 14, 2013 8:21 AM, "Paulo Pinto" <pjmlp progtools.org> wrote:

 Am 14.09.2013 08:14, schrieb Nick Sabalausky:


 On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 06:37:49 +0200
 "dusr" <dusr d.usr> wrote:


 Like I said, I've been a Linux user for a long time, and that's
 by choice! But I still envy a lot of what Windows gets right
 and still long for the good old days of DOS where it was just
 you, the hardware, and a little tiny helper library that was
 there if you needed it.



 I've used debian from woody to squeeze, then I moved back to
 windows7.
 Windows is better.



 Heh, I'm sort of the opposite. I've been using Windows from 3.11
 through 7, and from Vista onward I've started to really hate Windows
 more and more (If I wanted to be running a Mac, I'd have gotten a
 Mac, not two versions of "New Windows: Apple-Envy Edition" followed by
 "Microsoft UI-Of-The-Month Club").

 Meanwhile, I've been using Linux more and more for testing and servers,
 and I'm looking at switching my main OS over to...probably Debian 7,
 with wine and VirtualBox for the occasional things that don't come in
 Linux flavor. I just wish I could get a Linux file manager I liked.


 The main problem with Linux distributions, is that even in 2013, it won't


work properly in laptops.

 Wireless chipsets, battery use and graphic cards (specially hybrid like


optimus) are still a problem.

 Personally I only use Linux on servers, VMs, or laptops sold with Linux


support.

 As an example, last April, an Ubuntu update borked my wireless driver,


because of religious FOSS. Ubuntu developers changed the binary broadcom
driver, working flawlessly, for the open source one, which was still half
done.

 There is a discussion about it on their forums, if you want a link for it.

 So nowadays I rather use systems for work, that value my up time.


If I was to install Windows or OSX on my laptop I'd probably have similar
issues with wireless, display not working, etc...

There are plenty of places to check hardware compatibility of a
laptop/computer you are thinking about purchasing (e.g. http://h-node.org )
- there are even some things that I boycott because of ethical feelings
towards the manufacturer or technology (e.g. UEFI).

If you don't want the hassle of checking that each component works with
your favourite OS, then you can simply go down the pre installed route.
https://www.system76.com

As for your wireless driver woes, I'm sure you still had the choice to go
for the proprietary drivers, which would mean you have to also blacklist
the OSS one (done this plenty in the past, except for resolving conflicts
with OSS drivers that think they can talk to the same device, but one gives
me 1m wireless AP scanning range, and the other 30m :)

Regards
-- 
Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';



 Sep 14 2013



  parent  Paulo Pinto <pjmlp progtools.org>  writes:


Am 14.09.2013 12:19, schrieb Iain Buclaw:

 ...

 As for your wireless driver woes, I'm sure you still had the choice to
 go for the proprietary drivers, which would mean you have to also
 blacklist the OSS one (done this plenty in the past, except for
 resolving conflicts with OSS drivers that think they can talk to the
 same device, but one gives me 1m wireless AP scanning range, and the
 other 30m :)

 Regards
 --
 Iain Buclaw

 *(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';


Wrong. If you want I can provide the Ubuntu forum discussion.

Due to the kernel changes done for the open source version of the 
broadcom driver, to keep using the binary blob on my laptop, I would 
need to reflash the wireless card with new firmware.

Additionally, not everyone was having success with it.

So, I was forced to use either ethernet cabling, or only talk to IPv6 
routers until June, which was the tim the open source driver reached 
feature parity level with what I already had in April.

Thankfully it is not my primary laptop.

I am not a Linux newbie, I have been using it since kernel version 1.0.9.

I just don't have the time to keep tuning the system as I used to,
nor do I want to.

--
Paulo



 Sep 14 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent reply Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com>  writes:


On Sep 14, 2013 7:21 AM, "Nick Sabalausky" <
SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> wrote:

 On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 06:37:49 +0200
 "dusr" <dusr d.usr> wrote:


 Like I said, I've been a Linux user for a long time, and that's
 by choice! But I still envy a lot of what Windows gets right
 and still long for the good old days of DOS where it was just
 you, the hardware, and a little tiny helper library that was
 there if you needed it.


 I've used debian from woody to squeeze, then I moved back to
 windows7.
 Windows is better.


 Heh, I'm sort of the opposite. I've been using Windows from 3.11
 through 7, and from Vista onward I've started to really hate Windows
 more and more (If I wanted to be running a Mac, I'd have gotten a
 Mac, not two versions of "New Windows: Apple-Envy Edition" followed by
 "Microsoft UI-Of-The-Month Club").

 Meanwhile, I've been using Linux more and more for testing and servers,
 and I'm looking at switching my main OS over to...probably Debian 7,
 with wine and VirtualBox for the occasional things that don't come in
 Linux flavor. I just wish I could get a Linux file manager I liked.


It's not as if window's file manager is any good. :o)

Regards
-- 
Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';



 Sep 14 2013



 next sibling parent  "JN" <666total wp.pl>  writes:


I assume the question is about D only, then I use Eclipse + DDT 
or CodeBlocks depending on my mood.



 Sep 14 2013



prev sibling  parent  Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com>  writes:


On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 11:00:35 +0100
Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com> wrote:


 On Sep 14, 2013 7:21 AM, "Nick Sabalausky" <
 SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> wrote:

 Heh, I'm sort of the opposite. I've been using Windows from 3.11
 through 7, and from Vista onward I've started to really hate Windows
 more and more (If I wanted to be running a Mac, I'd have gotten a
 Mac, not two versions of "New Windows: Apple-Envy Edition" followed
 by "Microsoft UI-Of-The-Month Club").

 Meanwhile, I've been using Linux more and more for testing and
 servers, and I'm looking at switching my main OS over to...probably
 Debian 7, with wine and VirtualBox for the occasional things that
 don't come in Linux flavor. I just wish I could get a Linux file
 manager I liked.


 
 It's not as if window's file manager is any good. :o)
 


It certainly isn't anymore :(  It took a nosedive in Vista and then
never got any better. And even in XP (and Vista/7, too, and presumably
8) it's terribly inefficient at handling reasonable numbers of
files/directories. The cmd prompt can query and display the
names/attributes of hundreds of files in the blink of an eye.
Why does Explorer often need to sit and wait for several seconds for a
even fraction as many? It's not *that* graphically intensive.

But I love XP Explorer's UI. (YMMV)



 Sep 14 2013



prev sibling  parent reply "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com>  writes:


On Saturday, 14 September 2013 at 06:15:08 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
wrote:

 Heh, I'm sort of the opposite. I've been using Windows from 3.11
 through 7, and from Vista onward I've started to really hate 
 Windows more and more


I kinda love Windows Vista. The little start menu command line 
rocks and I missed it back on XP.

On my linux box, I have the menu key next to the right windows 
key set to pull up an rxvt. So I hit that, do some command, then 
ctrl+d to get rid of it when done.

Finally, Windows Vista kinda sorta matches that: hit the windows 
key, type something, and go.



 Sep 14 2013



  parent  Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com>  writes:


On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 17:45:59 +0200
"Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> wrote:


 On Saturday, 14 September 2013 at 06:15:08 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
 wrote:

 Heh, I'm sort of the opposite. I've been using Windows from 3.11
 through 7, and from Vista onward I've started to really hate 
 Windows more and more


 
 I kinda love Windows Vista. The little start menu command line 
 rocks and I missed it back on XP.
 


That thing's not bad, but I hate the new-style "All Programs". And I
get frequent use out of the Win-R shortcut anyway.



 Sep 14 2013



prev sibling  parent reply "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx>  writes:


On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 06:03:01AM +0200, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:

 On Saturday, 14 September 2013 at 02:56:52 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:

So then recompile after you do a distribution upgrade.


 
 Of course there's ways around it, but talk about an enormous hassle.
 

I'll be sure to look, but one bad thing doesn't mean everything's
bad


 
 Like I said, I've been a Linux user for a long time, and that's by
 choice! But I still envy a lot of what Windows gets right and still
 long for the good old days of DOS where it was just you, the
 hardware, and a little tiny helper library that was there if you
 needed it.


I remember those days too. :) But I dunno, IME, when Windows 3.1 came
along, it had so many gratuitous limitations that I said to myself, this
sucks! So now I can't have direct access to hardware in the name of
"protection", and what do I get in return? Nothing but being
straitjacketed into a system that can't even do what I want. So I stuck
with DOS until Win95 came along, and it became pretty clear that the
days of DOS are numbered. I hated Win95 just as much for the same
reasons: the hood was welded shut in the name of "protection", but
little protection was actually offered, and a lot of lack of
functionality. I clung on to DOS until its dying days, then somebody
suggested Linux. I wasn't too pleased to hear that either -- I had been
using Solaris in my CS classes in college, and I wasn't particularly
impressed with it. But I did decide to try it. I gave up after a while,
'cos of the sheer difficulty of actually installing a system that worked
(this was in the days before linux installers existed.)

Some time later, as all hopes of DOS-style programming faded away, I
decided to seriously look into finding a Linux distro that I could live
with. I chose Debian. It was a bit of a challenge to get it to work --
this was before the days of apt-get. But when I finally did get it to
work, I was actually quite pleased with it. It offered one thing that
Windows and most of the other distros at the time offered: the ability
to install a bare minimum system that could still function without
*requiring* X11, and (the beginnings of) a sane package management
system that doesn't suck -- I could, for example, specify that I *don't*
want fvwm (which was all the rage at one point) installed by default,
and the packaging system would actually take that and *work* with it
instead of saying "you don't want the defaults? OK, then you're on your
own, if it breaks, you get to keep the pieces", like most other distros
were doing at the time. It allowed me to select a different default
shell from bash without totally collapsing into a heap of mess, unlike
some other distros that I tried, that simply assumed /bin/sh ==
/bin/bash.

Anyway, long story short, I found that while Linux, like any other
modern OS, required sacrificing some flexibility -- you don't deal
directly with the hardware anymore -- it also offered a lot in return:
protection of programs from each other, so that X11 crashing (which was
a frequent occurrence in those days) doesn't bring down the entire
system, and typing the wrong command as a user won't delete system
files. Customizability. The ability to reach inside the innards of the
system and modify stuff. Personalize it to the point nobody else knows
how to use the system. Sure, things weren't perfect. But at least you
had the fighting chance to do something about it. Whereas on Windows, I
had to sacrifice the same flexibility, yet what I get in return was a
system that can be easily brought down by a misbehaving program, typing
the wrong command(s) can delete system files and require a full
reinstallation, a straitjacketed "you-have-to-use-a-GUI-or-else" design
mentality that makes it impossible to customize things without literally
*everything* breaking left right and center, and a hood that's welded
shut 'cos obviously you, a puny user, aren't qualified to look under the
hood, and sure as heck don't know how to *fix* anything the MS couldn't
fix.

For all of its flaws, I still prefer the freedom of choice I get with
Linux.  I never looked back ever since.



if you remember the days when you'd be listening to music but
couldn't hear any sounds from sauerbraten


 
 Actually, that's still the way things are on my system (there is the
 alsa stuff, but the OSS emulation actually works better. Get
 that.).... and over the years, I've come to see it as a feature!
 
 See, I would keep one program running just to thwart random Flash
 crap from spewing noise. Now I use noscript, but still I've come to
 like locking the speakers with another program.


o_O What system *are* you using?? I've been using Debian's default ALSA
installation for the last, oh, decade? -- and I've never had a problem
with two (or more!) programs simultaneously producing sounds getting
perfectly blended together without any one locking out the other. In
fact, I've actually tried spawning 50-odd copies of mpg123 before, and
it actually manages to blend ALL of the outputs without any sign of
distortion. I'm honestly quite surprised you're having so much trouble
with it. It's like your system was frozen in time in 1998 when these
things were still being sorted out (judging by the fact you still use
OSS), 'cos that was about the last time I remember having issues of this
sort.

No wonder you're having issues that none of the rest of us linuxers
experience, if you insist on using 15 y.o. software that hasn't been
maintained for who knows how long. ;)


T

-- 
Why can't you just be a nonconformist like everyone else? -- YHL



 Sep 13 2013



 next sibling parent reply Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com>  writes:


On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 23:55:55 -0700
"H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:

 But I dunno, IME, when Windows 3.1 came
 along, it had so many gratuitous limitations that I said to myself,
 this sucks! So now I can't have direct access to hardware in the name
 of "protection", and what do I get in return? Nothing but being
 straitjacketed into a system that can't even do what I want.


OMG, iOS and Android == Win 3.1! Why did I never notice that before!



 Sep 14 2013



  parent reply "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx>  writes:


On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 04:59:16AM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 23:55:55 -0700
 "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:

 But I dunno, IME, when Windows 3.1 came along, it had so many
 gratuitous limitations that I said to myself, this sucks! So now I
 can't have direct access to hardware in the name of "protection",
 and what do I get in return? Nothing but being straitjacketed into a
 system that can't even do what I want.


 
 OMG, iOS and Android == Win 3.1! Why did I never notice that before!


lol...

I do find Android at least 100 times more usable than iOS, though.
There's actually a file manager app that lets me *manage my own files*,
for crying out loud. And I can mount the thing as a USB drive and,
y'know, transfer files without going through the horror of bad GUI
design known as iTunes. And I can change the wallpaper without
jailbreaking the contraption, install an alternate keyboard, choose from
browsers that don't have to fear retribution from Apple for being too
similar to Safari, etc.. Not to mention being able to do something so
basic as using an arbitrary mp3 as a ringtone (seriously, *why* does the
iPhone require a completely separate subsystem and gratuitously obscure
file format just for ringtones? it's not as though in this day and age
we don't have generic sound-playing libraries that can handle multiple
file formats... and don't get me started on the fact that an i*Pod*
refuses to receive a custom ringtone, 'cos it's not a phone, in spite of
the fact that the built-in clock chooses from the ringtone catalogue for
alarm sounds -- the whole thing is straitjacketed beyond belief).

Of course, Android isn't *completely* free of annoyances. A recent one
is the inability to completely remove preinstalled apps that I don't use
and don't intend to use, because they're "system" apps. I'm still trying
to wrap my head around the concept of Facebook being a "system" app...
Sigh.


T

-- 
Life is too short to run proprietary software. -- Bdale Garbee



 Sep 14 2013



  parent reply Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com>  writes:


On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 03:41:58 -0700
"H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:


 On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 04:59:16AM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 23:55:55 -0700
 "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:

 But I dunno, IME, when Windows 3.1 came along, it had so many
 gratuitous limitations that I said to myself, this sucks! So now I
 can't have direct access to hardware in the name of "protection",
 and what do I get in return? Nothing but being straitjacketed
 into a system that can't even do what I want.


 
 OMG, iOS and Android == Win 3.1! Why did I never notice that before!


 
 lol...
 
 I do find Android at least 100 times more usable than iOS, though.
 There's actually a file manager app that lets me *manage my own
 files*, for crying out loud. And I can mount the thing as a USB drive
 and, y'know, transfer files without going through the horror of bad
 GUI design known as iTunes. And I can change the wallpaper without
 jailbreaking the contraption, install an alternate keyboard, choose
 from browsers that don't have to fear retribution from Apple for
 being too similar to Safari, etc.. Not to mention being able to do
 something so basic as using an arbitrary mp3 as a ringtone
 (seriously, *why* does the iPhone require a completely separate
 subsystem and gratuitously obscure file format just for ringtones?
 it's not as though in this day and age we don't have generic
 sound-playing libraries that can handle multiple file formats... and
 don't get me started on the fact that an i*Pod* refuses to receive a
 custom ringtone, 'cos it's not a phone, in spite of the fact that the
 built-in clock chooses from the ringtone catalogue for alarm sounds
 -- the whole thing is straitjacketed beyond belief).
 


Yea, "straitjacketed" is absolutely the word for it. I had to carry
an iPhone around for much of 2012, and I can't tell you how many times
I had an incredible urge to hurl the stupid thing into the nearest
concrete wall. Or lodge it into Steve Jobs's skull, but I guess I was
about a year late for that :(


 Of course, Android isn't *completely* free of annoyances. A recent one
 is the inability to completely remove preinstalled apps that I don't
 use and don't intend to use, because they're "system" apps. I'm still
 trying to wrap my head around the concept of Facebook being a
 "system" app... Sigh.
 


Ugh, that's a new one to me. Mine was version 4.0 (and rooted so I could
also swap in and out of 2.3 plus the CyanogenMod versions of both 4.0
and 2.3). It was *definitely* the better of the two, but there were
still plenty of things I hated about Andorid, too:

- Dalvik and Java at the system-level is absurd.

- Battery life was a joke. I'm only speculating here, but I can't help
  wonder if Dalvik was a major reason for that.

- Google clearly hates expandable memory as much as Apple does.

- It's an iOS clone.

- The hardware is an iPhone clone: Capacitive touchscreens and zero
  physical buttons. Bleh, just give me an updated version of Palm's Zire
  71 (with WiFi, PalmOS 6.1+, and for the love of god a
  *user-replaceable* battery)...please! That thing was brilliantly
  designed (aside from the stupid non-replaceable battery which has
  long since rendered my Zire useless). 

- Google pushes their anti-privacy "cloud" syncing/storage/etc far more
  heavily than Apple does. Even though they don't outright ban it, they
  clearly don't want you synching directly to machines *you* own,
  whereas Apple seems perfectly happy to let you suffer through iTunes
  in order to bypass their servers.

- Just like Apple, they retain the ability to remotely delete *your*
  apps just in case they feel like it.

- Just like Apple, you can't really install multiple versions of
  stuff or, in most cases, download older versions. Technically maybe
  you can, but if so it's rather "advanced territory".

- I used it as a WiFi-only, but it kept nagging me to activate it every
  time I rebooted it (which I had to do any time I switched OSes).
  There was *no* existing option or even hack to disable that.

- If there's a newer version of the OS, it will nag you and nag you and
  nag you to update regardless of whether you actually want to.

- The view you get when using it as a USB drive is actually a fairly
  censored, straightjacketed view. Not nearly as bad as Apple, but
  still, it takes rooting, some extra work, and maybe also the
  developer tools to access the *real* filesystem.

- Almost *nothing* uses real words. It's all completely meaningless
  arbitrary symbols, often invented on-the-spot for individual programs.

I'm *almost* more interested in Win Phone 8. Except it's butt-ugly, has
basically no third-party support (by comparison), and has plenty of its
own straitjacketing, too.

That said, Android still makes iOS look like a toy (And I truly do
see iOS devices as little more than toys.) I do kinda want to get an
Android device again, although mainly just because Palm OS 6.1+ devices
don't exist. :(

I'm quite interested in something I've heard Ubuntu was working on: An
installation of full-desktop Ubuntu that runs side-by-side with
Android, sharing the same kernel, and switches to desktop mode when you
connect it to a monitor.

Even before I had heard of them actually *doing* that, I had started to
feel something like that had the potential to become the real future of
personal computing. Because hell, they're already more than powerful
enough. They already connect to HDMI and keyboards/etc. They just need
some (more?) virtual memory and an OS/UI that isn't a toy, and that puts
them a hair away from being laptop/desktop-killers in probably 99% of
use-cases *including* gaming.

Granted, I'm not so enthusiastic about Ubuntu anymore, but still, I
really think something like that is the right way to go.



 Sep 14 2013



  parent  Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com>  writes:


On Sep 15, 2013 12:20 AM, "Nick Sabalausky" <
SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> wrote:

 On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 03:41:58 -0700
 "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:


 Of course, Android isn't *completely* free of annoyances. A recent one
 is the inability to completely remove preinstalled apps that I don't
 use and don't intend to use, because they're "system" apps. I'm still
 trying to wrap my head around the concept of Facebook being a
 "system" app... Sigh.


 Ugh, that's a new one to me. Mine was version 4.0 (and rooted so I could
 also swap in and out of 2.3 plus the CyanogenMod versions of both 4.0
 and 2.3). It was *definitely* the better of the two, but there were
 still plenty of things I hated about Andorid, too:


Yes, that's something strange I noticed too.  On 2.2 you only had the
option to rollback to the version of the app that came with the device.  On
4.0 I've noticed that you can *disable* the app, but not remove. Which
isn't good - but I suppose that's a technical limitation of how they do
system factory resets.

Regards
-- 
Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';



 Sep 15 2013



prev sibling  parent reply "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com>  writes:


On Saturday, 14 September 2013 at 06:57:23 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

 decided to seriously look into finding a Linux distro that I 
 could live with. I chose Debian.


I went with Slackware when I started, actually due to the 
zipslack thing, and then never looked back. You might say "well 
there's your problem" cuz slack doesn't use package managers. But 
I've spent enough time on debian and centOS that my opinion of 
package managers hasn't changed at all: nice when they work, but 
they don't most the time.

The biggest culture hit for me the first time I did use them 
though was the -devel libraries. On Slackware, all libraries are 
devel, they just do it all together. And really, why wouldn't 
you? This is linux! (and we are KLINGONS! sorry i couldnt resist)


But slackware packages are simple and to the point. They're just 
tarballs with everything you need (except recursive dependencies, 
but you usually already have them - assuming you can actually 
find a slackware package, getting rarer each year, sadly - they 
are built against the core system and tend to work well).

Still not my *ideal* system, but despite my complaining, I 
actually do like it. The biggest problem is nowadays everyone 
does deb and rpm instead.


 Windows and most of the other distros at the time offered: the 
 ability to install a bare minimum system that could still 
 function without *requiring* X11



oh god X11 was too brutally slow to use on an older computer 
anyway. Windows 95 was actually fast.


 Anyway, long story short, I found that while Linux, like any 
 other modern OS, required sacrificing some flexibility -- you 
 don't deal directly with the hardware anymore


There was vm86 mode though... I got this program DOSEmu that did 
that and it rocked. But now I'm on 64 bit.

Actually though now there's the whole qemu/kvm virtualization 
stuff who's potential I really don't think has been fully 
explored.  Not only could you run programs for other systems, but 
you could also potentially sandbox them really well, better than 
user accounts and processes alone.


 o_O What system *are* you using?? I've been using Debian's 
 default ALSA installation for the last, oh, decade?


I actually use ALSA too, but some of the programs are OSS 
emulation (which rocks btw. Ever try to program ALSA? What a 
piece of shit, oss works the way it should, just write some crap 
to /dev/dsp).

If I opt in to the alsa programs they mix sounds fine, but 
there's more latency. Not a problem sometimes, but it bugs me 
other times, and besides, like I said I think locking the audio 
device is sometimes a feature rather than a bug.

But still, it's ridiculous, they should have just fixed OSS back 
then to mix and keep up with the drivers (someone did! but they 
made it closed source so linux couldn't look at it. But the 
FreeBSD people fixed oss too.)

There are some weird system things too though. The ALSA volume 
control (alsamixer to interface with it, but it is in the system 
itself) is really weird. Most the values don't seem to do 
anything on my new hardware.

On my old motherboard, the volume control worked like you'd 
expect. Master has a wide range, PCM had a wide range, they'd 
work together.

My new motherboard is weird. PCM does virtually nothing. Master 
works well from about 20 to 80, but setting it to zero doesn't 
actually silence it (usually) and going to 100 just distorts it. 
I guess distortion is expected with digital audio maxing out, but 
my old mobo didn't do it.


Now, on the bright side, at least alsa actually works now. When I 
was doing it ten years ago, that was a huge victory.



 Sep 14 2013



 next sibling parent  "John Colvin" <john.loughran.colvin gmail.com>  writes:


On Saturday, 14 September 2013 at 15:38:54 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe 
wrote:

 My new motherboard is weird. PCM does virtually nothing. Master 
 works well from about 20 to 80, but setting it to zero doesn't 
 actually silence it (usually) and going to 100 just distorts 
 it. I guess distortion is expected with digital audio maxing 
 out, but my old mobo didn't do it.


Something is very wrong there. There's very little excuse for a 
digital master volume control that can cause clipping.



 Sep 14 2013



prev sibling  parent reply Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com>  writes:


On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 17:38:52 +0200
"Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> wrote:


 On Saturday, 14 September 2013 at 06:57:23 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

 Windows and most of the other distros at the time offered: the 
 ability to install a bare minimum system that could still 
 function without *requiring* X11


 
 
 oh god X11 was too brutally slow to use on an older computer 
 anyway. Windows 95 was actually fast.
 


My first introduction to Linux was around 2001 with Mandrake and Red
Hat (the two main "newbie-friendly" distros at the time). I couldn't
believe how insanely sllloooooow Nautilus was compared to Win98 and
Win2k on the same hardware.

Plus, the X11 installation kept completely destroying itself for no
apparent reason. One day, a few weeks after the most recent
from-scratch OS installation, X would just simply decide not to start.
And I never could manage to fix it without yet another OS
re-installation.

That, plus the constant tinkering, the awful state of pre-apt/yum
packages, and the attitudes of many Linux users at the time left me
swearing off Linux and running back to Windows until several years
later when I finally gave it another try with "This new Ubuntu thing
everyone seems to be talking about."

Boy have things improved. Not perfect, granted, but far better than I
had ever expected.


 
 Actually though now there's the whole qemu/kvm virtualization 
 stuff who's potential I really don't think has been fully 
 explored.


I feel exactly the same way. EVen though I've never been a
big VM-language fan, machine virtualization rocks. (Aside from Intel's
deliberate marginalization of it for anything but high-end.)



 Sep 14 2013



  parent reply Paulo Pinto <pjmlp progtools.org>  writes:


Am 15.09.2013 01:35, schrieb Nick Sabalausky:

 On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 17:38:52 +0200
 "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> wrote:


 On Saturday, 14 September 2013 at 06:57:23 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

 Windows and most of the other distros at the time offered: the
 ability to install a bare minimum system that could still
 function without *requiring* X11



 oh god X11 was too brutally slow to use on an older computer
 anyway. Windows 95 was actually fast.





An interesting anecdote.

At the begining of my UNIX days, it was a pleasure to use the usual set
of APIs, which tend to be less convoluted than on Windows.

Then I started looking into X11 programming with Xlib and Motif, and 
could not believe that they managed to make it even more complex than
any other desktop graphics programming API!

On those days, Gtk and Qt were still to be born and framebuffer 
applications running with setuid coded in svgalib were the way to go
for graphics coding on Linux distributions.






 My first introduction to Linux was around 2001 with Mandrake and Red
 Hat (the two main "newbie-friendly" distros at the time). I couldn't
 believe how insanely sllloooooow Nautilus was compared to Win98 and
 Win2k on the same hardware.

 Plus, the X11 installation kept completely destroying itself for no
 apparent reason. One day, a few weeks after the most recent
 from-scratch OS installation, X would just simply decide not to start.
 And I never could manage to fix it without yet another OS
 re-installation.

 That, plus the constant tinkering, the awful state of pre-apt/yum
 packages, and the attitudes of many Linux users at the time left me
 swearing off Linux and running back to Windows until several years
 later when I finally gave it another try with "This new Ubuntu thing
 everyone seems to be talking about."

 Boy have things improved. Not perfect, granted, but far better than I
 had ever expected.


While true, this experience is easy to replicate in 2013 with the wrong
laptop, sadly.





 Actually though now there's the whole qemu/kvm virtualization
 stuff who's potential I really don't think has been fully
 explored.





 I feel exactly the same way. EVen though I've never been a
 big VM-language fan, machine virtualization rocks. (Aside from Intel's
 deliberate marginalization of it for anything but high-end.)


I like vm languages, if the implementation offers a proper jit. :)

As for virtualization, I have also became a big fan and no longer dual boot.

--
Paulo



 Sep 14 2013



 next sibling parent  Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com>  writes:


On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 07:04:25 +0200
Paulo Pinto <pjmlp progtools.org> wrote:

 
 As for virtualization, I have also became a big fan and no longer
 dual boot.
 


Yea, I almost mentioned that actually: The real killer feature of VMs
IMO is that they're a very simple, safe and incredibly convenient
alternative to dual-booting. Even before I discovered VMs, I swore off
dual-booting a long time ago - too much of a pain, too much danger,
etc. But virtualization is just a total game-changer. Hell, I don't even
feel a need for my separate physical Linux box anymore.



 Sep 14 2013



prev sibling  parent reply "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx>  writes:


On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 07:04:25AM +0200, Paulo Pinto wrote:

 Am 15.09.2013 01:35, schrieb Nick Sabalausky:

On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 17:38:52 +0200
"Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> wrote:


On Saturday, 14 September 2013 at 06:57:23 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

Windows and most of the other distros at the time offered: the
ability to install a bare minimum system that could still
function without *requiring* X11



oh god X11 was too brutally slow to use on an older computer
anyway. Windows 95 was actually fast.




 
 
 An interesting anecdote.
 
 At the begining of my UNIX days, it was a pleasure to use the usual set
 of APIs, which tend to be less convoluted than on Windows.
 
 Then I started looking into X11 programming with Xlib and Motif, and
 could not believe that they managed to make it even more complex
 than any other desktop graphics programming API!


[...]

Once, in college, I had the totally hare-brained idea of *printing* out
the Xlib documentation. Through the department's printer service. It
came out as a stack of paper 6 *inches* thick (you do the math as to how
many pages that is), which I still have today for posterity. :-P


T

-- 
If it breaks, you get to keep both pieces. -- Software disclaimer notice



 Sep 15 2013



  parent reply Paulo Pinto <pjmlp progtools.org>  writes:


Am 15.09.2013 16:24, schrieb H. S. Teoh:

 On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 07:04:25AM +0200, Paulo Pinto wrote:

 Am 15.09.2013 01:35, schrieb Nick Sabalausky:

 On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 17:38:52 +0200
 "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> wrote:


 On Saturday, 14 September 2013 at 06:57:23 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

 Windows and most of the other distros at the time offered: the
 ability to install a bare minimum system that could still
 function without *requiring* X11



 oh god X11 was too brutally slow to use on an older computer
 anyway. Windows 95 was actually fast.





 An interesting anecdote.

 At the begining of my UNIX days, it was a pleasure to use the usual set
 of APIs, which tend to be less convoluted than on Windows.

 Then I started looking into X11 programming with Xlib and Motif, and
 could not believe that they managed to make it even more complex
 than any other desktop graphics programming API!


 [...]

 Once, in college, I had the totally hare-brained idea of *printing* out
 the Xlib documentation. Through the department's printer service. It
 came out as a stack of paper 6 *inches* thick (you do the math as to how
 many pages that is), which I still have today for posterity. :-P


 T


I can imagine, I remember the stack of books O'Reilley used to sell.

The department guys were very happy with you I guess. :)

--
Paulo



 Sep 15 2013



  parent  "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx>  writes:


On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 05:56:50PM +0200, Paulo Pinto wrote:

 Am 15.09.2013 16:24, schrieb H. S. Teoh:

On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 07:04:25AM +0200, Paulo Pinto wrote:




[...]

At the begining of my UNIX days, it was a pleasure to use the usual
set of APIs, which tend to be less convoluted than on Windows.

Then I started looking into X11 programming with Xlib and Motif, and
could not believe that they managed to make it even more complex
than any other desktop graphics programming API!


[...]

Once, in college, I had the totally hare-brained idea of *printing*
out the Xlib documentation. Through the department's printer service.
It came out as a stack of paper 6 *inches* thick (you do the math as
to how many pages that is), which I still have today for posterity.
:-P


T


 
 I can imagine, I remember the stack of books O'Reilley used to sell.
 
 The department guys were very happy with you I guess. :)


[...]

Hehe... fortunately, the printer service was managed by a dedicated
team, and I'm guessing they're pretty used to big jobs every now and
then. I did get strange looks from them, though. :-)


T

-- 
There are four kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics.



 Sep 15 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent reply Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com>  writes:


On Sep 14, 2013 1:40 AM, "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> wrote:

 On Friday, 13 September 2013 at 22:32:30 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

 Sure... wait, what?



 Download a random binary off the internet. Odds are, if it is an exe, it


will work. Even if you're on linux, you can run it with wine.


This is just not the right mindset of using your system. Regardless of what
OS you use.  Unless you enjoy spending hours on end removing viruses from
your system. :)

Regards
-- 
Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';



 Sep 13 2013



  parent reply "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com>  writes:


On Saturday, 14 September 2013 at 02:59:49 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:

 Unless you enjoy spending hours on end removing viruses from 
 your system. :)


Meh, do you actually review the source of everything you compile? 
I betcha if I made a makefile

install:
     root_this_box
     actually_install

I could pwn hundreds of linux boxes before the many eyes even 
took a look at it.

(except i used spaces there instead of tabs. Thwarted by make's 
silly syntax once again!)



 Sep 13 2013



 next sibling parent  "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx>  writes:


On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 05:36:53AM +0200, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:

 On Saturday, 14 September 2013 at 02:59:49 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:

Unless you enjoy spending hours on end removing viruses from your
system. :)


 
 Meh, do you actually review the source of everything you compile? I
 betcha if I made a makefile
 
 install:
     root_this_box
     actually_install
 
 I could pwn hundreds of linux boxes before the many eyes even took a
 look at it.


If you were on Windows, I could pwn your box just by sending you an
appropriately-crafted email and having Outlook automatically execute an
untrusted script without your knowledge or permission, and by you not
even needing to open the message, just seeing it in the preview pane.
I'm reasonably confident that I'll get a lot more windows boxen than you
could get linux boxen. ;-) There are a LOT more windows users who use
Outlook without any clue about its security vulnerabilities, than linux
users who know how to run make.

(But you do have a point about clueless linux users who run make as root
without batting an eyelid. They deserve what they get, frankly.)



 (except i used spaces there instead of tabs. Thwarted by make's
 silly syntax once again!)


I hate make. It's an antiquated hack on top of a patch on top of a nave
implementation of a simple design stretched far, far beyond its original
intentions. Do yourself a favor and use a *real* build system.  Like
SCons, or tup. Or the many other alternatives out there.


T

-- 
My program has no bugs! Only unintentional features...



 Sep 13 2013



prev sibling  parent  Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com>  writes:


On 14 September 2013 04:36, Adam D. Ruppe <destructionator gmail.com> wrote:

 On Saturday, 14 September 2013 at 02:59:49 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:

 Unless you enjoy spending hours on end removing viruses from your system.
 :)



 Meh, do you actually review the source of everything you compile? I betcha
 if I made a makefile


Bit of a trick question, as I get sources from either distribution
repositories or ftp.gnu.org - both considered to be a trusted source
that wouldn't have that problem.  So if you made a makefile, chances
am I wouldn't use it.

-- 
Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';



 Sep 14 2013



prev sibling  parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org>  writes:


On 9/13/13 5:39 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:

 On Friday, 13 September 2013 at 22:32:30 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

 Sure... wait, what?


 Download a random binary off the internet.


Nope :o).

Andrei



 Sep 13 2013



  parent reply Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com>  writes:


On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 20:49:03 -0700
Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote:


 On 9/13/13 5:39 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:

 On Friday, 13 September 2013 at 22:32:30 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
 wrote:

 Sure... wait, what?


 Download a random binary off the internet.


 
 Nope :o).
 


Meh, all the hip blackhats are doing browser drive-by exploits,
session hijacking and specially-corrupted-data exploits. Trojans and
exe-infection is, like, soooo 90's, dude.

But more seriously though, I run exes off the net all the time and I
haven't dealt with those problems on my own Win computers in probably a
decade. It just takes some common sense. Meanwhile, I've been
shanghai'ed into "fix my computer!" duty from my Mom, my sister and my
Dad all within the last two years - and they barely even know what a
"program" or a "file" is, let alone how to download one and run it.
(Seriously, I've watched both my parents on their computers - there's
no freaking way those two would have been capable of downloading and
running an installer even if the site gave dumbed-down "assume the user
sets their coffee in the CD tray" instructions.)



 Sep 13 2013



  parent reply "deadalnix" <deadalnix gmail.com>  writes:


On Saturday, 14 September 2013 at 06:35:05 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
wrote:

 On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 20:49:03 -0700
 Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote:


 On 9/13/13 5:39 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:

 On Friday, 13 September 2013 at 22:32:30 UTC, Andrei 
 Alexandrescu
 wrote:

 Sure... wait, what?


 Download a random binary off the internet.


 
 Nope :o).
 


 Meh, all the hip blackhats are doing browser drive-by exploits,
 session hijacking and specially-corrupted-data exploits. 
 Trojans and
 exe-infection is, like, soooo 90's, dude.

 But more seriously though, I run exes off the net all the time 
 and I
 haven't dealt with those problems on my own Win computers in 
 probably a
 decade.


Because virus nowaday aren't there to destroy your computer, but 
to make it participate in botnet. Being as discrete as possible 
is the goal.

And probably also because you use trusted sources + a bit of luck.



 Sep 14 2013



  parent reply Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com>  writes:


On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 09:22:16 +0200
"deadalnix" <deadalnix gmail.com> wrote:

 
 Because virus nowaday aren't there to destroy your computer, but 
 to make it participate in botnet. Being as discrete as possible 
 is the goal.
 


Well, either that or Ransom-ware which is the exact opposite: "Buy
our antivirus program and we promise we'll let you use your computer
again." That's the crap I've had to clear off other people's computers.


 And probably also because you use trusted sources + a bit of luck.


Plus I seem to be the only Windows user in history who has never said
"Uhh, ok" to a "Super-helpful web browser toolbar! You'll love it!
Install now!"



 Sep 14 2013



  parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com>  writes:


On 9/14/2013 3:13 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 Plus I seem to be the only Windows user in history who has never said
 "Uhh, ok" to a "Super-helpful web browser toolbar! You'll love it!
 Install now!"



People today keep trying to get me to install this linucks-thingy. "Trust me! 
It's better than Windows!" Yeah, right :-)

I'm probably the only Mac user in history who doesn't find it intuitive and has 
to constantly google how to do basic things.



 Sep 14 2013



 next sibling parent reply Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com>  writes:


On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 16:05:09 -0700
Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote:


 On 9/14/2013 3:13 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 Plus I seem to be the only Windows user in history who has never
 said "Uhh, ok" to a "Super-helpful web browser toolbar! You'll love
 it! Install now!"


 
 
 People today keep trying to get me to install this linucks-thingy.
 "Trust me! It's better than Windows!" Yeah, right :-)
 
 I'm probably the only Mac user in history who doesn't find it
 intuitive and has to constantly google how to do basic things.
 


Wait, you mean "Mac user who doesn't find *Mac* intuitive"? I spent a
year as an OSX guy (way back) and ultimately came to the same
conclusion: I couldn't do half of what I wanted without it seeming to
fight me at every turn. And it always put up a damn good fight, too.
I've used 10.7 since then, and it seems to have only gotten goofier. (At
least it's easy to disable the backwards-scrolling.)

Even moving the mouse pointer across the screen was (and still is) an
effort, no matter what the sensitivity setting. It's no wonder so many
Mac users swear by the touchpad - that's the only pointing device where
OSX's acceleration is non-broken enough to *let* you move from one end
of the screen to the other in *one* motion instead of three or four
*and* still be able to hit a button-sized target without surgeon-like
hand control.



 Sep 14 2013



 next sibling parent  Paulo Pinto <pjmlp progtools.org>  writes:


Am 15.09.2013 04:58, schrieb Nick Sabalausky:

 On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 16:05:09 -0700
 Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote:


 On 9/14/2013 3:13 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 Plus I seem to be the only Windows user in history who has never
 said "Uhh, ok" to a "Super-helpful web browser toolbar! You'll love
 it! Install now!"



 People today keep trying to get me to install this linucks-thingy.
 "Trust me! It's better than Windows!" Yeah, right :-)

 I'm probably the only Mac user in history who doesn't find it
 intuitive and has to constantly google how to do basic things.


 Wait, you mean "Mac user who doesn't find *Mac* intuitive"? I spent a
 year as an OSX guy (way back) and ultimately came to the same
 conclusion: I couldn't do half of what I wanted without it seeming to
 fight me at every turn. And it always put up a damn good fight, too.
 I've used 10.7 since then, and it seems to have only gotten goofier. (At
 least it's easy to disable the backwards-scrolling.)

 Even moving the mouse pointer across the screen was (and still is) an
 effort, no matter what the sensitivity setting. It's no wonder so many
 Mac users swear by the touchpad - that's the only pointing device where
 OSX's acceleration is non-broken enough to *let* you move from one end
 of the screen to the other in *one* motion instead of three or four
 *and* still be able to hit a button-sized target without surgeon-like
 hand control.


Really?

The only mouse related configuration I tend to change, is to use both 
buttons, instead of Cmd+Button.

Maybe using mices since Amiga 500 days helps :)

--
Paulo



 Sep 14 2013



prev sibling  parent reply Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com>  writes:


On 2013-09-15 04:58, Nick Sabalausky wrote:


 Even moving the mouse pointer across the screen was (and still is) an
 effort, no matter what the sensitivity setting. It's no wonder so many
 Mac users swear by the touchpad - that's the only pointing device where
 OSX's acceleration is non-broken enough to *let* you move from one end
 of the screen to the other in *one* motion instead of three or four
 *and* still be able to hit a button-sized target without surgeon-like
 hand control.


Apple have never been good at creating computer mice. I'm using a 
Logitech MX 510 mouse. I can move the cursor across two 24" displays in 
one motion. No problems.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg



 Sep 15 2013



  parent reply Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com>  writes:


On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 12:06:15 +0200
Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> wrote:


 On 2013-09-15 04:58, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 

 Even moving the mouse pointer across the screen was (and still is)
 an effort, no matter what the sensitivity setting. It's no wonder
 so many Mac users swear by the touchpad - that's the only pointing
 device where OSX's acceleration is non-broken enough to *let* you
 move from one end of the screen to the other in *one* motion
 instead of three or four *and* still be able to hit a button-sized
 target without surgeon-like hand control.


 
 Apple have never been good at creating computer mice. I'm using a 
 Logitech MX 510 mouse. I can move the cursor across two 24" displays
 in one motion. No problems.
 


Really? That's weird: I plugged the actual Logitech trackball I always
use on Win/Lin into my brother's OSX 10.7 MacBook, and it took on
average 3 full "thumb movements" (trackball equivalent to moving the
mouse without lifting it) to get from one side of the screen to the
other. I've never had trouble going that distance in Windows or Linux
with only around 1 full thumb movement.

I tried adjusting the sensitivity (the only mouse sensitivity option
it seemed to have), but by the time I could get across the screen in
around one movement, it was so hyper-sensitive I could barely hit any
specific target without overshooting it a few times.

My old 10.2 eMac had always been the same way, too.

His touchpad, OTOH, was just like on my laptop: Across most of the
screen in one big swipe, but still able to do finer-grained movements
(at least as well as you can ever do that on a touchpad anyway -
admittedly the newer ones are MUCH better than a few years ago, but
still not quite mouse/trackball quality...but that's an entirely
different matter).



 Sep 15 2013



  parent  Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com>  writes:


On 2013-09-15 12:36, Nick Sabalausky wrote:


 Really? That's weird: I plugged the actual Logitech trackball I always
 use on Win/Lin into my brother's OSX 10.7 MacBook, and it took on
 average 3 full "thumb movements" (trackball equivalent to moving the
 mouse without lifting it) to get from one side of the screen to the
 other. I've never had trouble going that distance in Windows or Linux
 with only around 1 full thumb movement.

 I tried adjusting the sensitivity (the only mouse sensitivity option
 it seemed to have), but by the time I could get across the screen in
 around one movement, it was so hyper-sensitive I could barely hit any
 specific target without overshooting it a few times.


I guess that might be because I've installed the Logitech 
drivers/preference pane. When I reboot the computer and it has logged in 
again the mouse is really slow, then after a few seconds it back to the 
speed I'm used to.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg



 Sep 15 2013



prev sibling  parent reply Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com>  writes:


On Sep 15, 2013 12:10 AM, "Walter Bright" <newshound2 digitalmars.com>
wrote:

 On 9/14/2013 3:13 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 Plus I seem to be the only Windows user in history who has never said
 "Uhh, ok" to a "Super-helpful web browser toolbar! You'll love it!
 Install now!"




 People today keep trying to get me to install this linucks-thingy. "Trust


me! It's better than Windows!" Yeah, right :-)

 I'm probably the only Mac user in history who doesn't find it intuitive


and has to constantly google how to do basic things.


I wouldn't say better, but it is a rich environment of functionality and
development.  Also Linux isn't trying to spy on you, isn't constantly
phoning home to Redmond, and isn't sending your fingerprints to the NSA.
:-)

Regards
-- 
Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';



 Sep 15 2013



 next sibling parent reply Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com>  writes:


On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 10:51:11 +0100
Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com> wrote:

 
 I wouldn't say better, but it is a rich environment of functionality
 and development.  Also Linux isn't trying to spy on you, isn't
 constantly phoning home to Redmond, and isn't sending your
 fingerprints to the NSA. :-)
 


That's what Linus *wants* you to think! (...or at least that's what
she said anyway...)



 Sep 15 2013



  parent reply Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com>  writes:


On Sep 15, 2013 10:55 AM, "Nick Sabalausky" <
SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> wrote:

 On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 10:51:11 +0100
 Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com> wrote:

 I wouldn't say better, but it is a rich environment of functionality
 and development.  Also Linux isn't trying to spy on you, isn't
 constantly phoning home to Redmond, and isn't sending your
 fingerprints to the NSA. :-)


 That's what Linus *wants* you to think! (...or at least that's what
 she said anyway...)


That's got to be the worst twss I've ever had the misfortune to read. :)

Regards
-- 
Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';



 Sep 15 2013



  parent  Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com>  writes:


On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 11:26:16 +0100
Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com> wrote:


 On Sep 15, 2013 10:55 AM, "Nick Sabalausky" <
 SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> wrote:

 On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 10:51:11 +0100
 Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com> wrote:

 I wouldn't say better, but it is a rich environment of
 functionality and development.  Also Linux isn't trying to spy on
 you, isn't constantly phoning home to Redmond, and isn't sending
 your fingerprints to the NSA. :-)


 That's what Linus *wants* you to think! (...or at least that's what
 she said anyway...)


 
 That's got to be the worst twss I've ever had the misfortune to
 read. :)
 


Usually I do my "twss to things that make no sense" in voice, but then
the NG doesn't get to enjoy it! Or at least that's what she wanted them
to say...

(I also like combining them in terrible ways. Fun, fun, fun...)



 Sep 15 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent  "Paolo Invernizzi" <paolo.invernizzi gmail.com>  writes:


On Sunday, 15 September 2013 at 09:51:22 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:

<snip>


 and isn't sending your fingerprints to  the NSA.
 :-)

 Regards


Being an european, and having traveled to the US, my fingerprints 
are _already_ in the NSA archives...

;-/

/P



 Sep 15 2013



prev sibling  parent reply Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com>  writes:


On 2013-09-15 11:51, Iain Buclaw wrote:


 I wouldn't say better, but it is a rich environment of functionality and
 development.  Also Linux isn't trying to spy on you, isn't constantly
 phoning home to Redmond, and isn't sending your fingerprints to the
 NSA.   :-)


No, it's phoning home to Google, in the form of Android :)

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg



 Sep 15 2013



  parent reply Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com>  writes:


On Sep 15, 2013 11:50 AM, "Jacob Carlborg" <doob me.com> wrote:

 On 2013-09-15 11:51, Iain Buclaw wrote:


 I wouldn't say better, but it is a rich environment of functionality and
 development.  Also Linux isn't trying to spy on you, isn't constantly
 phoning home to Redmond, and isn't sending your fingerprints to the
 NSA.   :-)



 No, it's phoning home to Google, in the form of Android :)


Now we are getting into the strict differences between Android/Linux and
GNU/Linux.  The kernel may be the pudding, but it's the user space system
running on top that has it's finger on the trigger.

Regards
-- 
Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';



 Sep 15 2013



  parent reply Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com>  writes:


On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 11:59:33 +0100
Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com> wrote:


 On Sep 15, 2013 11:50 AM, "Jacob Carlborg" <doob me.com> wrote:

 On 2013-09-15 11:51, Iain Buclaw wrote:


 I wouldn't say better, but it is a rich environment of
 functionality and development.  Also Linux isn't trying to spy on
 you, isn't constantly phoning home to Redmond, and isn't sending
 your fingerprints to the NSA.   :-)



 No, it's phoning home to Google, in the form of Android :)


 
 Now we are getting into the strict differences between Android/Linux
 and GNU/Linux.  The kernel may be the pudding, but it's the user
 space system running on top that has it's finger on the trigger.
 


Wait, pudding that has a trigger? Either this conversation is
getting strange, or I'm getting sleepy ;)



 Sep 15 2013



  parent  Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com>  writes:


On Sep 15, 2013 12:20 PM, "Nick Sabalausky" <
SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> wrote:

 On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 11:59:33 +0100
 Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com> wrote:


 On Sep 15, 2013 11:50 AM, "Jacob Carlborg" <doob me.com> wrote:

 On 2013-09-15 11:51, Iain Buclaw wrote:


 I wouldn't say better, but it is a rich environment of
 functionality and development.  Also Linux isn't trying to spy on
 you, isn't constantly phoning home to Redmond, and isn't sending
 your fingerprints to the NSA.   :-)



 No, it's phoning home to Google, in the form of Android :)


 Now we are getting into the strict differences between Android/Linux
 and GNU/Linux.  The kernel may be the pudding, but it's the user
 space system running on top that has it's finger on the trigger.


 Wait, pudding that has a trigger?


Have you not heard of the custard plant that melted down in 82?  I hear
children are still being born with FLAN feet.


 Either this conversation is getting strange, or I'm getting sleepy ;)


I think sleepy. ;)

Regards
-- 
Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';



 Sep 15 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent reply Justin Whear <justin economicmodeling.com>  writes:


On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 00:09:35 +0200, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:

 Actually, my biggest problem with linux is how terrible the operating
 system is compared to DOS and Windows. I'm not even kidding, the unix
 terminal debacle sucks (maybe good when you had various hardware, but it
 is weak next to what the PC hardware offers), the available system
 facilities suck (Win32 is plenty usable and reliably there! Even on
 linux, using a Windows .exe tends to work better than using a linux
 binary - exe's just work there thanks to wine, whereas linux binaries
 always have some incompatibility).
 
 Eh I'm getting off topic.


This is a distribution problem; I've stuck with Debian or Debian-based 
distros over the years and never had issues like this.  I view package-
management as vastly superior to the Windows solution which is to ship 
per-application DLLs.  I'd much rather do "sudo apt-get install 
<package>" and have it cheerfully inform me that it only needs to install 
one or two dependencies because I already have all the other shared 
libraries.



 Sep 13 2013



  parent reply "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com>  writes:


On Friday, 13 September 2013 at 22:34:44 UTC, Justin Whear wrote:

 This is a distribution problem; I've stuck with Debian or 
 Debian-based distros over the years and never had issues like 
 this.


I've used them too... ever have a proprietary requirement that 
only works with, say, php 5.2, but only php 5.1 is available in 
the repo?

Or a custom built thing the company relies upon.... but no longer 
has the source, and their old server just died? Or, has the 
source, but it only compiles with one specific setup anyway.

I've had to deal with stuff like this several times, and the 
package manager fights me every step of the way.


Or, on my home computer, someone wrote something cool.... but of 
course they don't offer a package for my system. (At home, I use 
Slackware.) So it is time to build from source. Great, but then 
it is time to track down a hundred tiny libraries (seriously, a 
10 kb library, why didn't you just include that in your own 
source?), of course matching the version too. What a hassle!


Hence my first comment: I prefer to just grab the Windows version 
and run it in wine. That usually just works.



 Sep 13 2013



  parent reply "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx>  writes:


On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 02:42:13AM +0200, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:

 On Friday, 13 September 2013 at 22:34:44 UTC, Justin Whear wrote:

This is a distribution problem; I've stuck with Debian or
Debian-based distros over the years and never had issues like
this.


 
 I've used them too... ever have a proprietary requirement that only
 works with, say, php 5.2, but only php 5.1 is available in the repo?
 
 Or a custom built thing the company relies upon.... but no longer
 has the source, and their old server just died? Or, has the source,
 but it only compiles with one specific setup anyway.
 
 I've had to deal with stuff like this several times, and the package
 manager fights me every step of the way.


When I custom-install stuff, I usually put it in /usr/local/*, or even
give it a dedicated home in /home (though usually just
/usr/src/$pkgname/install or some such), away from the package manager
managed stuff.  It tends to work far better that way.  Fighting with the
package manager never ends well, as does installing external files into
directories managed by the package manager. Almost all modern sources
come with PREFIX configurability -- those that don't tend to be so
fundamentally b0rken anyway that I don't even bother with them in the
first place. But you have my sympathies if you're compelled to do so by
work requirements. In that case, I'd use a chroot and custom install all
system binaries so that I control exactly what goes in there, and never
have the package manager interfere with me.



 Or, on my home computer, someone wrote something cool.... but of
 course they don't offer a package for my system. (At home, I use
 Slackware.) So it is time to build from source. Great, but then it
 is time to track down a hundred tiny libraries (seriously, a 10 kb
 library, why didn't you just include that in your own source?), of
 course matching the version too. What a hassle!


I find that even with sources downloaded from some random person's "cool
proggies" website, apt-get install libabc123-dev tends to work quite
well, where abc is the name of the library and 123 is the desired
version number. You do have to get to know Debian naming conventions for
these things to be able to find them easily, though. Or know how to find
out the right name(s). My go-to tool is apt-cache search, which is
pretty good at finding libraries most people need. It also helps to know
how to coax apt-get to fetch specific library versions instead of the
default latest version.

If I have to install libraries not in the apt repository (or multiple
conflicting versions of the same library), I tend to put it either under
an entirely different PREFIX, preferably under a dedicated subtree for
the app I'm trying to build, or inside a chroot if all else fails.  This
way I can install libfoo101-dev for randomapp123 in one place, and never
have it conflict with libfoo109-dev for randomprog321, which exists in a
completely unrelated directory tree. The library can be so b0rken as to
use the same soname for incompatible ABIs, and they won't step on each
other's toes. For this latter case, chroots are the most convenient
setup, otherwise you have to munge around with LD_LIBRARY_PATH, which
can get quite messy. (Thankfully, you can put this in a wrapper shell
script that hides away the mess under a convenient command in your
$PATH, so the pain only has to be felt once.)

Generally, all of this is still less painful than trying to make a
random binary executable run. For all you know, you could be wasting
your time trying to run a Solaris binary on an i386 system. There are
just too many possible configurations out there for binary distribution
to be viable, except when you're the distro provider.



 Hence my first comment: I prefer to just grab the Windows version
 and run it in wine. That usually just works.


I dunno, wine doesn't seem to like my GUI configuration (or lack thereof
:-P). It just falters in its steps and gasps every now and then, that I
don't trust that whatever program it's running is actually doing what it
should be doing. I still rather build from source.


T

-- 
"A man's wife has more power over him than the state has." -- Ralph Emerson



 Sep 14 2013



  parent reply Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com>  writes:


On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 00:34:07 -0700
"H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:

 
 When I custom-install stuff, I usually put it in /usr/local/*, or even
 give it a dedicated home in /home (though usually just
 /usr/src/$pkgname/install or some such), away from the package manager
 managed stuff.  It tends to work far better that way.  Fighting with
 the package manager never ends well, as does installing external
 files into directories managed by the package manager.


My understanding (purely from the link below) was that /usr/local/* was
*specifically* for non-package-managered stuff, whereas /usr/* was
*specifically* for package-managered things:

http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/8656/usr-bin-vs-usr-local-bin-on-linux


 If I have to install libraries not in the apt repository (or multiple
 conflicting versions of the same library), I tend to put it either
 under an entirely different PREFIX, preferably under a dedicated
 subtree for the app I'm trying to build


I had no idea you could do that! That's fantastic: despite my
migration towards Linux, I had been worrying about the day I'd
inevitable have to deal with multiple versions of the same thing.



 Hence my first comment: I prefer to just grab the Windows version
 and run it in wine. That usually just works.


 
 I dunno, wine doesn't seem to like my GUI configuration (or lack
 thereof :-P). It just falters in its steps and gasps every now and
 then, that I don't trust that whatever program it's running is
 actually doing what it should be doing. I still rather build from
 source.
 


I find GUI apps to be butt-ugly under wine ;) But often usable
otherwise (not that I've used it much so far).



 Sep 14 2013



 next sibling parent reply "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx>  writes:


On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 06:32:07AM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 00:34:07 -0700
 "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:


[...]

 If I have to install libraries not in the apt repository (or
 multiple conflicting versions of the same library), I tend to put it
 either under an entirely different PREFIX, preferably under a
 dedicated subtree for the app I'm trying to build


 
 I had no idea you could do that! That's fantastic: despite my
 migration towards Linux, I had been worrying about the day I'd
 inevitable have to deal with multiple versions of the same thing.


In spite of all my rants against autotools, it *does* let you do cool
things like:

	./configure --prefix=/path/to/my/dedicated/sandbox

which, if things were properly put together, will setup the Makefile
such that make install will install to /path/to/my/dedicated/sandbox
instead of the usual system directories.

Of course, then you need to setup $PATH and maybe a few other
environment variables expected by the app to get things to work
properly, but this is the way I usually like to install custom
built-from-source apps. That way, should I want to uninstall it, I can
just nuke the entire root directory dedicated for that app without
damaging anything else. :)

But wait, there's more...

On Debian, a good number of library packages are actually *designed* to
support installation of multiple versions simultaneously. Even fragile,
sensitive giants like gcc that have an intricate web of library
dependencies can have 4.6, 4.7, *and* 4.8 all installed together
side-by-side (up to a certain point, of course). A good many libraries
have been patched downstream by Debian developers to have proper soname
correspondence with ABI changes, and the upstream version number is
encoded into the package name (as opposed to just the package version
number) so installing multiple versions of the same library is actually
*officially* supported.

So the above prefix trick is really only necessary if you're building
the library yourself.



 Hence my first comment: I prefer to just grab the Windows version
 and run it in wine. That usually just works.


 
 I dunno, wine doesn't seem to like my GUI configuration (or lack
 thereof :-P). It just falters in its steps and gasps every now and
 then, that I don't trust that whatever program it's running is
 actually doing what it should be doing. I still rather build from
 source.
 


 
 I find GUI apps to be butt-ugly under wine ;) But often usable
 otherwise (not that I've used it much so far).


I suppose so. Well, fair enough. :)


T

-- 
They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work. -- Russian saying



 Sep 14 2013



  parent reply Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com>  writes:


On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 03:52:39 -0700
"H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:


 On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 06:32:07AM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 00:34:07 -0700
 "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:


 [...]

 If I have to install libraries not in the apt repository (or
 multiple conflicting versions of the same library), I tend to put
 it either under an entirely different PREFIX, preferably under a
 dedicated subtree for the app I'm trying to build


 
 I had no idea you could do that! That's fantastic: despite my
 migration towards Linux, I had been worrying about the day I'd
 inevitable have to deal with multiple versions of the same thing.


 
 In spite of all my rants against autotools, it *does* let you do cool
 things like:
 
 	./configure --prefix=/path/to/my/dedicated/sandbox
 
 which, if things were properly put together, will setup the Makefile
 such that make install will install to /path/to/my/dedicated/sandbox
 instead of the usual system directories.
 
 Of course, then you need to setup $PATH and maybe a few other
 environment variables expected by the app to get things to work
 properly, but this is the way I usually like to install custom
 built-from-source apps. That way, should I want to uninstall it, I can
 just nuke the entire root directory dedicated for that app without
 damaging anything else. :)
 
 But wait, there's more...
 
 On Debian, a good number of library packages are actually *designed*
 to support installation of multiple versions simultaneously. Even
 fragile, sensitive giants like gcc that have an intricate web of
 library dependencies can have 4.6, 4.7, *and* 4.8 all installed
 together side-by-side (up to a certain point, of course). A good many
 libraries have been patched downstream by Debian developers to have
 proper soname correspondence with ABI changes, and the upstream
 version number is encoded into the package name (as opposed to just
 the package version number) so installing multiple versions of the
 same library is actually *officially* supported.
 


That's pretty nice. I'm still not *quite* linux-savvy enough to know
what I'm doing with chroots (I know about them, but I've never
actually set one up, and I'd have to look up how to do it.)

Of course, it's not like the need for such things is exclusive to
Linux. Take Firefox: Even on Windows it refuses to accept the
possibility of having multiple versions installed. So some *other*
people hacked it up to make a "portable install" version (which,
strangely, *still* requires running an installer?!?), and yet even
then, it still flat out refuses to allow multiple versions to run at
the same time. Ridiculous.



 Sep 14 2013



 next sibling parent  Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com>  writes:


On Sep 15, 2013 12:50 AM, "Nick Sabalausky" <
SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> wrote:

 On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 03:52:39 -0700
 "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:


 On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 06:32:07AM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 00:34:07 -0700
 "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:


 [...]

 If I have to install libraries not in the apt repository (or
 multiple conflicting versions of the same library), I tend to put
 it either under an entirely different PREFIX, preferably under a
 dedicated subtree for the app I'm trying to build


 I had no idea you could do that! That's fantastic: despite my
 migration towards Linux, I had been worrying about the day I'd
 inevitable have to deal with multiple versions of the same thing.


 In spite of all my rants against autotools, it *does* let you do cool
 things like:

       ./configure --prefix=/path/to/my/dedicated/sandbox

 which, if things were properly put together, will setup the Makefile
 such that make install will install to /path/to/my/dedicated/sandbox
 instead of the usual system directories.

 Of course, then you need to setup $PATH and maybe a few other
 environment variables expected by the app to get things to work
 properly, but this is the way I usually like to install custom
 built-from-source apps. That way, should I want to uninstall it, I can
 just nuke the entire root directory dedicated for that app without
 damaging anything else. :)

 But wait, there's more...

 On Debian, a good number of library packages are actually *designed*
 to support installation of multiple versions simultaneously. Even
 fragile, sensitive giants like gcc that have an intricate web of
 library dependencies can have 4.6, 4.7, *and* 4.8 all installed
 together side-by-side (up to a certain point, of course). A good many
 libraries have been patched downstream by Debian developers to have
 proper soname correspondence with ABI changes, and the upstream
 version number is encoded into the package name (as opposed to just
 the package version number) so installing multiple versions of the
 same library is actually *officially* supported.


 That's pretty nice. I'm still not *quite* linux-savvy enough to know
 what I'm doing with chroots (I know about them, but I've never
 actually set one up, and I'd have to look up how to do it.)


It doesn't require much to set one up really.  :)

I've got a few scripts that builds chroots for Debian testing and unstable
for x86, x86_64, X32, and ARM environments (the latter uses QEMU emulation
mode to run the binaries on my system).

Regards
-- 
Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';



 Sep 15 2013



prev sibling  parent  "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx>  writes:


On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 11:06:37AM +0100, Iain Buclaw wrote:

 On Sep 15, 2013 12:50 AM, "Nick Sabalausky" <
 SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> wrote:


[...]

 That's pretty nice. I'm still not *quite* linux-savvy enough to know
 what I'm doing with chroots (I know about them, but I've never
 actually set one up, and I'd have to look up how to do it.)


 
 It doesn't require much to set one up really.  :)
 
 I've got a few scripts that builds chroots for Debian testing and unstable
 for x86, x86_64, X32, and ARM environments (the latter uses QEMU emulation
 mode to run the binaries on my system).


[...]

Debian even has a package (debootstrap) for installing a functional base
system onto a filesystem subtree (it's actually used by the installer to
initialize a mounted drive that will be serving as root filesystem). It
can't get any more convenient than that! :) (Though granted, a full base
system install is probably total overkill if all you're looking for is a
chroot jail for a single application.)


T

-- 
There are three kinds of people in the world: those who can count, and those
who can't.



 Sep 15 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Dicebot" <public dicebot.lv>  writes:


On Saturday, 14 September 2013 at 10:32:26 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
wrote:

 My understanding (purely from the link below) was that 
 /usr/local/* was
 *specifically* for non-package-managered stuff, whereas /usr/* 
 was
 *specifically* for package-managered things:

 http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/8656/usr-bin-vs-usr-local-bin-on-linux


Not entirely true. You should never have anything not managed by 
package manager on Linux system, it is a reliable road to 
disaster. Better distinction is "/usr/" for packages from 
official repos, "/usr/local" for own custom packages.



 Sep 15 2013



 next sibling parent reply "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx>  writes:


On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 07:14:17PM +0200, Dicebot wrote:

 On Saturday, 14 September 2013 at 10:32:26 UTC, Nick Sabalausky
 wrote:

My understanding (purely from the link below) was that /usr/local/*
was *specifically* for non-package-managered stuff, whereas /usr/*
was *specifically* for package-managered things:

http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/8656/usr-bin-vs-usr-local-bin-on-linux


 
 Not entirely true. You should never have anything not managed by
 package manager on Linux system, it is a reliable road to disaster.
 Better distinction is "/usr/" for packages from official repos,
 "/usr/local" for own custom packages.


Seriously? I installed unmanaged stuff all the time, and never had much
of an issue. Though, granted, I never put them under /usr or /usr/local
at all. It's usually in a dedicated subdirectory under $HOME.

Installing unmanaged stuff under the /usr tree is tricky business,
because when you're trying to *uninstall*, you usually don't remember
where all the bits have been scattered, and leaving them lying around
can lead to trouble.


T

-- 
Without geometry, life would be pointless. -- VS



 Sep 15 2013



  parent reply "John Colvin" <john.loughran.colvin gmail.com>  writes:


On Monday, 16 September 2013 at 01:55:25 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

 On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 07:14:17PM +0200, Dicebot wrote:

 On Saturday, 14 September 2013 at 10:32:26 UTC, Nick Sabalausky
 wrote:

My understanding (purely from the link below) was that 
/usr/local/*
was *specifically* for non-package-managered stuff, whereas 
/usr/*
was *specifically* for package-managered things:

http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/8656/usr-bin-vs-usr-local-bin-on-linux


 
 Not entirely true. You should never have anything not managed 
 by
 package manager on Linux system, it is a reliable road to 
 disaster.
 Better distinction is "/usr/" for packages from official repos,
 "/usr/local" for own custom packages.


 Seriously? I installed unmanaged stuff all the time, and never 
 had much
 of an issue. Though, granted, I never put them under /usr or 
 /usr/local
 at all. It's usually in a dedicated subdirectory under $HOME.

 Installing unmanaged stuff under the /usr tree is tricky 
 business,
 because when you're trying to *uninstall*, you usually don't 
 remember
 where all the bits have been scattered, and leaving them lying 
 around
 can lead to trouble.


 T


Ever since watching a friend have his entire /usr deleted by a 
dodgy 'sudo make install', i desperately avoid manually 
installing to anywhere but a dedicated subdir in $home. No root 
access needed and I actually know where everything is =)



 Sep 16 2013



 next sibling parent reply "Dicebot" <public dicebot.lv>  writes:


On Monday, 16 September 2013 at 08:07:23 UTC, John Colvin wrote:

 Ever since watching a friend have his entire /usr deleted by a 
 dodgy 'sudo make install', i desperately avoid manually 
 installing to anywhere but a dedicated subdir in $home. No root 
 access needed and I actually know where everything is =)


I always create PKGBUILD's for stuff I need to install. Event it 
is a tiny one shot thing. And the fact that it automatically will 
run install script in contained sandbox is one of the major 
decision factors here (even placing in $home can destroy your 
home if makefile author is sloppy enough)



 Sep 16 2013



  parent reply "John Colvin" <john.loughran.colvin gmail.com>  writes:


On Monday, 16 September 2013 at 10:10:32 UTC, Dicebot wrote:

 On Monday, 16 September 2013 at 08:07:23 UTC, John Colvin wrote:

 Ever since watching a friend have his entire /usr deleted by a 
 dodgy 'sudo make install', i desperately avoid manually 
 installing to anywhere but a dedicated subdir in $home. No 
 root access needed and I actually know where everything is =)


 I always create PKGBUILD's for stuff I need to install. Event 
 it is a tiny one shot thing. And the fact that it automatically 
 will run install script in contained sandbox is one of the 
 major decision factors here (even placing in $home can destroy 
 your home if makefile author is sloppy enough)


Seeing as I'm typing this from my newly set-up Arch64 
installation, I suspect I might go down that route too =)

Btw, compltely off-topic, do you have any recomendations for an 
AUR helper?



 Sep 16 2013



  parent  "Dicebot" <public dicebot.lv>  writes:


On Monday, 16 September 2013 at 10:35:08 UTC, John Colvin wrote:

 On Monday, 16 September 2013 at 10:10:32 UTC, Dicebot wrote:

 On Monday, 16 September 2013 at 08:07:23 UTC, John Colvin 
 wrote:

 Ever since watching a friend have his entire /usr deleted by 
 a dodgy 'sudo make install', i desperately avoid manually 
 installing to anywhere but a dedicated subdir in $home. No 
 root access needed and I actually know where everything is =)


 I always create PKGBUILD's for stuff I need to install. Event 
 it is a tiny one shot thing. And the fact that it 
 automatically will run install script in contained sandbox is 
 one of the major decision factors here (even placing in $home 
 can destroy your home if makefile author is sloppy enough)


 Seeing as I'm typing this from my newly set-up Arch64 
 installation, I suspect I might go down that route too =)

 Btw, compltely off-topic, do you have any recomendations for an 
 AUR helper?


I got used to yaourt when it was basically the only option :) I 
don't even know what others are to be honest P)



 Sep 16 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent  "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx>  writes:


On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 10:07:22AM +0200, John Colvin wrote:

 On Monday, 16 September 2013 at 01:55:25 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 07:14:17PM +0200, Dicebot wrote:




[...]

Not entirely true. You should never have anything not managed by
package manager on Linux system, it is a reliable road to disaster.
Better distinction is "/usr/" for packages from official repos,
"/usr/local" for own custom packages.


Seriously? I installed unmanaged stuff all the time, and never had
much of an issue. Though, granted, I never put them under /usr or
/usr/local at all. It's usually in a dedicated subdirectory under
$HOME.

Installing unmanaged stuff under the /usr tree is tricky business,
because when you're trying to *uninstall*, you usually don't remember
where all the bits have been scattered, and leaving them lying around
can lead to trouble.


T


 
 Ever since watching a friend have his entire /usr deleted by a dodgy
 'sudo make install', i desperately avoid manually installing to
 anywhere but a dedicated subdir in $home. No root access needed and
 I actually know where everything is =)


Yeah, I don't trust random Makefiles I download over the 'Net. I usually
put the source trees under /usr/src, which I use mainly for experimental
stuff anyway, and since /usr is unwriteable by non-root, the worst a
Makefile-gone-wrong can do is to nuke the entire /usr/src, while leaving
everything else (esp. the all-important $HOME) intact.

These days, though, I hardly ever even run make install anymore. Most
apps (that I'm interested in, anyway) can be run as-is from the build
directory, or if not, can be manually copied file-by-file to some
dedicated target directory (the file list is hand-copied from the output
of `make -n`, which also lets me know exactly *what* the thing actually
does without actually doing it). Anything more complex than that, and I
start weighing how badly I want that app vs. how little I trust it.
Usually I don't care badly enough to actually install something that
requires running a dodgy Makefile that takes a suspiciously long 20
seconds to install a mere 10-15 files.


T

-- 
They say that "guns don't kill people, people kill people." Well I think
the gun helps. If you just stood there and yelled BANG, I don't think
you'd kill too many people. -- Eddie Izzard, Dressed to Kill



 Sep 16 2013



prev sibling  parent  Peter Williams <pwil3058 bigpond.net.au>  writes:


On 16/09/13 18:07, John Colvin wrote:

 Ever since watching a friend have his entire /usr deleted by a dodgy
 'sudo make install', i desperately avoid manually installing to anywhere
 but a dedicated subdir in $home. No root access needed and I actually
 know where everything is =)


In order for users of my PyGTK scripts to not have to risk the integrity 
of their system (by installing them from my source rather than through 
their package manager), I go out of my way to make sure that all that is 
required is for the source directory to be in their $PATH (or 
alternatively run them with the full path to the executable) in order 
for them to be usable.  Because Python scripts know the directory where 
they're installed (as well as where they're run from) it's possible to 
know where to look for any support files using this data and Python 
automatically includes the installed directory and its subdirectory when 
it looks for library packages/modules.

This saves me the bother of having to learn how to make packages for all 
the different systems out there without asking the user to compromise 
their system integrity.

Peter
PS I also provide an install script so the users have that option and 
the location of the root directory for the installation is configurable.



 Sep 16 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent  Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com>  writes:


On Sunday, September 15, 2013 18:53:58 H. S. Teoh wrote:

 On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 07:14:17PM +0200, Dicebot wrote:

 On Saturday, 14 September 2013 at 10:32:26 UTC, Nick Sabalausky
 
 wrote:

My understanding (purely from the link below) was that /usr/local/*
was *specifically* for non-package-managered stuff, whereas /usr/*
was *specifically* for package-managered things:

http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/8656/usr-bin-vs-usr-local-bin-on-> >
>linux> 


 Not entirely true. You should never have anything not managed by
 package manager on Linux system, it is a reliable road to disaster.
 Better distinction is "/usr/" for packages from official repos,
 "/usr/local" for own custom packages.


 
 Seriously? I installed unmanaged stuff all the time, and never had much
 of an issue. Though, granted, I never put them under /usr or /usr/local
 at all. It's usually in a dedicated subdirectory under $HOME.
 
 Installing unmanaged stuff under the /usr tree is tricky business,
 because when you're trying to *uninstall*, you usually don't remember
 where all the bits have been scattered, and leaving them lying around
 can lead to trouble.


Which is exactly why you shouldn't do it normally. If fact, I would argue that 
you should pretty much _never_ install stuff not managed by the package manager 
in /usr. /usr/local is a different matter, because it's not usually managed by 
the package manager, but you still have to be very careful with it. Putting 
unmanaged stuff in dedicated subdirectories in $HOME is definitely a better 
approach.

- Jonathan M Davis



 Sep 15 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent reply "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx>  writes:


On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 06:59:24PM -0700, Jonathan M Davis wrote:

 On Sunday, September 15, 2013 18:53:58 H. S. Teoh wrote:

 On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 07:14:17PM +0200, Dicebot wrote:

 On Saturday, 14 September 2013 at 10:32:26 UTC, Nick Sabalausky
 wrote:

My understanding (purely from the link below) was that
/usr/local/* was *specifically* for non-package-managered stuff,
whereas /usr/* was *specifically* for package-managered things:

http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/8656/usr-bin-vs-usr-local-bin-on-> >
>linux> 


 Not entirely true. You should never have anything not managed by
 package manager on Linux system, it is a reliable road to
 disaster.  Better distinction is "/usr/" for packages from
 official repos, "/usr/local" for own custom packages.


 
 Seriously? I installed unmanaged stuff all the time, and never had
 much of an issue. Though, granted, I never put them under /usr or
 /usr/local at all. It's usually in a dedicated subdirectory under
 $HOME.
 
 Installing unmanaged stuff under the /usr tree is tricky business,
 because when you're trying to *uninstall*, you usually don't
 remember where all the bits have been scattered, and leaving them
 lying around can lead to trouble.


 
 Which is exactly why you shouldn't do it normally. If fact, I would
 argue that you should pretty much _never_ install stuff not managed by
 the package manager in /usr. /usr/local is a different matter, because
 it's not usually managed by the package manager, but you still have to
 be very careful with it. Putting unmanaged stuff in dedicated
 subdirectories in $HOME is definitely a better approach.


[...]

For unmanaged stuff, I usually prefer to put each application in their
own filesystem subtree, like /usr/src/${appname}/root (which is also
just next to where I usually build the source to begin with), instead of
mixing everything together like in /usr or /usr/local. That way, if
something misbehaves, I can just use `rm -rf` to kill it off without
needing to dig through /usr/local/bin, /usr/local/share/man/man*,
/usr/local/lib, /usr/local/share, and who knows where else to find all
the bits to clean up.


T

-- 
Acid falls with the rain; with love comes the pain.



 Sep 15 2013



  parent reply "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com>  writes:


I wish unix had a recursive user system. Where each user is root 
of its own little domain.

Then each app I install would just be suid to a child user that 
has access only to its own little installation subdirectory. If 
it wants to write to my regular home, it can sudo back to my 
other user.

It'd save the dangers of one account for everything that matters 
(the difference between me and root is fairly irrelevant - if 
root's files get messed up, I can just reinstall them from the 
cd. If my files get messed up, that's a real hassle!)



 Sep 16 2013



 next sibling parent reply "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx>  writes:


On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 03:52:21PM +0200, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:

 I wish unix had a recursive user system. Where each user is root of
 its own little domain.


That's a neat idea. It's probably not hard to implement in Linux... but
I'm no kernel hacker so I wouldn't know where to start.



 Then each app I install would just be suid to a child user that has
 access only to its own little installation subdirectory. If it wants
 to write to my regular home, it can sudo back to my other user.
 
 It'd save the dangers of one account for everything that matters
 (the difference between me and root is fairly irrelevant - if root's
 files get messed up, I can just reinstall them from the cd. If my
 files get messed up, that's a real hassle!)


True! My older projects are on subversion hosted on a remote server, so
that serves as a crude kind of backup, but my newer projects (mostly D
stuff) are all on git, and if I lose $HOME, all of them will be gone for
good!!

Which reminds me... it's probably time to make backups of $HOME again...


T

-- 
In order to understand recursion you must first understand recursion.



 Sep 16 2013



  parent reply Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com>  writes:


On 2013-09-16 16:28, H. S. Teoh wrote:


 Which reminds me... it's probably time to make backups of $HOME again...


Just push them to internet and someone will make the backups for you :)

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg



 Sep 16 2013



 next sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com>  writes:


On 9/16/2013 8:02 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:

 On 2013-09-16 16:28, H. S. Teoh wrote:


 Which reminds me... it's probably time to make backups of $HOME again...


 Just push them to internet and someone will make the backups for you :)


Since the taxpayers already pay for an NSA backup of all our files, I think
they 
should kindly provide a restore service!



 Sep 16 2013



 next sibling parent  Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com>  writes:


On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 11:24:49 -0700
Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote:


 On 9/16/2013 8:02 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:

 On 2013-09-16 16:28, H. S. Teoh wrote:


 Which reminds me... it's probably time to make backups of $HOME
 again...


 Just push them to internet and someone will make the backups for
 you :)


 
 Since the taxpayers already pay for an NSA backup of all our files, I
 think they should kindly provide a restore service!
 


Hah! Classic :)



 Sep 16 2013



prev sibling  parent  Russel Winder <russel winder.org.uk>  writes:


On Mon, 2013-09-16 at 11:24 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:

 On 9/16/2013 8:02 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:

 On 2013-09-16 16:28, H. S. Teoh wrote:


 Which reminds me... it's probably time to make backups of $HOME again.=






..

 Just push them to internet and someone will make the backups for you :)


=20
 Since the taxpayers already pay for an NSA backup of all our files, I thi=


nk they=20

 should kindly provide a restore service!


Dilbert made use of this, found himself being taken to prison=E2=80=A6

http://dilbert.com/2013-09-06/

=E2=80=A6 but read on for the denouement.

--=20
Russel.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder ekiga.n=
et
41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel winder.org.uk
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder



 Sep 17 2013



prev sibling  parent  Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com>  writes:


On 16 September 2013 16:02, Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> wrote:

 On 2013-09-16 16:28, H. S. Teoh wrote:


 Which reminds me... it's probably time to make backups of $HOME again...



 Just push them to internet and someone will make the backups for you :)


The NSA keeps a backup of your $HOME.  :-)

</troll>

http://boingboing.net/2013/09/01/hello-nsa-i-have-lost-an-e.html


-- 
Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';



 Sep 16 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent  "Dicebot" <public dicebot.lv>  writes:


On Monday, 16 September 2013 at 13:52:22 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:

 I wish unix had a recursive user system. Where each user is 
 root of its own little domain.

 Then each app I install would just be suid to a child user that 
 has access only to its own little installation subdirectory. If 
 it wants to write to my regular home, it can sudo back to my 
 other user.

 It'd save the dangers of one account for everything that 
 matters (the difference between me and root is fairly 
 irrelevant - if root's files get messed up, I can just 
 reinstall them from the cd. If my files get messed up, that's a 
 real hassle!)


It can be an interesting core idea for new Linux distro :) Well, 
after some polishing of app inter-operation of course.



 Sep 16 2013



prev sibling  parent reply "Johannes Pfau" <spam example.com>  writes:


On Monday, 16 September 2013 at 13:52:22 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:

 I wish unix had a recursive user system. Where each user is 
 root of its own little domain.

 Then each app I install would just be suid to a child user that 
 has access only to its own little installation subdirectory. If 
 it wants to write to my regular home, it can sudo back to my 
 other user.

 It'd save the dangers of one account for everything that 
 matters (the difference between me and root is fairly 
 irrelevant - if root's files get messed up, I can just 
 reinstall them from the cd. If my files get messed up, that's a 
 real hassle!)


Thats what selinux or other MACs are for. No need to set up more 
user accounts, just limit the application's permissions.



 Sep 16 2013



  parent  "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com>  writes:


On Monday, 16 September 2013 at 19:59:06 UTC, Johannes Pfau wrote:

 Thats what selinux or other MACs are for. No need to set up 
 more user accounts, just limit the application's permissions.


I've found selinux to be pretty hard to use with what little I've 
done with it... user accounts are simple.



 Sep 16 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent  "deadalnix" <deadalnix gmail.com>  writes:


On Sunday, 15 September 2013 at 17:14:19 UTC, Dicebot wrote:

 On Saturday, 14 September 2013 at 10:32:26 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
 wrote:

 My understanding (purely from the link below) was that 
 /usr/local/* was
 *specifically* for non-package-managered stuff, whereas /usr/* 
 was
 *specifically* for package-managered things:

 http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/8656/usr-bin-vs-usr-local-bin-on-linux


 Not entirely true. You should never have anything not managed 
 by package manager on Linux system, it is a reliable road to 
 disaster. Better distinction is "/usr/" for packages from 
 official repos, "/usr/local" for own custom packages.


I stick them in /opt/somthing usually, but the idea is the same.



 Sep 15 2013



prev sibling  parent reply Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com>  writes:


On Sep 16, 2013 4:55 AM, "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:

 On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 06:59:24PM -0700, Jonathan M Davis wrote:

 On Sunday, September 15, 2013 18:53:58 H. S. Teoh wrote:

 On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 07:14:17PM +0200, Dicebot wrote:

 On Saturday, 14 September 2013 at 10:32:26 UTC, Nick Sabalausky
 wrote:

My understanding (purely from the link below) was that
/usr/local/* was *specifically* for non-package-managered stuff,
whereas /usr/* was *specifically* for package-managered things:










http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/8656/usr-bin-vs-usr-local-bin-on->

linux>

 Not entirely true. You should never have anything not managed by
 package manager on Linux system, it is a reliable road to
 disaster.  Better distinction is "/usr/" for packages from
 official repos, "/usr/local" for own custom packages.


 Seriously? I installed unmanaged stuff all the time, and never had
 much of an issue. Though, granted, I never put them under /usr or
 /usr/local at all. It's usually in a dedicated subdirectory under
 $HOME.

 Installing unmanaged stuff under the /usr tree is tricky business,
 because when you're trying to *uninstall*, you usually don't
 remember where all the bits have been scattered, and leaving them
 lying around can lead to trouble.


 Which is exactly why you shouldn't do it normally. If fact, I would
 argue that you should pretty much _never_ install stuff not managed by
 the package manager in /usr. /usr/local is a different matter, because
 it's not usually managed by the package manager, but you still have to
 be very careful with it. Putting unmanaged stuff in dedicated
 subdirectories in $HOME is definitely a better approach.


 [...]

 For unmanaged stuff, I usually prefer to put each application in their
 own filesystem subtree, like /usr/src/${appname}/root (which is also
 just next to where I usually build the source to begin with), instead of
 mixing everything together like in /usr or /usr/local. That way, if
 something misbehaves, I can just use `rm -rf` to kill it off without
 needing to dig through /usr/local/bin, /usr/local/share/man/man*,
 /usr/local/lib, /usr/local/share, and who knows where else to find all
 the bits to clean up.


For some reason I use /opt/usr or /opt/${appname}

Regards
-- 
Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';



 Sep 16 2013



  parent  "Dicebot" <public dicebot.lv>  writes:


On Monday, 16 September 2013 at 07:39:29 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:

 For some reason I use /opt/usr or /opt/${appname}

 Regards


As far as I understand, "/opt" is recommended by FHS for such 
stuff.



 Sep 16 2013



prev sibling  parent reply "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx>  writes:


On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 06:32:07AM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 00:34:07 -0700
 "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:


[...]

 If I have to install libraries not in the apt repository (or
 multiple conflicting versions of the same library), I tend to put it
 either under an entirely different PREFIX, preferably under a
 dedicated subtree for the app I'm trying to build


 
 I had no idea you could do that! That's fantastic: despite my
 migration towards Linux, I had been worrying about the day I'd
 inevitable have to deal with multiple versions of the same thing.


[...]

Here's something I discovered just today:

	% apt-cache show stow
	Package: stow
	Version: 2.2.0-2
	Installed-Size: 672
	Maintainer: Chuan-kai Lin <cklin debian.org>
	Architecture: all
	Depends: perl, dpkg (>= 1.15.4) | install-info
	Suggests: doc-base
	Description-en: Organizer for /usr/local software packages
	 GNU Stow is a software installation manager for /usr/local.  Using
	 symbolic links, GNU Stow helps you keep the installations separate
	 (/usr/local/stow/emacs vs. /usr/local/stow/perl, for example) while
	 maintaining the illusion that they are all under /usr/local.
	Description-md5: 952b8725dcbc2ad8368dbc929406052e
	Homepage: http://www.gnu.org/software/stow/
	Tag: implemented-in::perl, interface::commandline, role::program,
	 scope::utility, suite::gnu, use::organizing
	Section: admin
	Priority: optional
	Filename: pool/main/s/stow/stow_2.2.0-2_all.deb
	Size: 311752
	MD5sum: aaf097fd83270ed737484496013711ff
	SHA1: 45aa26c7240fc89e4e16e9eaa0d04b7670002a7f
	SHA256: d482cef9da0b755de57d138ed752599230341237ecb7f1e5559533dbd15ab619

Pretty cool stuff, so you get to isolate custom-installed software from
each other, and still have them work together!


T

-- 
Do not reason with the unreasonable; you lose by definition.



 Sep 19 2013



  parent  Matt Soucy <msoucy csh.rit.edu>  writes:


On 09/19/2013 05:52 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:

 On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 06:32:07AM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 00:34:07 -0700
 "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:


 [...]

 If I have to install libraries not in the apt repository (or
 multiple conflicting versions of the same library), I tend to put it
 either under an entirely different PREFIX, preferably under a
 dedicated subtree for the app I'm trying to build


 I had no idea you could do that! That's fantastic: despite my
 migration towards Linux, I had been worrying about the day I'd
 inevitable have to deal with multiple versions of the same thing.


 [...]
=20
 Here's something I discovered just today:
=20
 	% apt-cache show stow
 	Package: stow
 	Version: 2.2.0-2
 	Installed-Size: 672
 	Maintainer: Chuan-kai Lin <cklin debian.org>
 	Architecture: all
 	Depends: perl, dpkg (>=3D 1.15.4) | install-info
 	Suggests: doc-base
 	Description-en: Organizer for /usr/local software packages
 	 GNU Stow is a software installation manager for /usr/local.  Using
 	 symbolic links, GNU Stow helps you keep the installations separate
 	 (/usr/local/stow/emacs vs. /usr/local/stow/perl, for example) while
 	 maintaining the illusion that they are all under /usr/local.
 	Description-md5: 952b8725dcbc2ad8368dbc929406052e
 	Homepage: http://www.gnu.org/software/stow/
 	Tag: implemented-in::perl, interface::commandline, role::program,
 	 scope::utility, suite::gnu, use::organizing
 	Section: admin
 	Priority: optional
 	Filename: pool/main/s/stow/stow_2.2.0-2_all.deb
 	Size: 311752
 	MD5sum: aaf097fd83270ed737484496013711ff
 	SHA1: 45aa26c7240fc89e4e16e9eaa0d04b7670002a7f
 	SHA256: d482cef9da0b755de57d138ed752599230341237ecb7f1e5559533dbd15ab6=


19

=20
 Pretty cool stuff, so you get to isolate custom-installed software from=



 each other, and still have them work together!
=20
=20
 T
=20


Really nice is when you combine stow with dotfile management - that way
you can isolate just your dotfiles in a git repository (or similar) and
stow the parts you want for each box.
-Matt Soucy



 Sep 19 2013



prev sibling  parent reply "John Colvin" <john.loughran.colvin gmail.com>  writes:


On Friday, 13 September 2013 at 22:09:36 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:

 Even on linux, using a Windows .exe tends to work better than 
 using a linux binary - exe's just work there thanks to wine, 
 whereas linux binaries always have some incompatibility).


As others have mentioned, this is not how linux operates really. 
In my experience almost everyone either uses a package manager 
(almost everything) or builds from source (bleeding edge)

Downloading executables from peoples websites is definitely a 
window mindset.



 Sep 13 2013



  parent  Paulo Pinto <pjmlp progtools.org>  writes:


Am 14.09.2013 00:51, schrieb John Colvin:

 On Friday, 13 September 2013 at 22:09:36 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:

 Even on linux, using a Windows .exe tends to work better than using a
 linux binary - exe's just work there thanks to wine, whereas linux
 binaries always have some incompatibility).


 As others have mentioned, this is not how linux operates really. In my
 experience almost everyone either uses a package manager (almost
 everything) or builds from source (bleeding edge)

 Downloading executables from peoples websites is definitely a window
 mindset.


It does not work for commercial UNIX software.



 Sep 13 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent  Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com>  writes:


On 9/13/13, H. S. Teoh <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:

 Not to mention, syntax highlighting falls down upon encountering q{}
 blocks.


Works on Scite.


  (It *can* be made to highlight those as well, I suppose, but it
 leads to the awkward situation where you can't tell whether that's code
 or a string literal.)


Well that's kind of the point of q{} IMO, to make it appear like code.
Otherwise you can use backticks or r"". E.g.:

http://imgur.com/UGUuUGU

(and lol at the generated imgur name)



 Sep 13 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent  "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx>  writes:


On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 11:50:53PM +0200, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:

 On 9/13/13, H. S. Teoh <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:

 Not to mention, syntax highlighting falls down upon encountering q{}
 blocks.


 
 Works on Scite.
 

  (It *can* be made to highlight those as well, I suppose, but it
 leads to the awkward situation where you can't tell whether that's code
 or a string literal.)


 
 Well that's kind of the point of q{} IMO, to make it appear like code.
 Otherwise you can use backticks or r"". E.g.:


True, you have a point there. :)



 http://imgur.com/UGUuUGU
 
 (and lol at the generated imgur name)


Heh. Reminds of "point-and-grunt". ;-)


T

-- 
The two rules of success: 1. Don't tell everything you know. -- YHL



 Sep 13 2013



prev sibling  parent  Paulo Pinto <pjmlp progtools.org>  writes:


Am 13.09.2013 23:35, schrieb Walter Bright:

 On 9/13/2013 1:58 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:

 Syntax highlighting hurts my eyes. I've been using vim in black-on-white
 for more than a decade now. (Well, more accurately, black on an almost
 fully saturated off-white, but that's irrelevant.)


 I tend to agree. I think syntax highlighting looks better if it's a
 subtle color change, not a glaring one. Unfortunately, in text mode,
 color palette is very limited.


I use IDEs with syntax highlighting since MS-DOS days, with Borland 
product line.

For me it is the opposite case, I get lost without colors giving me
clues to what is what.

--
Paulo



 Sep 13 2013



prev sibling  parent reply "Robert Clipsham" <robert octarineparrot.com>  writes:


On Friday, 13 September 2013 at 21:00:14 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

 On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 01:40:02PM -0700, Andrei Alexandrescu 
 wrote:
 Syntax highlighting hurts my eyes. I've been using vim in 
 black-on-white
 for more than a decade now. (Well, more accurately, black on an 
 almost
 fully saturated off-white, but that's irrelevant.)


 T


Have you taken a look at solarized? I used to find my eyes 
straining after a few hours with syntax highlighting until I 
started using it, now I can stare for days at a time without 
issue.

http://ethanschoonover.com/solarized

Unfortunately it's a bit of a pain to set up for command line vim 
since you need to configure your terminal emulator too - well 
worth the time though! If you have gvim installed that's probably 
the easiest way to try it out and see how you feel about it 
before committing and setting it up properly.

Relevant lines for your .vimrc:

syntax on
" You can set it to dark too for a light-on-dark different theme
" I use dark - I figured light would be most similar to what you
" currently have with black-on-white. You can see samples of
" each on the page linked above
set background=light
colorscheme solarized



 Sep 14 2013



 next sibling parent  "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx>  writes:


On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 11:35:26AM +0200, Robert Clipsham wrote:

 On Friday, 13 September 2013 at 21:00:14 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 01:40:02PM -0700, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Syntax highlighting hurts my eyes. I've been using vim in
black-on-white for more than a decade now. (Well, more accurately,
black on an almost fully saturated off-white, but that's irrelevant.)


T


 
 Have you taken a look at solarized? I used to find my eyes straining
 after a few hours with syntax highlighting until I started using it,
 now I can stare for days at a time without issue.
 
 http://ethanschoonover.com/solarized


[...]

Nah, it's still too rainbow-y for me. I still prefer no syntax
highlighting.


T

-- 
LINUX = Lousy Interface for Nefarious Unix Xenophobes.



 Sep 14 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent reply Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com>  writes:


On Saturday, September 14, 2013 10:11:59 H. S. Teoh wrote:

 Nah, it's still too rainbow-y for me. I still prefer no syntax
 highlighting.


Whereas I would feel almost like I was walking around blind if there were no 
syntax highlighting. I can certainly read code without syntax highlighting, 
but it's much harder. To each their own I guess.

- Jonathan M Davis



 Sep 14 2013



  parent  Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com>  writes:


On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 10:18:45 -0700
Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> wrote:


 On Saturday, September 14, 2013 10:11:59 H. S. Teoh wrote:

 Nah, it's still too rainbow-y for me. I still prefer no syntax
 highlighting.


 
 Whereas I would feel almost like I was walking around blind if there
 were no syntax highlighting. I can certainly read code without syntax
 highlighting, but it's much harder. To each their own I guess.
 


I feel colorblind without highlighting.

I know that sounds like a bad joke (and feel free to take it that
way ;) ), but it really does make me feel full-colorblind.



 Sep 14 2013



prev sibling  parent  Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com>  writes:


On 14 September 2013 18:11, H. S. Teoh <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:

 On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 11:35:26AM +0200, Robert Clipsham wrote:

 On Friday, 13 September 2013 at 21:00:14 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 01:40:02PM -0700, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Syntax highlighting hurts my eyes. I've been using vim in
black-on-white for more than a decade now. (Well, more accurately,
black on an almost fully saturated off-white, but that's irrelevant.)


T


 Have you taken a look at solarized? I used to find my eyes straining
 after a few hours with syntax highlighting until I started using it,
 now I can stare for days at a time without issue.

 http://ethanschoonover.com/solarized


 [...]

 Nah, it's still too rainbow-y for me. I still prefer no syntax
 highlighting.


I thought Zenburn was the go to syntax highlighting scheme for those
who work in low light settings. :-)

-- 
Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';



 Sep 14 2013



prev sibling  parent  Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com>  writes:


On 9/13/2013 1:40 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

 No syntax highlighting...


I know :-) I've thought many, many times about transforming it into an IDE with 
all the goodies.

But probably its most annoying lack is not handling Unicode.



 Sep 13 2013



prev sibling  parent reply "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com>  writes:


On Friday, 13 September 2013 at 20:38:00 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

 BTW, one veery nice thing about ME is I can run it from a 
 remote console window.


Yea, that's a big reason I use vim too. I do a lot of my work 
through remote connections and having my trusty editor available 
with good speed and resumeability where I left off (thanks to gnu 
screen) is a huge nice thing.



 Sep 13 2013



 next sibling parent reply "Peter Alexander" <peter.alexander.au gmail.com>  writes:


On Friday, 13 September 2013 at 20:44:52 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:

 On Friday, 13 September 2013 at 20:38:00 UTC, Walter Bright 
 wrote:

 BTW, one veery nice thing about ME is I can run it from a 
 remote console window.


 Yea, that's a big reason I use vim too. I do a lot of my work 
 through remote connections and having my trusty editor 
 available with good speed and resumeability where I left off 
 (thanks to gnu screen) is a huge nice thing.


Do you actually write significant amounts of code on remote 
machines? I'm struggling to find a reason to do that.



 Sep 13 2013



 next sibling parent  Justin Whear <justin economicmodeling.com>  writes:


On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 22:46:45 +0200, Peter Alexander wrote:


 On Friday, 13 September 2013 at 20:44:52 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:

 On Friday, 13 September 2013 at 20:38:00 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

 BTW, one veery nice thing about ME is I can run it from a remote
 console window.


 Yea, that's a big reason I use vim too. I do a lot of my work through
 remote connections and having my trusty editor available with good
 speed and resumeability where I left off (thanks to gnu screen) is a
 huge nice thing.


 
 Do you actually write significant amounts of code on remote machines?
 I'm struggling to find a reason to do that.


I don't write a lot of code remotely aside from the infrequent quickfix 
on our testing server.  But I do quite a bit of editing of configurations 
on remote boxes; because vim is installed by default in linux, it's just 
matter of cloning my vim bundle (https://github.com/jwhear/vim-
bundle.git) into my home directory on the remote machine and boom, my 
full install complete with plugins.



 Sep 13 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent reply "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx>  writes:


On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 10:46:45PM +0200, Peter Alexander wrote:

 On Friday, 13 September 2013 at 20:44:52 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:

On Friday, 13 September 2013 at 20:38:00 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

BTW, one veery nice thing about ME is I can run it from a remote
console window.


Yea, that's a big reason I use vim too. I do a lot of my work
through remote connections and having my trusty editor available
with good speed and resumeability where I left off (thanks to gnu
screen) is a huge nice thing.


 
 Do you actually write significant amounts of code on remote
 machines? I'm struggling to find a reason to do that.


I do. I prefer to keep code in a single place, i.e., on my PC, so when
I'm away from my desk (travelling, house-sitting for my mother-in-law,
etc.), I use GNU screen over ssh.

Screen, especially, lets me continue the same coding session in the
little bits of free time I have here and there (start coding in the
morning, pause to get to work, work on work, resume coding during lunch
break, get back to work, resume while waiting for long work-related
build to finish, go back to work, resume at mother-in-law's house while
waiting for people to show up for dinner, pause to have dinner, resume
after dinner while waiting for wife to walk the dog, etc.).

One of the most complex algorithms I've ever implemented for a personal
project (C++ at the time) was all done over ssh from my mother-in-law's
while house-sitting for her.


T

-- 
If you think you are too small to make a difference, try sleeping in a
closed room with a mosquito. -- Jan van Steenbergen



 Sep 13 2013



  parent reply "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com>  writes:


On Friday, 13 September 2013 at 21:09:40 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

 I do. I prefer to keep code in a single place, i.e., on my PC, 
 so when I'm away from my desk (travelling, house-sitting for my 
 mother-in-law, etc.), I use GNU screen over ssh.


The headers of your messages tell me that you probably do email 
the same way I do too: keep it all on the home computer and ssh 
in with mutt!

(I use the website for replying to D postings though, since the 
mailing list interface I find unreliable for outgoing messages.)



 Sep 13 2013



  parent reply "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx>  writes:


On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 11:18:45PM +0200, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:

 On Friday, 13 September 2013 at 21:09:40 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

I do. I prefer to keep code in a single place, i.e., on my PC, so
when I'm away from my desk (travelling, house-sitting for my
mother-in-law, etc.), I use GNU screen over ssh.


 
 The headers of your messages tell me that you probably do email the
 same way I do too: keep it all on the home computer and ssh in with
 mutt!


Yup!

I grew up with pine, until its limitations left me pining for something
better... (har har)  I tried several alternatives but didn't like any of
them, until I met mutt. Mutt is far more configurable than pine, and can
handle a lot of stuff pine can't (this was over a decade ago, though, I
don't know if this is still true... or if pine even exists anymore).

I hate leaving my mail on some remote mailserver; I like keeping it all
on my home PC (so that they are always accessible even if my 'Net
connection goes down every now and then). So I set up my MX to deliver
all mail to my PC, and I check mail with ssh/mutt. Nowadays I can even
do this from my Android phone, though the low resolution and lack of a
real keyboard does make it rather awkward to use.



 (I use the website for replying to D postings though, since the
 mailing list interface I find unreliable for outgoing messages.)


The website is too GUI-like for my tastes. I prefer doing everything
from mutt. :)


T

-- 
Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence. --
Napoleon Bonaparte



 Sep 13 2013



  parent  Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com>  writes:


On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 14:36:16 -0700
"H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:

 
 So I set up my MX to deliver
 all mail to my PC, and I check mail with ssh/mutt. Nowadays I can even
 do this from my Android phone, though the low resolution and lack of a
 real keyboard does make it rather awkward to use.
 


I once received notice about, investigated and fixed, a web server
problem entirely by dual-wielding an Android and an iPhone while
sitting in a McDonald's for a few minutes (it was admittedly a simple
problem, and luckily I had already set up both with ssh keys for the
server). I thought that was pretty damn cool, even though doing the
same on my PC would have been much quicker and easier. It's no secret
I'm not a fan of those devices, but their benefit is that they do serve
as a shitty version of a Palm PDA...except with full internet access.


Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained
by incompetence. -- Napoleon Bonaparte


I've been such a big believer in that quote for years. Never heard it
associated with Napoleon though, I always just knew it as "Hanlon's
Razor": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor



 Sep 13 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com>  writes:


On Friday, 13 September 2013 at 20:46:46 UTC, Peter Alexander 
wrote:

 Do you actually write significant amounts of code on remote 
 machines? I'm struggling to find a reason to do that.


Yeah, I'd say about half my time is spent on a remote computer, 
generally my laptop.

All my files and programs are on my desktop, but I'm not always 
there. Sometimes I just want to sit in an other room or in the 
yard, but often (several hours a day, almost every day) I'm at a 
friend's house keeping an eye on their kids. Since the kids 
almost take care of themselves, I bring my laptop and continue to 
do my computer work from there too.



 Sep 13 2013



  parent  Russel Winder <russel winder.org.uk>  writes:


On Fri, 2013-09-13 at 23:10 +0200, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
[=E2=80=A6]

 Yeah, I'd say about half my time is spent on a remote computer,=20
 generally my laptop.
=20
 All my files and programs are on my desktop, but I'm not always=20
 there. Sometimes I just want to sit in an other room or in the=20
 yard, but often (several hours a day, almost every day) I'm at a=20
 friend's house keeping an eye on their kids. Since the kids=20
 almost take care of themselves, I bring my laptop and continue to=20
 do my computer work from there too.


This is why I use Unison to ensure that all my filestores (server,
workstation, two Linux laptops, two OS X laptops, all have replicas of
my personal filestore. It avoids the need for being always properly
connected to the Internet.

--=20
Russel.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder ekiga.n=
et
41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel winder.org.uk
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder



 Sep 13 2013



prev sibling  parent  Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com>  writes:


On 9/13/2013 1:46 PM, Peter Alexander wrote:

 Do you actually write significant amounts of code on remote machines? I'm
 struggling to find a reason to do that.


Also keep in mind the ME's bandwidth requirements are very very small, so it is 
snappy even on a miserably slow connection.

(It was designed in the day of 300 baud modems.)



 Sep 13 2013



prev sibling  parent reply Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com>  writes:


On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 22:44:51 +0200
"Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> wrote:


 On Friday, 13 September 2013 at 20:38:00 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

 BTW, one veery nice thing about ME is I can run it from a 
 remote console window.


 
 Yea, that's a big reason I use vim too. I do a lot of my work 
 through remote connections and having my trusty editor available 
 with good speed and resumeability where I left off (thanks to gnu 
 screen) is a huge nice thing.


I find vim/emacs confusing, so when I do remote text editing over ssh
(or on a machine without a GUI) I like to use mcedit. It does still
have some weirdness (copy-paste is a little odd), but it's the closest
I've found to a GUI-like editor in text mode.

Although if the physical machine I'm on happens to be Linux, I usually
prefer to just connect via sshfs and then use whatever GUI-based editor
I'd normally use. I love sshfs, I wish Windows had it.



 Sep 13 2013



  parent reply "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com>  writes:


On Friday, 13 September 2013 at 20:51:50 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
wrote:

 I'd normally use. I love sshfs, I wish Windows had it.


I actually shelled out... I think $20 a few years ago, for a 
program called ExpanDrive on Windows, which connects via ssh to 
my Linux box and presents it as a windows drive. Pretty cool, it 
works fairly well and is a nice supplement to putty.



 Sep 13 2013



  parent reply "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx>  writes:


On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 11:12:15PM +0200, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:

 On Friday, 13 September 2013 at 20:51:50 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

I'd normally use. I love sshfs, I wish Windows had it.


 
 I actually shelled out... I think $20 a few years ago, for a program
 called ExpanDrive on Windows, which connects via ssh to my Linux box
 and presents it as a windows drive. Pretty cool, it works fairly
 well and is a nice supplement to putty.


Putty is about the only reason I can tolerate using Windows at all... I
mean, what else is Windows for, if not logging into a *real* OS where
the real work is done? ;-)


T

-- 
What do you mean the Internet isn't filled with subliminal messages?
What about all those buttons marked "submit"??



 Sep 13 2013



  parent  "Namespace" <rswhite4 googlemail.com>  writes:


On Friday, 13 September 2013 at 21:40:40 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

 On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 11:12:15PM +0200, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:

 On Friday, 13 September 2013 at 20:51:50 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
 wrote:

I'd normally use. I love sshfs, I wish Windows had it.


 
 I actually shelled out... I think $20 a few years ago, for a 
 program
 called ExpanDrive on Windows, which connects via ssh to my 
 Linux box
 and presents it as a windows drive. Pretty cool, it works 
 fairly
 well and is a nice supplement to putty.


 Putty is about the only reason I can tolerate using Windows at 
 all... I
 mean, what else is Windows for, if not logging into a *real* OS 
 where
 the real work is done? ;-)


 T


tz ;)



 Sep 13 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Zoadian" <github zoadian.de>  writes:


i've used mono-d (and might switch back when it is compatiple
with recent xamarin api), but switched to Sublime 3 recently.
could you share your plugins/configs?

i also use scite a lot.



 Sep 13 2013



  parent  "Namespace" <rswhite4 googlemail.com>  writes:


On Friday, 13 September 2013 at 20:35:41 UTC, Zoadian wrote:

 i've used mono-d (and might switch back when it is compatiple
 with recent xamarin api), but switched to Sublime 3 recently.
 could you share your plugins/configs?

 i also use scite a lot.


Ops, it seems I confused Mono-D <-> Xamarin. I use Xamarin 4.0.12 
with D Plugin from Alexander. I have, besides git, no other 
Plugins installed.

I use Xamarin for developing on Dgame or Demo/Games for it and 
Sublime/Notpad++ for smaller files.



 Sep 13 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent  Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com>  writes:


On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 21:48:15 +0200
"Namespace" <rswhite4 googlemail.com> wrote:


 Just out of interest.
 
 I use Sublime 2, Notepad++ and as IDE currently Mono-D. But I 
 will try this evening VisualD.


Programmer's Notepad 2 (Windows-only though :( )

On Linux I've just been getting by with Kate and mcedit, mainly because
I haven't really looked into other stuff there yet.



 Sep 13 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent  "Kiith-Sa" <kiithsacmp gmail.com>  writes:


On Friday, 13 September 2013 at 19:48:18 UTC, Namespace wrote:

 Just out of interest.

 I use Sublime 2, Notepad++ and as IDE currently Mono-D. But I 
 will try this evening VisualD.


gvim, with no GUI elements, ultisnips for D snippets, 
YouCompleteMe for fuzzy completion, and soon DCD for D-aware 
completion. And various non-D related plugins and custom 
mappings. Good because I can have e.g. 9 80-column files on the 
screen at the same time (looking like a grid), and load a session 
with tens of files almost instantly.



 Sep 13 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent  "Brian Schott" <briancschott gmail.com>  writes:


Textadept with DCD. Also, "Unix is my IDE."



 Sep 13 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent  "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx>  writes:


On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 09:48:15PM +0200, Namespace wrote:

 Just out of interest.
 
 I use Sublime 2, Notepad++ and as IDE currently Mono-D. But I will
 try this evening VisualD.


vim.


T

-- 
Stop staring at me like that! You'll offend... no, you'll hurt your eyes!



 Sep 13 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent  captaindet <2krnk gmx.net>  writes:


mostly geany with bud/build

so i don't need any project files but can easily tackle small and medium sized
projects. i love the way how bud tracks down all imports, (can) clean up after
compilation, and handles different sets of options in option groups - and geany
does the rest

one of my projects might grow big enough to benefit from a full-fledged IDE,
probably MonoD as this project is multi-platform. otherwise VisualD as VS is
more stable than monodevelop. i played with both but in general, i find those
big IDEs to awkward to deal with for small projects.

/det



 Sep 13 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Flamaros" <flamaros.xavier gmail.com>  writes:


On Friday, 13 September 2013 at 19:48:18 UTC, Namespace wrote:

 Just out of interest.

 I use Sublime 2, Notepad++ and as IDE currently Mono-D. But I 
 will try this evening VisualD.


Mainly VisualD and for linux Mono-D.

Mono-D have a great auto completion.



 Sep 13 2013



  parent reply "Namespace" <rswhite4 googlemail.com>  writes:


On Friday, 13 September 2013 at 21:15:03 UTC, Flamaros wrote:

 On Friday, 13 September 2013 at 19:48:18 UTC, Namespace wrote:

 Just out of interest.

 I use Sublime 2, Notepad++ and as IDE currently Mono-D. But I 
 will try this evening VisualD.


 Mainly VisualD and for linux Mono-D.

 Mono-D have a great auto completion.


That's true. But is it better than with VisualD?

I'm suprised that so few use an IDE. :D



 Sep 13 2013



  parent reply Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com>  writes:


On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 23:30:55 +0200
"Namespace" <rswhite4 googlemail.com> wrote:

 
 I'm suprised that so few use an IDE. :D


I think IDE users have been avoiding D due to (perceived?) issues
with D's IDE support. So those of us that do use D tend to be the ones
who don't rely on IDEs. "Chicken and egg"



 Sep 13 2013



 next sibling parent reply "Namespace" <rswhite4 googlemail.com>  writes:


On Friday, 13 September 2013 at 22:23:48 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
wrote:

 On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 23:30:55 +0200
 "Namespace" <rswhite4 googlemail.com> wrote:

 
 I'm suprised that so few use an IDE. :D


 I think IDE users have been avoiding D due to (perceived?) 
 issues
 with D's IDE support. So those of us that do use D tend to be 
 the ones
 who don't rely on IDEs. "Chicken and egg"


Next time I should ask who use which OS. ;)



 Sep 13 2013



  parent reply "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx>  writes:


On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 12:37:51AM +0200, Namespace wrote:

 On Friday, 13 September 2013 at 22:23:48 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 23:30:55 +0200
"Namespace" <rswhite4 googlemail.com> wrote:

I'm suprised that so few use an IDE. :D


I think IDE users have been avoiding D due to (perceived?) issues
with D's IDE support. So those of us that do use D tend to be the
ones who don't rely on IDEs. "Chicken and egg"


 
 Next time I should ask who use which OS. ;)


I started using Linux around 1996 or so. Never looked back since.


T

-- 
It is not the employer who pays the wages. Employers only handle the
money. It is the customer who pays the wages. -- Henry Ford



 Sep 13 2013



  parent  Paulo Pinto <pjmlp progtools.org>  writes:


Am 14.09.2013 00:50, schrieb H. S. Teoh:

 On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 12:37:51AM +0200, Namespace wrote:

 On Friday, 13 September 2013 at 22:23:48 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 23:30:55 +0200
 "Namespace" <rswhite4 googlemail.com> wrote:

 I'm suprised that so few use an IDE. :D


 I think IDE users have been avoiding D due to (perceived?) issues
 with D's IDE support. So those of us that do use D tend to be the
 ones who don't rely on IDEs. "Chicken and egg"


 Next time I should ask who use which OS. ;)


 I started using Linux around 1996 or so. Never looked back since.


 T


I use a mix of Windows and whatever Linux distribution that works out of 
the box.

--
Paulo



 Sep 13 2013



prev sibling  parent  Manu <turkeyman gmail.com>  writes:


On 14 September 2013 08:23, Nick Sabalausky <
SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> wrote:


 On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 23:30:55 +0200
 "Namespace" <rswhite4 googlemail.com> wrote:

 I'm suprised that so few use an IDE. :D


 I think IDE users have been avoiding D due to (perceived?) issues
 with D's IDE support. So those of us that do use D tend to be the ones
 who don't rely on IDEs. "Chicken and egg"


I agree.. and there are still plenty of issues. major issues.
The day there is an IDE integration that's flawless (auto-complete,
debugging), and installs by default, is the day D reaches 1 million users ;)



 Sep 14 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent  Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org>  writes:


Sublime Text 3



 Sep 13 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent reply "John Colvin" <john.loughran.colvin gmail.com>  writes:


On Friday, 13 September 2013 at 19:48:18 UTC, Namespace wrote:

 Just out of interest.

 I use Sublime 2, Notepad++ and as IDE currently Mono-D. But I 
 will try this evening VisualD.


GNU Emacs



 Sep 13 2013



  parent reply Russel Winder <russel winder.org.uk>  writes:


On Fri, 2013-09-13 at 23:20 +0200, John Colvin wrote:

 On Friday, 13 September 2013 at 19:48:18 UTC, Namespace wrote:

 Just out of interest.

 I use Sublime 2, Notepad++ and as IDE currently Mono-D. But I=20
 will try this evening VisualD.


=20
 GNU Emacs


Emacs 24, there is no other editor. :-)

--=20
Russel.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder ekiga.n=
et
41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel winder.org.uk
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder



 Sep 13 2013



  parent  "John Colvin" <john.loughran.colvin gmail.com>  writes:


On Friday, 13 September 2013 at 21:28:01 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:

 On Fri, 2013-09-13 at 23:20 +0200, John Colvin wrote:

 On Friday, 13 September 2013 at 19:48:18 UTC, Namespace wrote:

 Just out of interest.

 I use Sublime 2, Notepad++ and as IDE currently Mono-D. But 
 I will try this evening VisualD.


 
 GNU Emacs


 Emacs 24, there is no other editor. :-)


With DCD as well, I really couldn't imagine a better environment 
for coding in D.



 Sep 13 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent  =?UTF-8?B?UsOpbXkgTW91w6t6YQ==?= <remy.moueza gmail.com>  writes:


Ubuntu Linux with:
- gvim compiled with the breakindent patch (that I had to patch myself 
for the vim source I checked out) for nicely wrapped and indented long 
lines (mostly used outside D programming).
- xfce4-terminal
- rdmd for simple programs,
- gnu make when interfacing with C/C++.

On 09/13/2013 09:48 PM, Namespace wrote:

 Just out of interest.

 I use Sublime 2, Notepad++ and as IDE currently Mono-D. But I will try
 this evening VisualD.





 Sep 13 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg gmx.com>  writes:


On Friday, September 13, 2013 21:48:15 Namespace wrote:

 Just out of interest.
 
 I use Sublime 2, Notepad++ and as IDE currently Mono-D. But I
 will try this evening VisualD.


I use gvim regardless of the language that I'm writing in. I even use
it for word processing, because if I have to write a document that
requires that, I use LaTex.

- Jonathan M Davis



 Sep 13 2013



  parent  =?UTF-8?B?QWxpIMOHZWhyZWxp?= <acehreli yahoo.com>  writes:


On 09/13/2013 02:42 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:

 On Friday, September 13, 2013 21:48:15 Namespace wrote:

 Just out of interest.

 I use Sublime 2, Notepad++ and as IDE currently Mono-D. But I
 will try this evening VisualD.


 I use gvim regardless of the language that I'm writing in. I even use
 it for word processing, because if I have to write a document that
 requires that, I use LaTex.

 - Jonathan M Davis


+1

Except mine is Emacs. :)

Ali



 Sep 14 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent  "w0rp" <devw0rp gmail.com>  writes:


I use GVim myself, with syntastic for checking for errors when I 
hit save.



 Sep 13 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent  "Dicebot" <public dicebot.lv>  writes:


On Friday, 13 September 2013 at 19:48:18 UTC, Namespace wrote:

 Just out of interest.

 I use Sublime 2, Notepad++ and as IDE currently Mono-D. But I 
 will try this evening VisualD.


Mostly stock vim (NerdTree is only absolutely mandatory plugin) + 
grep + gdb

Sometimes I poke Mono-D but more out of curiosity than real 
necessity.



 Sep 13 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent  "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx>  writes:


On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 05:42:18PM -0400, Jonathan M Davis wrote:

 On Friday, September 13, 2013 21:48:15 Namespace wrote:

 Just out of interest.
 
 I use Sublime 2, Notepad++ and as IDE currently Mono-D. But I
 will try this evening VisualD.


 
 I use gvim regardless of the language that I'm writing in. I even use
 it for word processing, because if I have to write a document that
 requires that, I use LaTex.


[...]

+1.

I use vim (bare text mode, no GUI, so no gvim for me) for literally
*everything*. Everything from system config files to coding to LaTeX for
word-processing to scripted graphics processing (thanks to imagemagick)
to povray scene files, there's almost nothing in my world that can't be
accomplished by vim. :)

Sometimes I wonder how the GUI-encumbered people get any work done at
all, what with needing to constantly switch their hands between the
keyboard and the rodent, wait for a 600MB application to load up 200MB
of eye-candy and paint the screen with 50 toolbar controls, 45 of which
that they never actually use, click through endless layers of nested
menus just to perform a single operation, etc.. ;-)

(OK, OK, so I'm a fossilized relic from the last ice age of '75, I'll
stop the GUI-bashing now. :-P  You may carry on.)


T

-- 
Skill without imagination is craftsmanship and gives us many useful
objects such as wickerwork picnic baskets.  Imagination without skill
gives us modern art. -- Tom Stoppard



 Sep 13 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent  "simendsjo" <simendsjo gmail.com>  writes:


On Friday, 13 September 2013 at 19:48:18 UTC, Namespace wrote:

 Just out of interest.

 I use Sublime 2, Notepad++ and as IDE currently Mono-D. But I 
 will try this evening VisualD.


Vim, VisualD and some Mono-D (when on GNU/Linux).

When using Mono-D, I have a shortcut to open the file at the 
current location in vim as MonoDevelop/Xamarin Studio sucks at vi 
emulation.

For Visual Studio, ViEmu works very well, but it's not free. 
Worth the $100 though.

Vim for all smaller things, and otherwise when I need it.



 Sep 13 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg gmx.com>  writes:


On Friday, September 13, 2013 14:58:48 H. S. Teoh wrote:

 On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 05:42:18PM -0400, Jonathan M Davis wrote:

 On Friday, September 13, 2013 21:48:15 Namespace wrote:

 Just out of interest.
 
 I use Sublime 2, Notepad++ and as IDE currently Mono-D. But I
 will try this evening VisualD.


 
 I use gvim regardless of the language that I'm writing in. I even use
 it for word processing, because if I have to write a document that
 requires that, I use LaTex.


 
 [...]
 
 +1.
 
 I use vim (bare text mode, no GUI, so no gvim for me)


I don't actually use any of the GUI controls. It's just useful to have vim in 
a window that I can resize (you also get better color choices than in the 
shell).


 for literally
 *everything*. Everything from system config files to coding to LaTeX for
 word-processing to scripted graphics processing (thanks to imagemagick)
 to povray scene files, there's almost nothing in my world that can't be
 accomplished by vim. :)
 
 Sometimes I wonder how the GUI-encumbered people get any work done at
 all, what with needing to constantly switch their hands between the
 keyboard and the rodent, wait for a 600MB application to load up 200MB
 of eye-candy and paint the screen with 50 toolbar controls, 45 of which
 that they never actually use, click through endless layers of nested
 menus just to perform a single operation, etc.. ;-)
 
 (OK, OK, so I'm a fossilized relic from the last ice age of '75, I'll
 stop the GUI-bashing now. :-P You may carry on.)


LOL. Yeah, the main reason that I don't use IDEs is the fact that they're 
essentially a glorified version of notepad as far as editing goes. They _do_ 
usually have better editing capabilities then the ever-so-pathetic notepad, 
but they can't do much of anything in comparison to the likes of vim or emacs. 
So, I end up using (g)vim for everything. The features that an IDE has that 
vim doesn't typically just aren't worth it. e.g. if I'm stuck doing Windows 
programming, about the most that I even do with VS is use the debugger. I even 
build from the command line rather than open the IDE.

Vim's learning curve is quite nasty, but I definitely think that it was worth
it.

- Jonathan M Davis



 Sep 13 2013



 next sibling parent  "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com>  writes:


On Friday, 13 September 2013 at 22:07:05 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
wrote:

 I don't actually use any of the GUI controls. It's just useful 
 to have vim in a window that I can resize


xterms can resize too!

Though, sometimes the window resize signal gets lost. I resize 
the window while one program is running, then go back to bash and 
the readline editing is broken until i resize again. Aargh.

But vim handles it quite well. Though gvim isn't bad, I used it 
for a while, I just like being able to use it with screen too.



 Sep 13 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent  Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com>  writes:


On 9/13/2013 3:06 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:

 Vim's learning curve is quite nasty, but I definitely think that it was worth
 it.


I use Vim to edit ME source files so it'll compile on the target machine.



 Sep 13 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent reply Justin Whear <justin economicmodeling.com>  writes:


On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 18:06:50 -0400, Jonathan M Davis wrote:

 I don't actually use any of the GUI controls. It's just useful to have
 vim in a window that I can resize (you also get better color choices
 than in the shell).


Yeah, my .gvimrc is basically just turning off all the GUI elements, the 
very first thing I did when I started using it.  I use gvim when working 
locally for only two reasons: full color support and resizing splits 
quickly with the mouse.



 Sep 13 2013



  parent reply "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg gmx.com>  writes:


On Friday, September 13, 2013 22:24:19 Justin Whear wrote:

 On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 18:06:50 -0400, Jonathan M Davis wrote:

 I don't actually use any of the GUI controls. It's just useful to have
 vim in a window that I can resize (you also get better color choices
 than in the shell).


 
 Yeah, my .gvimrc is basically just turning off all the GUI elements, the
 very first thing I did when I started using it..


I should try that.

- Jonathan M Davis



 Sep 13 2013



  parent  "Brad Anderson" <eco gnuk.net>  writes:


On Friday, 13 September 2013 at 23:57:09 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
wrote:

 On Friday, September 13, 2013 22:24:19 Justin Whear wrote:

 On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 18:06:50 -0400, Jonathan M Davis wrote:

 I don't actually use any of the GUI controls. It's just 
 useful to have
 vim in a window that I can resize (you also get better color 
 choices
 than in the shell).


 
 Yeah, my .gvimrc is basically just turning off all the GUI 
 elements, the
 very first thing I did when I started using it..


 I should try that.

 - Jonathan M Davis


if has("gui_running")
     set guioptions-=m " hide menu
     set guioptions-=T " hide toolbar
endif

Is what I do. Nice and clean.



 Sep 13 2013



prev sibling  parent reply Paulo Pinto <pjmlp progtools.org>  writes:


Am 14.09.2013 00:06, schrieb Jonathan M Davis:

 .... The features that an IDE has that
 vim doesn't typically just aren't worth it. e.g. if I'm stuck doing Windows
 programming, about the most that I even do with VS is use the debugger. I even
 build from the command line rather than open the IDE.

 Vim's learning curve is quite nasty, but I definitely think that it was worth
 it.

 - Jonathan M Davis


You mean things like:

- Semantic refactoring
- WYSIWYG design of user interfaces
- code navigation, even across binary modules (call graph, derived 
class, overridden methods, call sites, ...)
- graphical representation of code relationships
- UML design
- visual XML tooling
- background compilation showing where there are issues
- background static analysis while coding
- code completation with documentation popups
- integrate source code control with task management software to track 
code changes to project tasks
- map failed unit tests to code lines
- ...

--
Paulo



 Sep 13 2013



 next sibling parent reply Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com>  writes:


On Saturday, September 14, 2013 06:56:10 Paulo Pinto wrote:

 Am 14.09.2013 00:06, schrieb Jonathan M Davis:

 .... The features that an IDE has that
 vim doesn't typically just aren't worth it. e.g. if I'm stuck doing
 Windows
 programming, about the most that I even do with VS is use the debugger. I
 even build from the command line rather than open the IDE.
 
 Vim's learning curve is quite nasty, but I definitely think that it was
 worth it.
 
 - Jonathan M Davis


 
 You mean things like:
 
 - Semantic refactoring
 - WYSIWYG design of user interfaces
 - code navigation, even across binary modules (call graph, derived
 class, overridden methods, call sites, ...)
 - graphical representation of code relationships
 - UML design
 - visual XML tooling
 - background compilation showing where there are issues
 - background static analysis while coding
 - code completation with documentation popups
 - integrate source code control with task management software to track
 code changes to project tasks
 - map failed unit tests to code lines
 - ...


I honestly find almost all of that to be useless or nearly so. The only one 
that I'd actually be much interested in would be better code navigation 
(particularly the ability to hop to the definition of a function). And having 
poor code editing capabilities would hamper me quite a bit. So, for me, vim 
wins hands down.

- Jonathan M Davis



 Sep 13 2013



 next sibling parent reply Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com>  writes:


On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 22:15:06 -0700
Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> wrote:


 On Saturday, September 14, 2013 06:56:10 Paulo Pinto wrote:

 Am 14.09.2013 00:06, schrieb Jonathan M Davis:

 .... The features that an IDE has that
 vim doesn't typically just aren't worth it. e.g. if I'm stuck
 doing Windows
 programming, about the most that I even do with VS is use the
 debugger. I even build from the command line rather than open the
 IDE.
 
 Vim's learning curve is quite nasty, but I definitely think that
 it was worth it.
 
 - Jonathan M Davis


 
 You mean things like:
 
 - Semantic refactoring
 - WYSIWYG design of user interfaces
 - code navigation, even across binary modules (call graph, derived
 class, overridden methods, call sites, ...)
 - graphical representation of code relationships
 - UML design
 - visual XML tooling
 - background compilation showing where there are issues
 - background static analysis while coding
 - code completation with documentation popups
 - integrate source code control with task management software to
 track code changes to project tasks
 - map failed unit tests to code lines
 - ...




I find most of that stuff to be "nice, but not that big a deal" (and a
few I just plain don't care at all). I used to be a big IDE guy, but
I've done enough development on various immature platforms and
ecosystems that I can get by just fine as long as I have:

- Basic editing that's solid, fast, robust
- Highlighting
- CLI compiler

I've had to debug things using as little as one LED. So printf
debugging is perfectly comfortable to me, and I've gotten to the point
where I even find it preferable to a full debugger in many cases.

The rest is just icing (or gravy if you prefer).


 
 I honestly find almost all of that to be useless or nearly so. The
 only one that I'd actually be much interested in would be better code
 navigation (particularly the ability to hop to the definition of a
 function). And having poor code editing capabilities would hamper me
 quite a bit. So, for me, vim wins hands down.
 



one with the cursor and text-edit control", so to speak, then no amount
of extra features can make up for it. (Of course, for me that means
*not* vi, although I just haven't cared enough to get through the
learning curve - but that's just me.)



 Sep 13 2013



  parent reply "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx>  writes:


On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 02:57:39AM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 22:15:06 -0700
 Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> wrote:
 

 On Saturday, September 14, 2013 06:56:10 Paulo Pinto wrote:

 Am 14.09.2013 00:06, schrieb Jonathan M Davis:

 .... The features that an IDE has that vim doesn't typically
 just aren't worth it. e.g. if I'm stuck doing Windows
 programming, about the most that I even do with VS is use the
 debugger. I even build from the command line rather than open
 the IDE.
 
 Vim's learning curve is quite nasty, but I definitely think that
 it was worth it.
 
 - Jonathan M Davis


 
 You mean things like:
 
 - Semantic refactoring






This would be nice, but I would say if something like this is
necessary, then it means the code wasn't properly designed in the first
place. Code can, and probably should, be written such that this is
never necessary.



 - WYSIWYG design of user interfaces






Ugh. I don't trust that kind of design. It has a tendency to devolve
into programs that need screen resolutions with exact pixel sizes and/or
make unfounded assumptions about font dimensions. UIs should be
*programmatically* specified in such a way that they are logically
consistent in layout *regardless* of environmental factors such as
screen resolution, font dimensions, etc..



 - code navigation, even across binary modules (call graph, derived
 class, overridden methods, call sites, ...)






Ctags. ;-)



 - graphical representation of code relationships






std.d.lexer + graphviz



 - UML design






Range-based design is better. ;-)



 - visual XML tooling






What would that be for?



 - background compilation showing where there are issues






Waste of resources. I hate it when programs (including IDEs) try to be
"smart" and point out perceived problems that may or may not be real
problems. The compiler already points out the *real* problems when I
decide to compile the code anyway; having an IDE actively try to point
out the fact that my code doesn't look like code yet (because I'm still
thinking over various implementation possibilities) is very disruptive
to my thought processes.  I prefer to doodle possible implementations
until I mold it into possibly-compilable form first, *before* I even
consider running the compiler on it.  An IDE to consume system resources
while annoying me? No thanks. Let Clippy rest in his grave, don't bring
him back from the dead.



 - background static analysis while coding






ditto



 - code completation with documentation popups






I can live without it. Vim has 'K' to open the manpage of the identifier
under the cursor anyway -- one of these days, I'm going to write a
program to autotranslate ddoc into manpages, then I don't even need to
depend on dlang.org anymore. I find autocompletion redundant anyway,
since I still prefer to read the module docs thoroughly to know exactly
what something does before using it (*especially* if I don't know it
well enough to recall the exact name off the top of my head).

So it's a nice-to-have, but meh.



 - integrate source code control with task management software to
 track code changes to project tasks






An IDE is not a substitute for my learning how to manage my projects
independently of the coding itself. Besides, I've yet to find a task
management software that I can tolerate using. I usually just use text
files in a specific format that outlines tasks in a hierarchical format,
organized into per-task per-project directory trees, in which I keep all
associated data like backup files, crash logs, code diffs, etc.. All
these have very specific naming conventions and structures that let me
find stuff easily, and everything is plain text and greppable for when I
need to find a specific detail from an unknown past bugfix, say. I still
find grep -E more effective than any task management software's poor
imitation of the google search box.



 - map failed unit tests to code lines






Er... isn't that what AssertError line numbers are for?



 I find most of that stuff to be "nice, but not that big a deal" (and a
 few I just plain don't care at all). I used to be a big IDE guy, but
 I've done enough development on various immature platforms and
 ecosystems that I can get by just fine as long as I have:
 
 - Basic editing that's solid, fast, robust
 - Highlighting
 - CLI compiler


For me, I can dispense with the second item. :) Give me vim and a
command-line compiler, and I'm good to go.



 I've had to debug things using as little as one LED. So printf
 debugging is perfectly comfortable to me, and I've gotten to the point
 where I even find it preferable to a full debugger in many cases.
 
 The rest is just icing (or gravy if you prefer).


It's funny, the more years I spend coding, the less I found myself using
the debugger. Nowadays my debugging approach is approximately:

1) Code inspection: based on the bug description / known steps to
reproduce it, locate the general place in the code where the problem is
likely to be, and thoroughly audit that piece of code for problems.
Roughly 30% of the time, the bug would be found this way, and quite
often, other not-yet-found bugs would be discovered too. So it's quite
worth the effort before we even use any real debugging tools.

2) Printf/writeln debugging: mainly to determine execution path on the
way to the problem, by strategically placing printfs/writelns at branch
points and before/after loops, then refining it to loop bodies and
functions down the call tree as the location of the problem reveals
itself. Once the malfunctioning piece of code is identified, then start
to dump variable values, etc., to ascertain the cause of the problem.
This actually covers about 60% or so of the cases I've encountered.

3) Use a debugger. I find myself doing this only about 10% of the time.
And out of that 10%, 9% is just to get stack traces from segfaults, and
only 1% is really using the debugger for stepping through code.

All in all, writeln debugging is pretty effective, for all the stigma
against it.



 I honestly find almost all of that to be useless or nearly so. The
 only one that I'd actually be much interested in would be better
 code navigation (particularly the ability to hop to the definition
 of a function). And having poor code editing capabilities would
 hamper me quite a bit. So, for me, vim wins hands down.
 


 

 one with the cursor and text-edit control", so to speak, then no
 amount of extra features can make up for it. (Of course, for me that
 means *not* vi, although I just haven't cared enough to get through
 the learning curve - but that's just me.)


I utterly hated vi(m) until I actually tried learning it. Then I found
that the "be one with the cursor" approach is actually less effective
than vim's "describe your edits in a *language* involving verbs, nouns,
and adjectives, not just point and grunt" mindset. Nowadays, I actually
find other editors rather crude for my tastes. They're too focused on
the character-by-character motion of the cursor and the WYTIWAG (what
you type is all you get), whereas vim lets you speak to it in a far more
expressive language.


T

-- 
Do not reason with the unreasonable; you lose by definition.



 Sep 14 2013



 next sibling parent  Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com>  writes:


On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 02:39:05 -0700
"H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:

 
 UIs should be
 *programmatically* specified in such a way that they are logically
 consistent in layout *regardless* of environmental factors such as
 screen resolution, font dimensions, etc..
 


That's exactly why I hate CSS for layout.


far back as Visual Basic 3) to make it fairly easy to make things
adjust properly. Probably because Win32 (like other GUI systems) is
designed for things like docked widget containers and auto-resizing
main content.

That said, it does still make it easy for bad designers to do things
the wrong way. But then, the same is true for programmatic layouts.




 - graphical representation of code relationships






 
 std.d.lexer + graphviz
 


I think another layer on top of graphviz might be needed for that to
really be comparable. I've played with graphviz's DOT format a little
bit and found that it often takes some thought and tweaking to make
non-trivial graphs that are particularly good (and not gigantic).

Plus, to my knowledge (I could be wrong), I don't think it has any way
to generate interactive graphcs - graphs that you can drag parts around
to make it look good. Just static images, AIUI.



 - visual XML tooling






 
 What would that be for?
 


For indulging MS's XML obsession ;) j/k



 - background compilation showing where there are issues






 
 Waste of resources. I hate it when programs (including IDEs) try to be
 "smart" and point out perceived problems that may or may not be real
 problems. The compiler already points out the *real* problems when I
 decide to compile the code anyway; having an IDE actively try to point
 out the fact that my code doesn't look like code yet (because I'm
 still thinking over various implementation possibilities) is very
 disruptive to my thought processes.  I prefer to doodle possible
 implementations until I mold it into possibly-compilable form first,
 *before* I even consider running the compiler on it.  An IDE to
 consume system resources while annoying me? No thanks. Let Clippy
 rest in his grave, don't bring him back from the dead.
 



occasionally annoy me with complaints about stuff I was still typing
(unless I'm thinking of VB6...), and I definitely don't find it worth
the cost of occasionally laggy text-editing.



 - map failed unit tests to code lines






 
 Er... isn't that what AssertError line numbers are for?
 


Yea. My code editor uses a (optionally customizable) regex to grep for
any "filename(line_number):" lines in the output panel. It converts
them to "jump to that line in the source" links. That'll work for any
tool, unittest, compiler, whatever. So this is not something that
requires a full-blown IDE.


 
 - Basic editing that's solid, fast, robust
 - Highlighting
 - CLI compiler


 
 For me, I can dispense with the second item. :) Give me vim and a
 command-line compiler, and I'm good to go.
 


Heh, I can go without it for short periods of time if I really need to.
(I already do any time I use my source-diffing program.) I'm so used to
it though, I find it very difficult to visually parse non-highlighted
code in anything that isn't a pure data langauge (and even then it
helps).


 

 I've had to debug things using as little as one LED. So printf
 debugging is perfectly comfortable to me, and I've gotten to the
 point where I even find it preferable to a full debugger in many
 cases.
 
 The rest is just icing (or gravy if you prefer).


 
 It's funny, the more years I spend coding, the less I found myself
 using the debugger. Nowadays my debugging approach is approximately:
 
 1) Code inspection: based on the bug description / known steps to
 reproduce it, locate the general place in the code where the problem
 is likely to be, and thoroughly audit that piece of code for problems.
 Roughly 30% of the time, the bug would be found this way, and quite
 often, other not-yet-found bugs would be discovered too. So it's quite
 worth the effort before we even use any real debugging tools.
 
 2) Printf/writeln debugging: mainly to determine execution path on the
 way to the problem, by strategically placing printfs/writelns at
 branch points and before/after loops, then refining it to loop bodies
 and functions down the call tree as the location of the problem
 reveals itself. Once the malfunctioning piece of code is identified,
 then start to dump variable values, etc., to ascertain the cause of
 the problem. This actually covers about 60% or so of the cases I've
 encountered.
 
 3) Use a debugger. I find myself doing this only about 10% of the
 time. And out of that 10%, 9% is just to get stack traces from
 segfaults, and only 1% is really using the debugger for stepping
 through code.
 
 All in all, writeln debugging is pretty effective, for all the stigma
 against it.
 


Yea, I use pretty much the same approach, although my proportions might
be a little different. I've become so accustomed to printf debugging
(a habit developed through too many situations where no real debugger
was available), that even when I should fire up a debugger I try to
push through with printf-approach anyway because "Ehh, I don't feel like
trying to remember how to hook this up to a debugger..."

Plus I've been dev'ing on windows, so instead of segfaults, D
throws an Error and gives me a stack trace :)

Developing in any situation (not necessarily D) where I *don't* get
stack traces is a PITA. Of course, printf debugging usually works there
too, but it feels much more painful when I'm thinking "Ehh, I have to do
this just because I'm not being immediately spoon-fed the stack trace?
This blows!"


 

 "be one with the cursor and text-edit control", so to speak, then no
 amount of extra features can make up for it. (Of course, for me that
 means *not* vi, although I just haven't cared enough to get through
 the learning curve - but that's just me.)


 
 I utterly hated vi(m) until I actually tried learning it. Then I found
 that the "be one with the cursor" approach is actually less effective
 than vim's "describe your edits in a *language* involving verbs,
 nouns, and adjectives, not just point and grunt" mindset. Nowadays, I
 actually find other editors rather crude for my tastes. They're too
 focused on the character-by-character motion of the cursor and the
 WYTIWAG (what you type is all you get), whereas vim lets you speak to
 it in a far more expressive language.
 


Well, "be one with the commands" in that case ;) Or "be one with the
keyboard", which is still critical for me, too: I feel like I'm running
through sand when I have to code with a built-in laptop keyboard
(especially because of the lack of *proper* arrow/home/end/del/page
keys, but also just the overall size/shape/feel of the keys).

I really can believe what you're saying about vi. Personally though,
I just haven't felt much of a need or desire to really give it a
chance anyway. And (in a small way) I almost don't want to like it -
I'm already in the minority on enough things ;) Maybe I will someday
out of curiosity, I dunno.

The "counting words/chars/lines" in particular seems rather off-putting
to me though. Ex: I like to just Ctrl-Left/Right across however many
words I need and don't really want to start caring how many words/lines
away something is.



 Sep 14 2013



prev sibling  parent  "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com>  writes:


On Saturday, 14 September 2013 at 09:40:28 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

 I can live without it. Vim has 'K' to open the manpage of the 
 identifier under the cursor anyway -- one of these days, I'm 
 going to write a program to autotranslate ddoc into manpages, 
 then I don't even need to depend on dlang.org anymore.




links http://dpldocs.info/$1






it mostly works. dpldocs.info is something I've been meaning to 
finish for years now, literally, but eh it is good enough for 
some stuff so I sometimes use it, and it is kinda up to date. 
Also has a few of my modules in there too!



 Sep 14 2013



prev sibling  parent reply "Justin Whear" <justin economicmodeling.com>  writes:


On Saturday, 14 September 2013 at 05:15:32 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
wrote:

 On Saturday, September 14, 2013 06:56:10 Paulo Pinto wrote:

 Am 14.09.2013 00:06, schrieb Jonathan M Davis:

 .... The features that an IDE has that
 vim doesn't typically just aren't worth it. e.g. if I'm 
 stuck doing
 Windows
 programming, about the most that I even do with VS is use 
 the debugger. I
 even build from the command line rather than open the IDE.
 
 Vim's learning curve is quite nasty, but I definitely think 
 that it was
 worth it.
 
 - Jonathan M Davis


 
 You mean things like:
 
 - Semantic refactoring
 - WYSIWYG design of user interfaces
 - code navigation, even across binary modules (call graph, 
 derived
 class, overridden methods, call sites, ...)
 - graphical representation of code relationships
 - UML design
 - visual XML tooling
 - background compilation showing where there are issues
 - background static analysis while coding
 - code completation with documentation popups
 - integrate source code control with task management software 
 to track
 code changes to project tasks
 - map failed unit tests to code lines
 - ...


 I honestly find almost all of that to be useless or nearly so. 
 The only one
 that I'd actually be much interested in would be better code 
 navigation
 (particularly the ability to hop to the definition of a 
 function). And having
 poor code editing capabilities would hamper me quite a bit. So, 
 for me, vim
 wins hands down.

 - Jonathan M Davis


Vim has ctags integration, 'gd' for "Go to definition", and :tag 
somefunction/struct/etc
When working on a big project it can be very nice to start vim 
with:
  $ vim -t someFunction

I usually have a `tags` target in my makefile which uses Dscanner.



 Sep 14 2013



  parent  Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com>  writes:


On Saturday, September 14, 2013 21:37:41 Justin Whear wrote:

 Vim has ctags integration, 'gd' for "Go to definition", and :tag
 somefunction/struct/etc
 When working on a big project it can be very nice to start vim
 with:
   $ vim -t someFunction
 
 I usually have a `tags` target in my makefile which uses Dscanner.


When I messed with ctags in the past, I found it to be so primitive that it 
wasn't worth it. IIRC, it didn't understand enough about C++ to able to 
properly differentiate between symbols with the same name, and ultimately, it 
didn't do much better than using grep would have. If it can't jump straight to 
the correct declaration correctly in pretty much all cases, then it's not 
worth my time, and it definitely wasn't doing that. I've never tried it with D, 
but I would generally expect programs like that to do worse with D than with 
C++.

- Jonathan M Davis



 Sep 14 2013



prev sibling  parent  "Atila Neves" <atila.neves gmail.com>  writes:


I don't get posts like this. If you just install emacs and don't 
customise it, then yeah, it's not great. But that's like harshing 
on zsh for being worse than bash with an empty .zshrc. Who does 
that anyway? This is why there are several, several .emacs.d 
repositories on github. Anyway, on to your qualms:


 - Semantic refactoring


I wish I had this for C++, I really do. There's some work being 
done right now at Google based on LLVM. But I most definitely do 
have that for Python with Rope and I've been wanting to install 
Robe to have the same for Ruby. All of this in emacs BTW.


 - WYSIWYG design of user interfaces


I'd rather see the code, but to each his/her own.


 - code navigation, even across binary modules (call graph, 
 derived class, overridden methods, call sites, ...)


Emacs + one or more of the following: ctags, etags, semantic, 
cscope.


 - graphical representation of code relationships


Not interesting to me.


 - UML design


Blergh.


 - visual XML tooling


Not interesting to me.


 - background compilation showing where there are issues
 - background static analysis while coding


Emacs + flycheck. Supporting ever more languages, and D is one of 
them!


 - code completation with documentation popups


Emacs + autocomplete.


 - integrate source code control with task management software 
 to track code changes to project tasks


Emacs... but I'd rather use the "real" commands in a terminal.


 - map failed unit tests to code lines


I'm pretty sure this can be integrated in emacs since this is 
already done if you compile in it.

All in all, use what you're most comfortable and productive with. 
Nearly every single time I read/hear "oh, but editors can't do X" 
it usually means "I've never seen anyone do X with an editor". 
Emacs is basically a mini OS anyway. Anything it can't do now can 
be made to happen by writing more elisp.

Atila



 Sep 16 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent  Arjan <arjan ask.me>  writes:


Windows:VisualStudio Eclipse VIM  Notepad++
*nix:  Eclipse VIM Kate Monodevelop



 Sep 13 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent  Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com>  writes:


On 13 September 2013 20:48, Namespace <rswhite4 googlemail.com> wrote:

 Just out of interest.

 I use Sublime 2, Notepad++ and as IDE currently Mono-D. But I will try this
 evening VisualD.


vim


-- 
Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';



 Sep 13 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent reply "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx>  writes:


On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 06:06:50PM -0400, Jonathan M Davis wrote:

 On Friday, September 13, 2013 14:58:48 H. S. Teoh wrote:


[...]

 I use vim (bare text mode, no GUI, so no gvim for me)


 
 I don't actually use any of the GUI controls. It's just useful to have
 vim in a window that I can resize (you also get better color choices
 than in the shell).


I don't use color (the first thing I do on first installing Linux on a
new machine is to edit .bashrc and turn of color in bash prompts and
ls), so it's one less reason for me to need gvim. :)

I also use ratpoison, which maximizes everything anyway, so I never need
any resizing either (plus ratpoison makes the mouse almost redundant).
So I guess I really don't need anything more than plain vanilla vim. :)



 for literally *everything*. Everything from system config files to
 coding to LaTeX for word-processing to scripted graphics processing
 (thanks to imagemagick) to povray scene files, there's almost
 nothing in my world that can't be accomplished by vim. :)
 
 Sometimes I wonder how the GUI-encumbered people get any work done
 at all, what with needing to constantly switch their hands between
 the keyboard and the rodent, wait for a 600MB application to load up
 200MB of eye-candy and paint the screen with 50 toolbar controls, 45
 of which that they never actually use, click through endless layers
 of nested menus just to perform a single operation, etc.. ;-)
 
 (OK, OK, so I'm a fossilized relic from the last ice age of '75,
 I'll stop the GUI-bashing now. :-P You may carry on.)


 
 LOL. Yeah, the main reason that I don't use IDEs is the fact that
 they're essentially a glorified version of notepad as far as editing
 goes. They _do_ usually have better editing capabilities then the
 ever-so-pathetic notepad, but they can't do much of anything in
 comparison to the likes of vim or emacs. 


I don't even consider a notepad a real "editor". Useful for doodling
random notes to yourself, I suppose, in accordance with its name, but
pretty much unusable for anything beyond that.



 So, I end up using (g)vim for everything. The features that an IDE has
 that vim doesn't typically just aren't worth it. e.g. if I'm stuck
 doing Windows programming, about the most that I even do with VS is
 use the debugger. I even build from the command line rather than open
 the IDE.


We really should improve D support in gdb (or whatever other debugger
people like to use on Windows). I've mainly resorted to writeln
debugging, and it's really quite embarrassing. Though, I think there's
an unfair stigma against it -- I found that well-placed fprintf's (in
C/C++) are surprisingly effective at tracking down hard-to-find bugs in
code involving fork() and dynamically-loaded .so's, that gdb (or any
other debugger) would require lots of tedious setup to even begin to
debug properly. In an embedded environment, where it's not so easy to
substitute system libraries or install the latest debugging scaffolding,
printf debugging may well be on par with "real" debugging with a
debugger, methinks.



 Vim's learning curve is quite nasty, but I definitely think that it
 was worth it.


[...]

Yeah, I hated vi and all its ilk for the longest time. I used to rant
about the counterintuitivity of modal editors all the time on online
discussion boards, until one day I steeled myself to actually learn it,
and now I wouldn't use anything else. I like the way Justin Whear
describes it: it's not so much a set of keyboard shortcuts for common
editing operations, as a *language* for describing editing operations.
A language requires much more effort to learn than a set of shortcuts,
but in the end, it's far more expressive and powerful.


T

-- 
Question authority. Don't ask why, just do it.



 Sep 13 2013



  parent reply Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com>  writes:


On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 15:48:55 -0700
"H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:

 
 LOL. Yeah, the main reason that I don't use IDEs is the fact that
 they're essentially a glorified version of notepad as far as editing
 goes. They _do_ usually have better editing capabilities then the
 ever-so-pathetic notepad, but they can't do much of anything in
 comparison to the likes of vim or emacs. 


 
 I don't even consider a notepad a real "editor". Useful for doodling
 random notes to yourself, I suppose, in accordance with its name, but
 pretty much unusable for anything beyond that.
 


Yea, notepad has *not* held up well. It's pretty awful. I occasionally
use it to remove formatting from text I'm copy-pasting, and that's
about it.

Even for basic "jotting down notes" I've switched from notepad over to
my fast-loading code-editor (Programmer's Notepad 2) or OpenOffice if I
want spellcheck (it's slow to load, but I usually keep a blank instance
open just in case - hey, it's still far less of a resource drain than
any web browser!).


 

 So, I end up using (g)vim for everything. The features that an IDE
 has that vim doesn't typically just aren't worth it. e.g. if I'm
 stuck doing Windows programming, about the most that I even do with
 VS is use the debugger. I even build from the command line rather
 than open the IDE.


 
 We really should improve D support in gdb (or whatever other debugger
 people like to use on Windows). I've mainly resorted to writeln
 debugging, and it's really quite embarrassing. Though, I think there's
 an unfair stigma against it -- I found that well-placed fprintf's (in
 C/C++) are surprisingly effective at tracking down hard-to-find bugs
 in code involving fork() and dynamically-loaded .so's, that gdb (or
 any other debugger) would require lots of tedious setup to even begin
 to debug properly. In an embedded environment, where it's not so easy
 to substitute system libraries or install the latest debugging
 scaffolding, printf debugging may well be on par with "real"
 debugging with a debugger, methinks.
 


I love writeln debugging. I don't have to boot it up, configure it,
learn about or task-switch my mind over to any new interface, or
actively shy away from any opportunities that don't come with a
fully-mature debugger (or wind up with my arms tied when I'm in the
debugger habit and don't have a debugger available for whatever
reason - in my experience, debuggers are reliance-forming drugs).

But the *best* thing of all with writeln debugging: Being able to
examine the entire relevant execution forwards *and* backwards in time,
all at a glance, with zero "stepping". Total win.

Any time I use a debugger I get sooo sick of having to reset and hit
"step" a million times (or muck around with conditional breakpoints,
which never seem to be intuitive - *if* they even work at all) every
single time I want to see (or remember) what happened *before*. But
with writeln - I already see the whole relevant trace at a glance, and
all with exactly the same tools and interfaces I'm already using.

Writeln debugging rocks my world.



 Sep 14 2013



 next sibling parent reply "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx>  writes:


On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 03:28:14AM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
[...]

 I love writeln debugging. I don't have to boot it up, configure it,
 learn about or task-switch my mind over to any new interface, or
 actively shy away from any opportunities that don't come with a
 fully-mature debugger (or wind up with my arms tied when I'm in the
 debugger habit and don't have a debugger available for whatever
 reason - in my experience, debuggers are reliance-forming drugs).
 
 But the *best* thing of all with writeln debugging: Being able to
 examine the entire relevant execution forwards *and* backwards in time,
 all at a glance, with zero "stepping". Total win.
 
 Any time I use a debugger I get sooo sick of having to reset and hit
 "step" a million times (or muck around with conditional breakpoints,
 which never seem to be intuitive - *if* they even work at all) every
 single time I want to see (or remember) what happened *before*. But
 with writeln - I already see the whole relevant trace at a glance, and
 all with exactly the same tools and interfaces I'm already using.
 
 Writeln debugging rocks my world.


[...]

Hmm. Now that you put it *that* way... maybe I should stick with writeln
debugging after all. :-P  You're right that the most annoying thing
about having a "real" debugger is the fact that you can't step
backwards. The only thing is, you have to recompile your program each
time... but with D's compilation speed, it actually becomes a real
alternative. Hmm.

One use case that has no writeln equivalent is stepping through assembly
code when something REALLY screwed up, like when dealing with dmd
codegen bugs. Though for that case, I did recently adopt the method of
reading disassembly code listings. I've actually located and fixed
several bugs in my work project this way (not with dmd, I mean, but with
a C program). People will of course object that assembly is "too obscure
to learn", "too hard", ad nauseaum, but I agree with what Knuth said
once: if you don't know how the machine *actually* works, the programs
you write will be pretty weird (i.e., far removed from reality). IMO the
ability to read and understand assembly should be a requirement for
every professing programmer.


T

-- 
If it's green, it's biology, If it stinks, it's chemistry, If it has numbers
it's math, If it doesn't work, it's technology.



 Sep 14 2013



 next sibling parent  =?ISO-8859-1?Q?S=F6nke_Ludwig?= <sludwig outerproduct.org>  writes:


Am 14.09.2013 10:40, schrieb H. S. Teoh:

 You're right that the most annoying thing
 about having a "real" debugger is the fact that you can't step
 backwards.


I've always wanted to try this:
http://velvetpulse.com/2012/11/27/scribe-the-deterministic-transparent-record-replay-engine/

It looks extremely powerful



 Sep 14 2013



prev sibling  parent  Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com>  writes:


On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 01:40:30 -0700
"H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:

 
 The only thing is, you have to recompile your program each
 time... but with D's compilation speed, it actually becomes a real
 alternative. Hmm.
 


Exactly. And I totally understand the focus on debuggers in the C/C++
world, just because of that.


 One use case that has no writeln equivalent is stepping through
 assembly code when something REALLY screwed up, like when dealing
 with dmd codegen bugs.


Yea, that's true.


 Though for that case, I did recently adopt the
 method of reading disassembly code listings. I've actually located
 and fixed several bugs in my work project this way (not with dmd, I
 mean, but with a C program). People will of course object that
 assembly is "too obscure to learn", "too hard", ad nauseaum, but I
 agree with what Knuth said once: if you don't know how the machine
 *actually* works, the programs you write will be pretty weird (i.e.,
 far removed from reality). IMO the ability to read and understand
 assembly should be a requirement for every professing programmer.
 


Yea, I agree. Once I graduated from "just playing around in BASIC", the
stuff I really started out with was indie/homebrew videogames. This was
back at the tail end of the DOS days, so direct hardware access, the
occasional ASM and a frequent focus on optimization were just the
normal way of things. Once I moved into higher-level stuff, I always
felt that understanding was still a big benefit.

I've come to think about it in terms of a more general principle, a
corollary to the law of leaky abstractions:

To *truly* be good in any endeavor, you need to have a good
understanding of not only that, but also whatever abstraction is
directly underneath.

To be good at high-level code, you need to understand a thing or two
about low-level code. To be good at low-level code, you have to end
up picking up a bit of digital EE. I've actually studied a little bit of
digital EE and although I'm no expert, I can tell you that analog EE is
critically important to being good at digital EE. And I'd be willing to
bet chemistry would be a crucial ally to any really good analog
electronics expert. Going the other direction: To be any good at
designing software, it would be important to know at least something
about high-level code.

And it's not just computers/electronics, it's other things:
Top-of-the-line athletic training these days (sports, martial arts,
dancing, whatever) involves a lot of very explicit attention to biology
and newtonian physics.



 Sep 14 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent  "Brad Anderson" <eco gnuk.net>  writes:


On Saturday, 14 September 2013 at 07:28:33 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
wrote:

 Yea, notepad has *not* held up well. It's pretty awful. I 
 occasionally
 use it to remove formatting from text I'm copy-pasting, and 
 that's
 about it.


Many programs support Ctrl-Shift-V for pasting plain text.



 Sep 14 2013



prev sibling  parent reply "Paolo Invernizzi" <paolo.invernizzi gmail.com>  writes:


On Saturday, 14 September 2013 at 07:28:33 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
wrote:

 Any time I use a debugger I get sooo sick of having to reset 
 and hit
 "step" a million times (or muck around with conditional 
 breakpoints,
 which never seem to be intuitive - *if* they even work at all) 
 every
 single time I want to see (or remember) what happened *before*. 
 But
 with writeln - I already see the whole relevant trace at a 
 glance, and
 all with exactly the same tools and interfaces I'm already 
 using.

 Writeln debugging rocks my world.


Give me a way to writeln the callstack frames at a certain point, 
and I'll take that: until this, I still need a debugger for 
following the program flow.

And no, adding a writeln everywhere you call that function is not 
a solution.

- Paolo



 Sep 14 2013



 next sibling parent reply "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx>  writes:


On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 02:25:43PM +0200, Paolo Invernizzi wrote:

 On Saturday, 14 September 2013 at 07:28:33 UTC, Nick Sabalausky
 wrote:

Any time I use a debugger I get sooo sick of having to reset and hit
"step" a million times (or muck around with conditional breakpoints,
which never seem to be intuitive - *if* they even work at all) every
single time I want to see (or remember) what happened *before*.  But
with writeln - I already see the whole relevant trace at a glance,
and all with exactly the same tools and interfaces I'm already using.

Writeln debugging rocks my world.


 
 Give me a way to writeln the callstack frames at a certain point,
 and I'll take that: until this, I still need a debugger for
 following the program flow.


I'm pretty sure this is possible with a little effort. In fact, this
would be a game-changer to writeln debugging. I should take a look at
the stack unwinding code in druntime sometime and see if I can knock
something together that does this.

One trick my coworkers like to use sometimes (with C/C++) is to insert
an infinite loop into the program at the suspected problem spot, then at
runtime when it reaches 99% CPU, kill -11 to force a segfault to
generate a stack trace (we have a stacktrace generator hooked up to the
signal handler). I've used that a couple o' times, and it's surprisingly
effective, I must say. We found that sometimes this is the only approach
that is effective, since the path to get to the problem spot may be
completely non-trivial to reach from a debugger (may involve fork()'s,
dynamically-loaded .so's, and event loops dispatches triggered by
real-time network data that would be excruciatingly slow to step through
manually in a debugger).

Still, if there was a way to print a stacktrace *without* terminating
the program, that would be an invaluable addition to our toolset.



 And no, adding a writeln everywhere you call that function is not a
 solution.


[...]

True, this is one of the weak points of writeln debugging. Though I
usually start from the top-level, so generally by the time I get to a
specific function I already know how it got there.

OTOH, even displaying callstack may not help if your code is heavy on
callbacks (or in D, delegates) invoked from event loops. The original
context that registered the callback is long gone by the time the
function actually runs, so the callstack only goes down to the event
dispatcher, which is no help.


T

-- 
It said to install Windows 2000 or better, so I installed Linux instead.



 Sep 14 2013



 next sibling parent reply "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com>  writes:


On Saturday, 14 September 2013 at 17:31:32 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

 I'm pretty sure this is possible with a little effort.


beat you to it!
http://forum.dlang.org/thread/fxuwovrirseuatzeeprb forum.dlang.org?page=17#post-jxqobgridgweioqclfqr:40forum.dlang.org


 One trick my coworkers like to use sometimes (with C/C++) is to 
 insert an infinite loop into the program at the suspected 
 problem spot, then at runtime when it reaches 99% CPU


In D, I like to just sprinkle assert(0)'s in places. It actually 
works pretty well - you can do a binary search of even a fairly 
large codebase in just a few iterations, then fix up the asserts 
to actually check what went wrong, and then keep them there later 
to form sanity checks or unit tests to catch regressions after 
the bug is fixed.


 OTOH, even displaying callstack may not help if your code is 
 heavy on callbacks (or in D, delegates) invoked from event 
 loops.


indeed.



 Sep 14 2013



  parent reply Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com>  writes:


On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 19:38:10 +0200
"Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> wrote:


 On Saturday, 14 September 2013 at 17:31:32 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

 I'm pretty sure this is possible with a little effort.


 
 beat you to it!
 http://forum.dlang.org/thread/fxuwovrirseuatzeeprb forum.dlang.org?page=17#post-jxqobgridgweioqclfqr:40forum.dlang.org
 

 One trick my coworkers like to use sometimes (with C/C++) is to 
 insert an infinite loop into the program at the suspected 
 problem spot, then at runtime when it reaches 99% CPU


 
 In D, I like to just sprinkle assert(0)'s in places. It actually 
 works pretty well - you can do a binary search of even a fairly 
 large codebase in just a few iterations, then fix up the asserts 
 to actually check what went wrong, and then keep them there later 
 to form sanity checks or unit tests to catch regressions after 
 the bug is fixed.
 


Assert? That doesn't let you trace the flow. I use this:

void trace(string file=__FILE__, size_t line=__LINE__)(string
msg="trace") {
        writefln("%s(%s): %s", file, line, msg);
        stdout.flush();
}

Usage:

trace();
foo();
trace();
bar();
trace("-END-");

Output:

file.d(1): trace
file.d(3): trace
file.d(5): -END-

For variable watching, I do this:

// Using:
<https://bitbucket.org/Abscissa/semitwistdtools/src/c7f89f7cd2c086591b544d5bffc536827ae6f763/src/semitwist/util/mixins.d?at=master#cl-103>
auto foo = 17;
mixin(traceVal!"foo");

Output:
foo: 17

I haven't found a way to elimate the "mixin(" part of that one
though, which limits its convenience :(



 Sep 14 2013



  parent reply Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com>  writes:


On 2013-09-15 02:09, Nick Sabalausky wrote:


 Assert? That doesn't let you trace the flow. I use this:

 void trace(string file=__FILE__, size_t line=__LINE__)(string
 msg="trace") {
          writefln("%s(%s): %s", file, line, msg);
          stdout.flush();
 }


If you use runtime arguments you'll avoid template bloat:

void trace(string msg="trace", string file=__FILE__, size_t line=__LINE__)

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg



 Sep 15 2013



  parent reply Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com>  writes:


On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 12:08:41 +0200
Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> wrote:


 On 2013-09-15 02:09, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 

 Assert? That doesn't let you trace the flow. I use this:

 void trace(string file=__FILE__, size_t line=__LINE__)(string
 msg="trace") {
          writefln("%s(%s): %s", file, line, msg);
          stdout.flush();
 }


 
 If you use runtime arguments you'll avoid template bloat:
 
 void trace(string msg="trace", string file=__FILE__, size_t
 line=__LINE__)
 


Cool, I didn't know __FILE__/__LINE__ worked as default runtime args.
IIRC, they didn't used to (but maybe that was just in D1 where they
didn't work as default template args either).



 Sep 15 2013



 next sibling parent  Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com>  writes:


On 2013-09-15 12:40, Nick Sabalausky wrote:


 Cool, I didn't know __FILE__/__LINE__ worked as default runtime args.
 IIRC, they didn't used to (but maybe that was just in D1 where they
 didn't work as default template args either).


I also keep forgetting that. First it only worked for template arguments.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg



 Sep 15 2013



prev sibling  parent  Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com>  writes:


On Sunday, September 15, 2013 06:40:36 Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 12:08:41 +0200
 
 Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> wrote:

 On 2013-09-15 02:09, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 Assert? That doesn't let you trace the flow. I use this:
 
 void trace(string file=__FILE__, size_t line=__LINE__)(string
 msg="trace") {
 
          writefln("%s(%s): %s", file, line, msg);
          stdout.flush();
 
 }


 
 If you use runtime arguments you'll avoid template bloat:
 
 void trace(string msg="trace", string file=__FILE__, size_t
 line=__LINE__)


 
 Cool, I didn't know __FILE__/__LINE__ worked as default runtime args.
 IIRC, they didn't used to (but maybe that was just in D1 where they
 didn't work as default template args either).


They have worked as default runtime arguments for quite a long time. That's 
what all the exception classes use to get their file and line number. I'm not 
aware of them ever not working as default arguments, but I never used D1, and 
I certainly don't remember all of the changes early in D2. On a related note, 
I find it very annoying that in C++, when using __FILE__ and __LINE__ as 
default arguments, it takes the declaration site rather than the call site. 
It's really a great innovation of D that they get filled in at the call site in 
D.

In any case, using __FILE__ or __LINE__ as a default template argument is 
almost always a bad idea, because it makes it so that you end up with a new 
template instantiation pretty much every time you use it, which is going to 
cause a ridiculous amount of code bloat if the template is used much at all.

- Jonathan M Davis



 Sep 15 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent reply Paulo Pinto <pjmlp progtools.org>  writes:


Am 14.09.2013 19:30, schrieb H. S. Teoh:

 On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 02:25:43PM +0200, Paolo Invernizzi wrote:

 On Saturday, 14 September 2013 at 07:28:33 UTC, Nick Sabalausky
 wrote:

 Any time I use a debugger I get sooo sick of having to reset and hit
 "step" a million times (or muck around with conditional breakpoints,
 which never seem to be intuitive - *if* they even work at all) every
 single time I want to see (or remember) what happened *before*.  But
 with writeln - I already see the whole relevant trace at a glance,
 and all with exactly the same tools and interfaces I'm already using.

 Writeln debugging rocks my world.


 Give me a way to writeln the callstack frames at a certain point,
 and I'll take that: until this, I still need a debugger for
 following the program flow.


 I'm pretty sure this is possible with a little effort. In fact, this
 would be a game-changer to writeln debugging. I should take a look at
 the stack unwinding code in druntime sometime and see if I can knock
 something together that does this.

 One trick my coworkers like to use sometimes (with C/C++) is to insert
 an infinite loop into the program at the suspected problem spot, then at
 runtime when it reaches 99% CPU, kill -11 to force a segfault to
 generate a stack trace (we have a stacktrace generator hooked up to the
 signal handler). I've used that a couple o' times, and it's surprisingly
 effective, I must say. We found that sometimes this is the only approach
 that is effective, since the path to get to the problem spot may be
 completely non-trivial to reach from a debugger (may involve fork()'s,
 dynamically-loaded .so's, and event loops dispatches triggered by
 real-time network data that would be excruciatingly slow to step through
 manually in a debugger).

 Still, if there was a way to print a stacktrace *without* terminating
 the program, that would be an invaluable addition to our toolset.



 And no, adding a writeln everywhere you call that function is not a
 solution.


 [...]

 True, this is one of the weak points of writeln debugging. Though I
 usually start from the top-level, so generally by the time I get to a
 specific function I already know how it got there.

 OTOH, even displaying callstack may not help if your code is heavy on
 callbacks (or in D, delegates) invoked from event loops. The original
 context that registered the callback is long gone by the time the
 function actually runs, so the callstack only goes down to the event
 dispatcher, which is no help.


 T


So much work when one could just call the debugger from running code,

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/f408b4et.aspx

at least on Windows. :)

--
Paulo



 Sep 14 2013



 next sibling parent reply Artur Skawina <art.08.09 gmail.com>  writes:


On 09/14/13 21:15, Paulo Pinto wrote:

 So much work when one could just call the debugger from running code,
 
 http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/f408b4et.aspx
 
 at least on Windows. :)


   // version (x86|x86_64)
   enum __debugbreak = q{asm { "int $3"; }};

   void main() {
      import std.stdio;
      auto a = 42;
      writeln(a);
      mixin (__debugbreak);
      writeln(a);
   }


$ gdc -O3 -g explbp.d -o explbp
$ gdb ./explbp
(gdb) run
42

Program received signal SIGTRAP, Trace/breakpoint trap.
D main () at explbp.d:10
10	      writeln(a);
(gdb) bt


    at ../../../../libphobos/libdruntime/rt/dmain2.d:620

(this=this entry=0x7fffffffe480, dg=...)
    at ../../../../libphobos/libdruntime/rt/dmain2.d:595

    at ../../../../libphobos/libdruntime/rt/dmain2.d:630

(this=this entry=0x7fffffffe480, dg=...)
    at ../../../../libphobos/libdruntime/rt/dmain2.d:595

mainFunc=<optimized out>)
    at ../../../../libphobos/libdruntime/rt/dmain2.d:639

    ubp_av=0x7fffffffe5c8, init=<optimized out>, fini=<optimized out>, 
    rtld_fini=<optimized out>, stack_end=0x7fffffffe5b8) at libc-start.c:225

(gdb) p a
$1 = 42
(gdb) c
Continuing.
42
[Inferior 1 (process 32095) exited normally]
(gdb) q


DMD might support inline asm too, with a different syntax; never used it.


artur



 Sep 14 2013



 next sibling parent  Paulo Pinto <pjmlp progtools.org>  writes:


Am 14.09.2013 21:52, schrieb Artur Skawina:

 On 09/14/13 21:15, Paulo Pinto wrote:

 So much work when one could just call the debugger from running code,

 http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/f408b4et.aspx

 at least on Windows. :)


     // version (x86|x86_64)
     enum __debugbreak = q{asm { "int $3"; }};

     void main() {
        import std.stdio;
        auto a = 42;
        writeln(a);
        mixin (__debugbreak);
        writeln(a);
     }


Ah, should have tested on Linux before posting. I was under the 
impression you could not do an "int 3" from user space.


 ...

 DMD might support inline asm too, with a different syntax; never used it.


It does, Walter is very keen on it and contrary to C and C++, it is 
really part of the language's specification.

--
Paulo



 Sep 14 2013



prev sibling  parent  Johannes Pfau <nospam example.com>  writes:


Am Sat, 14 Sep 2013 21:52:52 +0200
schrieb Artur Skawina <art.08.09 gmail.com>:


 On 09/14/13 21:15, Paulo Pinto wrote:

 So much work when one could just call the debugger from running
 code,
 
 http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/f408b4et.aspx
 
 at least on Windows. :)


 
    // version (x86|x86_64)
    enum __debugbreak = q{asm { "int $3"; }};
 
    void main() {
       import std.stdio;
       auto a = 42;
       writeln(a);
       mixin (__debugbreak);
       writeln(a);
    }
 
 
 $ gdc -O3 -g explbp.d -o explbp
 $ gdb ./explbp
 (gdb) run
 42


version(GNU)
{
    import gcc.builtins;
    __builtin_trap();
}

Portable, but you can't continue the program as with int 3. GCC really
needs a __builtin_break.

There's also
version(Posix)
{
    import core.sys.posix.signal;
    raise(SIGTRAP);
}

which allows to continue the program. The breakpoint is in the C
raise function in libpthread however and not in main as with your mixin.



 Sep 15 2013



prev sibling  parent reply "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx>  writes:


On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 09:15:35PM +0200, Paulo Pinto wrote:
[...]

 So much work when one could just call the debugger from running code,
 
 http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/f408b4et.aspx
 
 at least on Windows. :)


[...]

Well, I haven't used Windows in any significant way for at least a
decade, much less did any Windows development, so I think I'll go with
Adam Ruppe's solution (which t0t4lly r0x0r5, btw). :-)


T

-- 
He who does not appreciate the beauty of language is not worthy to bemoan its
flaws.



 Sep 14 2013



  parent  Paulo Pinto <pjmlp progtools.org>  writes:


Am 14.09.2013 23:55, schrieb H. S. Teoh:

 On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 09:15:35PM +0200, Paulo Pinto wrote:
 [...]

 So much work when one could just call the debugger from running code,

 http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/f408b4et.aspx

 at least on Windows. :)


 [...]

 Well, I haven't used Windows in any significant way for at least a
 decade, much less did any Windows development, so I think I'll go with
 Adam Ruppe's solution (which t0t4lly r0x0r5, btw). :-)


 T


Well, I used to do it as well, around 1994-99. :)



 Sep 14 2013



prev sibling  parent  Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com>  writes:


On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 10:30:09 -0700
"H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:


 On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 02:25:43PM +0200, Paolo Invernizzi wrote:

 
 Give me a way to writeln the callstack frames at a certain point,
 and I'll take that: until this, I still need a debugger for
 following the program flow.


 
 I'm pretty sure this is possible with a little effort.
 [...]
 Still, if there was a way to print a stacktrace *without* terminating
 the program, that would be an invaluable addition to our toolset.


Although I haven't actually hit a need to try, can't you just do this?:

writeln(new Exception("TRACE"));

Or at the very least this:

// Or make this a string mixin if you *really* don't
// want printStackTrace itself shown in the trace.
void printStackTrace()
{
    try
        throw new Exception("TRACE");
    catch(Exception e)
        writeln(e);
}


 
 

 And no, adding a writeln everywhere you call that function is not a
 solution.


 [...]
 
 True, this is one of the weak points of writeln debugging. Though I
 usually start from the top-level, so generally by the time I get to a
 specific function I already know how it got there.
 


Same here. I writeln-debug the way you'd play that "hi-lo" number
guessing game:

1-100: 50
lower
1-100: 25
higher
1-100: 40
higher
1-100: 45
lower
1-100: 43
lower
1-100: 42
It took you that long to guess 42? Really? What kind of nerd are you?

Only I make a lot more than one guess at a time.



 Sep 14 2013



prev sibling  parent reply "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com>  writes:


On Saturday, 14 September 2013 at 12:25:44 UTC, Paolo Invernizzi
wrote:

 Give me a way to writeln the callstack frames at a certain


Challenge accepted:


import std.stdio;

string getStackTrace() {
          import core.runtime;

          version(Posix) {
                  // druntime cuts out the first few functions on
the trace as they are internal
                  // so we'll make some dummy functions here so our
actual info doesn't get cut
                  Throwable.TraceInfo f5() { return
defaultTraceHandler(); }
                  Throwable.TraceInfo f4() { return f5(); }
                  Throwable.TraceInfo f3() { return f4(); }
                  Throwable.TraceInfo f2() { return f3(); }
                  auto stuff = f2();
          } else {
                  auto stuff = defaultTraceHandler();
          }

          return stuff.toString();
}


void foo() {
          writeln("on foo");
          bar();
}

void bar() {
          writeln("on bar");
          omg();
}

void omg() {
          writeln("on omg");

          writeln(getStackTrace());
}

void main() {
          omg();

          writeln("\n****\n");
          foo();
}



 Sep 14 2013



 next sibling parent  "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx>  writes:


On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 07:34:26PM +0200, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:

 On Saturday, 14 September 2013 at 12:25:44 UTC, Paolo Invernizzi
 wrote:

Give me a way to writeln the callstack frames at a certain


 
 Challenge accepted:
 
 
 import std.stdio;
 
 string getStackTrace() {
          import core.runtime;
 
          version(Posix) {
                  // druntime cuts out the first few functions on the trace as
they are internal
                  // so we'll make some dummy functions here so our actual info
doesn't get cut
                  Throwable.TraceInfo f5() { return defaultTraceHandler(); }
                  Throwable.TraceInfo f4() { return f5(); }
                  Throwable.TraceInfo f3() { return f4(); }
                  Throwable.TraceInfo f2() { return f3(); }
                  auto stuff = f2();
          } else {
                  auto stuff = defaultTraceHandler();
          }
 
          return stuff.toString();
 }
 
 
 void foo() {
          writeln("on foo");
          bar();
 }
 
 void bar() {
          writeln("on bar");
          omg();
 }
 
 void omg() {
          writeln("on omg");
 
          writeln(getStackTrace());
 }
 
 void main() {
          omg();
 
          writeln("\n****\n");
          foo();
 }


Whoa.

My hats off to you, sir!!

(And yes, I did actually test this code with a few call trees of my own.
It really does work! Amazing.)

I'm gonna put this into my personal D library, right now!


T

-- 
Recently, our IT department hired a bug-fix engineer. He used to work for
Volkswagen.



 Sep 14 2013



prev sibling  parent reply "Paolo Invernizzi" <paolo.invernizzi gmail.com>  writes:


On Saturday, 14 September 2013 at 17:34:27 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe
wrote:

 On Saturday, 14 September 2013 at 12:25:44 UTC, Paolo Invernizzi
 wrote:

 Give me a way to writeln the callstack frames at a certain


 Challenge accepted:


 import std.stdio;

 string getStackTrace() {
          import core.runtime;

          version(Posix) {
                  // druntime cuts out the first few functions on
 the trace as they are internal
                  // so we'll make some dummy functions here so 
 our
 actual info doesn't get cut
                  Throwable.TraceInfo f5() { return
 defaultTraceHandler(); }
                  Throwable.TraceInfo f4() { return f5(); }
                  Throwable.TraceInfo f3() { return f4(); }
                  Throwable.TraceInfo f2() { return f3(); }
                  auto stuff = f2();
          } else {
                  auto stuff = defaultTraceHandler();
          }

          return stuff.toString();
 }


 void foo() {
          writeln("on foo");
          bar();
 }

 void bar() {
          writeln("on bar");
          omg();
 }

 void omg() {
          writeln("on omg");

          writeln(getStackTrace());
 }

 void main() {
          omg();

          writeln("\n****\n");
          foo();
 }



O_o

Adam, this is *really* an unexpected gift!
I suggest to add this example in the core.runtime DDoc at least!

- Paolo



 Sep 14 2013



  parent  =?UTF-8?B?U8O2bmtlIEx1ZHdpZw==?= <sludwig outerproduct.org>  writes:


Am 14.09.2013 22:20, schrieb Paolo Invernizzi:

 On Saturday, 14 September 2013 at 17:34:27 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe
 wrote:

 On Saturday, 14 September 2013 at 12:25:44 UTC, Paolo Invernizzi
 wrote:

 Give me a way to writeln the callstack frames at a certain


 Challenge accepted:


 import std.stdio;

 string getStackTrace() {
          import core.runtime;

          version(Posix) {
                  // druntime cuts out the first few functions on
 the trace as they are internal
                  // so we'll make some dummy functions here so our
 actual info doesn't get cut
                  Throwable.TraceInfo f5() { return
 defaultTraceHandler(); }
                  Throwable.TraceInfo f4() { return f5(); }
                  Throwable.TraceInfo f3() { return f4(); }
                  Throwable.TraceInfo f2() { return f3(); }
                  auto stuff = f2();
          } else {
                  auto stuff = defaultTraceHandler();
          }

          return stuff.toString();
 }


 void foo() {
          writeln("on foo");
          bar();
 }

 void bar() {
          writeln("on bar");
          omg();
 }

 void omg() {
          writeln("on omg");

          writeln(getStackTrace());
 }

 void main() {
          omg();

          writeln("\n****\n");
          foo();
 }



 O_o

 Adam, this is *really* an unexpected gift!
 I suggest to add this example in the core.runtime DDoc at least!

 - Paolo


Even better would be to promote the underlying function for 
"defaultTraceHandler" to be public and add an argument (size_t nskip = 
0) to make it generally useful without those ugly artificial stack 
frames. I mean don't get me wrong, I've used that same hack myself a few 
weeks ago, but it doesn't really make for a premium API ;)



 Sep 15 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent  Peter Williams <pwil3058 bigpond.net.au>  writes:


Geany mainly on Linux but also on Windows (but not much as I only fix 
Windows specific issues in my code on Windows and do most of my work on 
Linux).  I use my own PyGTK GUI wrapper for git for source management.

Peter



 Sep 13 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent reply Piotr Szturmaj <bncrbme jadamspam.pl>  writes:


On 13.09.2013 21:48, Namespace wrote:

 Just out of interest.

 I use Sublime 2, Notepad++ and as IDE currently Mono-D. But I will try
 this evening VisualD.


Real Programmers magnetize programs directly on a HDD.



 Sep 13 2013



  parent reply Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com>  writes:


On 14 September 2013 00:39, Piotr Szturmaj <bncrbme jadamspam.pl> wrote:

 On 13.09.2013 21:48, Namespace wrote:

 Just out of interest.

 I use Sublime 2, Notepad++ and as IDE currently Mono-D. But I will try
 this evening VisualD.



 Real Programmers magnetize programs directly on a HDD.


Excuse me, but /real/ programmers use Butterflies.

-- 
Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';



 Sep 13 2013



  parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org>  writes:


On 9/13/13 4:43 PM, Iain Buclaw wrote:

 On 14 September 2013 00:39, Piotr Szturmaj <bncrbme jadamspam.pl> wrote:

 On 13.09.2013 21:48, Namespace wrote:

 Just out of interest.

 I use Sublime 2, Notepad++ and as IDE currently Mono-D. But I will try
 this evening VisualD.



 Real Programmers magnetize programs directly on a HDD.


 Excuse me, but /real/ programmers use Butterflies.


For the few souls who don't yet... http://xkcd.com/378/

Andrei



 Sep 13 2013



  parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com>  writes:


On 9/13/2013 8:48 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

 On 9/13/13 4:43 PM, Iain Buclaw wrote:

 On 14 September 2013 00:39, Piotr Szturmaj <bncrbme jadamspam.pl> wrote:

 On 13.09.2013 21:48, Namespace wrote:

 Just out of interest.

 I use Sublime 2, Notepad++ and as IDE currently Mono-D. But I will try
 this evening VisualD.



 Real Programmers magnetize programs directly on a HDD.


 Excuse me, but /real/ programmers use Butterflies.


 For the few souls who don't yet... http://xkcd.com/378/


I've used punch cards and paper tape. But I refused to use paddle switches.



 Sep 13 2013



 next sibling parent reply Russel Winder <russel winder.org.uk>  writes:


On Fri, 2013-09-13 at 21:52 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:

 On 9/13/2013 8:48 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:


[=E2=80=A6]

 For the few souls who don't yet... http://xkcd.com/378/




Emacs FTW.


 I've used punch cards and paper tape. But I refused to use paddle switche=


s.

So how did you get the paper tape or punch card loader in without first
using the paddle switches? No paddle switch manipulation, no booted
computer. :-)

--=20
Russel.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder ekiga.n=
et
41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel winder.org.uk
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder



 Sep 14 2013



  parent  Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com>  writes:


On 9/14/2013 1:28 AM, Russel Winder wrote:

 On Fri, 2013-09-13 at 21:52 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:

 On 9/13/2013 8:48 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:


 […]

 For the few souls who don't yet... http://xkcd.com/378/




 Emacs FTW.


 I've used punch cards and paper tape. But I refused to use paddle switches.


 So how did you get the paper tape or punch card loader in without first
 using the paddle switches? No paddle switch manipulation, no booted
 computer. :-)


The computer was back in the machine room, and the operators booted it. I
wasn't 
allowed back there. When I programmed single board computers, I blew the boot 
program into eproms.

When I finally did get my own PDP-11, the few instructions needed to initiate 
the boot were hardwired into the CPU.



 Sep 14 2013



prev sibling  parent  Peter Williams <pwil3058 bigpond.net.au>  writes:


On 14/09/13 14:52, Walter Bright wrote:

 On 9/13/2013 8:48 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

 On 9/13/13 4:43 PM, Iain Buclaw wrote:

 On 14 September 2013 00:39, Piotr Szturmaj <bncrbme jadamspam.pl> wrote:

 On 13.09.2013 21:48, Namespace wrote:

 Just out of interest.

 I use Sublime 2, Notepad++ and as IDE currently Mono-D. But I will try
 this evening VisualD.



 Real Programmers magnetize programs directly on a HDD.


 Excuse me, but /real/ programmers use Butterflies.


 For the few souls who don't yet... http://xkcd.com/378/


 I've used punch cards and paper tape. But I refused to use paddle switches.


Programming with paddle switches on a PDP-8 wasn't that hard.  Not much 
different to using a programmable calculator and the available 
instruction set was small, logically (not randomly) designed and easy to 
remember.

Peter



 Sep 14 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent  "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg gmx.com>  writes:


On Friday, September 13, 2013 15:48:55 H. S. Teoh wrote:

 On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 06:06:50PM -0400, Jonathan M Davis wrote:

 Vim's learning curve is quite nasty, but I definitely think that it
 was worth it.


 
 [...]
 
 Yeah, I hated vi and all its ilk for the longest time. I used to rant
 about the counterintuitivity of modal editors all the time on online
 discussion boards, until one day I steeled myself to actually learn it,
 and now I wouldn't use anything else. I like the way Justin Whear
 describes it: it's not so much a set of keyboard shortcuts for common
 editing operations, as a *language* for describing editing operations.
 A language requires much more effort to learn than a set of shortcuts,
 but in the end, it's far more expressive and powerful.


I don't think that it was ever described quite that way to me, but the co-
worker/mentor I had who was really into vim and got me to learn it did explain 
the importance of learning each of the individual commands so that you could 
then combine them rather than learning things like the fact that dd deleted a 
line or that yy copied an entire line.

- Jonathan M Davis



 Sep 13 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent  "Gary Willoughby" <dev nomad.so>  writes:


On Friday, 13 September 2013 at 19:48:18 UTC, Namespace wrote:

 Just out of interest.

 I use Sublime 2, Notepad++ and as IDE currently Mono-D. But I 
 will try this evening VisualD.


i use vim or gVim depending where i am.



 Sep 13 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent  Mike Parker <aldacron gmail.com>  writes:


On 9/14/2013 4:48 AM, Namespace wrote:

 Just out of interest.

 I use Sublime 2, Notepad++ and as IDE currently Mono-D. But I will try
 this evening VisualD.


Sublime 3



 Sep 13 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent  "Kapps" <opantm2+spam gmail.com>  writes:


On Friday, 13 September 2013 at 19:48:18 UTC, Namespace wrote:

 Just out of interest.

 I use Sublime 2, Notepad++ and as IDE currently Mono-D. But I 
 will try this evening VisualD.


I find Mono-D to be very good now-a-days, particularly in regards 
to editing. There are some very annoying bugs like sometimes 
local variables not being detected, and numbers triggering code 
completion (the latter in particular *really* annoys me), but 
overall I find it to be a really nice editor. Comparing VisualD 

more C++-like. I haven't had a chance to try Visual D in a while 
though, since I'm using Linux at the moment.

For simple edits, I agree, Sublime Text is excellent. I replaced 
Notepad++ with it, and it's quite a bit nicer. It also supports 
high DPI natively with Sublime Text 3, so that's a nice plus on a 
2880x1800 laptop.



 Sep 13 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent  "dusr" <dusr d.usr>  writes:


SciTE



 Sep 13 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent  "Jesse Phillips" <Jesse.K.Phillips+D gmail.com>  writes:


On Friday, 13 September 2013 at 19:48:18 UTC, Namespace wrote:

 Just out of interest.

 I use Sublime 2, Notepad++ and as IDE currently Mono-D. But I 
 will try this evening VisualD.


gvim

I installed Visual-D once, but haven't used it.



 Sep 13 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent  "deadalnix" <deadalnix gmail.com>  writes:


On Friday, 13 September 2013 at 19:48:18 UTC, Namespace wrote:

 Just out of interest.

 I use Sublime 2, Notepad++ and as IDE currently Mono-D. But I 
 will try this evening VisualD.


Use to go for gedit (for D) but recent changes has made it really 
frustrating to use (like auto pasting in the search field, even I 
really want to paste, I end up doing it twice, one automagically 
and one automanually, and fuck up everything).

I use vim more since I've written my own terminal and can have a 
set of shortcut that make sense with shortcut outside the 
terminal (you know, ctrl C/V thing kind of wizardry that we still 
succeed to fuck up in 2013).

Also considering buying a sublimetext license. It isn't that 
expensive and the soft is pretty good. I use it for work and 
really like it.

I usually don't heavy weaponry like eclipse/visual 
studio/whatever, unless they can provide significant benefits. I 
use this kind of tool for java for instance (eclipse or IntelliJ) 
but do not for C++ or scripting languages.



 Sep 13 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent  "Olivier Pisano" <olivier.pisano laposte.net>  writes:


JEdit (seems I am the only one) and Visual D.



 Sep 13 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent  =?UTF-8?B?U8O2bmtlIEx1ZHdpZw==?= <sludwig outerproduct.org>  writes:


Sublime Text 3 or VisualD, mostly



 Sep 14 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent  "Michael" <pr m1xa.com>  writes:


On Friday, 13 September 2013 at 19:48:18 UTC, Namespace wrote:

 Just out of interest.

 I use Sublime 2, Notepad++ and as IDE currently Mono-D. But I 
 will try this evening VisualD.


Sublime Text 3 or TextAdept, 4 whitespaces as tab)))



 Sep 14 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent  Manu <turkeyman gmail.com>  writes:


On 14 September 2013 05:48, Namespace <rswhite4 googlemail.com> wrote:


 Just out of interest.

 I use Sublime 2, Notepad++ and as IDE currently Mono-D. But I will try
 this evening VisualD.


Visual Studio on Windows, and MonoDevelop on !Windows.
Eclipse occasionally, because Google technology doesn't integrate with VS
very well.



 Sep 14 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Namespace" <rswhite4 googlemail.com>  writes:


I never thought that this becomes a discussion about windows 
versus linux. :o



 Sep 14 2013



 next sibling parent  "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx>  writes:


On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 01:49:43PM +0200, Namespace wrote:

 I never thought that this becomes a discussion about windows versus
 linux. :o


Didn't you know? An IDE/editor religious flamewar inevitably devolves
into an OS religious flamewar?  Just give it another week or so to
devolve further, and I'm pretty sure we'll be able to invoke Godwin's
Law. :-P


T

-- 
Why do conspiracy theories always come from the same people??



 Sep 14 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent  Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com>  writes:


On 14 September 2013 18:36, H. S. Teoh <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:

 On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 01:49:43PM +0200, Namespace wrote:

 I never thought that this becomes a discussion about windows versus
 linux. :o


 Didn't you know? An IDE/editor religious flamewar inevitably devolves
 into an OS religious flamewar?  Just give it another week or so to
 devolve further, and I'm pretty sure we'll be able to invoke Godwin's
 Law. :-P


Followed swiftly by the lesser known Lewis' Law.


-- 
Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';



 Sep 14 2013



prev sibling  parent  Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com>  writes:


On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 13:49:43 +0200
"Namespace" <rswhite4 googlemail.com> wrote:


 I never thought that this becomes a discussion about windows 
 versus linux. :o


I never thought I'd see an OS debate that wasn't a flamewar!



 Sep 14 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent reply Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com>  writes:


On 2013-09-13 21:48, Namespace wrote:

 Just out of interest.

 I use Sublime 2, Notepad++ and as IDE currently Mono-D. But I will try
 this evening VisualD.


TextMate on Mac OS X, Sublime on the other platforms.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg



 Sep 14 2013



  parent reply "deadalnix" <deadalnix gmail.com>  writes:


On Saturday, 14 September 2013 at 12:35:42 UTC, Jacob Carlborg 
wrote:

 On 2013-09-13 21:48, Namespace wrote:

 Just out of interest.

 I use Sublime 2, Notepad++ and as IDE currently Mono-D. But I 
 will try
 this evening VisualD.


 TextMate on Mac OS X, Sublime on the other platforms.


Why not sublime if you use it on other plateforms ?



 Sep 14 2013



  parent  Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com>  writes:


On 2013-09-14 16:14, deadalnix wrote:


 Why not sublime if you use it on other plateforms ?


I like it better. See my reply to Peter as well:

http://forum.dlang.org/thread/fxuwovrirseuatzeeprb forum.dlang.org?page=16#post-l120af:241qtj:241:40digitalmars.com

It's more adapted to Mac OS X. Basically all cross-platform applications 
fails on Mac OS X.

I only use Sublime on the other platforms because TextMate doesn't exist 
on them.

I do all my coding on Mac OS X, cross-platform. It's only when need to 
compile for another platform, when doing a release, I switch to another 
platform. Then it's usually only minor tweaks which is necessary to get 
it to run properly, hopefully :).

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg



 Sep 14 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent reply Dmitry Olshansky <dmitry.olsh gmail.com>  writes:


+1 for Sublime to stay on topic

OT:

I couldn't read the whole thread but...
I wish to see this kind of burning passion during the Phobos code reviews ;)

-- 
Dmitry Olshansky



 Sep 15 2013



  parent  "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx>  writes:


On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 05:04:43PM +0400, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:

 +1 for Sublime to stay on topic
 
 OT:
 
 I couldn't read the whole thread but...
 I wish to see this kind of burning passion during the Phobos code
 reviews ;)


[...]

+1. We need more Phobos reviewers (and that includes *everyone*... as
people have said before, you don't need commit privilege to review,
anyone can leave comments on the pull requests -- and we need all the
extra eyes we can get).


T

-- 
"I'm running Windows '98."
"Yes."
"My computer isn't working now."
"Yes, you already said that."
-- User-Friendly



 Sep 15 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Ivan Kazmenko" <gassa mail.ru>  writes:


On Friday, 13 September 2013 at 19:48:18 UTC, Namespace wrote:

 Just out of interest.

 I use Sublime 2, Notepad++ and as IDE currently Mono-D. But I 
 will try this evening VisualD.


FAR Manager's editor with Colorer plugin.  The upside is that 
it's a unified (albeit minimalistic) interface for every language 
I decide to write in.

And sometimes CodeBlocks for larger projects.

Ivan Kazmenko.



 Sep 15 2013



  parent reply "Vladimir Panteleev" <vladimir thecybershadow.net>  writes:


On Sunday, 15 September 2013 at 14:10:58 UTC, Ivan Kazmenko wrote:

 On Friday, 13 September 2013 at 19:48:18 UTC, Namespace wrote:

 Just out of interest.

 I use Sublime 2, Notepad++ and as IDE currently Mono-D. But I 
 will try this evening VisualD.


 FAR Manager's editor with Colorer plugin.  The upside is that 
 it's a unified (albeit minimalistic) interface for every 
 language I decide to write in.


I thought I was the only one :)



 Sep 15 2013



  parent  Dmitry Olshansky <dmitry.olsh gmail.com>  writes:


15-Sep-2013 18:48, Vladimir Panteleev пишет:

 On Sunday, 15 September 2013 at 14:10:58 UTC, Ivan Kazmenko wrote:

 On Friday, 13 September 2013 at 19:48:18 UTC, Namespace wrote:

 Just out of interest.

 I use Sublime 2, Notepad++ and as IDE currently Mono-D. But I will
 try this evening VisualD.


 FAR Manager's editor with Colorer plugin.  The upside is that it's a
 unified (albeit minimalistic) interface for every language I decide to
 write in.


 I thought I was the only one :)


I use it more as a better console ;)

-- 
Dmitry Olshansky



 Sep 15 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent reply Joseph Rushton Wakeling <joseph.wakeling webdrake.net>  writes:


On 13/09/13 21:48, Namespace wrote:

 Just out of interest.

 I use Sublime 2, Notepad++ and as IDE currently Mono-D. But I will try this
 evening VisualD.


Vim, on Ubuntu. :-)

The actual reason is rather trivial.  I've always favoured a mixed tab-space 
indent style for code ("tabs for indentation, spaces for alignment"), as 
described here:
http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/SmartTabs

Unfortunately, most text editors don't seem to support this very well any more. 
  In KDE 3 both Kate and KDevelop used to support it well, but since KDE 4 came 
out it seems to have been dropped.  If you search "mixed tab-space indentation" 
you'll even come across a rather forlorn post of mine from the time on the 
Ubuntu Forums trying to sort this out:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1475867

Vim and Emacs seem to be the only editors where it's readily possible to 
implement this these days, and vim is easier to use, so it wound up being the 
only choice.

The irony is that given that standard D style is a 4-space indent, these days 
I've turned off the mixed tab-space style, for D at least ... but I'm still 
using vim, and I even find myself accidentally hitting vim-style commands if I 
use another editor to code.

I did go through a period of using CodeBlocks for my official D contributions, 
with the 4-space style, and vim for my private projects, with mixed tab-space 
style; but eventually I decided, OK, D style is D style, follow the standard in 
all cases, and just went to vim for everything.

I still do mixed tab-space for C/C++ though.  Yes, I know.  Burn the witch. :-)



 Sep 15 2013



 next sibling parent reply Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com>  writes:


On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 19:18:14 +0200
Joseph Rushton Wakeling <joseph.wakeling webdrake.net> wrote:


 On 13/09/13 21:48, Namespace wrote:

 Just out of interest.

 I use Sublime 2, Notepad++ and as IDE currently Mono-D. But I will
 try this evening VisualD.


 
 Vim, on Ubuntu. :-)
 
 The actual reason is rather trivial.  I've always favoured a mixed
 tab-space indent style for code ("tabs for indentation, spaces for
 alignment"), as described here:
 http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/SmartTabs
 


I love that comic!

I actually did the same tab/space thing for awhile. But my editors
didn't really have a native understanding of it so it became manual
editing of invisible characters, so now I just avoid that style of
alignment regardless of tabs or spaces. Ie, instead of:

foobar(aaaaa, bbbbb, ccccc,
       dddd, eeeee, fffff);

I'll just do:

foobar(
    aaaaa, bbbbb, ccccc,
    dddd, eeeee, fffff
);

Not as pretty, but it works, it makes things simpler, Plus it avoids
the former style's tendency to wind up with gigantically-sized indents.



 Sep 15 2013



 next sibling parent  "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx>  writes:


On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 04:49:58PM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 19:18:14 +0200
 Joseph Rushton Wakeling <joseph.wakeling webdrake.net> wrote:
 

 On 13/09/13 21:48, Namespace wrote:

 Just out of interest.

 I use Sublime 2, Notepad++ and as IDE currently Mono-D. But I will
 try this evening VisualD.


 
 Vim, on Ubuntu. :-)
 
 The actual reason is rather trivial.  I've always favoured a mixed
 tab-space indent style for code ("tabs for indentation, spaces for
 alignment"), as described here:
 http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/SmartTabs
 


 
 I love that comic!
 
 I actually did the same tab/space thing for awhile. But my editors
 didn't really have a native understanding of it so it became manual
 editing of invisible characters, so now I just avoid that style of
 alignment regardless of tabs or spaces. Ie, instead of:
 
 foobar(aaaaa, bbbbb, ccccc,
        dddd, eeeee, fffff);
 
 I'll just do:
 
 foobar(
     aaaaa, bbbbb, ccccc,
     dddd, eeeee, fffff
 );
 
 Not as pretty,


I disagree. I think it's prettier. :) The first style above has the
disadvantage that the exact amount of indentation is usually a
non-integral multiple of the indent size of the rest of the code, which
I find jarring.



 but it works, it makes things simpler, Plus it avoids the former
 style's tendency to wind up with gigantically-sized indents.


Yeah... I'm torn between the two. The first style saves vertical space,
which is important to me, but the second style makes more sense IMO,
plus it lets you format complicated nested expressions in a nicer way,
i.e.:

	foobar(
		isNumber(x) ?
			aVeryLongNestedExpression :
			anotherVeryLongNestedExpression,
		isIdent(y) ?
			yetAnotherVeryLongExpression :
			guessWhatAnotherLongExpression,
		(
			(x*x + y*y)^^2 +
			(z*z + w*w)^^2 +
			2.0*(
				sin(x+y-z)^^2 +
				cos(x-y+z)^^2
			)
		) - (
			3.0*(
				tan(x+y+z)^^2 +
				sec(x-y-z)^^2
			)
		),
		(real x, real y) {
			return (
				someConvolutedCode(x) +
				moreConvolutedCode(y)
			) - (
				hahaImHavingFun(x+y) +
				makingUpStuff(x-y)
			);
		}
	);


T

-- 
Once the bikeshed is up for painting, the rainbow won't suffice. -- Andrei
Alexandrescu



 Sep 15 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent reply Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com>  writes:


On 2013-09-15 22:49, Nick Sabalausky wrote:


 I actually did the same tab/space thing for awhile. But my editors
 didn't really have a native understanding of it so it became manual
 editing of invisible characters, so now I just avoid that style of
 alignment regardless of tabs or spaces. Ie, instead of:

 foobar(aaaaa, bbbbb, ccccc,
         dddd, eeeee, fffff);

 I'll just do:

 foobar(
      aaaaa, bbbbb, ccccc,
      dddd, eeeee, fffff
 );

 Not as pretty, but it works, it makes things simpler, Plus it avoids
 the former style's tendency to wind up with gigantically-sized indents.


I recently watch the Going Native talk by Chandler. He talks about the 
one of the biggest problem they have at Google. It's not the language 
(C++) itself, but it's formatting whitespace. Short, they have a tool 
for that now.

http://channel9.msdn.com/Events/GoingNative/2013/The-Care-and-Feeding-of-C-s-Dragons

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg



 Sep 15 2013



  parent reply Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com>  writes:


On 2013-09-16 08:53, Jacob Carlborg wrote:


 I recently watch the Going Native talk by Chandler. He talks about the
 one of the biggest problem they have at Google. It's not the language
 (C++) itself, but it's formatting whitespace. Short, they have a tool
 for that now.

 http://channel9.msdn.com/Events/GoingNative/2013/The-Care-and-Feeding-of-C-s-Dragons


Forgot to say, it automatically solves your problem.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg



 Sep 15 2013



  parent  "PauloPinto" <pjmlp progtools.org>  writes:


On Monday, 16 September 2013 at 06:54:21 UTC, Jacob Carlborg 
wrote:

 On 2013-09-16 08:53, Jacob Carlborg wrote:


 I recently watch the Going Native talk by Chandler. He talks 
 about the
 one of the biggest problem they have at Google. It's not the 
 language
 (C++) itself, but it's formatting whitespace. Short, they have 
 a tool
 for that now.

 http://channel9.msdn.com/Events/GoingNative/2013/The-Care-and-Feeding-of-C-s-Dragons


 Forgot to say, it automatically solves your problem.


Then there is calling indent on checkin hooks on the source 
control system as well.



 Sep 16 2013



prev sibling  parent  Joseph Rushton Wakeling <joseph.wakeling webdrake.net>  writes:


On 15/09/13 22:49, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 I love that comic!


Me too :-)


 I actually did the same tab/space thing for awhile. But my editors
 didn't really have a native understanding of it so it became manual
 editing of invisible characters, so now I just avoid that style of
 alignment regardless of tabs or spaces. Ie, instead of:

 foobar(aaaaa, bbbbb, ccccc,
        ddddd, eeeee, fffff);

 I'll just do:

 foobar(
      aaaaa, bbbbb, ccccc,
      dddd, eeeee, fffff
 );

 Not as pretty, but it works, it makes things simpler, Plus it avoids
 the former style's tendency to wind up with gigantically-sized indents.


It's true, the former indentation style can be really annoying if it forces you 
to indent by too much, especially if it clashes with a code style that prefers 
line lengths of less than a certain number of characters.

I still prefer it to your alternative way of doing things -- I find that
creates 
confusion between the opening and closing parentheses of functions and opening 
and closing braces of scopes, but that's partly a matter of taste and 
familiarity, and it clearly does have benefits.



 Sep 16 2013



prev sibling  parent reply "deadalnix" <deadalnix gmail.com>  writes:


On Sunday, 15 September 2013 at 17:18:21 UTC, Joseph Rushton 
Wakeling wrote:

 On 13/09/13 21:48, Namespace wrote:

 Just out of interest.

 I use Sublime 2, Notepad++ and as IDE currently Mono-D. But I 
 will try this
 evening VisualD.


 Vim, on Ubuntu. :-)

 The actual reason is rather trivial.  I've always favoured a 
 mixed tab-space indent style for code ("tabs for indentation, 
 spaces for alignment"), as described here:
 http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/SmartTabs

 Unfortunately, most text editors don't seem to support this 
 very well any more.
  In KDE 3 both Kate and KDevelop used to support it well, but 
 since KDE 4 came out it seems to have been dropped.  If you 
 search "mixed tab-space indentation" you'll even come across a 
 rather forlorn post of mine from the time on the Ubuntu Forums 
 trying to sort this out:
 http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1475867

 Vim and Emacs seem to be the only editors where it's readily 
 possible to implement this these days, and vim is easier to 
 use, so it wound up being the only choice.

 The irony is that given that standard D style is a 4-space 
 indent, these days I've turned off the mixed tab-space style, 
 for D at least ... but I'm still using vim, and I even find 
 myself accidentally hitting vim-style commands if I use another 
 editor to code.

 I did go through a period of using CodeBlocks for my official D 
 contributions, with the 4-space style, and vim for my private 
 projects, with mixed tab-space style; but eventually I decided, 
 OK, D style is D style, follow the standard in all cases, and 
 just went to vim for everything.

 I still do mixed tab-space for C/C++ though.  Yes, I know.  
 Burn the witch. :-)


What do you use to do that in vim ? All my attempts did fail.



 Sep 15 2013



  parent reply Joseph Rushton Wakeling <joseph.wakeling webdrake.net>  writes:


On 16/09/13 07:01, deadalnix wrote:

 What do you use to do that in vim ? All my attempts did fail.


I use this plugin: http://www.vim.org/scripts/script.php?script_id=231

It's always worked for me.



 Sep 16 2013



  parent  "deadalnix" <deadalnix gmail.com>  writes:


On Monday, 16 September 2013 at 10:05:05 UTC, Joseph Rushton 
Wakeling wrote:

 On 16/09/13 07:01, deadalnix wrote:

 What do you use to do that in vim ? All my attempts did fail.


 I use this plugin: 
 http://www.vim.org/scripts/script.php?script_id=231

 It's always worked for me.


Nice, I have to give it a try !



 Sep 16 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent  "Wyatt" <wyatt.epp gmail.com>  writes:


On Friday, 13 September 2013 at 19:48:18 UTC, Namespace wrote:

 Just out of interest.


vim.  Not vi.  Not gvim.  vim.  With TERM=xterm-256color and a 
small set of plugins.  Sometimes in screen.

-Wyatt



 Sep 16 2013



prev sibling next sibling parent  "Atila Neves" <atila.neves gmail.com>  writes:


Emacs on Arch Linux.

On Friday, 13 September 2013 at 19:48:18 UTC, Namespace wrote:

 Just out of interest.

 I use Sublime 2, Notepad++ and as IDE currently Mono-D. But I 
 will try this evening VisualD.





 Sep 16 2013



prev sibling  parent reply "Chris" <wendlec tcd.ie>  writes:


On Friday, 13 September 2013 at 19:48:18 UTC, Namespace wrote:

 Just out of interest.

 I use Sublime 2, Notepad++ and as IDE currently Mono-D. But I 
 will try this evening VisualD.


I have been using jEdit quite a lot, in fact I've done most of my 
D programming in jEdit. jEdit may be the odd on out (i.e. written 
in Java), but I have not yet found an editor that has so many 
useful features and is so easily customizable, I can also use it 
on any platform. It is quite stable and performance (Java) is 
usually not an issue. I've tried loads of different editors but 
keep coming back to this one. (Textadept looks good, but it's too 
much of a hassle to customize it).

Although nice to have, D doesn't really need an IDE. IDEs can 
easily degenerate into luxurious prisons.



 Sep 18 2013



  parent reply "PauloPinto" <pjmlp progtools.org>  writes:


On Wednesday, 18 September 2013 at 08:42:16 UTC, Chris wrote:

 On Friday, 13 September 2013 at 19:48:18 UTC, Namespace wrote:

 Just out of interest.

 I use Sublime 2, Notepad++ and as IDE currently Mono-D. But I 
 will try this evening VisualD.


 I have been using jEdit quite a lot, in fact I've done most of 
 my D programming in jEdit. jEdit may be the odd on out (i.e. 
 written in Java), but I have not yet found an editor that has 
 so many useful features and is so easily customizable, I can 
 also use it on any platform. It is quite stable and performance 
 (Java) is usually not an issue. I've tried loads of different 
 editors but keep coming back to this one. (Textadept looks 
 good, but it's too much of a hassle to customize it).

 Although nice to have, D doesn't really need an IDE. IDEs can 
 easily degenerate into luxurious prisons.


Enjoying gold cage prisons since 1991. :)



 Sep 18 2013



 next sibling parent reply "Chris" <wendlec tcd.ie>  writes:


On Wednesday, 18 September 2013 at 09:15:36 UTC, PauloPinto wrote:

 On Wednesday, 18 September 2013 at 08:42:16 UTC, Chris wrote:

 On Friday, 13 September 2013 at 19:48:18 UTC, Namespace wrote:

 Just out of interest.

 I use Sublime 2, Notepad++ and as IDE currently Mono-D. But I 
 will try this evening VisualD.


 I have been using jEdit quite a lot, in fact I've done most of 
 my D programming in jEdit. jEdit may be the odd on out (i.e. 
 written in Java), but I have not yet found an editor that has 
 so many useful features and is so easily customizable, I can 
 also use it on any platform. It is quite stable and 
 performance (Java) is usually not an issue. I've tried loads 
 of different editors but keep coming back to this one. 
 (Textadept looks good, but it's too much of a hassle to 
 customize it).

 Although nice to have, D doesn't really need an IDE. IDEs can 
 easily degenerate into luxurious prisons.


 Enjoying gold cage prisons since 1991. :)


"We are all just prisoners here, of our own device" - Hotel 
California



 Sep 18 2013



 next sibling parent  Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com>  writes:


On 18 September 2013 10:38, Chris <wendlec tcd.ie> wrote:

 On Wednesday, 18 September 2013 at 09:15:36 UTC, PauloPinto wrote:

 On Wednesday, 18 September 2013 at 08:42:16 UTC, Chris wrote:

 On Friday, 13 September 2013 at 19:48:18 UTC, Namespace wrote:

 Just out of interest.

 I use Sublime 2, Notepad++ and as IDE currently Mono-D. But I will try
 this evening VisualD.



 I have been using jEdit quite a lot, in fact I've done most of my D
 programming in jEdit. jEdit may be the odd on out (i.e. written in Java),
 but I have not yet found an editor that has so many useful features and is
 so easily customizable, I can also use it on any platform. It is quite
 stable and performance (Java) is usually not an issue. I've tried loads of
 different editors but keep coming back to this one. (Textadept looks good,
 but it's too much of a hassle to customize it).

 Although nice to have, D doesn't really need an IDE. IDEs can easily
 degenerate into luxurious prisons.



 Enjoying gold cage prisons since 1991. :)



 "We are all just prisoners here, of our own device" - Hotel California


"Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way" - Time


-- 
Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';



 Sep 18 2013



prev sibling  parent  Russel Winder <russel winder.org.uk>  writes:


On Wed, 2013-09-18 at 11:38 +0200, Chris wrote:
[=E2=80=A6]

 "We are all just prisoners here, of our own device" - Hotel=20
 California


but note:

"You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave" ibid.

--=20
Russel.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder ekiga.n=
et
41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel winder.org.uk
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder



 Sep 18 2013



prev sibling  parent reply Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com>  writes:


On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 11:15:35 +0200
"PauloPinto" <pjmlp progtools.org> wrote:


 On Wednesday, 18 September 2013 at 08:42:16 UTC, Chris wrote:

 Although nice to have, D doesn't really need an IDE. IDEs can 
 easily degenerate into luxurious prisons.


 
 Enjoying gold cage prisons since 1991. :)


"But I could stay, Stay in this luxury cage.
Wouldn't that be great? I don't think so."
- Republica: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hk7gTRtW64E

(Great album, every bit as much as their first. A shame it never hit the
states.)



 Sep 18 2013



  parent reply "deadalnix" <deadalnix gmail.com>  writes:


On Wednesday, 18 September 2013 at 18:29:25 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
wrote:

 On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 11:15:35 +0200
 "PauloPinto" <pjmlp progtools.org> wrote:


 On Wednesday, 18 September 2013 at 08:42:16 UTC, Chris wrote:

 Although nice to have, D doesn't really need an IDE. IDEs 
 can easily degenerate into luxurious prisons.


 
 Enjoying gold cage prisons since 1991. :)


 "But I could stay, Stay in this luxury cage.
 Wouldn't that be great? I don't think so."
 - Republica: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hk7gTRtW64E

 (Great album, every bit as much as their first. A shame it 
 never hit the
 states.)


Star Trek the cage, the very first episode :D Humans posses a 
unique hatred of captivity, even when pleasant.



 Sep 18 2013



  parent  Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com>  writes:


On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 07:17:51 +0200
"deadalnix" <deadalnix gmail.com> wrote:


 On Wednesday, 18 September 2013 at 18:29:25 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
 wrote:

 On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 11:15:35 +0200
 "PauloPinto" <pjmlp progtools.org> wrote:


 On Wednesday, 18 September 2013 at 08:42:16 UTC, Chris wrote:

 Although nice to have, D doesn't really need an IDE. IDEs 
 can easily degenerate into luxurious prisons.


 
 Enjoying gold cage prisons since 1991. :)


 "But I could stay, Stay in this luxury cage.
 Wouldn't that be great? I don't think so."
 - Republica: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hk7gTRtW64E

 (Great album, every bit as much as their first. A shame it 
 never hit the
 states.)


 
 Star Trek the cage, the very first episode :D Humans posses a 
 unique hatred of captivity, even when pleasant.


Yea. One of the more memorable episodes, too, partly because it was
re-used in the two-parter ("The Menagerie", IIRC).

But I was never all that sure about the hatred being "unique". Cats
seem to really hate even a single closed door. :)



 Sep 19 2013