Windows is Easier - Linux

This is a discussion on Windows is Easier - Linux ; On Sep 19, 12:42 pm, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote: > [snips] > > On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 00:57:05 +0000, cc wrote: > > How is this a refutation of anything other than the ****ty software > > you downloaded? > ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 76

Thread: Windows is Easier

  1. Re: Windows is Easier

    On Sep 19, 12:42 pm, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
    > [snips]
    >
    > On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 00:57:05 +0000, cc wrote:
    > > How is this a refutation of anything other than the ****ty software
    > > you downloaded?

    >
    > Wonder what that would be. Can't be PHP, as that is particularly _good_
    > software, even if its installer is a bit wonky.


    Well let's see either...

    A) The installer was created incorrectly and put the files in the
    wrong path. This has nothing to do with Windows, and everything to do
    with the creators of the software. It's possible to have the same
    problem in Linux.

    B) The code is so terrible it only looks for the files in a certain
    directory. You say PHP is particularly good software, so this is
    probably not likely, but still, not a Windows issue. It's possible to
    have the same problem in Linux.

    C) The installer and code are fine, and you did a custom install and
    screwed it up. A possibility, but you didn't mention doing any custom
    steps in your original post. Again, not a Windows issue. Not even a
    PHP issue. It's a user issue, which is possible in Linux.

    D) Steve Ballmer put a gun to someone's head and forced them to
    install the files in My Documents and make it not work. Highly
    unlikely, but I expect a 12 page Rex Ballard discussion where he heard
    that something like this happened in 1987. This would be a Windows
    issue.


    So, assuming we're not in Rex Ballard fantasy land, the problem you
    had has nothing to do with Windows. I can type cd /, sudo rm -Rf *,
    and enter my password in Linux. Can I then claim than Linux is
    insecure because it let's me hose my system so easily? Nope. You
    didn't refute anything about Windows or Linux ease of use. All you
    showed was that improperly coded software (includes installer
    settings), and improperly tested software (really did they not know
    that it wouldn't work?), is possible under any operating system. What
    exactly does this have to do with Windows or Linux being easier to use?


  2. Re: Windows is Easier

    On Sep 19, 7:45 am, Linonut wrote:
    > After takin' a swig o' grog, cc belched out this bit o' wisdom:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Sep 18, 5:00 pm, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
    > >> For various reasons, I need to use PHP to do some SNMP polling and dump
    > >> the results in a MySQL database.

    >
    > >> No problem. Linux? Install (via the pointy-clicky-GUI-thingy) php5-cli,
    > >> php5-snmp and php5-mysql. Write code, test code, code works. Hmm. Might
    > >> need it to run off a Windows box, too.

    >
    > >> No prob, download the Windows PHP installer. Install PHP, plus the SNMP
    > >> and MySQL extensions. All's well, right?

    >
    > >> Not quite. Identical code, but when run on the Windows side, it spews
    > >> errors - cannot locate MIBs and the like. Ick.

    >
    > >> Assorted hunting around shows that the MIB data - which you need in order
    > >> for this sort of thing to work - is stored not with the PHP install, nor
    > >> with the , but in My Documents\php.

    >
    > >> Let's repeat that: for some reason, the PHP installer has put stuff into a
    > >> _document_ folder. Which might make some degree of sense, I suppose, if
    > >> it had _just_ put the MIB data there; instead it put the extensions there;
    > >> there are some 45 DLLs in a directory under _My Documents_.

    >
    > >> Figuring out what the actual problem was - that the MIBs are stored
    > >> separately - then locating them, putting them somewhere sane and figuring
    > >> out how to get the PHP system to look for them there was, oh, a half hour
    > >> or so faffing around on the net.

    >
    > >> All to do a job which three mouse clicks at install time accomplished in
    > >> Linux.

    >
    > >> But let's remember, folks, Windows is easier, Windows is user friendly.

    >
    > >> No, this is not the fault of MS, nor even of Windows itself; it is,
    > >> presumably, an issue of how the PHP installer works. It is, however, a
    > >> handy refutation of the nonsense view than Windows is universally better,
    > >> simpler, friendlier.

    >
    > Lost for words?
    >



    Yes.


  3. Re: Windows is Easier

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [H]omer

    wrote
    on Wed, 19 Sep 2007 20:11:29 +0100
    <2s88s4-k0s.ln1@sky.matrix>:
    > Verily I say unto thee, that The Ghost In The Machine spake thusly:
    >
    >> I'm not sure how Nautilus gets a borderless backdrop window, though.

    >
    > ESETROOT_PMAP_I?


    Not familiar with that. My /usr/include does not have
    that at all, so color me a little puzzled in that area.

    Google coughed up a reference to the 'xsri' manpage.
    I do not have that utility though can install it without
    difficulty.

    >
    >> The concept thereof I first saw on the Amiga

    >
    > It was a neat trick. The root window (screen) was still there
    > underneath, but the contents were moved to a new window (the Workbench
    > window). As such it was possible to exit Workbench by just clicking on
    > the close gadget (also from the menu). Not that it was very useful, in
    > fact I wonder why it was designed like that at all, and not just hard
    > coded as a permanent backdrop on screen0.


    I'm not sure why there was a menu pick (a shutdown signal
    might have made a little more sense), but running Workbench
    was strictly optional. Programs can (and frequently did)
    usurp the Workbench screen for their own purposes; this had
    the advantage that, if one needed to prompt for a floppy,
    the prompt appeared on the borrowed screen[*].

    If the program created its own screen and opened a floppy that
    prompted, the user got a largely empty light blue screen with
    a white title bar ("Workbench"), and a requester prompt:

    Please insert
    SomeVolume:
    in any drive
    [Retry] [Cancel]

    or some such. It's been a long time since I've tried it.

    If the game is badly programmed the custom screen never
    comes back (e.g., the program goes outside the standard
    Copper list manipulation routines and plays with the
    registers themselves).

    >
    > Amiga screens OTOH /were/ very useful. IIRC one could have an unlimited
    > number of screens (limited only by hardware resources); each with a
    > custom name, Arexx port, and relative position within the "layers".
    > Thanks to the Copper, each screen could be a difference resolution &
    > colour depth, which I believe was unique to Amiga hardware, and still is
    > to this day (with the exception of workspaces on multiple monitors,
    > which is not quite the same thing).


    Correct. I've yet to see a comparable solution on any hardware,
    though GLX might prove interesting in the future if X gets its
    act together and allows drawing on an arbitrary texture somehow,
    or converts X drawing protocol directly to GLX calls.

    >
    >> As for PHP -- an interesting distinction between the two systems, and
    >> a reminder that porting occasionally runs into some oddball corner
    >> cases.

    >
    > Getting software designed for GNU/Linux running on Windows, is like
    > forcing a square peg into a round hole, and frankly I just don't see the
    > point, when the OS those tools were designed to work on in the first
    > place is so much better.


    The only reason I see why one might attempt such is if one
    is forced to use Windows desktops because of shortsighted
    corporate policies, but also wants to develop stuff such
    as PHP scripts that will run on their Unix servers.

    There are two solutions that might be of interest in that case.

    [1] telnet, rsh, ssh, vnc, rdesktop into the server.
    (I don't know if Unix/Linux can support the rdesktop
    service, but it easily can and already does support
    an rdesktop client. Dunno what Microsoft's SFU has
    in that area.) Development then proceeds on the server.
    There are a few pitfalls, especially if there's more than
    one developer. If X is required Cygwin/X might be pressed
    into service; it's slow and slightly buggy but it works
    well enough to display X remotely from the Unix server.
    Other solutions such as eXceed or XWin-32 (assuming either
    is still around) are also possible.

    [2] User edits scripts in his local environment (Windows
    et al), gets most of the bugs out, and uploads them.

    A third solution of course replaces the Windows desktop
    with a Linux one and proceeds otherwise similarly to [2].
    This is arguably the best solution but not all corporate
    types will see it that way. :-)

    For its part IIS6 will run PHP, though I don't know how well.

    >
    >> It might depend on what one considers "easy". I have no problem
    >> writing strange one-time-only bash scripts, something along the lines
    >> of
    >>
    >> $ find . -type f -mtime +7 | xargs gzip
    >>
    >> as opposed to
    >>
    >> click a directory
    >> look through files
    >> drag and drop desired files to compressor[*]
    >> click another directory
    >> look through files
    >> drag and drop desired files to compressor
    >> repeat ad nauseum until done
    >>
    >> Which is easier?

    >
    > It's been said many times that sometimes it just makes more sense to use
    > the CLI, rather than mess around pointing and clicking on an infinite
    > array of objects on the desktop. In that regard, GNU/Linux has the
    > distinct advantage of real shells like Bash and real CLI tools like
    > coreutils, etc.
    >


    Powershell is an interesting wildcard in this regard.
    We'll see how widely accepted it becomes; one problem,
    of course, is that contemporary Unix shells can generate
    any bytestream; how does the shell get an indication to
    interpret what the program generates as objects, rather
    than as bytes? Of course Microsoft might allow for
    an fcntl() (or the Microsoft equivalent) that changes
    a file descriptor (or handle) from byte-oriented to
    object-oriented.

    Unix could too, with something along the following lines:

    int flags = 0;
    int r;

    r = fcntl(fid, F_GETFL, &flags);
    if(r < 0) { error(); exit(1); }
    /* pick one */
    flags |= O_PERSOBJECT; /* make up your own name here */
    flags |= O_CHARSTREAM; /* ditto */
    flags &= ~O_PERSOBJECT; /* ditto */
    flags &= ~O_CHARSTREAM; /* ditto ditto */
    r = fcntl(fid, F_SETFL, &flags);
    if(r < 0) { error(); exit(1); }

    or something equally strange. Standard input will have
    to -- somehow -- deal with items that can be bytes, and
    other items that can be objects.

    A more likely alternative is more or less what we're
    doing now: convert the object into a bytestream -- XML,
    most likely, though Java's RMI is also possible -- and
    write them out in a somewhat user-consumable format,
    which allows for many hacks, some pretty, some not so.
    An arbitrary program has the option of calling an API that
    does the gruntwork (e.g., Castor in the Java space would
    work for a few out there).
    [*] the term "screen" in this case is the Amiga-meant one;
    one can pull or push thereon, and stack them in various
    interesting ways vertically, as you point out later on.

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Been there, done that, didn't get the T-shirt.

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  4. Re: Windows is Easier

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Linonut

    wrote
    on Wed, 19 Sep 2007 00:51:00 GMT
    :
    > After takin' a swig o' grog, The Ghost In The Machine belched out this bit o' wisdom:
    >
    >> X actually has some minor design deficiencies in the
    >> desktop area, though presumably they're not all that
    >> problematic; I'm not sure how Nautilus gets a borderless
    >> backdrop window, though. (The concept thereof I first
    >> saw on the Amiga, though Multifinder might have had a
    >> similar concept. Intuition allowed an application to
    >> specify a BACKDROP flag or some such; the resultant
    >> window would occupy the screen, with the screen title
    >> draped over it, if the application bothered to set it.)

    >
    > Removing the window decorations must be pretty easy. The
    > console terminal, mrxvt, let's you toggle the window decorations on and
    > off.


    I'd have to look at the ICCCM specifications, if I can find
    them. One can of course hint at X with override-redirect,
    but that is intended for temporary menus. The decorations
    are artifacts created by the window manager.

    xprop on the root window (I run Gnome with Nautilus)
    shows a lot of crap, though one does see

    WM_CLASS(STRING) = "desktop_window", "Nautilus"
    WM_ICON_NAME(STRING) = "Desktop"
    WM_NAME(STRING) = "Desktop"

    Presumably the window manager is keying on "Desktop"
    or "desktop_window".
    >
    >> It might depend on what one considers "easy". I have no
    >> problem writing strange one-time-only bash scripts, something
    >> along the lines of
    >>
    >> $ find . -type f -mtime +7 | xargs gzip
    >>
    >> as opposed to
    >>
    >> click a directory
    >> look through files
    >> drag and drop desired files to compressor[*]
    >> click another directory
    >> look through files
    >> drag and drop desired files to compressor
    >> repeat ad nauseum until done
    >>
    >> Which is easier? Well, the script might require some
    >> thought, but the iconic view, while easy enough, quickly
    >> becomes very tedious if one has a lot of directories.

    >
    > Quick scripts (and how easy it is to do them /and/ give them the same
    > status as apps) are one of the beauties of UNIX.


    Scripts require a certain turn of mind, but they can make things
    very easy, yes.

    >
    >> Nowadays everyone just sees Windows gooey-fied stuff, and
    >> assumes that's the norm.

    >
    > And it can be crippling.
    >
    > GUIs have lots of uses, but it's amazing how much time I spend in the
    > console; it's just easier much of the time.
    >


    Especially if one is a touch typist.

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    /dev/signature: Resource temporarily unavailable

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  5. Re: Windows is Easier

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Hadron

    wrote
    on Wed, 19 Sep 2007 19:18:36 +0200
    :
    > Kelsey Bjarnason writes:
    >
    >> [snips]
    >>
    >> On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 00:57:05 +0000, cc wrote:
    >>
    >>> How is this a refutation of anything other than the ****ty software
    >>> you downloaded?

    >>
    >> Wonder what that would be. Can't be PHP, as that is particularly _good_
    >> software, even if its installer is a bit wonky.

    >
    > PHP is a mess.
    >


    Agreed, though I'll admit I'm not sure which product
    is particularly exemplary in the Web server space.

    - JBoss? Good as far as it goes, but it's skeletal without
    a lot more additions, and some of those additions
    are either ad hoc or problematic. Struts/Strutscx in
    particular allows for a reasonably good fit, except
    that their diagnostics are terrible when it comes to
    syntax and/or semantic errors in the XSL, at least in
    the version we're using (which is a little older than it
    should be :-) ). EJB is very confused, though that's
    not JBoss's fault -- and it does work; however, Sun
    dropped the ball when transitioning from its proprietary
    RMI format to a more open variant. Some problems in
    clustering internals and digest authentication, at
    least as of 4.0.2; 4.0.5 solves the latter problem,
    and may solve the former as well. Documentation is a
    bit sketchy in spots, though forums tend to fill in the
    blanks well enough.

    - Geronimo? Made a bit of noise when it first came out,
    but I've heard nothing at all since.

    - Apache? Very limited in the SOA space, though within
    those limits does its job very well. Hooks into
    ajpv13 allow Apache to serve as a front end for stating
    webpages, allowing other solutions to handle the dynamic
    stuff (if it's using Java servlets, JSPs, and such,
    anyway). CGI is supported but probably not all that
    used anymore. Lighter solutions such as lighttpd are
    available if all one wants is static webpages.

    - .NET? I'm not familiar enough with its mechanics to
    say, but suspect widespread adoption is years away --
    if at all. IIS has been problematic, but Microsoft is
    furiously trying to ensure that it's patched properly.
    Not clear to me how scalable .NET assemblies are, and
    how well Linux can run them within Mono; Linux-built
    .NET assemblies probably wouldn't have any troubles,
    but what about Microsoft-built ones? Some interesting
    hybrids such as Java# and EJB.NET might be in our
    future (the former might be a Java compiler compiling
    into static-optimized .NET machine code instead of
    Java bytecode, presumably; the latter would be a .NET
    component that can deploy specially-formatted ZIP files
    with the '.ear' suffix).

    - .PHP? Light, easy, but hardly scalable, without some
    sort of front end load distributor hardware such
    as BigIP's F5. Apache allows for loading/running
    PHP programs. Some ad hoc PHP code might allow for
    accessing multiple databases.

    - Ruby on Rails? I keep hearing noises, but know little
    about this solution. "Rails", according to the website
    http://www.rubyonrails.org/, "is a full-stack framework
    for developing database-backed web applications according
    to the Model-View-Control pattern". Of course the devil
    (and not the FreeBSD one, either) is in the details.

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Useless C++ Programming Idea #12995733:
    bool f(bool g, bool h) { if(g) h = true; else h = false; return h;}

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  6. Re: Windows is Easier


    "Kelsey Bjarnason" wrote in message
    news:vsq5s4-mft.ln1@spanky.localhost.net...
    > For various reasons, I need to use PHP to do some SNMP polling and dump
    > the results in a MySQL database.
    >
    > No problem. Linux? Install (via the pointy-clicky-GUI-thingy) php5-cli,
    > php5-snmp and php5-mysql. Write code, test code, code works. Hmm. Might
    > need it to run off a Windows box, too.
    >
    > No prob, download the Windows PHP installer. Install PHP, plus the SNMP
    > and MySQL extensions. All's well, right?
    >
    > Not quite. Identical code, but when run on the Windows side, it spews
    > errors - cannot locate MIBs and the like. Ick.
    >
    > Assorted hunting around shows that the MIB data - which you need in order
    > for this sort of thing to work - is stored not with the PHP install, nor
    > with the , but in My Documents\php.
    >
    > Let's repeat that: for some reason, the PHP installer has put stuff into a
    > _document_ folder. Which might make some degree of sense, I suppose, if
    > it had _just_ put the MIB data there; instead it put the extensions there;
    > there are some 45 DLLs in a directory under _My Documents_.
    >
    > Figuring out what the actual problem was - that the MIBs are stored
    > separately - then locating them, putting them somewhere sane and figuring
    > out how to get the PHP system to look for them there was, oh, a half hour
    > or so faffing around on the net.
    >
    > All to do a job which three mouse clicks at install time accomplished in
    > Linux.
    >
    > But let's remember, folks, Windows is easier, Windows is user friendly.
    >
    > No, this is not the fault of MS, nor even of Windows itself; it is,
    > presumably, an issue of how the PHP installer works. It is, however, a
    > handy refutation of the nonsense view than Windows is universally better,
    > simpler, friendlier.



    Definitely sounds like a problem with PHP. I guess all them eyeballs looking
    over the source code and they couldn't even manage to get a simple installer
    right.




    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  7. Re: Windows is Easier

    The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

    > - Apache? *Very limited in the SOA space, though within
    > those limits does its job very well. *Hooks into
    > ajpv13 allow Apache to serve as a front end for stating
    > webpages, allowing other solutions to handle the dynamic
    > stuff (if it's using Java servlets, JSPs, and such,
    > anyway). *CGI is supported but probably not all that
    > used anymore. *Lighter solutions such as lighttpd are
    > available if all one wants is static webpages.


    I use the Apache mod_perl handler and use perl to build dynamic pages. It
    works better than php and isn't the security nightmare that is php. You can
    preload all the perl modules you want to use.

    Perl CAN be written is such a way as to make it easily maintainable.
    There are many ways to skin a penguin.

    --
    Regards,

    Gregory.
    Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power

  8. Re: Windows is Easier

    Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:

    > On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 03:30:53 +0000, Tim Smith wrote:
    >
    >> On 2007-09-19, DFS wrote:
    >>> There's about 100% chance you screwed something up, or you're reading
    >>> from

    >>
    >> Well, I'd say the first screwup was using PHP instead of Perl for this.
    >> :-)

    >
    > You feel free to use Perl wherever you like. I use it when I _have_ to,
    > and no more than that.


    What a wimp!
    --
    Regards,

    Gregory.
    Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power

  9. Re: Windows is Easier

    Verily I say unto thee, that The Ghost In The Machine spake thusly:
    > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [H]omer wrote on Wed, 19
    > Sep 2007 20:11:29 +0100 <2s88s4-k0s.ln1@sky.matrix>:
    >> Verily I say unto thee, that The Ghost In The Machine spake thusly:


    >>> I'm not sure how Nautilus gets a borderless backdrop window,
    >>> though.

    >>
    >> ESETROOT_PMAP_I?

    >
    > Not familiar with that. My /usr/include does not have that at all,
    > so color me a little puzzled in that area.
    >
    > Google coughed up a reference to the 'xsri' manpage.


    I believe Gnome/GConf inherited that function from xsri.

    --
    K.
    http://slated.org

    ..----
    | "OOXML is a superb standard"
    | - GNU/Linux traitor, Miguel de Icaza.
    `----

    Fedora release 7 (Moonshine) on sky, running kernel 2.6.22.1-41.fc7
    05:55:56 up 42 days, 4:50, 3 users, load average: 0.22, 0.22, 0.26

  10. Re: Windows is Easier

    After takin' a swig o' grog, Tom Shelton belched out this bit o' wisdom:

    > Ok. That's fine - but, don't complain that Windows still has a crappy
    > shell environment. MS provides a very nice one.


    For sufficiently new versions of Windows.

    > I would too - but, I've never once been able to get that working...
    > Well, I did have it sort of work in VS6, but it kept crashing the ide
    > - so, I had to disable it. This is the first time I've been able to
    > get VIM support working in VS - and it's been rather nice.


    I find it pretty surprising that the VS editor doesn't come with emacs,
    vi, and brief keybindings.

    >> Somehow, my Win 2000 install losts its profile yesterday. So I lost my
    >> links and mapped drives. And Microsoft updates have modify some system
    >> behaviors recently, so I'm not too happy with Windows these days.

    >
    > Somehow, it doesn't suprise me.


    It shouldn't. Windows has, and has always had, a legion of problems.

    I've come to loathe that environment. It's like donning a straitjacket
    lined with itching powder.

    --
    Tux rox!

  11. Re: Windows is Easier

    After takin' a swig o' grog, cc belched out this bit o' wisdom:

    > On Sep 19, 7:45 am, Linonut wrote:
    >> After takin' a swig o' grog, cc belched out this bit o' wisdom:
    >>
    >> Lost for words?

    >
    > Yes.


    Around here, that's a new one!


  12. Re: Windows is Easier

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Gregory Shearman

    wrote
    on Thu, 20 Sep 2007 14:00:56 +1000
    <1452243.390KlGDzbo@netscape.net>:
    > The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    >
    >> - Apache? *Very limited in the SOA space, though within
    >> those limits does its job very well. *Hooks into
    >> ajpv13 allow Apache to serve as a front end for stating
    >> webpages, allowing other solutions to handle the dynamic
    >> stuff (if it's using Java servlets, JSPs, and such,
    >> anyway). *CGI is supported but probably not all that
    >> used anymore. *Lighter solutions such as lighttpd are
    >> available if all one wants is static webpages.

    >
    > I use the Apache mod_perl handler and use perl to build dynamic pages. It
    > works better than php and isn't the security nightmare that is php. You can
    > preload all the perl modules you want to use.
    >
    > Perl CAN be written is such a way as to make it easily maintainable.
    > There are many ways to skin a penguin.
    >


    Ah yes...I'd forgotten about that module. Perl can be a
    joy or a nightmare, but it is a robust solution if used
    properly. The problems, however, are similar to PHP's.

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Error 16: Not enough space on file system to delete file(s)

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  13. Re: Windows is Easier

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [H]omer

    wrote
    on Thu, 20 Sep 2007 05:57:57 +0100
    :
    > Verily I say unto thee, that The Ghost In The Machine spake thusly:
    >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [H]omer wrote on Wed, 19
    >> Sep 2007 20:11:29 +0100 <2s88s4-k0s.ln1@sky.matrix>:
    >>> Verily I say unto thee, that The Ghost In The Machine spake thusly:

    >
    >>>> I'm not sure how Nautilus gets a borderless backdrop window,
    >>>> though.
    >>>
    >>> ESETROOT_PMAP_I?

    >>
    >> Not familiar with that. My /usr/include does not have that at all,
    >> so color me a little puzzled in that area.
    >>
    >> Google coughed up a reference to the 'xsri' manpage.

    >
    > I believe Gnome/GConf inherited that function from xsri.
    >


    Well, judging from what I've been able to dredge up,
    this is for something entirely different -- a background
    *picture*. However, I'd have to look.

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Error 16: Not enough space on file system to delete file(s)

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  14. Re: Windows is Easier

    On Sep 20, 5:59 am, Linonut wrote:
    > After takin' a swig o' grog, Tom Shelton belched out this bit o' wisdom:
    >
    > > Ok. That's fine - but, don't complain that Windows still has a crappy
    > > shell environment. MS provides a very nice one.

    >
    > For sufficiently new versions of Windows.
    >


    Anything that's newer then what? Almost 8 years old.

    > > I would too - but, I've never once been able to get that working...
    > > Well, I did have it sort of work in VS6, but it kept crashing the ide
    > > - so, I had to disable it. This is the first time I've been able to
    > > get VIM support working in VS - and it's been rather nice.

    >
    > I find it pretty surprising that the VS editor doesn't come with emacs,
    > vi, and brief keybindings.
    >


    It does come with emacs and brief keybindings - just not vi. And vi
    is what I want.

    > >> Somehow, my Win 2000 install losts its profile yesterday. So I lost my
    > >> links and mapped drives. And Microsoft updates have modify some system
    > >> behaviors recently, so I'm not too happy with Windows these days.

    >
    > > Somehow, it doesn't suprise me.

    >
    > It shouldn't. Windows has, and has always had, a legion of problems.
    >


    Funny, I very rarely have any problems - at least any problems that
    can be attributed to the OS. And if you want my honest oppinion - I
    have far fewer problems with my Windows installs then I do with my
    Gentoo installs (broken compiles, out of date dependencies, etc).
    Most of which are fairly simple to solve, but take time. I like
    Linux, a lot - but Windows is not nearly as most people here make it
    sound.

    --
    Tom Shelton


  15. Re: Windows is Easier

    "Tom Shelton" schreef in bericht
    news:1190214351.683201.272950@q5g2000prf.googlegro ups.com...
    > On Sep 19, 7:42 am, chrisv wrote:
    >> Tom Shelton wrote:
    >> >Ok. That's fine - but, don't complain that Windows still has a crappy
    >> >shell environment. MS provides a very nice one.

    >>
    >> If you're willing to buy the ****e known as Visduh...

    >
    > 1) Vista is actually pretty nice. I have been using it relatively
    > problem free for a few months now.
    >
    > 2) Powershell isn't just vista. It's available for XP, 2K3, Vista,
    > and will be part of 2008.
    >
    > --
    > Tom Shelton
    >


    Trolltard chrisv has never used a Vista desktop. Linux made him stupid.
    Indeed Vista works like a charm!












  16. Re: Windows is Easier

    [snips]

    On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 20:29:42 +0000, cc wrote:
    > A) The installer was created incorrectly and put the files in the
    > wrong path. This has nothing to do with Windows, and everything to do
    > with the creators of the software. It's possible to have the same
    > problem in Linux.


    Pretty much what happened, yes.

    > So, assuming we're not in Rex Ballard fantasy land, the problem you
    > had has nothing to do with Windows.


    Didn't say it did. In fact, I *explicitly* said it didn't. You *did*
    read that bit before responding, right?

  17. Re: Windows is Easier

    [snips]

    On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 12:51:27 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    > PHP has had chronic security problems, and an attitude of not wanting to
    > fix them. This was so bad their head security guy quit in disgust because
    > nobody was serious about security.
    >
    > How can you complain about Microsoft and then call PHP "particularly
    > _good_"?


    Pretty easily, as "good" is not an absolute.

    Is PHP code generally easy to write? Yes.
    Is PHP code generally easy to maintain? Yes.
    Is PHP code generally easy to debug? Yes.
    Is PHP code generally easy to "port"? Yes.
    Is PHP code generally easy to get running? Yes.

    Hmm. All points arguing that PHP is good. Does PHP have failings? Sure.
    So do perl, C, C++, and pretty much every other language, tool, OS or
    anything else you care to name.

    Take C as an example. It contains two functions in the standard language
    which _cannot_ be used safely. Does this make C a poor language? No; it
    simply means that a good C coder will not use those functions.

  18. Re: Windows is Easier

    On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 14:01:39 +1000, Gregory Shearman wrote:

    > Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
    >
    >> On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 03:30:53 +0000, Tim Smith wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 2007-09-19, DFS wrote:
    >>>> There's about 100% chance you screwed something up, or you're reading
    >>>> from
    >>>
    >>> Well, I'd say the first screwup was using PHP instead of Perl for this.
    >>> :-)

    >>
    >> You feel free to use Perl wherever you like. I use it when I _have_ to,
    >> and no more than that.

    >
    > What a wimp!


    Not hardly, I just dislike perl. Intensely.

  19. Re: Windows is Easier

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Kelsey Bjarnason

    wrote
    on Thu, 20 Sep 2007 10:22:08 -0700
    <0rmas4-6j4.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>:
    > [snips]
    >
    > On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 12:51:27 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >
    >> PHP has had chronic security problems, and an attitude of not wanting to
    >> fix them. This was so bad their head security guy quit in disgust because
    >> nobody was serious about security.
    >>
    >> How can you complain about Microsoft and then call PHP "particularly
    >> _good_"?

    >
    > Pretty easily, as "good" is not an absolute.
    >
    > Is PHP code generally easy to write? Yes.
    > Is PHP code generally easy to maintain? Yes.
    > Is PHP code generally easy to debug? Yes.
    > Is PHP code generally easy to "port"? Yes.
    > Is PHP code generally easy to get running? Yes.
    >
    > Hmm. All points arguing that PHP is good. Does PHP have failings? Sure.
    > So do perl, C, C++, and pretty much every other language, tool, OS or
    > anything else you care to name.
    >
    > Take C as an example. It contains two functions in the standard language
    > which _cannot_ be used safely. Does this make C a poor language? No; it
    > simply means that a good C coder will not use those functions.


    The C/C++ API contains several issues.

    gets() -- probably the most obvious failing, and the linker in fact
    warns about usage thereof. Alternatives include fgets() and
    getchar() within a loop of some sort.

    sprintf() -- buffer overflow possibilities. The linker does *NOT*
    warn about usage.

    std::istream & operator>>(std::istream &, char *) -- buffer overflow,
    no warning. This one's far from obvious; fortunately, it is not
    used that often.

    scanf() et al -- Use carefully. Ideally, %s would be disallowed,
    and the caller would specify e.g. %.32s instead. As it is,
    a lot of code might have to be retrofitted.

    setbuf() -- has no buffer size, no warning.

    any v function -- I'd have to look regarding the va_list. Properly
    used, there's no real problem, but one wonders.

    free() -- some implementations don't check the pointer carefully enough.

    mktemp() -- in place edit of charbuffer; use carefully.

    I could go on but this is a start. Another example
    that bit me yet again just this morning (it was merely a
    tiny pinprick, fortunately):

    sizeof() -- This isn't really a function, but try this
    sometime, to illustrate several fundamental C/C++ flaws --
    or perhaps features, if one prefers:

    #include

    static char hello1[] = "Hello world! This is a test!\n";
    static extern char * hello2 = "Hello world! This is a test!\n";

    static void call2(char * n1, char * n2)
    {
    printf("%d %d\n", sizeof(n1), sizeof(n2));
    printf("%d %d\n", sizeof(*n1), sizeof(*n2));
    }

    int main(void)
    {
    printf("%d %d\n", sizeof(hello1), sizeof(hello2));
    printf("%d %d\n", sizeof(*hello1), sizeof(*hello2));
    call2(hello1, hello2);
    return 0;
    }

    The printout of this program is

    31 4
    1 1
    4 4
    1 1

    which is not really what it should be but never mind;
    sizeof(char *) is 4 on my system (some might have 8 if
    they're 64-bit) so it's what one should expect in C/C++.
    Pascal makes a careful distinction between ^char
    and ^array[1..10] of char, but C is a little sloppy --
    which makes for easier coding in spots but can be dangerous.

    Of course most if not all of these are akin to ensuring
    that one doesn't cut oneself with a boxcutter or carving
    knife; one has to know what one's doing.

    (Since PHP doesn't have pointers, of course, none of these
    are all that relevant thereto. :-) )

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    New Technology? Not There. No Thanks.

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  20. Re: Windows is Easier

    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    >PHP has had chronic security problems, and an attitude of not wanting to
    >fix them.


    Sounds like M$ and Windwoes.


+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast